To the Defenders of George Bush and the War in Iraq

by Greenpalmtreestillmine 208 Replies latest social current

  • czarofmischief
    czarofmischief

    Here's the trouble with communism. Marx and Engels WERE brilliant, observant, and educated. And they, I believe, genuinely cared about the plight of the workers. (It was bad, and still is in many placs of the world.) Their modern day counterparts are equally sincere, motivated, and compassionate. I admire their energy and enthusiasm. True communism is a beautiful ideal that nobody can argue with in principle.

    However, their "answer" to the problems of industrial societies doesn't actually address the problems. While I understand the emotion that makes a young person want to throw up their hands and abandon everything in favor of a revolution, what such people ignore is that such revolutions do not fix the problem and often create NEW issues. And, disturbingly, many of the so-called communist leadership is exactly the opposite of true communism (fascist) and are cynically manipulating the young (who naturally hate war, as any rational person does) into betraying the very guarantees of the freedoms we have won over such a long time. Edmund Burke argued against revolutionary action (except in extreme cases) for the very reason that much of what is good is destroyed.

    Lenin's caustic painting of such young revolutionaries is revealing. "Useful idiots" is what he called them, usable only to overthrow the existing capitalist societies and will be disposed of as soon as they turn their moral clarity onto the so-called "communist" nations. Don't believe me? Ask Trotsky. Do you know that communist governments have killed more of their own citizens than were killed by other nations armies? We deplore the fact that 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam, but did you know that more Vietnamese peasants were killed in the first three years of the communist "peace" than in all 13 years of American involvement in Vietnam?

    A so-called "communist" revolution merely creates a new elitist society that makes a god of the state and its functionaries, and gives them the ultimate power of life and death. Don't believe me? China executes 10,000 people a year! The US executes I believe around 40.

    This countries leftist elite would have you believe that such abuses of communist power are unusual, but it happens in every nation that has embraced the communist idea. It is one thing to claim that the Soviet experiment improved the lot of average workers, but it simply did not. Number after number, from consumption of red meat to average grain harvests to infant mortality, the Soviets made things worse. Central planning is disastrous, because it assumes that the educated elite will be able to predict the economic changes. They cannot. We don't expect the weatherman to be right all the time, and we don't mind because his miscalculations are no big deal most of the time. But a wrong economic forecast, and putting all your faith and your money in a wrong economic forecast, can ruin a nation and starve millions. The Soviets at the end of their mad career had ruined their environment, killed more of their own than Hitler did, and had a vast Rust Belt of useless industries decaying slowly into gray oblivion.

    I wish the left would pour their energy into building this nation and quit embracing the fool's gold of the communist dream.

    CZAR

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine
    I wish the left would pour their energy into building this nation and quit embracing the fool's gold of the communist dream.

    Oh gag. Shut up with associating the "left" with "communism".

  • dubla
    dubla

    six-

    do you think ad hominem attacks somehow enhance your argument? ive noticed you have quite a propensity for attacking

    hint: it doesnt make you look better or elevate you in any way. if you cant treat people with common courtesy and respect while discussing politics, maybe you should think about avoiding political topics.?.....of course, i havent read the majority of your posts outside of the political threads, so maybe youre just naturally quick to insult.

    aa

  • Realist
    Realist

    czar,

    i mostly agree with what you say! without doubt were all communistic regimes a complete and total failure. with millions and millions of people killed in the process.

    what i do not fully agree with is the assumption that because it failed in the past (under very specific circumstances...first a corrupt regime was established in russia which then was propagated around the world) it will necessarily fail in the future.

    nevertheless i view the probability that a true communistic system could be established under the given circumstances as minute.

    dubla,

    if i am not greatly mistaken it were others who started with the insults.

    blacky blacky blacky,

    where shall i start?

    on the other hand what about the people on tahiti and some other pacific islands? they had no threats for survival and still lived in a communistic society. And the operative word here is "lived." If their societies were so happy and fulfilling, it wouldn't have evolved to what is is today.

    they were distroyed by the europeans!

    yes but they are not happier. believe it or not the happiest people live in poor societies. Ah, do reveal the "polls" you must possess to measure "happiness" among nations. THAT should be interesting. (Also curious as to why impovrished people risk their lives to immigrate to the US illegally. Someone obviously hasn't told them they are happy.

    i link to a study that list nigerians as happiest people in the world....i remember one that had the people in venezuela as number one but could find it right away.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3157570.stm

    And here's the rub: you obviously are making an assumption that it is the IDEAL to "teach humans (from infancy on) that possessions are not important." Exactly WHY are you suggesting humans should be TAUGHT this? Are you assuming you know the exact RIGHT way humans should behave? Who, exactly, made up those rules for you? I don't care if it IS possible to teach humans (from infancy) that possessions are not important, anymore than I care to find out if it's possible to teach humans from infancy to believe family is not important. Sounds like some JW throwback. You've got the right way to live, and the fundamental question is, how do you convice/brainwash others?

    the sad fact is that the resources of this planet are limited. hence it follows not everyone can have everything he/she wants. thus if everyone wants everything we have a problem. furthermore the more stuff (and most of it is unnecessary) the more we damage the planet.

    the need for possessions seems to stem from a primitive urge to gather stuff for periods of need. this might have been useful in the past history of human kind but it is know becoming a big problem.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine
    if you cant treat people with common courtesy and respect while discussing politics, maybe you should think about avoiding political topics.?.....

    Or maybe McCarthy types just need to not be tolerated by anyone? I'll lead the way.

  • dubla
    dubla

    realist-

    if i am not greatly mistaken it were others who started with the insults.

    i looked back over the thread, and couldnt find any posts where czar had initiated ad hominem attacks with six......or were you saying that as long as someone else on the thread had "started with the insults", it justifies six calling czar names simply because of his viewpoint? regardless, what i was pointing out to six was that he has established a pattern of tossing around obscenities and insults.......i didnt know if he knew or cared how that made him look to others, even though it may be flying under the radar of the mods.

    aa

  • blacksheep
    blacksheep

    on the other hand what about the people on tahiti and some other pacific islands? they had no threats for survival and still lived in a communistic society. And the operative word here is "lived." If their societies were so happy and fulfilling, it wouldn't have evolved to what is is today.

    they were distroyed by the europeans!

    So predictable you are, UnReal! Of course, it's the big, bad Europeans who destroyed the Paradise of the Tahitians/Hawiians. Just like Adam was deceived by Eve...and lost paradise. Where everyone could have been naked, fed off the land, didn't need to hide, hoard, etc.

    There's that JW throwback of yours!

    yes but they are not happier. believe it or not the happiest people live in poor societies. Ah, do reveal the "polls" you must possess to measure "happiness" among nations. THAT should be interesting. (Also curious as to why impovrished people risk their lives to immigrate to the US illegally. Someone obviously hasn't told them they are happy.

    i link to a study that list nigerians as happiest people in the world....i remember one that had the people in venezuela as number one but could find it right away.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3157570.stm

    Yeah, sorta like the Colonial African American slaves were the happiest people around? Maybe someone ought to inform them of their dire infant mortality/morbidity; AIDS statistics; their short life expectancy; their substandard lifestyle and threat to the lives of their children; their risk of dying of disease.

    I would doubt that they would be so happy, especially if they compared their stats to the rest of the world, even to underdeveloped nations. Here, ignorance is truly bliss...

    And here's the rub: you obviously are making an assumption that it is the IDEAL to "teach humans (from infancy on) that possessions are not important." Exactly WHY are you suggesting humans should be TAUGHT this? Are you assuming you know the exact RIGHT way humans should behave? Who, exactly, made up those rules for you? I don't care if it IS possible to teach humans (from infancy) that possessions are not important, anymore than I care to find out if it's possible to teach humans from infancy to believe family is not important. Sounds like some JW throwback. You've got the right way to live, and the fundamental question is, how do you convice/brainwash others?

    the sad fact is that the resources of this planet are limited. hence it follows not everyone can have everything he/she wants. thus if everyone wants everything we have a problem. furthermore the more stuff (and most of it is unnecessary) the more we damage the planet.

    the need for possessions seems to stem from a primitive urge to gather stuff for periods of need. this might have been useful in the past history of human kind but it is know becoming a big problem.

    Resources are unlimited? Well, sure, in theory, yes. But in severely underdeveloped and semi-developed nations, the problem is that people have not learned to utlize resources to the maximum. They lack the skill, ability, and sophistication to do so. The reasons for this are many, but the fact remains that some groups of people are simply better at "capitalizing" on resources than others. And ironically, the nations MOST distraught in today's society are those who have NOT found methods of "gathering up resources" for periods of need. Those societies who are TOTALLY wiped out by droughts, floods, natural disasters, unchecked disease (as in the happy Nigerians plagued with AIDS, whose only survival will be through drugs produced in the West), are the ones having the toughest go of it today.

  • Simon
    Simon
    from my post:
    ive proven you wrong on specific points, such as "we supplied the gas" for example, and youve always tucked tail and ran whenever faced with solid evidence against your claims.

    thank you for once again proving my point.

    Dubla. I simply refuse to engage with you are you cannot be reasoned with as you have demonstrated on more than one occassion.

  • Simon
    Simon

    NOTE TO ALL

    Swearing and personal insults are not welcome on this site. Yes, the other person may be a "jelly-brained idiot" but please try and make the point with logic and reason and not fall into the trap of responding to nonsense however infuriating it may be.

    If someone does make personal attacks then please help us by not quoting it.

  • dubla
    dubla

    simon-

    Dubla. I simply refuse to engage with you

    you engage with me when its convenient to you, and you can make a quick quip about me without any substantiation (see earlier posts in this thread).......you "refuse to engage" with me when you are supplied with hard facts that cannot be refuted, such as the facts i provided on the example topic of who supplied the gas.

    you cannot be reasoned with as you have demonstrated on more than one occassion.

    if you think i cannot be reasoned with, and do not wish to do so, thats entirely understandable. im not asking you to reason with me, i simply provided you with facts on several occassions that you could not refute. facts can be refuted with facts, you dont have to "reason" with me to accomplish that. again, you address me, label me, make implications about me, when it suits you....when proven wrong on a topic, you flee. you cant have it both ways. you can abandon the debate under the guise of "youre unreasonable" when backed against a wall, but it doesnt validate your stance.

    aa

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit