webspynner: Anyone who uses anything that can harm something that isnt solely thiers is stupid, i just think singling out the french because of a recent news report is fucking stupid

Nuke em yu? Look the French people are game for a-bombs so what we care they shoot one? NATO, or the UN will blow the @#$% out of them@!!!!!!!!!!!

"Don't Blame us, blame yourself or God"

FFT

Altmann: "many of the details are either false or show a lack of documentation or objectivity". Which ones are false? As for lack of documentation, I used examples that I thought were general knowledge so that I didn't have to document. Perhaps you are thinking of the unemployed french people protesting government jobs programs. I guess that one is a little less well know. Happened about a year ago. I could hardly believe it myself. The purpose of my post was not to say "my country is better than your's" it was meant to say "my country is not as bad as you think".

firahs: "Anyone who uses anything that can harm something that isnt solely thiers is stupid, i just think singling out the french because of a recent news report is fucking stupid". What are you talking about? Nuclear weapons? I didn't say they were great, all I said was that they weren't as bad as most people think. The power of the atom can be used for almost fueless electrical generation. Radioactive isotopes are used to find and fight cancer. Is it entirely reasonable to think that a nuclear attack would be countered by another? When people come to this conclusion, they have been watching too many Matthew Broderick films. I guess your statement could be extended to war in general. I suppose you may be right. I'm not for war, but sometimes it's necessary, especially when your enemy IS for war.

The gist I'm getting from these messages and others I've seen in the past is that many of you think that if we throw down our weapons then our enemies will do the same. World peace will never be a reality. There are to many insane, evil mad-men (or women perhaps) for that to ever happen. This is why peaceful nations have armies, not to start war, but to stop it.

I think (note: I said "I think" indicating an opinion that doesn't have a lot of factual basis) many people don't appreciate what their armed forces does for them. We don't build aircraft carriers and tanks and fighter jets because we want to scare the world into submission, we do it to show the world we won't take any crap, we're not looking for a fight, but are ready just in case. Back in WWII France thought they could avoid being attacked by the Germans if they just declared neutrallity. But they did get attacked and were eventually occupied. The problem with declaring nuetrality is it doesn't factor in an enemy that doesn't play by the rules. All's fair in love and war, emphisis on the war part. We keep these weapons around because of the chance of an enemy that doesn't fight fair. That's basically the only enemy that would crop up, as the people that fight fair would all be on the same side.

I could debate war ethics all day long, but it isn't going to do any good. Many of you will go on believing what you want despite what I say. I feel sorry for such closed minded people.

Also, sorry for my such long winded posts. I have a lot I want to say.



"YOU APES WANNA LIVE FOREVER?" Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein
"Who wants to live forever?" Queen
"Never trust a bald barber" me
B^)


Edited by - webspynner_99 on 3/26/00 10:41:03 AM

webspynner_99 if I debated war ethics all day would you would your oponion change or are you close minded as well. Be honest.

firahs: Why do you think that swedes like US? A simple fact (now this might just be my oppinion though), we don''t.
That''s not directed to the US people, but the country itself.

And why this hostility between US and France? You''re just being stupid, or as an anonymous poster said: "my country is better than yours". My original thread was aimed at the french nuclear people and the french goverment for accepting this nuclear testing, nothing else.

============================
Daniel Netz, Sentinel Design
"I'm not stupid, I'm from Sweden" - Unknown

(To Webspynner)
Next time you try to defend the US, try to do it without being so aggressive. And maybe read your post twice.

Short censored list of unsatisfying details :

• What exactly do you have against communism ?
  
• Ireland is not a matter of cost, it is a matter of pride. Ever heard of UNITED Kingdom ?
  
• Could you tell me which countries you name socialist and which you name communist ? Btw., do you know the real difference between communism and socialism ?
  
• About India''s "filthy" people, do you know why cows are sacred in the first place ?
  

+ Do you have details about the demonstration ? I find it surprising.

(To firahs)
"webspynner: Anyone who uses anything that can harm something that isnt solely thiers is stupid, i just think singling out the french because of a recent news report is fucking stupid"

Could you explain your thoughts ? I am not sure I understood.

Be reading you,
David

===
David Teller
Editions Vigdor
http://www.vigdor.com
ddt@vigdor.com
David.Teller@ens-lyon.fr
http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~dtelle


Les Mots appartiennent a ceux qui savent s''en servir.

sorry about the tone of my first post. I wrote it at about 2am. But still, the points I think are still valid.
When you look at communism on paper, it could look like a sortof good idea to some people. But look at communism in real life. Joseph Stalin murdered more people in WWII than Hitler did. Communist Russia gave Communist Cuba nuclear missiles to launch at the US. Communist China has, in some respects, the worst human-rights problems in the world. As a capitalist and a person who has lived in a democracy based nation all his life, I also find the ideals of communism appalling. The idea that the government should exclusivley control the means of production is frightening. In free enterprise, competition keeps people honest and prices down. With a monopoly over a market (not necesarily government controled) it is too easy to manipulate the consumers, charging insane prices and turning out terrible product. The communists believe they need to violently force their way on the rest of us. The whole idea behind complete communism is that noone owns anything, everyone shares everything, and the government controls EVERYTHING. How many of you have read George Orwell''s Animal Farm and 1984? These books are prime examples of what happens in communist societies. The ideals fall apart, people are forced to do what they don''t want to, and the corruption of the leaders soon takes over.
Socialism and communism today are not what Carl Marx originaly envisioned them to be. Today they are seperate entities. Marx saw communism as a process to get to socialism. Socialism was supposed to be a moneyless utopia where everyone was equal, rewarded equally, treated equally. In this respect, modern communisn is closer to Marxian socialism. Everyone is paid equally (that is, not much), and everyone is treated equally (like dirt). Marx envisioned economic and carrier freedom. You could be a fisherman one day, a poet the next, a ditch digger another, and a dock hand the next, whatever you wished to do, you could do it. But, this could be extended to higher jobs, firefighter one day, brain surgereon the next, auto mechanic another, and physics professor the next day. Obviously there is a problem with this, as brain surgeons are usually much smarter than mechanics, not easy at all to transfer between the two. And, if everyone is being paid the same, then noone would want to take a highrisk or difficult job if they can take an easier job and get paid the same.

I have to go now, got a class to get to, I will continue my statement later.

"YOU APES WANNA LIVE FOREVER?" Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein
"Who wants to live forever?" Queen
"Never trust a bald barber" me
B^)

Altmann, Sweden is a socialist country. Last I heard, Germany was on it''s way to being socialist when they elected Gerhard Schroder as Chancellor. I think Iceland is socialist, can''t quite remember. The USSR was the United Soviets Socialist Republic, even though they were Communist and weren''t really a republic (I''d say more like an empire). Brazil, Mexico, and Italy I''ve heard. I just did a search and Australia and Guinee came up, though that might be in refference to the socialist party in those nations.
Communist countries: Formerly the USSR (they''re supposed to be a democracy now), Cuba (that was easy), The Peoples Republic of China (it''s not of the people and it''s not a republic, and Taiwan would say it''s not China), North Korea, and Vietnam. These are examples of so called "Red" Communists, Bolshevics, or Leninists (all the same thing, just different names, don''t know why so many names).
I''m trying to find examples of "White" Communists, Mensheviks, Marxists (Also all the same). Can''t seem to find any, hmmm, maybe I''m searching wrong. I believe that modern socialism is more like Menshevism.
Actually, the pilgrims at Plymoth Rock in north America tried communism in its purest form long before Karl Marx was even born. They created probably the first commune. After a while, their ideals started to fall apart and everybody started working for themselves instead of the better of the group, and free enterprise worked better than communism. Here, these people didn''t have political agendas or inhibitions as to the goal for their work, they only did what they needed to survive. Communism failed for the first time.
In the 50''s and 60''s communism had a major following in the US. That, of course, was what the whole McCarthy trial thing was all about.

Traditionaly, Communism and Socialism fall under the heading Marxism. Today, Socialism is more like Marxism, and Communism is Leninism. Karl Marx saw communism (his version) as preparing the people for Socialism, the afformentioned social utopia. Marxist socialsim is like in Star Trek, no money, therefore no social status, everyone is supposed to be equall, everyone works for the betterment of human kind. Pure bunk. People are greedy on top of being stupid. Look up the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, this is the Marxists bible (or koran, if you prefer).

Please use proper terminology. Modern socialism is closest to Marxism and modern communism IS Leninism.

Altmann, what do you like about communism?

I called India''s people filthy because I wanted to emphasize the fact that their people are poor and starving, yet India is trying to develop nuclear weapons. I didn''t mean it to reflect on the people themselves. The cow is sacred to hindus because the cow is believed to be one of the highest life forms on earth. Killing a cow would be like a dog killing a man, only worse. I found a better explanation at this site. Before I read this I only knew that the cow was considered higher than man.

This has been a very interesting thread. I feel I have learned a lot in my search to get my answers precise. Before I posted hear I had rough ideas of what these things were, know I now them in more detail. Thanks, even if any of you still don''t like me for my opinions, or hate me because of them. I would think a person could be better than that.

"YOU APES WANNA LIVE FOREVER?" Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein
"Who wants to live forever?" Queen
"Never trust a bald barber" me
B^)

Now, that''s a good surprise. Thanks for documenting yourself, webspynner.

Let us carry on :
Communism/Socialism
It seems that your documentation is better than mine. I have just begun the manifesto, so I will probably not be able to discuss everything.

Let''s start with Orwell. If I remember well, Orwell was socialist. Although Trotsky''s and Stalin''s stories are clearly present in The Animals Farm and although Big Brother reminds of Stalin in 1984, these books do not represent socialism or communism. I read these books as an example of things going wrong. Not of communism but of too much communism (or is Ingsoc fascism ? The question is open) - in the hands of too many. The failure of utopias. Once again, not because communism is wrong. Because communism is an ideal toward which one can tend. A necessary unreachable ideal.

As for the real world, now. Do you think Stalin did apply communism to the USSR ? Do you think Mao Tse-Tung applied communism to China ? Stalin was a criminal. A murderer. An opportunist. He applied stalinism. And Mao was probably very crazy, too, to even think of the concept of permanent revolution. And also this sounds more communist, this was maoism.

And there is another pseudo-communist attempt you forgot to name. An attempt which, although not perfect, seems to work. Kibbutzim.

By the way, even pseudo-communisms have good points, which should be kept. I mean free education. I mean work-sharing.
I mean facilities for single mothers, ...

Let me rephrase the morality I intend to give to this post : communism is a utopia. With the full meaning of the word.

Cows
Interesting webpage. But let me tell you the version I knew about cows being sacred.
Cows have not always been sacred. Or at least not sacred enough that they could not be eaten. This was until a period of famine. And a decision was taken by religious authorities. That cows should not be killed and eaten. Why ? Simply because cows would not be sufficient to feed the population. They would all be slaughtered before long and then the famine would continue. Without milk.


Be reading you,
David

I totally forgot about kibutzism. Kibutzism only really worked because the people were working too hard to bicker with anyone. That, and the Jews thought they were doing the work of God, so they all believed in their common goal.

Yes, there are a few redeeming qualities to communism and socialism, such as social security. But, history has shown us that attempts at full communism have failed or are failing.

Orwell was expressly against communism, his books were to alert the people of democratic nations of the downfalls of communism, i.e. corrupt leaders. Communism puts too much power into the hands of it''s leaders, and that is a lot worse than the idea they had of the bankers and capitolists running everything.

That cow thing is interesting. Sounds plausible.

Stalin didn''t impliment communism, Lenin did. Stalin took over after Lenin died. Trotskey was actually supposed to lead after Lenin, but Stalin had been building up a major following in the military as a general and so could force his way in.

"YOU APES WANNA LIVE FOREVER?" Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein
"Who wants to live forever?" Queen
"Never trust a bald barber" me
B^)