Russia to U.S - "Screw you to"
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/articl ... ?gusrc=rss

As a result of dick cheney's comments last week which he said that Russia is heading back into the dark days of communism.

russia and china are far graver threats to the US than Iran.

Try telling that to 61% of the U.S public..when the media starts giving them more air time then maybe things will change.

if we got in a war with china... ed: now that is scary.

Ya but Russia and China are not the threats here. Russia was merely pointing out that Cheney was not taking into consideration any other countries views seriously enlight of the subject of Iran developing nuclear technology. Like the Indonesian president said, all the western governments can really do is cooperate in reducing the tension and move toward continuing talks and negotiations. Military action against Iran is out of the question IMO

those red bastards always played the best badguys in movies anyway

Id be willing to bet your as wrong as wrong can be

Going to war with China isn't scary?

it is if your a Walmart shopper biggrin:

too*

[quote="TGB!":34e64]The US and CHINA have no reason to go to war with each other, and while CHINA may have an impressive military, theres no way in hell they can sustain a military campaign and fight off internal threats as well.

As for RUSSIA - please. The cold war is over. The US won.[/quote:34e64]

Russia collapsed

USA survived...I just don't see it as a victory...they just had more dough.

to the victor go the spoils

[quote=Pyro]Russia collapsed

USA survived...I just don't see it as a victory...they just had more dough.[/quote:42915]
money makes the world go 'round dude rock:

[quote=Pyro]Russia collapsed

USA survived...I just don't see it as a victory...they just had more dough.[/quote:57410] and a more stable government

and a better economic system.

I can't say I agree with Mr. Putin on a lot of issues, but he completely owned Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the bunch. I am glad there is at least one world leader who isn't bush's bitch. As for the collapse of the USSR, that was due to poor leadership more than anything. Gorbachev had the right thing in mind when he introduced his policies of Perestroika and Glasnost, but he misinterpreted and misunderestimated the people of the Soviet Union. The people realized that here was a weak leader, because he was willing to bend to the demands of the people, after so many ruthless dictators before him who would do no such thing. They saw their oppurtunity, and siezed it.

As for a better economic system, that is debatable. Hate to tell you hard core capitalists this, but the age of capitalism is drawing to a close. The world is running out of resources at an alarming rate. We will either have to learn to ration/share with each other, or we will fight many wars over the control of resources. I would pick the first option if it was up to me.

The leaders of the USSR were more concerned about the state of their militaries then they were about the welfare of their people. That is a problem, and theoretically, it is not how a communist nation should function. I want to emphasize that what the USSR implemented was not Communism. It was a perverted, corrupted, oppressive regime which does not even come close to resembling what Lenin envisioned for the Soviet Union when he led the 1917 revolution. Karl Marx would have been very disheartened as well, you can be sure of that, if he had lived to see it.

One last thing, in response to TGB's comment on the US not going to war with China. Unless I am terribly mistaken, we signed a treaty known as the Anzus Pact, which binds us to defend Taiwan in the event that it goes to war with China. The reasoning behind this is fairly simple, Taiwan is the home of many of the more capitalist thinkers in China, considering the fact that after the Chinese civil war, the Kuomindong(sp?) and its followers settled there. So naturally, it's easy to see why we would side with Taiwan over China. In my humble opinion, its only a matter of time till we go to war there.

Well said Trunks!

Im still amazes me at how some of you fools can back the Bush Administration.

The ANZUS pact doesn't bind you to do anything in relation to Taiwan. ANZUS = Australia, New Zealand and United States, it is a military pact among these three nations (although NZ and U.S do not directly consult each other after 1984).
Taiwan has nothing to do with ANZUS aside from the pact stipulating that in a hypothetical chinese invasion of Taiwan, Australia, because of it's trade deals with China, won't necessarily support the U.S in engaging China in conflict. There is no agreements in that pact that mention anything about the U.S being forced to aide Taiwan, if such an event were to occur.

His post doesn't have much to do with Bush...

Seriously, are you kidding me? History and economic success have shown that Capitalism is the most successful economic system.

The ANZUS pact doesn't bind you to do anything in relation to Taiwan. ANZUS = Australia, New Zealand and United States, it is a military pact among these three nations (although NZ and U.S do not directly consult each other after 1984).
Taiwan has nothing to do with ANZUS aside from the pact stipulating that in a hypothetical chinese invasion of Taiwan, Australia, because of it's trade deals with China, won't necessarily support the U.S in engaging China in conflict. There is no agreements in that pact that mention anything about the U.S being forced to aide Taiwan, if such an event were to occur.
Taken from wikipedia.org-

The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS or ANZUS Treaty) is the military alliance which binds Australia and the United States, and separately Australia and New Zealand to cooperate on defense matters in the Pacific Ocean area, though today the treaty is understood to relate to attacks in any area.

One topic that became prominent in the early 2000s are its implications in the case of a hypothetical attack by the People's Republic of China against Taiwan with the ROC (Taiwan) receiving American support. While Australia has strong cultural and economic ties with the United States, it also has an increasingly important trade relationship with mainland China.

In August 2004, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer implied in Beijing that the treaty would likely not apply to that situation, but he was quickly corrected by Prime Minister John Howard. In March 2005, after an official of the People's Republic of China stated that it may be necessary for Australia to reassess the treaty and after the PRC passed an Anti-Secession Law regarding the ROC, Downer stated that in case of a PRC attack on the ROC, the treaty would come into force, but that the treaty would require only consultations with the United States and not necessarily commit Australia to war

In conclusion, I will state that I think the chances of a US intervention of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan are fairly good, as are Taiwan's chances of attempting to secede. This isn't a sure thing, and don't get me wrong, I would hate to see another world war 3 in my lifetime, but it would be ignorant of us if we at least did not ackowledge the possibility of a said event occuring.

As for socialism, as you said yourself, TBG, it depends on how heavily they rely on the said system. For example, Britain, can be considered socialist to an extent, because it institutes policies such as free healthcare(I could be wrong about this, but it is what I have heard.)

I honestly see no reason why a socialist economy could not function. It would in effect, work the same way, or close to the same way as capitalism, with a few fundamental differences. First of all, currency would not be necessary. Each person contributes to society, and in turn, other members contribute to society. Everybody pitches in. So, people say, if everyone is provided with the same things(everything is shared by people), what is the incentive?

Well I tell you this. Your house is well built, your child well taught, your food, fresh, your mail, on time, etc. So in gratitude for all that is done for you, would you not be inclined to give back to the society which has given you these things? It is very much like exchanging presents on holidays. How can you accept a present, and not give one back?

The main challenge of a fully socialist country in todays world, and the reason why at the moment, it is impossible, is because we live in a capitalist world. I assure you, if all the countries of the world were communist/socialist, if one country tried to institute capitalism, they would most likely fail.

Also, TGB, I think you misunderstand the true goal of socialism. Socialism is a government which is all about the people. Many people have misconceptions, and believe that if one has a communist/socialist economy, one must also have an authoritarian/totalitarian form of goverment. That is not the case. I see no reason why a socialist economy, and a democratic form of government can not be integrated.

Alright, you got me on the running out of resources, perhaps I did not form my thoughts effectively. My main point was, capitalism is a system which is completely based on the root of all evil....money. The entire reason for communism's creation was because of the corruption of the bourgeousie + nobles, and the mistreatment of the working class throughout history. My main point is, capitalism works yes, but at what cost. So many live in poverty. And even more are oblivious of that. There are countries where thousands die of starvation....this would not happen if food was shared equally.

And the greed that drives capitalism, could very well be the death of us. Tell me folks. What happens in 2040 or so when oil prices are jacked up sky high because there is so little left... Our cars, our planes, our entire militaries, our backup generators, everything we have runs on gas. So what happens when there is little left, but the demand is sky high? Sharing would be too civilized of course, as would instituting a globally funded research facility to solve the impending crisis....so what then? War?

-ranger, thanks for the compliment, its appreciated.

You don't think things through too well. The greed of capitalism is EXACTLY what will get us through the oil crisis. Do you think that the oil corporations want to go out of business? No! Of course not! They're greedy bastards, remember? The way that their companies function in the capitalist market gives them the incentive to pursue other ways to make money, and in the oil crisis, that means alternative energy. So basically, their greed will turn into their development of alternative energy and will ultimately be the thing that SAVES us from the oil crisis.

So you quoted my statement, but where's your refutation? oOo:

....the ANZUS agreement does not obligate the U.S to face-off against China in conflict. Infact, it's the ANZUS agreement that suggests that one of the U.S's typical close allies may not step up to help in a hypothetical war with China. Wouldn't that make it more unlikely that the U.S would just jump into armed conflict with China because of lack of support from any other nations?

What you posted does not rebuke this point.

Tripper
I did not intent to rebut it. I merely posted my source, and enclosed some info which hints at what I mentioned. Hoping it would speak for itself. I see it did not. So here you go.

the military alliance which binds Australia and the United States, and separately Australia and New Zealand to cooperate on defense matters in the Pacific Ocean area, though today the treaty is understood to relate to attacks in any area.

In August 2004, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer implied in Beijing that the treaty would likely not apply to that situation, but he was quickly corrected by Prime Minister John Howard

Now, once again. I am not saying that the Anzus pact obligates anybody to go to war with China. However, if we acknowledge the possibility of Taiwan seceding, we also acknowledge the possibility of a war between taiwan and China. And based on that, the treaty would come into play. It would not necessarily commit any country to war, but there is always the possibility, which is made all the more feasible by the treaty, as well as US interests in Taiwan.

As for America not going to war if it's allies don't support it, well 90% of the coalition is American. Not trying to diminish foreign contributions to the war in Iraq, its just a fact. In all reality, I think it is safe to assume that even if New Zealand, Australia, and America went to war with China, American soldiers would be doing the bulk of the fighting anyway. Again, not trying to offend anybody, but America has a larger, more powerful military, and therefore it would make sense for it to be doing most of the fighting in a hypothetical war such as this. So, I don't necessarily think that lack of military assistance from NZ or Australia would make too much of an impact. As we saw with Iraq, when America is set on doing something, its set on it.

My main point was we must not act like it has no chance of happening. We must keep it in mind, because it very well could happen. Or it could not. None of us can see the future, we are all just speculating. But to claim outright that there is no chance at all, is a bit arrogant.




C312-
Ha. Now thats a good one. You know how much money the oil companies will be making by that time on us? You will be telling your kids/grandkids about how, back in your day, a gallon of gas used to cost $3, and people were complaining about it! Buddy, they wont even need to look for solutions to the problem. By 2040, they will have made so much money on us, from the ridiculously jacked up prices, they won't even need to keep the companies open. Who cares if your company goes out of bussiness, if you have enough cash to fill a mansion with? These companies are run by people, not robots. Greedy people won't waste money looking for solutions to the problem, they will just keep raking in the money, and then when there is no more oil, all the "big guys" will be rolling in the dough, and all the little guys will be jobless like usual. You think those greedy bastards give a danm about you, or the world? They don't care as long as they have money. Which, as I already said, they will have plenty of.

P.S. Even if you are right, there is also the fact that it will be a long time before oil companies even start to think about that, which means that before you know it gas prices will be $5....and people will go, for lack of a better word, apeshit. I know plenty of people who barely afford the $3 a gallon. If it goes much higher, the greed of your buddies is gonna drive us into the ground.

perfect comunisim is impossible because of greed




gas will cost more in 2040 so will fruit loops





gas companies will never have "enough" money greed will make them take even more

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":e52c1]perfect communism is impossible because of greed[/quote:e52c1]
The unfortunate truth.

perfect comunisim is impossible because of greed Agree. But the same thing can be said about "perfect capitalism." In reality, nothing with the word perfect/ideal can ever be successful/work as it were meant to.

gas will cost more in 2040 so will fruit loops True. But the difference lies in supply and demand. Gas is one of the only resources which the demand is always going up, but supply is constantly going down. As a result of this, the price will escalate at an alarming rate, as it has been doing. The same, can not be said about fruit loops. People will always be able to afford fruit loops. But a time may come, when people just cant afford gas anymore.

Trunks, you need to think about this a little more, you're starting to pull things out of your ass. Companies will never stop wanting more money, you're stupid if you actually beleive that they will be satisfied and the entire company will just retire to south beach...Also, the people you know who can't afford the high gas prices are exactly the incentive that the gas companies have to find more affordable sources of energy. You think they don't know that people are not gonna be able to pay $5 for a gallon of gas? Of course they do! It's in their best interest for them to maintain customers, otherwise they don't get enough money!!!! You are seriously underestimating the intelligence of corporations. You may think they are evil, but that certainly doesn't mean they are stupid...

Think of this logically, they are greedy and they want money. Soon gas will be too expensive and they won't be able to profit from it. What do they do next? Retire? No, they are too greedy, they want more money so instead they invest in something else that can make them more money now that they can't get profit out of gas sales. Their greed is exactly why they will look for solutions to the problem so that they can continue raking in the money.

Trunks, you need to think about this a little more, you're starting to pull things out of your ass. Companies will never stop wanting more money, you're stupid if you actually beleive that they will be satisfied and the entire company will just retire to south beach...Wrong. Companies are run by people. People who will not see the need to continue their companies when they are filthy rich. There aren't a lot of Bill Gates' out there buddy. When people have enough money, they stop caring about their companies, and start caring about luxury.

Also, the people you know who can't afford the high gas prices are exactly the incentive that the gas companies have to find more affordable sources of energy. You think they don't know that people are not gonna be able to pay $5 for a gallon of gas? Of course they do! It's in their best interest for them to maintain customers, otherwise they don't get enough money!!!! You are seriously underestimating the intelligence of corporations. You may think they are evil, but that certainly doesn't mean they are stupid... Oh dont worry bud. We will be able to afford $5 a gallon. We will just have to buy cheaper food, get closer jobs, buy less luxuries, etc. For somebody who is telling me I did not think closely enough to what I said, you are making the same mistake. The gas companies also know that EVERYTHING we have runs on oil. No matter how high they jack up the prices, people will ALWAYS have to go to work, go on bussiness trips, drive to teh supermarket, etc.

I didnt bother responding to your second post, because I would be more or less restating what I just said.

The first rule of running a company/corporation is to make a profit.

[quote:9c64b]As for socialism, as you said yourself, TBG, it depends on how heavily they rely on the said system. For example, Britain, can be considered socialist to an extent, because it institutes policies such as free healthcare(I could be wrong about this, but it is what I have heard.)[/quote:9c64b]

Britain is no more socialist than the UNITED STATES. In this modern era it is not realistic to not expect some social services from the government, such as access to health care and an unemployment check every two weeks. However, there is a REASON why no government exists as a purely socialist state - because it does not work. Period.

[quote:9c64b]I honestly see no reason why a socialist economy could not function.[/quote:9c64b]

Because it stifles free market growth, which stifles industry, which stifles modernization and creativity, which stifles progress, which - well you see where this goes.

[quote:9c64b]Socialism is a government which is all about the people[/quote:9c64b]

Oh give me a break. As if capatalistic democracies somehow arent for the people.

[quote:9c64b]The entire reason for communism's creation was because of the corruption of the bourgeousie + nobles[/quote:9c64b]

Right - so instead of the material elite, you produced the political elite, who did a BANG UP job.

[quote:9c64b]So many live in poverty. And even more are oblivious of that.[/quote:9c64b]

Youre overgeneralizing causes of poverty under the United States government. Presuming a capatalistic model is the ONLY reason many live below the poverty line is specious. You dont think theres poverty in the Oceanic states? You dont think its possible for someone to receive government aid and not be below the poverty line?

[quote:9c64b]There are countries where thousands die of starvation....this would not happen if food was shared equally.[/quote:9c64b]

Irrelevant to this discussion, and a faulty expansion of the ideas of socialism.

Britain is no more socialist than the UNITED STATES. In this modern era it is not realistic to not expect some social services from the government, such as access to health care and an unemployment check every two weeks. However, there is a REASON why no government exists as a purely socialist state - because it does not work. Period.

Well we've never had a pure socialist state so how do we know? You are probably right, but only because it would be a single socialist nation in the midst of dozens of capitalist ones.

Because it stifles free market growth, which stifles industry, which stifles modernization and creativity, which stifles progress, which - well you see where this goes.

How does being provided with everything you need in life in exhange for work do any of those things? If anything, modernization, creativity, and progress would be more evident because for once, people wouldn't be worrying about money, they would be doing what they love to do. Growing up, my father never once told me to do what I liked. He told me to do what got me the most money. That is wrong, but thats the mentality which so many people have. They waste their lives away, make a lot of money, doing things they don't like, and in the end, what does it add up to? A big house? A cool ride? What matters is happiness...and the willingness to work towards making the earth a better place to live, something I don't see much in our current world...

Oh give me a break. As if capatalistic democracies somehow arent for the people.

They aren't. Everything is determined by money. Money determines power. Money determines the presidential candidates. Money determines whether I can get into the college I want. Money creates large rifts between the various classes of society. The poor get poorer, the rich get richer, and the ones in the middle stay in the middle.

Right - so instead of the material elite, you produced the political elite, who did a BANG UP job.

And we do not have political elite?

Youre overgeneralizing causes of poverty under the United States government. Presuming a capatalistic model is the ONLY reason many live below the poverty line is specious. You dont think theres poverty in the Oceanic states? You dont think its possible for someone to receive government aid and not be below the poverty line?

I never said that. But I did say the capitalist system is flawed, and as a result of its flaws, many people are in poverty.

Irrelevant to this discussion, and a faulty expansion of the ideas of socialism.

On the contrary, it is very relevant. We don't sell food to Africa, because the only thing african countries like Chad and Zimbabwe can give us in exchange is sand. I am exagerating of course, but my point is, in a capitalist world, as many people said in this thread already, the goal is to make money. Selling food to chad doesnt get countries as much money as selling to other countries. So the result? Nobody sells food to Chad. And the people starve. And we wonder why.

It's hard to argue with someone who has such a lack of logic in their argument, so I'm gonna end with this:

You say the heads of corporations don't care about their corporations once they get enough money and that the company then becomes stagnant because they don't need anymore profit? Do you honestly think a company stops trying to get profits once their CEO and boards are rich enough? You have to be kidding. You seriously need to think this stuff through more before you try to post like the resident "way things are" expert.

Lol. Settle down there buddy. Don't throw a hissy fit. Even tho you said you are ending with that, I know there is a 95% chance you will loook in this thread again anyway so I will respond anyway.

You say the heads of corporations don't care about their corporations once they get enough money and that the company then becomes stagnant because they don't need anymore profit? Do you honestly think a company stops trying to get profits once their CEO and boards are rich enough? You have to be kidding.An oil company is an oil company. It has one goal. To sell oil, and make money off of it. When a company does well, its stock goes up. So what happens when we run out of oil? Well just before we do, everyone will sell their stock in oil companies, CEO's and all the head honcho's will leave, etc. With stockholders selling their shares like no tommorrow, and the head honcho's quitting. Again, people are short shighted. Why would a 40 year old CEO care that we are gonna run out of oil in 2040? Why would the major stockholders care? They will sell their stocks, make tons of money, and if their heart desires it, invest in something else. I find my thinking quite rational, as do most of the people I speak with. As for me knowing it all, I never said I did. I am giving you my opinion on a subject. If you don't want to debate, then don't. Not my loss.

What about other companies though? I mean a company's first rule and only principle is to do whatever it is to make a profit. You are zeroing in on the oil sector rather than the larger picture. Think about the billions of corporations out there.

Alright, one more thing then. What do you think happens to companies when their CEO's retire? It seems that you think the corporation just ends...But they get new CEOs who also want more money and continue their desire for profit. I honestly do not see how anyone who has developed abstract thinking capabilities can argue what you are arguing. Your opinion is disproved in theory, in practice, and in history. You are just plain wrong. And now I am done, because this is starting to feel like arguing with a child.

I say good day!

LOL. True. New CEO's come to take the position of the old ones. But the ones in line for the job are all still extremely well paid, and would have more than enugh to live in luxury for the rest of their lives. Greed is a human chracteristic, yes, but so is laziness. Oh yea. BTW. A ceo for a company whose major stockholders all sold their shares won't do ya much good. Cheerio! dance:
P.S. I didn't know voicing your opinion in the land of the free was considered childish my good sir. In the future, I will refrain from sharing my ideas, after all, why should we challenge an established way of thinking?