Russia to U.S - "Screw you to" - Page 2

c312 · 05-14-2006, 01:54 PM

and a better economic system.

Trunks · 05-14-2006, 08:13 PM

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.

RaNgeR · 05-14-2006, 10:42 PM

Well said Trunks!

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

Tripper · 05-14-2006, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks

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.

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.

c312 · 05-15-2006, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaNgeR

Well said Trunks!

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

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

TGB! · 05-15-2006, 11:24 AM

[quote:6272b]As for a better economic system, that is debatable.[/quote:6272b]

No its not. Take a look at socialist economies, and capatalist economies and the governments that flourish/fail under them. Take a look at the authoritarian governments in South American, and the fascist governments of during WW2 - how rosy are they doing these days? The only socialist governments, are those that still allow privatization of the major economies, and simply take over medical, some transportation and education - they wouldnt be able to survive without free market policies. PERIOD. Name ONE socialist economy (and not SOFT socialism) that has equal access to resources and goods that cap. offers. Name ONE soft socialist country that has a population of over 300million, or has as open borders as the United States. You cant. And there is a reason for that. Socialism relies heavily on nationalization, and a commitment to maintaining the national pride; or a strong military to back socialist (whether they be facists or authoritarians) leaders. For those paying attention - pure socialism in this modern world - does not work.

[quote:6272b]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.[/quote:6272b]

What a small minded view of capatalism, and what drives it. Capatalism isnt focused around material goods. If it were, the United States wouldnt have the strongest economy in the world. Capatalist societies export more than cocoa beans and NIKE tennis shoes. You're confused I imagine on just what it is youre trying to say.

c312 · 05-15-2006, 11:28 AM

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

Trunks · 05-15-2006, 02:26 PM

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.

c312 · 05-16-2006, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks

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?

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.

Tripper · 05-16-2006, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks

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.

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.

Trunks · 05-16-2006, 02:29 PM

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.

Sgt>Stackem · 05-16-2006, 03:08 PM

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

Machette · 05-16-2006, 03:11 PM

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

Trunks · 05-16-2006, 03:21 PM

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.

c312 · 05-16-2006, 03:52 PM

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...