What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 13 July 2003 - 07:55 AM
"yeah, but some nations are not given the option to organize as they see fit-people take over whether the nation wants them in charge or not."
Some nations = Iraqis
are not given the option to = due to forced invasion can't
people = USA
Meaning, CP, you said
"Yeah, but Iraqis, due to forced invasion can't organize as they see fit - The USA takes over whether the nation (iraq) wants them in charge or not." Now do you get it CP????:?
Posted 13 July 2003 - 08:10 AM
you don't get what i am saying-that no choice currently but a choice in the future is bad....
but never getting a choice is worse.
so, they have gone from reallyreallyreally bad, to just bad.
considering that we had to pick between two evils-i'm rather glad we picked the lesser one-now would people please quit tryin to blame us for the fact that we didn't pick a nonexistant perfect option?
hey, guess what??? the world isn't perfect-sometimes parts of it stink! and guess what else??? you aren't always GIVEn a good choice-so you gotta make the best with what you've got.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 08:28 AM
yeah, but some nations are not given the option to organize as they see fit
the operative words that the world, less the USA, sees is "given the option"
Now you say, "We gave them the option"
"After (x time) we are tired of leaving them the option"
And the Iraqis say:
"You tried to put Saddam in power in 1958 when you hired him to kill Qasim. He couldn't and you failed."
"You took Saddam to England and taught him how to kill very effectively. You gave us the option in 1991 when you said 'rise against Saddam' and we did. You failed us."
"Now you say, 'Iraq cannot exercise their option'. Why, do you say that, in June 2003, after taking away all the options we ever had for the past 50 years???"
Posted 13 July 2003 - 08:32 AM
however, i was raised with this quaint little idea that He Who Makes A Mistake has the Responsibility Of Cleaning It Up.
so, even if you want to claim that sadam is all the US's fault-all that means is that i would respond that that makes taking him out even more our responsibility.
if we contributed to the removal of choices in the past then that means that we must make sure that they get some in the future.
but that would require personal responsibility....
...which can be a tough thing sometimes.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 08:42 AM
Absolutely. No questions asked.
But what does that mean. Let's review (because I don't know anything more than you about cleaning Iraq up, okay? MY mom, God rest her soul, taught me about the kitchen clean up, not country clean up. I can clean a kitchen more or less, but not a country).
Think, guy. We are not experts. I don't think the US is expert in the "Oops, sorry we invaded - can we pick up the pieces?? Excuse us.!!!" Who is expert in that?????
Yes, it's our fault. Yes, we must make amends. BUT, What does that mean????
Dude, I am as ignorant as you. How do we help the Iraqis out of this one??? I only wish I knew, I only pray to God that he could help us now. Dear Lord, help me, and my brethren, right the wrong we did - help those who we have injured, and heal those who have suffered, both here and in Iraq. I pray thee Lord, Amen.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 08:52 AM
then i suppose the experts would be the ones with the most recent most successful rebuildings after destruction of a country during war.
which i suppose would be germany and japan-post ww2.
beat-i don't think anyone know's as much as we would like on this subject.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 09:04 AM
NO, good buddy, I refuse to leave the job to debutants who are fumblilng in the dark, simply because they "started this mess." Maybe you're comfortable allowing those who invaded unjustly to know what to do once they occupied.
When I made a mess in the kitchen, my older sister cleaned it up - and cursed me for two days thereafter. At least until I was old enough to know better. Then, you know what happened??? I didn't make as many messes in the kitchen!!!
Our current people in charge are children. Their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate as much. The are asking the TALIBAN to help with power in Afghanistan. The same people we kicked out of power two years ago. Ossama Bin Laden hasn't been found like Bush PROMISED. Saddam and his son have not been captured. Absolutely no evidence that the tons and hundreds of thousands of liters of WMDs have not been found, even though we have searched 95% of ALL the most likely areas known to our intelligence agency. The ones that CONVINCED Bush they existed. The ones that RUMSFELD KNEW exactly where they were.
What is going on here??????
Posted 13 July 2003 - 11:08 AM
plus Blair and co who are responsible for the invasion should join Molisovich, who is only guilty of defending his country against the NWO, in a Hague prison and be charged with war crimes.
Compensation should be paid to the Iraqi people by the U.S Britain and Australians, Spanish, Poles etc who sanctioned it.
Then the U.S should be embarged until they give up their WMD
and Israel until they comply with U.N. resolutions.
Utterly rediculous to expect that this could be demanded or enforced and yet what has happened has been just as rediculous by the U.N. and the U.S. over many years and wars.
If the American people would do something about it, by impeeching the president and enforcing a proper election which is the best thing that could happen, to show accountablitiy and set an example and a ray of hope to the world. This would be the best thing for the U.S. in their relations and reputation and for the nations to see the U.S. people put their house in order.
This is probably just as impossible.
There is no evidence that those responsible for the invasions of Afgh. and Iraq intended either to return to normal but to remain unstable and on hold. I suspect they have intended the same for Russia, that they all become more dependant rather than recover.
That they have two or three power groups fighting for power
to remain internally unstable like the Palestinians.
There is NO WAY the U.S. would build a Islamic common market
around Israel. A new order will come out of chaos and over rubble if not by capitulation. So far only regimes have been changed not the will or culture of these nations.
The Lion is not only cunning and ruthless but also insane.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 11:30 AM
some of my idea.
Russia needs to have a well-defined political system which is stable and democratic. Communism is a very nice concept but Russia needs to integrate it democratically instead of dictator type. Communism can still come to power by election and so by just being in the framework of democratic election, they can as yet come up. being in the election framework can also keep corruption and dictators out of power when if the people do not like it, they can vote for some other party. but in my opinion, Russia and Communism go hand in hand.
Russia also needs to concentrate on the 5 year plans as it has been successful in the past and even in countries like India which adopted it.
Russia needs to be an open society not being Racist and trying to keep a homogeneous white society. Russia should not put coalition with other countries as their strategy but instead strengthen the UN and use it as a means of mutual development with all countries.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 05:57 PM
gentle animals!) is talking about Gulliver of Johonathon Swift
writers creation in Gulliver's Travels.>
I think he's safe, the four letters offsetting the four digits...
<The sleeping giant is not China but a society that wakes to itself
and stands up on its own feet. When Gulliver was prown lying on his back the Lion's minions the little people had him all pegged
out and strung to the ground rendering him powerless. As long as he believed he was powerless he was.
A lot of nursury rhymes that have been lost also told little stories
that Donq loves.
Those strings could be seen as motionless whips eh Donq?
Gulliver whips not prison could be a good punishment for lying, I would
rather be in the old stocks, at least you could duck ever so slightly
when people threw rotten things at you. Imagine people standing over you and emptying unthinkable things on one face
tied down to the gound?>
Yeah, OK let it be the stocks. How about Amnesty International, those vultures who live off the leftovers of the lion, will they raise their voice of comdemnation?
Gulliver is a good example of the sleeping giant. We got to wake him up!
And China wouldn't be it. In any case, she would be the 'sleeping lion.'
<This way lying goes with lying out. Can we be immune from
international legal action as Bush is trying to enforce, if we become the inventors of such a world saving disciplinary act?>
It would be what the guillotine was to the French Revolution...
<Marxism and evolution were promoted together like twins for the
same end which the Soviet Union failed to effect. Both are as
obsolete as the flat earth. It's only flat on my driveway.
By the way who is responsible for the Soviet Unuion the athiests
in the communist party or the Russian Orthodox church?>
I don't think the problems of the Soviet Union had much to do with atheism. In any case, they had to with a law of evolution that was broken: they denied competition, and in so doing they free themselves from any competion...
COOPERATION AND COMPETITION ARE PART OF NATURE.
Are we to learn something from evolution? Well, it would probably be that both Competition and Cooperation are necessary... Thus only a balance of the two (which neither communism nor capitalism offers) can constitute a stable political system... This interesting article illustrates the point...
Spectrum Five: Competition vs. Cooperation
Humans, like all animals, form cooperative groups to compete for limited
resources. All life is ultimately competitive, because the natural
tendency of any population is to explode, although it is kept in check
by the limited food supply (and other factors). Because there are more
animals than food, animals must compete to survive. In situations where
the food supply is somehow sufficient, deadly competition falls.
Liberals therefore advocate the creation of a sustainable economy, where
the population is kept constant (through birth control) and resources
are used no faster than they can be replaced. The result will be a more
cooperative and civil society.
In the debate over what type of society is best, conservatives generally
favor more competitive societies, whereas liberals favor more
cooperative ones. Let's attempt to see which side is correct, by
reviewing the fundamentals of competition and cooperation: The origins
Perhaps the first thing to note is that all life is ultimately
competitive. For many centuries, biologists have known that the natural
tendency of the animal population is to explode, but the limited food
supply keeps it in check. (There are also other limiting factors, like
space, climate, resources, etc.) Because there are more creatures than
food, this means that some will starve to death. Thus, in order to
survive, animals must compete for food, killing each other if need be.
The above observation is one of the most firmly proven facts of modern
biology. It's implications, however, have been deeply controversial. The
18th century economist Thomas Malthus argued that giving more food to
the poor was self-defeating, since it would only expand their population
and create more of the same hunger and misery that welfare was designed
to alleviate. Malthus therefore argued that welfare programs should be
halted. Malthus' proposal sparked a bitter political debate -- the poor
charged that he was heartless, while the rich congratulated him for
applying science to the issue of welfare. Interestingly, the controversy
itself was indicative of the class warfare that rages for society's
Likewise, Charles Darwin found the concept of deadly competition
important for developing his theories of natural selection and survival
of the fittest. Darwin theorized that if animals must compete to
survive, then the winners would be those with the strongest traits,
which would then be passed on to their offspring. Meanwhile, those with
weaker traits would be killed before they could breed, and would be
dropped from the gene pool. It is important to note that even if you
don't believe in evolution, natural selection indisputably occurs in all
other competitive systems. These range from individual firms competing
on the free market to individual workers competing for job promotions.
Indeed, the fact that natural selection occurs everywhere else is a
strong argument that it occurs in biology as well. Natural selection has
developed in humans a natural desire to compete. Those with
non-competitive natures would have lost their struggle for survival, and
disappeared from the gene pool a long time ago. On the other hand, those
with an overly intense desire to compete would have become dead heroes,
and likewise failed to pass on their traits. Thus, a reasonable
attraction to competition is both healthy and natural. The
competitiveness of humanity has worked itself even into our most basic
definitions of the social sciences. Economics is formally defined as the
study of "the efficient allocation of scarce resources among competing
uses." (2) Politics is defined as the "relations between special
interest groups competing for limited resources." (3) War is a violent
competition for resources -- especially land -- hence Karl von
Clausewitz' famous remark that "War is nothing more than the
continuation of politics by other means." Because competitions are won
by those with the most power, political science is defined as "An
academic discipline which studies power and the distribution of power in
different types of political systems." (4) Even though these different
fields have taken different routes to reach the same conclusion, the
idea that humans compete for limited resources is one that elegantly and
coherently unites the social sciences.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 06:03 PM
They do have a common border and many mutual interests.>
I think China would be a very poor choice. We are discussing how to make Russian #1, not in the sense of superpower, but in the sense of quality of life. If they got together, China would swallow Russia without ever the Russian people getting a taste of freedom.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 06:19 PM
Well, I think your James Bond has been drinking and smoking a bit too much pot lately...
Don't you British feel guilty of having duped us Americans into attacking Saddam? How can you sleep at night? :confused:
Posted 13 July 2003 - 06:23 PM
The fracture of Europe,America and Russia is inevatable.
George Bush and his cowboy mentality is promoting it.
All countries are looking for alternatives to secure thier long te rm future.
The US is no longer trusted anywhere in the world. You are alone.
Lies and deciet along with war-mongering have caused this.
The American people better look hard at who there going to vote for come the next election.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 06:29 PM
The Lion is not only cunning and ruthless but also insane.>
The Big Lion decided that the Little Lions weren't sharing enough--with him--and put new Little Lions in place.
There's a moral there for the Little Lions: Hunting outside the group is not allowed and can lead to a severe beating.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 06:51 PM
This thread is definitely gone over the top. Now we have "that" and a "toilet separatist" in the mix. Geez,
Note to the wise, good people:
China hates Russia's guts. The supposed joke in China during the Cold War was:
Chinese General to his troops: "Men, today we invade the Soviete Union."
A soldier replies: "Yes sir, and what will we do this afternoon?"
Over the years you haven't seen too many cosponsored pacts between the two nations. There's a reason why.
Posted 13 July 2003 - 06:59 PM
If Russia wanted to work towards democratic socialism it better applies the one that's already proven to work: the Scandinavian socialism.
Even if it wanted to experiment with more radical--but no less practical--ideas, Russia can learn from the Danish coops...
Look at this, the educational system actively teaching the little animals a 'conscious mental life,' in other words, that they don't need the lion and can fend for themselves... And, also, God forbid!, 'The young farmers understood that they were responsible for their own future.'
"N.F.S. Grundtvig and the Danish folk high school are always
mentioned as an important part of the background of the success
of the cooperative movement. The folk high schools are schools
for adults, where the students reside during the course period,
e.g. 6 months. Many farmers' sons went to the folk high schools,
where they not only dealt with concrete knowledge, but also
emphasized the free word, conversation, discussion, history,
social debate and active participation in the decisions of the
democracy. The folk high schools promoted the conscious mental
life. The young farmers understood that they were responsible for
their own future. In this way the human basis for the cooperative
movement was ready. The basis of knowledge was also present,
partly because of the general obligatory school in Denmark and
partly because of the agricultural schools."
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users