May 26 2006, 1:04 pm
In response to Scoobert
|
|
CaptFalcon33035
 |
Germany and Japan aren't allowed to have militaries. We are supposed to protect them in the midst of an attack. I'd bet that is also a reason we have a base there.
|
Japan does actually have a military, though it's only supposed to be defensive in nature. You're right that the US has close military ties with them though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces | |
That's not the idea - in a true communist system, there is no government. What is supposed to happen is that society distributes the stuff it produces to itself. That's just a little unworkable, so a better idea is probably to have some sort of committee, with elected members, that figures out how to distribute the stuff produced this year to the citizens of the country in a way that is fair and equitable.
That's not a totalitarian dictatorship. | |
Wrong. Crispy mentioned about the Japan military, so I'll mention the German:
(from wikipedia) "The Bundeswehr has some 250,000 military personnel" They may be "defensive" in nature, but they are still a military. | |
We give nations free food. We send money to help the poor. Somnetimes we use exports such as these and others to twist the arms of other nations, but only rarely, and for the most part it's for a good cause which everyone, even neo-communists can't argue with. (Well, maybe the neo-communists could...)
OPEC has more of an economic hegemony over the world, and noone calls them imperialistic. --Vito | |
The council, which has control over what goes where, gets drunk on power (Human nature) and uses said power to control the nation's every facet. If that's not totalitarian, what is?
All that's needed to complete the picture is a coup by one council member, who jails the rest of the council and takes over. Homemade dictatorship. Power does some interesting things to the personalities of human beings. --Vito | |
Vito Stolidus wrote:
We give nations free food. We send money to help the poor. Somnetimes we use exports such as these and others to twist the arms of other nations, but only rarely, and for the most part it's for a good cause which everyone, even neo-communists can't argue with. Ah, yes... like the good cause of forbidding condoms in Africa by cutting funding for aid to sub-Saharan countries unless their anti-AIDS campaigns emphasize abstinence and not condoms. (And don't even think the word "abortion".) Because, clearly, condoms are neo-communist. http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/12/Perspective/ HIV_spreads_under_Bus.shtml http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-hiv/ us_aids_3078.jsp http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/features/ politics_and_science/example_condoms.htm OPEC has more of an economic hegemony over the world, and noone calls them imperialistic. Actually I think imperialistic is a pretty good label for OPEC. =) | |
Hey, I didn't say it was perfect. Capitalism has its own problems, too - say, a tendancy to screw over the working class. Keep in mind - America is the only first-world country in the world to have third-world rates of education and healthcare. And America is also one of the most 'capitalistic' countries in the world, in terms of leaning towards free enterprise and a lack of governmental interference. Now, I know post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, but I think there's a connection in this case.
| |
Ah, yes... like the good cause of forbidding condoms in Africa by cutting funding for aid to sub-Saharan countries unless their anti-AIDS campaigns emphasize abstinence and not condoms. (And don't even think the word "abortion".) Because, clearly, condoms are neo-communist. Actually, that's a good cause. Moral and healthy behavior is the best shield against dangerous situations. But we digress a bit here. --Vito | |
Jp wrote:
> Hey, I didn't say it was perfect. Capitalism has its own problems, too - say, a tendancy to screw over the working class. Keep in mind - America is the only first-world country in the world to have third-world rates of education and healthcare. And America is also one of the most 'capitalistic' countries in the world, in terms of leaning towards free enterprise and a lack of governmental interference. Now, I know post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, but I think there's a connection in this case. Concerning Schools: the problem there is that the neo-socialist former hippies run them. In my opinion, the public school system should be rebuilt from scratch, but that isn't going to happen anytine soon. The so-called "working" class only gets shortchanged because of the social programs many politicians use to increase their voter bases. The "working" class contains many people who sit at home, subsisting on checks from programs like Welfare. There are also illegal immigrants, who by their nature drive down wages for "working" class jobs. America is not at all close to pure capitalistic - we're getting closer to socialism nowadays. Social programs (see above) let people leech off the government, the tax system punishes successful small buisineses, and we already have a Socialist ruling council of sorts .(The Supreme Court, until recent changes in the Court's makeup. Now state Supreme Courts think they are the ruling councils - I heard one ordered the government to raise taxes...) I don't like it, but it's truth. --Vito | |
Vito Stolidus wrote:
Actually, that's a good cause. Moral and healthy behavior is the best shield against dangerous situations. Sure, it would be great if people were completely faithful. Sure, it would be great if everyone in the world had their family unit and were happy together and never ever ever experienced any unfaithful urges, or fell in love with someone else besides their existing husband/wife/partner. But that's just not realistic and you can't expect it to happen overnight. I'm not against encouraging people to be faithful and practice abstinence. Far from it; Uganda's successful anti-AIDS program heavily promoted the "ABC" approach - "Abstinence, Be faithful, otherwise use a Condom". Notice that abstinence is first and condoms are last. This is exactly the sort of program that should be pushed. It's also the sort of program that the current US administration is railing against. Putting condoms as the last option is sensible; sometimes people just won't abstain and won't be faithful, and nothing anyone can do will change that. At least if they're told to use a condom then they'll be much less likely to spread AIDS. Removing that last option accomplishes nothing but making some high-and-mighty Republicans in an office building on the other side of the world feel good about themselves; and worse than that, it actually does harm. There is no viable morals-based argument in support of that. | |
Crispy wrote:
> Putting condoms as the last option is sensible; sometimes people just won't abstain and won't be faithful, and nothing anyone can do will change that. At least if they're told to use a condom then they'll be much less likely to spread AIDS. Removing that last option accomplishes nothing but making some high-and-mighty Republicans in an office building on the other side of the world feel good about themselves; and worse than that, it actually does harm. There is no viable morals-based argument in support of that. The fact that its an option opens Pandora's box. If you present it as not an option, well, fewer will do it. And about the Republicans comment - the main reason we're sending people into Africa to help fight AIDS is to make some rich liberal somwehere feel good, not to actually help. And how does it do harm? Abstinance works every time its tried. Teach that only. --Vito | |
Vito Stolidus wrote:
We give nations free food. Agent Orange is not traditionally thought of as edible. | |
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
Reguardless, it's a communist country. No one really wants to live under one of those, do they? Haha. Nice joke. | |
The US hasn't used Agent Orange for, what is it, 33 years? That was a war anyway. America gives food to people in Central Africa, South Asia, and Central America, whom we aren't at war with. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true.
Fantasy "truth": America is a cruel dictatorship that terrorizes its neighbors and destroys small, poor countries for no reason. The actual truth: America is a democratic country that pays more than half of the budget of useless, beurocratic organizations like the UN and gives out free food to the starving poor in non-democratic countries. It is seen as a cash cow by the UN and just about every country on earth these days because of how much we give away. I never will undrestand why people do their best to publicly destroy the country that proteccts their right to speak freely. (This includes all of you guys in western Europe, with the possible exception of Britain). Why is it cool to bash America? --Vito | |