War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?

  • 27 Replies
  • 5379 Views
War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« on: January 10, 2007, 11:14:17 PM »
The only one keeping you poor is the government, and the past!

Capitalist government + Anti-communist/socialist Past = Bourgeois + Proletariat

Solution: Revolution. Or make the government spend so much money (like in war) that it collapses and a natural anarchist communist autonomy develops ;)

Therefore, an idea comes to mind: “The War on Terrorism is a grand scheme of Communists/Anarchists/etc. to destroy the U.S. in order to create a New World Order.”

What would happen in this order?
1. Havoc and Chaos develops, everyone kills another, out of human greediness. This portion solves for almost all environmental problems as the population decreases. Also solves for overpopulation.
2. The ones left realise that there is no use in killing, as no one owns anything. This develops into communism, as everyone decides that sharing is the best way to go.
3. The New World Order is a happy, regulated place, where everyone is glad and shares.

Although, I need to study Anarchist thought more before I can create a compelling theory.

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2007, 11:22:53 PM »
Natural Communist collectives do not form from chaos.  Somebody sits down, and says, 'hey, if I grow more potatoes, and Jim grows more corn, we can trade, and still have plenty left over'
That is how capitalisms develop.

Communisms and Socialisms develop from a set of people believing that the population is incable of caring for themselves (whether this is true or not) and establish a government to 'care' for the people.

The ideal of the perfectly equal state does not form from people who want equality, rather, it forms from those who want more with less work.  It comes from those who want, but do not want to create.  It comes from those who do not consider the source of wealth, nor the source of money.

Also, how do you start with human greed and end with everyone killing each other?  Wait, how would 'nobody own anything'  at what point was personal property abandoned?  
Even if it was, and we were all just a mass of blood lusting cretins, why would we suddenly realise 'oh, hey, we're blood lusting cretins, why not work together?'
Also, why would sharing be the best way to go.  You'll notice that the only people who want to share are those that have less.  What about the people who have more?  Sharing would be stupid.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2007, 11:34:02 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
Natural Communist collectives do not form from chaos.  Somebody sits down, and says, 'hey, if I grow more potatoes, and Jim grows more corn, we can trade, and still have plenty left over'
That is how capitalisms develop.

It’s not like Jim is buying the potatoes and hoarding everything for himself, which is mroe capitalist-like.
Quote
Communisms and Socialisms develop from a set of people believing that the population is incable of caring for themselves (whether this is true or not) and establish a government to 'care' for the people.

I guess so, but true Communism is where there is no government to do anything.
Quote
The ideal of the perfectly equal state does not form from people who want equality, rather, it forms from those who want more with less work.  It comes from those who want, but do not want to create.  It comes from those who do not consider the source of wealth, nor the source of money.

Yeah, but Communism is a co-operative effort.
Quote
Also, how do you start with human greed and end with everyone killing each other?  Wait, how would 'nobody own anything'  at what point was personal property abandoned?

Human greed leads to killing because people want their stuff. Personal Property is a legal idea; there is not really property. Without laws, there is no property. They would need trust to function.
Quote
Even if it was, and we were all just a mass of blood lusting cretins, why would we suddenly realise 'oh, hey, we're blood lusting cretins, why not work together?'

They would have to, in order to live.
Quote
Also, why would sharing be the best way to go.  You'll notice that the only people who want to share are those that have less.  What about the people who have more?  Sharing would be stupid.

There would be no “having” only “making”. The ones with more would be pressured to do it because others are doing the same thing (and don’t tell me that’s bad, because that’s what happens in capitalism, too), and that all his trust-partnerships will crumble if he didn’t do something good towards the people who create less.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2007, 12:07:25 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
Natural Communist collectives do not form from chaos.  Somebody sits down, and says, 'hey, if I grow more potatoes, and Jim grows more corn, we can trade, and still have plenty left over'


Not really.  The notion of trade is inherently capitalistic.  Trade requires that I have resources that I have the choice to keep for myself or give to somebody else.  In Communism, a body is delegated the authority of distributing materials I produce; those resources belong "communally" to the group.

Quote
Also, why would sharing be the best way to go.  You'll notice that the only people who want to share are those that have less.


That's not really true: people in academia, for example, tend to think that sharing is the best way to go, and they're usually not the types who have less.  Often, people who have never really worried (I mean, really worried) about their resources enjoy the luxury of contemplating socialistic utopia.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2007, 12:08:25 AM »
Quote
It’s not like Jim is buying the potatoes and hoarding everything for himself, which is mroe capitalist-like.


This is a misrepresentation of capitalism.  Nobody is forcing anybody to sell the potatoes to Jim.

Quote
I guess so, but true Communism is where there is no government to do anything.


True communism has never ocurred.  There is always a governing body.  This is because communism on such a grand scale as a country REQUIRES administration, even moreso than an openmarket capitalism, which DISCOURAGES administration.

Quote
Yeah, but Communism is a co-operative effort.


So it is ok for me to slit my own throat in order to cooperate with those who would rob me of the product of my work?

Quote
Human greed leads to killing because people want their stuff. Personal Property is a legal idea; there is not really property. Without laws, there is no property. They would need trust to function.


Personal Property is not a 'legal idea.'  It is a fundamental principal of human existance.  Without laws, there would still be property, it would just require force to remind those who would forget this.

Quote
They would have to, in order to live.


Then why would we begin killing at all?  One does not make peaceful decisions in time of war.  It is in those quiet times of reflection that man dedicates himself to peace.

Quote
There would be no “having” only “making”. The ones with more would be pressured to do it because others are doing the same thing (and don’t tell me that’s bad, because that’s what happens in capitalism, too), and that all his trust-partnerships will crumble if he didn’t do something good towards the people who create less.


I would not.  I would hold my property until you used force, and shattered your own dream of peace.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2007, 12:12:49 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Astantia"
Natural Communist collectives do not form from chaos.  Somebody sits down, and says, 'hey, if I grow more potatoes, and Jim grows more corn, we can trade, and still have plenty left over'


Not really.  The notion of trade is inherently capitalistic.  Trade requires that I have resources that I have the choice to keep for myself or give to somebody else.  In Communism, a body is delegated the authority of distributing materials I produce; those resources belong "communally" to the group.

Quote
Also, why would sharing be the best way to go.  You'll notice that the only people who want to share are those that have less.


That's not really true: people in academia, for example, tend to think that sharing is the best way to go, and they're usually not the types who have less.  Often, people who have never really worried (I mean, really worried) about their resources enjoy the luxury of contemplating socialistic utopia.



1.  See my next line, the one that says 'this is how capitalisms develop' I admit that my wording was a little off and confusing, but we are not in disagreement about this, I assure you.

2. People in 'academia' are typically of a liberal mindset, at least in the United States.  

I also never mentioned something that I should have mentioned.  I would have to agree that those who have never had to worry about money will become utopian, but those who know the value of productive work will not let that be taken away from them.

We are not in disagreement Erasmus, I just muddled one line on accident, and you have pointed out a good counter example, although I think their 'utopian' view is due to their political mindset.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2007, 12:32:20 AM »
The idea of government itself is flawed.

What is needed is a dynamic government, something that changes constantly. The USA started out with this type of government, however it has become static in that it changes regularly, and individuals are now capable of controlling this change.

Kind of interesting how our government seems to exhibit the same core properties of computers. Computers can never truely create a random occurence, they ALWAYS fall into a pattern eventually. Ironically enough neither can humans. We always seem to fall into a pattern, and individuals learn to exploit this pattern and snap into power easily.

Maybe we should vote 6 people into a circle, and roll a 6 sided dice to find out who takes up presidency. :p
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2007, 12:37:05 AM »
Why need a government?

If we were all autonomous, there would be no problems, as long as people were capable of defending themselves.

A government would only be needed to fight wars.  Now, with our current technology, we are capable of fighting wars from the U.S. in Baghdad.


I admit that switching to this government would cause a lot of problems, and I am not advocating the violent overthrow of any government.  However, I believe that if Government 'programs' began disappearing, and my taxes started disappearing, I would be a much happier man.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2007, 12:47:36 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
Why need a government?

If we were all autonomous, there would be no problems, as long as people were capable of defending themselves.

A government would only be needed to fight wars.  Now, with our current technology, we are capable of fighting wars from the U.S. in Baghdad.


I admit that switching to this government would cause a lot of problems, and I am not advocating the violent overthrow of any government.  However, I believe that if Government 'programs' began disappearing, and my taxes started disappearing, I would be a much happier man.


A form of government is needed, law and order must be maintained. Otherwise human nature will revert us back into sniviling animals bickering fighting and killing eachother for petty things.

I don't think you understand the value of Government. Our technological advancement comes because of a Government, our ability to coordinate into groups for buisness, industry, entertainment, and military defense all come from government.

Government lays fourth laws, these laws are what allows us to mobilize into functioning groups and coordinate with one another, without a central unit guiding us as a group we become individuals. We can function as individuals however we would be inefficient and out of control.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2007, 12:58:26 AM »
Quite true.

I am not going to argue that alot of our technology comes from government, the majority, in fact.  But technological research would still occur in an open market, individualist country.

Law and order should be maintained, you are correct, but at whose expense?  At the expense of those who do not threaten the security of our fellow man, or at the expense of those who do?

In an open market system, law and order can still be maintained.  The system to do so would be privatized.

There is a very basic system for maintaining control.  That is non-initiation of force.  Everyone is allowed to bear arms, but force cannot be brought upon another human being, unless his actions are directly threatening you.

Enforcing this law would be the only thing a government would be required to do, that and (as said before) to raise an army in times of war.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2007, 01:29:31 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
Quite true.

I am not going to argue that alot of our technology comes from government, the majority, in fact.  But technological research would still occur in an open market, individualist country.

Law and order should be maintained, you are correct, but at whose expense?  At the expense of those who do not threaten the security of our fellow man, or at the expense of those who do?

In an open market system, law and order can still be maintained.  The system to do so would be privatized.

There is a very basic system for maintaining control.  That is non-initiation of force.  Everyone is allowed to bear arms, but force cannot be brought upon another human being, unless his actions are directly threatening you.

Enforcing this law would be the only thing a government would be required to do, that and (as said before) to raise an army in times of war.


It wouldn't work, it would be the waring states era in Feudal Japan all over again. There would be no justice, strength would prevail. Those trained as warriors would dominate over the weak. Human nature can not function under a fully liberal system like that. It only works if everyone thinks the same, as you may have noticed on this website alone, not everyone thinks the same.

I understand what you are getting at, but the social structure you want relies on individuals. The individual human is shit incase you havn't noticed. Our minds are too chaotic, to different from one another. Humans NEED a group to identify themselves as being a part of. Government creates a large group for humans to identify themselves with.

You and I are Americans, we belong to the USA and are part of a major super power. In addition to that we may, as individuals, belong to countless other groups (family, friends, jobs, hobbies, sporting events, so on and so fourth).

It is important to recognize the need for a large scale social group to be part of. How we respond to threats that effect us all (9/11, Katrina, WWII, alien invasions) is determined by the group these threats directly effect.

As Americans, we ALL responded to 9/11 with pretty much exactly the same response. That was to desire the death of who ever was responsible. We reacted in a similar manor towards Katrina. We as Americans pulled together and did what we could to help fellow Americans who were effected by the hurricane. Global events like WWII or an Alien Invasion would raise the bar to a human-wide scale. You and I may never associate with one another on any other level then human, yet chances are we would end up fighting side by side against aliens. Had we been born in a different era, we would fight side by side as Americans in a war against the Nazi Regime.

As individuals, we would have no group to associate ourselves with. We wouldn't cooperate on any level and would thus revert back to the Waring States era in Feudal Japan.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2007, 07:19:52 AM »
A good theory, but I do not think we would lack social distinctions, the only thing lacking would be a Government.

We would still be members of a certain race (human) we would still be citizens in certain cities, we would still be in groups that have similar interests.

I understand your viewpoint, but I still cannot justify the Government taking the product of my labor for someone else to use.


A government should:
Enforce the no force without provocation principal.
Organise a militia in times of defense.
Organise civilian defense (police)*
Build Roads*

Those ones marked with * are not necesary, as they could also be privatized.

The Feudal system is definitely not what I had in mind, although I can see your point that without careful control, we could possibly revert to that.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2007, 08:53:43 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"

Also, why would sharing be the best way to go.  You'll notice that the only people who want to share are those that have less.  What about the people who have more?  Sharing would be stupid.


Im securily middle class, and I genuinely would prefer a more equal socialist state.

And wolfwood, WW2 had very little involved with the Nazi regime. at the time the allies knew next to nothing about the holocaust or other events. We have added that as a reason for war fairly recently to give us a more heroic attitude towards it.

And also (since im feeling pedantic) I wouldnt say the USA is a major superpower. It certainly has been one, but new constrictions on buisness after the Enron scandle has made it less profiotable to be based in the US. London is not the financial capital of the world (as of this year) outstripping New York about several billion. America is a power in decline, much like 1900s Britain
ny Conspiricy without a secret society more than 1000 years old isn't worth thinking about

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2007, 01:40:56 PM »
Quote from: "zaudragon"

Solution: Revolution. Or make the government spend so much money (like in war) that it collapses and a natural anarchist communist autonomy develops


Study a little history and you'll soon realise that ideologies-in-a-can like anarchism, communism, pure laissez-faire and so on are pretty much all pipe dreams.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2007, 01:44:48 PM »
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
Quote from: "Astantia"

Also, why would sharing be the best way to go.  You'll notice that the only people who want to share are those that have less.  What about the people who have more?  Sharing would be stupid.


Im securily middle class, and I genuinely would prefer a more equal socialist state.

And wolfwood, WW2 had very little involved with the Nazi regime. at the time the allies knew next to nothing about the holocaust or other events. We have added that as a reason for war fairly recently to give us a more heroic attitude towards it.

And also (since im feeling pedantic) I wouldnt say the USA is a major superpower. It certainly has been one, but new constrictions on buisness after the Enron scandle has made it less profiotable to be based in the US. London is not the financial capital of the world (as of this year) outstripping New York about several billion. America is a power in decline, much like 1900s Britain


Did I mention the Holocaust? Why I don't believe I did... We jumped into the war because Japan invited us, but we fought Nazi and Japanese alike and what reason did we fight for? Freedom. Freedom to speak languages OTHER then german. The Holocaust was indeed horrible but I hold no illusion that we would have prioritized the salvation of those caught in it over fighting German forces.

As for the USA not being a super power, unfortunately we still hold a great deal of technological advantage over other countries where warfare is involved. Our dear sweet president is destroying our economy and will lead to the USA's downfall at this rate, but we are still a massive threat should Gearge go insane and call everyone a terrorist :p
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2007, 01:44:52 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"

I understand your viewpoint, but I still cannot justify the Government taking the product of my labor for someone else to use.


A government should:
Enforce the no force without provocation principal.
Organise a militia in times of defense.
Organise civilian defense (police)*
Build Roads*


So when hordes of impoverished, starving factory workers are dying of cholera, the government should sit back and watch? Maybe build them a road to die on?

We tried this philosophy during the industrial revolution, and it was pretty much the least desirable social model ever engineered.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2007, 01:49:47 PM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "Astantia"

I understand your viewpoint, but I still cannot justify the Government taking the product of my labor for someone else to use.


A government should:
Enforce the no force without provocation principal.
Organise a militia in times of defense.
Organise civilian defense (police)*
Build Roads*


So when hordes of impoverished, starving factory workers are dying of cholera, the government should sit back and watch? Maybe build them a road to die on?

We tried this philosophy during the industrial revolution, and it was pretty much the least desirable social model ever engineered.


Good point.

Government holds the people together, without it we are easy pickings for disasters, plagues, enemy armed forces (sorry but we might aswell shoot ourselves in the head as relly on militia for self defense, especially in this day and age) and anything else that could potentially wipe out large quantities of human existence at a time.

It doesn't work, you need a middle class and in order to maintain a middle class you need a government. Unfortunately ours is trying to kill the middle class and turn us all into poor people.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2007, 02:12:30 PM »
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
Quote from: "Astantia"

Also, why would sharing be the best way to go.  You'll notice that the only people who want to share are those that have less.  What about the people who have more?  Sharing would be stupid.


Im securily middle class, and I genuinely would prefer a more equal socialist state.

And wolfwood, WW2 had very little involved with the Nazi regime. at the time the allies knew next to nothing about the holocaust or other events. We have added that as a reason for war fairly recently to give us a more heroic attitude towards it.

And also (since im feeling pedantic) I wouldnt say the USA is a major superpower. It certainly has been one, but new constrictions on buisness after the Enron scandle has made it less profiotable to be based in the US. London is not the financial capital of the world (as of this year) outstripping New York about several billion. America is a power in decline, much like 1900s Britain


Did I mention the Holocaust? Why I don't believe I did... We jumped into the war because Japan invited us, but we fought Nazi and Japanese alike and what reason did we fight for? Freedom. Freedom to speak languages OTHER then german. The Holocaust was indeed horrible but I hold no illusion that we would have prioritized the salvation of those caught in it over fighting German forces.

As for the USA not being a super power, unfortunately we still hold a great deal of technological advantage over other countries where warfare is involved. Our dear sweet president is destroying our economy and will lead to the USA's downfall at this rate, but we are still a massive threat should Gearge go insane and call everyone a terrorist :p


You said that you would stand side by side against the nazi regime, which implies you are fighting a political war. America could have entered the war simply against Japan, there was no pressing need to decalre war on Germany as well, other than the fact that it was economically advantagous to keep Britain strong.

And as for military power of America, even assuming that they were a lot more advanced than the rest of the world, military power is not the only requirement for superpowerdom.

As it happens, the US has the same technology as Europe, and only a bit more than China (the USA's 2 main rivals assuming everyone wanted to conquer everyone else) China has a larger army than America in terms of men employed, and is 3rd in terms of spending, China stands a roughly equal chance of defeating America i would say.
Europe (if the EU had a single military, which it could well do if it was threatened) has 2nd highest military spending (after America) and 2nd highest number of troops employed. I would say that Europe could conquer America if it truly considered it advantagous.
ny Conspiricy without a secret society more than 1000 years old isn't worth thinking about

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2007, 02:24:33 PM »
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
Quote from: "Astantia"

Also, why would sharing be the best way to go.  You'll notice that the only people who want to share are those that have less.  What about the people who have more?  Sharing would be stupid.


Im securily middle class, and I genuinely would prefer a more equal socialist state.

And wolfwood, WW2 had very little involved with the Nazi regime. at the time the allies knew next to nothing about the holocaust or other events. We have added that as a reason for war fairly recently to give us a more heroic attitude towards it.

And also (since im feeling pedantic) I wouldnt say the USA is a major superpower. It certainly has been one, but new constrictions on buisness after the Enron scandle has made it less profiotable to be based in the US. London is not the financial capital of the world (as of this year) outstripping New York about several billion. America is a power in decline, much like 1900s Britain


Did I mention the Holocaust? Why I don't believe I did... We jumped into the war because Japan invited us, but we fought Nazi and Japanese alike and what reason did we fight for? Freedom. Freedom to speak languages OTHER then german. The Holocaust was indeed horrible but I hold no illusion that we would have prioritized the salvation of those caught in it over fighting German forces.

As for the USA not being a super power, unfortunately we still hold a great deal of technological advantage over other countries where warfare is involved. Our dear sweet president is destroying our economy and will lead to the USA's downfall at this rate, but we are still a massive threat should Gearge go insane and call everyone a terrorist :p


You said that you would stand side by side against the nazi regime, which implies you are fighting a political war. America could have entered the war simply against Japan, there was no pressing need to decalre war on Germany as well, other than the fact that it was economically advantagous to keep Britain strong.

And as for military power of America, even assuming that they were a lot more advanced than the rest of the world, military power is not the only requirement for superpowerdom.

As it happens, the US has the same technology as Europe, and only a bit more than China (the USA's 2 main rivals assuming everyone wanted to conquer everyone else) China has a larger army than America in terms of men employed, and is 3rd in terms of spending, China stands a roughly equal chance of defeating America i would say.
Europe (if the EU had a single military, which it could well do if it was threatened) has 2nd highest military spending (after America) and 2nd highest number of troops employed. I would say that Europe could conquer America if it truly considered it advantagous.


Military spending and manpower are rather meaningless. They were effective in gauging potential enemy power in the past, but not in this day and age. The Air Force is the least manned of the USA armed forces, yet it is also the deadliest in terms of firepower and strategy. 2 stealth bombers can obliterate well over 4 million dollars worth of enemy forces and equipment in a single run.

In a dog fight between 1 raptor and 4 F-15s, the Raptor won hands down. Superior stealth and weapons systems allows it to take out 4x its own number easily.

Technology, strategy, tactics, and personal skill are what determines victory or defeat. Numbers and money are worth as much as dog crap on the battle field. It's all about how you spend the money and train the manpower.

And you can't just consider advantages and disadvantages to another powers existence. You have to weigh those against the costs to fight that power. If you decide to start a war you will suffer loses, your goal is to cause heavier loses to the enemy and in order to do this, you need to be able to combat the enemy on his terms or bring him under your terms. No other power can face the USA on our terms, terrorists bring us into their terms and that is why it is effective against us.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


*

beast

  • 2997
War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2007, 04:50:40 PM »
There is not going to be any war between the US and China.  At least not in our lifetime.  We've moved into a period of time where the powerful nations of the world are also stable and understand that conflict between each other is negative for their own interests as well as for the world.  No Western or powerful countries are going to fight each other.  Pakistan will never go to war with India.  The people in power in these places are not any more stupid than we are, they know what such a war would mean.  Only if we get a genuinely reckless leader who abuses the relationship between those countries will we get a serious war.  If there is going to be conflict in the world, it is going to be between the rich and powerful and the poor, the poor and the poor or between religious divisions.  Globalisation has a lot of drawbacks, but we can clearly see that it actually is breaking down barriers and creating a world where nations are less important.  We obviously need to make sure that we maintain and improve the living standards of the people while allowing this trend to continue.  Eventually I envisage a truly unified world.

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2007, 12:04:46 AM »
Quote from: "beast"
There is not going to be any war between the US and China.  At least not in our lifetime.  We've moved into a period of time where the powerful nations of the world are also stable and understand that conflict between each other is negative for their own interests as well as for the world.  No Western or powerful countries are going to fight each other.  Pakistan will never go to war with India.  The people in power in these places are not any more stupid than we are, they know what such a war would mean.  Only if we get a genuinely reckless leader who abuses the relationship between those countries will we get a serious war.  If there is going to be conflict in the world, it is going to be between the rich and powerful and the poor, the poor and the poor or between religious divisions.  Globalisation has a lot of drawbacks, but we can clearly see that it actually is breaking down barriers and creating a world where nations are less important.  We obviously need to make sure that we maintain and improve the living standards of the people while allowing this trend to continue.  Eventually I envisage a truly unified world.


Now by reckless leader.......
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


.
« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2007, 03:08:06 AM »
he he! abbreviate The War Against Terrorism.
he earth is round!

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13146
  • swiggity swooty
War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #22 on: January 12, 2007, 03:31:44 AM »
chavkiller = The War Against Terrorism

I tried... :roll:

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2007, 03:44:20 AM »
T.W.A.T
he earth is round!

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13146
  • swiggity swooty
War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2007, 03:54:54 AM »
NO WAI?!

Shithead. :roll:

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2007, 01:24:09 PM »
-sigh- someone let in the trolls :p
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2007, 11:12:52 AM »
Good source for anarchist info: infoshop.org

Someone say study history and you will see all revolutions fail.
Well, what about the US revolution, didn't fail.

Anyway, estimates say 167 million people were killed by governments in the 20th century, makes me love my gov't.
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

War on Terrorism: Communist/Anarchist/etc. Scheme?
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2007, 03:33:40 PM »
oi, don't diss communism, i'm a communist
tf?