Israeli soldiers speak out

[Absinthe]

Weren't you banned?

 

[Nemesis6]

Stern, the maps DO support what I said. The map you posted was accurate. The British, and the U.N, failed to implement it, however. The result of the 1948 war was this:

http://www.masada2000.org/1949mapa.gif

What I said stands. After the war of Independance, Jordan and Egypt took the West Bank -- Including East-Jerusalem of course -- and the Gaza Strip, making it harder for the U.N to do anything. In other words, they stole land that wasn't theirs.

 

[CptStern]

Stern, the maps DO support what I said. The map you posted was accurate. The British, and the U.N, failed to implement it, however. The result of the 1948 war was this:

http://www.masada2000.org/1949mapa.gif

What I said stands. After the war of Independance, Jordan and Egypt took the West Bank -- Including East-Jerusalem of course -- and the Gaza Strip, making it harder for the U.N to do anything. In other words, they stole land that wasn't theirs.

so when israel took it from the egyptians/jordinians they gave it back to the arabs that made up that part of the arab state right?

"In other words, they stole land that wasn't theirs" ...seems about right dont ya think?

 

[Nemesis6]

They've gotten the Gaza Strip back. Wow, that was a success story. Isn't it time to give back the West Bank?

Their fellow Arabs could have made an Arab-Palestinian state on both of these areas on so many occasions. They didn't. Why should the Israelis be burdened with these people that their fellow Arabs don't even care for, these people who have monopoly on global terrorism? In your opinion, would it be a good idea to give them the West Bank? Would that solve this thing?

 

[CptStern]

They've gotten the Gaza Strip back. Wow, that was a success story.

it only took 38 years

Isn't it time to give back the West Bank?

perhaps by the year 2045

Their fellow Arabs could have made an Arab-Palestinian state on both of these areas on so many occasions. They didn't.

they could have made a state in an occupied territory? how does that work?

Why should the Israelis be burdened with these people that their fellow Arabs don't even care for, these people who have monopoly on global terrorism?

boy that reminds me of that old "white man's burden" excuse for imperialism ..because they're savages and savages need to be taken care of lest they hurt themselves

In your opinion, would it be a good idea to give them the West Bank? Would that solve this thing?

what difference does my opinion make? I posed a question you ignore it by posing another question?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Why should the Israelis be burdened with these people that their fellow Arabs don't even care for, these people who have monopoly on global terrorism?

Wow, I had no idea that Palestine has "a monopoly on global terrorism". Or are you just refering to the entire Arab race in general?
I guess by that standard you've got a monopoly on trolling and hate speech - neither of which are allowed here.

Watch yourself.

 

[Raziaar]

Wow, I had no idea that Palestine has "a monopoly on global terrorism". Or are you just refering to the entire Arab race in general?
I guess by that standard you've got a monopoly on trolling and hate speech - neither of which are allowed here.

Watch yourself.

To be fair... that comment and some of the comments I have seen on Israel are equally unfair.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

People can criticise Israel all they want, but if someone starts trying to pin this on "The Jew" they'll also get it.

That hasn't happened.

Please note the difference between "country" and "race".

 

[Nemesis6]

I was talking about the very same people who supported the nazis during WW2 and before - The Islamists. So don't try to paint me a racist, Mecha. And don't try to intimidate me.

Ok... The Arabs could have kept this territory and instead of 'grabbing' it, create a Palestinian state. Did they ever take time off to even consider this? No. The fact that the Arabs living there had nothing against it doesn't help, either. Stern, do you have any idea WHY Israel occupied these areas to begin with? That's the fault of the Arabs, and the Palestinian Arabs themselves. For example: The reason there are as many Palestinians living like rats in refugee camps under Hamas and Fatah is because they fled when the Arabs initially attacked Israel, hoping that it would be destroyed. They couldn't get back in, that's what started the whole lie of the "refugees" driven out by the bloodthirsty, matza-made-with-Arab-and-Christian-blood-making Jews. In other words, they ran from yahud and now they're in denial about it. Yahud... You know, the ones that the radical San Francisco lefty loonies like to portray as such.

 

[Solaris]

I was talking about the very same people who supported the nazis during WW2 and before - The Islamists. So don't try to paint me a racist, Mecha. And don't try to intimidate me.

Ok... The Arabs could have kept this territory and instead of 'grabbing' it, create a Palestinian state. Did they ever take time off to even consider this? No. The fact that the Arabs living there had nothing against it doesn't help, either. Stern, do you have any idea WHY Israel occupied these areas to begin with? That's the fault of the Arabs, and the Palestinian Arabs themselves. For example: The reason there are as many Palestinians living like rats in refugee camps under Hamas and Fatah is because they fled when the Arabs initially attacked Israel, hoping that it would be destroyed. They couldn't get back in, that's what started the whole lie of the "refugees" driven out by the bloodthirsty, matza-made-with-Arab-and-Christian-blood-making Jews. In other words, they ran from yahud and now they're in denial about it. Yahud... You know, the ones that the radical San Francisco lefty loonies like to portray as such.

Thats a lie and you know it. Sterns already posted pictures showing just how far they have expanded SINCE the war.

 

[Nemesis6]

What's a lie? Disprove the so-called lie you found.

 

[repiV]

People can criticise Israel all they want, but if someone starts trying to pin this on "The Jew" they'll also get it.

That hasn't happened.

Please note the difference between "country" and "race".

Islamic terrorism is transnational and does not belong to any one group or faction. That should be obvious. It also has widespread support amongst "moderate" Muslims and even some Westerners...such as Solaris.

 

[Solaris]

Islamic terrorism is transnational and does not belong to any one group or faction. That should be obvious. It also has widespread support amongst "moderate" Muslims and even some Westerners...such as Solaris.

I don't support Islamic Terrorism.

I support the right of people to self-determination, freedom and the right to exist. Any reasonable national liberation movement has my support, be it the minute men of America, the IRA, the Iraqi resistance, Palestinian resistance.

 

[repiV]

I don't support Islamic Terrorism.

I support the right of people to self-determination, freedom and the right to exist. Any reasonable national liberation movement has my support, be it the minute men of America, the IRA, the Iraqi resistance, Palestinian resistance.

So I needn't quote you saying "I'm a terrorist sympathiser", then?

How can you support self-determination and freedom and be a communist at the same time? That's mind-bendingly hypocritical and illogical. There is no bigger enemy to self-determination and freedom than communism.
What "Iraqi resistance" is that? You call a bunch of factions ****ing each other over a national resistance movement?
The more you post, the more I realise that you just have no idea what the **** you're talking about. Your interpretations are entirely wrong virtually all the time. Just ignorance.
Your view of the world is not based on any kind of rational extrapolation from the facts - you just support any weakened minority because you still have the infantile teenage rebel-against-everything mindset. Completely senseless.

 

[Solaris]

So I needn't quote you saying "I'm a terrorist sympathiser", then?

How can you support self-determination and freedom and be a communist at the same time? That's mind-bendingly hypocritical and illogical. There is no bigger enemy to self-determination and freedom than communism.

Not at all, communism would have democracy at almost every level of life, bosses would be particially elected, groups of workers would run the tools of production, people would be free to live however they want within reason. People would work less and get more for it. Freedom would be greatly enhanced.

What "Iraqi resistance" is that? You call a bunch of factions ****ing each other over a national resistance movement?
The more you post, the more I realise that you just have no idea what the **** you're talking about. Your interpretations are entirely wrong virtually all the time. Just ignorance.
Your view of the world is not based on any kind of rational extrapolation from the facts - you just support any weakened minority because you still have the infantile teenage rebel-against-everything mindset. Completely senseless.

Not all the people who fight back are religious extremists, I support the fighting back, I don't support all the people who do it.

 

[kirovman]

Work less and get more?

I'm sure that breaks some thermodynamic law.

 

[repiV]

Not at all, communism would have democracy at almost every level of life, bosses would be particially elected, groups of workers would run the tools of production, people would be free to live however they want within reason. People would work less and get more for it. Freedom would be greatly enhanced.

What do you mean "communism would have democracy"?
What if the capitalist party got elected? It wouldn't be communism anymore, would it?
Self-determination is directly tied to free enterprise. A system where everyone is handed the same is the complete opposite of self-determination.
How exactly do you figure people would work less and get more for it? Where would this money come from, money trees?
Perhaps you should get even a very rudimentary understanding of economics before you say something so utterly stupid.
**** your poor oppressed factory workers too. I work 10-12 hours a day without lunch breaks, and do extra work at home. I deserve to earn three to five times as much as them.

Not all the people who fight back are religious extremists, I support the fighting back, I don't support all the people who do it.

Fight back against WHAT? We weren't fighting ordinary Iraqis to begin with, in fact in case you hadn't noticed, we are allied with the Iraqi government.
Now they're fighting each other, and we're caught in the middle. You have a very strange definition of "resistance movement".

 

[Solaris]

What do you mean "communism would have democracy"?
What if the capitalist party got elected? It wouldn't be communism anymore, would it?
Self-determination is directly tied to free enterprise. A system where everyone is handed the same is the complete opposite of self-determination.
How exactly do you figure people would work less and get more for it? Where would this money come from, money trees?
**** your poor oppressed factory workers too. I work 10-12 hours a day without lunch breaks, and do extra work at home. I deserve to earn three to five times as much as them.

Well, if after seeing the benefits and people still voted capitalism then capitalism would come back. Self -determination has nothing to do with private enterprise, it's about a peoples right to choose who they want to rule them, to be free and live free of occupation and oppression.

Perhaps you should get even a very rudimentary understanding of economics before you say something so utterly stupid.

Marx said it, you saying Marx doesn't understand the basic of economics. The fact that you don't understand this shows how little you know of communism.

Fight back against WHAT? We weren't fighting ordinary Iraqis to begin with, in fact in case you hadn't noticed, we are allied with the Iraqi government.
Now they're fighting each other, and we're caught in the middle. You have a very strange definition of "resistance movement".

Against the forces who slaughtered so many Iraqis in Fallujah, the government that supports the death squads that torture thousands. It's a violent occupation and the people have every right to resist.

 

[repiV]

Well, if after seeing the benefits and people still voted capitalism then capitalism would come back. Self -determination has nothing to do with private enterprise, it's about a peoples right to choose who they want to rule them, to be free and live free of occupation and oppression.

Self-determination has everything to do with private enterprise. Without it, you can't pull yourself up and make your own way in life. If you can't understand that concept, you have no place in discussing economics.

Marx said it, you saying Marx doesn't understand the basic of economics. The fact that you don't understand this shows how little you know of communism.

That's your argument? "Marx said it"? Tell me, how would your fantasy where people work less and earn more actually operate? It wouldn't.

Against the forces who slaughtered so many Iraqis in Fallujah, the government that supports the death squads that torture thousands. It's a violent occupation and the people have every right to resist.

Right. Again, you conviniently ignore the fact that it's not a resistance movement of any kind whatsoever. Multiple factions are fighting EACH OTHER.
Any sensible Iraqi who wanted the best for their country would lend their support to the Americans. Just because people get angry and decide to blame the powerful, doesn't make them correct.
Iraq is not a united nation, and there is no group of "decent, ordinary, hardworkng Iraqis" that are working together to "liberate Iraq". The very notion is complete bullshit.

 

[Solaris]

Self-determination has everything to do with private enterprise. Without it, you can't pull yourself up and make your own way in life. If you can't understand that concept, you have no place in discussing economics.

That's what being free is? Having to pull yourself up and really work hard to make a living? Rather than knowing whatever you do you will get a decent wage. Under communism you can still do any job you want and are qualified for. Do you even understand what self-determination means?

Self-determination or the right to self-determination is a concept of principle, wherein a people or nation, have a human right to statehood, and that such a state has an equal right to sovereignty.

Wikipedia

That's your argument? "Marx said it"? Tell me, how would your fantasy where people work less and earn more actually operate? It wouldn't.

The fact is, Marx was a leading economics thinker that was what he did. I doubt that he didn't have a clue as to basic economic principle. I'm not going to explain communism to you here, I simply can't be bothered when all you have to do is read any Marxist writings that are available online for free.

Right. Again, you conviniently ignore the fact that it's not a resistance movement of any kind whatsoever. Multiple factions are fighting EACH OTHER.
Any sensible Iraqi who wanted the best for their country would lend their support to the Americans. Just because people get angry and decide to blame the powerful, doesn't make them correct.
Iraq is not a united nation, and there is no group of "decent, ordinary, hardworkng Iraqis" that are working together to "liberate Iraq". The very notion is complete bullshit.

There fighting each other? The thousands of American troops just shot themselves then?

 

[repiV]

That's what being free is? Having to pull yourself up and really work hard to make a living? Rather than knowing whatever you do you will get a decent wage.

What, you're a lazy bastard and don't want to work hard? Why should you get something for nothing? Having everyone else carry your lazy selfish arse isn't freedom, it's theft. True freedom involves having to take responsibility for your actions.
Why should you get a decent wage for doing nothing? Why should lazy ****s get paid the same as I do even though I've made my company over ?3000 in my first week on the job through talent, drive and a lot of hard work?
OMG, that's about the most outrageous, offensive belief I've ever heard voiced here. Spoilt little brat. You want what other people have without having to work for it. If you can't be bothered to work, you deserve to suffer for it.

Under communism you can still do any job you want and are qualified for.

I wouldn't be able to do my job, since under communism there would be no need for it. And even if there was, it would be rather futile since MONEY is what drives the industry and the vast majority of people who work in it. Why would you work yourself to the bone if it carried no rewards?
I deserve to be wealthy, and you do not. If you take exception to that statement, tough shit. To me, you present yourself as a well-spoken, civilised chav. Idolising the lowest common denominator.

Do you even understand what self-determination means?

Wikipedia

Yes, I do.

Main Entry: self-de?ter?mi?na?tion
Pronunciation: -di-"t&r-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion
2 : determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status

Capitalism offers this. Communism denies it. Simple, really.

The fact is, Marx was a leading economics thinker that was what he did. I doubt that he didn't have a clue as to basic economic principle. I'm not going to explain communism to you here, I simply can't be bothered when all you have to do is read any Marxist writings that are available online for free.

I don't care. It is impossible that people would "work less and get more", particularly when the centrally planned economy would leave the country penniless. Your constant defence of "Marx said it, Marx said it!" clearly indicates that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand communism, and you don't understand capitalism. Get back to me when you do.

There fighting each other? The thousands of American troops just shot themselves then?

So because American troops are involved also, that means the factions aren't battling each other?

 

[15357]

There fighting each other? The thousands of American troops just shot themselves then?

Uh, they are fighting each other, the sunnis and whatever they call themselves. Of course, they fight it out with the US as well.

 

[Solaris]

What, you're a lazy bastard and don't want to work hard? Why should you get something for nothing? Having everyone else carry your lazy selfish arse isn't freedom, it's theft. True freedom involves having to take responsibility for your actions.
Why should you get a decent wage for doing nothing? Why should lazy ****s get paid the same as I do even though I've made my company over ?3000 in my first week on the job through talent, drive and a lot of hard work?
OMG, that's about the most outrageous, offensive belief I've ever heard voiced here. Spoilt little brat. You want what other people have without having to work for it. If you can't be bothered to work, you deserve to suffer for it.

Where the hell did I say people who don't work should get paid?
Where did I say that? No-where, I didn't say it. You taking what I say, twisting it and then flaming it.
You know damn well when I said 'whatever you do' I meant as a term of profession.

I wouldn't be able to do my job, since under communism there would be no need for it. And even if there was, it would be rather futile since MONEY is what drives the industry and the vast majority of people who work in it. Why would you work yourself to the bone if it carried no rewards?
I deserve to be wealthy, and you do not. If you take exception to that statement, tough shit. To me, you present yourself as a well-spoken, civilised chav. Idolising the lowest common denominator.

Great! Thats exactly why we will be able to do more, because the majority of the people in this country produce absolutely nothing. Who needs advertisers when things are made not to be sold, but to be used? Who needs financial advisers when nobody has any money? Who needs stockbrokers when theres no stock market?
Nobody, at least half the 'work' people do could be eliminated under communism, so people could all do useful jobs but less of it as theres more people doing it.

Yes, I do.

Main Entry: self-de?ter?mi?na?tion
Pronunciation: -di-"t&r-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion
2 : determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status

Capitalism offers this. Communism denies it. Simple, really.

How? It's still got nothing to do with private enterprise.

I don't care. It is impossible that people would "work less and get more", particularly when the centrally planned economy would leave the country penniless. Your constant defence of "Marx said it, Marx said it!" clearly indicates that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand communism, and you don't understand capitalism. Get back to me when you do.

This is pathetic. You say my Marxist rhetoric shows that I have no understanding of economics, but when I explain Marx was a far better economist than you or I are, so what gives you the authority to declare his ideas idiotic and showing a complete lack of economic understanding I do not know. You twist that into your attack. You do not understand communism at all, yet you passionately hate it, it seems you are as brainwashed as numbers.

 

[Absinthe]

This is pathetic. You say my Marxist rhetoric shows that I have no understanding of economics, but when I explain Marx was a far better economist than you or I are, so what gives you the authority to declare his ideas idiotic and showing a complete lack of economic understanding I do not know.

That's a logical fallacy. Arguments from Authority still need arguments. With that logic, if Stephen Hawking said grass was made from ice cream, we'd all have to accept it as fact. Being educated in economics doesn't suddenly make you perfect in the field. Marx was a fallible man just like everybody else.

Besides, if you understand Marx so well, then surely you could form an actual rebuttal?

 

[repiV]

Where the hell did I say people who don't work should get paid?
Where did I say that? No-where, I didn't say it. You taking what I say, twisting it and then flaming it.
You know damn well when I said 'whatever you do' I meant as a term of profession.

Ok, so why should everyone get paid the same amount regardless of what profession they do?
In simplest terms, my job is to generate wealth. If I'm bringing in ?25,000 a month for the company in a year's time, why should I not see any of that? Why should a cleaner, who is purely a burden on resources, and who does a skilless job, quite unlike mine which has left me feeling quite overwhelmed and stressed at times due to the steep learning curve, get the same amount of money?

Great! Thats exactly why we will be able to do more, because the majority of the people in this country produce absolutely nothing. Who needs advertisers when things are made not to be sold, but to be used? Who needs financial advisers when nobody has any money? Who needs stockbrokers when theres no stock market?
Nobody, at least half the 'work' people do could be eliminated under communism, so people could all do useful jobs but less of it as theres more people doing it.

Who cares? You've said yourself that working in a factory would be really horrible on a number of occassions, so why do you want everybody to be doing it? That makes no sense at all. Thank GOD most of us work in the service sector, anything else would be immeasurably dull and routine.
My job is useful. I provide an invaluable service to businesses and, on occassion, the public sector aswell.

How? It's still got nothing to do with private enterprise.

Of course it has. Capitalism gives you the freedom to do what you want, whereas in communism you are completely reliant on someone else dictating what you're going to receive. It's like being on welfare. Being on welfare and having self-determination is impossible.

This is pathetic. You say my Marxist rhetoric shows that I have no understanding of economics, but when I explain Marx was a far better economist than you or I are, so what gives you the authority to declare his ideas idiotic and showing a complete lack of economic understanding I do not know. You twist that into your attack. You do not understand communism at all, yet you passionately hate it, it seems you are as brainwashed as numbers.

I'm brainwashed because I call you on your complete lack of understanding of what it is that you're incessantly preaching?



That's hilarious!

If all you can do is recite rhetoric, you do not know what you're talking about. If you are yourself unable to argue your case, you cannot possibly understand. If anyone's brainwashed, it's you.

 

[Solaris]

That's a logical fallacy. Arguments from Authority still need arguments. With that logic, if Stephen Hawking said grass was made from ice cream, we'd all have to accept it as fact. Being educated in economics doesn't suddenly make you perfect in the field. Marx was a fallible man just like everybody else.

Besides, if you understand Marx so well, then surely you could form an actual rebuttal?

I could yes. But thats not the thing.
I stated a Marxist principle, repirv said 'anyone who believes that couldnt have the most basic understanding of economics' or something like that. The point I'm making is that Marx was an economic genius his ad homein attack was direly misplaced.

 

[repiV]

I could yes. But thats not the thing.
I stated a Marxist principle, repirv said 'anyone who believes that couldnt have the most basic understanding of economics' or something like that. The point I'm making is that Marx was an economic genius his ad homein attack was direly misplaced.

Anyone who believes that indeed could not have a basic understanding of economics. However, the bigger issue is that you just regurgitate talking points. You don't have any ideas of your own at all, and when trying to defend your ideas, you either make lots of ill-thought out, illogical statements or yell "but Marx said it!"
And nothing anyone says to you appears to ever sink in. You just ignore the evidence and carry on. Typical behaviour of a stubborn teenager who is convinced he knows it all.
The only reason you love communism so much is that you simply do not understand it. In fact, you seem to make an extra effort to avoid understanding it. Maybe because you don't want to have to let go of your fantasy.

By the way, just for the daily dose of Solaris hypocricy - Thatcher is also a far better economist than you or I, but it doesn't stop you from dissing her.

 

[Solaris]

Please read the attached document, its an extract from a book "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" and it explains socialism pretty damn well. I don't think you understand exactly what socialism is, reading this would really help.

 

[repiV]

Please read the attached document, its an extract from a book "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" and it explains socialism pretty damn well. I don't think you understand exactly what socialism is, reading this would really help.

`These statements are lies that have been invented for the purpose of
creating in us a feeling of resignation to the evils of our condition.
They are lies which have been fostered by those who imagine that it is
to their interest that we should be content to see our children
condemned to the same poverty and degradation that we have endured
ourselves.

I've read enough, thanks. Typical envy, reverse snobbery and prejudice.
People are not "condemned" to poverty and degradation because they're born into the wrong class or with the wrong accent. It's bullshit.
And even if they were, your utterly un-brilliant solution would be to condemn EVERYONE to poverty and degradation.
No doubt this book is at least a hundred years old and completely irrelevant to modern times.
You've probably never experienced poverty. I spent most of my life in desperate poverty. Yet, interestingly enough, I'm not poor now, am I? No, in fact, I'm quite well off and my potential earnings are limited only by my drive.
I never needed people like you to patronise me, and I never wanted your charity either. Losers stay poor. Winners get rich.

 

[Solaris]

I've read enough, thanks. Typical envy, reverse snobbery and prejudice.
People are not "condemned" to poverty and degradation because they're born into the wrong class or with the wrong accent. It's bullshit.
And even if they were, your utterly un-brilliant solution would be to condemn EVERYONE to poverty and degradation.
No doubt this book is at least a hundred years old and completely irrelevant to modern times.
You've probably never experienced poverty. I spent most of my life in desperate poverty. Yet, interestingly enough, I'm not poor now, am I? No, in fact, I'm quite well off and my potential earnings are limited only by my drive.
I never needed people like you to patronise me, and I never wanted your charity either. Losers stay poor. Winners get rich.

The book was written in 1910, a time when millions were living in poverty.

 

[repiV]

The book was written in 1910, a time when millions were living in poverty.

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, the year is now 2007.

 

[Solaris]

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, the year is now 2007.

Socialism can still be applied.

 

[repiV]

Socialism can still be applied.

Then run the D.P.R of your bedroom as a socialist democracy, if you wish. If you promise not to leave the borders of your small country, I'll even use my evil capitalist riches to buy you some big iron gates.

 

[Nemesis6]

Socialism can still be applied, yes. But I think Sir Winston Churchill has something to say:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

 

[repiV]

Socialism can still be applied, yes. But I think Mr. Winston Churchill has something to say:

Good tactic. After his "Marx is God" speech, by denouncing Winston Churchill, commonly understood to be one of the greatest men in history, he will be showing himself up as a hypocrite of the highest order.
Can I have you on my sales force? Pleeeease?

 

[Nemesis6]

Anyway, Solaris, I think you'll find that the reason people will not accept Socialism, "revolutionary socialism(see Communism)" or any other sort of "The people will rise" type of Government where everyone is supposed to be equal, is because where ideologies like that rule, someone people will always be a little more equal than others.

 

[repiV]

Anyway, Solaris, I think you'll find that the reason people will not accept Socialism, "revolutionary socialism(see Communism)" or any other sort of "The people will rise" type of Government where everyone is supposed to be equal, is because where ideologies like that rule, someone people will always be a little more equal than others.

I fixed your picture for you. Too bad you changed the one you were using.

BAM!

Damn, I must be bored.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Look, everyone knows that Solaris' economic theories are shakey at best, but at the same time just about every country on Earth is socialist to some signifigant degree - including America. Socialism makes sense.
Communism does not, because it is not the same thing.


Now, can we keep this on the actual topic of the thread, or do I have to start cracking skulls?

 

[repiV]

Look, everyone knows that Solaris' economic theories are shakey at best, but at the same time just about every country on Earth is socialist to some signifigant degree - including America. Socialism makes sense.
Communism does not, because it is not the same thing.


Now, can we keep this on the actual topic of the thread, or do I have to start cracking skulls?

You must acknowledge the distinction between degrees of socialism.
To a certain point, it makes sense, but beyond that it's communism-lite.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Make a thread about it then.