The US is an evil empire

[Led Zeppelin]

The US state attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for no justifiable reason and is therefore responsible for the deaths of millions of people; men, women and children. The sole reason for their attack was to secure strategic oil fields which they would need in their quest for world dominance. The US state is an evil empire after all, and therefore always seeks to establish its dominance wherever it can and does not care about killing innocent people in the process.

Cheney and Bush were two sides of the same imperialist coin and their sole intention was to secure a place in the 21st century for the American Empire, or Pax Americana.




______________________________________________


Question; which idiotic OI member do I sound like if the above was attacking the USSR, Lenin, Marx, socialism etc. ?

The first person to post the right answer gets a rep point.

[Revolutionary Youth]

The US state attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for no justifiable reason and is therefore responsible for the deaths of millions of people; men, women and children. The sole reason for their attack was to secure strategic oil fields which they would need in their quest for world dominance. The US state is an evil empire after all, and therefore always seeks to establish its dominance wherever it can and does not care about killing innocent people in the process.

Cheney and Bush were two sides of the same imperialist coin and their sole intention was to secure a place in the 21st century for the American Empire, or Pax Americana.




______________________________________________


Question; which idiotic OI member do I sound like if the above was attacking the USSR, Lenin, Marx, socialism etc. ?

The first person to post the right answer gets a rep point.
TomK?

[Led Zeppelin]

Nah, but close!

The person in question has a thread on the first page in OI which is exactly like what I posted; it's basically writing a number of "facts" and then drawing conclusions from them as if the premise is really...a fact.

[apathy maybe]

I can't see the the thread you mentioned in OI, or the trashcan.

But I could guess either trivas7 or spetnaz21.

Care to make sure the thread is still on the front page?

[Led Zeppelin]

Yeah it is, it's actually 5 spots below this one right now! :p

[Revolutionary Youth]

Yeah it is, it's actually 5 spots below this one right now! :p
Then I guess it is trivas then.:rolleyes:

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes it is, here's his post in its full glory:



Lenin held a deeply mechanistic understanding of Marx whereby he would use any and every means to accomplish revolution in Russian society. There never was an clean phase to the revolution when once in power. The corruption and tyranny began at once. Despite Bolshevism's appeals to universal ideas of social justice, when Lenin called to turn the "imperialist war" (i.e. the First World War) into a "civil war", the writing was on the wall for anyone who wanted to see that it was the Bolsheviks' intention to tear Russian society apart, and not provide the people "peace, land and bread" as Lenin claimed (in order to get the naive to support his agenda for revolution).

Lenin never had any intention to improve the lives of the Russian people. At a time of mass famine during the "War Communism" repression at the time of the Civil War (after the October Revolution), the Bolshevik regime was sending millions of dollars out of the country in order to stir up revolutions in other countries while letting their own people starve. But Lenin was interested in political power leading to what he hoped would be "the permanent revolution". Everything was subordinated to the goal of the Party attaining and keeping power, and any deceit and violence was justifiable for these purposes. Ironically, Lenin's hopes proved impotent and w/ it any semblance of a "worker's state".

Bolded the most idiotic parts, though it's hard to separate those from the rest of the post.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Yes it is, here's his post in its full glory:



Bolded the most idiotic parts, though it's hard to separate those from the rest of the post.
So...do I get a rep?:rolleyes:

[Killfacer]

The US state attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for no justifiable reason and is therefore responsible for the deaths of millions of people; men, women and children. The sole reason for their attack was to secure strategic oil fields which they would need in their quest for world dominance. The US state is an evil empire after all, and therefore always seeks to establish its dominance wherever it can and does not care about killing innocent people in the process.

Cheney and Bush were two sides of the same imperialist coin and their sole intention was to secure a place in the 21st century for the American Empire, or Pax Americana.




______________________________________________


Question; which idiotic OI member do I sound like if the above was attacking the USSR, Lenin, Marx, socialism etc. ?

The first person to post the right answer gets a rep point.

In fairness some justification can be found for both wars. Getting rid of Saddam in Iraq and disposing of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

1 million people? Didn't realise the death toll was that high.

[Led Zeppelin]

So...do I get a rep?:rolleyes:

No, you're not worth it. :rolleyes:


In fairness some justification can be found for both wars. Getting rid of Saddam in Iraq and disposing of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Those are not justifications.

What are you talking about?

[Bud Struggle]

TomK?

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :rolleyes:

[Brother No. 1]

They can never win in either Iraq or Afghanistan. They only defated the armies but as we have seen in histroy. you can never defeat the People. Plus Afghanistan is not going to be the US's Pet if it didnt want to be the CCCPs pet.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :rolleyes:
You're welcome, dude!:D

No, you're not worth it. :rolleyes:
Why lah? I answered it correctly.:rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

You're welcome, dude!:D

Why lah? I answered it correctly.:rolleyes:

Well, my take on it would be more like:

Reguardless of their internal politics, superpowers (the US, SU, China, the British Empire) all act slimilarly in their reaction to the world. Each operate in their own self interest when they feel they are threatened. Each overreact to small threats and each try to spread their dominance as far as possible.

All superpowers in that respect are exactly the same. Evil? No, that's just the nature of the beast.

[Brother No. 1]

The Nature of america is trying to make everyone see it is still in power. Its time has past. The so called Lady Liberty is just a dieing old woman held by power hungry politicons and Idotic Presidents.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Well, my take on it would be more like:

Reguardless of their internal politics, superpowers (the US, SU, China, the British Empire) all act slimilarly in their reaction to the world. Each operate in their own self interest when they feel they are threatened. Each overreact to small threats and each try to spread their dominance as far as possible.

All superpowers in that respect are exactly the same. Evil? No, that's just the nature of the beast.
Trotsky perhaps?:rolleyes:Tried to propose an idea of "spreading permanent revolution across the globe until the whole world was Communist"?

[Brother No. 1]

Trsoky was only sucessful in Mexcio for Stalin didnt want Trsoky on his turf, the CCCP.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Trsoky was only sucessful in Mexcio for Stalin didnt want Trsoky on his turf, the CCCP.
Yeah, too bad he got murdered by Stalin's agents in Mexico.
Stalin proposed "socialism in one country", along with tricked Trotsky about the date of Lenin's funeral, made him become favoured by the CP.

[danyboy27]

Well, my take on it would be more like:

Reguardless of their internal politics, superpowers (the US, SU, China, the British Empire) all act slimilarly in their reaction to the world. Each operate in their own self interest when they feel they are threatened. Each overreact to small threats and each try to spread their dominance as far as possible.

All superpowers in that respect are exactly the same. Evil? No, that's just the nature of the beast.

agreed
EDIT: you know led zeppelin, there is no need to create a topic about how x person acted like an assole, just delete the trolling/flaming topic and that is. is trivias and me done some stupid stuff? maybe. is this really necessary to create a topic to humiliate trivias and me? i dont think so, and you wont make us think about what we done wrong by doing this. i just hope some reasonable person in the CC will trash this piece of shit.

[Led Zeppelin]

This thread wasn't really about you, in fact you are so irrelevant that the above post is the first one I've read by you.

And no, this thread won't be trashed. Pointing out the idiocy of OI members is something that is encouraged. Who else is better fit to do this job than us Revleft members? Outside of the internet you are probably too chicken-shit to argue with someone who doesn't share your idiotic beliefs.

And no, I won't trash or delete his thread either.

[Bud Struggle]

And no, this thread won't be trashed. Pointing out the idiocy of OI members is something that is encouraged. Who else is better fit to do this job than us Revleft members? Outside of the internet you are probably too chicken-shit to argue with someone who doesn't share your idiotic beliefs.


(I know this wasn't directed at me) but anyway, OIers say some good stuff and some stupid stuff, just like RevLefters. Not much difference really, as people mature they get a beter take on the world.

As far as debating people with different ideological beliefs in "real life"--you can't really find many intelligent Communists outside of RevLeft. I belong to the CPUSA and as ignorant as I am of Communism I am a profound Marxist scholar compaired to 99% of them.

If you want your Communsm cooked all red and spicy the way Marx intended--RevLeft's the only restaurant in town.

[Killfacer]

(I know this wasn't directed at me) but anyway, OIers say some good stuff and some stupid stuff, just like RevLefters. Not much difference really, as people mature they get a beter take on the world.

As far as debating people with different ideological beliefs in "real life"--you can't really find many intelligent Communists outside of RevLeft. I belong to the CPUSA and as ignorant as I am of Communism I am a profound Marxist scholar compaired to 99% of them.

If you want your Communsm cooked all red and spicy the way Marx intended--RevLeft's the only restaurant in town.

I have heard more bullshit from non restricted members than i have OIers. Some of the bollocks chatted on the main boards is fucking shameful. At least with OI you know what you are going to get and although some of the members are misguided, they are all kind and honest enough.

[KC]

It's quite obvious that trivas is a troll; he will say something ridiculous and then when you call him out on it won't defend what he has said. Classic troll symptoms.

At least TomK and spetnaz are willing to discuss what they post.

[Brother No. 1]

The America Evil Empire is stoped by really making to big of loans they cant pay back. Giving most of their money to China for cheap labor and whatever else they want. This empire it just a stupid as it is evil.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I belong to the CPUSA

This is why you have encountered idiots.

[Brother No. 1]

The CPUSA. Can someone tell me what they have done after 1991 wheres their rallies and parading againist the Capitalist it America.

[danyboy27]

i dont think trivias is a troll, i think he angry.

[Bud Struggle]

This is why you have encountered idiots.

Talking to them and then talking to you guys is almost a culture shock. They "use" the word Communist, but all they really are are very left liberals. Revolution hardly ever comes us. They want to change the system.

[graffic]

Most of US foreign policy is shaped by economics. That's not evil its just the nature of capitalism.

I think Islamic terroists, facists, racists and other nutjobs are much more "evil" than the US government.

[Brother No. 1]

The US helped those Islamic Terroists to let you know. 9/11 was Americas own fault. Its what happens when you make hundreds of Soviets die and when you allow People that they think they can do better get in control.

[Post-Something]

(I know this wasn't directed at me) but anyway, OIers say some good stuff and some stupid stuff, just like RevLefters. Not much difference really, as people mature they get a beter take on the world.

As far as debating people with different ideological beliefs in "real life"--you can't really find many intelligent Communists outside of RevLeft. I belong to the CPUSA and as ignorant as I am of Communism I am a profound Marxist scholar compaired to 99% of them.

If you want your Communsm cooked all red and spicy the way Marx intended--RevLeft's the only restaurant in town.

Wow, really? That's incredible. Over here I can find loads of people to have a decent conversation about communism with. But I'm in Glasgow...and you're somewhere in America.

[Brother No. 1]

Tomk is in Florida.

[#FF0000]

Most of US foreign policy is shaped by economics. That's not evil its just the nature of capitalism.

I think Islamic terroists, facists, racists and other nutjobs are much more "evil" than the US government.

Take the number of people killed by Fascists, Racists, and Islamic Terrorists in the past 10 years, add them together, and I'll wager that you won't touch the number of people the US Government has killed.

[Brother No. 1]

the US goverment is a Real villain killing inoccent communists.

[apathy maybe]

People complain about "terrorists" (for example Bill Ayers and the attempt by the Weathermen to attack a military ball), but ignore the various US army atrocities. Wedding party? What wedding party...

[Brother No. 1]

What wedding party?

[danyboy27]

i think that at the end, the death toll really matter when its fully intentional.

i mean, if someone plan to exterminate systematicly 6 million jews, or bomb a region with the intention of killing civilian, now that really bad.

but if you kill lets say 30 peoples accidently when trying to take control of an town occcupied by ennemies forces, that not really the same thing.

then again, i dont say the us never intentionally killed civilian, just that it would be really hard to compile the number of reasonable death on both side to finally judge who the worst.

its also important to take in perspective that some stuff done by the us wasnt really done by the us, but by us Citizens who had a lot of power and personnal goals.

then again, i want you to know that i am not saying that the us is better or worst than what some socialists countries did, just saying that if we would decide to really go deep into all that accountability bullshit it might require 10 000 historians and experts working night and day.

[Brother No. 1]

Well thats US's other Mistake. They called War but dont want to hurt them. If they dont want to hurt them why dont they send the huggy bears to fight the war.

[Phalanx]

I think before the neocon movement, the foreign policy movement was marked by bumbling errors. Of course there are exceptions, such as the genocide in the Phillipines among others.

[danyboy27]

Well thats US's other Mistake. They called War but dont want to hurt them. If they dont want to hurt them why dont they send the huggy bears to fight the war.

opposable thumbs is the answer.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Talking to them and then talking to you guys is almost a culture shock. They "use" the word Communist, but all they really are are very left liberals. Revolution hardly ever comes us. They want to change the system.

I suspect they are trendy lefty wankers.

Dont think all self described communists act like that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s31Q-GivC7c

[Bud Struggle]

I suspect they are trendy lefty wankers.

Good way to put it.

[apathy maybe]

What wedding party?
Exactly!

(Seriously:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/07/01/afghanistan.bombing/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/11/afghanistan.usa
)

Tom k?
You fail, he already answer the question...

Also, please don't post useless one word posts like that. They add nothing to anything, and are against board policy (which tries to encourage debate).

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

1 million people? Didn't realise the death toll was that high.

Because it's not.

edit: Or does someone have a legit source?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

the US goverment is a Real villain killing inoccent communists.

innocent communists is an oxymoron.

Joke hahaha. (But it's true by the govt).


Well thats US's other Mistake. They called War but dont want to hurt them. If they dont want to hurt them why dont they send the huggy bears to fight the war.

Couldn't agree more. When we go to war, it needs to be done in order to win. Not to go on meaningless patrols and bombing runs like Vietnam, nor holding down cities like Afghanistan. That's stupid and wasteful. I want some real war to be waged if we are going to be in a conflict.

You know, like that we're not only going to kill the hun bastards, we're going to rip out their still living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks stuff.

When the goal is not to win -overwhelmingly- you leave the soldiers on a level playing field. I don't like that one bit, it leads to commanders on the ground having to implement policies they feel they have to in order to survive, and then the goddamn pigs in Washington have the audacity to judge them. War should be waged in order to be won, not for some political gain.

On the side, I am so glad I didn't join the Marines.

[Hiero]

innocent communists is an oxymoron.

I can sort of agree. Communist are out to destroy the US empire, in USA eyes we are not innocent.

[danyboy27]

I can sort of agree. Communist are out to destroy the US empire, in USA eyes we are not innocent.

then it would mean inocent capitalist would be an oxymoron too?

[Glenn Beck]

then it would mean inocent capitalist would be an oxymoron too?

From a communist perspective no capitalist is "innocent" of exploitation that's just common sense. Just like from a capitalist position no communist is truly innocent of subversion, like Hiero pointed out. Any communist that is worthy of the name wishes to abolish exploitation and thus infringe on the fundamental "rights" of the capitalist and undermine the very foundation of the state, so there isn't any middle ground.

This is what class struggle means. The whole "neutral" politics that downplays or nullifies class struggle is characteristic of left-liberalism or social-democracy, it's hardly an objective evaluation but its more like a moral assumption of how things should be and situations should be judged in the abstract (I'm thinking of someone like John Rawls here with his class-agnostic theories of justice).

[Glenn Beck]

Tomk is in Florida.

I'm in Florida. It's about the worst place to be a Communist I can think of (besides places like Colombia or Iran or whatever where a Communist is liable to end up on a blind date with a firing squad on rather short notice, I'm obviously exaggerating).

I'm not surprised the leftists TomK encounters here are totally out of it. I think the crazy anti-communist atmosphere in the US in general has negative effects on US leftists sanity, let alone their theoretical rigor

[graffic]

The US helped those Islamic Terroists to let you know. 9/11 was Americas own fault. Its what happens when you make hundreds of Soviets die and when you allow People that they think they can do better get in control.

Still doesnt justify what they did.

Lets look at the difference.

The taliban wants to kill people because they believe they have a divine right, granted by God, to kill "un-believers". Ultimately determined by their race, i.e Jews.

So their motivations are primarily inspired by racism with the ultimate goal of death.

The US government wants to make PROFIT. It doesnt specifically plan to kill civilians, sure, in some cases their regard for civilian life is sloppy but their motivations are not death, just profit.

[Brother No. 1]

The US has always wanted Profit. in WW2 a US company gave hitler money to wage his war even after the Americans came into the War. America has seemed to want profit always in War. even the Russian Civil War they gave weapons to both sides. We can conclude that the US in mostly all Wars they have fought in they wanted to gain profit.

[danyboy27]

The US has always wanted Profit. in WW2 a US company gave hitler money to wage his war even after the Americans came into the War.

LOLLL
americans came into the war.
has usual didnt pulled out on time!
sorry, it happen now and then.

[Brother No. 1]

The Americas has seeked profit and gained it in even out Revolution. They used the whites in the Russian Revolution and gained money from their losses. They must know now that their army is weak and cant stand against the power of the people of iraq or afghanistan.

[hugsandmarxism]

The US state attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for no justifiable reason and is therefore responsible for the deaths of millions of people; men, women and children. The sole reason for their attack was to secure strategic oil fields which they would need in their quest for world dominance. The US state is an evil empire after all, and therefore always seeks to establish its dominance wherever it can and does not care about killing innocent people in the process.

Cheney and Bush were two sides of the same imperialist coin and their sole intention was to secure a place in the 21st century for the American Empire, or Pax Americana.

The USA has a long history of backing fascist dictators and enabling genocide all over the world. These latest imperialist transgressions are merely drops in a blood-bucket dating back to this country's creation. The USA as an "Evil Empire" is no new development.

Pick up a copy of Genocide, War Crimes & The West by Adam Jones and you'll get a glimpse of what I mean.

[danyboy27]

The Americas has seeked profit and gained it in even out Revolution. They used the whites in the Russian Revolution and gained money from their losses. They must know now that their army is weak and cant stand against the power of the people of iraq or afghanistan.

wtf man? The us army is far from being weak, objectively, i can say they are the best. its not beccause i like that, its beccause its a fact.

[Led Zeppelin]

The USA has a long history of backing fascist dictators and enabling genocide all over the world. These latest imperialist transgressions are merely drops in a blood-bucket dating back to this country's creation. The USA as an "Evil Empire" is no new development.

Pick up a copy of Genocide, War Crimes & The West by Adam Jones and you'll get a glimpse of what I mean.

Congratulations on totally missing the point of this thread.

[hugsandmarxism]

Congratulations on totally missing the point of this thread.

Oh, right... oops! :blushing:

[RGacky3]

All superpowers in that respect are exactly the same. Evil? No, that's just the nature of the beast.

Exactly! That is really the thing people need to grasp.

The US is acting the same way EVERY SINGLE superpower has ever acted and will ever act, they are not more or less evil than anyone else. If the Netherlands had the same power they would act the same way.

[Brother No. 1]

Hmm the US army the best. Well if they are the best they must know they cant win the wars they are in unless they have the peoples support. You cant gain support by invading a country and sending it into chaos.

[danyboy27]

Hmm the US army the best. Well if they are the best they must know they cant win the wars they are in unless they have the peoples support. You cant gain support by invading a country and sending it into chaos.

actually, the us army won most of the war they went in, they just sucked really bad at occupy, something the germans knew verry well.

take vietnam for exemple, after the so called glorious tet offensive, the vietcong movement was completly anhiliated, the only thing that saved the ass of the north vietnamese was american top weakness: the influence between politics on the military decision.

us general often asked for x or y measure, and it was refused often beccause of politics, it would look bad etc, the result was often disatrious. other time politician specificly decided to use some weapons on the field such has b-52, with then again a disastrious result for the civilian population.

at the moment you ask a general to do something specific, you cant just intervene all the time and decide for him, you let him do his job, if he fail, you replace him, if there is too much civilian death, you replace him.

that basicly america top weakness.

[Brother No. 1]

Yes americas one weakness. The Poiltics added with War screws them up. How they lost the Korean War is because they didnt heed the Warnings of China then they had not only the DPRK to deal with but the CCCP and China. With losing too much troops and facing against powerful enemies the made a peace treaty. It saved the whole Korean pensula from a Hell on earth. If that war went on just think what it would be like.

[danyboy27]

Yes americas one weakness. The Poiltics added with War screws them up. How they lost the Korean War is because they didnt heed the Warnings of China then they had not only the DPRK to deal with but the CCCP and China. With losing too much troops and facing against powerful enemies the made a peace treaty. It saved the whole Korean pensula from a Hell on earth. If that war went on just think what it would be like.

the us didnt really loose, neither was north korea, it was a huuge stalemate with hundred of thousand of people killed on both side.

from a purely military perspective, heisenower asked to use the nuke against chinese troop, he could have destroyed half of the red army with 1 nuke over chinese division coming in north korea. the governement didnt allowed it.
the main goal was to reconquer south korea, the general have been too ambitious and tried to get all korea. if they would have stopped at the border, the chinese would have never helped the north korean.

[Brother No. 1]

Yeah they said. "Dont come near the Yaluza River and we Wont hurt you." they Ignored them and if they launched a nuke another one would be sent and the process would have continued. If one nuke is lauched on someone on purpose then a another nuke will be surely sent. in nuclear Warfare there is never a winner only a survivor. a quote." War does not determie who is right....Only who is left."

[danyboy27]

Yeah they said. "Dont come near the Yaluza River and we Wont hurt you." they Ignored them and if they launched a nuke another one would be sent and the process would have continued. If one nuke is lauched on someone on purpose then a another nuke will be surely sent. in nuclear Warfare there is never a winner only a survivor. a quote." War does not determie who is right....Only who is left."

china back then didnt had any nuclear weapons.

stalin being a opportunist, nothing could have guaranteed that they would retaliate.

[Brother No. 1]

True. well I dont know what exact date Chine devloped Nuclear weapons but it was in the 1949 time line. Unless What I am reading is wrong.

[danyboy27]

true. Well i dont know what exact date chine devloped nuclear weapons but it was in the 1949 time line. Unless what i am reading is wrong.


1964

[Brother No. 1]

1964. At the time they challenged the CCCP for Communist control.

[danyboy27]

1964. At the time they challenged the CCCP for Communist control.

mainly beccause krutchev was a lot less hadcore than mao, they where not really from the same school of taught

[Brother No. 1]

Yeah Mao was reblous while Krutchev. Well not a lot to say about him.

[RGacky3]

Yeah Mao was reblous

Does anyone see the irony in this quote under "The US is an evil emipire" thread.

Please tell me someone else sees it.

[Bud Struggle]

Does anyone see the irony in this quote under "The US is an evil emipire" thread.

Please tell me someone else sees it.

:lol::lol::lol:

[danyboy27]

Does anyone see the irony in this quote under "The US is an evil emipire" thread.

Please tell me someone else sees it.

you mean the irony that the us fough so hard against the brittish to finally be labelled a fews hundered year later an evil empire?

[Brother No. 1]

in those few hundred years it seems the US has gone bitter.

[RGacky3]

No dumbass the Irony that this is about the US being an Evil empire, meaning imperialistic, meaning it goes around and tells other countries what to do, and exploits them, and considers countries that don't cooperate as being rebelous, and mister Polish Soviet talking about Mao being relelous as if Mao was expected to "obey" the USSR.

[Brother No. 1]

Yeah China and the CCCP were not the best of friends. If they ever were.

[danyboy27]

No dumbass the Irony that this is about the US being an Evil empire, meaning imperialistic, meaning it goes around and tells other countries what to do, and exploits them, and considers countries that don't cooperate as being rebelous, and mister Polish Soviet talking about Mao being relelous as if Mao was expected to "obey" the USSR.

no need to call me dumbass, dumbass.

[Brother No. 1]

Lets stop the violence between each other.

[danyboy27]

Lets stop the violence between each other.

no

[Brother No. 1]

ok have it your way.

[RGacky3]

no need to call me dumbass, dumbass.

No your right, no need to be a ***** about it. You missed my point by a long shot, so it was perfectly appropriate :).

[danyboy27]

No your right, no need to be a ***** about it. You missed my point by a long shot, so it was perfectly appropriate :).

no, it wasnt, you dont just insult people beccause they dont understand, you insult people beccause they insulted you, did i insulted you?

[hugsandmarxism]

People! People! Let's try to get along, shall we?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=223&pictureid=1561http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=223&pictureid=1561http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=223&pictureid=1561http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=223&pictureid=1561

[Brother No. 1]

I already tried that expect without the girls.

[Led Zeppelin]

No dumbass the Irony that this is about the US being an Evil empire, meaning imperialistic, meaning it goes around and tells other countries what to do, and exploits them, and considers countries that don't cooperate as being rebelous, and mister Polish Soviet talking about Mao being relelous as if Mao was expected to "obey" the USSR.

Firstly, do not flame other members please.

Secondly; the irony is all the more beautiful now because this thread was a parody.

[RGacky3]

Secondly; the irony is all the more beautiful now because this thread was a parody.

Polish Soviet (I think) was being dead serious.

[Brother No. 1]

Mao was rebelous in School and at home I have proof check any book on him I am right.

[Bud Struggle]

Mao was rebelous in School and at home I have proof check any book on him I am right.

PS--He was a Revolutionary, such people tend to be a bit rebelious. :)

[Brother No. 1]

Proves my point futher.

[Bud Struggle]

Proves my point futher.

Excellent! :thumbup:

[Brother No. 1]

China ia the only Socialist to challenge the CCCP in the Cold War. Really brave to say to a superpower that is stronger then you. They said this. " Well Comrade you time has ended and we are taking the Communist superpower seat."

[RGacky3]

Communist superpower should be an oxymoron to someone that understands communism.

[Brother No. 1]

True but then again Wikpedia makes fun of me all the time.

[Bud Struggle]

There's a real Surreal undertext to this thread.

Great thread LZ. :D