The truth about communism. [Archive]

ComTom

30th November 2005, 23:53

Well, have you ever read how many people the capitalist nations of the world massacred? Of course not, if you did, you wouldn't be posting this. Every social problem in todays soceity of the world, has branched out from capitalism, whether it be unemployment or even organized crime, it all comes from capitalism. These communists who massacred the people are disattaching themselves with the real teachings of Marx, Complete freedom, and economic freedom under the worker. Lets start a list of the crimes of capitalism:

1. Organized Crime
- In Italy the Italian Mafia developed from a weak capitalist system.
- In Russia, the communist system began to wither, causing the creation of the Russian Mafia, who are rumored to have killed over 10,000 people.
- In Japan, the Yakuza plauge the Japanese people, they came out of the capitalist rise in the post war years.
- In China, the Triads and Tongs developed out of the weak, unstable, capitalist system in its coastal urban centers.

2. Genocide
- With the creation of fascism with the help of capitalism, the death of 50 million people during World War 2 haunted the people.
- With the dictatorships of the world, Millions are believed dead, all from the beliefs of Capitalism
- 4 million dead in Vietnam
- With the support by US to millitary coups and other imperialist efforts, over 1 million die from the support of Chilean generals to support for the attack on East Timorese rebels that led to mass genocide of innocent peoples

I am too tired too expand onto the list, but if you may see, Capitalism has existed longer than Communism and outnumbers it more for crimes against humanity. So please do not preach to us the evil of Communism when Capitalism does the same thing you preach.

Capitalist Imperial

1st December 2005, 02:36

Originally posted by Matthijs+Nov 30 2005, 09:18 PM--> (Matthijs @ Nov 30 2005, 09:18 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:53 PM

Armchair [email protected] 30 2005, 09:37 PM
Did you do all those yourself? ...they're really good. :lol:
Ya, rly. These are second only to that "Un Godly Communism" page, where Stalin refers to himself in his thoughts in the third person, and the White Army attacked the Red Army with only swords: That "Un Godly" Communism (ZOMG!) (http://http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/cover_01.html)
I would love to know where the facts came from in your magnificent sources.
I prefer the version on www.commitoons.tk

By the way, I find it amazing that a right-winger has almost FOUR THOUSAND posts on here, even if he did register years ago. Are you fucking obsessed with pushing through your long-refuted bullshit? [/b]
Don't be a hater. Additionally, my arguments are hardly refuted. I'm here trying to do you guys a favor by bringing truth, reason, and reality to your antiquated and diproven beliefs. I was shaking down commie-pukes long before you even knew about this site. If anything has been refuted, it is communism, and long ago at that. I'm just trying to wake radical leftists out of their political comas.

FleasTheLemur

1st December 2005, 04:51

. . .

Zingu

1st December 2005, 05:31

I swear, its an right wing conspiracy, they intentionally make up the most retarded crap just to piss us off. :(

white-dragon

1st December 2005, 05:39

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2005, 02:47 AM
Don't be a hater. Additionally, my arguments are hardly refuted. I'm here trying to do you guys a favor by bringing truth, reason, and reality to your antiquated and diproven beliefs. I was shaking down commie-pukes long before you even knew about this site. If anything has been refuted, it is communism, and long ago at that. I'm just trying to wake radical leftists out of their political comas.
You see, simply posting things to piss the denizins of the board off isn't helping your case at all. It only entrenches our current view of the world by you demonstrating your inability to have a honest discussion with us about communism. Simply pointing to claims that communism is the cause of suffering is first off dishonest, because the website in question fails to qualify the difference between communism and dictatorship (which you might feel is the same thing, but the rest of us certainly do not, thus keeping a discussion from occuring), and also unproductive as far as directing our attention to actual problems with what we believe.

Mr. Imperial, if you wish to help your cause at all, its time to learn how to argue in a productive fashion. Until then, do yourself a favor and find some porn or build a model train or something that will not result in the wasting of either your or our time.

Xvall

1st December 2005, 05:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:02 AM
. . .
Constructed.

FleasTheLemur

1st December 2005, 05:56

Originally posted by Xvall+Dec 1 2005, 05:54 AM--> (Xvall @ Dec 1 2005, 05:54 AM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 05:02 AM
. . .
Constructed. [/b]
Arg. Even drug addled lunitics spell better than me! Damn dyslexia...

I look on the bright side.. I'm not lying about to a nation of almost 300 million people.

Guerrilla22

1st December 2005, 06:04

Apparently Ronald Reagan saved the world from communist oppression. The same guy that supported the murderous Contra movement, not to mention violated US federal law in doing so, traded weapons to Iran and supported the apartheid government in South Africa and Ferdinand Marcos. Great guy.

CrazyModerate

1st December 2005, 06:18

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 30 2005, 08:58 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 30 2005, 08:58 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 08:45 PM
It's unfortunate we cannot ban for stupidity around here, or you'd be long gone by now.
Good one, Ownthink, good one indeed.

You are so darn clever. Really, you are.

It appears that this response had less to do with your perception of my intellect and more to do with your frustration over the utter truths esposed in these advisements. [/b]
Ronald Reagan didn't support freedom or democracy. He supported authoritarian policies such as that of the contras.

Ronald Reagan openly supported Apartheid.

THe Policies of Mao and Stalin were not communist. They were more akin to some sick form of nationalist totalitarian ideology such as fascism or nazism. I differ from the other non-restricted members in that I have come to realize the reality of revolutionary, or atleast in a violent militaristic form, always fails. THe PRC under Mao was already a dictatorship before they gained control of China. Lenin used the Red Army to kill striking workers. And Stalin was just a paranoid totalitarian monster.

But I also disagree entirely with Capitalist Imperial. You are comparing things like Universal Healthcare to the Soviet Union? Thats complete bullshit. THe average working class Canadian is much better off than the average working class AMerican because of things like Universal Healthcare. People in the USA go bankrupt every day trying to pay medical bills.

Xvall

1st December 2005, 08:31

Originally posted by FleasTheLemur+Dec 1 2005, 06:07 AM--> (FleasTheLemur @ Dec 1 2005, 06:07 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:54 AM

[email protected] 1 2005, 05:02 AM
. . .
Constructed.
Arg. Even drug addled lunitics spell better than me! Damn dyslexia...

I look on the bright side.. I'm not lying about to a nation of almost 300 million people. [/b]
True. I only pointed it out because I know if I don't some right-wing jackoff will.

Nothing Human Is Alien

1st December 2005, 08:37

By the UN's measure, 30,000 children die a day from curable disease under capitalism.

30,000 x 365 = 10,950,000

35,000 people die a day from starvation.

35,000 x 365 = 12,775,000

That is 23,725,000 a year, and doesn't include things like water borne diseases, imperialist wars, executions, etc.

These numbers tell us that in the last five years alone at least 118,625,000 people have died needlessly.

So even if your completely unfounded number (100,000,000) was true; capitalism would still be a much more horrible system. :)

You also forget to include some small facts in your calculations; like the fact that more people died a year in China, Russia, and Cuba before the revolutions than after.

Life expectancy in China rose from under 30 before 1949 to 65 in 1975, and in Cuba it rose from 59.4 years in 1955 to 76.6 years in 2005.

Infant mortality in Cuba dropped from 60 to 5.8, and in China it dropped from 150 to 12.6.

Next time, try to report "the real truth".

dannie

1st December 2005, 09:46

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2005, 03:47 AM
Don't be a hater. Additionally, my arguments are hardly refuted. I'm here trying to do you guys a favor by bringing truth, reason, and reality to your antiquated and diproven beliefs. I was shaking down commie-pukes long before you even knew about this site. If anything has been refuted, it is communism, and long ago at that. I'm just trying to wake radical leftists out of their political comas.
So by posting some graphics you are going to convert every commie on this board?
Seems you should take your head out of the ground and devote your time to something useful!?

encephalon

1st December 2005, 10:06

from YAF's front page:

...as first heard on The Sean Hannity Show and Hannity & Colmes ... and the Tony Snow Show and the Rush Limbaugh Show!

You actually want us to take that seriously? BWAHAHA.

Invader Zim

1st December 2005, 11:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:48 AM

So even if your completely unfounded number (100,000,000) was true; capitalism would still be a much more horrible system. :)

The subject of communist death counts has been a subject of debate among historians and political scientists for a long time, during the cold war, and even today it is often politically motivated and open to bias. It was considered that when the Soviet archives were finally opened historians would be able to put the matter, of least Stalinist genocide, at rest; this has not been the case. The archives do not give a true representation of Stalinist Russia, because of the nature of secrecy which dominated Soviet Russia.

Despite the raging debate, serious doubt can be placed on the 100 million or more victims of ‘communism estimate, promoted by the likes of Rudolph Rummel, because it is not supported by any major evidence and is out of proportion to other estimates.

If we look at other reputable sources on the USSR, China, etc, then we can see a very different set of statistics. For example in the 1930's Rummel states that nearly 16,000,000 were murdered, starved or worked to death.[1] While on the other hand other historians provide very different estimates. A second estimate, cited in G. Ponton's 'The Soviet Era' is that the toll for the period of 1926-39 was 3.5 million and at most eight million.[2] Obviously even the lower end of this estimate is shocking and indicative of a brutal regime, but it is in no way like the estimates of Rummel. Even the high end of the latter estimate, 8 million, is half of the figure promoted by Rummel for this period. Considering the lack of physical and documented evidence, a genocide of such major proportions as suggested by Rummel seams unlikely; thus the second estimate would appear to be the more accurate estimate.

Based on this a conclusion can be drawn that similar exaggeration of other 'Red' regimes crimes have been accused of massive genocides by political scientists and historians of the opinion shared by such as Rummel. Rummel in fact places the death toll of Mao Zedung at a staggering 72,260,000, the Walker report places Mao's cost at 32 million to 59.5 million and the 'Black Book of Communism' places the toll at between 44.5 to 72 million. [3] However again, if we look at another estimate, that of Brzezinski, the estimate is significantly less at a still horrific 29 million. [4] But even so, that is not even close to the 72 million that Rummel and other proponents of huge estimates would have us believe.

We also have to consider that famine is a major cause for the often large figures cited; famine is rarely deliberate. Western nation’s intervention into other countries has caused far greater famine than ever caused by Mao Zedung or Stalin. For example, in the world today six million children under the age of five die every year.[5] Communism is blamed for these deaths, as we can see from the existence of the 'Walker report' and the 'Black Book of Communism', which categorise the cause as a single economic and social ideology. If the same logic were to be applied to the deaths of the six million children, then what is the sole cause of these deaths? The blame can be applied to western imperialism in the 19th century, but then again equally we can blame modern western economic policies which exploit such nations. However in either case, past imperialism or economic interference, we can see a clear linking factor: western intervention. Thus the west is responsible for the deaths of millions of children annually. The ideology of the west, on the whole is that of democracy. However, suggesting that democracy is responsible millions of deaths is inaccurate and misleading. If these deaths are to be attributed to any individual over all factors, then these should be; the result of individual nation’s policies and long term economic intervention in developing countries.

In conclusion, claiming that ‘communism’, or any ideology for that matter, is the cause of numerous death, would appear to be an inaccurate hypothesis. To be more specific, claiming that the ‘communist ideology’ is the cause of over 100 million deaths is not only statistically unlikely but also inaccurate. The cause of millions of deaths in some ‘communist’ nations has been the individual policy these countries dictators or dictating party. The same conclusion can be applied to negative influence of the west on developing countries. Also, the estimate of 100 million deaths is also unlikely from a practical statistical point of view, in order to reach a figure of 100 million those seeking to generate an estimate must actively seek out and implement the more extreme figures into their calculations. This of course results in figures being excessively high and as such unlikely.

[1] http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

[2] Ibid

[3] http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao

[4] Ibid

[5] http://www.fao.org/documents... (http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=//docrep/005/y7352e/y7352e03.htm)

An interesting article on the subject: -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...,790476,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,790476,00.html)

Tungsten

1st December 2005, 14:48

CompaneroDeLibertad
I'm guessing that you're another one of these people who thinks that capitalism is anything that isn't a communist paradise. Most of the world isn't capitalist. It's mostly run by primitive governmental systems, with the occasional socialist country and the occasion dictatorship.

By the UN's measure, 30,000 children die a day from curable disease under capitalism.
Well, any statistic from the UN should be kept at arm's length, but let's say it is true. Look carefully. Who are the ones who carrying the cures for these diseases? Who developed them and in what kinds of countries?

What do you propose to remedy this?

35,000 people die a day from starvation.
You'll find that starvation was around a good many years before capitalism, so offering it as a cause is a little bit unconvincing.

That is 23,725,000 a year, and doesn't include things like water borne diseases, imperialist wars, executions, etc.
Same with these too. Your statistics don't display much evidence of critical thinking or honesty.

Enigma
It's not the numbers that worry me, it's the reason why they were killed.

VonClausewitz

1st December 2005, 15:02

Perhaps a different idea, instead of ratting and counter-rattling figures about, would be to consider the time periods involved.

Capitalism has existed, in it's modern form, since what is termed the first age of capital - around 1780 onwards. thats a good 220 years. Feudalistic society before that had existed a good 1000 years.

Communistic (lets not get bogged down in semantics, they all started out with that intention) societies at most existed for 60 years.

Now, this is the real question, does anyone see the difference here ?

Forward Union

1st December 2005, 15:42

Who cares about the horrific Stalinist system witnessed in the USSR and other "socialist" nations? I certainly don't support them and im sure most people here will agree, any hatred toward the USSR is probably well founded. How many times have we pointed out that the USSR was not socialist or Communist? why wont you get it through your thick skull.

Attacking the soviet union doesn't really boost your argument against Communism, Anarchism or Socialism one bit.

Nothing Human Is Alien

1st December 2005, 16:29

Sorry "comrade" but alot of people here uphold the USSR and China (at least certain periods) as either socialist or on the road to it.

I'll reply to the rest later, I have to be off.

Capitalist Imperial

1st December 2005, 21:07

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Dec 1 2005, 06:29 AM--> (CrazyModerate @ Dec 1 2005, 06:29 AM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 30 2005, 08:58 PM

[email protected] 30 2005, 08:45 PM
It's unfortunate we cannot ban for stupidity around here, or you'd be long gone by now.
Good one, Ownthink, good one indeed.

You are so darn clever. Really, you are.

It appears that this response had less to do with your perception of my intellect and more to do with your frustration over the utter truths esposed in these advisements.
Ronald Reagan didn't support freedom or democracy. He supported authoritarian policies such as that of the contras.

Ronald Reagan openly supported Apartheid.

THe Policies of Mao and Stalin were not communist. They were more akin to some sick form of nationalist totalitarian ideology such as fascism or nazism. I differ from the other non-restricted members in that I have come to realize the reality of revolutionary, or atleast in a violent militaristic form, always fails. THe PRC under Mao was already a dictatorship before they gained control of China. Lenin used the Red Army to kill striking workers. And Stalin was just a paranoid totalitarian monster.

But I also disagree entirely with Capitalist Imperial. You are comparing things like Universal Healthcare to the Soviet Union? Thats complete bullshit. THe average working class Canadian is much better off than the average working class AMerican because of things like Universal Healthcare. People in the USA go bankrupt every day trying to pay medical bills. [/b]
Your failure is in the use of the word "average".

The average American is much better off than the average canadian overall, as most Americans do have some health coverage.

Health coverage is not the hallmark of "doing well". It is one minor point. Canada has universal health care, but the quality falls short of American medicine.

In most other measures, the US easily urpasses canada, which is why canadians maintain such an inferiority complex against a real nation like the United States. :lol:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st December 2005, 21:24

Capitalist Imperial, why do you bother?

tunes

1st December 2005, 22:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:59 AM

35,000 people die a day from starvation.
You'll find that starvation was around a good many years before capitalism, so offering it as a cause is a little bit unconvincing.

What? If capitalism is not responsible for starvation, how can you claim that socialism is?

This is what you are saying:

Starvation exists in capitalism. (you say is True)
Starvation existed before capitalism. (you say is True)
Therefore, capitalism did not cause starvation. (you say is True)

This is your argument against socialism:

Starvation exists in socialism. (you say is True)
Starvation existed before socialism. (you say is True)
Therefore, socialism did not cause starvation. (you say is False)

You are applying the same logic to both economic systems, yet concluding one is valid and the other is not. Fallacy in reasoning. If you are going to exclude capitalism as responsible for deaths due to starvation, you must also exclude socialism, or for that matter, all economic systems.

1st December 2005, 22:44

I'm guessing that you're another one of these people who thinks that capitalism is anything that isn't a communist paradise. Most of the world isn't capitalist. It's mostly run by primitive governmental systems, with the occasional socialist country and the occasion dictatorship.

Capitalism: The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

You'll find that starvation was around a good many years before capitalism, so offering it as a cause is a little bit unconvincing.

Just because it has "always been around" doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Starvation might have been a worse epidemic under feudalist societies, but it is still a problem under capitalism. It is a problem that is solvable, just not under the current economic system.

Communistic (lets not get bogged down in semantics, they all started out with that intention) societies at most existed for 60 years.

Communistic societies have never even come close to existance. To "have intentions" to build a communist society and to have a communist society exist are two completely different things. This isn't semantics; this is a joke.

Red Leader

1st December 2005, 22:47

The average American is much better off than the average canadian overall, as most Americans do have some health coverage

:huh: This doesn't even make sense. EVERY canadian citizen has health coverage. SOME americans have health coverage. By your logic, this makes america MUCH better than canada. :huh:

And on what basis do you get off saying that the average american is better off than the average canadian and that the USA surpasses canada? Until you provide some proof, graphs, polls, anything backing up this retarded claim, then it remains hollow bias. Please, enlighten this little, insignificant canadian who has an inferiority conplex and lives in a useless piece of frozen real estate and dwells in an igloo.

And then perhaps get back on topic maybe?

Your bogus claims that communism has killed a bajillion million people is also hollow bias. Sources? proofs? anything? You really are just wasting your time. If you want to argue that communism sucks the shit than think of some real arguments.

Thank you.

Themaoistthinker

1st December 2005, 22:55

Let me throw my two cents in:

As far as famines are concerned, the capitalist attituide on famines is very hypocritical.

Everyday was a famine before the people came to power in China, and when they did come to power there was ONE SHORT FAMINE, which was over in a couple years. In fact, this famine was caused by a number of things, the largest of which was natural causes, the second largest of which being that the USSR pulled out all the resources it had given to China, leaving buidlings half built, feilds half plowed, etc.

yes, there was a problem with food distribution methods, but the problem was fixed and the famine ended.

How can this unfortunate two year event be considered genocide? I just don't get it.

If you go to Africa people are constantly starving because the capitalist system can't provide them with food or jobs, but that's not genocide. But when natural disasters and cruelty on the part of Soviet Revisonists takes effect, that is? I don't get it.

Themaoistthinker

1st December 2005, 23:00

Also, some might be interested in the "man made famine" of the collectivization of the soviet countryside. That famine was caused by the counter-revolutionaries who burned crops and animals, and did everything they could to sabotague the soviet economy, and of course, they were sent to Gulags for this! That makes perfect sense to me.

The capitalists have this way of looking at everything bad that ever happened in the communist world, and pointing it out to be "proof of the evils of communism", and then totally ignoring the real reasons for these events, as well the events that they themselves have participated in.

Capitalist Imperial

1st December 2005, 23:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:35 PM
Capitalist Imperial, why do you bother?
Lets not kid ourselves, NoXion, my posts are often among the most visited and tenaciously argued with respect to encouraging the free exchange of ideas in OI. I never fail to draw a response. Your question would be better placed with someone who was not often responded to or who posted irrelevant ideas.

Why do you bother, sir?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

2nd December 2005, 00:00

Lets not kid ourselves, NoXion, my posts are often among the most visited and tenaciously argued with respect to encouraging the free exchange of ideas in OI.

So in other words, you're here to start shit. Most people would consider that trolling.

I never fail to draw a response.

And to get a reaction from us. Also fits the definition of trolling.

Your question would be better placed with someone who was not often responded to or who posted irrelevant ideas.

I'm not asking anyone else, I'm asking you.

Why do you bother, sir?

I want to know why you post here.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 00:01

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 1 2005, 10:58 PM

Thank you.

:huh: This doesn't even make sense. EVERY canadian citizen has health coverage. SOME americans have health coverage. By your logic, this makes america MUCH better than canada. :huh:

You obviously didn't read my whole post, because you are paraphrasing me out of context.

And on what basis do you get off saying that the average american is better off than the average canadian and that the USA surpasses canada? Until you provide some proof, graphs, polls, anything backing up this retarded claim, then it remains hollow bias. Please, enlighten this little, insignificant canadian who has an inferiority conplex and lives in a useless piece of frozen real estate and dwells in an igloo.

Actually, I was merely responding to someone who claimed the average canadian was better off than the average american because of health coverage exclusively. which is a weak argument. I see that you didn't bother to refurte that though. I was actually making a faceteous comment, though I personally believe that the US is a much better and more significant nation than Canada.

And then perhaps get back on topic maybe?

Again, I'm no the one who took us off topic, though I don't see you hammering the one that did. It is obvious that your attack on me is more agenda driven than in the interest of true debate.

Your bogus claims that communism has killed a bajillion million people is also hollow bias. Your bogus claims that communism has killed a bajillion million people is also hollow bias. Sources? proofs? anything?

Yeah, my claims are bogus. You are an idiot. Asking me to prove that communism killed millions is like asking me to prove that WWII killed thousands, or that Hiltler killed millions. Get serious. We all know it is true.

You really are just wasting your time. If you want to argue that communism sucks the shit than think of some real arguments.

You can check my post archive for extensive arguments againts you oppressive system. I'm not going to rehash it all just for you. Do your ownb homework.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 00:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:11 AM

So in other words, you're here to start shit. Most people would consider that trolling.

Did you even read what I wrote? This is not "in other words" trolling at all. You're really stretching, dude. You have also accused me of not responding to your posts when if fact I have. When do the lies stop sir?

And to get a reaction from us. Also fits the definition of trolling.

Very broadly, it does fit, and it also fits the definition of interesting debate. You are painting with a very broad brush, comrade.

I want to know why you post here.

Because I enjoy posting here. It is fun. It is an interesting dalliance for me.

Amusing Scrotum

2nd December 2005, 00:21

Yeah, my claims are bogus. You are an idiot. Asking me to prove that communism killed millions is like asking me to prove that WWII killed thousands, or that Hiltler killed millions. Get serious. We all know it is true.

(Emphasis added.)

I think you'll find that World War Two killed millions not thousands.

The thing is, of the 11 million people executed in Nazi Germany, the deaths and reasons can be broken down.

We know 6 millions Jews died in concentration camps and with a little bit of searching we could probably find a credible source that lists the places and dates when most of these deaths occurred.

However the same claim can be made of the former "Socialist" countries. Very few of the specific events can be named and even the time frames in which the supposed events took place is debatable.

Therefore no one can accurately say how many people the former "Socialist" countries killed. Which means any claims of 100 million, without reference to the specific events, should quite rightly be taken with a "pinch of salt."

ComTom

2nd December 2005, 00:31

I have said it once and I will say it again, the capitalist nations of the world have slaughtered way more people than communist nations have and have been the source of today's social evils, such as organized crime, unemployment, and etc. Capitalism in my opinion, is ths source of all these evils. You can't go around and say that Communism is all bad when capitalism has done the same thing.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 00:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:42 AM
I have said it once and I will say it again, the capitalist nations of the world have slaughtered way more people than communist nations have and have been the source of today's social evils, such as organized crime, unemployment, and etc. Capitalism in my opinion, is ths source of all these evils. You can't go around and say that Communism is all bad when capitalism has done the same thing.
Neither system is perfect, but to make a wholesale claim that capitalism has killed more than communism is ludicrous.

Additionally, capitalism is easily more beneficial for the progression of man as a whole than communism. History clearly demonstrates this.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

2nd December 2005, 00:42

Did you even read what I wrote? This is not "in other words" trolling at all. You're really stretching, dude.

Indeed it is. You come onto this board with the full knowledge that you won't convince anyone of your case, and continue posting in spite of that fact.

You have also accused me of not responding to your posts when if fact I have. When do the lies stop sir?

What's that got to do with this thread?

Very broadly, it does fit, and it also fits the definition of interesting debate. You are painting with a very broad brush, comrade.

I don't find arguing with capitalist demagogues over their system interesting.

Because I enjoy posting here. It is fun. It is an interesting dalliance for me.

If you want interesting dalliances, go to a fucking chit chat board.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 02:13

I think you'll find that World War Two killed millions not thousands.

I was only counting American and British deaths. The rest don't count.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that it is tough to pinpoint the exact number of deaths and the hand of communism, due to the heavily censored and secret nature of communist regimes.

However, it is pretty safe to conclude that tens of millions were killed as a direct result of communism, and based on communist cover-ups and non-disclosure, and the utter murderous nature of communist philosophy, I think the figure would end up being more than 100 million if anything.

By contrast, certain gadfly's ill-advised and non-sensical attempts to cite capitalism as reason for "millions of deaths" is fuzzy logic at best. Any weak relationship drawn may be indirect in a select few cases at best. It is just a pathetic attempt to paint capitalism to be as murderous and oppressive as communism, which history shows is not the case. They are merely attempting to justify their own ideology by subscribing to myths about how much influence capitalism has on the safety and lives of individuals.

ComTom

2nd December 2005, 02:22

You are saying that we are brainwashed and we don't know whats going on around us, but look at you, your as worse as any commie. I think that you need to start educating yourself about the history of this world, and realize that your nice little country has done many evil things, that lives up to Nazi Germany. Be independent, be a person, be a individual, don't be a clone of the system.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 02:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:53 AM

Indeed it is. You come onto this board with the full knowledge that you won't convince anyone of your case, and continue posting in spite of that fact.

And you continue to respond to it. I don't really expect to change any minds here, I think that if you truly believe that communism is the best ideology in the world, and that capitalism hasn't been a positive force for world economics and progress, then you have little capacity for critical thinking or analysis. I just want to be the one to say "I told you so" when you grow up and learn how the world works.

What's that got to do with this thread?

I was bringing your credibility into question. How can I trust what you say here when it doesn't even seem like you really understand my posts or even acknowledge when I have responed to you?

I don't find arguing with capitalist demagogues over their system interesting.

NoXion, I simply don't believe this. You and I know very well that we can check the archives and find a myriad of posts in which you have responded to my commentary. This contradicts your suggestion of non-chalance.

If you want interesting dalliances, go to a fucking chit chat board.

Lets not kid ourselves, that is what this is.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 02:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:33 AM
You are saying that we are brainwashed and we don't know whats going on around us, but look at you, your as worse as any commie. I think that you need to start educating yourself about the history of this world, and realize that your nice little country has done many evil things, that lives up to Nazi Germany. Be independent, be a person, be a individual, don't be a clone of the system.
It is a tired, cliche, and inaccurate argument that just because I don't agree with your point of view that I am somehow "brainwashed". Anyone can say that about anyone who doesn't agree with them. It doesn't mean anything.

And now you are saying that the US trumps Nazi germany in atrocities? Come on!

Hey, I'll admit, the building of Fortress America took some sacrifices, empire building always does. However, to say that our callteral damage and other incidentals were worse than the purposeful killing done by the Nazis is just ludicrous.

La_revolucion_Vive

2nd December 2005, 02:51

WOW that some amazing numbers Commies kill a lot huh.. now lets count the total death of Capitalist Govement..........u Dare? lets count the hiroshima vietnam German. their own americans on the civil war. the spanish.iraq. afganistan the mexican teh panama, the native americans, did you know that usa is the country with most military interventions .. now lets count the illegar assesination... lol u know this is arguement u not going to win all those posters are propaganda. and a really bad one take it someplace else now to finish you off ill leave you with a noble prize latin american writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez in a letter to bush

" Did you know that bwetten 1824 and 1944 your country made 73 invasions on AMNERICA LATINA? Those countries was : Puerto Rico, México, Nicaragua, Panamá, Haití, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, República Dominicana, Islas Vírgenes, El Salvador, Guatemala y Granada.

Since the beggining of the XX century in almost all the wars of the world your PENTAGONO participed. But the bombs always made explotion out of your territory with the exceptioon of peral harbor on 1941.

Whn you saw the horror of 9/11 did you think what the famers of VIETNAM FELT? In Mahattan the people scream on VIETNAM the people scream because of the NAPALM hurting their skin.

Your ships didn't left a bridge or factory with destroy on YUGOSLAVIA. In IRAK there was 500000 deads.

How many people died on places like Vietnam, Irak, Irán, Afganistán, Libia, Angola, Somalia, Congo, Nicaragua, República Dominicana, Camboya, Yugoslavia, Sudán, a list without end?

Tha funny part is that your goverments send tha Apocalipsis in the name of DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM. But you have to know that to a lot of people in this world ( where every day 24000 die because of the hangry and curable dises) UNITED STATE does not represent FREEDOM, they are just a far and horrible enemy who is just putting WAR, HUNGER, FEAR AND DESTRUCTION."

Red Leader

2nd December 2005, 03:16

QUOTE]The most average american is much better off than the average canadian overall, as most americans do have some health coverage. Health coverage is not the hallmark of "doing well". It is one minor point. Canada has universal health care, but the quality falls short of american medicine. In most measures, the US easily surpasses canada, which is why canadians maintain such an inferiority complex against a real nation like the US.[/QUOTE]

I believe this is exactly what you said, CI. Do you read what you type? You believe that the USA is far more superior than canada in that it provides some citizens with health care, while canada only provides everyone with health care, but is superior because the "quality" of canadian medicine falls short of american medicine. What do you think we use? Whale blubber? Most of the medicine and technology we use comes from you guys. And canada has plenty of research institutes and have come up with a respectable amount of medical innovations. Feel free to do some homework of your own.

And by the way, you call me an idiot for requesting some back up from your statistics. Who is the real idiot? One that has been told by his government about the evils of communism and that it has resulted in the deaths of billions and believed it with no real proof? Or the man who knows how to think for himself and demands real evidence of such devastation. No, we dont all "know its true" because you cant back it up. The only reason you think it is true is because you have been told it is. Now you are pathetically trying to persuad others. Many have stated same or worse death tolls that make capitalism look equally as terrifying. Therefore the two have in a sense cancelled each other out and it would be useless trying to continue to persuad people about the billions that have died under communism.

ReD_ReBeL

2nd December 2005, 03:21

well said Red Leader, anyway these people blame it on 'Communism' but an ideology cannot kill a man, only man can kill man, for example wen Stalin executed all thm ppl tht wasnt communism executing thm , that was Stalin ordering thm to be executed etc u get the drift folks

Amusing Scrotum

2nd December 2005, 03:28

I was only counting American and British deaths. The rest don't count.

They died, so therefore they should be part of the death list.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure British deaths reached the million mark, and also you forgot about French, Belgian, Russian etc. deaths.

They were all countries involved with the allied forces.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that it is tough to pinpoint the exact number of deaths and the hand of communism, due to the heavily censored and secret nature of communist regimes.

Was Hitler or Franco's regime any less secret? ....no. They are hard to find because either they were poorly documented (don't forget all of Russia's files were opened up) or not as many people died as previously estimated.

However, it is pretty safe to conclude that tens of millions were killed as a direct result of communism, and based on communist cover-ups and non-disclosure, and the utter murderous nature of communist philosophy, I think the figure would end up being more than 100 million if anything.

It is "pretty safe to conclude" without credible evidence? :lol:

I have seen a few very good well researched pieces on this. With specific, dates times etc. and these pieces estimated the number of dead directly caused by the all the "Communist" governments to be from 5 to 25 million.

Even then, someone could call into question what was considered direct government question.

By contrast, certain gadfly's ill-advised and non-sensical attempts to cite capitalism as reason for "millions of deaths" is fuzzy logic at best. Any weak relationship drawn may be indirect in a select few cases at best. It is just a pathetic attempt to paint capitalism to be as murderous and oppressive as communism, which history shows is not the case. They are merely attempting to justify their own ideology by subscribing to myths about how much influence capitalism has on the safety and lives of individuals.

An economic system can only be considered oppressive and murderous if one were to make a moral judgement on that economic system.

Therefore an economic system itself cannot kill anything, but a government and country using that economic system certainly can kill people. And considering just how many countries hold up Capitalism as their economic system and have a Capitalist economy. It is safe to say Capitalist governments have killed more than Communist ones.

And now you are saying that the US trumps Nazi germany in atrocities? Come on!

Nazi killings = 11 million.

American killings = more.

Vietnam - between 2 and 5 million, Cambodia - 1.5 million, Nicaragua - 1 million, Indonesia - 1 million. They are the numbers I can think of off the top of my head, but you would still have Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Colombia, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Haiti, Grenada, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, and Korea.

That's bound to be more deaths in total than the 11 million killed by the Nazi's.

Leif

2nd December 2005, 03:29

As for those who have been here arguing, good for you.

With our failing morals, our failing economy, and our failing imperialism in Iraq, I think the bourgeoisie American 'democracy' isn't doing to well.

We're refuting this capitalist puke rather well.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 03:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:40 AM
As for those who have been here arguing, good for you.

With our failing morals, our failing economy, and our failing imperialism in Iraq, I think the bourgeoisie American 'democracy' isn't doing to well.

We're refuting this capitalist puke rather well.
I'm not sure what you mean about failing morals, or the effort in Iraq, as it is certainly not failing. No one really knows how Iraq is going to play out yet. I think it will ultimately be a success.

The economy? Where have you been? All of the leading economic indicators point to a strengthening economy, and gross GDP is even higher than expected. The dow is 11,000+. The ecomnomy is fine, dude. Get your head out of your ass.

You really don't know what you are talking about. The only thing being refuted is you. You are absolutely wroong about the economy. Honestly, ewhere have you been? If you dislike it here so much, then why are you here? Because you are not the real-deal. You are playing armchair revolutionary from your parent's computer, and when you realise what life is about you will come to appreciayte this great nation.

La_revolucion_Vive

2nd December 2005, 03:57

guys i think the capitalist imperialist guys its a Fake.
he just come to socialist comunist forum to to spark attention a built his

records on the site. i mean . can u be that ignorant that would call

yourself a imperialist????????? when the USA has denied it for so long.

and that is the arguement of the socialist party that USA is a imperialist

goverment. so if you belive in the Capitalist, why u call your self an imperialist?
dont make sence what make sences is you know that name will spark fury from all of us socialist.
thats why you post here. what ?you thou that a stupid chart, made by who knows Who going to change a life time of suffering of the poor and experience lived by many of our comrades here.
YOU WILL NEVER KNOW HOW EVIL IMPERIALIMS IS UNTIL YOU LIVE OUTSIDE THE CRADLE OF EVIL................

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

2nd December 2005, 04:40

And you continue to respond to it. I don't really expect to change any minds here, I think that if you truly believe that communism is the best ideology in the world, and that capitalism hasn't been a positive force for world economics and progress, then you have little capacity for critical thinking or analysis. I just want to be the one to say "I told you so" when you grow up and learn how the world works.

I suppose it was optimistic of me to try and get an admission of trolling off of you, so I'm going to give you the unvarnished truth; I think you're a troll, and I think you fully understand that's what you're doing. Of course you're going to deny this, as an admission would mean you would no longer be able to bait us for your personal amusement, so I'm going to do an informal poll:

Anyone who thinks Capitalist Imperial is a worthless trolling palmfucker please say so. Thank you.

Xvall

2nd December 2005, 05:13

I think so.

Master Che

2nd December 2005, 05:28

Yes he is a troll.

poetofrageX

2nd December 2005, 05:36

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 2 2005, 03:39 AM

And now you are saying that the US trumps Nazi germany in atrocities? Come on!

Nazi killings = 11 million.

American killings = more.

Vietnam - between 2 and 5 million, Cambodia - 1.5 million, Nicaragua - 1 million, Indonesia - 1 million. They are the numbers I can think of off the top of my head, but you would still have Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Colombia, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Haiti, Grenada, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, and Korea.

That's bound to be more deaths in total than the 11 million killed by the Nazi's.
I want to here Capitalists Imperial's response to this, if he has any, cause he's pretty much ignored it.

oh and btw, it think so, too.

Wanted Man

2nd December 2005, 06:46

He has shown that he only chooses to respond to the worst arguments against him. Obvious troll.

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

2nd December 2005, 10:11

Capitalists have a way of blaming Communists for anything they can. I was reading an article a while ago that had an extremely harsh criticism of Mao's failure to control the population growth of China because the life expectancy grew so fast while he was in power. WTF?!?!?!?

Capitalist Imperial, in a few of your last posts you've mentioned, in some way or another, "Capitalism is better than Communism, history shows this". I'm curious as to what history you are reading and if you wouldn't mind sharing that with us and what, by your standards, is considered successful? Mass starvation and malnutrition in Africa because of colonialism and globalization? Abject poverty in Latin America? Perhaps you might consider the United States as a great example of Capitalist success, but at what expense? There is a saying that goes something like "a nation should not be judged on how it treats the elite of its citizens, but on how it treats the least of them", and I feel that this needs to be applied to political systems as well. When Capitalism is analyzed, I feel that it tells a much more revealing story when we look at the devastating effects of things such as water privatization by foreign corporations in Africa (which is a huge problem right now) than when we look at the rising GDP in the USA, because the rise in GDP is, in most circumstances, directly correlated to this water privatization.

I think that it is also important to note the size of countries such as China when these things occurred. Let's say 40 million people died unneccessarily during Mao's years. I think this is a ridiculous overestimation, but nonetheless. In a nation that, in 1965, had a population of I believe around 650 million people, that accounts for about 6% of the population. Considering most of those were because of a famine that the Communists were NOT responsible for, that leaves us with quite a different picture. Still, obviously not acceptable, but this would be a comparable percentage to what United States intervention did in the Salvadorean Civil War.

Hegemonicretribution

2nd December 2005, 12:40

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 30 2005, 08:58 PM
It appears that this response had less to do with your perception of my intellect and more to do with your frustration over the utter truths esposed in these advisements.
I cannot be bothered wasting my time reading this whole thread so I will first give a standard, obligatory response to something that you knew would instigate it.

Argue semantics until you are blue in the face, but when you say copmmunist it has no bearing on when a communist says it., other than the vibrations that create the sound.

There is no resopnse here, it is not a post of any relevance whatsoever, and cannot be adequately discussed when opposing sides (regardless of ideas they oppose) hold virtually inverse properties for the same term.

Imagine that you had learned to take the term black for what everyone else terms white and vice versa. If all other powers of reasoning were in tact, even if they were superior to your adversories, you cannot win. You may describe something using the term black, but the meaning you imply is lost on the person you communicate it to.

There can only be a few interpretations of your argument, viewed from a more holistic perspective: Perhaps you cannot get past what you hold for the term "communism" and therefore are not compatible for discussion with people that hold a different property for this term. For you to ever adequately discuss this ideology with any relevance you would have to escape this, or leftists abandon this term.

It is conceivable that you are at least aware that this is the case, but actually post this, with no interest in actually learning or debating, rather to evoke the same responses from those you perceive as opponents. You satisfy your own end, and reconvince yourself of the absolute truth of your oppinion, because you are presented with poor renderings of a response to any particular comment. The member may be new, or just not very good, or perhaps they repeat rhetoric they have learned is appropriate in these situations, without understanding it, or being able to back it up. At the base level though it is these responses that you may well crave. This fuels your belief, and gives you kicks, at least according to this theory.

There are other possible interpretations of your approach, but from my time here I would deduce that the aforementioned two are the most likely. If the latter is the case, I ask you why bother? Apart from kicks and the reinforcing a belief, what is the point? You will not influence others because of the irrelevancy of your "points."

Talk about property rights, talk about application, talk about morality...don't talk about something that calls itself "communist" You accept that they aren't democracies just because they call themselves it, so why can't you accept the same is true of communism? The term was only bastardised...oh fuck it you get the point.

I only wasted my time with this length of reply, because to be honest, I am hungover and this narks me. I, and others have posted on what communism and Marxism are axctually about, to avoid the repitive and unproductive nature of the posts. Number of right-winger responses....0. Suprise? Not really, suggest that actually talking about the same thing as every one else does not even feature on their agenda? Yes.

Invader Zim

2nd December 2005, 14:02

Who are the ones who carrying the cures for these diseases? Who developed them and in what kinds of countries?

I hate to be the voice of reason, however if these people are dying they are not being cured are they!?

Logic is one of the great human attributes, it is wise investing some logic into your statements or risk ridicule.

I was only counting American and British deaths. The rest don't count.

Why is that, exactly?

Was the Russia and Chinese death tolls suffered, which incidentally is the primary reason WW2 resulted in allied victory, unimportant? Historically, I am forced to disagree with you; I think the evidence would suggest they were of huge importance. But even so the combined deaths of Britain, America and French troop, numbered well over a million.* Over 50 million people died as a direct result of WW2, which was a "capitalist" war in its origins.

* Stats French Deaths = 600,000
British Deaths = 650,000
USA = 300,000
Source (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm)

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 19:59

I suppose it was optimistic of me to try and get an admission of trolling off of you, so I'm going to give you the unvarnished truth; I think you're a troll, and I think you fully understand that's what you're doing. Of course you're going to deny this, as an admission would mean you would no longer be able to bait us for your personal amusement

Nice try, NoXion, but the arcives here have too many comprehensive posts and debates that demonstrate that I do not fit your wholesale definition of "troll".

The facts are against you, my friend. There is no denial needed, because your claim was unsubstantiated in the 1st place.

so I'm going to do an informal poll:

Anyone who thinks Capitalist Imperial is a worthless trolling palmfucker please say so. Thank you.

LOL, get serious. Of course the radical leftist gadflies who hate and resent the truths and realities that I espouse are going to agree with you. They hate me, as I embody everything that they oppose, such as individual determination, success, and self relaince. They are willing to settle for mass mediocrity, an oppresive state, weak economics, and a severe lack of liberty.

I am not.

In America, if you put in the work, you will be successful. Most American (and western) communists are merely disenchanted because they were too weak or stupid to compete in capitalism, which is really sad, because it simply takes work and individual determination to realize success. Anyone can make a good life for themselves with capitalism, but it does not reward those who want to sit on their ass, make excuses for their failures, and live a state-sponsored existence.

bcbm

2nd December 2005, 20:15

In America, if you put in the work, you will be successful.

Unless your job is moved overseas. Or there are no jobs in your area and no access to jobs in other areas. Or you have to raise a family on minimum wage jobs. Etc.

Red Leader

2nd December 2005, 20:29

In America, if you put in the work, you will be successful. Most American (and western) communists are merely disenchanted because they were too weak or stupid to compete in capitalism, which is really sad, because it simply takes work and individual determination to realize success. Anyone can make a good life for themselves with capitalism, but it does not reward those who want to sit on their ass, make excuses for their failures, and live a state-sponsored existence.

So if it doesn't reward lazy asses, then how do you explain people like celebraties, hiers to big companies, kids with rich parents etc. Get over the notion that communism equals lazyness. And respond to some bloody posts for god's sake!

Socialistpenguin

2nd December 2005, 20:33

LOL, get serious. Of course the radical leftist gadflies who hate and resent the truths and realities that I espouse are going to agree with you. They hate me, as I embody everything that they oppose, such as individual determination, success, and self relaince. They are willing to settle for mass mediocrity, an oppresive state, wek economics, and a severe lack of liberty.

Are you in anyway, shape, or form, related to that Theodore guy that got banned from here some time ago? You both have a similar style of writing, e.g. "w00t! I r teh gr33test in teh universezzz111oneelole11. teh commies r teh suX0rzzzzon11eeon1".
In any case, please, SHUT UP. I thought Stalinists had a cult of personality : YOU, however, take the biscuit barrel. Your ill-founded self-demagoguery is most nauseating and laughable at best. Your whole arguement is ill-founded. For example, you say that communism==oppressive state. If you had bothered to do some research on the subject instead of just blindly pulling off any bloated and exaggerated piece of propaganda that said "OMG! TEH COMMUNISTS R TEH SUXOREZ11ONE", you would learn that communism== no state. Therefore, is it not reasonable to say, the the regimes in China, the USSR, etc. were not communist? Indeed, the USSR stands for "Union of Soviet (deformed) Socialist Republics".

In America, if you put in the work, you will be successful. HA! and HA! again. Your proof?

Most American (and western) communists are merely disenchanted because they were too weak or stupid to compete in capitalism, which is really sad, because it simply takes work and individual determination to realize success
ROFL. Indeed. And how MUCH work does it take? How MUCH "individual determinated" does it take to be a hot-shot capitalist? Funny, you preach "individuality", yet most working people in business are sat behind cubicles, that look exactly the same as each other

Anyone can make a good life for themselves with capitalism, but it does not reward those who want to sit on their ass, make excuses for their failures, and live a state-sponsored existence.
mmhmm. Tell me, what colour is the sky in your fantasy world? What of the poor shmucks who are made redundant because their company goes bankrupt, although the owners of said company sold their shares before it went out of business, and thus, made millions at the expense of the workforce. What of those who can't afford a decent education or health service? Are they "too stupid" or "too weak" to work well in capitalism? It's not the system's fault, it's the people who don't work for the system <_< Hope you choke on a fistull of dollars.
Kind regards,
Socialistpenguin

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

2nd December 2005, 20:34

Nice try, NoXion, but the arcives here have too many comprehensive posts and debates that demonstrate that I do not fit your wholesale definition of "troll".

The facts are against you, my friend. There is no denial needed, because your claim was unsubstantiated in the 1st place.

A typical denial by a typical troll.

LOL, get serious. Of course the radical leftist gadflies who hate and resent the truths and realities that I espouse are going to agree with you. They hate me, as I embody everything that they oppose, such as individual determination, success, and self relaince. They are willing to settle for mass mediocrity, an oppresive state, wek economics, and a severe lack of liberty.

I am not.

It must be nice having no connection whatsoever to reality.

In America, if you put in the work, you will be successful. Most American (and western) communists are merely disenchanted because they were too weak or stupid to compete in capitalism, which is really sad, because it simply takes work and individual determination to realize success. Anyone can make a good life for themselves with capitalism, but it does not reward those who want to sit on their ass, make excuses for their failures, and live a state-sponsored existence.

You actually believe that American Dream horseshit. I would think all of those people whose jobs got outsourced into third world countries or who had the companies they work for come tumbling down would disagree with you. As well as the immigrants and the people stuck in dead end towns.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 20:35

Originally posted by poetofrageX+Dec 2 2005, 05:47 AM--> (poetofrageX @ Dec 2 2005, 05:47 AM)
Armchair [email protected] 2 2005, 03:39 AM

And now you are saying that the US trumps Nazi germany in atrocities? Come on!

Nazi killings = 11 million.

American killings = more.

Vietnam - between 2 and 5 million, Cambodia - 1.5 million, Nicaragua - 1 million, Indonesia - 1 million. They are the numbers I can think of off the top of my head, but you would still have Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Colombia, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Haiti, Grenada, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, and Korea.

That's bound to be more deaths in total than the 11 million killed by the Nazi's.
I want to here Capitalists Imperial's response to this, if he has any, cause he's pretty much ignored it.

oh and btw, it think so, too. [/b]
LOL, I didn't really think that I would have to explain this, but again, I overestimate the critical thinking skills of the left.

The difference is that the Nazis pretty much committed genocide and wholesale executions (as stalin often did). He herded jews, gypsies, and other "undesireables" together, stripped them of all possessions, and killed them in large masses.

Every example you bring up for the United States refers to wars and poice actions, where we were fighting and armed enemy over political objectives, an enemy who was often the aggressor or otherwise, through their actions, necessitated a US response in their respective regions. However, I cannot think of a time in the 20th century in which the US simply herded any group together and simply executed them.

That is the difference. Honestly, I can't believe that you had to have this analysis spoon fed to you.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 20:38

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 2 2005, 08:26 PM

In America, if you put in the work, you will be successful.

Unless your job is moved overseas. Or there are no jobs in your area and no access to jobs in other areas. Or you have to raise a family on minimum wage jobs. Etc.

"No access to jobs"? What are you taling about? What area would you live in where there would be "no jobs"?
No access to jobs"? What are you taling about? What area would you live in where there would be "no jobs"?

If you can only qualify for minimum wage, then that is a reflection of how you lived your life, particularly in your formative years, school years, and young adulthood. It is not a fault of capitalism.

tunes

2nd December 2005, 20:46

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 12:46 PM
However, I cannot think of a time in the 20th century in which the US simply herded any group together and simply executed them.

My Lai ring a bell?

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 21:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:45 PM

You actually believe that American Dream horseshit.

There is no belief or non-belief about it. I am living it, sir.

I would think all of those people whose jobs got outsourced into third world countries or who had the companies they work for come tumbling down would disagree with you.

Actually, most of them probably already have another job. Jobs are easy to come by in America. Denial of this fact is simple defeatist thinking. You simply don't want it to be true because it refutes your idea that jobs exist in a vaccum.

As well as the immigrants and the people stuck in dead end towns.

Immigrants typically do very well. That is why the US is easily #1 in the world in immigration, what are you talking about? If immigrants were actually disenfranchised, they wouldn't come in droves and risk their lives to come to this nation every day. Immigrants love this nation, and actually have a better record of success than many citizens born here. You simpoly don't know what you are talking about. Why do you shoot yourself in the foot like this?

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 21:45

Originally posted by tunes+Dec 2 2005, 08:57 PM--> (tunes @ Dec 2 2005, 08:57 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 12:46 PM
However, I cannot think of a time in the 20th century in which the US simply herded any group together and simply executed them.

My Lai ring a bell? [/b]
My Lai was a free fire zone as it was a viet-cong stronghold. Those villagers were insurgents.

Andy Bowden

2nd December 2005, 21:47

Each and every single one of them?

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 21:51

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 2 2005, 09:58 PM
Each and every single one of them?
I never denied collateral damage and incidentals occur, so, likely not every single one. However, I'm pretty confident that they were at least sympathisers aiding and abetting the enemy.

However, this is still not on par with genocide of the Nazis, which is what I was responding too (see previous post).

Red Leader

2nd December 2005, 22:12

Immigrants typically do very well. That is why the US is easily #1 in the world in immigration, what are you talking about? If immigrants were actually disenfranchised, they wouldn't come in droves and risk their lives to come to this nation every day. Immigrants love this nation, and actually have a better record of success than many citizens born here. You simpoly don't know what you are talking about. Why do you shoot yourself in the foot like this?

Immigrants only "love" the USA because they are brainwashed into believing that it is the 'land of freedom and oppurtunity" when it is clear that the USA is not the world's best place to live. According to the UN, the best country to live in is Norway, followed by Sweden, Canada, Belgium, Australia, and then the USA. How can you claim that most immagrints are more sucsesful than native born canadians? Please provide the source you got this claim from.

And by the way, you still havn't explained how the american system doesn't reward those who dont work when there are obviously scumbags who do dick all ut are millionares.

Red Leader

2nd December 2005, 22:19

Oh yes, how rude of me. Turns out the USA is not #1 in immigration when it comes to new citizens per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/imm_new_cit_cap

FleasTheLemur

2nd December 2005, 22:22

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 08:10 PM

In America, if you put in the work, you will be successful. Most American (and western) communists are merely disenchanted because they were too weak or stupid to compete in capitalism, which is really sad, because it simply takes work and individual determination to realize success. Anyone can make a good life for themselves with capitalism, but it does not reward those who want to sit on their ass, make excuses for their failures, and live a state-sponsored existence.

My father worked hard as a CNA for most my life. His job as a nurse's assistant would include such glorious tasks as cleaning fecal matter, subduing insane patience in a non-lethal way (so they don't get sued), changing diapersm changing the bandaids on horrible gashes and feeding said patiences. He worked hard (he almost had to. One slip up considered insignifigent by you or I could result in a lawsuit) and was barely payed above min. wage. When he came home, he had a number of bills to pay, a well that would only pump undrinkable 'red' water, and the lack of an traditional indoor commode (when I hit the 13 mark, I would carry this a cement sized bucket full of shit to the outhouse). For a number of years there was no wall between my parents room and the bathroom (which double doubled as the hall to the parents bed room.), no wall between the two bedrooms and just a curtain for a door on the bathroom. Any money we would accummulate would either go to Christmas, a part for our car that was bound to break down or to a new used car that would break down just before Tax time.

My father would eventually come up with an idea for an invention.. A small box that would keep devices from being unplugged. He sent it in to a patient submission corporation and hoped that they would help. They told them he would have to pay a patient fee. He couldn't afford it. This invention corporation slightly modifed the product and is now making thousands. He hasn't seen one cent.

When my parents got devorced, mom would quickly took the role of provider for the family. She ended up working the same kind of job as my father and earning the same kind of money.

I live in the United States of America.

Capitalism doesn't reward the merits of hard work.

ComTom

2nd December 2005, 22:25

Does the genocide of Native Americans ring a bell?

Comrade Hector

2nd December 2005, 22:56

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 30 2005, 08:34 PM
http://www.yaf.org/press/che.gif

http://www.yaf.org/press/poster1.jpg

http://www.yaf.org/press/poster2.jpg

http://www.yaf.org/press/poster3.jpg
Poster 1: Reagan freed people? This is a joke, right? Go to Eastern Europe, boy! Reagan is not very loved over there. I think the fact that Gorbachev capitulated for the purpose of wanting to be Reagan's friend, and the implementation of capitalism in the USSR had something to due with the events of 1989.

Poster 2: Che Guevara. Of course no word on what he fought against. The whole 100,000,000 deaths as has been stated time and time again, where others have proven this to be propaganda. Of course there is no mention of the dictators the USA supported throughout Asia, Latin America, Europe, and Africa where if tallied up would equal more than 100,000,000 deaths. There genocide was Made in America.

Poster 3: Destroying the Berlin Wall. Of course the US only focused on the romantic side of it. But there was no mention of the jobs the disappeared in the whole of Germany. How the capitalist failure fueled neo-nazi terror against Turks, and even more ironic Western Germans were telling Eastern Germans to go back to their part of the country and stop taking jobs. The wall came down, but another went up.

Poster 4: The tally scores. Again this goes back to the exaggerated numbers to promote western propaganda. 90% of the killing in Latin America was conducted by pro-US Death Squads, and dictators. Cambodia shouldn't even be on there due to the fact that Pol Pot was a pro-American tyrant. Afghanistan? they must be talking about the crimes of their "democratic" Taliban regime. Vietnam? 3 million killed by US forces, and another 2 million in Laos and Cambodia by US bombs. China, North Korea, USSR, and Eastern Europe? Fascists and US backed dissidents, you can't really blame them. Can anyone provide more accurate tallies than the Black Book of Communism, or Reaganite propaganda?

Poster 5: Consumer goods? Nobody starved in Eastern Europe. Things were rationed, due to Soviet climate and of course Khrushchevite reformism. But lets just say they did starve, capitalism sure hasn't done any better for them.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 23:17

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2005, 10:23 PM

And by the way, you still havn't explained how the american system doesn't reward those who dont work when there are obviously scumbags who do dick all ut are millionares.

Immigrants only "love" the USA because they are brainwashed into believing that it is the 'land of freedom and oppurtunity" when it is clear that the USA is not the world's best place to live

LOL, yeah, thats it. Then why do they stay?

According to the UN, the best country to live in is Norway, followed by Sweden, Canada, Belgium, Australia, and then the USA.

Do you really think that I care about the UN's assessments? They are a useless and spineless body.

How can you claim that most immagrints are more sucsesful than native born canadians?

I was talking about America, not Canada

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 23:18

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2005, 10:30 PM
Oh yes, how rude of me. Turns out the USA is not #1 in immigration when it comes to new citizens per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/imm_new_cit_cap
Of course Canada is larger per capita, you have a very small population, same as the other nations on the list.

America has more, period.

ComTom

2nd December 2005, 23:24

The UNs a spineless, useless, body? Obviously you are a force of evil because the UN stands for everything good in this world. Even though it is a borgeoisis establishment, the UN supports peace in this world, there the biggest pro-peace governing body in the world in my opinion. This shows how ignorant you are, you don't belong here, you have no moral principles for people.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 23:38

Originally posted by FleasTheLemur+Dec 2 2005, 10:33 PM--> (FleasTheLemur @ Dec 2 2005, 10:33 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 08:10 PM

In America, if you put in the work, you will be successful. Most American (and western) communists are merely disenchanted because they were too weak or stupid to compete in capitalism, which is really sad, because it simply takes work and individual determination to realize success. Anyone can make a good life for themselves with capitalism, but it does not reward those who want to sit on their ass, make excuses for their failures, and live a state-sponsored existence.

My father worked hard as a CNA for most my life. His job as a nurse's assistant would include such glorious tasks as cleaning fecal matter, subduing insane patience in a non-lethal way (so they don't get sued), changing diapersm changing the bandaids on horrible gashes and feeding said patiences. He worked hard (he almost had to. One slip up considered insignifigent by you or I could result in a lawsuit) and was barely payed above min. wage. When he came home, he had a number of bills to pay, a well that would only pump undrinkable 'red' water, and the lack of an traditional indoor commode (when I hit the 13 mark, I would carry this a cement sized bucket full of shit to the outhouse). For a number of years there was no wall between my parents room and the bathroom (which double doubled as the hall to the parents bed room.), no wall between the two bedrooms and just a curtain for a door on the bathroom. Any money we would accummulate would either go to Christmas, a part for our car that was bound to break down or to a new used car that would break down just before Tax time.

My father would eventually come up with an idea for an invention.. A small box that would keep devices from being unplugged. He sent it in to a patient submission corporation and hoped that they would help. They told them he would have to pay a patient fee. He couldn't afford it. This invention corporation slightly modifed the product and is now making thousands. He hasn't seen one cent.

When my parents got devorced, mom would quickly took the role of provider for the family. She ended up working the same kind of job as my father and earning the same kind of money.

I live in the United States of America.

Capitalism doesn't reward the merits of hard work. [/b]
Sounds like a hard-luck story emphasizing fault-finding and complaining and lacking self determination.

You can't convince me that capitalism does not reward hard work, because I am living proof that it does

Red Leader

2nd December 2005, 23:41

How can you claim that most immagrints are more sucsesful than native born canadians?

I was talking about America, not Canada

Sorry, that was my fault, that was just a typo. I obviously meant to say native born americans in that statement. Apologies.

LOL, yeah, thats it. Then why do they stay?

Where else are they going to go once they are already there? It isn't like immigration is free. <_<

Do you really think that I care about the UN's assessments? They are a useless and spineless body

Typical reactionary statement. So basically any back up that is provided for a point will automatically be disregarded by you unless the institution that it was taken from meets your standards? You have yet to produce a single bit of evidence backing your claims, but when (if?) you do i will be sure NOT to assume where you took it from is illegit.

And I would appreciate it if the whole canada/usa mini debate nonsesense ended in this thread and we continue on the initial topic. (That wasn't a direct attack on you btw, I am just requesting we both stop bickering about the two countries)

Now, as for the real debate, as i have previously requested, explain how in the USA you only get rewarded if you work hard, when rich snobs like paris hilton get rewarded for being cum guzzling sluts.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 23:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:36 PM
Does the genocide of Native Americans ring a bell?
They were killed because they resisted manifest destiny. Besides, they were killing each other when we got here. We didn't bring anything new to the table.

Red Leader

2nd December 2005, 23:51

They were killed because they resisted manifest destiny. Besides, they were killing each other when we got here. We didn't bring anything new to the table.

Bullshit Hypothetical situation of the top of my head:

You live in an apartment with your family. Your parents often fight. You often fight with them. The fights get pretty nasty, sometimes physical. A new family moves in next door. They can hear the bickering through the walls. The new family decides to tear down the wall between the two apartments, stab every one of your family members, leave them to bleed and live in both apartments. Your family resits, but the newer one is too strong and ends up victorious. 'Well that certainly shut them up', the new family thinks, 'and hey, they resisted'.

Honostly, dude, you need a real set of moral values, not the bullshit that your government teaches you.

Capitalist Imperial

2nd December 2005, 23:53

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2005, 11:52 PM

Now, as for the real debate, as i have previously requested, explain how in the USA you only get rewarded if you work hard, when rich snobs like paris hilton get rewarded for being cum guzzling sluts.
I don't like Paris Hilton any more than you. Trust-Fund Babies don't get my respect, but they are relatively few compared to most people.

I will say, though, that her grandparents and parents, who made the fortune, have the right to do with their money what they choose, and it is not for you or the state to decide where it goes.

Ownthink

2nd December 2005, 23:55

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 2 2005, 06:52 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 2 2005, 06:52 PM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 10:36 PM
Does the genocide of Native Americans ring a bell?
They were killed because they resisted manifest destiny. Besides, they were killing each other when we got here. We didn't bring anything new to the table. [/b]
Manifest Destiny: The doctrine of thought that God himself had destined the Americans to be the controllers of the Western Hemisphere.

Yes, they fucking resisted it you moron! Why wouldn't they? These strange foreigners with their strange God came along and started KILLING these people who had lived there for thousands of years!

Master Che

3rd December 2005, 00:02

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 2 2005, 11:49 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 2 2005, 11:49 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:33 PM

Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 08:10 PM

In America, if you put in the work, you will be successful. Most American (and western) communists are merely disenchanted because they were too weak or stupid to compete in capitalism, which is really sad, because it simply takes work and individual determination to realize success. Anyone can make a good life for themselves with capitalism, but it does not reward those who want to sit on their ass, make excuses for their failures, and live a state-sponsored existence.

My father worked hard as a CNA for most my life. His job as a nurse's assistant would include such glorious tasks as cleaning fecal matter, subduing insane patience in a non-lethal way (so they don't get sued), changing diapersm changing the bandaids on horrible gashes and feeding said patiences. He worked hard (he almost had to. One slip up considered insignifigent by you or I could result in a lawsuit) and was barely payed above min. wage. When he came home, he had a number of bills to pay, a well that would only pump undrinkable 'red' water, and the lack of an traditional indoor commode (when I hit the 13 mark, I would carry this a cement sized bucket full of shit to the outhouse). For a number of years there was no wall between my parents room and the bathroom (which double doubled as the hall to the parents bed room.), no wall between the two bedrooms and just a curtain for a door on the bathroom. Any money we would accummulate would either go to Christmas, a part for our car that was bound to break down or to a new used car that would break down just before Tax time.

My father would eventually come up with an idea for an invention.. A small box that would keep devices from being unplugged. He sent it in to a patient submission corporation and hoped that they would help. They told them he would have to pay a patient fee. He couldn't afford it. This invention corporation slightly modifed the product and is now making thousands. He hasn't seen one cent.

When my parents got devorced, mom would quickly took the role of provider for the family. She ended up working the same kind of job as my father and earning the same kind of money.

I live in the United States of America.

Capitalism doesn't reward the merits of hard work.
Sounds like a hard-luck story emphasizing fault-finding and complaining and lacking self determination.

You can't convince me that capitalism does not reward hard work, because I am living proof that it does [/b]
Oh it is? My parents worked their asses off 7 days a week just to have basic's. They still couldent afford schooling for me, so we had to eat ONCE a day just so they can afford to send me to school. 3 years later school became more expensive and they couldent afford school for me anymore. And since my country doesnt provide welfare or any goddamn help i didnt have school between the ages of 9-11. I during that time i stole just so i could at least help my parents and feed myself, ANYTHING was ok as long as it was eatible. You are a bastard in my opinion for thinking this way. I wish you would go through what i've gone through, lets see how much you'll love capitalism then you dick.

poetofrageX

3rd December 2005, 00:06

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 11:52 PM
They were killed because they resisted manifest destiny. Besides, they were killing each other when we got here. We didn't bring anything new to the table.
I know someone already respinded to this dumbass statement, but i feel i have to, too, just cause it's sooooooo stupid. Wouldn't you resist manifest destiny if you were an indian? Wouldn't you resist if someone came to your house, and with no justification whatsoever, claimed that it was his house, and that you had to leave or be killed? What do u think the indians should have done, moved west until they were forced to swim in the Pacific Ocean? Manifest Destiny was a romantic name for genocide, plain and simple. What justification did America have to take that land? Oh, lemme guess what your gonna say, "They were white and wore pants!" Are you gonna try to justify black slavery next? What an idiot.

Master Che

3rd December 2005, 00:08

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 2 2005, 11:52 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 2 2005, 11:52 PM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 10:36 PM
Does the genocide of Native Americans ring a bell?
They were killed because they resisted manifest destiny. Besides, they were killing each other when we got here. We didn't bring anything new to the table. [/b]
Someone please ban this fucker.

white-dragon

3rd December 2005, 00:09

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 2 2005, 11:49 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 2 2005, 11:49 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:33 PM

Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 08:10 PM

In America, if you put in the work, you will be successful. Most American (and western) communists are merely disenchanted because they were too weak or stupid to compete in capitalism, which is really sad, because it simply takes work and individual determination to realize success. Anyone can make a good life for themselves with capitalism, but it does not reward those who want to sit on their ass, make excuses for their failures, and live a state-sponsored existence.

My father worked hard as a CNA for most my life. His job as a nurse's assistant would include such glorious tasks as cleaning fecal matter, subduing insane patience in a non-lethal way (so they don't get sued), changing diapersm changing the bandaids on horrible gashes and feeding said patiences. He worked hard (he almost had to. One slip up considered insignifigent by you or I could result in a lawsuit) and was barely payed above min. wage. When he came home, he had a number of bills to pay, a well that would only pump undrinkable 'red' water, and the lack of an traditional indoor commode (when I hit the 13 mark, I would carry this a cement sized bucket full of shit to the outhouse). For a number of years there was no wall between my parents room and the bathroom (which double doubled as the hall to the parents bed room.), no wall between the two bedrooms and just a curtain for a door on the bathroom. Any money we would accummulate would either go to Christmas, a part for our car that was bound to break down or to a new used car that would break down just before Tax time.

My father would eventually come up with an idea for an invention.. A small box that would keep devices from being unplugged. He sent it in to a patient submission corporation and hoped that they would help. They told them he would have to pay a patient fee. He couldn't afford it. This invention corporation slightly modifed the product and is now making thousands. He hasn't seen one cent.

When my parents got devorced, mom would quickly took the role of provider for the family. She ended up working the same kind of job as my father and earning the same kind of money.

I live in the United States of America.

Capitalism doesn't reward the merits of hard work.
Sounds like a hard-luck story emphasizing fault-finding and complaining and lacking self determination.

You can't convince me that capitalism does not reward hard work, because I am living proof that it does [/b]
No, you got lucky Capitalism Imperial. The luck of the draw put you and your life situation in a place where your hard work could move you up. Fleas' father on the other hand was dealth a very different situation.

Self determination? You mean taking risks. Risks that many can not take because if they do, they starve or freeze to death or get sick. If you have parents or friends willing to bail you out if you're down on your luck, that's something. But if you're out alone in the world with no opportunity to build even that social network, taking risks could result in disaster. Thus the smart thing to do would be not to get up and move to Seatlle, and have the family live in the car that's about to break down again until you can find a better job there, but to instead try to make it with the jobs available where you live. And really, for far to many people, the jobs available where they live are crap at best. Abusive and exploitive at best.

I'm also intersted to know what your idea of 'hard work' is. Tell us, tell the people that you so advice the meaning of hard work and how you have apparantly done it to get to where you are in life!

Capitalist Imperial

3rd December 2005, 00:10

Everyone has a hard luck story, but little indication of what they did to pull themselves out of it.

Red Leader

3rd December 2005, 00:15

So what is yours? Are you going to tell us that you were born in the ghettos but rose upp thanks to the oppurtunities of capitalism and now your rich and that gives you the right to flaunt it in those who havnt yet learned how to "pull themselves out of it" like you have?

Yes, i too am intersted in your hard luck story, many have shared thiers
Go on, hop to it now.

poetofrageX

3rd December 2005, 00:16

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 08:46 PM
Every example you bring up for the United States refers to wars and poice actions, where we were fighting and armed enemy over political objectives, an enemy who was often the aggressor or otherwise, through their actions, necessitated a US response in their respective regions.
Were the Sandanistas attacking America? No, they were trying to liberate their nation from a brutal military dicator who was America's Nicaruaguan lapdog. So of course, America sent the contras after them. Did Jacob Arbenz of Guatemala try to attack America? No, all he did was try to feed his people. But America replaced him with a brutal militay dictator anyway. Did Allende attack the U.S., or the Congolese rebels? No, but America still felt the need to attack them, and install military dictators in their countries(Chile and Congo respectively), all because the opressive dictators would obey American economic policies without question.

But i suppose your the kind of asshole who belives that Latin America should remain America's bannana and sugar farm for eternity.

ComTom

3rd December 2005, 00:21

Obviously your idea of Manifest dynasty is massacre of many innocent American natives. I think thats wrong and I think thats evil, you have no morals.

Capitalist Imperial

3rd December 2005, 00:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:27 AM

But i suppose your the kind of asshole who belives that Latin America should remain America's bannana and sugar farm for eternity.
Well, yes, that would be ideal for the empire, and good for latin America.

Capitalist Imperial

3rd December 2005, 00:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:32 AM
Obviously your idea of Manifest dynasty is massacre of many innocent American natives. I think thats wrong and I think thats evil, you have no morals.
Morality is relative and subjective.

ComTom

3rd December 2005, 01:23

Haven't you heard of the massacre at Wounded Knee? Don't you ever start and think that this was the Indian's land and they were there before us Americans were? Did you ever start to think that this was greed that ran the manifest dynasty? Did you ever start a realize, that the settlers, and the american troops, forced Indians to adapt our customs, and stole the land from the Indians?

white-dragon

3rd December 2005, 02:40

Perhaps I should ask again... Capitalist Imperial, how would you define hard work, and how has your life been an example of hard work paying off in a capitalist system?

LA GUERRA OLVIDADA

3rd December 2005, 03:33

http://www.soviet-empire.com/images/propaganda/socialist_apology.jpg

poetofrageX

3rd December 2005, 04:28

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 3 2005, 12:59 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 3 2005, 12:59 AM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 12:27 AM

But i suppose your the kind of asshole who belives that Latin America should remain America's bannana and sugar farm for eternity.
Well, yes, that would be ideal for the empire, and good for latin America. [/b]
Wait a sec.....so you're saying it's good for Latin America to be in total economic servitude to the U.S.? It's good for Latin America to be in the hands of brutal, murderous military dictators? That all of the human suffering caused by American military intervention is South America is justifiable because of the extra money in the pockets of American business owners? That it's wrong for Latin America to industrialize and become economically independent? And that all of this is GOOD for Latin America? You are seriously delusional. The entire world isn't meant to be America's slave. Damn, do you lack all compassion for humankind. Do you believe that anyone who lives outside of the United States only exists for your exploitation? You're insane.

The Floyd

3rd December 2005, 04:31

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 2 2005, 11:28 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 2 2005, 11:28 PM)
Red [email protected] 2 2005, 10:23 PM

And by the way, you still havn't explained how the american system doesn't reward those who dont work when there are obviously scumbags who do dick all ut are millionares.

Immigrants only "love" the USA because they are brainwashed into believing that it is the 'land of freedom and oppurtunity" when it is clear that the USA is not the world's best place to live

LOL, yeah, thats it. Then why do they stay?

According to the UN, the best country to live in is Norway, followed by Sweden, Canada, Belgium, Australia, and then the USA.

Do you really think that I care about the UN's assessments? They are a useless and spineless body.

How can you claim that most immagrints are more sucsesful than native born canadians?

I was talking about America, not Canada [/b]
Everything about this post screams evasive...

Here's my two-cents on your nonsensical bullshit CI:

Immigrants typically do very well. That is why the US is easily #1 in the world in immigration, what are you talking about? If immigrants were actually disenfranchised, they wouldn't come in droves and risk their lives to come to this nation every day. Immigrants love this nation, and actually have a better record of success than many citizens born here. You simpoly don't know what you are talking about. Why do you shoot yourself in the foot like this?

Immigrants are people who enter the country LEGALLY.
ILLEGAL ALIENS, almost always, are people who come in droves and risk their lives.

The Government doesn't just let any family on a floating door come into their country (those are known gnereally as illegal aliens), they do background checks on the people, they allow people who have a good educational background and a hope for a successful future to make money in the country, thus improving the economy of the country. If you don't see where I'm going with this I'm getting to it: Why do you think the immigrants, who get great educations in their own country, do so much better than the citizens born in America? It's because your fairy tale land of freedom offers poor education and poor employment opportunities for people who are not highly educated or wealthy.

Immigrants come all the way to America thinking they're gonna have an amazing lifestyle in the land of the free, believing they will achieve the lifestyle they had when they lived in their home country where they probably ran a company, owned 3 cars, and had all the things that you define as important. When they get to America they realize their money isn't as valuable here because of your governments capitalist plot to make the rich, richer. So now what do they do? Go back? They can't afford it, they gave up everything they knew except their money and the clothes on their back, chasing a dream portrayed by your corrupt government. So they start from scratch and many become successful with their valuable educations attained in their more socialist or liberal native countries. Others fall into the working class, oppressed by your government and elite citizens.

This isn't the story of one or two families, it's a very commonly heard story and it happens every day, in your land of the free and home of the brave.

So people work their entire lives in their home country and are already successful and probably benefiting not only themselves but also their community, and leave thinking they will be better off and end up somewhat successful but generally just poor and opressed.

Capitalism rocks. :blink:

The Floyd

3rd December 2005, 04:33

Originally posted by poetofrageX+Dec 3 2005, 04:39 AM--> (poetofrageX @ Dec 3 2005, 04:39 AM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 3 2005, 12:59 AM

[email protected] 3 2005, 12:27 AM

But i suppose your the kind of asshole who belives that Latin America should remain America's bannana and sugar farm for eternity.
Well, yes, that would be ideal for the empire, and good for latin America.
Wait a sec.....so you're saying it's good for Latin America to be in total economic servitude to the U.S.? It's good for Latin America to be in the hands of brutal, murderous military dictators? That all of the human suffering caused by American military intervention is South America is justifiable because of the extra money in the pockets of American business owners? That it's wrong for Latin America to industrialize and become economically independent? And that all of this is GOOD for Latin America? You are seriously delusional. The entire world isn't meant to be America's slave. Damn, do you lack all compassion for humankind. Do you believe that anyone who lives outside of the United States only exists for your exploitation? You're insane.[/b]
Why do you bother asking?

You know that's exactly what the moron thinks.

white-dragon

3rd December 2005, 04:40

Evasive is indeed this trollic's game. The coward seems to have ignored my request to give proof of the capitalist system working for them.

ComTom

3rd December 2005, 04:41

I think that Capitalist Imperialist should be knocked off this damn board for being such a asswipe. The things that he is suggesting in recent posts are protecting America's economic interests, even if it kills thousands. He has also suggested that the genocide of the Native Americans and the holocaust of their customs and culture was justified so that the USA could control South Dakota and other worthless states in the middle of America.

white-dragon

3rd December 2005, 05:36

Well if CI doesn't like to talk about himself, as cowards rarely do. Perhaps he should think about the job capitalism is doing in Iraq: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/12/2/224843/148

Guerrilla22

3rd December 2005, 06:35

He won't respond to the massacres in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala. What about US support for Israel? Responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent Arabs. Not to mention Abu Gharib, Gitmo and secret CIA torture facilities in Poland and Romania.

white-dragon

3rd December 2005, 06:44

Its simple, he's incapable of doing so in any fashion that might get us to not view these crimes as crimes. So I doubt the coward will try to answer the calls to explain the difference between murder in case A (the cases he seems insistant on attaching communisim too) and case B (the case we can easily attach real capitalist interests too). Or perhaps he's of such a mind that its okay to rape and pillage as long as its his buddies that do it? In which case he has no business even trying to push his ideology even here because he is not ready for dicussion in the slightest.

tunes

3rd December 2005, 09:27

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 01:56 PM
My Lai was a free fire zone as it was a viet-cong stronghold. Those villagers were insurgents.
They were? Every one of those people lined up in front of the machine guns deserved to be shot? Seriously, you're saying one-year-old babies can comprehend political insurgency? These soldiers were aware of their actions. This was not "collateral damage". A more suitable term would be "executions".

bcbm

3rd December 2005, 10:01

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 02:49 PM
No access to jobs"? What are you taling about? What area would you live in where there would be "no jobs"?
Many inner-city areas.

If you can only qualify for minimum wage, then that is a reflection of how you lived your life, particularly in your formative years, school years, and young adulthood. It is not a fault of capitalism.

You don't form yourself in your formative years, its tied to the people and conditions around you and those are the fault of capitalism.

Master Che

3rd December 2005, 13:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:52 AM
I think that Capitalist Imperialist should be knocked off this damn board for being such a asswipe. The things that he is suggesting in recent posts are protecting America's economic interests, even if it kills thousands. He has also suggested that the genocide of the Native Americans and the holocaust of their customs and culture was justified so that the USA could control South Dakota and other worthless states in the middle of America.
I think he should be knocked off the internet. Morons like him dont even deserve to live. And he still didnt respond to my post proving that he is a jackass.

kingbee

3rd December 2005, 13:15

My Lai was a free fire zone as it was a viet-cong stronghold. Those villagers were insurgents.

jesus christ.... that is low!

Do you really think that I care about the UN's assessments? They are a useless and spineless body.

i sometimes do not understand some arguments. is this claim based in fact, except for the fact that they sometimes attempt to curb american global hegemony?

Hegemonicretribution

3rd December 2005, 13:59

Although it doesn't surprise me, I am a little insulted, or erhaps flattered that you replied to the vast majority of posts in this thread CI, yet comletely ignored mine. post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43409&st=50#)

Amusing Scrotum

3rd December 2005, 16:22

Every example you bring up for the United States refers to wars and poice actions, where we were fighting and armed enemy over political objectives, an enemy who was often the aggressor or otherwise, through their actions, necessitated a US response in their respective regions. However, I cannot think of a time in the 20th century in which the US simply herded any group together and simply executed them.

(Emphasis added.)

genocide.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide)

Of course we would have to determine whether those killings were planned, which they were and whether they planned to exterminate an entire political group.

In the case of most of the South American killings, it is certainly true that the mass killing or suppressing of whole political groups could very well fit under the term genocide.

However the debate over whether American actions can be classified as genocide is not what this debate is about. If you look back at your original post, you said -

And now you are saying that the US trumps Nazi germany in atrocities? Come on!

(Emphasis added.)

atrocities.

1. Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness.

2. An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners.

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atrocities)

Now in this sense it is relatively obvious that you are using the word atrocity to refer to the killing of civilians by an armed force. Therefore America has committed more atrocities than Nazi Germany.

They may differ in that some or all of the American killings were not genocide, but in terms of counting and comparing direct deaths from American government and Nazi government actions, it is plain to see that American actions have killed more people. Making your statement "And now you are saying that the US trumps Nazi germany in atrocities? Come on!" A bare faced lie.

Guerrilla22

3rd December 2005, 21:18

My Lai was a free fire zone as it was a viet-cong stronghold. Those villagers were insurgents.

By that logic the World Trade Center was a legitimate military target.

The Floyd

4th December 2005, 03:57

i now will announce the apparent and obvious crucifixion of CapitalistImperialist. Do not RIP.

bastard.

Capitalist Imperial

7th December 2005, 01:45

Originally posted by The [email protected] 4 2005, 04:08 AM
i now will announce the apparent and obvious crucifixion of CapitalistImperialist. Do not RIP.

bastard.
LOL,

I'm glad that I could be the catalyst for spirited debate among commie-pukes.

I see many claims that I haven't responded to posts. Rest assured, I will answer all of them.

Stay tuned...

P.S. "The Floyd", your post was the weakest and most easily refutable. I'll answer your's first to get the light work out of the way. I was here before you, and I'll probably be here after you. You can't stop me. If there is anyone who needs a headstone carved, it is you.

USA!
USA!
USA!
USA!

kingbee

7th December 2005, 10:50

i think he's just trying to piss everybody off. i mean,some of these comments are really insane!

Invader Zim

7th December 2005, 12:44

My dear CI, I am most upset that you have not given any attention to my post: -

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291981997 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43409&view=findpost&p=1291981997)

Would you do me the honour of actually answering my post, please? With a cherry on top.

The Floyd

7th December 2005, 14:47

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 7 2005, 01:56 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 7 2005, 01:56 AM)
The [email protected] 4 2005, 04:08 AM
i now will announce the apparent and obvious crucifixion of CapitalistImperialist. Do not RIP.

bastard.
LOL,

I'm glad that I could be the catalyst for spirited debate among commie-pukes.

I see many claims that I haven't responded to posts. Rest assured, I will answer all of them.

Stay tuned...

P.S. "The Floyd", your post was the weakest and most easily refutable. I'll answer your's first to get the light work out of the way. I was here before you, and I'll probably be here after you. You can't stop me. If there is anyone who needs a headstone carved, it is you.

USA!
USA!
USA!
USA![/b]
was that your rebuttle? please go on and refute my point, i'll be more than interested to see how you can support such a treacherous(sp?) country as the USA.

Capitalist Imperial

10th December 2005, 21:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:23 AM

Haven't you heard of the massacre at Wounded Knee?

Actually, I did an essay on it in college.

Don't you ever start and think that this was the Indian's land and they were there before us Americans were?

They crossed the Bering land bridge before Europeans crossed the Atlantic Does that automatically make it "their land"? People have been killing teach other over territory long before America was around, including the native Americans killing each other over American land even before europeans arrived. America didn't bring anything new to the table in this respect. The natives were allowing valuable resources to go unused, which was bad for world economics and Ameircan sovereignty. Immediate advancements and modern civilization in the region had to be realized for the good of the empire in its early stages.

Did you ever start to think that this was greed that ran the manifest dynasty? Did you ever start a realize, that the settlers, and the american troops, forced Indians to adapt our customs, and stole the land from the Indians?

I hate to have to de-romanticize your ideal of the native american as a noble and spiritual individual committed to peace and somehow having an ethereal understanding of nature and existence that "whitey" could never have. I'm sorry that your leftist books have only provided this dogma for you to subscribe to.

The reality is that most tribes were comprised of what were basically a sort of polytheistic savage hunter-gatherer people that were heavily involved in warring with and killing each other and far behind european technology and capability. They were essentially cave-men. The assimilation of native americans was a natural and necessary step in establishment of the empire.

ComTom

10th December 2005, 22:54

Wow, All that I have to say is your about as far to the right as Adolf Hitler. I believe that you shouldn't belong to this site if you believe that genocide is acceptable as long as it helps profits. Your rascist and unreasonable rhetoric shouldn't be aloud on this site. I would suggest to oust you immediatly.

ComTom

10th December 2005, 22:58

Also, did you know George Bush suggested in taking atheist and agnostic's citizenship away? Did you know that Ronald Reagan supported action taken against protest against the goverment? Do you really support these fascist? Why are you so hollow headed? Your a fascist, pure and simple.

Vallegrande

10th December 2005, 23:11

hate to have to de-romanticize your ideal of the native american as a noble and spiritual individual committed to peace and somehow having an ethereal understanding of nature and existence that "whitey" could never have. I'm sorry that your leftist books have only provided this dogma for you to subscribe to.

The reality is that most tribes were comprised of what were basically a sort of polytheistic savage hunter-gatherer people that were heavily involved in warring with and killing each other and far behind european technology and capability. They were essentially cave-men. The assimilation of native americans was a natural and necessary step in establishment of the empire.

Go and celebrate your Thanksgiving day in remembrence that without the "savage hunter-gatherer", you wouldn't exist.

Capitalist Imperial

11th December 2005, 01:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:58 PM
Also, did you know George Bush suggested in taking atheist and agnostic's citizenship away? Did you know that Ronald Reagan supported action taken against protest against the goverment? Do you really support these fascist? Why are you so hollow headed? Your a fascist, pure and simple.
LOL, Bush did not seriously suggest that atheist's citizenship bbe taken away.

Get serious.

ComTom

11th December 2005, 01:09

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:

RS:
"American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"
EM:
"It's bullshit."
RS:
"What is bullshit?"
EM:
"Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit."
RS:
"Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue."
EM:
"You're welcome."

Capitalist Imperial

11th December 2005, 01:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:11 PM

hate to have to de-romanticize your ideal of the native american as a noble and spiritual individual committed to peace and somehow having an ethereal understanding of nature and existence that "whitey" could never have. I'm sorry that your leftist books have only provided this dogma for you to subscribe to.

The reality is that most tribes were comprised of what were basically a sort of polytheistic savage hunter-gatherer people that were heavily involved in warring with and killing each other and far behind european technology and capability. They were essentially cave-men. The assimilation of native americans was a natural and necessary step in establishment of the empire.

Go and celebrate your Thanksgiving day in remembrence that without the "savage hunter-gatherer", you wouldn't exist.
That's a myth, my friend.

Capitalist Imperial

11th December 2005, 01:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:09 AM
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:

RS:
"American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"
EM:
"It's bullshit."
RS:
"What is bullshit?"
EM:
"Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit."
RS:
"Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue."
EM:
"You're welcome."
So what? This wasn't anything but bush being the dufus he is. I'm no bush fan.

ComTom

11th December 2005, 01:12

NEvermind. What would you describe yourself as? If your a liberal you should have some concern for life. How can you support the killing of the masses to help America's finacial security?

Capitalist Imperial

11th December 2005, 01:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:12 AM
NEvermind. What would you describe yourself as? If your a liberal you should have some concern for life. How can you support the killing of the masses to help America's finacial security?
Why is it that it was ok for the indians to kill other indians for land and resources but not the europeans?

ComTom

11th December 2005, 01:35

Do you think I just blame the Americans? The Europeans are even more responsible, but times have changed in Europe. When they were killing natives, it was in the times of monarchy. But we were killing them under a "free" goverment. We were killing them with the same system that we have today.

Sorry misread. It wouldn't matter if Native American's kill eachother. Europeans at that time, were involved in more wars than the natives were. Most tribes were isolated from eachother and didn't interract that much. I don't think that slaughtering masses of Native Americans just because they fight alot is acceptable.

Capitalist Imperial

11th December 2005, 01:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:35 AM
Do you think I just blame the Americans? The Europeans are even more responsible, but times have changed in Europe. When they were killing natives, it was in the times of monarchy. But we were killing them under a "free" goverment. We were killing them with the same system that we have today.
Times have changed in the US as well. Yet you still bring up the native americans,

You didn't answer my question.

OK, now you did.

ComTom

11th December 2005, 01:52

* Refer to post on top, it has been edited.

Master Che

11th December 2005, 01:58

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 11 2005, 01:20 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 11 2005, 01:20 AM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 01:12 AM
NEvermind. What would you describe yourself as? If your a liberal you should have some concern for life. How can you support the killing of the masses to help America's finacial security?
Why is it that it was ok for the indians to kill other indians for land and resources but not the europeans? [/b]
And its ok for aliens to invade and kill us, because we kill each other in war?

Capitalist Imperial

11th December 2005, 02:13

Originally posted by Master Che+Dec 11 2005, 01:58 AM--> (Master Che @ Dec 11 2005, 01:58 AM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2005, 01:20 AM

[email protected] 11 2005, 01:12 AM
NEvermind. What would you describe yourself as? If your a liberal you should have some concern for life. How can you support the killing of the masses to help America's finacial security?
Why is it that it was ok for the indians to kill other indians for land and resources but not the europeans?
And its ok for aliens to invade and kill us, because we kill each other in war? [/b]
"OK" and "not OK" are unapplicable concepts here. I am not justifying it, I am merely describing historical realities. Did the US see a benefit from this? Yes, it did. If you hammer on any culture for killing opposition forces, then you have to basically call out every culture that has existed.

The extermination of the native americans was a dark spot on US history, but it did in fact happen. So what?

ComTom

11th December 2005, 02:19

YES! We got NORTH DAKOTA FROM THE INDIANS! THATS PROBILY WORTH KILLING SO MANY SOUIX AND CHEYENNE INDIANS! I love NORTH DAKOTA! WE gained almost nothing from the slaughter of the native americans. WE gained a few oil wells that aren't effective anymore around the area that the War against the Indians were primarily waged throughout the 19th century. We have also seen the beginning of imperialism made by the goverment of USA. I am a American that loves his people, but I can never support a goverment that has done this to a group of people.

ComTom

11th December 2005, 02:23

Yes, every goverment has done something like this. Thats why we need to attack state and put the people in charge so it can become a more humane society.

Master Che

11th December 2005, 02:24

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 11 2005, 02:13 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 11 2005, 02:13 AM)
Originally posted by Master [email protected] 11 2005, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2005, 01:20 AM

[email protected] 11 2005, 01:12 AM
NEvermind. What would you describe yourself as? If your a liberal you should have some concern for life. How can you support the killing of the masses to help America's finacial security?
Why is it that it was ok for the indians to kill other indians for land and resources but not the europeans?
And its ok for aliens to invade and kill us, because we kill each other in war?
"OK" and "not OK" are unapplicable concepts here. I am not justifying it, I am merely describing historical realities. Did the US see a benefit from this? Yes, it did. If you hammer on any culture for killing opposition forces, then you have to basically call out every culture that has existed.

The extermination of the native americans was a dark spot on US history, but it did in fact happen. So what? [/b]
SO WHAT?! WHAT DO YOU MEAN SO WHAT?!?! You guys killed over 120 million natives! thats 12 times bigger then the bloody holocaust! That is at least half the US population today. If some country went and killed 1/2 the population of your fucking country, forced you to speak their language and adapt to their culture and you would have limited rights! Thats the big "so what". Fuck you CI, i wish you would go through what they went through.

The Floyd

11th December 2005, 20:58

hey CI you still havent offerred a rebuttle to my statement. You know the one about illegal and legal aliens coming to America and benefitting from your economy while your own citizens sit on their ass and get stupider day after day... i wrote it a little more eloquently and logically than that but go take a look and get back to me okay?

thanks ^.^

Capitalist Imperial

13th December 2005, 02:22

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2005, 11:51 PM

They were killed because they resisted manifest destiny. Besides, they were killing each other when we got here. We didn't bring anything new to the table.

Bullshit Hypothetical situation of the top of my head:

You live in an apartment with your family. Your parents often fight. You often fight with them. The fights get pretty nasty, sometimes physical. A new family moves in next door. They can hear the bickering through the walls. The new family decides to tear down the wall between the two apartments, stab every one of your family members, leave them to bleed and live in both apartments. Your family resits, but the newer one is too strong and ends up victorious. 'Well that certainly shut them up', the new family thinks, 'and hey, they resisted'.

Honostly, dude, you need a real set of moral values, not the bullshit that your government teaches you.
No, that would suck. I never claimed that the extermination and assimilation of the Native American population was absolutely justified, I'm just saying that it happened, it's certainly not the first time its happened, and it is a contituent of humanity itself, not a problem with "America" exclusively. The native Americans were beaten by a stronger, more advanced enemy.

That is it. It sucks that it happened, but it happened. Additionally, lets not kid ourselves, they were killing and warring with each other before we ever arrived.

Finally, I have a moral code that is self imposed, not "taught to me by my government". The "brainwashed" argument is so weak. Its not provable either way and you can apply it to anyone who you disagree with at anytime. Thus, it is useless.

Capitalist Imperial

13th December 2005, 02:29

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 3 2005, 12:15 AM
So what is yours? Are you going to tell us that you were born in the ghettos but rose upp thanks to the oppurtunities of capitalism and now your rich and that gives you the right to flaunt it in those who havnt yet learned how to "pull themselves out of it" like you have?

Yes, i too am intersted in your hard luck story, many have shared thiers
Go on, hop to it now.

So what is yours? Are you going to tell us that you were born in the ghettos but rose upp thanks to the oppurtunities of capitalism and now your rich and that gives you the right to flaunt it in those who havnt yet learned how to "pull themselves out of it" like you have?

No, my situation is not that dramatic. I was raised in a working class neighborhood. My mother raised my and my brother as a single parent. I commuted to my local community college, then transferred to a university. This kept mycollege expenses down. I lived with my mom and worked 30-35 hours a week while studying. I was able to secure gainful employment out of college and worked my way to where I am today. I am not "rich", but I do OK.

Yes, i too am intersted in your hard luck story, many have shared thiers
Go on, hop to it now.

I had plenty of obstacles and distractions. I, however, chose to concentrate on my studies instead of having some reefer with the goths in the parking lot. I definitely received from the system what I put into it, and you can too.

The likelyhood is that most leftists here failed out of school, or just quit, or tred to work, but couldn't hang with actully contributing 40 hours/week to the economy and their livelyhood, and aree now disenfranchised bums who are crying sour grapes and demanding handouts.

Capitalist Imperial

13th December 2005, 02:36

Originally posted by white-[email protected] 3 2005, 02:40 AM
Perhaps I should ask again... Capitalist Imperial, how would you define hard work, and how has your life been an example of hard work paying off in a capitalist system?
Red leader asked me that, my response has been posted above

ComTom

13th December 2005, 02:45

Nevermind. Delete post.

Capitalist Imperial

13th December 2005, 02:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:28 AM
Damn, do you lack all compassion for humankind. Do you believe that anyone who lives outside of the United States only exists for your exploitation? You're insane.

Wait a sec.....so you're saying it's good for Latin America to be in total economic servitude to the U.S.?

Well, it is good for the U.S. Look, Latin America had the same opportunites that America had to establish themselves as players in the modern world, and a few are. Howeverm the situation in Latin America is the responsibility of Latin America, and no one else. Latin America is not the United States' fault. You are using the same logic as those who say the situation in Africa is America's fault, when in fact famine and warlording in Africa was present before the new world was even known of by europe.

It's good for Latin America to be in the hands of brutal, murderous military dictators?

Like Chavez and Castro? No, those regimes are in dire need of regime and policy changes a la nicuragua and panama.

That all of the human suffering caused by American military intervention is South America is justifiable because of the extra money in the pockets of American business owners?

US intervention in latin America is good for stability in the region, and the US does enjoy some incidental economic benefit from our sphere of influence there. Actually, I believe in latin America, I have money invested in Latin America as a portion of my portfolio. Most of Latin America's economic development is US friendly, and I think that the region is a good buy right now.

That it's wrong for Latin America to industrialize and become economically independent?

Nothing is really stopping that. It is just that it seems latin Americas capabilities are still in the "potential" stage.

The entire world isn't meant to be America's slave.

Well.... Just kidding!

Damn, do you lack all compassion for humankind. Do you believe that anyone who lives outside of the United States only exists for your exploitation? You're insane.

I don't see how this relates to my compassion for humankind. I was merely discussing ecomnomic and geopolitical realities.

Morpheus

13th December 2005, 04:56

Most of Latin America's economic development is US friendly, and I think that the region is a good buy right now.

That's because your military & intelligence services have a history of intervening in Latin American countries to force them to implement policies favorable to your portfolio, even when it impoverishs Latin Americans.

"we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. ... We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked” or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." - Goerge Kennan, head of the State Department's Planning Staff, Policy Planning Study 23, 1948

US Space Command's document Vision for 2020 (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Archive/vision_2020.pdf) also explicitly states the intentions of US foreign policy to essentially rob other countries.

Your'e nothing more than a thief. All this nonsense about "protecting stability" and blaming Latin Americans for the problems your interventions create is just a way to rationalize your theft. A bunch of crap you make up to make yourself feel better about robbing other people.

The Floyd

13th December 2005, 18:38

CI, why do you always jump between people's arguments? It's rather confusing and looks bad on your part as a debatist? (debator? debatee?)

Just refute my point and I'll be pleased, I can not accept you cheering "USA!" to be a sufficient argument.

Capitalist Imperial

13th December 2005, 20:53

Everything about this post screams evasive...

I disagree. I was responding in a manner commensurate with the quality of the original questions ands accusations. I have 2-year old posts in which I criticize the UN, and am on record a myriad of times in this forum stating that I don't recognize the UN or it's mandates.

Here's my two-cents on your nonsensical bullshit CI:

I think your input is overvalued.

Immigrants are people who enter the country LEGALLY.
ILLEGAL ALIENS, almost always, are people who come in droves and risk their lives.

I understand this. Why are you implying that I suggested otherwise?

The Government doesn't just let any family on a floating door come into their country (those are known gnereally as illegal aliens),

Actually, they do. America's cuban refugee policy dictates that if a cuban makes it to US soil (before being intercepted by the coast guard), they receive amnesty.

they do background checks on the people, they allow people who have a good educational background and a hope for a successful future to make money in the country, thus improving the economy of the country

LOL, where do you live? Are you serious? I lived 2 years in San Diego, which is home to the largest single US/Mexico border crossing (San Ysidro). I've been to the border. Do you even understand the volume of people that come over every day? They are not doing backround checks on anyone. They basically let people through in wholesale, with some random searches or probable cause searches here and there. Once these peole are in, it is very difficult to track or account for them. Honestly, dude, you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you don't see where I'm going with this I'm getting to it:

...please do

Why do you think the immigrants, who get great educations in their own country, do so much better than the citizens born in America?

Who said that they do? I acknowledge that some do, and for sure they do better than they would in their own country, but you can't really say that they do better than most natural born US citizens, not even close.

It's because your fairy tale land of freedom offers poor education and poor employment opportunities for people who are not highly educated or wealthy.

... second, I'm not sure what you mean by "fairy tale", as it is a reality for me and tens of millions of others. Additionally, the education system here depends a lot on what you put into it. Most failures in US school systems are more about the student effort than the system, I've seen it firsthand. Overall, our public education system would benefit from reform, I agree, but our colleges are the world's best, bar none. Millions of dollars in full-ride scholarships are doled out to deserving students every year. There are many trades that offer a good living wage to the uneducated and working class. These are both great ways to break out of poverty and get into the middle class. You can succeed in America, but unlike in socialism, it actuually takes a little effort. You have to do your share. However, the returns are there, in greater wealth than socialsism could ever provide. Opportunity abounds in America, and those who can't seize it are truly futile.

Immigrants come all the way to America thinking they're gonna have an amazing lifestyle in the land of the free, believing they will achieve the lifestyle they had when they lived in their home country where they probably ran a company, owned 3 cars, and had all the things that you define as important.

LOL, LOL, LOL, are you serious? No they don't, many of them are lucky to have a bike to ride through their village. That is why they come to America in the 1st place, somthey can get the house and cars, and make a life for themselves and send money home.

When they get to America they realize their money isn't as valuable here because of your governments capitalist plot to make the rich, richer.

Dude, this is sloppy. This is not how immigrants operate at all. You have no idea what you are talking about. The reason they come to the US is that they know that their nation's economy is weak. They come to the US for the dollar, not to spend their own currency.

So now what do they do? Go back? They can't afford it, they gave up everything they knew except their money and the clothes on their back, chasing a dream portrayed by your corrupt government.

No, they get a job and pool their resources with other immigrants to make a start in the us. The last thing they want to do is go back. WHAT COUNTRY ARE YOU FROM? YOU SEEM TO HAVE LITTLE UNDERSTANDING OF IMMIGRATION! Its funny that the people who actually appreciate the opportunities that Ameica provides are often from other nations, while natural-born leftist failures simply cry sour grapes, unable to pull themselves up by the boot straps when they fail.

So they start from scratch and many become successful with their valuable educations attained in their more socialist or liberal native countries. Others fall into the working class, oppressed by your government and elite citizens.

I wouldn't call a $15/ day wage "oppression", do you?

This isn't the story of one or two families, it's a very commonly heard story and it happens every day, in your land of the free and home of the brave.

Really? Where do you live? I live in California, the # 1 state for immigration in the nation, and I lived in the heart of immigrant America, southern california. My real world experience contradicts your theory. I see how america makes simple immigrants into great success stories, with a little hard work, smarts, and dedication. Very rarely do they go back. Additionally, these are among the most patriotic of Americans. They appreciate Fortress America more than you ever will.

So people work their entire lives in their home country and are already successful and probably benefiting not only themselves but also their community, and leave thinking they will be better off and end up somewhat successful but generally just poor and opressed.

You are ignorant about this subject, no doubt about that. Simply put, if what you said was true, mass immigration would have stopped long ago.

Capitalism rocks.

I concur.

Capitalist Imperial

13th December 2005, 21:02

Originally posted by white-[email protected] 3 2005, 04:40 AM
Evasive is indeed this trollic's game. The coward seems to have ignored my request to give proof of the capitalist system working for them.
I have responded to this assertion.

Capitalist Imperial

13th December 2005, 22:55

I think that Capitalist Imperialist should be knocked off this damn board for being such a asswipe. The things that he is suggesting in recent posts are protecting America's economic interests, even if it kills thousands.

From a utilitarian standpoint this makes sense, though I never said I encouraged the killing of thousands for economic interests exclusively.

He has also suggested that the genocide of the Native Americans and the holocaust of their customs and culture was justified so that the USA could control South Dakota and other worthless states in the middle of America.

You may consider those states worthless, sir, but I don't. Additionally, I never used the word justified. I simply gave a nondescript explanation of the native american assimilation and it's benefit to contemporary america, without editorialising either way.

Capitalist Imperial

13th December 2005, 23:18

Originally posted by white-[email protected] 3 2005, 05:36 AM
Well if CI doesn't like to talk about himself, as cowards rarely do. Perhaps he should think about the job capitalism is doing in Iraq: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/12/2/224843/148
LOL, actually, white dragon, it is my experience that cowards often grandstand, boast, and bully.

It is those that are truly confident in themselves and comfortable with who they are that don't need to talk about themselves, as their actions speak for them.

You have it backwards, sir.

Capitalist Imperial

14th December 2005, 01:24

He won't respond to the massacres in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala.

I've addressed the U.S. Policy in Latin America, and I make no apologies for it. Most deaths in latin america were not at the hands of US troops, they were the result of conflict between local factions.

What about US support for Israel?

I certainly don't apologize for Israel. It is the only middle east state that stands beacon of democracy, equal rights, and contemporary civilization. We support them wholeheartedly in their battle with palestinian and arab terrorism, and appreciate our trade and military procurement relations with them as well.

Shall Iran attempt policy change in Israel with a nuclear option as their sabre-rattling suggests, the USA will eradicate Iran and turn their sand to glass.

Not to mention Abu Gharib, Gitmo

Those club med locations are a joke, I can't beleieve that even over sensitive "progressives" considered what occred in those facilities "torture".

and secret CIA torture facilities in Poland and Romania.

I guess you haven't heard, but the USA is waging a global war on terror, with enemies that would just as soon behead every westerner that lives, including you, no matter how liberal and sycophantic you are toward terrorism. If it will prevent more coalition deaths or future terror attacks, extraordinary interrogation techniques are absolutely justified and encouraged in extreme situatiuons. Maybe you are willing to let a terrorist dirtbag avoid some vice grips on its nuts so a hotel full of westerners can be bombed, but the USA is not.

Stop thinking in such simplistic terms and get a grip on contenmporary geopolitical realities!!!

Again, no apologies.

Capitalist Imperial

14th December 2005, 01:46

Many inner-city areas.

Then you take public transportation to your job or school like I used to.

You don't form yourself in your formative years,

Really? I think you do by definition, that is why they are called the formative years.

...its tied to the people and conditions around you and those are the fault of capitalism.

Is this really an example of the intellectual offering submitted by some members of the left here?

Orthodox Marxist

14th December 2005, 01:50

You Sir are an Elitist

Capitalist Imperial

14th December 2005, 01:59

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 3 2005, 04:22 PM

Every example you bring up for the United States refers to wars and poice actions, where we were fighting and armed enemy over political objectives, an enemy who was often the aggressor or otherwise, through their actions, necessitated a US response in their respective regions. However, I cannot think of a time in the 20th century in which the US simply herded any group together and simply executed them.

(Emphasis added.)

genocide.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide)

Of course we would have to determine whether those killings were planned, which they were and whether they planned to exterminate an entire political group.

In the case of most of the South American killings, it is certainly true that the mass killing or suppressing of whole political groups could very well fit under the term genocide.

However the debate over whether American actions can be classified as genocide is not what this debate is about. If you look back at your original post, you said -

And now you are saying that the US trumps Nazi germany in atrocities? Come on!

(Emphasis added.)

atrocities.

1. Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness.

2. An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners.

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atrocities)

Now in this sense it is relatively obvious that you are using the word atrocity to refer to the killing of civilians by an armed force. Therefore America has committed more atrocities than Nazi Germany.

They may differ in that some or all of the American killings were not genocide, but in terms of counting and comparing direct deaths from American government and Nazi government actions, it is plain to see that American actions have killed more people. Making your statement "And now you are saying that the US trumps Nazi germany in atrocities? Come on!" A bare faced lie.
A nice assessment, but where we disagree is in our assessment of "atrocities". Most of the deaths you credit America with were the result of legitimate wart time operations and covered under the geneva convention, and thus I don't consider them atrocities.

Additionally, communists tend to credit America with many more deaths than it is really reponsible for, such as loosely based connections to latin american factions and the school of the Americas, or the "indirect results of capitalism" (such a meaningless and improvable concept).

It simply doesn't sell.

Capitalist Imperial

14th December 2005, 02:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:18 PM

My Lai was a free fire zone as it was a viet-cong stronghold. Those villagers were insurgents.

By that logic the World Trade Center was a legitimate military target.
No, we both know that is not an accurate analogy at all. The WTC was not holding American aggressors conducting wartime operations.

kingbee

14th December 2005, 02:11

I guess you haven't heard, but the USA is waging a global war on terror, with enemies that would just as soon behead every westerner that lives, including you, no matter how liberal and sycophantic you are toward terrorism. If it will prevent more coalition deaths or future terror attacks, extraordinary interrogation techniques are absolutely justified and encouraged in extreme situatiuons. Maybe you are willing to let a terrorist dirtbag avoid some vice grips on its nuts so a hotel full of westerners can be bombed, but the USA is not.

Stop thinking in such simplistic terms and get a grip on contenmporary geopolitical realities!!!

shouldn't the country that claims to be the beacon of "freedom, human rights and liberty" perhaps uphold those values?

or can they flout the rules whenever they want?

Those club med locations are a joke, I can't beleieve that even over sensitive "progressives" considered what occred in those facilities "torture".

er. do you know what happened in abu ghraib? as much as you want to defend america and it's foreign policy, i don't think abu ghraib can be defended whatsoever.

such as loosely based connections to latin american factions and the school of the Americas,

but if the cia intervenes and causes instability, resulting in cia-backed groups executing others, surely some of the blame must be placed on the cia?

I certainly don't apologize for Israel. It is the only middle east state that stands beacon of democracy, equal rights, and contemporary civilization. We support them wholeheartedly in their battle with palestinian and arab terrorism, and appreciate our trade and military procurement relations with them as well.

even when they themselves are responsible for countless human rights abuses? what do you think of the occupation?

Orthodox Marxist

14th December 2005, 02:12

Amusing Scrotum

14th December 2005, 02:27

A nice assessment, but where we disagree is in our assessment of "atrocities". Most of the deaths you credit America with were the result of legitimate wart time operations and covered under the geneva convention, and thus I don't consider them atrocities.

The CIA backed Contras for instance, were violating the Geneva conventions repeatedly and Nicaragua was not a "war time" event. It was a Nicaraguan affair that posed no threat to the US and therefore the US had no business involving itself.

As for the other atrocities, I am not a legal expert and my knowledge of the Geneva convention is limited. Therefore I wouldn't be able to define whether these actions violated the Geneva convention, though I'm sure someone here would be know of a piece to link on the subject.

Additionally, communists tend to credit America with many more deaths than it is really reponsible for, such as loosely based connections to latin american factions and the school of the Americas, or the "indirect results of capitalism" (such a meaningless and improvable concept).

Well all of the cases I listed were either carried out directly by the US or by mercenaries that were heavily supplied and funded by the US.

However you are indeed not in any position to talk about wrong figures. After all this thread starting with you linking posters which had grossly exaggerated figures which have long been debunked by mainstream historians.

Morpheus

14th December 2005, 03:38

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 13 2005, 10:55 PM

I think that Capitalist Imperialist should be knocked off this damn board for being such a asswipe. The things that he is suggesting in recent posts are protecting America's economic interests, even if it kills thousands.

From a utilitarian standpoint this makes sense,
No it doesn't. Thousands of dead people vastly outweight the economic interests of American investors. Imperialism doesn't maximize utility.

No, we both know that is not an accurate analogy at all. The WTC was not holding American aggressors conducting wartime operations.

Yes it did, it had a CIA office.

HateandWar

14th December 2005, 03:58

If it will prevent more coalition deaths or future terror attacks, extraordinary interrogation techniques are absolutely justified and encouraged in extreme situatiuons. Maybe you are willing to let a terrorist dirtbag avoid some vice grips on its nuts so a hotel full of westerners can be bombed, but the USA is not.

You do know that torture is an extremely unreliable tool at best right? It has been proven that your extraordinary interrogation is more likely to give you false information that could possibly endanger more lives instead of saving them. Oftentimes a victim will tell whatever it is the interrogator wants to hear even if they know nothing of the situation and will even create stories just to make it stop. So while your agents of terror are off on a wild goose chase to foil a plot that doesnt exist a real threat could come to pass. Alternatively you do realize that these insurgents your fighting are oftentimes extremists and wouldnt tell you anyway cause they think Allah will reward them with like 80 virgins if they die for him.

Capitalist Imperial

14th December 2005, 04:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:38 AM

No it doesn't. Thousands of dead people vastly outweight the economic interests of American investors. Imperialism doesn't maximize utility.

No, we both know that is not an accurate analogy at all. The WTC was not holding American aggressors conducting wartime operations.

Yes it did, it had a CIA office.

No it doesn't. Thousands of dead people vastly outweight the economic interests of American investors. Imperialism doesn't maximize utility.

Actually, from a world economic standpoint, the deaths of a few thousand, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the total population (especially over time), to further grow and power the economic engine of fortress america, and thus the world, does maximize utility.

Yes it did, it had a CIA office.

Now you are spitting hairs. The WTC was hit because it was considered the economic capital of the US. This is well known. It was not a military target. The analogy is inaccurate.

Capitalist Imperial

14th December 2005, 04:52

Originally posted by tunes+Dec 3 2005, 09:27 AM--> (tunes @ Dec 3 2005, 09:27 AM)
Capitalist [email protected] 2 2005, 01:56 PM
My Lai was a free fire zone as it was a viet-cong stronghold. Those villagers were insurgents.
They were? Every one of those people lined up in front of the machine guns deserved to be shot? Seriously, you're saying one-year-old babies can comprehend political insurgency? These soldiers were aware of their actions. This was not "collateral damage". A more suitable term would be "executions". [/b]
Not every single one.

I've said before, such incidentals are unfortunate. However, a war was being prosecuted and the US was already under strict rules of engagement. They were fighting with one had tied behind their backs, and sometimes errors were made in the fog of war.

Had we simply eradicated the north from the beginning these unfortunate exceptions would not have occured.

Alas, it was an important war, even though objectives were not acheived, it sent a message that America would fight communism to the bitter end.

And it did.

Capitalist Imperial

14th December 2005, 04:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:59 PM
Although it doesn't surprise me, I am a little insulted, or erhaps flattered that you replied to the vast majority of posts in this thread CI, yet comletely ignored mine. post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43409&st=50#)
Actually, I read it. It was somewhat of a tangent from the debate and heavily laden with pontification.

You seemed sort of high on yourself.

However, if you were flattered, I'm glad that I could make you feel good about yourself.

Hegemonicretribution

14th December 2005, 17:47

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 14 2005, 04:57 AM
Actually, I read it. It was somewhat of a tangent from the debate and heavily laden with pontification.

I would say that this is more true of someone holding their view of someone else's view above that of the actual view of the person in question.

Tangent perhaps, but it was written in direct response to the repitition of the same kind of largely irrelevant arguments along these lines. (at least if it is the post I am thinking of) I was interested in whether or not my assumptions about your character and motive had any foundation in reality?

You seemed sort of high on yourself.
Meh

However, if you were flattered, I'm glad that I could make you feel good about yourself.
I am glad that you got some satisfaction also.

Capitalist Imperial

14th December 2005, 18:58

Originally posted by The [email protected] 4 2005, 03:57 AM
i now will announce the apparent and obvious crucifixion of CapitalistImperialist. Do not RIP.

bastard.
As you see by my wholly adept responses and utter truth espousings, your eulogy was ostensibly premature, you invalid leftist-puke.

Capitalist Imperial

14th December 2005, 19:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 10:50 AM
i think he's just trying to piss everybody off. i mean,some of these comments are really insane!
Not really, they are just realistic.

Capitalist Imperial

14th December 2005, 19:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:44 PM
My dear CI, I am most upset that you have not given any attention to my post: -

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291981997 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43409&view=findpost&p=1291981997)

Would you do me the honour of actually answering my post, please? With a cherry on top.
Fist of all, my comment about only American/British deaths counting was obviously faceteous.

However, your assertion that the "soviets and chinese" were the "primary" reason the WWII went to the allies is short sighted and, I believe, influenced by your anti-American agenda and the need to discredit the US whenever you can. The reality is that WWII was a truly allied effort.

While I agree that the eastern front was a huge portion of the war, and important to the allied victory, it was basically the russians defending ground in the dead of winter, a winter that stiopped as many nazis as actual russians did. In thew west, the allies were liberating held territory, which ois a much tougher proposition than defending held ground, as any military historian will tell you.

Additionally, you seemd to fail to account for the fact that the US was also handling the pacific theater nearly alone. When you account for this, it is easy to see theat the US effort actually eclipsed the soviet's in size and scope.