Emprworm's rant thread

danielsh · March 20, 2004

Well, there was that one time when Bush-haters killed three thousand innocents.

Oh, wait...

Edric O · March 20, 2004

bush haters and al-qaida have a lot in common too.

"It belongs to the genius of a great political leader to make even adversaries far removed from one another seem to belong to single category, because in weak and uncertain characters the knowledge of having different enemies can only too readily lead to the beginning of doubt in their own right. Once the wavering mass sees itself in a struggle against too many enemies, objectivity will put in an appearance, throwing open the question whether all others are really wrong and only their own movement are in the right. And this brings about the first paralysis of their own power. Hence a multiplicity of different adversaries must always be combined so that in the eyes of one's own supporters the struggle is directed against only one enemy."

- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"

Dude_Doc · March 20, 2004

But isn't Iraq better of today than before the war?

Dunenewt · March 20, 2004

Yes and I think that is the point many people miss.

Wolf · March 20, 2004

Yes, Dune and Doc, that's something I've been wondering about, too. Terrorist attacks in Iraq are tragic, yes, but are they worse than what Hussein inflicted on his own people? (If anyone could get statistics, I'd be most appreciative.) Furthermore, do not the Iraqis have a measure of political freedom?

Well, let's ask the Iraqis!

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

They're currently reposting all their old war-blog-posts, their political stuff is further down.

(In addition, there was a news article that was linked in this forum saying that 48% of Iraqis supported the war, 39% opposed the war, and 13% had no opinion.)

Edric O · March 20, 2004

Actually, no. Iraq is NOT better off today than before the war. It will probably be better off in the future, but for now it is a country in chaos, overrun by violence and looting, whose people can barely scrape up a living.

The war did not magically improve the lives of the Iraqi people. They will only improve in the long run - and even that is not certain.

Edit: I'm talking about their standards of living. They're obviously free now, unlike before the war. But as far as the standards of living are concerned, they are not better off.

Dunenewt · March 20, 2004

I thought even you, despite your extreme anti-Bush views would be able to see that its better, but obviously not.

Wolf · March 20, 2004

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

Actually, this article seems to say that Iraqis do report a better postwar life. Things aren't perfect, of course not, but this poll seems to suggest otherwise. Then again, polls are polls, take it with a grain of salt.

Edric O · March 20, 2004

I thought even you, despite your extreme anti-Bush views would be able to see that its better, but obviously not.

"Anti-Bush views"? What is this, some sort of totalitarian police state with Bush as the great beloved leader? Since when is the political spectrum divided into "pro-Bush" and "anti-Bush"?

Perhaps you and Emprworm should try to comprehend that Bush is not the focal point of all politics.

Sure I'm anti-Bush. But that ranks very, very low in my list of political priorities.

As for the situation of the Iraqis before and after the war, I'm always open to new information. As I mentioned, I do expect their living standards to rise above pre-war levels at some point. But I doubt that such a thing has happened already.

Dunenewt · March 20, 2004

Well you seem to think that just because Bush freed the Iraqi's they are worse of.

Wolf · March 20, 2004

Indeed, but, Edric, I do agree with your point. The important information will be what the standard of living in Iraq five years from now will be as opposed to five months from now. We want long-term benefit and change for the better for the Iraqi people. Things are better now; that's a pleasant surprise. What matters is what things will be like in the future, because only then will true liberation have been accomplished, should the Iraqi people have a democratic government, civil liberties, and a good standard of living where they can live comfortably. You'd think it wouldn't be too much to ask for, but sometimes it is.

Dunenewt · March 20, 2004

I think in time Iraq will become quite a pleasant country to live in with its ancient history and rich oil sources.

Edric O · March 20, 2004

Speaking of anti-bushism, I'd like to point out that, contrary to Emprworm's beliefs, being against Bush and being a socialist are two VERY different things.

I mean, think about people like Tony Blair (a left-winger, and Bush's best buddy) and Jacques Chirac (a conservative, and the leader of the country Emprworm hates most).

And none of those billionaires he cited are anywhere near socialism. They are moderately left-wing LIBERALS, which means that they believe in a moderate CAPITALIST system - certainly not a socialist one.

After all, it was capitalism that made them billionaires in the first place. Only capitalism can result in such a ridiculously unjust distribution of wealth. There are rich people in socialism, but no billionaires.

Wolf · March 20, 2004

Yeah, there's a reason they call it the "Labour Party".

Dante · March 20, 2004

Though actually the home policy is really very conservative at the moment... We don't really have a centre-left party any more.

emprworm · March 20, 2004

They are moderately left-wing LIBERALS, which means that they believe in a moderate CAPITALIST system - certainly not a socialist one.
After all, it was capitalism that made them billionaires in the first place. Only capitalism can result in such a ridiculously unjust distribution of wealth. There are rich people in socialism, but no billionaires.

i'd like to point out that these billionaires profess socialism. They write books about it.

Dante · March 20, 2004

So are all vaguely democratic systems. Capitalism (with vast emphasis on the vague) included.

Edric O · March 20, 2004

i'd like to point out that these billionaires profess socialism. They write books about it. They hate Bush with a flaming passion. They got rich of capitalism? Yup. Are they hypocrites? Of course! (what would you expect from a socialist?) For me, it is evidence that socialism is wrought with hypocrisy. Ideals sound nice....but its another story when they intersect with real life, and personal greed.

So I guess it doesn't really matter to you that hundreds of millions of working class and poor people worldwide have fought for their rights under the banner of socialism for 200 years. It doesn't really matter that socialism has been worked out in detail in thousands of books written by workers and intellectuals over the course of 150 years. It doesn't matter that socialists were the ones who fought and died for such things as the abolition of slavery, full democratic rights for all citizens, equal rights for women and minorities, the right to free assembly (and hence the legalization of trade unions), the 40 hour workweek, minimum wage, pensions, social security...

None of that matters, because if a couple of billionaires write books about socialism, that makes ALL socialists hypocrites. ::)

Oh, and you also display your brilliant math skills: since the number of rich socialists can be counted on the fingers of two hands while the number of poor socialists is in the hundreds of millions, obviously the majority of socialists are rich. ::)

emprworm · March 21, 2004

So I guess it doesn't really matter to you that hundreds of millions of working class and poor people worldwide have fought for their rights under the banner of socialism for 200 years.

the first chance they get, they end up coming to the U.S. And those that don't make it, once had the dream that they would.

United States = greatest immigration country of the world in the last 200 years. There is a reason for that, my dear Edric. When you realize "why" that is true, then you will understand what all those people were working for.

"It doesn't really matter that socialism has been worked out in detail in thousands of books written by workers and intellectuals over the course of 150 years. "

Boooks...books...books.....

Anyone can write a nice lil' book for humanity. And thats where it stays...in some dust covered book.

It doesn't matter that socialists were the ones who fought and died for such things as the abolition of slavery,

distortion. Who were these 'socialists?' Marx would laugh in his grave to hear such a thing attributed to him. I know who fought for and ended slavery in the U.S., and It was not socialists. So who were these 'socialists' and what country did they fight in to end slavery?

full democratic rights for all citizens, equal rights for women and minorities,

who? where?

while the number of poor socialists is in the hundreds of millions,

a tribute to the miserable failure of socialism. Wherever it rears its ugly head, poverty flourishes

Edric O · March 21, 2004

a tribute to the miserable failure of socialism. Wherever it rears its ugly head, poverty flourishes

God, what an idiot... and what an amazing capacity to twist words!

Those are the poor people who live under CAPITALISM, you moron! That is the very reason they became socialists in the first place! They are hard workers, honest citizens and dedicated employees whose work pays for the yachts and caviar of the great capitalist billionaires. And they are the ones forced into miserable lives of poverty by the utterly unjust capitalist system.

The impoverished victims of capitalism are the most dedicated socialists - because they know that socialism is their only hope for justice and a better life, and because they don't want their children to live under the same filthy capitalist system and suffer the same injustice as their fathers.

Do you even know what life was like for the average employee living in the wild capitalism of the 19th century? The only reason why your boss can't pay you 1 dollar a week and fire you on the spot is because socialists have fought and died for your rights.

You hate socialists? Do your beloved capitalists a favour and go work in one of their sweatshops.

emprworm · March 22, 2004

God, what an idiot... and what an amazing capacity to twist words!
Those are the poor people who live under CAPITALISM, you moron!

made up nonsense. Capitalism, when it exists in democratic republics, and representative democracies, does not beget the poor people you refer too. The poorest people on earth live under socialist and or dictator/monarchy/theocratic governments.

Edric O · March 22, 2004

India is the world's largest capitalist democracy, and also one of the world's poorest countries. The poor of India live in utterly inhumane conditions - the nightmare of pure capitalism.

Brazil is another huge capitalist democracy, and another country plagued by starvation and misery.

In Eastern Europe and the former USSR (particularly in Russia) standards of living have fallen into a bottomless pit since capitalism was re-established.

Then there is Indonesia, all the countries of South Asia, Africa, South America... one billion people are suffering from hunger under capitalism.

And although some of those capitalist systems are dictatorships, the vast majority are democracies. You see, democracy provides no protection from the brutality and injustice of capitalism. The reason why you don't feel those things in America and Western Europe is not because your government is democratic, but because you have a mixed economy with a heavy socialist influence.

Again I ask you: Do you know what life was like for the average worker living in your capitalist democracy in the 19th century?

Before you introduced socialist elements into your economy, your poor were just as miserable and hungry as those of India are today.

(oh, and by the way, there are no people who live under socialist governments today, because there are no socialist governments in the world right now)

Anathema · March 22, 2004

a tribute to the miserable failure of socialism.

filecore · March 22, 2004

Yeah, there's a reason they call it the "Labour Party".

Just to enlighten you a little more. The current ruling party in the UK is not the Labour Party - it's New Labour. Semantics, you may argue, simple toying with words - but the decision to name themselves "New Labour" and not "the Labour Party" as in years before was that the old (ie, left-wing and socialist) Labour Party in the UK died even before John Smith did, and when this "new" Labour Party came out of the grotty woodwork, they wanted to differentiate their type of "Labour" policies from what people had been used to previously. Hence, "New Labour". Strange but true :O

emprworm · March 22, 2004

India is the world's largest capitalist democracy, and also one of the world's poorest countries.

and India is not a democratic republic.

Capitalism is worthless if a democratic republic does not exist with it.

Then there is Indonesia, all the countries of South Asia, Africa, South America... one billion people are suffering from hunger under capitalism.

they live under governments that are not republic democracies.

No one is starving to death in any country that is a capitalistic republic democracy.

Those who live in capistalitic republic democracies have the best standards of living on earth. The reason? It works

Plenty of people are starving to death, however, in socialist countries

your examples only demonstrate the ineffectiveness of any form of government that is not a republic democracy.

Sign In

Emprworm's rant thread

Recommended Posts

danielsh

Edric O

Dude_Doc

Dunenewt

Wolf

Edric O

Dunenewt

Wolf

Edric O

Dunenewt

Wolf

Dunenewt

Edric O

Wolf

Dante

emprworm

Dante

Edric O

emprworm

Edric O

emprworm

Edric O

Anathema

filecore

emprworm

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information