<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:

another thing that I don't understand is why they insist on calling themselves americans, as if there are no more countries in the entire continent.<hr></blockquote>

"America" is the name of the nation. The "United States" is a situation. A way the nation is organised.

The Commonwealth of Australia consists of Australians.

The Dominion of Canada consists of Canadians.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of British and North Irish.

The United States of Europe will consist of Europeans.

I mentioned this in another thread a while ago. It's not the fault of Americans, as it's the name of the nation. It's the fault of whoever named the place.

It seems that the European government are going to make the same mistake.

Will Swiss, Norwegians and Russians still be able to call themselves Europeans while not being in the Union? ;)

Still, there are two continents named America. North and south. Combined they are the Americas. Americans are not calling themselves North Americans (thus taking the name of the continent) nor Americasians. [img]smile.gif[/img]

ok, I got it now. You always learn something new, as they say.

Moito Obrigado Yorick (thanks a lot)! [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



It's actually much more accurate than "Indian". I guess we could call them Indigenous Americans. [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

A fair few sociologists/historians refer to them as "Amerindian".

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Communism is dead? I think Fukuyama is fundamentally wrong on that one to be honest. One nation socialism as tried in Russia has failed. I think everyone knew it would and I would never argue differently. Read the Communist Manifesto, it is completely different from how you imagined it I would bet. The whole idea of Communism is that it has to happen globally and it has to happen when people are ready for it. That was blatantly not the case in Russia, or China. This is why I think one of the only countries as a socialist I can learn from is Cuba. They have done remarkably well considering what they ahd to start off with. But that is another argument.<hr></blockquote>

Failed in Russia (twice. Under Stalin, Russia had a pseudo-capitalist economy for a while)
Failed in:
Khazakstan,
Uzbekistan,
Ukraine,
Byelorussia,
Estonia,
Latvia,
Lithuania,
Moravia,
Kirgiztan,
Tajikstan,
Georgia,
Armenia
Turkmenistan;

as well as:
Mongolia,
Yugoslavia,
Czechoslovakia,
Hungary,
East Germany,
Poland,
Romania,
Bulgaria,
Albania.

A few more than "one country" wouldn't you say?

China is now partialy capitalist, and includes a totally capitalist Hong Kong.

Cuba is way more capitalist than it was during the hight of the cold war. Even so, if it wasn't repressive, why do people flee it when they can? They are still seeking asylum in America.

Also, elected government? Well sure. Russia had an elected government too. You could elect different individuals, but not different parties. Kind of lame if you ask me. "Once you pick us, there's no going back" Very cowardly not disallowing dissention.

Finally, Communism was meant to be transitory until true Socialism was introduced. No government and true equality under socialism.
It failed. Socialism was not introduced, as the governments stayed in power. Socialism relys on humans not being greedy or power hungry. Two traits humankind has exhibited with much fervor since the dawn of time.

A nice theory. Will it ever work?

Will any governmental system work?

Not in my opinion.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by norompanlasolas:

This is what I fail to understand from the reasoning of some north americans (another thing that I dont understand is why they insist on calling themselves americans, as if there are no more countries in the entire continent).

Mixing politics with religion only complicates matters, and thats EXACTLY what makes bush as dangerous (or maybe even more) as bin laden. Saying a regime is evil is just oversimplifying and putting things in black and white. Especially in the case of cuba. Most of the cuban problems are due to the US embargo promoted by the corrupt cuban-americans that live in miami (bush's little brother jeb, by the way, made his personal fortune doing shady bussines with them).

That is why president bush scares me so. A not very bright, ultra-religious and wrightwing fanatic in the presidency of the one superpower that can throw an atomic bomb and walk free is a REALLY scary thought.
<hr></blockquote>

1. My utter contempt/disgust/hatred for communism has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with religon. IMHO, communism always has been evil from the first day that it was concieved and will always be evil. It is every bit on a par with fascism.

2. Just because Bush is not (at least pre 9/11) the most eloguent public speaker, does in no way mean that he is lacking in intelligence. Public speaking talent simply does not equate to intelligence (political or otherwise). GW Bush is not an ultra-religous, right-wing fanatic!!!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:


I know my statement above wasnt directed at the Afghan situation so much as replying to the statement that America never backs down. Its not always a bad thing to back down.<hr></blockquote>


well, if we were to back down, then all of the other little terrorist groups would say, "hey, look what Moron bin hiden did, i bet we can do that too, get away with it, and get a name for ourselves." bin laden allready said that he will not rest until America is destroyed. he calls us an enemy of islam, and all enemies of islam will be destroyed. well, im an enemy of islam, if he is the figure head of the islam people, and i DARE him to come to my home and try to end my life. i have a .308 sniper rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun,a .40 calibre pistol, and a .223 AR15, all with his name on them. so let him come, and hope he makes it through my yard. i am a patriotic American, and i hope we kill him, and put his head on a spike.

if im not mistaken, England tried to take lands all throughout the middle ages. and you people sure as hell didnt complain when we helped you out with hitler! but now that we are helping out a country who is in dire need of it, we are "bad guys". that is such crap. if nobody interveined in anything, then there would be all sorts of violence all over the place. the only reason nobody brings a war to our land it our technological superiority, our better trained military, and the fact that people like myself, are allowed to carry weapons. just for the record, im trained by the government, so i know what our capabilities are, that is why i make those statements.

Ditto, Morgan_Corbesant.

Also remember that before the real shooting started in WW2, it was the UK and Neville Chamberlain that backed down before Hitler. See what that got ALL of us? All you UK members don't take this as a hit on the UK. When the UK got a leader with some sense (i.e. Churchill), the UK did the right thing. It's just too bad that Churchill wasn't around earlier.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Morgan_Corbesant:
well, if we were to back down, then all of the other little terrorist groups would say, "hey, look what Moron bin hiden did, i bet we can do that too, get away with it, and get a name for ourselves." bin laden allready said that he will not rest until America is destroyed. he calls us an enemy of islam, and all enemies of islam will be destroyed. well, im an enemy of islam, if he is the figure head of the islam people, and i DARE him to come to my home and try to end my life. i have a .308 sniper rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun,a .40 calibre pistol, and a .223 AR15, all with his name on them. so let him come, and hope he makes it through my yard. i am a patriotic American, and i hope we kill him, and put his head on a spike.

if im not mistaken, England tried to take lands all throughout the middle ages. and you people sure as hell didnt complain when we helped you out with hitler! but now that we are helping out a country who is in dire need of it, we are "bad guys". that is such crap. if nobody interveined in anything, then there would be all sorts of violence all over the place. the only reason nobody brings a war to our land it our technological superiority, our better trained military, and the fact that people like myself, are allowed to carry weapons. just for the record, im trained by the government, so i know what our capabilities are, that is why i make those statements.<hr></blockquote>

Mental note: Never walk near Morgans house wearing a robe or having a really long beard.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:


1. My utter contempt/disgust/hatred for communism has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with religon. IMHO, communism always has been evil from the first day that it was concieved and will always be evil. It is every bit on a par with fascism.<hr></blockquote>

You have said this Magness, we are all pretty clear where you come from on this issue. Could you please explain why it is evil in your mind rather than just referring to me as evil continually. I do not mind in the slightest as long as you give me your reasons.

Yorick, I looked through the list of apparently communist countries and I entirely agreed with you. None of them had worked properly. But if you read what I said earlier you will find I have already mentioned this. I will repeat briefly:

I think socialism/communism in one country is very, very, very, unlikely to work.

If you read the communist manifesto or Capital or anything like that you will find that it is supposed to be a global force. By necessity those countries had to maintain a capitalist economy to trade with the outside world. As a result they were beset by capitalists on the outside and corruption on the inside. You cannot operate a communist system with a capitalist mindframe (I agree with you again it would seem on this point but hear me out...) or a capitalist economy. Communism really needs to operate in an autarchy (like the Isreali kibbutz's). This is the reason Cuba has done so well IMO - they were forced by a ridiculously restrictive blockade to become almost entirely self sufficient. This means that unlike a lot of countries they did not have to adopt extremely repressive measures to ensure the survival of communism. They have recently had to adapt their economy to make way for the tourist industry, so I would agree they have become a lot more capitalist.

This is the root of a lot of the problems in Cuba today - particularly the prostitution and corruption ones. These never used to exist in any kind of significant form before the cuban economy changed character.

I would say that communism has to be a global force, like capitalism, in order to succeed. This is why I find it weird that people point to lists of countries where it has failed. Frankly I am amazed that it even works in as many as it does. It needs to be global and that will not happen for a while, to say the least.

To the point that it ignores greed, therefore meaning that it can't work. I will keep this short as it is a little boring. What is human nature? Where do you get the proof that human nature is based on greed? There isn't any - people think that it is self evident in our society. The key words here are IN OUR SOCIETY. We have built up a mind frame of greed, it wasn't there already. Every waking moment of your life under capitalism is dedicated to yourself and your family so is it any wonder that people are greedy. And then when we try and change this suprisingly people's minds don't change overnight. Communism is a long process but it is also inevitable and it will hopefully overcome the problems in our society of greed and inequality.

BTW Yorick, wrong way round. Socialism first, then Communism. Not vice versa. Or at least - that is the theory.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:
W Bush is not an ultra-religous, right-wing fanatic!!!<hr></blockquote>

But he employs them as ministers [img]smile.gif[/img]