CIA worked in tandem with Pakistan to create Taliban.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Simple trade isn't capitalism. Merchatilism was far more advanced than trading one thing for another. Commodities were produced not for getting equal exchange, as in your example, but to make a profit. That is the fundimental nature of capitalism.

It is an equal exchange which is profitable to both parties. Why would anyone go to the trouble otherwise?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When over ten million a year die in the capitalist world because of easily preventable disease and famine, simply because it isn't profitable to save them, capitalism easily beats the killing fields, the Great Leap Forward, and Stalin's collectivization.

The sum of the sins of omission of all individuals cannot be equated with the sins of commission of a Communist government . You are falling into the fallacy of control ( one rather peculiar to the Communist kind ) - you assume that , because in communist governments , everything is controlled by the government , which is in turn controlled by an ideology , so must be the case in a capitalist government , and that everything that happens in a capitalist state is somehow decreed by capitalism . It is not . A non-capitalist in a capitalist state may do anything he likes as long as he does not harm another .

The fact of the matter is that capitalism decrees nothing . It allows a human being to do as he pleases as long as he does not violate the rights of another ( by force or fraud , of any magnitude ) . That is why capitalism is successful and communism a failure - your ideology denies human nature , and tries to curb the exercise of rights and also tries to curb free will .

It is possible for non-capitalists to live in a capitalist society - for example , if a community is self-sufficient in everything , they may choose to withdraw from the larger market and live their own life . Or you can have fractional degrees of separation from the mainstream .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Sikander


It is an equal exchange which is profitable to both parties. Why would anyone go to the trouble otherwise?

It is an exchange in which both take part voluntarily , and both parties percieve themselves to be better off after the trade than after . But yes , it boils down to what you said .

[Berzerker]

When over ten million a year die in the capitalist world because of easily preventable disease and famine, simply because it isn't profitable to save them, capitalism easily beats the killing fields, the Great Leap Forward, and Stalin's collectivization.

In other news, it appears Merck has developed a vaccine for cervical cancer with a stellar record of success in trials (invest in Merck fast).

Btw Che, the government has made it very expensive to develop drugs and time consuming, so dont blame capitalism for the trade off people have made in the name of safer drugs. If you want to identify a villain (and avoid a mirror) it would be the FDA and politicians who slow discovery and increase costs.

Oh yeah, if I own a drug company I dont have an obligation to give you the fruits of my labor at the price you want. Thats akin to slavery... So blaming me because someone somewhere died of a disease is illogical.

[Berzerker]

It is an exchange in which both take part voluntarily , and both parties percieve themselves to be better off after the trade than after . But yes , it boils down to what you said .

Which fits the definition of freedom. But under the communist ideology, the fact one party wants or needs the exchange more creates "coercion". Therefore, the communism would forcibly take what both have and divide it equally between them...and then keep coming back to do it all over again. Thats "freedom" under communism...

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Oerdin
Mr. Fun, the Sandinistas weren't exactly nice people either. They had the habit of killing everyone who they thought didn't look poor enough or who they thought were to religious.

Which is why they killed all of those priests in their government? Oh, right, they didn't. If you want priest killers, you need to go to El Salvador, our ally, which murdrered 70,000 of its own people.

The only human rights abuses that can be laid at the feet of the Sandanistas was the killing of Miskitos Indians, which occured because the Indians were living in a war zone and the government decided to relocate them. The Miskitos didn't want to go, so the Sandanistas used force, killing many. This drove the Indians into the arms of the Contras, and so the Sandanistas realized they made a mistake, tried the people responsible for the killings, etc.

Nor were rich people killed extrajudicially in Nicaragua (marking a change from the Somoza dictatorship, who killed anyone). The Somoza families holdings were nationalized, since it was all stolen anyway. Anyone who left the country had their property seized, but they weren't killed. The internal opposition was almost entirely led by the wealthy.

Great gains were made in literacy and infant mortality in the early Sandinista years, which the contras did their best to reverse by making the country a terrorist hell. It's quite appropriate to his thread that the contras were funded with cash from arms sales to Islamic Fundamentalists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How so? Take absolute monarchy (for simplicity). If the absolute monarch doesn't have absolute power, then it's not actually an absolute monarchy.

Yes... but we were discussing monarchy, not absolute monarchy .

Actually, we were discussing fish.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
And he is right, I agree with Dashy

Agreement with a bald assertion.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aneeshm
The fact of the matter is that capitalism decrees nothing . It allows a human being to do as he pleases as long as he does not violate the rights of another ( by force or fraud , of any magnitude ) . That is why capitalism is successful and communism a failure - your ideology denies human nature , and tries to curb the exercise of rights and also tries to curb free will .

You are very confused.

Capitalism is an economic system and it has nothing to do with "freedom" and "human rights."

[DaShi]

Funny that you, King of the Bald Assertions should say that. However, it did take you days to come up with a response. In the end you had to use another poster's post to do it, with a one line bald assertion nontheless. I love how blind you are. So how is China's blocking of the Khmer Rouge a bald assertion?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi

Funny, you distinctly insisted that the use of the smilie is a sign of losing an argument.

[DaShi]

A lone smiley is, yes. But I was simply laughing at the absurdity of you using a bald assertion to claim that my post was a bald assertion. Now you are simply trying to avoid the issue altogether. However, since this was such a quick response for you, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't clearly read (I believe I've already demonstrated your reading comprehension skills, several times ) my post let alone think about.

[DaShi]

Although UR, I'll be kind. Please show us how your statement wasn't a bald assertion, then you can happily claim that my was a weak protest.

Despite everything, I do like you, UR. You're very interesting. So there are really no hard feelings.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos

"If you have any info about them using chem, bio or nuclear weapons against your troops, please, let us know."

If I find you any I will definetly post it, but of course you left guerrilla warfare off your list. Do you want sources for this.

And Oerdin addressed how in every instance of the VC/NVA acting like grownups they got mauled.

You are now disqualified from commenting on military matters.

Let's get back a while. It's all started with my question:

Are you talking about the same Vietnam wich whiped your superior asses in a completely conventional war?
Instead of answer you called me a moron. Then I asked to bring some examples when VC used NBC weapons against your troops. Now you completely disqualified me, because I left guerrilla warfare off my list.
I'm so ashamed.
I realize that I probably deserve to be disqualified for my poor English, but are you sure you know what term "conventional war" means?

From www.reference.com:

"Types of war and warfare

A conventional war is a war where nuclear or biological weapons are not used, whereas, unconventional warfare (nuclear warfare) is a war where such weapons are used".

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/War

As for guerrilla warfare:
"Guerrilla warfare operates with small, mobile and flexible combat groups called cells, without a front line. Guerrilla warfare is one of the oldest forms of asymmetric warfare. (Asymmetric warfare is a military term to describe warfare in which the two belligerents are mismatched in their military capabilities or accustomed methods of engagement such that the militarily diasadvantaged power must press its special advantages or effectively exploit its enemy's particular weaknesses if they are to have any hope of prevailing.)"

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Guerrilla

So according to you, I should have included guerrilla warfare in my list, because VC used guerrilla tactics and this makes Vietnam war an unconventional, right?

[Dinner]

Serb, in English guerilla warfare and terrorism is often called unconventional warfare. This has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.