|
| Thread: The Dictatorial Dictator's Dictatorship of North Korea |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 06, 2009 11:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Vietnam is socialist. It's even called that way, Socialist Republic.
And I can call myself a socialist. Doesn't mean I am.
Quote:
And it's not really an ad hominem either, since the table itself is not listing SOCIALIST countries - just a ranking of a very subjective "economic freedom" ranking, whatever the heck that may mean.
The less economic freedom, the closer to socialism. The more economic freedom, the closer to capitalism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 02:57 AM |
|
|
How do you measure it?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 03:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, that's just plain Rude Death.
I'm beginning to get tired of arguments like "lol dude that's BS" or "nonsense" or other stuff like what I quoted alright?
Quote:
But what has it to do wih North Korea, the missile it had launched or even with the freaken' United States of America? What does it have to do with it?
Ah, actually it's more like the parallel between:
"OMG Jews are teh evil! They are gonna kill us all!"
and
"OMG North Korea is teh evil! It must not be allowed to have nukes, even though we have" (again, if USA did not have nukes then at least, it would be a more valid point).
Quote:
The USA would never use those nukes, especially against an earthworm as North Korea.
Assumption.
Unless it's some computer that does it, in which case I would like to see the source code that it won't launch nukes.
Quote:
Not proven. NK doesn't have nukes, Dagoth. Not yet.
What about the underground explosion in 2006?
Quote:
Not really true. They can lose a war and be destroyed partially (and communism will destroy the other part). I mean, look at the Magnificent, Grand, Enormous, Gargantuan Union of American States and North Korea, a minature, puny, petty, undemocratic, arrogant and power-hungry Dictatorship stuck in the webs of time. Who will win this, you think? (and No, I don't believe in a David & Goliath scenario)
uh Lex, will you also claim the Chinese will pwn everyone because of their huge number of population and soldiers? Those days are gone.
Now I know, NK is nowhere close to let's say Russia in nuclear arsenal, but for complete annihilation of all American cities you will probably need around 10 multi-warhead ICBMs. Doesn't seem like they wouldn't fit even in the Vatican...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 06:13 AM |
|
|
The US was justified for using the nuclear weapons back in WW2.
Today they would not use them again.
The dictator of North Korea treats his people horribly.
Every single time I come into Otherside, Death is always coming up with these ridiculous arguements ruining the thread.
Now I don't mind having people take an opposite opinion, as long as they don't argue for the sake of arguing or taking any means necessary to win the arguement.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 07:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Vietnam is socialist. It's even called that way, Socialist Republic.
And I can call myself a socialist. Doesn't mean I am.
Quote:
And it's not really an ad hominem either, since the table itself is not listing SOCIALIST countries - just a ranking of a very subjective "economic freedom" ranking, whatever the heck that may mean.
The less economic freedom, the closer to socialism. The more economic freedom, the closer to capitalism.
Both untrue.
Vietnam is a state ruled by ONE party, the communist one, and the economy is centrally planned, ALLOWING increasing elements of free market on the personal level - which is as socialist as it gets. You must not let your perspective be ruined by strange defintion of socialism which does NOT mean abolishment of ALL private ownership. (It just abolishes the ownership of the important means of production, not private ownership as such.)
The trouble with your second definition is that the freedom of the individual ends where the freedom of the next one starts. Modern socialism does accept that, but capitalism says instead, the freedom of the individual ends where their wallet does.
Which is where the clash is. Capitalism has to understand that economic freedom is not the only freedom that counts.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 10:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Today they would not use them again.
Unless it's "justified" again.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 11:17 AM |
|
|
The nuke usage of US in fact avoided the worst -> invasion, which would kill much more people than the nukes and devastate the country much more. The shock ended the war. It was a different situation than today, where "big wars" among empires are in the past and all know about the nuclear weaponry.
I don't think "conventional" war is any better than nuke anyway.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 11:30 AM |
|
|
I do, since those areas will become uninhabitable and the aftershock can be horrible to all 'survivors'.
It's better to just send in the manchildren (I.E. soldiers) to settle the dispute without harming too many civilians...
Wait, that's inevitable, nevermind, war is just horrible!
EDIT: what JJ said!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 12:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The nuke usage of US in fact avoided the worst -> invasion, which would kill much more people than the nukes and devastate the country much more. The shock ended the war. It was a different situation than today, where "big wars" among empires are in the past and all know about the nuclear weaponry.
I don't think "conventional" war is any better than nuke anyway.
You are a bit off the facts there. First thing is that TWO bombs were dropped, on 6th and 9th August, respectively, killing 220.000 people until the end of 1945, with 95% of them being CIVILIAN casualties.
In effect these were TERROR attacks, because they were directed SOLELY against civilian targets - the Truman administration took the whole Japanese people hostage to press the Japanese government to an unconditional and fast surrender: at that point Japan already was actively trying for peace negotiations. Moreover, as planned and agreed with upon by the allies beforehand, on August 8th Russia entered the war against Japan in Manchuria with upped the pressure on Japan a lot - a surrender would have been inevitable anyway.
However, with the Truman administration and the war in Europe solved, a radical shift in attention has occurred, and Russia - Stalin - was viewed as a main threat which was a reason for trying to force an end as soon as possible to limit Russian expansion and contain the bear in Asia.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 12:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The US was justified for using the nuclear weapons back in WW2.
I disagree. US was one of the winning sides in WW2, if it had lost WW2 AFTER using the nukes then we would have a different way of viewing it then. Winners write history, they also justiy their causes because of that.
US fired its nukes unto cities, not the place where the goverment was nor the military's main base. It was a city overfilled with war-tired civilians.
Also: JJ points at it pretty well.
Quote:
Today they would not use them again.
If they could get away with it, then yes they would. I belive there is a higher chance of US using nukes then NK.
And for the note, if NK decided to attempt annexing SK i would want the US troops out of there beforehand. No non-need 3rd party attempts.
Quote:
The dictator of North Korea treats his people horribly.
Its a dictatorship, not a socialistic country. The monarches treated their peasants horribly during the medival age too, and that was also a sorts of dictatorship.
Quote:
Every single time I come into Otherside, Death is always coming up with these ridiculous arguements ruining the thread.
For me its mvass. And lots of times he clings to the wall and flawed defansive arguments and links to "blind" sources. He also openly refuses to understand simple logic at points, likely in pure wanting to do that.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 02:45 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Socialism means public ownership of all the means of production. What is there to not understand about that?
Quote:
Capitalism has to understand that economic freedom is not the only freedom that counts.
Without economic freedom, there can be no other freedoms.
As regards the nukes - yes, innocents were killed, but it ultimately resulted in fewer total casualties.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 03:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Socialism means public ownership of all the means of production. What is there to not understand about that?
Quote:
Capitalism has to understand that economic freedom is not the only freedom that counts.
Without economic freedom, there can be no other freedoms.
As regards the nukes - yes, innocents were killed, but it ultimately resulted in fewer total casualties.
I may lose a red star for saying it, but ins this case I'm giving it gladly: this is a strong contender for the daftest most ignorant post in a long time!
1) In that case capitalism means PRIVATE ownership of all means of production which would mean, if it is no socialism anymore when you allow some types of limited private ownership and responsibility, it's not capitalism anymore as soon as some types of public ownership enter the picture which is obviously silly because in that case there would be no capitalism. Vietnam has massive planning elements in their economy and is one of the few countries that still have that. In fact they learned from poor results of complete control and allowed more economic freedom on a personal level which doesn't change the basic situation - it just is enough to fire up the economy. Vietnam is an example for a MOSTLY directed economy that works and therefore doesn't fit in your worldview.
In fact you are trying to dogmatize the terms and limit them to anachronistical exclusive meanings they never even had historically, just to allow you to either attack them or call them not socialist anymore.
2) Dumb cliché - why not come up with something really original like, rather dead than red or, like Brecht said, if you want to build a high tower there must be high up and low down.
3) And lastly we are having a fit of gigantomania and getting all-knowing now, are we? It ultimately resulted in fewer total casualties? You know that because you were granted a look into a couple of parallel universes? Had a conversation with god?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 03:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In that case capitalism means PRIVATE ownership of all means of production which would mean, if it is no socialism anymore when you allow some types of limited private ownership and responsibility, it's not capitalism anymore as soon as some types of public ownership enter the picture which is obviously silly because in that case there would be no capitalism.
Socialism means public ownership of all the means of production. So everything that is not entirely socialist is capitalist.
Quote:
It ultimately resulted in fewer total casualties? You know that because you were granted a look into a couple of parallel universes?
Nope - I can think for myself, I'm not some collectivist who must be told.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 03:48 PM |
|
|
In that case let's just nationalize everything except General Motors. We are still safely capialist then.
Edit: Dear me, and here I forgot to add the centrally planned economy - seems like a natural thing to have, when you nationalize most everything, but you never know. So if you completely socialize everything, except leaving every farmer a certain amount of privately owned land, let's say to encourage agriculture, 10 acres, for example, it's still a firm capitalism, mind you. Not a very "free" economy, but still a capitalist one.
Quote:
Nope - I can think for myself, I'm not some collectivist who must be told.
You mean, you have revelations. I don't think it makes any sense to continue this nonsense.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 03:50 PM |
|
|
JJ, I recall our history teacher telling us Japan was nowhere near giving up and the mentality of their nation would make them stand their ground to the very end. In such situation, nukes were a better solution.
If they were really thinking about surrendering, though, as you say they were, you are of course right and the nukes were completely unnecessary.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 03:55 PM |
|
|
Try to research a bit on it, don't believe me simply.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 10:57 PM |
|
|
JJ:
As ridiculous as you're trying to make it sound, yes - as long as there is some private ownership of the means of production, it is still capitalist, although a mixed economy. (Although GM is a bad example, considering that it's likely to go under.  )
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 11:21 PM |
|
|
Silly, isn't it? ItÄs like saying, as long as there is a DROP of blue blood running in the veins of any person, no matter how small they are called noblemen and sirs.
I certainly don't mind: calling a general nationaization with a completely planned economy and a minimum of private ownership still capitalism, will certainly help changing it.
Although... it seems strange, and correct me if I'm wrong, but generally yit's enough to just hint on letting the government do ANYTHING, no matter how small, and you get the SOCIALISM wailing. Doesn't add up somehow.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2009 11:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Although... it seems strange, and correct me if I'm wrong, but generally yit's enough to just hint on letting the government do ANYTHING, no matter how small, and you get the SOCIALISM wailing.
Others do. I don't. I view it as often being negative and in the direction of socialism, but not socialism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted April 08, 2009 12:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Today they would not use them again.
Unless it's "justified" again.
There is no justification in today's world to use nuclear weapons. I can see no scenario where the only option would be to use a nuclear weapon.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
| |
|
|
