International Politics Thread

[-Snafu- 77]

And that is where it might lead to the wrong path.

Being a capitalist state started going wrong from Thatcher/Reagan era when banks and such were raised to a position where they're not responsible to anyone anymore.

Look at the present economic turmoil which is the result of openly declaring greed as a virtue.

My country is going to hell at the moment and all that the politicians are interest in here are the petty rivalries between different parties. Makes me sick to my stomach thinking of how it'll be when my son is old enough to try and find a job....

:(

As much as I hate Thatcher, Thatcher and Reagan didn't allow banks and other financial institutions to operate without accountability. Ever heard of laissez-faire? It was a policy on economics popular in 19th Century Britain but Thatcher never actually returned to such a policy although it was often referred to.

Economic turmoil is nothing new and has been happening for hundred of years.

Plus, when have most politicians not been interested in themselves and deriding the opposition parties?

Everything changes, everything stays the same.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Snafu

[Spawn Squad 10]

i think a bit more global, so EU and USA (NATO) is a unbeatable army, and deserves alot of respect from my side. my country is neutral and non EU, even if its in the middle of europe, and that nerves my somtimes :lurk: whatever, i think i have to liv with that peacekeeper role...

p.s. i like it to rescue the hostages, is this game made for soldier mental-reaction trainings? i think every western-army pause room should have this game installed, its pretty realistic, i love it :)

[spooky lynx 73]

The economic benefits did not become noticeable until 40-50 years down the line.

You shouldn't compare 18th and the end of 20th centuries. At that times it was rather hard to access to other countries' experience, law systems, economic doctrine and other information. Now it is very easy to get such information and use it in own country. So, what was needed 40-50 years to take effects in 17xx years, now needs 4-5 times shorter.

My point is that a communist state won't turn into a stable and successful democratic capitalist state overnight. It takes time and the former Soviet countries are still very young.

One notice: so-called communist state (I mean what was USSR) could be a stable and successful itself. Without turning to capitalism totally, but gaining some of its sides in economy.

If you want an example, the democratic system in Russia is still forming. A key sign of a stable democratic state is a two party system where two parties become popular enough to effectively dominate the political scene. At the beginning there were many political parties in Russia and if you look at it now there are less. A sign that it is maturing.

Sorry, but I would say that we don't have democratic system at all. Oligarchy and plutocracy - maybe, but not democracy.

[-Snafu- 77]

You shouldn't compare 18th and the end of 20th centuries. At that times it was rather hard to access to other countries' experience, law systems, economic doctrine and other information. Now it is very easy to get such information and use it in own country. So, what was needed 40-50 years to take effects in 17xx years, now needs 4-5 times shorter.

Nonsense.

One notice: so-called communist state (I mean what was USSR) could be a stable and successful itself. Without turning to capitalism totally, but gaining some of its sides in economy.

China has done something similar, it has retained an authoritarian system with a capitalist economy. I don't think I would call it successful.

Sorry, but I would say that we don't have democratic system at all. Oligarchy and plutocracy - maybe, but not democracy.

Again, stable democracies don't happen overnight. No matter the time period.

[spooky lynx 73]

Nonsense.

Why nonsense? Don't you think that speed of information exchange and ability to get it haven't changed through this time?

China has done something similar, it has retained an authoritarian system with a capitalist economy. I don't think I would call it successful.

One of the most fast-developed economics nowadays with growing gold-currency reserves, isn't it success?

Again, stable democracies don't happen overnight. No matter the time period.

I hope there will be no need for another revolution.

[vilas 473]

full agree with Spooky Lynx

in 17-century there was no such knowledge exchange like now, now we can learn on other people mistakes

and "transformation" make benefits in some countries like Czech Republic, they are much wealthier than Poland

regarding China : "third way" but of course asian people have other life philosophy, they always have believed that "ruler has right, my life is unworthy, i must work hard for my lord"

for me it is "slave mentality" :( but of course it made China leading manufacturer of goods, and it made unemployment here (every t-shirt is made in China)

so China became for me "world enemy", because took our places of work

whole LODZ city was Polish wear manufacturer, a lot of people lost jobs, cause Chinese t-shirt cost 1 Euro and Polish costed 3

cause Polish shirt costed 50 EU and Chinese 5

or even screwdriver, electric equipment etc.

unemployment is caused by "too cheap products" and big plants had no customers and fallen in late 90s

and it makes problems in our countries, cause when Chinese product is bought, our citizen looses job in industry, smaller money go to taxes , smaller money have society (unemployed not buy) and in effect you loose

cause if Mr. X, Mr. Y, Mr. Z will loose job (in t-shirts manufactory) than you , Mr.A won't sell them your pizza,

so Mr. A has no customers for his made pizza (because X, Y, Z have no money)

so Mr. A won't buy bike from Mr.B

vicious circle - but we should realize who is guilty for our problems - those who moved production to China, big business is guilty , those rich greed fat pigs

because fat pig wanted "more more more and private jet, gold plated Bentley, gold dishes"

he moved shirt production to China, he moved electric equipment to China, he moved screwdriver, bike production to China

now Mr. X, Mr. Y, Mr. Z - has no work

Mr A cannot sell them his work, he will be poor, Mr B won't sell his goods to Mr A

and so on, so on, so on.. .

China used opportunity, but we have problems because of our big business leaders

we European wanna enjoy life, read books, watch movies, listen to music - not "work hard for somebody's palace getting small money myself"

so like Spooky Lynx said - maybe another revolution ?

cause i really do not want words "wait 50 years, your grandson will live better"

f*** system that not allow me to easy joyful life , cause i have just one life and i want it to be most joyfull as it can be, without stress, without "working 13 hours to pay for flat"

in "communism" people worked slowly, easy

now some of us in Poland have to work 10-13 hours daily to get money for basic live (not for luxury life)

i know my neighbors working so long, it is wasted life,

so many movies, so many books, so many music, so many places to visit and see, so many parties to go.. wasted :(

thats why we had this trade union movement in 80's, people wanted free Saturdays, more money when they have small children, people wanted more joy from life

but to have joy, first we must have "good" job

[-Snafu- 77]

Why nonsense? Don't you think that speed of information exchange and ability to get it haven't changed through this time?

The continuous development of technology and the increasing speed of communications does not mean that every process will be sped up. Complicated processes such as democratisation take time, regardless.

Your theory would suggest that as time goes we will reach a position where things can take virtually no time at all. That's unrealistic.

One of the most fast-developed economics nowadays with growing gold-currency reserves, isn't it success?

For those in control of that authoritarian system, yes.

[Commando84 0]

The European parliament reps. actually where brave enough to say to to the swift deal and said no shoplifting here plz :D

But I heard also that the Us. will probably just go and talk privately with the single countries switzerland and Netherlands about handing over the banking info anyways...

[seba1976 98]

i remember old tv documentary film (KinoPolska TV shows old b/w documents ) , it was from 1979/1980, it was meeting on university with young students - activists of Solidarity (people like my mother, people like my neighbors) and they were asked about future after communism collapse and solidarity win "we will get new car, we will get bigger flat"

Some of you did.

and one man (probably Polish communist secret police or commie party member) asked them - "do you know that on west there are people that have no money too ?" and they shouted at him that he is saying bullshit , now after 30 years we know - he said truth

It sounds to me you were extremely naive, but then again, lack of information about the rest of the world is another downside of soviet communism.

In any case, the reality works like this (and allow me the simplification ;)): You can be all poor - equally poor - (Cuba, USSR, North Korea, et al) or you can have poor AND rich people (US, EU, South America, etc). What you want is everybody rich, everybody with good jobs, and everybody enjoying life. History hasn't seen anything like that yet.

If you want to enjoy life, you better start looking elsewere, because the material side of it, is a bitch :cool:.

[maturin 12]

Why nonsense? Don't you think that speed of information exchange and ability to get it haven't changed through this time?

Successful, lasting democratic systems rely on the formation of strong institutions and related cultural values. These sorts of things can't really be sped up that much, although technology and economies can change overnight and create the environments that aid or impede other processes. Business and trade can bring enormous wealth and development in a chaotic manner, without the consent or participation of the majority of the population. Democracy, however, requires strong, resilient organization and a committed populace.

[vilas 473]

seba1976 - in many countries there is "middle class" that is very wide percent of society

in our country there is only few percent of middle class

were we naive ? no , we were lied by CIA propaganda (as CIA is from USA, so in result we were lied by america)

CIA was giving some instructions / support / propaganda to (than) oposition leaders

people in countries like Sweden, France, UK, Germany have wide middle class

third world means "very small percent of very rich and majority of poor"

and because of this shity changes we turned to III world

and i prefer "equal poor" than this goddamn needles in my eye seeing Lexus on streets while people have problems with flats, food, wear etc.

economic problems have many roots and among them China issue mentioned above

cause really hard to buy not-made in China shirt now :/ even sunflowers and tomatoes now are also made in China :(

[maturin 12]

seba1976 - in many countries there is "middle class" that is very wide percent of society

in our country there is only few percent of middle class

were we naive ? no , we were lied by CIA propaganda (as CIA is from USA, so in result we were lied by america)

CIA was giving some instructions / support / propaganda to (than) oposition leaders

people in countries like Sweden, France, UK, Germany have wide middle class

third world means "very small percent of very rich and majority of poor"

and because of this shity changes we turned to III world

and i prefer "equal poor" than this goddamn needles in my eye seeing Lexus on streets while people have problems with flats, food, wear etc.

economic problems have many roots and among them China issue mentioned above

cause really hard to buy not-made in China shirt now :/ even sunflowers and tomatoes now are also made in China :(

*sigh*

How exactly did the CIA come and lie to you? There was that big wall thingy and it was really hard to cross. Radio Free Europe only broadcast U.S.-style news, after the Hungarian Revolution failed. The opposition leaders of every country but Poland were practically nonexistent. After Budapest and Prague fell, there were only a handful of jailed intellectuals. Their support was simply moral support: declarations in support of human rights from the West. The Poles votes against Communism in 1945 and organized Solidarity against it in the 1980s. Their resistance was organic and anti-Communist. The Hungarians in 1956 and the Cezchs in 1968 had experienced capitalism, communism and fascism. They made their own choices.

The Western influence and ideas that did so much to bring down Communism (or at least its ideology) did not come from the state or any state organization. Governments aren't very good at communicating culture. Cultural exchange (or CIA propaganda) was impossible to halt and was even facilitated by the Soviets after Stalin died. Most of your countrymen are smarter than you, or so I guess, but if they managed to be completely unaware of how capitalism works, it was their own naivete. That naivete was, of course, helped along by the Communist fantasy world they lived in.

And I suppose you think the Middle Class in the U.S. is minuscule compared to Germany's. When we're talking about capitalism vs. communism, the differences between the U.S. and the U.K. are not that significant.

Edited February 11, 2010 by maturin

[vilas 473]

how do you know what most statistic Pole thinks about situation we have, ha ?

most smarter than me ? smarter than me?

percentage of people with higher education (MSc, MoA , PhD etc.) have ca. 8-12% of people (12 if we will count there also "licencjat" which is called "half-higher" , cause previously in system there was no equivalent of US "bachelor" ) i am in those 8 % since 8 years (MSC) and i work as ingeener and officer , not cleaning shop or selling boots,

middle (college/secondary school depending of naming in system) 50%

50% of people have IQ between 91-109, 25% 81-90, 10% 110-120 and ... i had in tests ca. 125 and you say most of people is smarter than me, cause i don't see "benefits" of changes in society ?

yesterday we had in Warsaw very good example of changes in society, 2 bandits stabbed to death policeman in city center and noone reacted, cause day ago shopkeeper who defended himself (he was also stabbed by knife) killed robber and now he has legal problems

and you call me not wise cause i don't praise this goddamn corrupted and unfair situation we get after 1989 ?

smarter than me, heh...

Edited February 12, 2010 by vilas

[maturin 12]

Because you don't articulate your views using the shared grammatical structures of Polish and English, use emotional anecdotes instead of evidence, draw opinions from trashy TV shows, show a total lack of perspective in regards to the workings of Communism and capitalism, ignore their political elements and and the historical processes by which those systems rose, were implemented and fell.

[Takko 10]

how do you know what most statistic Pole thinks about situation we have, ha ?

most smarter than me ? smarter than me?

Your IQ does not make your facts right.

It is about logical 3d visional thinking and not about

how "smart" you are.

It just says you are good at 3d visional thinking and

not smart.

(by the way, there are always people smarter than you,

also on this forums)

[vilas 473]

yeah, just tested for curiosity, IQ 126, yeah, Vilas stupid ;)

EIDTED 13-02-2010 - today 128 ! :P :P

i am as "stupid" as 5-10% of population, yeah, all are more wise cause i don't praise "few very rich and old ladies that cannot pay medicines and flat for her pension and over 20% unemployment in 2002-2003 and law for criminals" ;]

using the shared grammatical structures of Polish and English

all americans are such ignorants that if someone is not native speaker he must be stupid ?

than for me you are stupid cause you not know Polish

for Thunderbird you would be stupid cause you not use French gramatic

for Wolle you would be stupid not using German gramatic...

for Placebo cause you not use Swedish gramatic

o my god :( what a "wise", now to all - if you mix something between your national gramatic and English - you are stupid... eh...

use emotional anecdotes instead of evidence

not evidences / proofs ? anectodes, heh

draw opinions from trashy TV shows

draw opinion from TV news saying about world, from Discovery channel, from Planate TV, from old articles and etc. :]

not from sensational newspapers about "which actress slept with which actor"

Edited February 13, 2010 by vilas

[Takko 10]

all americans are such ignorants that if someone is not native speaker he must be stupid ?

How often you want to hear it: The majority here are NOT americans!!

IQ 126, yeah, Vilas stupid

No, you are not stupid! (Although I don't know you, so I cannot judge)

And you are also not the only one around here with that IQ.

Also, again, IQ says nothing!

[sudayev 27]

How often you want to hear it: The majority here are NOT americans!!

No, you are not stupid! (Although I don't know you, so I cannot judge)

And you are also not the only one around here with that IQ.

Also, again, IQ says nothing!

Exactly. Speaking about someone's intelligence, last but not least there's also vital psychological factor determining your social intelligence and emotional management - the emotional intelligence.

Many people sem to do not know about its existence and they are gravely convinced if they are even 155 IQ - they are masters of reality and crap like that. Dogshit.

Social awareness — the ability to sense, understand, and react to others' emotions while comprehending social networks.

Relationship management — the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others while managing conflict.

These two EI factors say a lot. That's why nerds are socially inept even if they know how to calculate 50 numbers of pi π.

[Baff1 0]

You shouldn't compare 18th and the end of 20th centuries. At that times it was rather hard to access to other countries' experience, law systems, economic doctrine and other information. Now it is very easy to get such information and use it in own country. So, what was needed 40-50 years to take effects in 17xx years, now needs 4-5 times shorter.

Nonsense.

Even in ancient times rulers children were educated in foriegn palaces.

It seem Ukraine doesn't want democracy after all.

LMAO a load of self-congratualtors patting themselves on the back about "winning the Cold War" and bringing the universal enlightment of democracy to the world.

What a steaming pile of old horse manure that turned out to be.

[vilas 473]

Nonsense.

Even in ancient times rulers children were educated in foriegn palaces.

okay, i agree , but look issue "rulers/rich" as "opposite to the people"

so ... if "society, people" would need 10 or 50 years - it depends of rulers

of course rulers/elite children were taught foreign in 17 century too, but usual people had no idea about life abroad and knowledge was spreading very very very slowly

example :

so called "revolution" vs "slavery" examples

situation in year let's say 1880 - not so many can read , no free education, strong church etc.

people in country A have slavery, people in country B have social-democracy

man from A will not get awareness that man 100 km away have "those things free and do not need to work 12 hours daily to be beaten"

year lets say 1980

people in country A see in TV/ paper thrown from plane (of country B) information and make society movements to be closer to country B

so if for some changes in society in 17 century 40-50 years were needed - it doesn't cause that today also such long term

cause people now have (in most cases) global knowledge (how people live in other countries) and may do mass protests or war or other things

previously only "elite" knew about situation abroad, now everyone can know it

previously elite could keep people under punch, now it is harder (but still present , till blood boil point is reached)

It seem Ukraine doesn't want democracy after all.

why won of mr. A who love cheese means democracy and won of mr. B who not like cheese but apples not means ?

maybe people do not wanted someone with corruption smell in history ? and with "business connections"

opposite to guy who won and he is for more social state (remind that Ukraine is very poor), people do not get money etc. and they remember live in USSR (when they had food, house, hospital , security)

for many people that i met (from west) : "democracy" is only when "right wing wins" when liberal economy is over social state

so ... than Sweden, France should be not democratic and some Africa dictatorships are best democracies (cause they are liberal like in XIX century, without single employee law and taxes ) ?

democracy is "you can choose" no matter what people choose

for example officialy in Poland we have democracy, but... government not cares that we want strict and hard law and death penalty for criminals, murders, rapists, pedophiles ...

is it democracy, when 80% wants something and gov. do his own (opposite) way because of EU membership or other issues ???

can you call democracy system when people vote for mr. X for his "i will do ABC" and when he is voted he makes "XYZ" (instead of ABC promised ?)

but if on Ukraine won man who promised to do something (and probably will be doing) opposite to last rulers (nevermind people on west may not like it) than it is democracy - cause people chosen it

Edited February 13, 2010 by vilas

[maturin 12]

Nonsense.

It seem Ukraine doesn't want democracy after all.

Err, didn't they just elect a guy?

It seems Tymoshenko doesn't want democracy after all.

[Baff1 0]

Mugabe was elected too, the president of China also and even Hitler.

Most communist leaders are elected for that matter.

There is a little more to democracy than just elections I'm thinking.

Tymosheko lost the last election too. They booted out the old goverment through civil disorder.

It's a pretty even split demographically I think, almost 50/50 so there is never going to be a clear winner.

It's not a country where democracy is ever going to work well if 50% of the population do not consent to the rule of their government.

Personally I think they should just split into two. It's not like it's a particularly old and historic nation. Yeltsin only formed it a few years ago.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Baff1

[vilas 473]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1568041&postcount=1870

ooo so there is only a democracy when wins this who likes cheese more than apples

you really have weird and twisted sense of "freedom" "democracy"

democracy only exist when .... there are "our banks there and they buy our products" "they have no social care"

and democracy not exist when "they want their own products and want hospitals from taxes"

just like with freedom when old 90 years old man couldn't paint doors in color he want or raise flag of his own country

really weird sense of democracy and freedom

for me democracy is : i can choose what i want and government follows my (people) ideas that they promised before being elected

It's not a country where democracy is ever going to work well if 50% of the population do not consent to the rule of their government.

in my country more than 50% people not trust government , parliament, law etc. and feel cheated

but as people say "what can we do" if we can only "choose" between A and B while we want C, but C do not appear (many reasons)

as i gave example - 75-80% want capital punishment and high punishments , while law is against "honest"

thats why in some countries we have 40-50% voters active, rest piss on elections, cause see no hope

Edited February 13, 2010 by vilas

[Baff1 0]

I don't want any of my banks anywhere near the Ukraine thank you very much.

While what you want is certainly the ideal of democracy, it isn't often the practicality. If ever.

For the record, "social care" seems to be available in most democracies. Obviously the richer ones have better than the poorer.

For me, one of the important criteria for democracy is consentual rule.

You might not have personally consented to the things your elected government does or doesn't do, but you consent to be ruled by them even if the opposition party gets in. So to speak.

Thus in the U.S. for example, despite about half the population not ever having voted for the ruling party, they still consent to be governed by them. The population there belives in it's system of government even when it does not believe in it's leaders.

In the Ukraine, last time round, the "losing" faction would not consent in my opinion. So they had a revolution.

(A beautiful bloodless revolution that has served as an inspiration to the peoples of other nations around the world).

Edited February 13, 2010 by Baff1

[SWT_Janowich 10]

75-80% want capital punishment

Oh my god how can that be honest