11/26

[Baff1 0]

We're the agressors in Afghanistan. We attacked them, not the other way round.

Not only do I not care what happens in Rwanda, I don't care what happens in Afghanistan. That shouldn't be my problem either.

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

Communism DOES equal dictatorship. That's the whole point. Utopian enforced equality and total party control of the economy and government. Which generally includes complete domination of all aspects of human life (works wonders on drug abuse and crime) unless the system is defunct.

Publicly owned assets and social welfare is what != communism.

I get that the world today is fucked up, but people from most other countries who look fondly back on national legacies of mass murder by way of protest are considered crazy.

At least they don't make hundreds of movies celebrating them.

All our nations have histories of mass murder.

Public owned assets and social welfare is socialism.

I also thinks it fair to say that all societies are struggling to provide a utopian enforced equality. What is democracy if not one man one vote.

Trying to provide utopian equality is not exactly the mark of an evil system.

Isn't the rights of equality in the first line of the American constitution? (Although at the time they meant white men only, as opposed to black men, indian men or women of any colour whatsoever).

@Rifleman, how about Kashmirr is that still a mjor problem to the stability of India and Pakistan or do they now have bigger fish to fry?

Edited November 10, 2009 by Baff1

[vilas 477]

We're the agressors in Afghanistan. We attacked them, not the other way round.

if you had read my previous posts on other sites of this topic, you know my opinion, but A-Stan is not easy simple agression

Talibs ruled there very cruel and turned country back to middle ages

as i am very against war on Iraq, i have other opinion when it comes to Talibs gov. era

cause it was tragic era for people there and Talibs were danger to world

of course problem is when "people" (who did nothing) die, because evil person takes power by force and abuses own people, and invading soldiers treat "people" like "gov"

government of country is in some regions of world completely not-representative to people living there

in democratic and transparent countries you can say that gov is less equal society, cause chosen by majority

but when there is other system or people simply f*** politics (because of lies, corruption) there is other situation

for ex. in PL we have 40-50% voting, cause people see no honest politicians

so when you say about gov. of Poland, in fact it is chosen by 20-30% of people, cause other people do not vote (see no sense, when all politicians lie, corrupted and do the same and not let others to power by for example law system which blocks newcomers)

and A-stan was not democratic, so attack on evil gov. was in this case not so bad

Edited November 10, 2009 by vilas

[riffleman 20]

Request to all people post all response towards thread topic.don't go offtopic.show respect towards people who lose there life without any cause.

@Baff1 we are fighting there from 20 years.one day a result will come.

[vilas 477]

Request to all people post all response towards thread topic.don't go offtopic.show respect towards people who lose there life without any cause.

@Baff1 we are fighting there from 20 years.one day a result will come.

you fight for one religion, they fight for other religion, tell me what is the difference when people who believe in god A shoot to people who believe in god B ?

in europe in 1500 or like that we had wars because "this man eat fish in friday, this man eat fish on saturday, we must kill him" and he was thinking "o my god, they eat fish on other day than me, i must kill him"

so why there is a war ?

because on one religion there is 4 wives and on other you have casts and people dying on streets as untouchable ?

i saw some movies about India, and for me it was schock, that people die and rot on streets , or people are "untouchable"

i believe world without religions (but with social human morality) would be better

why you fight there ?

or maybe they (them) try to make you (force you) to obey their religion?

why there is a war ?

or is it because Muslims are now spreading their religion, like Christianity(Rome) used to do it 800-500 years ago ?

and by the way, as you are from India, and it is Arma 2 game forum

why we lack India army addons ?

you are big country, don't you think it would be good to have India army addons ? :)

if you want i can help

cause we have US, USSR, Polish, German, Russian forces, Australian, British, soon Chinese, why not Indian :D

i saw Pakistan army in TV - HK G3, HK G33 , MG3 and guys in PASGT helmet and dark vest and beige uniform - easy to do as i have G3 made,

if you want i can help with Indian (as you have people who work on addons)

T90 is made by BIS , you could reskin it, only your rifle to do and soldier model+uniform texture and your friends (if play Arma) could have addons ?

or you are just in offtopic section and not doing any addons activity ?

we lack asian addons now and south american too (A2, cause for A1 there is Brazilian and Argentinian army )

Edited November 10, 2009 by vilas

[riffleman 20]

In kashmir we fighting ,because it is part of our country.here in army there is people from every cast.in army there are units like dogras,mohmmad etc.

As in india BIS games not very favourite.if you want to made any indian addon for ofp,than i can help you as i can.

ARMA 2 is not available here.

For example ofp goty cost RS 300 ,when i purchase.1$=RS 50.

People lack intrest hn gaming due to huge cost.mostly people uses copy of games not original.

And one last thing here people think that playing game age is upto 21.if anyone play game after this age than people make fun of them.

[maturin 12]

Public owned assets and social welfare is socialism.

And it's been most successful when mixed with 60% capitalism, like in Sweden. Enough of this chest-beating for the sake of abstract theories. Decency first (that rules out 1917 to 1989), then whatever works.

I also thinks it fair to say that all societies are struggling to provide a utopian enforced equality. What is democracy if not one man one vote.

Trying to provide utopian equality is not exactly the mark of an evil system.

Isn't the rights of equality in the first line of the American constitution? (Although at the time they meant white men only, as opposed to black men, indian men or women of any colour whatsoever).

Yeah... except it's not utopian, not enforced, and not equality. You're zero for three on that one.

American democracy has never been about equality. We spent ten years arguing whether big states should overrule small states or small states should be worth more, whether only wealthy votes should count, etc. It's a representative, rather than direct system, which means you simply have the right to choose who rules over you in unequal fashion. IIRC, the word equality never appears in the constitution.

And I never said utopian enforced equality was bad (although we've never had a utopia work), I was just pointing out that it is a part of Communist ideology that necessitates an authoritarian government. And there is something of a difference between 'providing' and 'enforcing.'

Kindness is great, but what sort of political system do you need to universally impose it?

[Baff1 0]

It bloody well is enforced.

What exactly do you think happens to people who attempt to live under a different governmental system.

What exactly do you think happens to people who do not behave under the democratically created laws of America?

Blokes with guns turn up, that's what happens.

The name Utopia comes from a book called "The Best State For a Republic".

My mistake, the American Declaration of Independance says "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" (Which presumably isn't the American Constitution?)

This is both a Utopian ideal and a fundamental principle of American Democracy.

All government is necessarily authoritarian. Not just Communism.

If we take the U.S. and the Soviet Union as our two counter examples we can see that both had equal numbers of rules and regulations and equal percentages of their populations imprisoned.

What difference Communism and Democracy?

Edited November 10, 2009 by Baff1

[maturin 12]

Myanmar seems to be doing quite fine with their separate system.

And if you want to surrender your enforced equality, go to a red state and commit a felony.

My mistake, the American Declaration of Independance says "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" (Which presumably isn't the American Constitution?)

The central idea of the American ethos, if you want to talk about that, is that everyone is born equal, and is then supposed to harness their particular merits to better themselves.

That's supposed to lead to an unequal capitalist society where those with the merit and skill are better off and the more worthy hold power in society and government. Plato's utopian republic is devoid of poverty and misery and doesn't have a standing army. Besides largely symbolic efforts, what society besides Communist ones have actually committed to reaching that goal and insisted that their success is essential and inevitable?

[Baff1 0]

The central political ethos is that all men are created equal and hence have one vote each.

That is why people who become rich or more meritocratic, don't get two votes.

It is supposed to lead to a more equal society where people are (more) equally free to better themselves.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Baff1

[jakerod 254]

I said aggressors. I thought it would be pretty intuitive what I meant by that: Blitz, Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Tripoli, Pancho Villa, etc... etc... What happens in Africa is the African Union's problem to deal with, not the rest of the world. Please, don't act for one damn minute you actually care what happens in Africa. Because if you did, where was your out rage and you wanting to join an army, any army, to help out in Rawanda? The only reason you brought it up because it's the politically correct thing to say now days - it's what is in fashion, makes you feel good to acknowledge and clears your conscience.

Now, lets get back on topic, even though this thread got off topic along time ago to our communism is l33t poster.

A.) I do care

B.) I am from the United States so if I did join the Army to go help Rwanda it wouldn't have done a damn thing.

C.) The United States Army doesn't allow you to enlist when you're only 5 years old.

D.) If I joined the Army now to go help Sudan... I would get sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.

E.) So you are saying that we stopped the aggressive acts of Iraq in 2003 when they didn't do a damn thing to us? How is that not the middle east's problem? Or is it only our problem because there was oil there?

[Baff1 0]

Myanmar seems to be doing quite fine with their separate system.

And if you want to surrender your enforced equality, go to a red state and commit a felony.

Sorry old chap, I'm too foriegn to understand any of this? Myanmar? red state?

[riffleman 20]

Request .People don't go off thread.i made this thread for 11/26 attack on mumbai by militant.pay respect.

[Baff1 0]

A.)

Or is it only our problem because there was oil there?

That's the way I feel about it.

[maturin 12]

The central political ethos is that all men are created equal and hence have one vote each.

That is why people who become rich or more meritocratic, don't get two votes.

It is supposed to lead to a more equal society where people are (more) equally free to better themselves.

It's not political, it's just as much a social idea. (Americans have no respect for old money, for example.) Everyone is of equal worth at birth, and there is no inherent merit because of background.

And it's a rather simple, nonspecific idea. Basic fairness, not grandiose principle. And it's not like Ben Franklin made it up.

[riffleman 20]

@ Baff1 and maturin be soundmind .thread topic is not about your views. . .

[vilas 477]

@riffleman

- shame you have no Arma, but i understand, other PC cost and other money (USD) have people

- concerning "going out off topic" , please understand, that terrorism discussion is not only India, Kashmir problem

it is global problem : why people attack people, how to avoid attack, what to do to not cause aggression, what to do to be not aggressive, what are things "saint" for one man, that are "not care" for second man

[ICE-Raver 10]

Wow what a post.

James Bond was American propaganda................Wow...............Who knew?:p

[riffleman 20]

Here Arma is not available,now days most games not running on pc.people buy pc for work,not for gaming.

As we all know NATO forces are at Afghanistan.taliban giving tough challenge to them.remember kargil war.if NATO want to win war against Taliban than they have to suffer high casulty.

But i think NATO will never won from taliban.

[Baff1 0]

I don't think'll they win forever.

But they'll win for as long as they are willing to stay and fight.

It's just that they won't be willing to stay and fight forever.

Some fights you can't win, but you can lose.

So we can't win in Afghanistan, but we can control the place for as long as we please.

(Hopefully that not being very long since controlling it comes at a far higher price than the place is worth).

[Hans Ludwig 0]

We're the agressors in Afghanistan. We attacked them, not the other way round.

Not only do I not care what happens in Rwanda, I don't care what happens in Afghanistan. That shouldn't be my problem either.

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

At least they don't make hundreds of movies celebrating them.

All our nations have histories of mass murder.

Public owned assets and social welfare is socialism.

I also thinks it fair to say that all societies are struggling to provide a utopian enforced equality. What is democracy if not one man one vote.

Trying to provide utopian equality is not exactly the mark of an evil system.

Isn't the rights of equality in the first line of the American constitution? (Although at the time they meant white men only, as opposed to black men, indian men or women of any colour whatsoever).

@Rifleman, how about Kashmirr is that still a mjor problem to the stability of India and Pakistan or do they now have bigger fish to fry?

The Founding Fathers of the US Constitution never said or even remotely implied that people were or should be equal in terms of being upwardly mobile, educated, athletic, and the like. What they meant was that you were equal under the eyes of the laws that govern our nation. So many people that don't understand the US Constitution think it's some latent communist manifesto; it isn't. All it is contract of what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do to its people, what power the states have over the central government. If the government does something to you, it has very strict rules that authorities must go by when charging you with a crime or taking your land against your consent, which the latter part very rarely happens.

A.) I do care

B.) I am from the United States so if I did join the Army to go help Rwanda it wouldn't have done a damn thing.

C.) The United States Army doesn't allow you to enlist when you're only 5 years old.

D.) If I joined the Army now to go help Sudan... I would get sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.

E.) So you are saying that we stopped the aggressive acts of Iraq in 2003 when they didn't do a damn thing to us? How is that not the middle east's problem? Or is it only our problem because there was oil there?

I never supported Iraq. However, there are plenty of people with PHDs and foreign policy wonks that will agree that creating some type of democracy in Iraq will unravel all the dictatorships and possibly the monarchies that seem to be the root cause of people of Arab decent and of the Muslim religion to feel disenfranchised. Once democracy, some sort of democracy, is implemented, there is always a merit type system that springs from this form of government. It will allow more people to fill in control of their lives and not be ruled by a theocratic, dictatorship or monarchy, which is so prevalent in North Africa, Middle East, and parts of Asia.

I'm a little biased when it comes to Africa. I'm not a big fan of that country. Yes, I used country instead of continent. I also exclude South Africa and some North African countries. What we have is a group of people that inhabit the central areas of Africa that have never really contributed anything impressive to our human intellect. They still live in grass huts and believe AIDS/HIV is given to them from "ghost." They have very loose morals and constantly fight. The weird thing is that most humans fight over power, and they create some ideology so people will follow the cause. But in Africa, I have read surveys and reporters asking people creating the crime why they did it. I shit you not, some of the replies were basically they didn't know.

I'm not hateful against people of the Muslim religion. I believe all they need is a better form of government that allows them to control their destiny. But when it comes to Africa, I feel there is no hope. Since they are black, no one can critique them like we would Russians, Americans, Muslims or you get painted as a racist by the sensitive liberal crowd.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Hans Ludwig

[derk yall 0]

I think that you view communism or socialism like something very close to anarchy. And that is the problem. With a view like that you would never be able to understand one or the other neither democracy.

About african believing in ghost. That is a religion matter. Someone believe that the god gave them the birth other not. So how can you so simply assume that this ghost thing is stupid?

About critizating someone. It's better to critize an exact person about wich you are sure that (he/she) is wrong, than critizing all of them and creating injustified hate.

[jakerod 254]

What we have is a group of people that inhabit the central areas of Africa that have never really contributed anything impressive to our human intellect. They still live in grass huts and believe AIDS/HIV is given to them from "ghost." They have very loose morals and constantly fight. The weird thing is that most humans fight over power, and they create some ideology so people will follow the cause. But in Africa, I have read surveys and reporters asking people creating the crime why they did it. I shit you not, some of the replies were basically they didn't know.

Most of that stuff is a result of lack of education and also lack of interest by both the western and eastern world. Many countries in Central Africa do not have valuable resources and/or are landlocked which makes trade a bit harder. As a result of this a lot of money goes to corrupt leaders and businessmen who exploit the rest for their own gain. I'm sure there is bound to be something beyond that but as Derk said, there are people all over the world that believe in some type of god or gods with no rational reason to explain why. The point is that it isn't entirely their own fault.

I'm sure South America and parts of Southern Asia still have people that are similar as well. In my Cultural Anthropology class we talked about Cargo Cults. We watched a video about one who have built a make-shift airfield on their island so that the gods will take things from the 'white man' and fly their planes down to the islanders and bring them stuff. It isn't solely Africa that has those problems.

Why Is Africa so Far Behind?

Article

Forum Discussion (I do realize that this isn't a reliable source but figured it may explain a few things)

I haven't read either of those fully yet but I have already found some interesting ideas.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Jakerod

[Baff1 0]

It will allow more people to fill in control of their lives and not be ruled by a theocratic, dictatorship or monarchy....

All of the above being much preferable to the democracy under which I currently live.

There is such a thing as bad democracies, and also such a thing as good tyrannies.

Having a democratic government isn't the same thing as having a good government. it's just another system. As strong or as weak as the people who operate it.

[riffleman 20]

Today a day to remember the people who lost there life last year in mumbai.

My tributes to them.

[GoOB 0]

Most of that stuff is a result of lack of education and also lack of interest by both the western and eastern world. Many countries in Central Africa do not have valuable resources and/or are landlocked which makes trade a bit harder. As a result of this a lot of money goes to corrupt leaders and businessmen who exploit the rest for their own gain.

The real problem in Africa does not exist in the countries without valuable natural resources - The real problems seem to exist where there are natural resources, look at the DRC for instance, it's one of the most notorious hotspots of violence on this earth since what... The 1960's? And indeed, what does many of it's problems revolve around nowadays? That's right, the oppurtunity to exploit the wealth of natural resources the nation posseses, natural resources is not a success formula for a country when it's being consistently raped by foreign interests because of those resources.

Strangely enough, the nations of Africa that are without natural resources seem to thrive better (atleast in terms of improvements in quality of life, or indeed, sustaining human life) than the ones that do possess them - Why? Because farmers are not being pushed around by militias, warlords and rogue government troops chasing the allmighty dollar. And indeed, foreign aid like medicine and food shipments don't get interrupted quite as often.

One of the major reasons why many third world countries are in the shitter is our need to consume, plain and simple - But that same need to consume is paradoxically their way out of the shitter aswell. That of course provided that we actually commit to giving a shit about where the coltan in our circuit boards and the diamonds in our engagement rings come from. Or rather, what crimes were commited in order to bring us those items at such bargain prices.

The DRC should by all means be a thriving country, atleast if one judges from the ammount of natural resources and fertile earth it hosts - Yet, it is the home nation of the most deadly conflict since world war two, a conflict that hasn't killed with bullets or bombs, but rather with hunger and common, easily treatable diseases. Why? Because cheap consumer goods are apparently more important than 5,4 million (and counting) African lives. But really, who am I to talk? I am sitting infront of a computer, just like the rest of the world.

Edited November 26, 2009 by GoOB