History Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

[Frame Dragger]

The greatest insight I discovered when I began studying religion is that most of what I viewed as the evil of religion from a secular point of view turned out to be abuses of religious ideologies by those who fall just short of true faith. I am fascinated, for example, by the crusading "Christians" who felt the need to blame Jews for the crucifixion and take violent revenge despite Christ's beckoning to "forgive them they know not what they do." What's more, the same people absolve Pontius Pilate and the Roman soldiers even though Pilate "washed his hands," which means he denied his own sin, which is a big sin in Christianity if you understand it. Anyway, I'm not trying to spread religious dogma by giving these examples. I'm just pointing out how, like the people you say pray for you as a way of saying "F*** you," religion is always subject to misinterpretation and misapplication - not the least of which the cause is that the whole purpose of scripture is to interpret and apply it freely, according to "holy" sensibilities. It's a secular misinterpretation that the worst actions committed in the name of religion should be attributed to religion itself as the root cause. Secularism is simply unequipped to distinguish between uses and abuses of religion, because it it views all religion as monolithically in opposition to itself.

I think many people are misinformed as to the actual content of their religion, and are too accepting of the interpretations of those with agendas. Others, simply see it as shelter from which to throw the first stone, ironic as that may be. I don't however, believe that it's an inherent evil of religion. Religion just happens to be at the core of many people's lives... family, friends, and notions of loyalty are often similarly perverted to serve a selfish or ignorant end. For those people, the change has to come from within. For people who have been genuinely mislead as to the content of their religion, can be educated. There's a reason why I study religions... you cannot understand most people if you don't.

For people who don't understand that religion can be used like a lever to move people, it's easier to demonize the religion. There are always some people who live up to the worst expectations of secular and religious individuals after all, but the error is in believing that ANY extreme is representative of the whole. It's easier to "hate Catholicism" than it is to hate the behaviour of some catholics in power. It's easier for Catholics to hate and blame homosexuality rather than confront what we all must: pedophiles will seek access to children, and that includes religious figures. It isn't "gay", and it isn't Catholic... it's pedophilic. People don't want to fear their neighbour or their wife/husband/mother/brother/cousin... even though THEY are most likely to commit violence against them. Blaming a gang is much easier on the mind... after all, "bad things happen to bad people" fits our view of what is "right", even if it isn't what usually happens.

As I'm sure you know, most murders, kidnappings, molestations, spousal abuse, is committed by people we know, and love. Is it any wonder that people hyper focus on external threats they feel are more controllable? Immigrants, terrorists, gangs... are terrifying, and they DO pose threats sometimes, but nothing compared to your own friends and family. Many people seem unable or unwilling to accept that however, and so by extension, it's easier to simplify conflict in the Middle East, or the various Crusades, in simplistic terms. It's easier to hate an enemy one has constructed from fantastic fears, than it is to be constantly wary, and still trust others.

To me, people who blame religion for the world's ills, are missing the point: Why do people believe what they do, picking and choosing from scriptures instead of trying to live by some very basic examples? Answer: It's hard, and a lot of people take the easy way out, and demonize what they don't understand, and fear.

 

[brainstorm]

I think many people are misinformed as to the actual content of their religion, and are too accepting of the interpretations of those with agendas. Others, simply see it as shelter from which to throw the first stone, ironic as that may be. I don't however, believe that it's an inherent evil of religion. Religion just happens to be at the core of many people's lives... family, friends, and notions of loyalty are often similarly perverted to serve a selfish or ignorant end. For those people, the change has to come from within. For people who have been genuinely mislead as to the content of their religion, can be educated. There's a reason why I study religions... you cannot understand most people if you don't.

For people who don't understand that religion can be used like a lever to move people, it's easier to demonize the religion. There are always some people who live up to the worst expectations of secular and religious individuals after all, but the error is in believing that ANY extreme is representative of the whole. It's easier to "hate Catholicism" than it is to hate the behaviour of some catholics in power. It's easier for Catholics to hate and blame homosexuality rather than confront what we all must: pedophiles will seek access to children, and that includes religious figures. It isn't "gay", and it isn't Catholic... it's pedophilic. People don't want to fear their neighbour or their wife/husband/mother/brother/cousin... even though THEY are most likely to commit violence against them. Blaming a gang is much easier on the mind... after all, "bad things happen to bad people" fits our view of what is "right", even if it isn't what usually happens.

As I'm sure you know, most murders, kidnappings, molestations, spousal abuse, is committed by people we know, and love. Is it any wonder that people hyper focus on external threats they feel are more controllable? Immigrants, terrorists, gangs... are terrifying, and they DO pose threats sometimes, but nothing compared to your own friends and family. Many people seem unable or unwilling to accept that however, and so by extension, it's easier to simplify conflict in the Middle East, or the various Crusades, in simplistic terms. It's easier to hate an enemy one has constructed from fantastic fears, than it is to be constantly wary, and still trust others.

To me, people who blame religion for the world's ills, are missing the point: Why do people believe what they do, picking and choosing from scriptures instead of trying to live by some very basic examples? Answer: It's hard, and a lot of people take the easy way out, and demonize what they don't understand, and fear.

I agree, and you explained it well. Humans are generally prone to ethical abuses, and its easier to focus on people you don't interact with regularly or intensively because then you don't have to reconcile the bad they do with the fact that you love them and see the good in them too. There's a belief that it's cognitive dissonance for good and bad to live within the same person. That's not cognitive dissonance, it's reality. But because people often hide the bad in themselves by portraying themselves as all good, the conformist tendency is to believe the image and assume there must be different people who are bad. Hence the projection onto less familiar others.

 

[Nusc]

That's because redistributing money promotes spending and economic growth. The "reducing inequality" ideology is clever in that it takes criticism of capitalism, i.e. that it increases inequality, and utilizes it to motivate political policies to stimulate capitalism. Ultimately, the growth resulting from redistribution causes even greater inequalities, but socialists don't care because they just plan to keep redistributing and making more money until the infrastructure collapses and resources (natural and human) are used up.

Conservation is better than redistribution for dealing with lifestyle inequalities, but since it doesn't redistribute wealth and results in lower consumption standard for upper and middle classes, people prefer to advocate raising consumption standard for the poor and wasting even more resources and increasing long-term inequality.

Is this a blunder?

Your country is a capitalist state. Look at the conditions compared to Canada.

We have regulated markets no collapse.
We have public healthcare.

We find it so ridiculous that you guys are fighting over basic healthcare - you guys didn't even pass a public option.

Most people live a pretty reasonable life up here even if you're poor.

Observing you guys is quite funny - the superficial eloquence. Many of you are so paranoid about your liberties - going to great depths to justify the means. (reminds me of that judge that sued those korean laundrymat owners for ~$60 million - is there no sense of compassion?)

Maybe if you're extremely wealthy and you don't give a **** about the poor but only yourself, then the reasons are just - it reflects your character.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Is this a blunder?

Your country is a capitalist state. Look at the conditions compared to Canada.

We have regulated markets no collapse.
We have public healthcare.

We find it so ridiculous that you guys are fighting over basic healthcare - you guys didn't even pass a public option.

Most people live a pretty reasonable life up here even if you're poor.

Observing you guys is quite funny - the superficial eloquence. Many of you are so paranoid about your liberties - going to great depths to justify the means. (reminds me of that judge that sued those korean laundrymat owners for ~$60 million - is there no sense of compassion?)

Maybe if you're extremely wealthy and you don't give a **** about the poor but only yourself, then the reasons are just - it reflects your character.

Canada is also a very small population in a large area compared to the USA, and is dependant on mutual security with the USA. Your lifestyle is predicated on who shares your borders. In short, you're a very homogeneous, and much smaller population spread over vast tracts of wildnerness. Comparing Canada to the USA is a bit like comparing Canada to saaaay, Denmark; Canada doesn't look so hot when compared to that standard of living either.

Don't confuse the ramblings of our politicians and media with the general views held by most. Given how dependant your security and economy is on the USA, and how very little the USA is dependant on Canada... I would enjoy the laughter before you feel the hook in the bait.

 

[russ_watters]

Social inequality has been shown to be the cause of many social problems. A comprehensive study of major world economies revealed that homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population all correlate with higher social inequality.[6]

Socialism.

We had quite a lengthy discussion of that topic and though the author of that makes what looks like a compelling point at first glance, one doesn't have to go much deeper to see the point is clearly flawed. The most obvious and damning fact against his point is that inequality is increasing in most western countries, yet most of those measures are improving.

 

[Sea Cow]

We had quite a lengthy discussion of that topic and though the author of that makes what looks like a compelling point at first glance, one doesn't have to go much deeper to see the point is clearly flawed. The most obvious and damning fact against his point is that inequality is increasing in most western countries, yet all of those measures are improving.

In the UK, at least, inequality is increasing, and this increase has coincided with an increase in the prison population, increase in obesity, increase in teenage pregnancy, decrease in social mobility, and I would guess almost certainly an increase in the diagnosis of depression. I don't have the figures to hand, but I would suppose that infant mortality has decreased. Homicide has also decreased a little, I believe, but violent crime in general is on the up.

Which examples are you thinking of when you say 'most western countries', because at best the example of the UK is a mixed one.

 

[russ_watters]

Canada is also a very small population in a large area compared to the USA, and is dependant on mutual security with the USA. Your lifestyle is predicated on who shares your borders.

Not very mutual. Canada decided decades ago that since they have a big brother around to protect them all the time, that they didn't need much in the way of a military to protect themselves. Most of the western world figured out the same thing, which is why they can afford to spend money that would otherwise be needed for defense on other social programs.

And that's really not a criticsm: those countries recognize the reality of the situation they are in and know that their defense money could better be spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, this reality plays a role in their ability to support their socialistic policies.

 

[russ_watters]

In the UK, at least, inequality is increasing, and this increase has coincided with an increase in the prison population, increase in obesity, increase in teenage pregnancy, decrease in social mobility, and I would guess almost certainly an increase in the diagnosis of depression. I don't have the figures to hand, but I would suppose that infant mortality has decreased. Homicide has also decreased a little, I believe, but violent crime in general is on the up.

Which examples are you thinking of when you say 'most western countries', because at best the example of the UK is a mixed one.

I've edited my post to say "most" instead of "all". Ie: most measures in most western countries are improving. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.

What is more likely is that those measures are corellated/caused by absolute poverty, not relative equality.

[edit] Caveat: And you're wrong about at least one of those. Teen pregnancy has dropped by a little more than 10% over the past 20 years in the UK and is at its lowest level in that time period (as of 2008): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8531227.stm

 

[brainstorm]

Is this a blunder?

Your country is a capitalist state. Look at the conditions compared to Canada.

We have regulated markets no collapse.
We have public healthcare.

We find it so ridiculous that you guys are fighting over basic healthcare - you guys didn't even pass a public option.

Most people live a pretty reasonable life up here even if you're poor.

Observing you guys is quite funny - the superficial eloquence. Many of you are so paranoid about your liberties - going to great depths to justify the means. (reminds me of that judge that sued those korean laundrymat owners for ~$60 million - is there no sense of compassion?)

Maybe if you're extremely wealthy and you don't give a **** about the poor but only yourself, then the reasons are just - it reflects your character.

Everything you type oozes with anti-Americanist, anti-capitalist propaganda. I fell for such propaganda for a long time, until I realized that it's just marketing for another money game that generates a greater gap between overprivileged and underprivileged people. Socialists do with government institutions what capitalists do with business. The poor always get crumbs - although in socialism they get a little more but they pay for it with giving up a greater amount of control over their own lives.

Don't call people "you guys," if you don't want to sound like an uber-nationalist. Also don't generalize about people not caring about poverty, because many people do and they're doing a lot more about it than those that simply pay their taxes to a socialist government and then point the finger at the US when it is the US where their government invests its money to pay for their precious socialism.

You say, "you guys" are "still" fighting over basic healthcare, as if your superior people have progressed beyond that primitive issue. Again, though, do you realize that the reason people are fighting so hard is because health care is probably the most profitable industry in a market where global investment, especially that which funds socialist systems, makes its money to take care of other people. The only reason any of "the American people" are arguing against cheap/socialized health care is because they are on the payrolls of companies that sustain the high-profit health-care industry as a means of investing and capitalizing on it.

This is why I am for reducing costs instead of mandating spending. If there would be no or little profit in health care to start with, it would be affordable for poor people. It would also leave socialist governments searching for some other source of revenue to fuel their post-industrial care economies. Take all the profit out of US health industries and see if the Canadian system would avoid bankruptcy.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Not very mutual. Canada decided decades ago that since they have a big brother around to protect them all the time, that they didn't need much in the way of a military to protect themselves. Most of the western world figured out the same thing, which is why they can afford to spend money that would otherwise be needed for defense on other social programs.

And that's really not a criticsm: those countries recognize the reality of the situation they are in and know that their defense money could better be spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, this reality plays a role in their ability to support their socialistic policies.

Fair enough, but I figured I shouldn't rub that in the face of someone who is clearly very nationalistic. Of course, now we see Europe trying to match GPS, with their own, because we also control a vast amount of information militaries require to function. Somehow, "Hey Candada, we have you by the balls!" just seems... gauche. That said, it's true.

Then again, how secure is any country when they inevitably are (at best) a SECOND priority of another nation? I suppose we're going to find out (albeit in the pacific, and not with Canada) in our future dealings with China.

 

[brainstorm]

In the UK, at least, inequality is increasing, and this increase has coincided with an increase in the prison population, increase in obesity, increase in teenage pregnancy, decrease in social mobility, and I would guess almost certainly an increase in the diagnosis of depression. I don't have the figures to hand, but I would suppose that infant mortality has decreased. Homicide has also decreased a little, I believe, but violent crime in general is on the up.

Which examples are you thinking of when you say 'most western countries', because at best the example of the UK is a mixed one.

I do believe that inequality stimulates these social problems, but I think people ignore the "how" and simplistically assume that redistribution would solve the problems.

Criminality, unhealthy lifestyles, teen pregnancy, failure to attain educational and career goals, and depression are all prompted by a sense of disempowerment in individuals. What causes that sense of disempowerment? My guess would be that it's caused by people looking at others and measuring themselves as less, when they should be looking at themselves, their own strengths, and what they can achieve. The ideology of "inequality" is a product and cause of looking outside ones own abilities.

In Marxism, it is called "alienation." Alienation is when people pursue goals for external rewards instead of out of a value of the goal itself. Working hard in school and work with an eye on social mobility doesn't work as well as doing so because you truly believe in what you're doing and love doing it. Unhealthy living, which causes obesity among other problems, is the result of people giving up on themselves, as is depression in many cases. Criminality is the same. People lose a sense that moral living is rewarding, because all they can see is how much wealth "the other half" has and how they deserve "a more equal share of the pie."

The people who are happiest, I believe, are those that feel a greater sense of reward from living poor instead of stealing, those who treasure their health and see it as an accomplishment of their lifestyle instead of as the result of health care, and those who pursue educational and career goals out of a sense of valuing their work and believing in what they do. These things are not always possible, depending on what opportunities are available, but greater equality of income doesn't solve any of them. If anything, the focus on equality contributes to them as much as it is caused by them.

 

[brainstorm]

Not very mutual. Canada decided decades ago that since they have a big brother around to protect them all the time, that they didn't need much in the way of a military to protect themselves. Most of the western world figured out the same thing, which is why they can afford to spend money that would otherwise be needed for defense on other social programs.

And that's really not a criticsm: those countries recognize the reality of the situation they are in and know that their defense money could better be spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, this reality plays a role in their ability to support their socialistic policies.

Does it seem ironic to anyone besides me that socialists criticize the US for spending too much on military and "meddling" all over globally, and therefore not taking better care of people, yet then admit that it is US military might that allows so much economic resources to be diverted to social services for the governments that do supposedly take better care?

 

[Sea Cow]

[edit] Caveat: You're wrong about at least one. Teen pregnancy has dropped by a little more than 10% over the past 20 years in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8531227.stm

Yes, you're right on that one. Shows how you can be taken in by the propaganda – people constantly scream about teen pregnancy here.

 

[Sea Cow]

Does it seem ironic to anyone besides me that socialists criticize the US for spending too much on military and "meddling" all over globally, and therefore not taking better care of people, yet then admit that it is US military might that allows so much economic resources to be diverted to social services for the governments that do supposedly take better care?

I reject the thesis entirely. I would dearly love it if the UK were to break with NATO entirely. We'd be a safer, more peaceful place.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I reject the thesis entirely. I would dearly love it if the UK were to break with NATO entirely. We'd be a safer, more peaceful place.

Such is the thinking of many in Europe. Alas, the UK has gone too far down the road of "Airstrip One". So sorry, pip pip cheerio! All kidding aside, you would be safer NOW, but that ignores the past completely. It may be trite, but frankly without the security of NATO, the UK wouldn't exist anymore. Don't blame the tool for the use it's put to, when the people who wield it are truly at fault.

So, given the critical role that NATO has played, and partnership in espionage and has played in the lives of British and Americans... I'd dearly love to hear your justification for this. Remember, dropping an alliance until you need it AGAIN, is simply shirking one's responsibilities under a treaty. The USA and UK would be safer if NATO were more effective, and not used as a cover in ridiculous situations such as Iraq.

That said, when has putting down arms led to a peaceful solution in the LONG term? India is free from British occupation, and with that they've engaged in a nuclear standoff with Pakistan. Just because the battlefield in Europe is economic, for now, doesn't imply that it will remain so.

 

[Sea Cow]

It may be trite, but frankly without the security of NATO, the UK wouldn't exist anymore. .

I reject this utterly. why wouldn't it exist any more?

 

[Frame Dragger]

I reject this utterly. why wouldn't it exist any more?

You don't care to explain your position beyond, "I reject this..."? Do you expect to engage in a meaningful conversation, or to be taken seriously if that is the sum total of your point? You've deflected enough... time to answer the questions posed to you, or... quit the field.

EDIT: In the spirit of PF... why would the UK no longer exist? WWII. If the USA had not engaged in that war, and not in defence of the British, or if we had not then held western europe you would be:

1.) Conquered or destroyed by the Axis forces. This is debatable, and after all we had a real interest in saving your bacon, so that can hardly be considered something we wouldn't have done regardless.
2.) MORE likely, if we had not participated in the partitioning of Europe with the Soviets, you would CERTAINLY have been under their rule. What is it that you think MAD, and a fleet of tanks in germany was about? The Soviets were in a position analogues to India re: Pakistan, where a massive strike on the ground would be overwhelming. The USA used the threat of MAD, as a deterrent, along with espionage, proxy warfare, etc.

 

[russ_watters]

We had quite a lengthy discussion of that topic and though the author of that makes what looks like a compelling point at first glance, one doesn't have to go much deeper to see the point is clearly flawed. The most obvious and damning fact against his point is that inequality is increasing in most western countries, yet most of those measures are improving.

As bad as this logical flaw in the conclusion is, the hypothesis about why it should happen is even worse: there are more teen births and violent crime in the US because they are dissatisfied with the inequality (as opposed to simply being dissatisfied about being poor)? Well why would the dissatisfaction stop at national borders? People come from all over the world to strike it rich in the US: Sergey Brin, co-founder of google, is a Russian immigrant and he's worth $17 billion. Why doesn't his existence cause a huge "dissatisfaction" problem in Russia - why would it only dissatisfy Americans? What logical reason is there for jealousy to cause more dissatisfaction than poverty?

 

[Sea Cow]

You don't care to explain your position beyond, "I reject this..."? Do you expect to engage in a meaningful conversation, or to be taken seriously if that is the sum total of your point? You've deflected enough... time to answer the questions posed to you, or... quit the field.

You're the one making the big statements such as the UK probably wouldn't exist without NATO that need justifying.

 

[Frame Dragger]

You're the one making the big statements such as the UK probably wouldn't exist without NATO that need justifying.

Note, my edit to my previous post... as I suspected you would retreat in precisely this fashion. You just let me know when you're ready to engage in a meaningful way... I'll be able to tell when you start to actually draw upon a knowledge of history and geopolitics.

 

[Sea Cow]

OK, here's a bit of history for you:

NATO was formed in 1949.

WW2 ended in 1945.

 

[Frame Dragger]

OK, here's a bit of history for you:

NATO was formed in 1949.

WW2 ended in 1945.

Yes... and the OSS predates the CIA, but we're still talking about the same issues. You're still dodging the issues with pure sophistry.

 

[mheslep]

I reject the thesis entirely. I would dearly love it if the UK were to break with NATO entirely. We'd be a safer, more peaceful place.

With a severely reduced military capability beyond UK borders. Without NATO, the UK has little http://c-17-globemaster-iii-screensaver.smartcode.com/images/sshots/c-17_globemaster_iii_screensaver_27639.jpeg" capability, little satellite sensor capability, etc, though the UK is in better shape militarily than the rest of Europe.

 

[Sea Cow]

You're still dodging the issues with pure sophistry.

No I'm not, not at all. NATO was formed with one clear enemy in its sights – the Soviet Union and its allies. The Soviet Union was the UK's ally in WW2. The pattern of allegiances changed.

 

[russ_watters]

I would dearly love it if the UK were to break with NATO entirely. We'd be a safer, more peaceful place.

While you might be "more peaceful" (by a weak/broad definition) today if NATO went away, you wouldn't have been safer or more peaceful 20-40 years ago and the rest of Europe most certainly wouldn't be either. NATO has had some extremely important missions in Europe such as dealing with the Balkans crisis. IMO, those countries with the means to deal with such problems are morally bound to do so.

It may be reasonable to argue that NATO has outlived its usefulness, but useful, it most certainly was.

 

[Frame Dragger]

No I'm not, not at all. NATO was formed with one clear enemy in its sights – the Soviet Union and its allies. The Soviet Union was the UK's ally in WW2. The pattern of allegiances changed.

*sigh*... yes, but that fight started with the rush to Berlin. That predates NATO.

Here are the questions you're still avoiding:

1.) How would WWI, and II have gone without US assistance? Given that, how do you expect future wars to be prosecuted without assistance? From an empire to an island... take the hint.

2.) The economic advantage the UK enjoys through its relationship with NATO... you don't have to design and launch a GPS system...until you WANT to. You have traded a measure of freedom for a measure of peace and time to recover from two conflicts that nearly obliterated your country, and decimated your population.

3.) If the USA decided that the Soviets could have had Europe, and did not make that same rush to Berlin... you would not be the UK anymore. That you now find that allience inconvenient is understandable, as the threat no longer exists. By the same token, that's a fairly ****** way of carrying on with an alliance, and short sighted.

4.) Mutual Defense. Ok... as Russ pointed out, it's not that mutual. How do you think the Baltic states would have gone, or so many other issues without NATO involvement? Hell man, your country lost an enitre empire through poor management, and was on the brink of being completely overrun.

5.) The Soviet Union and the US were in a race to Berlin, and if you genuinely don't know that already, you are in no position to speak of history, or these issues.

 

[Sea Cow]

1.) How would WWI, and II have gone without US assistance?

How would WW2 have gone without Soviet assistance?

So what.

 

[Frame Dragger]

How would WW2 have gone without Soviet assistance?

So what.

You would be speaking German, instead of Russian. Either way, you would never have been born. I note, that you're still picking and choosing what to respond to, and the manner you've chosen is disingenuous, and contrary to the nature of PF, in my view. You're rapidly narrowing the possibilities for why you're acting this way to either blind nationalism, ignorance, or intentional distortion in service of a personal ideology. Really, it's just grating after a while. Either engage, or don't, but if not please don't clutter the place when people are trying to have a reasonable discussion.

 

[mheslep]

You would be speaking German, instead of Russian.

Doubtful. The Battle of Britain began June 10, 1940 with the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pack still in place. The Nazi pre-invasion air attack was more/less abandoned long before the Nazis attacked the Soviets. The Brits won the air war with a lot of grit, and one couldn't cross the Channel en masse without air superiority.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Doubtful. The Battle of Britain began June 10, 1940 with the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pack still in place. The Nazi pre-invasion air attack was more/less abandoned long before the Nazis attacked the Soviets. The Brits won the air war with a lot of grit, and one couldn't cross the Channel en masse without air superiority.

...And none of that would have mattered in the long haul. Britain was decimated by WWI, and frankly history has shown just how much that non-agression pact was worth, eh? You don't need to cross the Channel, if you simply STARVE them. What do you think would happen to the UK, cut-off from the rest of Europe, AND the USA? No one would leave the UK alone in such a situation, and one way or another they would be killed, besieged, or conquered. The fact that it would take time, would be largely irrelevant to my point.

As for post WWII... does that even bear a reiteratrion of the same point? Soviets, or Germans... eventually they would be able to use the vast resources at their command, to crush the British Isles. By the way, the brits won the air war with RADAR, and grit... let's not confuse matters. Over time those tactical advantages would be mitigated by advancing technology and isolation.

 

[mheslep]

...And none of that would have mattered in the long haul. Britain was decimated by WWI, and frankly history has shown just how much that non-agression pact was worth, eh? You don't need to cross the Channel, if you simply STARVE them. What do you think would happen to the UK, cut-off from the rest of Europe, AND the USA? No one would leave the UK alone in such a situation, and one way or another they would be killed, besieged, or conquered. The fact that it would take time, would be largely irrelevant to my point.

Non-sequitor. That has little or nothing to do with your point on the outcome dependency of the Soviets entering or not entering the war.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Non-sequitor. That has little or nothing to do with your point on the outcome dependency of the Soviets entering or not entering the war.

What? I didn't make that point... The Soviets DID enter the war, as a result of German aggression. There is no reason to believe that Hitler would have moderated himself in any circumstances.

My point is, and was, that the UK depended on Allied forces, and subsequent NATO involvement in the partitioning of Germany. What are you talking about?

EDIT: Oooh, I see, my response to the Manatee...
OK, I'm saying that the UK, as a terribly weakened and isolated nation was bound to be snapped-up by one of the dominant powers at the time, and if Russia didn't become involved, then the Germans would have finished the job; they were fairly clear on that in their planning. If the Soviets then became involved in some "What IF?!" scenario, I sincerely doubt that they would have won. In fact, destroying or occupying GB would be critical in closing the western front in that case.

All of this is somewhat tangential, as we were all originally talking about NATO and its role. You're rat-chasing Sea Cow's deflections... something I have found to be singularly unenlightening.

 

[mheslep]

What? I didn't make that point...

Here:

How would WW2 have gone without Soviet assistance?[..]

You would be speaking German, instead of Russian. ...

 

[Frame Dragger]

Here:

You just sort of ignored my edit... from... well before you posted.

 

[mheslep]

You just sort of ignored my edit... from... well before you posted.

ok, missed it

 

[Frame Dragger]

ok, missed it

Yeah... not really something that needed confirmation, but thanks! Always good to engage in intelligent dialogue with a master of prose from the laconic school. You'll have to forgive me if I choose not to engage with someone who repsonds in a way that would make a Haiku feel cheated. I prefer not to see the thread locked because you want to start a pissing match on PF.

 

[russ_watters]

Guys, get it under control. There are too many people nitpicking tangential points and ignoring the main topics for discussion. If you're here just for petty arguments, leave. That's trolling and it is not acceptable here.

 

[Nusc]

We had quite a lengthy discussion of that topic and though the author of that makes what looks like a compelling point at first glance, one doesn't have to go much deeper to see the point is clearly flawed. The most obvious and damning fact against his point is that inequality is increasing in most western countries, yet most of those measures are improving.

Actually what I meant to say was fettered capitalism with socialist elements.

Not socialism.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually what I meant to say was fettered capitalism with socialist elements.

Not socialism.

Um, ok...but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Um, ok...but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?

Russ, this is politics. We don't use studies to form our opinions, just as bludgeons on those with whom we disagree.

 

[Nusc]

Everything you type oozes with anti-Americanist, anti-capitalist propaganda.

No. Anti-republican.

Don't call people "you guys," if you don't want to sound like an uber-nationalist.

You say, "you guys" are "still" fighting over basic healthcare, as if your superior people have progressed beyond that primitive issue.

I'm referring libertarians. You guys are so into your issues it's delusional.

"This Sarah Palin phenomenon is very curious. I think somebody watching us from Mars, they would think the country has gone insane." - Noam Chomsky

Why necessarily Mars?

Take all the profit out of US health industries and see if the Canadian system would avoid bankruptcy.

Give me a study.

 

[Nusc]

Um, ok...but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?

Man if congress consisted of only philosophers that would be very annoying.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Man if congress consisted of only philosophers that would be very annoying.

I'm curious, do you have any interest at all in a reasonable discussion on the topic at hand, or are you only interested in offering this polemic? This thread has been quite interesting until you and the Manatee/Dugong decided thatit would be more fun to troll than anything else. Frankly I'd be thrilled to see a moderator roll this thread back to the last substational discussion that was being had.

This trajectory you're following ends with this thread locked (which may be what you want), or simply continuing to devolve. I don't really think that's fair to the rest of us who would prefer not to resort to what amounts to petty name-calling.

 

[Evo]

Closed pending cleanup.