Yuusha

@Killian Kalthorne: Heh... You're one to talk. I've always find it funny when a westerner claims that a certain group or people are 'terrorists' or 'enemies of freedom.' It's just so overwhelmingly hypocritical. Tell me something, with what moral authority do you or the mainstays of the western civilization regime speak, when in their own closet there are skeletons labeled Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Guantanamo, mass murder, war crimes, illegal invasion, torture, illegal detention, disrespect for international law, denial of due process... etc? The fact is, the US with its capitalistic and militaristic approaches are a greater threat to freedom/world peace than all the communist governments combined. --------------------------- Hey you misspelled my name... Oh and this may come as a surprise to you, but people who see the US in a bad light are not as scarce as you might think. Hell even the vatican said the Iraq war wasn't justified. Meaning that many outside the US view the invasion of Iraq for what it is: A cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, the robe of freedom is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a capitalist's expedition becomes a Crusade. You may think that your politicians have noble motives for all the wars the US waged (Iraq, Afghanistan etc), but before deciding what to believe, have you considered the facts for yourself?

What, one million dead Iraqis not enough for your accursed tree?

This. Communism is the enemy. Ok I give up. I offer you truth and you condemn it. You guys are a bunch of morons!

Sigh... It's your loss then. And they say we theists are the close minded ones... FYI, the guy giving the lecture is Richard Wolff a professor of economics. If you only had the balls to listen to what he had to offer.

@Killian Kalthorne: You obviously didn't watch the video. The guy's actually provides the answers to your questions. Watch the damn vid man, it'll cost you nothing!

Before I post my rebuttal to a number of members here on this thread, I humbly ask all of you that are interested in this topic to view the following presentation: A Marxist analysis of the current financial crisis. This video will show you (among others): 1. Capitalism is a system designed to fail. 2. Capitalism is undemocratic. 3. Capitalism is killing the planet. Wake up America, you've been had!

LOL... Cool thread. Apart from being un-Christian, more importantly I would also like to point out that Capitalism is undemocratic. As I've stated before on the 'communism' thread, capitalism is greed-driven. And as such capitalism pretty much encourages corporations to play the market as aggressively as possible. Even if it means rewriting the rules by which we live to better suit their own interests. And while capitalism has become remarkably responsive to what people want as individual consumers, democracies have struggled to perform their own basic functions: to articulate and act upon the common good, and to help societies achieve both growth and equity (sounds a lot like socialism huh?). Democracy, at the very least, should enable citizens to debate collectively how the slices of the pie should be divided and to determine which rules apply to private goods and which to public goods. The purpose of democracy is to accomplish ends we cannot achieve as individuals. But democracy cannot fulfill this role when companies use politics to advance or maintain their competitive standing, or when they appear to take on social responsibilities that they have no real capacity or authority to fulfill. That leaves societies unable to address the trade-offs between economic growth and social problems such as job insecurity, widening inequality, and climate change. As a result, consumer and investor interests almost invariably trump common concerns. Contrary to popular belief, democracy and capitalism simply don't mix.

Well unlike you, we have to live in your so-called

LOL! What sort of conference? Don't worry, it's worth the wait.

@taks: Really? Then how come many American/European corporations that seek more profit close domestic factories and run away to Third World countries (such as Indonesia) rather than offer their employees decent wages, proper benefits, and pensions. And let me tell you that here in Indonesia, I

As a PS3 owner, lemme just say that the 360 sucks! lol As for FFXIII, can anyone tell me when will the NA version be available?

Communism RULES! LOL... j/k Let me just say that we can quantify the deaths caused by communism/socialism (Lenin/Stalin etc) and religious (i.e Islamic) extremism, but we will never know how many deaths have been the result of capitalism; of nothing more noble than a rich man wanting to be even richer, and sacrificing the health and lives of millions of workers to achieve this. Don't even try to count how many people capitalism has killed, because not only will you not know where to begin, but also it will never end.

So, what do you think of Hamas terrorists using bombs and rockets on Israeli civilians who have children around them. After all, by your assessment then Hamas should be fried. I've answered this in the Israel thread. Have another look. When it comes to the purposeful killing of women and children, the words

This is horrible. Any person/government that commits infanticide should fry!

The legendary Big Boss. And this guy:

The WorldNetDaily website reported: Full story. Obama said in a speech in July 2008 in Colorado Springs that he wanted to see a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful and well-funded as the Marines, Navy and Air Force. Is it possible Obama is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will rival the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force? Why would he do that? And if that's not the case, why did he say it? What did he mean?' I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. At least that's what Indonesian political analysts say.

@Walsingham: You’re missing the point Wals. I posted those pictures not with the intention to shock you or anyone else here, I was merely showing you that these are the kind of images that are being shown in the Muslim world by Islamic media nowadays. What do you think the effects will be? Israel’s war in Gaza looks increasingly like a colossal strategic blunder. Far from destroying Hamas, it has given it legitimacy. Far from splitting the Arabs it has united them. Far from achieving greater deterrence, it has driven the Arabs -- and Iran -- to look urgently to their defenses. Far from improving its international image, Israel is now viewed by much of the world as a blood thirsty state. Provided the numbers in the said article are accurate, then it is indeed strange. The low casualty suffered by Hamas offers these possibilities: 1. Hamas hid themselves well during the Israeli onslaught on Gaza. 2. Israel wasn't targeting Hamas at all. 3. All of the above. Yes I do. But what about the hospital the Israelis shelled? I mean there's bound to be civilians there right? ------------------------- What diplomacy? Israel never gave diplomacy a chance. The peace deal you're referring to is unilateral in nature. Meaning Israel decided for themselves that they have had their fill for now and it's time to recuperate, rearm and review their brutal tactics. Another testament to how cheap the lives of the Palestinians really are.

Read what I'm about to say with a closed mind. If you can, please convince me otherwise. Apart from the unspecified 'hope, 'change' and 'believe', few have any idea what Obama's policies will be. Public perception comes from having an 'image' of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn't do fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his windbag words. There is an 'image' that Obama is against war right, but I don't think he is. He says he's against the invasion of Iraq, though we'll see what he does about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European troops, to be sent to Afghanistan be against war? He has also said he is prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear weapons and he has appointed Hillary 'Let's bomb 'em' Clinton as Secretary of State and re-appointed Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. So that's the 'change we can believe in', then. This is just my opinion, but I think Obama isn't against war at all and he will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a wave of oratory from the dark suit with the black face who would never go where he's sending them. Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same scale. Bush was a transparent idiot with no communication skills who needed massive fraud at the polls to get him officially 'elected.' He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous 'hope' 'change' and 'believe' when they don't even know what those words are supposed to mean. But Obama is a different story.

Yep, let's hope the war is truly over.

IMHO Obama is potentially far more dangerous than Bush. I really hope I'm wrong on this.

@Killian Kalthorne: At last, someone agrees with me! Actually, there is a third choice: Two State Solution. You may not now this, but the war in Gaza looks like a desperate attempt to sink, once and for all, any possibility of a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What alternative do Israel

@Walsingham: I’m not really ignoring anything Wals, I just thought that the intent of both Hamas and Israel were obvious for all to see. They both target combatants and civilians alike. Although at the end of the day when you look at the statistics, it’s clear that one side is much more efficient, effective and merciless than the other. If you check out the link I gave Volourn earlier, you'd know that Hamas weren't the ones that broke the ceasefire. The ceasefire was a commitment Hamas held firmly as they no longer adhered to the destruction of Israel. Even as Israel tightens the blockade on Gaza instead of lifting it. In any case, attacks on civilians are unacceptable, whether Palestinian or Israeli civilians. Yet the US government, public relations officials, and mainstream media, and even most forum members here —unlike those of almost every other country in the world— continue to criminalize Palestinian violence while absolving Israel (the undisputed party in power) of almost any responsibility of its own. Most (short sighted) Israeli people also see this as a just war on terror. If I didn't know better, I'd say that most member here are ruled by the same 'elite' that ruled both Israel and the US. My point is that the official position seems clear: Israel can/will do as it likes until Hamas stops all violence. The underlying assumption here is that Palestinians’ human rights depend on the actions of their leaders. This is false. Palestinians do not have to earn the human rights inalienable to every person on Earth. Human rights are non-negotiable. Likewise, Israelis do not have to earn their human rights. Israeli state terror notwithstanding, it would be criminal to bombard the entire population of Israel (in which, as in Gaza, fighters live alongside their families in civilian areas) for the crimes of its government.

@Walsingham: Civilians. So you agree with my other points then? I