lord of flies

Good job missing the "nearly." Obviously in the immediate aftermath of the propaganda campaign, there would be high support, before the reality of war set in. ****ing duh. Even in the immediate aftermath, characterizing "Amerikans" as supporting the war is a bit of an exaggeration; even in October 2001 36% of non-whites were not in support of the use of ground troops in Afghanistan. By June 2002, only 51% of the general public was in favor of mounting a long-term war against terrorism. The majority felt that the United States would not be a success in Afghanistan unless they captured bin Laden. And these statistics were all obtained while Americans were still in a "siege mentality," fearing that major terrorist attacks would soon take place within the United States. All statistics are from Gallup. Of course, the statistics are even worse for Iraq, seeing as it was a war on false premises.

Perhaps if you keep posting worthless **** like this intended solely to get a rise out of me, I'll report you and you'll get banned?

Idea: Barack Obama Rejects the Multinational Identity of AmericansStatements: Barack Obama rejects the Multinational Nature of the United States. There is a multinational identity within the United States, with multiple large groups which identify themselves as a separate and unique people, having separate territory, dialect, economy, etc. Idea: Barack Obama Rejects the Rights of the American Working Class Statements: Barack Obama rejects the right of Americans to affordable (or, I would say, free and universal) health care. Idea: Barack Obama Ignores the Class Interests of the American Working Class Statements: The United States currently has high unemployment. However, if the money which had been spent on the bailout (targeted at the rich) had been spent on the American working class, every single currently unemployed person could be given a salary of over $65,000 dollars (a fact which can be obtained by simple division; 1 trillion dollars [bailout] divided by 15 million [unemployed workers] = $66,666.67) Idea: Barack Obama Rejects the Moral Principles of the American Populace Statements: Barack Obama maintains a torture facility where he not only violates the rights of PoWs, but also tortures people who military tribunals have determined are innocent civilians. Idea: Barack Obama Rejects the Anti-War Sentiment of the American Working Class Statements: Barack Obama maintains the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anti-war sentiment is high. The American working class bears the brunt of these wars of US imperialism. How are these statements "unrelated"?

You can't say "tl;dr" and "Don't feed the troll." The very statement "tl;dr" is a simple, childish, obnoxious troll in every scenario. Its sole purpose is to **** on the poster who it describes, solely for the "crime" of being long-winded. In fact, if I had been much shorter in the expressions of these ideas you wankers would be whining about what would be extreme brevity, to the point where each individual idea would be ill-expressed or ill-explained. Every idea expressed in this topic can be backed up by actual, undeniable, facts. Barack Obama has not withdrawn United States troops from Iraq or Afghanistan, he has not enabled health care, he rejects the multinational identity of Americans, etc.

Agreed. The United States is probably one of the least racist first world countries in the world. Though that's really an indictment of the first world rather than absolution for the United States. Many other first world countries have prominent, openly racist political parties. At least in the United States, our prominent racist parties (e.g. Republicans, Democrats) at least pretend not to be racist (anymore). There was a long and concerted campaign that the United States underwent (and should continue to undergo) to undermine and eliminate racism, whereas the rest of the first world never really did this.

Firstly: Barack Obama Rejects the Multinational Identity of Americans In 2004, Barack Obama rejected the multinational nature of the United States, saying "There's not a Black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

I've never openly criticised the moderation on this forum since the day I signed up, but your collective indulgence of LoFs blatant trolling is out of order. Re-read some of his posts, gloating about a tragic and fatal accident. Then try swapping 'Stalin' for Hitler and try on his posts for size, because for a lot of folks in Eastern Europe the two are pretty much the same thing. Why don't we equivocate some more stuff like this? "What if you swap out the word 'Turkey' for 'Nazi Germany'? See how that looks bad?" We can apply it to anything. Stalin is not Hitler. A lot of crypto-fascists out of the Baltic like to pretend otherwise, but that's because they're rightist scum. The USSR and Poland were never allied. The Poles had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union and the Poles were told it would be considered null and void if they participated in the Occupation of Czechoslovokia - which they then did.

Justice occurred in the Soviet Union, you child. To reject all real world socialism is childish and petty. "Ooh, sorry, Cuba isn't 100% perfect, let's tear it down and replace it with some awful liberal democracy." "Ooh, sorry, the DPRK isn't 100% perfect, let's tear it down and replace it with some awful liberal democracy." Et cetera, et cetera. Stop posting. Why shouldn't I? Can't we all laugh at how hilarious it is that God decided to knock off a ****load of right-wingers in Poland 70 years after he let his servant on this Earth, Iosif Dzhugashvili, do the same? It's called "dark humor," look it up. PS: Wehrmacht soldiers often died for "no greater crime than service to their country." Bloo bloo. PPS: The Soviet Union never allied with the Nazis.

Q: How many polish politicians does it take to commemorate a historical tragedy? A: ALL OF THEM

An act of God strikes down a plane full of counter-revolutionaries, and you claim that it's a great tragedy? This is divine judgment.

That's what happens to counter-revolutionaries who "commemorate" the so-called "victims" of Stalin. Maybe you should try not being evil and commemorating villainous traitors who were executed according to the Soviet legal system? The so-called Polish "resistors" against Soviet "imperialism" were villains who can only appear righteous by ignoring that the Red Army flooding over Polish territory was the only thing that saved it from living its life under Nazi rule, whose stated goals were to kill everyone east of Berlin who wasn't German.

Moving to San Francisco, eh? Well, I suppose that I should tell you that the Party" for Socialism and Liberation operates there, so you may just want to join up. It's a good opportunity to do something good in the world. If you're into that, I mean.

No, it's just you. NERD! *gives you a noogie*

Friends, I want to present you with an amazing, beautiful Let's Play, the sort which everyone should aspire to make. It is House Hohenzollern Rising, and it is beautiful. The game is a Mega-Paradox Let's Play, going from 1066 to 1945. The player, Wiz, uses extensive modding and takes the Hohenzollerns from a small, local batch of dukes based out of Bavaria into the rulers of Germany and leaders of one of the most industrialized countries in the world. The history of Germany itself is remarkably banal, typified by reaction and monarchy, but not too much more so than historically. In some ways, Wiz's Germany is the equivalent to our world's Russia, without being driven apart in the Great War. It is "just" a ****ty, reactionary autocracy ruled by a conservative leadership with support from the fascists. The rest of the world is where it gets interesting. The Hammabids came to rule Iberia, eventually driving the Christians out and colonizing even more than their historical counterparts (Portugal and Spain) did. After a long period of internal strife, they lose much of the new world and collapse to the revolutionary Zuhriman. The Eastern Roman Empire survives, then falls to communism. Russia remains under the Lithuanian-Polish jackboot until the 19th century. Et cetera, et cetera. I really cannot just write out all the different ways in which the world is different (well, I can, but it would take too long to), but it is, again and again. Yet at the same time it is identifiable, its countries recognizable and somewhat familiar. Please read it, for within the month nublets like you who don't want to drop $20 won't be able to.

Guerilla warfare relies on the tacit acceptance of the majority of the populace in the areas it operates. To attack with brutality and strength against such a foe requires overwhelming and genocidal force, and given that there are a lot of people in the Red Corridor and the disproportionate and unwarranted application of violence is what gives the Naxalites their local support, there is no way to successfully apply it against them. All your examples involve a smaller, "foreign" populace being crushed by a larger, militarized populace. India is not about to make a settler state out of the red corridor.

Long term civil wars like this blow my mind. 20 YEARS! Seriously? Arent there like a billion plus people in India? Why dont they mobilize, oh I dunno, 100,000-200,000 of their troops and go stomp a mudhole in the rebels? This could have been over in 6 months. - someone who does not understand guerilla warfare, 2010.

*posts insane reinterpretation of reality under an unlikely condition irrelevant to the current discussion* *pretends he is correct because of it* The Naxalites basically just want the Indian government to stop pushing tribes off their land. They reject the election process in India because it's ****ty and doesn't do **** for the people they are trying to defend. They are willing to engage in dialogue if the Indian government was really willing to; but they're not, and that's why they (the Indian government/police) are calling for the Naxalites to give up violence and enter "peace talks" while they keep Naxalite leaders in prison and keep the offensive going.

That's because you have no cohesive moral system. Unless you count "a bloo bloo, killing is bad." Which I don't. Well, "personally" I think that going "a bloo bloo" over some colonialist douchebags getting killed when they try to steal people's lands is dumb and ****ty.

I believe this is an excellent representation of what was being talked about in a previous thread titled "An interesting analysis of liberalism." There is a firm, clear moral difference between the imperialists suppressing native peoples, and the natives fighting back against the imperialists. In this case, the Indian government is doing what is effectively old-style imperialism, forcing native peoples off ancestral land via violent means to steal their ****. The natives are completely justified in applying force in response.

Actually, you can. And it has proven to be a fairly effective tactic. But that's irrelevant, because the Naxalites are engaged in armed resistance as part of a policy of rational self defense, rather than because they "don't like" the politics of India. The irony of the situation is that if it were a Communist government, you would be totally behind the actions of the Naxalites. lol like you don't support castle law. The Naxalites have no way to defend themselves other than through violence. What else are they going to do? Nonviolent resistance has been tried, quite a bit, by these tribes, but it hasn't worked out. Voting is obviously not going to work because a lot of people in India ultimately do not give a **** about the people who are getting forced off their land, enough that parliamentarianism is never going to work out (not that it's a very effective tactic anyway).

"How dare these people defend their lands via violent means, if they do so under the premises of an ideology I DON'T LIKE."

Libertarian supports the seizure of land without recompense by the government. News at eleven.

BBC Article The Naxalites are Marxist rebels with significant Maoist influence. The Indian government is attempting to drive local peoples off their ancestral lands so that they can sell rural, resource-rich west India down the river to corporate ****s. The Naxalites are a guerilla movement that opposes this. Who do you support?

Neocolonialism is a political and economic system, primarily enacted by the United States with aid from organizations such as the IMF and the UN, which retroactively or proactively justify and commit to United States political interests abroad. One would not be remiss from judging neocolonialism to be the defining characteristic of modern geopolitics, as it defines the worldwide economic system in a unique and modern way. Imperialism, the previous system of global control, had an incomplete stretch and was less efficient, but neocolonialism has its own weakness, namely its ability to be corrupted and destroyed from its outskirts. Given that this game purports to be about a spy in the REAL WORLD taking place TWENTY MINUTES IN THE FUTURE, neocolonialism and anticolonialism should take a prominent role, especially given that the country takes place in countries which suffer heavily under US imperialism, such as Taiwan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Especially Russia. And especially Saudi Arabia.

Cool, news from like a decade ago. Who gives a ****? It is literally the same thing as if I was playing Hidden Agenda on my computer: some pixels moving in a way that gives me pleasure (or not, as in the case of my glorious socialist utopia swinging wildly into debt and losing its hard currency reserves/my character getting pushed into a train). In fact, in Hidden Agenda I probably hurt more pretend people much worse when my actions lead to Espinales and Ehrlich overthrowing my glorious regime and probably instituting a system of rape dogs like Pinochet. Nobody was hurt in the making of this game, nor are they hurt in its play. Many people have sexual fantasies which they understand cannot be achieved or attempted In The Real World. And yes, I enjoy fiction which involves the protagonist doing things which would be morally repugnant in real life. Deal with it.