lord of flies

Is this sarcasm or something? Because war worked/would work so much better, right?

You use the term "Communism" to describe the distant, unattainable fantasy of Marx. I use it to describe a command economy, because those have actually existed (e.g. USSR). Command economies do and have worked. Hmm... Hmm... Did you notice... that in the year when the Soviets came to power, the government/economy underwent fundamental changes... twice? PS: Do you think in 2011 (20 years after the end of the Soviet Union) Russia will be #2 power in the world, or even #3, as she was in 1937 (20 years after the end of the Russian Empire)?

Hmm, did you notice that Russia is a capitalist country, and that her conversion to capitalism coincided with a major drop in quality of living for people in the country? Did you also notice that Russia's transformation from a flagging power, easily defeated by Germany as it fought a war on multiple fronts, into the number two world power coincided with her conversion to communism?

Yes, and you'll continue to hold those viewpoints in spite of any evidence to the contrary or consideration on a situational basis. Why? Under what circumstances would neocolonialism be acceptable, or what evidence is there to suggest that capitalism is superior to socialism? Care to explain how I have "ignored any evidence to the contrary"?

Just because someone holds a cohesive worldview that happens to be the opposite of what someone else holds, doesn't mean they're a "contrarian." I could just as easily say that right-wingers are contrarian because they are in opposition to pretty much everything I believe, but does that mean that they define themselves by opposition? No. I hold the viewpoints I hold based upon a utilitarian examination of the past and present functions of human society, which lead me to believe that imperialism is terrible, neo-colonialism is atrocious, warmongers are evil, and capitalism has a net negative effect on human society.

Yeah, war is preposterous. I mean, declaring it on Nazi Germany in 1939 was, like, total FAIL! Hey, you know why the United Nations (Britain, France, Poland, et al) got into World War 2? It's because Nazi Germany attacked first. You know why the Soviets got into it? Same reason. The Americans? The Japanese Empire attacked first. Even in that last case, though Japan was (admittedly) purposefully provoked by the USA with an oil embargo, that was only in response to the Japanese invasion of China. The United States has been in Afghanistan for seven years. In 1944, it had been at war for three. In 2008, the citizens of the US elected a president who was hawkish on Afghanistan. Do the math. You know what the difference is between Iraq and Afghanistan? You're a smart fellow, so tell me. Yeah, right, a war would have definitely reduced the amount of casualties. :roll: Hmm, could it be that the US defeated the Iraqi government in a months time, and that they're just in a gigantic quagmire now? No, impossible! It must be because "**** modern Americans" with their "moral codes" and some half-assed "attempts to not kill civilians." ?

Look, it's simple. Here are nine reasons why a game reviewer may rate a game differently than its apparent quality, with no need for bribery or lying: 1. Subjectively likes/dislikes. Even though a game may have clear, even glaring flaws, it is still possible to enjoy it. Many game reviewers rate games based upon how much they like it. 2. Knows someone involved in the creation. Many game reviewers go to places like E3, where they meet and socially interact with various people involved in the process of game creation. This doubtlessly plays a role in how they rate the game. 3. He would rather be playing a different game. Suppose that a really hyped game has just come out, but the reviewer got stuck playing some other, minor game during that month, so the whole time he's playing it, he's thinking "Boy, I sure would like to be playing [Halo 3/God of War 2/GTA 4/Other Game Here]. 4. He sucks at the game. Some people are just terrible at strategy games, or RPGs, or whatever else, and they blame it on the game rather than themselves. This is particularly true of very innovative games, where the problem of sucking may be ascribed as the fault of the game since the reviewer has no comparison. 5. He has been suckered in by hype of a game. The fact of the matter is that people react differently to things based upon their previous experience. If I've heard that a particular game is going to own so hard, I'm going into it with a different perspective than if I'm told it sucks. 6. He did not finish the game. To quote one review, "While I didn

Yeah. They're called "ads," perhaps you've heard of them?

Neo-cons, in addition to being military interventionists (which I'll come back to in a moment) are also conservatives. They believe in an abolition or prevention of many rights, while simultaneously supporting economic policies designed to help the rich at the expense of the poor. Neo-cons are also military interventionists, which means they believe in the (preposterous) idea that war will somehow make the world better. Furthermore, neo-cons tend to view their goals in a very black-and-white terms; that is, they have either achieved their goals, or they have not, with no middle ground. This can be seen most clearly in their rather dim view of diplomacy, since the purpose of diplomacy is reaching an equitable compromise, and their dislike of multilateralism, since they don't achieve their goals perfectly. Thus the neoconservative movement's demonization of desires to talk with "enemies of the United States" (Iran, Venezuela, et al). It really is an atrocious foreign policy lead by atrocious people. Assuming the goals of spreading democracy and progressivism to societies worldwide, negotiations (particularly trade negations) would have far greater effects; if a foreign power is reliant on the United States' trade, that can be the knife that twists the last bastion of regressivism in a given nation. Of course, the problem with the use of trade negotiations is that that relies on the US being willing to give something, let's say, money, for something else, let's say, oil. But once the United States does this, the game suddenly changes. Because the United States has built a trade relationship with a foreign power, they have also become economically connected to it. Big businesses now have an interest in ensuring that the status quo remains in effect - after all, progressivism and democracy mean workers' rights and minimum wages, which pulls money out of the businesses' pocket. In the end, neo-conservative ideology and tactics are a failure, because they rely on unilateral military force and also connect themselves to plutocracy, which means they cannot easily advance their goals non-militarily.

I assume that you mean "contrarian" as in I believe things contrary to regressivism, imperialism, sexism, capitalism, and neo-colonialism, right?

Depends. Where did you originally find it? And stop dodging my question, Rorie!

My point is, as I said, "tu quoque," "you too," "nobody's perfect." This is you: "Oh no, some the police pay more attention to attacks on state-run businesses than ones on private businesses? Say it ain't so!" Fine, did a bit more searching rather than half-heartedly pulling one of the most notable cases of corruption in policework to find a bit about freedom of the press... Freedom of the Press is so great in the United States, right?

Where is Rorie when you need him? ANSWER MY QUESTION, MATTHEW RORIE.

"You too." Remember when Germany censored literally every swastika? Oh no, failed state!

Don't make me get all tu quoque up in here. I had to look that up, and yes, you bloody well better. Voter nullification during the civil rights movement in the USA was within our lifetimes. Endemic corruption, indifference to justice, and more-or-less open racism were the order of the day. If you killed a black man in the south, the police wouldn't look for you, the locals wouldn't hate you, and the jury wouldn't convict you. Yes, you can read about that in history books or on Wikipedia. And...? And you can read about what is happening in Venezuela in history books or on Wikipedia. BOOM.

Don't make me get all tu quoque up in here. I had to look that up, and yes, you bloody well better. Jury nullification during the civil rights movement in the USA was within our lifetimes. Endemic corruption, indifference to justice, and more-or-less open racism were the order of the day. If you killed a black man in the south, the police wouldn't look for you, the locals wouldn't hate you, and the jury wouldn't convict you.

Don't make me get all tu quoque up in here.

Wrong. People like luxury. While traditionally, luxury is associated with ownership and economic freedom, it doesn't have to be. For example, the Roman gladiators often had wonderful lives, got to have lots of sex, et cetera, but it was basically a gilded cage. And yet, the system functioned and survived for quite some time. If people like to own things, how come they don't like to own Enron stocks, eh? Puzzle that one out.

No.

So, as I understand it you play as a "spy" in this game. Fine. A United States one, at that. But, you were burned, so to speak. Very well, I can accept this. BUT - and this is a very important but - are not United States intelligence agents (not counterintel) agents of neocolonialism? Do they not gather information on third-world countries in case the US businesses in the region decide to lobby the government to overthrow democratically elected governments? Are they not, if only by association, responsible for dozens of (successful) coups of socialist democracies for the United States' businesspeople? This leads me onto my point: must I play Thorton as a neocolonialist oppressor, or can I aid the Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese, and more in their struggle for national sovereignty in the face of American hegemony? Please answer soon.

It is a position of power... that Hitler was appointed to. He won free, public elections with universal suffrage. Mussolini was appointed to his position after leading an armed insurrection, and Hitler was appointed the head of a coalition government which he rapidly disbanded. I love this. "Property rights," as though it was a "right" on the same level as freedom of speech or religion for multinational corporations to take economic and political control of second-world countries via their metallic grasp on employment. And how exactly is Chavez "muzzling the free press" any more than other countries do? Slippery slope fallacy. Weird how your rhetoric just so happens to fit into that sort of neocolonialist, us-versus-them, mindless-middle mentality which lead to Operation Ajax, right?

No, it wouldn't, because Chavez was democratically elected and is popular. Hmm, a Latin American President is afraid of being overthrown in a coup? This is very "strange". Come on man, he was nearly overthrown in a US-backed coup already. It's understandable that he would be a little paranoid. No it doesn't, and no he wasn't. Hitler was appointed to Chancellor, and after being appointed used the political gamesmanship that served him so well during WW2 to manipulate the democratic system to his advantage.

Because this won't happen, because Venezuela is not an authoritarian regime that the US government can twist around on its debt. What are they going to do? Make the government have free elections? It already does. Also, this didn't work in China, because the US has become reliant on the Chinese, rather than the other way around (which is how effective trade control is achieved). Yeah, because things went so great for the Soviets after they opened up their markets, right? Or for the Guatemalans following the 53 coup? Or for the United States after it deregulated in the 20s? Or for the Japanese after they were opened up their trading ports to the Spanish? Or for the Iraqis after their government became economically tied to the United States? Hint: These all went terribly.

I was being sarcastic when I said "OH NO, AMERICA: TURNED TO FASCISM???" as implied by the ALL CAPS and multiple punctuation marks. The point is that a temporary growth of an autocratic position in a democratic society is very common; if you cared to go through American history, you'd find that they pop up again and again, with Wilson signing the Sedition Act, Lincoln throwing away Habeas Corpus, FDR putting all the Japanese-Americans in camps, Reagan's decision to illicitly fund the Contras, et cetera. The downfall of human rights and people's power can be seen even outside of war in the United States, most particularly in the often violent, and incredibly corrupt southern backlash to desegregation, equal rights, abolitionism, and so forth. These things (and more) are obviously far worse than taking from multinational neocolonialist corporations and giving to Venezuelans.