Poll: If your country was invaded, would you join a resistance?

[Celinis]

Kinda depends on the invaders, if it was the EU no. Now if it were North Korea or China yes. When your president labels your enemy as the "Axis of Evil" it makes me want to move to Canada.

 

[iDoom46]

I can't really say.
On the one hand, it does sound kind of cool to actually be fighting the good fight in a resistance army for pride and country.
On the other hand, I'm a pretty down-to-earth, pragmatic kind of person. There's a pretty high chance I'd go the self-preservation route and just high-tail it out of there.

I suppose it all comes down to whether or not the media/propaganda has brainwashed me enough to fight, or if I'm just feeling like an action movie hero at that point in time.

To be honest, I really should have an answer to this already, considering how much time I spend wondering what I'd do if the nation (I'm from the US) actually falls apart and breaks into civil war.
[sub](Sure, its an unlikely worst-case-scenario, but it still remains an ever-more-real possibility. Especially considering the worsening tensions between the left and right, debt crisis, crazy and angry Tea Party members, and the nation's over all love of weapons, guns, explosions, and war [games and movies].)[/sub]

 

[Skoldpadda]

If it was an invasion of naked swedish women, then no.

If it was an invasion of fat american soccer moms: I need a weapon.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I wonder how many Americans realize the irony that they are putting themselves into the shoes of an Afghan or Iraqi

I think he means the civilian population, not radical, fanatic, murderous Muslims who will take down as many people as they can, whether they're armed or not.
It's not like the United States invaded and started killing everyone they saw. A resistance like this would only apply in a scenario when a country invades another, for the sole reason of conquering it, the US is in the Middle East to stop the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups who are only interested in killing innocent people.

 

[Rex Fallout]

Sorry its been a few days. Was busy with exams (one was, coincidentally, on the Russian Revolution and the Cold War)

That is quite the coincidence! The bolshevik revolution and the period in human history when we got closest to killing ourselves in nuclear fire. Why don't I get exams like this?

It wasn't so much the black markets. You can hardly deal with food on a large enough scale to feed a country without coming up on the radar. The newly-conquered satellite states agreed on trade deals which helped resurrect the fragile Soviet economy (they could hardly say no, with the Red Army having just 'freed' them from Nazi control.)

Also, Stalin's Five Year Plans had massive advanced the Soviet industry, allowing a relatively quick recuperation from the devastation of war.

No doubt it was a combination of several things that kept the nation alive, but you can hardly argue for Stalin's five year plans, he went through quite a few of them and the people were starving just as much going in as coming out.

Some people go through a rebellious phase, and just don't grow out of it. Thats very true, I can't argue that. However, in a 'true communist system' (read; unlikely/borderline impossible) working solely for yourself would be looked down upon to the same degree as, I don't know, getting a teenage girl pregnant and leaving her to fend for herself (literally pulled that out of the air). The social ramifications of it would be so great that those few that did would have very few followers.

Ah so I'm in a phase that I may or may not grow out of. Hmm. Well anyways, even if things are viewed as wrong by society large followings still occur. Lets jump back to the hippie generation shall we? There were millions of people in that craze, breaking normal tradition, having sex with anyone they wanted, (going to getting that teenage girl pregnant thing) And while it may have been a phase, there were ALOT of people willing to fight the man. The same thing could happen in a Marxist nation but it would be far more likely that the protests would end in more violence than the ones I gave as an example did. ie, another Tianenmen Square Massacre.

That statement can swing both ways. Perhaps the fact that to succeed in this society we have to do something " wrong ", perhaps that is the problem.

Ah that is true of course. I like to lean the other way however.

But, disregarding everything else, being indoctrinated into doing things for others is not true willingness.

And it sortof makes sense.

Hmm, well when done right it is hardly indoctrinating someone, it's supposed to be a choice made, not forced upon someone. But from our history I can see where you get that.

I trust the government because they are there to GOVERN. A company exists to MAKE MONEY. A government exists to care for its citizens. A company exists to make a profit and grow.

And just because there have been governments which have ruled by force doesn't mean they all do. In a democracy (which America prides itself on being) people shouldn't fear the government! The government is elected by the people, to serve the people.

Why do you trust a profit-induced company, an entity which is simply acting for its own interests, to protect YOUR interests? I just can't fathom this. It seems almost farcical.

First off, just because they are there to do that doesn't mean that we should trust them full heartedly and blindly march in line behind their orders. They were made by the people, to serve the people, but whether or not that happens is up to them. A government may exist for its citizens, but tell me, what ramifications do they face if they start rolling heads? Because the PRC does that on regular basis, and alll that happens is the UN wags their finger and slaps them across the wrist. A corperation on the other hand needs to focus on public image. They may be working for money, but if word gets out that your corperation murdered someone, who will buy your products? I'm not saying corperations haven't done bad things, but when they do those bad things the punishments are more actively seen. ie, they go out of business, they lose sales, etc. Neither one is truly a saint, but which one would I trust more? The one that can do whatever the hell it wants- or the one that will actively be punished by society if it does anything wrong?

America pride's itself on being a democracy but notice anything wrong? It's always the same people who come into power, rich old white guys. Yay. We shouldn't fear the government but keep an eye on it. I will pay my taxes and serve my nation if I must, but if they start doing the wrong things, I will be the first to stand against them and point out their unethical choices. I like to think that my forfathers didn't fight the greatest army in the world, (at the time of course) and its tyrant so that it's citizens could blindly follow someone else.

Think of it in the grand scheme of things; a person gets sick. They don't have the money to be cured. They are so sick they cannot work. They cannot work, so they do not pay taxes. The government loses money. Their employer loses money. The person loses money.

If someone gets sick in the UK or France, or one of the many other countries with 'free' healthcare (you pay for it with your taxes, so you're still paying for it), a person gets sick and they get treated. They go back to work, they earn money, they get taxed, the government gets back anything they spent on healing the person, and more.

It helps the person, the government and the nation to have 'socialised medicine'. I know that sounds very dogmatic and poetically extreme, but its true.

When someone is sick that is one thing, but when you have people simply living off of what the government gives them, not doing anything for society, or for themselves even, then what does anyone gain?

I wouldn't call the independence of India a civil war.

Maybe closer to Revolution, ie. American Revolution rather than civil war. They were being ruled by someone far away like America, and were being oppressed. So no civil war probably wasn't the best term. But if you stop thinking in terms of, 'Indians', 'Americans' and 'Europeans' and instead think simply in terms of, Humans, then technically it was a civil war. Of course now I'm just being a smart ass.

Mao is 'revered by millions' because 1. Propaganda, pure and simple, and 2. He managed something incredible. He brought China to superpower status, revitalised its economy, established relations with a hostile America, and much more, all while fighting political plots against him and controlling the largest population on Earth.

Debatable. Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' hardly modernized the nation, revitalised the economy or established relations with America, it killed millions, starved more, and destroyed the economy. Plus, Deng Xiaopeng opened up relations with America, not Mao.

Err... what? Mao hated Lenin? Stalin hated Lenin? Where have you been told this? Lenin was revered as a God by both Stalin and Mao! If you're saying Mao hated Stalin, you're even more mistaken. Mao modelled his policy on Stalin, and was greatly offended when Krushchev proposed 'de-Stalinisation'.

Stalin, Lenin, and Mao all had power because, at some point, they wanted to improve the lives of their people. Whether they believed their people could make it better on their own is another question. I've already said that Lenin didn't consider the proletariat to be large or intelligent enough to lead their own revolution.

Sorry sort of said that wrong, he may not of hated Lenin, but I know for a fact that he hated Stalin. The two never got along, I just did a report over this, and can't remember where I got this, but he did. (I have a feeling I remember the book in my mind but have no idea where it is.) Stalin didn't hate lenin, and Lenin didn't hate stalin (far as I know). Sorry got a bit hasty there.

However your arguement about them coming to power because they wanted to help the people is easily debatable. You can't prove that they didn't have alterior, darker motives for becoming dictators, and its quite possible that they did.

I don't want to get bogged down in scriptural debate. What I will say is that the Church restricted development of science in numerous ways. For example, Galileo was dubbed a heretic for his theory that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Now, I'm not sure if you've heard, but scientists are pretty sure thats actually true now. The development of medicine was stagnant for centuries because the Church refused the allow anyone to build on the theories of Hypocrates and Galen, as that would also be heretical.

Those are just a few examples of how religion, specifically Christianity, has hindered scientific progress.

I don't want to get into this either but I will say this, just because certain people, (yes even the pope) say things doesn't mean that that was the christian thing to do. Just because that is what happened doesn't mean that it follows the teachings of the Bible. The Bible did not say the world was flat, it did not say, "STOP ALL ADVANCEMENT OF MEDICENE" Men and women claiming to speak for God said that these things were wrong because these people wanted it to be wrong, and so they fought it. It wasn't the right thing to do but it happened.

Yeah, that was a bit out of line. I apologise. Its just that the idea that the universe was created by an omnipotent power in less than a week seems ridiculous to me. I think theres a God, or at least some sort of supernatural power, but not the Abrahamic god.

Apology accepted. And I don't really want to get into this, (I get into enough conversations about this with people outside the escapist) but I will say this, It seems far more illogical to believe that over billions of years we evolved from tiny micro organisms that we can't see today with our naked eye. Not only that but these micro organisms started out as individuals, and later evolved to some how become multi celled creatures. Not to mention the fact that signifigant parts of the fossil line are oh so convieniently missing that would prove that evolution happens. And not only that but there has been little to no genetic change in any of the creatures on earth in the thousands of years that we have been around like there should be if evolution is still happening. Sorry got off on a bit of a rant there.

I don't understand your phobia of governments. Governments are supposed to be trusted, yet you seem to consider them to be nothing but thieves and murderers, who would sooner gouge out their own eyeballs than actually help their people.

And you realise that, by definition, governments already have power and control over your life. They govern you. They introduce laws, collect taxes, control media sources, they have power.

I'm not afraid of the government, *usually*, I just prefer to keep an eye on them. America need not be the next Rome- or Berlin. And my government doesn't control the media- a little fact that I would like to keep from changing.

Castro was acting because of a similar revolution in another Central/South American country. There had been a revolution, and the socialist/communist elements of the new government were overthrown by their right-wing allies. He was determined not to make the same mistake.

And I never said he wasn't oppressing the people. He's a dictator. Thats what they do.

Ah yes we should just agree cuba has had, (and continues to have) aweful, terrible leaders. We can agree on that right?

I'm not sure about Tesla. I admit, pretty much the only stuff I know about him is from either Fallout, Assassin's Creed, or random stuff I've picked up.

Haha, that is the first thing that comes to mind for me to! Anyways, what little I know about him is that he once worked for Edison, but when Edison refused to give him a pay raise he quit and started his own company. It involved a fierce debate over AC vs. DC and it got pretty nasty. If I remember right he theorized about solving the worlds electricity problems by charging the atmosphere and then harvesting the power from that anywhere on Earth. He ran into some trouble with the funding though and it never got off the ground. He also had to 'reinvent' the light bulb when Edison refused to let him use it for the world's fair, and proposed a way to end all wars by making the largest weapon in human history. In theory it would cloak entire nations with an electrical force field like thing and would stop all foreign ground troops, planes, etc from entering a nation. If I remember right he wanted to test it in Britain but it never, once again, got off the ground. Ironic considering that decades later the bombings of London happened and his device may have saved them alot of trouble had it been used.

Its easily one of the best pieces of literature I've ever read, and I have 2 walls of my room covered in bookshelves filled to the brim.

Yes it was undoubtedly good, that and Animal Farm. Have you read Brave New World (the Author's name escapes me right now) I believe it followed similar precincts except not exactly to the letter. It was also a fairly good book that had a, well, less than beautiful ending.

A bit off topic and another book question, have you read 2001: a Space Odyssey by Clarke and its sequals? Possibly one of my favorite science fiction books of all time.

 

[aba1]

well im canadian and I really wouldn`t want to join the army but I really wouldn`t feel right letting strangers come in and take over my home either regardless of what they would do its principles. Plus I feel canada is one of the best country`s in the world not just because I live here but mostly cause its so diverse and there is all kinds of differnt land so people can live as they please, n lastly for the most part there is little to no prejudice

 

[aba1]

Depends on who invaded. If it was Cananda, I'd probably welcome our new Maple Syrup loving Overlords.
If it were China, I probably would join a resistance.

we have moose and so much hockey its boarderline embarassing too

 

[Sandytimeman]

Oh hell yeah I would. Adventure, Guns, Possible Fame and Fortune. Course I'm thinking like invasion that collapses our entire government and needs a from the people movement to stop it!

 

[Baradiel]

It wasn't so much the black markets. You can hardly deal with food on a large enough scale to feed a country without coming up on the radar. The newly-conquered satellite states agreed on trade deals which helped resurrect the fragile Soviet economy (they could hardly say no, with the Red Army having just 'freed' them from Nazi control.)

Also, Stalin's Five Year Plans had massive advanced the Soviet industry, allowing a relatively quick recuperation from the devastation of war.

No doubt it was a combination of several things that kept the nation alive, but you can hardly argue for Stalin's five year plans, he went through quite a few of them and the people were starving just as much going in as coming out.

Well, theres no debating that the Five Year Plans helped Russia. It was a agrarian country, and in ten years it was industrialised enough to withstand and repel the German war machine. And they were supposed to be numerous Plans. Concentrate on one thing for five years, (heavy industry) then concentrate on getting living conditions up (didn't really work, but that was the theory)

Some people go through a rebellious phase, and just don't grow out of it. Thats very true, I can't argue that. However, in a 'true communist system' (read; unlikely/borderline impossible) working solely for yourself would be looked down upon to the same degree as, I don't know, getting a teenage girl pregnant and leaving her to fend for herself (literally pulled that out of the air). The social ramifications of it would be so great that those few that did would have very few followers.

Ah so I'm in a phase that I may or may not grow out of. Hmm. Well anyways, even if things are viewed as wrong by society large followings still occur. Lets jump back to the hippie generation shall we? There were millions of people in that craze, breaking normal tradition, having sex with anyone they wanted, (going to getting that teenage girl pregnant thing) And while it may have been a phase, there were ALOT of people willing to fight the man. The same thing could happen in a Marxist nation but it would be far more likely that the protests would end in more violence than the ones I gave as an example did. ie, another Tianenmen Square Massacre.

Very true. Millions were part of the Hippy thing, but it was still temporary. I'm not doubting it would shake a communist society, but its likely it would calm down.

I trust the government because they are there to GOVERN. A company exists to MAKE MONEY. A government exists to care for its citizens. A company exists to make a profit and grow.

And just because there have been governments which have ruled by force doesn't mean they all do. In a democracy (which America prides itself on being) people shouldn't fear the government! The government is elected by the people, to serve the people.

Why do you trust a profit-induced company, an entity which is simply acting for its own interests, to protect YOUR interests? I just can't fathom this. It seems almost farcical.

First off, just because they are there to do that doesn't mean that we should trust them full heartedly and blindly march in line behind their orders. They were made by the people, to serve the people, but whether or not that happens is up to them. A government may exist for its citizens, but tell me, what ramifications do they face if they start rolling heads? Because the PRC does that on regular basis, and alll that happens is the UN wags their finger and slaps them across the wrist. A corperation on the other hand needs to focus on public image. They may be working for money, but if word gets out that your corperation murdered someone, who will buy your products? I'm not saying corperations haven't done bad things, but when they do those bad things the punishments are more actively seen. ie, they go out of business, they lose sales, etc. Neither one is truly a saint, but which one would I trust more? The one that can do whatever the hell it wants- or the one that will actively be punished by society if it does anything wrong?

I never said I trusted the government wholeheartedly. I can't stand my current government (A Tory and a backstabbing bastard who stands by so few of his policies there isn't a hope in hell of him getting re elected)

However, there has to be an element of trust. If you can't trust your government to take care of you, there is something wrong, either with the government or the people who don't trust them.

The PRC is an extreme example. Its a tyrannic regime. However, in a supposedly free society a government wouldn't be able to get away with slaughtering its people.

Going back to the Carribean in the first half of the twentieth century; foreign corporations held so much sway over puppet governments the companies effectively ran the country.

I suppose this argument just comes down to whether you trust governments to follow their basic principles, in defending and protecting their people, or whether you prefer a companies sole aim of profit. I suppose knowing that the company is only interested in money makes it easier for you to trust them? Personally, I trust my government enough to not kill me and to supply everyone with the basic requirements to succeed.

America pride's itself on being a democracy but notice anything wrong? It's always the same people who come into power, rich old white guys. Yay. We shouldn't fear the government but keep an eye on it. I will pay my taxes and serve my nation if I must, but if they start doing the wrong things, I will be the first to stand against them and point out their unethical choices. I like to think that my forfathers didn't fight the greatest army in the world, (at the time of course) and its tyrant so that it's citizens could blindly follow someone else.

I have many problems with the American political system, including the fact that the electorate is divided into just two groups (I know there are more than two parties, but the chances of them succeeding are close to nil)

The US government has already done unethical and immoral things. Every government does. And taking a stand against them is a pretty fruitless endeavour. Either what they're doing is classified, because they know the public reaction would be too negative, or its announced because they know they can withstand the pressure.

Think of it in the grand scheme of things; a person gets sick. They don't have the money to be cured. They are so sick they cannot work. They cannot work, so they do not pay taxes. The government loses money. Their employer loses money. The person loses money.

If someone gets sick in the UK or France, or one of the many other countries with 'free' healthcare (you pay for it with your taxes, so you're still paying for it), a person gets sick and they get treated. They go back to work, they earn money, they get taxed, the government gets back anything they spent on healing the person, and more.

It helps the person, the government and the nation to have 'socialised medicine'. I know that sounds very dogmatic and poetically extreme, but its true.

When someone is sick that is one thing, but when you have people simply living off of what the government gives them, not doing anything for society, or for themselves even, then what does anyone gain?

Oh, you don't have to tell me about this. The UK does have this problem. We call them "Benefit Cheats". I don't think theres anything wrong with benefits (Disability benefits, child benefits etc) They help those who need help. However, theres also unemployment benefit, which the government is trying to adjust, since its often better for people to simply live off that than get a job, because the wage and/or taxes make it less effective. I don't agree with that. Sure, give them benefits for however long is necessary for them to get back on their feet, but if its more beneficial for them to stay on benefits than actually get a job, something is wrong.

I wouldn't call the independence of India a civil war.

Maybe closer to Revolution, ie. American Revolution rather than civil war. They were being ruled by someone far away like America, and were being oppressed. So no civil war probably wasn't the best term. But if you stop thinking in terms of, 'Indians', 'Americans' and 'Europeans' and instead think simply in terms of, Humans, then technically it was a civil war. Of course now I'm just being a smart ass.

But then any war is a civil war, under those terms. And technically, it isn't a civil war unless is citizens of the same nation fighting each other.

I countered smartassery with smartassery. The smartassometer has broken!

Mao is 'revered by millions' because 1. Propaganda, pure and simple, and 2. He managed something incredible. He brought China to superpower status, revitalised its economy, established relations with a hostile America, and much more, all while fighting political plots against him and controlling the largest population on Earth.

Debatable. Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' hardly modernized the nation, revitalised the economy or established relations with America, it killed millions, starved more, and destroyed the economy. Plus, Deng Xiaopeng opened up relations with America, not Mao.

No, the Great Leap Forward was a disaster. But under Mao the economy DID improve (not during the Great Leap, ofcourse).

And are you sure you've got the right name? Deng was pretty much sidelined until after Mao's death. Zhou Enlai was heavily involved with Ping Pong Diplomacy, but Mao, as the leader of on of the countries, was seen as the main character in establishing normal relations. Same with Nixon. I'm sure Kissinger is always seen as secondary to Nixon in the whole scenario, less so than the Mao-Zhou thing, as Kissinger did make trips to Beijing, while Zhou did not do anything as overt.

Still, the public image is that Mao established normal relations, and because of this, among other things, he is revered as a great leader.

Err... what? Mao hated Lenin? Stalin hated Lenin? Where have you been told this? Lenin was revered as a God by both Stalin and Mao! If you're saying Mao hated Stalin, you're even more mistaken. Mao modelled his policy on Stalin, and was greatly offended when Krushchev proposed 'de-Stalinisation'.

Stalin, Lenin, and Mao all had power because, at some point, they wanted to improve the lives of their people. Whether they believed their people could make it better on their own is another question. I've already said that Lenin didn't consider the proletariat to be large or intelligent enough to lead their own revolution.

Sorry sort of said that wrong, he may not of hated Lenin, but I know for a fact that he hated Stalin. The two never got along, I just did a report over this, and can't remember where I got this, but he did. (I have a feeling I remember the book in my mind but have no idea where it is.) Stalin didn't hate lenin, and Lenin didn't hate stalin (far as I know). Sorry got a bit hasty there.

Well, Mao respected Stalin, especially towards the beginning of the PRC. However, several things ruined his relationship with the Soviet leader; The Korean War, where the USSR did not help an ally, and charged China for Russian equipment. Mao didn't see this as acceptable behaviour for a Communist leader. This seemed to be the standard of the relationship; China had to pay or agree to deals they didn't particularly want to agree to.

Mao definitely had a great respect for Stalin, and certainly liked him, at least a bit. He had statues and monuments built in his image, and children were taught that he was "Uncle Stalin" or something like that.

And about Lenin-Stalin. Its actually quite funny, really, in a weird way. After Lenin's first strokes in 1923, Stalin became 'Lenin's Mouthpiece'. By the time Lenin wrote his Testament, he had realised that Stalin was dangerous. He actually wrote in the Testament that he should be stripped of his positions and should never be made leader. However, due to Stalin's political ability, he managed to convince the Poltiburo not to release the Testament, because Lenin was critical of all the major people.

Basically, if the Testament had been published, its possible Stalin would never have become the Soviet leader in 1928, and the world would be a completely different place.

However your arguement about them coming to power because they wanted to help the people is easily debatable. You can't prove that they didn't have alterior, darker motives for becoming dictators, and its quite possible that they did.

I can't prove they wanted power for benevolent reasons, but by joining the Communist party, a party which is never a large group, and therefore unlikely to suddenly gain power, its likely that they had an affinity for the working/peasant classes, often coming from them themselves. They likely joined the Party wanting to improve the general lot of the people, instead of joining to make a dictatorship with themselves at the helm.

I don't want to get bogged down in scriptural debate. What I will say is that the Church restricted development of science in numerous ways. For example, Galileo was dubbed a heretic for his theory that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Now, I'm not sure if you've heard, but scientists are pretty sure thats actually true now. The development of medicine was stagnant for centuries because the Church refused the allow anyone to build on the theories of Hypocrates and Galen, as that would also be heretical.

Those are just a few examples of how religion, specifically Christianity, has hindered scientific progress.

I don't want to get into this either but I will say this, just because certain people, (yes even the pope) say things doesn't mean that that was the christian thing to do. Just because that is what happened doesn't mean that it follows the teachings of the Bible. The Bible did not say the world was flat, it did not say, "STOP ALL ADVANCEMENT OF MEDICENE" Men and women claiming to speak for God said that these things were wrong because these people wanted it to be wrong, and so they fought it. It wasn't the right thing to do but it happened.

That was exactly my point. Religion is 'good or bad' because of the way people read it. The Catholic Church is simply another organisation trying to maintain its power. Anything that goes against their power (or anything they've previously stated) is slated, or in earlier times, dubbed as heretic.

Yeah, that was a bit out of line. I apologise. Its just that the idea that the universe was created by an omnipotent power in less than a week seems ridiculous to me. I think theres a God, or at least some sort of supernatural power, but not the Abrahamic god.

Apology accepted. And I don't really want to get into this, (I get into enough conversations about this with people outside the escapist) but I will say this, It seems far more illogical to believe that over billions of years we evolved from tiny micro organisms that we can't see today with our naked eye. Not only that but these micro organisms started out as individuals, and later evolved to some how become multi celled creatures. Not to mention the fact that signifigant parts of the fossil line are oh so convieniently missing that would prove that evolution happens. And not only that but there has been little to no genetic change in any of the creatures on earth in the thousands of years that we have been around like there should be if evolution is still happening. Sorry got off on a bit of a rant there.

Well, there are several examples of evolution in effect right now.

The basic stance of evolution is that an organism with a specific advantage over its peers is more likely to survive to produce offspring, who would in turn have said advantage, and would survive till adulthood, instead of their peers who would die or otherwise be unable to reproduce.

Moths are a commonly stated example. In industrial areas, previously light-coloured tree trunks are stained dark by soot and other industrial exhaust. Moths that had evolved to blend into the tree trunks (by having lighter coloured wings) suddenly stood out easily, and where eaten by predators. However, the moths with slightly darker wings had a better chance at survival, and then their offspring had slightly darker wings, and so on, until the the moths blended in perfectly to their new surroundings.

Another example are elephants. Poaching is still a problem. Hundreds, if not thousands, of elephants are slaughtered every year for their ivory tusks. However, it isn't efficient for the poachers to kill every elephant they see, so they go for the ones with the largest tusks. The ones with less ivory get away. They reproduce. Their children have less ivory, and therefore are more likely to live, and so on. Basically, elephants are having less and less ivory because the elephants who would give their offspring large tusks are dead before then.

I really don't want to get into this, because I'm certainly no expert of evolution or biology. Lets agree to disagree!

I don't understand your phobia of governments. Governments are supposed to be trusted, yet you seem to consider them to be nothing but thieves and murderers, who would sooner gouge out their own eyeballs than actually help their people.

And you realise that, by definition, governments already have power and control over your life. They govern you. They introduce laws, collect taxes, control media sources, they have power.

I'm not afraid of the government, *usually*, I just prefer to keep an eye on them. America need not be the next Rome- or Berlin. And my government doesn't control the media- a little fact that I would like to keep from changing.

Hmm, but the media is controlled by large corporations, who in turn have massive influence over political individuals. If anything, its the other way round.

And keeping an eye on the government is the right thing to do. Still, there should be enough trust to let them take care of you.

Castro was acting because of a similar revolution in another Central/South American country. There had been a revolution, and the socialist/communist elements of the new government were overthrown by their right-wing allies. He was determined not to make the same mistake.

And I never said he wasn't oppressing the people. He's a dictator. Thats what they do.

Ah yes we should just agree cuba has had, (and continues to have) aweful, terrible leaders. We can agree on that right?

Oh yeah, Cuba's certainly had a hard history. Colonisation, fascism (basicallY), dictatorship. Still, I'd say the current situation in Cuba is better than previous regimes. Its still not brilliant, but still...

I'm not sure about Tesla. I admit, pretty much the only stuff I know about him is from either Fallout, Assassin's Creed, or random stuff I've picked up.

Haha, that is the first thing that comes to mind for me to! Anyways, what little I know about him is that he once worked for Edison, but when Edison refused to give him a pay raise he quit and started his own company. It involved a fierce debate over AC vs. DC and it got pretty nasty. If I remember right he theorized about solving the worlds electricity problems by charging the atmosphere and then harvesting the power from that anywhere on Earth. He ran into some trouble with the funding though and it never got off the ground. He also had to 'reinvent' the light bulb when Edison refused to let him use it for the world's fair, and proposed a way to end all wars by making the largest weapon in human history. In theory it would cloak entire nations with an electrical force field like thing and would stop all foreign ground troops, planes, etc from entering a nation. If I remember right he wanted to test it in Britain but it never, once again, got off the ground. Ironic considering that decades later the bombings of London happened and his device may have saved them alot of trouble had it been used.

Thats quite interesting. I might have to read up on Tesla.

Also, is it wrong I instantly thought of Back to Black when you said "AC vs DC"?

Its easily one of the best pieces of literature I've ever read, and I have 2 walls of my room covered in bookshelves filled to the brim.

Yes it was undoubtedly good, that and Animal Farm. Have you read Brave New World (the Author's name escapes me right now) I believe it followed similar precincts except not exactly to the letter. It was also a fairly good book that had a, well, less than beautiful ending.

A bit off topic and another book question, have you read 2001: a Space Odyssey by Clarke and its sequals? Possibly one of my favorite science fiction books of all time.

I havent read the book, or even seen the film (blasphemy, I know!) One day I need to just go out and buy a load of classic books. I'm on study leave for the next month or so, so I might just do that. I fancy getting a translation of the Divine Comedy too, since Paradise Lost references it quite a bit. (Also a very good political book. Well, the first bit is anyway. Basically, it draws comparisons between England under Charles I and the Kingdom of Heaven under God. It completely throws the notion of Good and Evil out of the window, which is incredible considering it was written by John Milton, a puritan, during Cromwell's England. Not even counting the fact Milton was actually blind by the time he finished the poem.

 

[OneStepAhead]

Eh, i put yes, but it really depends on how bad this invasion is.
See, i wouldn't die for my country, but i would die for my freedom. :/

 

[RiboNucleicAxe]

It would, as some have said, depend on the invader. But if it were someone worth fighting ("the measure of a man is his enemies" and all that) I'd put up one hell of a fight. Science, martial arts and sheer bloody-mindedness allows me to fashion weapons from almost everything, and I almost relish the idea of making my local area as hard as humanely possible to occupy.

 

[Biodeamon]

depends on which country invades:if america,one of those eastern countries like iraq, africa, or invaded i would form a resistance, cause personally they aren't doing to well with their countries and i rather keep my country in the stable condition it is right now. If japan, russia invaded i wouldn't mind. Mexico and Aliens from outer space are a grey area, it all depends on how they use their power.

 

[Agayek]

It depends entirely on the invaders. If they go the route that seems popular in most modern media, where they come in and slaughter everyone, I'd definitely fight back.

If they restrained themselves and actually behaved decently, I'd probably just go about my life as normal.

Edit: That said, the US is not going to be invaded by anyone, at the very least not to the point where a resistance is needed. The simple fact of the matter is if the US were to be conquered, it would throw the world economy into a massive shitstorm that makes the recent recession look like a mild slump. It would literally bankrupt most of the world.

Other countries (like China, the UK, Canada, etc) simply wouldn't allow such a thing to happen and would all gang up on the invader.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

It depends, most likely yes... but it depends on the reasons for war.
If my country was say, 1940's germany, i'd defect, if my country was 1940's france, i'd join the resistance.

 

[SuperNova221]

No. On the grounds that my country would never get invaded. Seriously, who would want to invade Scotland? What could they possibly want with Glasgow, Edinburgh, some fields and some hills?

 

[bpm195]

Flee to Canada. If that isn't an option then I'll die trying to flee to Canada.

 

[Rex Fallout]

Well, theres no debating that the Five Year Plans helped Russia. It was a agrarian country, and in ten years it was industrialised enough to withstand and repel the German war machine. And they were supposed to be numerous Plans. Concentrate on one thing for five years, (heavy industry) then concentrate on getting living conditions up (didn't really work, but that was the theory)

I would go with patriotism had a greater impact on fighting the german war machine rather than the five year plans. Especially since later on the plans did nothing to help the people.

Very true. Millions were part of the Hippy thing, but it was still temporary. I'm not doubting it would shake a communist society, but its likely it would calm down.

No far more likely to just be another Tianenmen Square.

I never said I trusted the government wholeheartedly. I can't stand my current government (A Tory and a backstabbing bastard who stands by so few of his policies there isn't a hope in hell of him getting re elected)

Hmmm where are you from again? Sorry, I spend so much of my time watching my government, and the middle eastern governments, and the PRC, and North Korea to really know very much about other democracy's.

However, there has to be an element of trust. If you can't trust your government to take care of you, there is something wrong, either with the government or the people who don't trust them.

Oh yes certainly, and I do trust my government to defend me. When the war with the PRC happens, (and it will mind you) I whole heartedly believe that my government will od everything in its power to protect me.

The PRC is an extreme example. Its a tyrannic regime. However, in a supposedly free society a government wouldn't be able to get away with slaughtering its people.

Like.... the United States?

Going back to the Carribean in the first half of the twentieth century; foreign corporations held so much sway over puppet governments the companies effectively ran the country.

True, but this was another time with europeans effectively annexing every bit of the world they could get their hands on.

I suppose this argument just comes down to whether you trust governments to follow their basic principles, in defending and protecting their people, or whether you prefer a companies sole aim of profit. I suppose knowing that the company is only interested in money makes it easier for you to trust them? Personally, I trust my government enough to not kill me and to supply everyone with the basic requirements to succeed.

But what if your country DOESN'T follow the ideals it is supposed to? What if your nation blatantly tells the world every day that THEY will defend human rights, dignity, freedom and the Amercan way where ever it rears its head- and then shakes hands with dictators, sacrificing human rights for stability in a region? A nation whose government regularly says it will defend democracy, and then argues semantics and the worth of human lives when any real conflict comes up. Oh wait that isn't your government. It's mine.

I have many problems with the American political system, including the fact that the electorate is divided into just two groups (I know there are more than two parties, but the chances of them succeeding are close to nil)

We should basically get rid of the party system. As awful as it sounds many people are just to stupid- or to ignorant - of the world to actually know who they are voting for. I live in South West Kansas, (a republican area) and so when anything even remotely related to politics happens, people scream, "Vote for this guy- he's a republican!" and that's about it. Never mind whether or not they actually agree with him, they'll vote for him either way. Hell, he could be a pro-abortion, baby eating, vampire and as long as they knew he was a republican, they would probably still vote for him. The same exact thing happens with Democrats to.

The US government has already done unethical and immoral things. Every government does. And taking a stand against them is a pretty fruitless endeavour. Either what they're doing is classified, because they know the public reaction would be too negative, or its announced because they know they can withstand the pressure.

I know. But if standing up for what you believe in is a fruitless endeavor then what is the point of living? We are all nothing but slaves bound to follow the status quo till the end of time. I like to believe that the men and women who died founding my nation, and in the subsequant wars afterwards would not want me to do that. But society seems to pressure everyone to just agree.

Let me give an example, (for the hell of it.) Until recently I went to high school, (I just graduated) and in that high school I greatly hated our super intindent. He pretty much did whatever he wanted, wasted money and wanted to get rid of the Debate/forensics courses to better fund football. Yeah. Anyways, he wasted several million dollars of tax payer money to rebuild part of the school and build a larger cafeteria to close lunch, because he said it was dangerous for students to be leaving. (Now, mind you it was only Jr's and Sr's who left, and we live in a very small rural town, so it was maybe some 100 kids who left every day, not to mention 18 year olds couldn't even sign themselves out for lunch) anyways, I decided I just wouldn't eat lunch anymore. Not because of anger because they closed lunch, but because I got tired of being forced to support a school, and SI who I did not agree with. And so I stopped eating lunch. Now when I told other people why I was not eating lunch, they laughed at me, called me stupid and told me to just go and eat lunch. They said it was stupid to stand up for what i believed in, and in reality, it only made me angrier about the situation. A similar thing happened when I was a Designated Driver for a friend of mine after graduation. I don't believe in doing anything to poison my body or mind, if other people choose to do so, power to them, but I don't. And instead of being patted on the back for resisting peer pressure I was scorned and called Mentally challenged.

Society doesn't want you to stand up for what you believe in. No matter what it teaches when you are younger.

Oh, you don't have to tell me about this. The UK does have this problem. We call them "Benefit Cheats". I don't think theres anything wrong with benefits (Disability benefits, child benefits etc) They help those who need help. However, theres also unemployment benefit, which the government is trying to adjust, since its often better for people to simply live off that than get a job, because the wage and/or taxes make it less effective. I don't agree with that. Sure, give them benefits for however long is necessary for them to get back on their feet, but if its more beneficial for them to stay on benefits than actually get a job, something is wrong.

Exactly, but another problem is, when your country is $13 trillion dollars in debt- do you really need to give the government something else to spend money on? I assume your country isn't the worlds global police force. (a police force that bicks and chooses who to help.

But then any war is a civil war, under those terms. And technically, it isn't a civil war unless is citizens of the same nation fighting each other.

I countered smartassery with smartassery. The smartassometer has broken!

Exactly every war is a civil war. Because when we fight some other nation that difference in nationality means nothing. Ever notice how propaganda tries to make the enemy look like a monster? The truth is that they are human, just like me, (and I assume) just like you. I'f I were to go to this nation, marry a woman and have a child, that child would not be a 6 eyed 7 armed freak with a tail. It would be a HUMAN BEING. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A smartass retaliation has been accomplished!

And are you sure you've got the right name? Deng was pretty much sidelined until after Mao's death. Zhou Enlai was heavily involved with Ping Pong Diplomacy, but Mao, as the leader of on of the countries, was seen as the main character in establishing normal relations. Same with Nixon. I'm sure Kissinger is always seen as secondary to Nixon in the whole scenario, less so than the Mao-Zhou thing, as Kissinger did make trips to Beijing, while Zhou did not do anything as overt.

Still, the public image is that Mao established normal relations, and because of this, among other things, he is revered as a great leader.

Nope it was Deng who really opened it up. Nixon did meet with Mao before hand but it was extremely tense, plus the true 'trade' part didnt happen for several more years. By then Deng was in charge and the relationship was really opened up.

The Tianenmen Square protests began a couple of years earlier near an area known as 'democracy wall'. Deng had put it up as a place where people could voice their anger towards the government, and preferably against Charman Mao, (who Deng had never really liked) however due to the openess of the border with western nations, (ie. The United States, Europe) Chinese students started coming back from these country's where they had been taught, and suddenly found themselves asking, "In the United States the people elect a new leader every four years, can curse out their government, and shake hands with their enemies, why can't I?" The protests started to happen as students came home and demanded more freedom. The rest as, as they say, is history, (or if you live in the PRC, it *never happened*)

Well, Mao respected Stalin, especially towards the beginning of the PRC. However, several things ruined his relationship with the Soviet leader; The Korean War, where the USSR did not help an ally, and charged China for Russian equipment. Mao didn't see this as acceptable behaviour for a Communist leader. This seemed to be the standard of the relationship; China had to pay or agree to deals they didn't particularly want to agree to.

Mao definitely had a great respect for Stalin, and certainly liked him, at least a bit. He had statues and monuments built in his image, and children were taught that he was "Uncle Stalin" or something like that.

And about Lenin-Stalin. Its actually quite funny, really, in a weird way. After Lenin's first strokes in 1923, Stalin became 'Lenin's Mouthpiece'. By the time Lenin wrote his Testament, he had realised that Stalin was dangerous. He actually wrote in the Testament that he should be stripped of his positions and should never be made leader. However, due to Stalin's political ability, he managed to convince the Poltiburo not to release the Testament, because Lenin was critical of all the major people.

Basically, if the Testament had been published, its possible Stalin would never have become the Soviet leader in 1928, and the world would be a completely different place.

People in power don't like for other people in power to be near them. It unsettles them. The real reason why Mao would even attempt to defend the USSR was because they both 'supposedly' followed the same ideal- Marxism. It would be unwise and difficult for Mao to get across to his people that Communism was good- but soviet communism was not. Too closely related. And the PRC technically opposed the USSR during the cold war, which was one of the reasons why Nixon attempted to open up relations in the first place. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing.

I can't prove they wanted power for benevolent reasons, but by joining the Communist party, a party which is never a large group, and therefore unlikely to suddenly gain power, its likely that they had an affinity for the working/peasant classes, often coming from them themselves. They likely joined the Party wanting to improve the general lot of the people, instead of joining to make a dictatorship with themselves at the helm.

Usually they became leaders because they were the head of the revolution when it happened and their armies didn't see anyone else worthy at the time. People can say all the time that they are doing things for whatever reason, for the king, for country, for the people... or even for God. I'm going to go ahead and quote Andrew Ryan on this one, "Tell me, how many wars were started with the words, 'think of yourself'?"

We may never know whether these men were corrupt because of the situation they ended up in, or if they were corrupt from the get go and simply wanted power and used Marxism as a flag to hoist over their fight.

That was exactly my point. Religion is 'good or bad' because of the way people read it. The Catholic Church is simply another organisation trying to maintain its power. Anything that goes against their power (or anything they've previously stated) is slated, or in earlier times, dubbed as heretic.

Exactly, the teachings can be good but its the people in power who affect what happens. It's just like Marxism, just because the fundamental ideas are good, (brotherly love, equality, caring for the weak, poor and old) does not mean that when in practice that will happen, first and foremost because of the men leading it, and second because it simply may not be possible because of human nature.

Well, there are several examples of evolution in effect right now.

The basic stance of evolution is that an organism with a specific advantage over its peers is more likely to survive to produce offspring, who would in turn have said advantage, and would survive till adulthood, instead of their peers who would die or otherwise be unable to reproduce.

Moths are a commonly stated example. In industrial areas, previously light-coloured tree trunks are stained dark by soot and other industrial exhaust. Moths that had evolved to blend into the tree trunks (by having lighter coloured wings) suddenly stood out easily, and where eaten by predators. However, the moths with slightly darker wings had a better chance at survival, and then their offspring had slightly darker wings, and so on, until the the moths blended in perfectly to their new surroundings.

Another example are elephants. Poaching is still a problem. Hundreds, if not thousands, of elephants are slaughtered every year for their ivory tusks. However, it isn't efficient for the poachers to kill every elephant they see, so they go for the ones with the largest tusks. The ones with less ivory get away. They reproduce. Their children have less ivory, and therefore are more likely to live, and so on. Basically, elephants are having less and less ivory because the elephants who would give their offspring large tusks are dead before then.

I really don't want to get into this, because I'm certainly no expert of evolution or biology. Lets agree to disagree!

Oh sorry I got hasty there, yes evolution happens on a small scale it is possible yes, even to say that a certain, 'helpful' mutation that happens will be passed on.

When Evolution was first proposed (and accepted by the general populace), people all over the world argued that since evolution happened, then extinction was impossible, after all any animal facing extinction would, simply, adapt to the new situation and move on. This was one some of the reasoning behind the slaughter of the American Bison, an animal that almost went extinct because as hunters killed them, Native Americans tried to tell them that the Buffalo were dying, and scientists would laugh and say, "You savages do not understand the world! The Buffalo will adapt to this new threat and move on- its called evolution!"

Sorry, had the odd urge to bring that up. But yes lets not argue about that.

Hmm, but the media is controlled by large corporations, who in turn have massive influence over political individuals. If anything, its the other way round.

And keeping an eye on the government is the right thing to do. Still, there should be enough trust to let them take care of you.

Technically no corporations don't have massive influence over politics, money does. Money does make the world go round after all. Which is part of the major problems, politicians are just that- politicians. Meaning that they are good at lying manipulating and stealing. Unless you get a real honest to god politician with a soul, (we seem to be running low on those) then yeah corporations do what they want, but not entirely. Hint why the US hasn't started drilling up our own nation yet, we've got Enviromentalists fighting against them.

And no you can't trust the government to take care of you any more than you can trust some stranger to. You should trust the government to keep you safe from foreign entities, and promote your own individual freedoms and rights to their fullest extents possible. But not to care for you as if they are your parents. When you are younger maybe, but not forever.

Oh yeah, Cuba's certainly had a hard history. Colonisation, fascism (basicallY), dictatorship. Still, I'd say the current situation in Cuba is better than previous regimes. Its still not brilliant, but still...

Hmmm, hard to say if its better. As long as we, (the US) keep the embargo up, Cuba will slowly starve to death. As they are doing right now. Turns out their drug trade isn't enough to feed the people.

Thats quite interesting. I might have to read up on Tesla.

Also, is it wrong I instantly thought of Back to Black when you said "AC vs DC"?

Haha, no not entirely wrong. But I kinda meant, Alternating Current Vs. Direct Current. Funny how that didn't even cross my mind at the time.

Oh and you should read up on Tesla, he was quite the astounding individual.

I havent read the book, or even seen the film (blasphemy, I know!) One day I need to just go out and buy a load of classic books. I'm on study leave for the next month or so, so I might just do that. I fancy getting a translation of the Divine Comedy too, since Paradise Lost references it quite a bit. (Also a very good political book. Well, the first bit is anyway. Basically, it draws comparisons between England under Charles I and the Kingdom of Heaven under God. It completely throws the notion of Good and Evil out of the window, which is incredible considering it was written by John Milton, a puritan, during Cromwell's England. Not even counting the fact Milton was actually blind by the time he finished the poem.

BLASPHEMY! Nah not really. To be honest, the movie was SO F'N LONG. Long portions of the movie, ie. When they are travelling through space are not skipped over or even have commentary in them, instead they just play classical music. It's so boring. Other than that it was an... interresting movie. I'd be curious to see a modern day adaption, (you know, one where hollywood didn't screw it up). And going out and buying a load of classical books is something that I just went and did one day. Forgot about Paradise lost and the Divine Comedy though. Sounds interresting. Seems I need to make another trip to the store.

 

[Baradiel]

I would go with patriotism had a greater impact on fighting the german war machine rather than the five year plans. Especially since later on the plans did nothing to help the people.

Before the Five Year Plans. Russia was agrarian. It had no industry to speak of, and any factories were dangerously close to Europe. Stalin knew this, which is why he instituted the Plans. Magnitgorsk was one of many cities literally created in less than a decade, dedicated solely for heavy industry. Stalin also aimed to move the majority of Russia's industry to behind the Ural mountain range, because it was previously very close to the border with Europe. The First World War showed how disastrous it was to lose that part of the country, so Stalin had major industrial centres built further into the country. Hence why the German Blitzkrieg, while devastating, didn't cripple the country.

The Soviets could manufacture more weapons and vehicles, and draw up more men, than the Germans (patriotism went a long way in recruiting soldiers, mind you), but being able to manufacture seemingly-endless tanks and weaponry, went alot further.

I never said I trusted the government wholeheartedly. I can't stand my current government (A Tory and a backstabbing bastard who stands by so few of his policies there isn't a hope in hell of him getting re elected)

Hmmm where are you from again? Sorry, I spend so much of my time watching my government, and the middle eastern governments, and the PRC, and North Korea to really know very much about other democracy's.

Hail, from the United Kingdom! I was particularly talking about David Cameron (the Tory) and his deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg. Its a coalition government, since no one party got enough of a majority, so in effect this government wasn't even voted in. Since its a coalition, both sides have had to sacrifice policies, which the Liberal Democrats becoming worse off, since they're the smaller party. Its not necessarily Clegg's fault, but the Lib Dems haven't got a chance in the next General Election if they keep him as the head.

The PRC is an extreme example. Its a tyrannic regime. However, in a supposedly free society a government wouldn't be able to get away with slaughtering its people.

Like.... the United States?

I'm not even sure what my point was supposed to be with that statement.

Going back to the Carribean in the first half of the twentieth century; foreign corporations held so much sway over puppet governments the companies effectively ran the country.

True, but this was another time with europeans effectively annexing every bit of the world they could get their hands on.

I was thinking more the American hegemony over the Americas. True, it seemed to be "the thing" to do at the time, having an Empire of some sort was a badge of honour among the playground of international relations.

I suppose this argument just comes down to whether you trust governments to follow their basic principles, in defending and protecting their people, or whether you prefer a companies sole aim of profit. I suppose knowing that the company is only interested in money makes it easier for you to trust them? Personally, I trust my government enough to not kill me and to supply everyone with the basic requirements to succeed.

But what if your country DOESN'T follow the ideals it is supposed to? What if your nation blatantly tells the world every day that THEY will defend human rights, dignity, freedom and the Amercan way where ever it rears its head- and then shakes hands with dictators, sacrificing human rights for stability in a region? A nation whose government regularly says it will defend democracy, and then argues semantics and the worth of human lives when any real conflict comes up. Oh wait that isn't your government. It's mine.

True, and I say this honestly, without trying to cause offense; I'm glad I don't have your government. As much as mine screws up regularly, it still seems better than yours. Thats just an outsiders opinion though.

I have many problems with the American political system, including the fact that the electorate is divided into just two groups (I know there are more than two parties, but the chances of them succeeding are close to nil)

We should basically get rid of the party system. As awful as it sounds many people are just to stupid- or to ignorant - of the world to actually know who they are voting for. I live in South West Kansas, (a republican area) and so when anything even remotely related to politics happens, people scream, "Vote for this guy- he's a republican!" and that's about it. Never mind whether or not they actually agree with him, they'll vote for him either way. Hell, he could be a pro-abortion, baby eating, vampire and as long as they knew he was a republican, they would probably still vote for him. The same exact thing happens with Democrats to.

Even aside from that level of ignorant loyalty, the effectiveness of the party system in the US rules out any other candidate of ever reaching office. I'm not sure of the exact stats, but didn't Obama's campaign cost in the excess of $1 Billion? What kind of independent candidate could ever match that, or have as much support?

The US government has already done unethical and immoral things. Every government does. And taking a stand against them is a pretty fruitless endeavour. Either what they're doing is classified, because they know the public reaction would be too negative, or its announced because they know they can withstand the pressure.

I know. But if standing up for what you believe in is a fruitless endeavor then what is the point of living? We are all nothing but slaves bound to follow the status quo till the end of time. I like to believe that the men and women who died founding my nation, and in the subsequant wars afterwards would not want me to do that. But society seems to pressure everyone to just agree.

Thats pretty much the definition of society; maintain the status quo. Too much drastic change upsets people. Thats always been the case, and most likely it always will be.

Society doesn't want you to stand up for what you believe in. No matter what it teaches when you are younger.

Being different is always seen as wrong, regardless of the situation. Whether it's a physical difference, or a religious, or even a different way of thinking, it often leads to hostility and outright hatred, depending on the circumstances. If not, those reactions are probably hidden behind political correctness and forced smiles. People don't like different.

Oh, you don't have to tell me about this. The UK does have this problem. We call them "Benefit Cheats". I don't think theres anything wrong with benefits (Disability benefits, child benefits etc) They help those who need help. However, theres also unemployment benefit, which the government is trying to adjust, since its often better for people to simply live off that than get a job, because the wage and/or taxes make it less effective. I don't agree with that. Sure, give them benefits for however long is necessary for them to get back on their feet, but if its more beneficial for them to stay on benefits than actually get a job, something is wrong.

Exactly, but another problem is, when your country is $13 trillion dollars in debt- do you really need to give the government something else to spend money on? I assume your country isn't the worlds global police force. (a police force that picks and chooses who to help.

In my opinion, your government should try and cut down expenditure on things like the military and use it for public services. The chances of that happening are microscopically tiny, though. The Military Industrial Complex has far too much influence, for one thing, and how would the US maintain its empire without a military presence in most countries?

But then any war is a civil war, under those terms. And technically, it isn't a civil war unless is citizens of the same nation fighting each other.

I countered smartassery with smartassery. The smartassometer has broken!

Exactly every war is a civil war. Because when we fight some other nation that difference in nationality means nothing. Ever notice how propaganda tries to make the enemy look like a monster? The truth is that they are human, just like me, (and I assume) just like you. I'f I were to go to this nation, marry a woman and have a child, that child would not be a 6 eyed 7 armed freak with a tail. It would be a HUMAN BEING. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A smartass retaliation has been accomplished!

Prepare for incoming smart bomb!

Every war is effectively the same, until we decide to go to war with an alien race or a particularly offensive race of cacti. Regardless of what nationality, race, creed, religion, starsign, eye colour, choice in garden furniture, everyone is human, and its always human beings fighting and killing human beings.

But the literal definition of a civil war is a war between citizens of the same nation.

And are you sure you've got the right name? Deng was pretty much sidelined until after Mao's death. Zhou Enlai was heavily involved with Ping Pong Diplomacy, but Mao, as the leader of on of the countries, was seen as the main character in establishing normal relations. Same with Nixon. I'm sure Kissinger is always seen as secondary to Nixon in the whole scenario, less so than the Mao-Zhou thing, as Kissinger did make trips to Beijing, while Zhou did not do anything as overt.

Still, the public image is that Mao established normal relations, and because of this, among other things, he is revered as a great leader.

Nope it was Deng who really opened it up. Nixon did meet with Mao before hand but it was extremely tense, plus the true 'trade' part didnt happen for several more years. By then Deng was in charge and the relationship was really opened up.

Oh, the relations were strained at first, theres no denying that, but my point was that Mao started the relations (publicly at least). There was trade between China and the outside world as a direct result of Ping Pong Diplomacy, and yes, the relations did improve once Deng took control, but it was Mao and Zhou who established the starting relations.

People in power don't like for other people in power to be near them. It unsettles them. The real reason why Mao would even attempt to defend the USSR was because they both 'supposedly' followed the same ideal- Marxism. It would be unwise and difficult for Mao to get across to his people that Communism was good- but soviet communism was not. Too closely related. And the PRC technically opposed the USSR during the cold war, which was one of the reasons why Nixon attempted to open up relations in the first place. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing.

The Sino-Soviet Split is an entire subject of its own, but its got a few main events. For starters, Stalin actually support the Goumindang, the Nationalists, over the Communists during the Civil War, because he believed that a right wing government in China would be a buffer between America and Japan. He didn't particularly want a Communist China. He was much more interested in Socialism in One Country, and was satisfied with the buffer Eastern Europe now gave the USSR.

The Korean War was the first time Mao was disappointed with the Soviet Union. Instead of joining the fight directly, Stalin only provided support in the form of military hardware and training, and even then China had to pay for it. That wasn't the right thing for Communist allies to do, and Mao was severely disappointed.

The death of Stalin in 56 was the first major split in Sino-Soviet relations. Mao had expected the be given the reigns of the Communist world, as the now longest serving Communist leader. He was still the junior partner, and he hated Khrushchev for taking his place, and dismantling Stalinism, which Mao had based his economy and political system on. This was seen as a slight, and Mao resented not being informed of the Secret Speech before it was actually announced.

I can't prove they wanted power for benevolent reasons, but by joining the Communist party, a party which is never a large group, and therefore unlikely to suddenly gain power, its likely that they had an affinity for the working/peasant classes, often coming from them themselves. They likely joined the Party wanting to improve the general lot of the people, instead of joining to make a dictatorship with themselves at the helm.

We may never know whether these men were corrupt because of the situation they ended up in, or if they were corrupt from the get go and simply wanted power and used Marxism as a flag to hoist over their fight.

Very true. We can't know for sure, but diaries written by leaders (not the same as a memoir, which is written for publication) often express their true feelings about events and policies, and go a long way in establishing their personalities.

Oh sorry I got hasty there, yes evolution happens on a small scale it is possible yes, even to say that a certain, 'helpful' mutation that happens will be passed on.

When Evolution was first proposed (and accepted by the general populace), people all over the world argued that since evolution happened, then extinction was impossible, after all any animal facing extinction would, simply, adapt to the new situation and move on. This was one some of the reasoning behind the slaughter of the American Bison, an animal that almost went extinct because as hunters killed them, Native Americans tried to tell them that the Buffalo were dying, and scientists would laugh and say, "You savages do not understand the world! The Buffalo will adapt to this new threat and move on- its called evolution!"

Extinction and evolution go hand in hand. If one species goes extinct, it has dramatic repercussion for all creatures in the habitat.

Those examples of evolution "on a small scale" are on a small scale because it takes millions of years for a dramatic change in a species. Its almost impossible to imagine the scale of time, and the chances and luck involved.

Sorry, had the odd urge to bring that up. But yes lets not argue about that.

Yes. Lets not.

Hmm, but the media is controlled by large corporations, who in turn have massive influence over political individuals. If anything, its the other way round.

And keeping an eye on the government is the right thing to do. Still, there should be enough trust to let them take care of you.

Technically no corporations don't have massive influence over politics, money does. Money does make the world go round after all. Which is part of the major problems, politicians are just that- politicians. Meaning that they are good at lying manipulating and stealing. Unless you get a real honest to god politician with a soul, (we seem to be running low on those) then yeah corporations do what they want, but not entirely. Hint why the US hasn't started drilling up our own nation yet, we've got Enviromentalists fighting against them.

But corporations control money, or at least, the control alot of it. Therefore, they control politicians and policies.

And no you can't trust the government to take care of you any more than you can trust some stranger to. You should trust the government to keep you safe from foreign entities, and promote your own individual freedoms and rights to their fullest extents possible. But not to care for you as if they are your parents. When you are younger maybe, but not forever.

But where does it become parental care? Parents protect you from dangers and dangerous people; surely the police and fire service are an example of that? Parents teach you; as do schools. Parents look after you when you're sick; the NHS does the same.

Paying taxes to fund schools, or the police force, or the military, is no different than paying taxes to fund medical care.

Oh yeah, Cuba's certainly had a hard history. Colonisation, fascism (basicallY), dictatorship. Still, I'd say the current situation in Cuba is better than previous regimes. Its still not brilliant, but still...

Hmmm, hard to say if its better. As long as we, (the US) keep the embargo up, Cuba will slowly starve to death. As they are doing right now. Turns out their drug trade isn't enough to feed the people.

America is the only country currently in an embargo with Cuba. America might be an economic heavyweight, but Cuba still has the rest of the world to trade with. It isn't starving to death. It isn't doing fantastically, but its surviving.

Thats quite interesting. I might have to read up on Tesla.

Also, is it wrong I instantly thought of Back to Black when you said "AC vs DC"?

Haha, no not entirely wrong. But I kinda meant, Alternating Current Vs. Direct Current. Funny how that didn't even cross my mind at the time.

Oh and you should read up on Tesla, he was quite the astounding individual.

Oh, I knew about Alternating Current Vs. Direct Current, I just thought of the band when you mentioned it.

I havent read the book, or even seen the film (blasphemy, I know!) One day I need to just go out and buy a load of classic books. I'm on study leave for the next month or so, so I might just do that. I fancy getting a translation of the Divine Comedy too, since Paradise Lost references it quite a bit. (Also a very good political book. Well, the first bit is anyway. Basically, it draws comparisons between England under Charles I and the Kingdom of Heaven under God. It completely throws the notion of Good and Evil out of the window, which is incredible considering it was written by John Milton, a puritan, during Cromwell's England. Not even counting the fact Milton was actually blind by the time he finished the poem.

BLASPHEMY! Nah not really. To be honest, the movie was SO F'N LONG. Long portions of the movie, ie. When they are travelling through space are not skipped over or even have commentary in them, instead they just play classical music. It's so boring. Other than that it was an... interresting movie. I'd be curious to see a modern day adaption, (you know, one where hollywood didn't screw it up). And going out and buying a load of classical books is something that I just went and did one day. Forgot about Paradise lost and the Divine Comedy though. Sounds interresting. Seems I need to make another trip to the store.

I think I'll have a look around my house. Theres a stash of my granddads books somewhere. Might be interesting to see what he had.