America

Atavachron wrote: Australian wrote: Atavachron wrote: Just saw a fascinating BBC news story about how Viet Nam now has the second most growing economy on the Asian continent, and large corporations are starting to invest-- how very ironic, and strangely hopeful.   <P =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">That's what happened with <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> after WW2, now they have the most powerful economy in the world.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN> Yes but Vietnam is communist, that's the interesting thing.

Not all of my head is full of prog. 

Hong Kong is not strictly communist, I don't think...

One question Jalas: Why do you criticize Bush for entering into Irak and you use a Che Guevare photo in your avater (Not Socialist, a 100% Communist) who participated in the Cuban Revolution and caught in Bolivia, two countries where he had no business?

Communism. Capitalism, Liberalism all are systems but when a country reaches enough power they go for imperiilaism, call it traditional imperialism or State Imperialism as in Socialist and Communist governments.

The problem with the Meni Kampf example you gave, Ivan, is that none of those things are inherently bad. You can't point to these policies from someone who supported dictatorship, democide and genocide and cite them as the reason for his crimes and that they are inherently bad in themselves., particularly as they are a paper smokescreen used to appeal to discontented people. Hitler and Mussolini were actually praised by Western corporate and political leaders right up until the outbreak of World War II and had many capitalist investors, suggesting that they were far more in tune with Capitalism than Socialism. Further evidence for this lies in the fact that Capitalist nations have a prolific history of supporting facist dictatorships themselves.

True socialism has never been allowed to flourish, it's always been put down either from within or by other nations. Look what the Bolsheviks did to the socialist communities developing during the rule of the provisional government. THe spanish socialists of the 30s were also put down by communist and facist forces.

jalas wrote: The difference between El Che and Bush is that El Che took matters into his own hands and he worked with the revolutionaries himself.  Bush Puts matters into other people's hands.  I would like to See Bush go and command the Army if he truly feels so strongly about it.  Che Guevara was doing it for the people.    If a group of guys crash a plane int the the World Trade Center is a terrorist, I agree but if a guy kills people who disagree with a communist guerrilla and blows towns is a revolutionary?????   Why?   Both are terrorists, in the case of Guevara was worst, he was from Argentina, he had no business in Cuba or in Bolivia.   He killed Bolivian militaries who had no issue with Argentina, but the guy had no future in Argentina because Argentina didn't wanted Communism then so he went to kill people from other countries for a war that was not his.   BTW: I'm not in favour or against Bush, but the role of a President is not to go and fight, that's a silly example, he's the Commander in Chieff of a nation, so his place is commanding not in the field.   El Che died for his cause.  Bush has not and when El Che died, his legacy was sealed.  He faught to the death.   The guys that crashed the planes in the World Trade Center also died for their cause...Does this makes them less terrorists?   The Pol Pot terrorists blowed themselves to kill innocent citizens does this makes them less animals? (With excuses for the animals) See what happened in the Democratic (¿?) Kamnpuchea.   No way both are terrorists.   BTW: El Che didn't died for his cause,. he died because he messed in a cause that was not his cause and is co-responsible for Cuban situation since the Revolution and the worst dictator in America.   Who was Mr, Ernesto Guevara to force people from other countries to follow HIS ideas?   Until you live in a country with terrorism and you have to say goodbye to uyour family to go to work because you don't know if they are going to blow the building in which you work, please don't tell us about terrorism and pretty ideals.   I know at least 5 persons who died killed by the Peruvian terroruists who used the same Che Guevara picture you uise in your avatar as a symbol and they killed almost 40,000 innocent civilians.   I am a socialist, because ideally, it would be good.  I do not give my heart to any country at all.  There is no such thing as a clean government.  Democracy is a nice idea also.  I choose socialism, though, because, although communists say religion is unnecessary, it is the Christian thing to do.  Being a socialist allows me to be a traditional Christian which you can read more about in Chapters 1-3 in the book of Acts.    Communists don't say religion is unnecessary, COMMUNISTS and SOCIALISTS ban religion, ask the people who died in Eastern Eiurope, Cuba or any other country where Marxism was present.   I like to compromise though.  I will say that if socialism and democracy can beat each other, they should just join.  A socialist democratic nation is what I want.    Social Democracy is not Socialism, they believe in free market, respect the rules even when have social sensibility such as Social Christians, they are center (Social Christians are right center) not remotely Socialists   When it comes to Chaves, like I said before, there is no such thing as a clean government.   Then why believe in utopias??? Communist and Socialist countries have to close their fronteers not avoid people entering but to avoid people escaping because if they left the fronteers open, the last one turns off the light.   Iván

Trademark wrote: Henry Ford Supported the Nazis right up til the US govt. starteed doling out the war contracts. Of course he also believed in Phrennology.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: jalas wrote: The difference between El Che and Bush is that El Che took matters into his own hands and he worked with the revolutionaries himself.  Bush Puts matters into other people's hands.  I would like to See Bush go and command the Army if he truly feels so strongly about it.  Che Guevara was doing it for the people.    If a group of guys crash a plane int the the World Trade Center is a terrorist, I agree but if a guy kills people who disagree with a communist guerrilla and blows towns is a revolutionary?????   Why?   Both are terrorists, in the case of Guevara was worst, he was from Argentina, he had no business in Cuba or in Bolivia.   He killed Bolivian militaries who had no issue with Argentina, but the guy had no future in Argentina because Argentina didn't wanted Communism then so he went to kill people from other countries for a war that was not his.   BTW: I'm not in favour or against Bush, but the role of a President is not to go and fight, that's a silly example, he's the Commander in Chieff of a nation, so his place is commanding not in the field.   El Che died for his cause.  Bush has not and when El Che died, his legacy was sealed.  He faught to the death.   The guys that crashed the planes in the World Trade Center also died for their cause...Does this makes them less terrorists?   The Pol Pot terrorists blowed themselves to kill innocent citizens does this makes them less animals? (With excuses for the animals) See what happened in the Democratic (¿?) Kamnpuchea.   No way both are terrorists.   BTW: El Che didn't died for his cause,. he died because he messed in a cause that was not his cause and is co-responsible for Cuban situation since the Revolution and the worst dictator in America.   Who was Mr, Ernesto Guevara to force people from other countries to follow HIS ideas?   Until you live in a country with terrorism and you have to say goodbye to uyour family to go to work because you don't know if they are going to blow the building in which you work, please don't tell us about terrorism and pretty ideals.   I know at least 5 persons who died killed by the Peruvian terroruists who used the same Che Guevara picture you uise in your avatar as a symbol and they killed almost 40,000 innocent civilians.   I am a socialist, because ideally, it would be good.  I do not give my heart to any country at all.  There is no such thing as a clean government.  Democracy is a nice idea also.  I choose socialism, though, because, although communists say religion is unnecessary, it is the Christian thing to do.  Being a socialist allows me to be a traditional Christian which you can read more about in Chapters 1-3 in the book of Acts.    Communists don't say religion is unnecessary, COMMUNISTS and SOCIALISTS ban religion, ask the people who died in Eastern Eiurope, Cuba or any other country where Marxism was present.   I like to compromise though.  I will say that if socialism and democracy can beat each other, they should just join.  A socialist democratic nation is what I want.    Social Democracy is not Socialism, they believe in free market, respect the rules even when have social sensibility such as Social Christians, they are center (Social Christians are right center) not remotely Socialists   When it comes to Chaves, like I said before, there is no such thing as a clean government.   Then why believe in utopias??? Communist and Socialist countries have to close their fronteers not avoid people entering but to avoid people escaping because if they left the fronteers open, the last one turns off the light.   Iván

there have been instances where Socialism and Religion work togther. There were  a lot of Socialist Priests in Latin America, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   It's funny to read at the end of that page quotes from a dictator as Hugo Chavez, they had no Christian leader to support this claims.   Iván