I Support Interventionist Wars!
Posted 23 November 2007 - 04:38 AM
I am 100% liberal on social issues, well, I believe in the right to own firearms, but also believe in a certain form of gun control. If I explain more I'd stray off topic. But otherwise, I'm liberal in that department.
I believe in a one world government, and I am fully for invading certain countries to free them from inhumane Islamic regimes/etc.
If I was dictator of a supposed Advancist(my name for my political system) government, say established in North America, I'd promptly focus power on military development and smash the sexist, theocratic regimes in the middle east.
On the side, I'd probably settle a few *coughpersonalcough* issues with a few religions, etc etc... >_>;
I have a very strong "ends justify the means" way of thinking, which can be good or bad depending on the circumstance.
Posted 23 November 2007 - 05:19 AM
Posted 23 November 2007 - 07:53 AM
However cultural uniqueness is not something that should be destroyed. I believe patriotism is okay to an extent, but nationalism no...so I'm not a true fascist, I just believe in some of the economic and governing aspects.
Posted 23 November 2007 - 12:27 PM
Apart from you want the world centralised under one world order, with organised religion purged or otherwise broken, thusly forcing your own ideals onto those you seek to "free" (and then go on to say that cultural uniqueness shouldn't be destroyed...bit of a contradiction if I may say so), I find your methodologies for going about this order to be verging on the commission of genocide. Thusly, you would become even worse than that which you seek to destroy.
Well, fascism is an ugly thing. at first it all seems well, but sooner or later, some form of authority will abuse its righrs and go over the edge. but im all good with declaring war against most parts of the middle east, i mean they had so many chances to change their opressive government during so many wars. and it looks like only outside invasions can remove them. but its just from my point of view.
I ask both of you, and any other Iraqi/Afghani-Conquest supporters, what gives you, as individuals or as members of your nation (which is not the nation you seek to change), the right to dictate to others how their nations should be run? If they want an autocracy, who are you to tell them they cannot have one? You don't live in Iraq, you don't even live near Iraq. Most European countries overthrew or dissolved the power of their monarchies. Did they have foreign backing to do it? No. They did it of their own accord. What right does America have to decide how Iraq should be run? Bad regime? Oh well, sucks to be them. Two choices for the people of that country; get out, or get the regime out. Foreign intervention should not even come into the equasion unless that regime directly threatens the foreign country.
Edited by Paradox, 23 November 2007 - 12:35 PM.
Posted 23 November 2007 - 06:41 PM
[...] in addition to the fact that fascist ideologies rarely concern themselves with economic issues, poses serious obstacles to any comparative study of the economics of fascism.
Nevertheless, some scholars and analysts argue that there is an identifiable political economy of fascism that is distinct from other systems, comprised of essential characteristics that fascist nations shared.Others argue that while fascist economies share some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization. A few see echoes of fascist economic policies in the modern welfare state;in the expanding imperial power of U.S. based transnational capitalism;in neo-corporatist relationships between the state and private enterprise. and in the economic policies of Social Democracy.
corporation: unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas.
i would perhaps avoid the word "fascist economy". it might be better to call it the beginnings of a socialistic economy which focuses less on the even distribution of wealth to a nation instead of its elite. wouldn't Italy and Germany have been alot less dangerous if the resources they used to make war was put into the pockets of the rich? its alot harder for those people to gain a foothold in a country where propaganda and no democracy makes sure that those who goes against the state regrets it.
corporations is in my opinion one of the bigger enemies to democracy today. sure they make our lives what they are, but they are 1. not elected by the people, and 2. they are exerting control over elements that matter for people to gain money. naturally, everything can be done with moderation. its the reptile brain instinct, can't stop taking once they get access to something.
anyway, this is way off topic really. make a new thread about it or something.
ontopic: the biggest problem with the middle east is communication and fundamentalism. we in the west mainly understand english. the non-western world have a tendency not to. its alot rarer to find pro-democracy and pro-anything-the-west-stands-for in nations where they barely know how to use their primary language. on top of that, not everyone in these countries have access to the internet, and when they do, its mostly local sites with no new info about how to run your country. TV is pretty much the same.
the trick to make the world a better place is basically propaganda. people saw how the Burma demonstrations got crushed once the net fell. no more communication, no more propaganda to keep the wave going. cultural assimilation is alot better than gunpowder.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users