Thread: Syria

Originally Posted by diogen_

@Hanna

Analyze the consequences. There are two possible outcomes.

1. Imperialism wins rogues. Life will be essentially like now i.e. more or less normal without global wars and social experiments. Proof: nothing has changed to the worse after some rogue states stopped being rogue and become “normal”.

2. Rouges win imperialists. In the case life will be a) similar to life under Communism or b)similar to life under Taliban. The latter was in Chechnya when it was de facto independent. Shariat law, human rights abuse, total censorship, drag traffic, killings of “ infidels”, religious oppression, absence of political freedom, corruption, clan system etc. Do you want to live under these conditions? I hardly believe so. As to the former scenario see the video:

What I would add to this is, there are people who don't want to live in rogue states themselves, but for some reason think those who already do should continue, and shouldn't be helped to turn their lives to the better. Neither of the Syrian regime supporters here would willingly move there and live under such a system.

@Hanna
Your previous message is a little bit emotional and with ad hominem arguments.

Communism proved to be economically inapt in every country where it was established in the past, including the USSR. It’s a fact. As to China I believe its current economic groth is due to market economy and not because of the former planning system, isn’t it? As for its political system, my guess it’s only a remnant of the past.

Originally Posted by diogen_

@Hanna
Your previous message is a little bit emotional and with ad hominem arguments.

Really? Can you give examples please?

Originally Posted by diogen_

@Hanna
Communism proved to be economically inapt in every country where it was established in the past, including the USSR. It’s a fact. As to China I believe its current economic groth is due to market economy and not because of the former planning system, isn’t it? As for its political system, my guess it’s only a remnant of the past.

Still China does much better than Russia economically. This is possibly because there was no large-scale privatization of key assets.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Still China does much better than Russia economically. This is possibly because there was no large-scale privatization of key assets.

No, the real issue is that local communists realized all the futility of their former efforts to organize efficient command economy and had to agree to reform it using market methods in order to stay in power as long as possible.

Реформы были начаты в 1978 по инициативе крыла прагматиков в Коммунистической партии Китая (КПК), которое возглавлял Дэн Сяопин, и продолжаются по сей день. Реформаторы поставили перед собой цель создания прибавочной стоимости, достаточной для финансирования модернизации китайской экономики, которая находилась на грани катастрофы после провала политики «большого скачка» и командных методов, проводимых Мао Цзэдуном. Первоначальной задачей реформ было решение проблемы мотивации рабочих и крестьян и ликвидация экономических диспропорций, характерных для командных экономик.

Политика реформ и открытости — Википедия

Originally Posted by Eric C.

What I would add to this is, there are people who don't want to live in rogue states themselves, but for some reason think those who already do should continue, and shouldn't be helped to turn their lives to the better. Neither of the Syrian regime supporters here would willingly move there and live under such a system.

Please tell me what's the problem with Syria so that you call it "rogue". I currently see only one argument why Syria is bad, that is because it supported Hesballah. Otherwise it is a quite typical state.
In 2008 Assad wanted to sign a peace treaty with Israel and open embassies, but the USA did not allow for that.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Please tell me what's the problem with Syria so that you call it "rogue". I currently see only one argument why Syria is bad, that is because it supported Hesballah. Otherwise it is a quite typical state.
In 2008 Assad wanted to sign a peace treaty with Israel and open embassies, but the USA did not allow for that.

Well, my guess is, killings of thousands of people by one man to keep the power he inherited from his dad make it a bit less "typical". What's yours?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Well, my guess is, killings of thousands of people by one man to keep the power he inherited from his dad make it a bit less "typical". What's yours?

Any state kills rebels. What's so special?

Originally Posted by Anixx

Any state kills rebels. What's so special?

How many "Wall Street occupiers" were killed during the riots last year?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

How many "Wall Street occupiers" were killed during the riots last year?

Wall Street Occupiers were not rebels if you want to know. That was a peaceful demonstration. If they organized armed riots there would be hundreds of killed.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Wall Street Occupiers were not rebels if you want to know. That was a peaceful demonstration. If they organized armed riots there would be hundreds of killed.

Before the whole thing started in Syria, there were peaceful demonstrations there as well. They had dozens of people dead after each one. I think that was one of the reasons they finally created armed resistance to the bloody authorities in the first place.