[U-235]

Glinert speaks of the truth. I just took a picture of him preforming pre-invasion reconnoissance.


Above is Glinert

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Great... now it's all up to me to carry out the revolution.

[glinert]

Damien I look so homoseksual!

[Comrade Ogilvy]

:lol:

Damien I look so homoseksual!

Spider Man is no homoseksual! He fights bad guys and capitalists.


TH Nun,

I noticed you said that America has more nukes than anyone else earlier. That's actually not true.

Russia has more than 10,000 nukes
US has more than 8,000.

That said, 8,000 nukes is more than enough to blow up the world.

[STA]

My book, Weapons, says in 1988, the US had 14 637 nuclear warheads, and the USSR had 11 694 nuclear warheads.

So, there are three things that are possibly wrong here, my book, your numbers, or the US severly decresed its number of nukes.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

...... or the US severly decresed its number of nukes.

This is exactly the case Ice_Demon. But the numbers are still maintained to have a nuclear deterent. The US had all those nukes before because of a doctrine that the US must be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war which would devastate the earth. Now, the nukes are a deterent and you don't need more than just a powerful retaliatory strike.

As of now Russia has the most of all kinds of nukes.

[STA]

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/facts-at-a-glance.cfm

here it says the US has 10 455 nuclear warheads and Russia has 8400, it looks pretty legit.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/facts-at-a-glance.cfm

here it says the US has 10 455 nuclear warheads and Russia has 8400, it looks pretty legit.

I actually heard an American general say that Russia had over 10,000 nukes and that was the most. This was back in 99.

However, thanks for the link and it looks like I stand corrected.

So TH Nun, ignore the above comment as I got the numbers backwards.

[Noumenon]

Does that make it okay to conquer the world in the name of capitalism?

Nearly every - if not every - American leader have in fact thought just that over the years. Surely you cannot seriously even try to refute this?

I stated before that I was against US imperialism, or any imperialism for that matter. I am a military isolationist. I don't believe in the "greatness" of our government, only in the greatness of its people and the ideals it was founded on.

This is a good idea, but sadly one that will only really work on paper as long as the capitalists and the communists hate each other. A mutual trust is needed between them in order for this to be even remotely successful at the very least. Even then it will still be difficult in such places as the Muslim world, wherein the ever-undeserving fanatics will, just as they always do, "bite the hand that feeds them", so to speak.

There is no possible way for communists and capitalists to get along while communists advocate using violence against capitalists. Why can't communists just live their own way? Start your own utopia somewhere, where everyone involved is there voluntarily. All "oppressed" workers are free to join your utopia. Why does everything have to be dictatorship, violent revolution, imperialism, and coercion? In a libertarian society, you would be free to create your own communist community, as long as it was all voluntary. Communism cannot say the same about libertarians.

You seem to have just proposed that very same idea that you now criticise though in relation to as just what exactly to do with the world's poor and a nation's poor and downtrodden as we have just discussed above.

I realize that it looks that way, but thats not what I'm saying. If you want to create your own voluntary communist society, I see no reason why that shouldn't work. But the idea here seems to be that say, everyone in the Soviet Union would voluntary cooperate for communism. Not going to work. People have different views, and not everyone is going to like communism. Theres no way you could get them all to voluntarily cooperate.

Not everyone has to voluntary cooperate in order for the poverty to be greatly lessened. As long as a good percentage of people care and give up their time, that will be good enough.

Not true communism though. The "dictatorship" thing - as in "the dictatorship of the (world) proletariat" idea that was originally obviously proposed by Marx himself - was only actually supposed to be a temporal phase in the all-important transition from capitalism to communism.

It will never be temporary, and that is why attempts at communism have always failed. As a general rule, people given power always desire more power, not less. Give someone absolute power, and it won't be easy to take it away.

I don't understand why this step is even necessary. Why go from dictatorship to voluntary cooperation when you can go straight to voluntary cooperation? Again, I think it is utopian to think you can get everyone to voluntarily cooperate, but you could at least get the people who already want communism to cooperate.

But how the More-Trotskyite society honestly "oppress" anyone?

Well since I think getting everyone to voluntarily cooperate is impossible, such a society would necessarily be based on involuntary cooperation. In other words, oppression.

No - I believe that the Western governments are. Colonel Krutov in fact frequently talks about this. He says that it is the American Government and not in fact the American people who are the enemy of the Russian Government - although now also the good Russian people too, mainly thanks to Iraq and the bungling of the whole generally War on Terror. Believe me aswell - this will only worsen between now and "then".

I am also opposed to the American government. It favors a mixed economy, which I am opposed to. I want pure capitalism.

Quite right. But what also about the right to equality?

There is no such right. Such a right would involve violating another right, the right to property. If you have the right to equality, then that means you are justified in stealing property from your neighbor in order to make you equal.

So you are in fact a Soros-like libertarian capitalist in your political beliefs then, is that what you are in fact saying?

I am nothing like Soros. In fact I am vehemently opposed to his liberal beliefs. To you, both liberals and libertarians seem to be on the right. But in my view, both Soros and communism are far to the left. It all depends on your point of view.

But yes, I am a libertarian capitalist.

[Spin]

I doubt the Colonel. Some of his languagemakes me doubt him.

making storms that crush entire

fleets and stuff like that.

"and stuff like that" isnt really a phrase going to be used when talking about secret technology which you know all about.

And that jet going mach 50. It seems the figures have been made up to look impressive. It would be by sheer chance that it goes mach 50 and not a number like say 47. 50 sounds impressive and is a round number. Thats what makes me doubt it.

That is not all. There are many other technologies.

For example, Russia can produce heavy skimmers

that are able to transfer Russian tank armadas to USA.

Hmmm. Why not Alaska? I assume you are going to say Alaska is in the US but I think that if it were Alaska you would say Alaska as it is not part of the main body of the US. Alaska would be the easiest way I would have thought with having bases on the Pacific and Alaska being the closest part of america to you.

I think that this Colonel, if he even is a colonel which I also doubt, is talking Bullshit. Why would a man who hates the West tell it all about Russias technology?

[Spin]

And look at this piece of secret Russian technology. Who can spot whats wrong?

[Josh]

I'm sorry, but after visiting the "Colonel's" website, I am forced to the conclusion that Damien has got to be joking. There is no way that he could seriously believe that something like the supposed "Gerakl" is, for one thing, real, and for another thing, capable of doing anything.


The "Gerakl" aircraft, supposedly able to "carry bombs, cruise missiles, tanks and 1200 (one thousand two hundred) soldiers. It also can be used to launch “Lighthing”-class combat space shuttle. This shuttle can attack any point of Earth."

Please, Damien, drop the ruse now, and let everybody know that you're joking about this. You... are joking, right? You'd have to be, because even a person with an elementary-school-level education could understand how that "ship" would be completely incapable of moving in space at all. According to the picture, the thing moves via the same kind of turbine engine used in passenger aircraft. For those who don't know, the typical passenger airliner (ex Boeing 747) engine gets the plane off the ground with air. I'm not an expert on turbine engines, but I do know that air is a definite factor in getting the damn thing off the ground. And this space-faring "Gerakl" aircraft has turbines. One problem: There is no air in space!!! Thus, the thing would be completely unable to move. Or get into space on its own power in the first place.

So please tell me that you've been joking this whole time, Damien. You can't possibly believe that the thing can fly. It just got shot down by a fifteen-year-old highschooler (that'd be me, by the way).

And as for the name "Gerakl", that sounds like the name of a Zeon Mobile Suit from the Mobile Suit Gundam anime. Yes, I'm a geek. So sue me.

[glinert]

Damien take elementary physics or engineering class please.

[Attila The Nun]

Don't bring Mobile Suit Gundam into this. He might steal the Zaku and call it a new Soviet mecha.