Russia invading the Crimea in Ukraine

作者： Guest, 24.03.2014 at 03:44

Grimm, what if only the leaders knew that the snipers were pro-Maidan? Say you were in the Maidan, during the Kiev riots. And you see someone in a building, shooting. He may have shot one of your fellow Maidan people, so you think ''I should stop him''. Of course, you would try to stop him.

And why would a sniper fire from Maidan controlled buildings? Seems bit strange, really.

And don't you think that an high ranking official is a good source though? Kerry might just be an exception, as who wants to listen to someone who says ''Americans have the right to be stupid'' and talk like a hypocrite?
You may not be right on the ''If Russia left Ukraine the fascists will lose power'' bit. In fact, Anti Fascists might feel safer and protest more if they knew Russia dislikes (or you can say, despise) the current Kiev government. Imagine, if there was a country moving troops to a country which you are protesting against, and you like that country wouldn't you feel at least a bit safer? To know if you get arrested that invading country could invade even more and harder or at least force your release somehow.

Some of the Maidan protestors thought there were snipers in buildings near them. They thought some might be hiding there but did not actually find any. It's fairly easy to hide in a crowd of civilians. Also, in most of the footage I saw, they were pointing projectors in buildings beyond the barricades (on the police's side) to try to spot the shooters.
That one official from Estonia mentioned that the snipers were paid by the CIA is possible. It's only one source though. It's also possible that that individual is giving false information or that someone made a false report.

作者： Guest, 24.03.2014 at 11:21

Breaking, http://rt.com/news/tymoshenko-calls-destroy-russia-917/

She confirmed that it's real on her twitter, except for the end which was edited.

Hmm, I don't know about this. The phone conversation was edited. That's very fishy. Also, it's reported by state-run Russian news. Maybe she confirmed it on twitter, but twitter accounts are so easy to hack. And you didn't mention that it was later officially denied. It seems like an attempt to portray her as an extremist.

Russian Culture?
Hahaha, don't get me started.
Best Russian Movie?
Battleship Potemkin. It isn't in color, 3d or stereo! No sound effects, only music. And there are subtitles! So much reading.
Even the Odessa baby-carriage scene was stolen from DePalma's The Untouchables, which was in color, English, and Stereo. And a much better movie, because the government triumphs over bandits, instead of bandits triumphing over the government.

The Original


The Russian Copy


Best Plays?
Checkhov never even got his own ship, and took orders from an Alien from Vulcan, an American from Iowa and a Scotsman from Scotsmanland!
Plus his plays are boring. There's one called The Cherry Orchard and they never even show a Cherry Orchard! How random is that.

Best Literature?
War and Peace: Literally, no one has read this book (or Atlas Shrugged, but that's a different Russian writer and another shitty book). Those claim they have are liars. Obviously Tolstoy was paid by the word, and owned shares in both paper and ink factories, and there is no evidence that Tolstoy read the work he produced.

Best Music?
Tchaikovsky's music is so boring, one must introduce a cannonade to wake the audience.

Best Science?
America put people on the moon 44 years ago (same year USA invented the Internet [connected 2 computers via TCP/IP]).
And the internet.

'Homogeneity'?
The Free World has similar products and engineering standards because they're MARKET-BASED solutions. Only the fittest shall survive.
What would a Soviet-designed iPhone look like?


Sub Commanders?
Didn't they know that James Bond was gonna steal a sub? No, he wasn't Russian, but the admiral sure was.

Boxing?

Obviously Rocky was going to kick his ass. If there was any doubt, the moment that James Brown appeared, you knew that Drago had no chance.

Edit: Credit where Credit is Due. Russia does some things world class:

- The AK. Utter reliability and practically free trumps tack-driving accuracy at a premium, any day.

- Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza: Most kick-ass 'National' Anthem ever. Russian version is powerful, Paul Robeson's version makes me want to weep.


- Drinking vodka whilst eating smoked fish, and pickled/smoked/salted other-things. I never killed a liter of Vodka in one sitting until I became acquainted with this Russian method of time-travel, and never tasted the difference between different types of caviar until my palette was genocided between servings. It was just do a shot, nibble, talk, do a shot, nibble, argue, do a shot, nibble, weep whilst singing Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza, do a shot etc.
Suspiciously, no hangover, even whilst waking up fully dressed and shod. In a chair.
Meanwhile, the 4 other people you killed 5 bottles with (2 Russians, 1 Ukrainian, 1 German) have continued drinking for hours after your American ass passed out.

作者： Skanderbeg, 25.03.2014 at 08:20

作者： Grimm, 24.03.2014 at 14:49

F. Scott Fitzgerald, Mark Twain, Edgar Allan Poe, John Steinbeck, Herman Mellville, Robert Frost, Emily Dickinson & Walt Whitman.

Or, just take the time to get to know your neighbor a bit before blaming him. Maybe you'll find that he wasn't entirely black.

Mark Twain and Edgar Poe, i forgot ive read these two.

Bingo. Get to know your neighbor before judging/blaming him. America created misery to its own people and that misery is spreading all over planet(fiscal policy, wall street, foreign policy, army, economy), and when Russia and the rest say them to stop and repair the damage US reply how Russia is aggressive and blame them for fictional invasions.

Exuse me? Usa didnt created misery, europeans and russians did, with their pointless wars and imperilistic expansions, you guys blame usa for something that your countires have done since the beggining of time....

作者： Skanderbeg, 25.03.2014 at 08:39

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

Russian Culture?

So funny reading this stuff!
Tito, it's almost as if you have no idea that he's pulling your leg...

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

BLA BLA RUSSIAN CULTURE VERY BAD

5/10 trolling needs some work.

作者： Skanderbeg, 25.03.2014 at 08:39

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

Russian Culture?
Hahaha, don't get me started.
Best Russian Movie?

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

Battleship Potemkin. It isn't in color, 3d or stereo! No sound effects, only music. And there are subtitles! So much reading.
Even the Odessa baby-carriage scene was stolen from DePalma's The Untouchables, which was in color, English, and Stereo. And a much better movie, because the government triumphs over bandits, instead of bandits triumphing over the government.

Facepalm, thats what i was talking, true american knows no culture. He knows only about stereo and 3d.

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

The Original


The Russian Copy

Do you you try to prove between russian movie from 1925 and american from 1970?

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

Best Plays?
Checkhov never even got his own ship, and took orders from an Alien from Vulcan, an American from Iowa and a Scotsman from Scotsmanland!
Plus his plays are boring. There's one called The Cherry Orchard and they never even show a Cherry Orchard! How random is that.

Facepalm again. So ignorant.

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

Best Literature?
War and Peace: Literally, no one has read this book (or Atlas Shrugged, but that's a different Russian writer and another shitty book). Those claim they have are liars. Obviously Tolstoy was paid by the word, and owned shares in both paper and ink factories, and there is no evidence that Tolstoy read the work he produced.

Im literally banging my head on the desk.

He say Tolstoi War and Peace no one read... shitty book... I cant argue and debate with ignorant haters like this guy.

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

Best Music?
Tchaikovsky's music is so boring, one must introduce a cannonade to wake the audience.

5/5 from classic music, it is obvious you listen classical music.

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

Best Science?
America put people on the moon 44 years ago (same year USA invented the Internet [connected 2 computers via TCP/IP]).
And the internet.

Heh, we call that in Russia ''we managed to build a suit where we can travel on the street and see whats there at the end(street - space) while americans made suits and crafts only to enter first house on that street(first stop in space - moon). Moon landing was so insignificant, nothing was discovered there in 1900 by russian scientist in observatoriums. Wasted cash America (clap)

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

'Homogeneity'?
The Free World has similar products and engineering standards because they're MARKET-BASED solutions. Only the fittest shall survive.
What would a Soviet-designed iPhone look like?

Comparing toys, smart move. Very important, keep it up. Russia never and never will produce stupid toys for 50 bucks, only capitalists can do that. Russia has developed high tech industry which produces chips, silicon boards and nano devices.

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

Sub Commanders?
Didn't they know that James Bond was gonna steal a sub? No, he wasn't Russian, but the admiral sure was.

Boxing?

Obviously Rocky was going to kick his ass. If there was any doubt, the moment that James Brown appeared, you knew that Drago had no chance.

Hollywood propaganda movies 5/5

I dont see american boxers can defeat Valuev, Klitchko or Chagaev. They are falling like logs infront of russian killing machines.

If you haven't figured this out I have some familiarity with Russian culture. I have much respect for
That being said the world's most valuable company at any point in recent times is usually Apple, specifically because of 'toys' like the iPhone. Gazprom, Russia's most valuable company, doesn't even crack the world 50 most years.

When Apple isn't the world's most valuable company, it's ExxonMobil. They're in the same business as Gazprom, except that when they build a pipeline, they don't generally worry that it will fall into disuse ....

作者： Guest, 25.03.2014 at 14:41

作者： zombieyeti, 24.03.2014 at 15:38

BLA BLA RUSSIAN CULTURE VERY BAD

5/10 trolling needs some work.

For dry humor/sarcasm to be effective:
1. One's audience must have a degree of familiarity with the subjects discussed.
2. One's audience must recognize the humorous intent.
I often overestimate my audience.

作者： Skanderbeg, 02.03.2014 at 05:40

作者： Meester, 28.02.2014 at 22:06

I'm pretty sure a nation losing a war with near 10k nuke wont mind blowing the planet before going down'.

Russia wont let to be dragged in war before destroying London, Birmingham, Paris, Lyon, Hamburg, Berlin, Ankara, Istambul, Rome, Milan, Barcelona, Madrid.

If you want to war with Russia, prepare to lose your capital and your second biggest city. Each. Then war starts.

You think you can gang on Russia and fight fair? no mate. Be ready to be nuked, then war starts when Russia decide it nuked enough cities.

By then 90% of europe will get out of the war because of 3 factors: scared from Russia, already nuked, and dont want to be occupied by russians after USA lose the war.

Ironic thing here is that you're not even Russian. xaxa. Russia just another over rated country, big deal. Bla, Russia can't come next to England england2stronk

作者： bullet86, 25.03.2014 at 16:04

作者： Skanderbeg, 02.03.2014 at 05:40

作者： Meester, 28.02.2014 at 22:06

I'm pretty sure a nation losing a war with near 10k nuke wont mind blowing the planet before going down'.

Russia wont let to be dragged in war before destroying London, Birmingham, Paris, Lyon, Hamburg, Berlin, Ankara, Istambul, Rome, Milan, Barcelona, Madrid.

If you want to war with Russia, prepare to lose your capital and your second biggest city. Each. Then war starts.

You think you can gang on Russia and fight fair? no mate. Be ready to be nuked, then war starts when Russia decide it nuked enough cities.

By then 90% of europe will get out of the war because of 3 factors: scared from Russia, already nuked, and dont want to be occupied by russians after USA lose the war.

Bla, Russia can't come next to England england2stronk

Russia2stronk for UK.

Lmao, New 50 states from US.

作者： bullet86, 25.03.2014 at 16:04

Ironic thing here is that you're not even Russian. xaxa. Russia just another over rated country, big deal. Bla, Russia can't come next to England england2stronk

Obviously England is the better country, if we talk about standard of living, special forces, or just about anything. But Russia's army is second only to USA's, and their nukes outnumber every other country's nukes. That being said, tito will always be a retard, don't bother with him.

Random Question: Tito, is that your actual photo as your avatar, because heck, I can hear your words coming from his very mouth.

China and Russia have among the most militarized borders, what would you expect, there are major powers in the world, and they don't always agree. China has to side with Russia in UN Security Council votes because its not nice to mess with a neighbor with a rather large stick. Especially if yourself is an infant trying to climb back on top of the King's Throne.

I highly doubt that the US/Russia fully comply with their nuclear treaties (SALT/START(I & II), they can't trust each other. The Russian Ruble is what it is, Rubble. Its worth less and less. Putin will ultimately falter if he continues this path, Obama is playing it rather easy. However, when another Richard Nixon comes into office, trust me, he will show the "Motherland" how uncompetitive Russia will be against the US.

Now on Tito's response to the elections, it speaks for its self of their invalidity.

Now about that Russian Economy, look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_economy_since_fall_of_Soviet_Union.PNG
Notice how it slumps in 2013, it had excellent growth, but at the dawn of Putin's radical actions in Syria (They weren't THAT radical, but it gave a sampler), the investing and business world noticed their warnings. Also, a resource based economy, isn't necessarily the best, nor is it the worst. There are three types of economies; Those based on resources, then on goods, and finally, ones on services.

Tito, I fail to see your point on how the US incites unrest in Russia. Its the the US' fault that Russia has ties with the most unstable countries in the world, which the most authoritarian regimes (Belerus/Syria). Friendly? Look at this, China messing with smaller nations, over islands that it CLAIMED recently over the years.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/30/us-philippines-china-reef-idUSBREA2T02K20140330
But it's alright, because if China is trigger-friendly, then BOOM, here comes the Phillipines' father, the big ol' US, and the Phillipines are testing the water and aren't afraid to claim what is rightful their's.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc3896ce-b7ac-11e3-80ef-00144feabdc0.html

Russia massing troops and doing numerous exercises for its inexperienced and inefficient military. Gee, I wonder if they'll give candy to Ukrainians across the border? Nope, they're there to invade, its going to happen, I'm sure of it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/donetsk-fearful-of-russian-military-might-on-ukraines-border/2014/03/29/a61c464f-342f-4c00-a1c3-66792092e72a_story.html
AGGRESSION is what it is, and Ukraine has been nice to Russia, and it poses no large threat to Russia. Its government will be elected soon, and that's when they'll have a true representing government in power. Until then, they shouldn't be there to intimidate, Putin has no words to describe his utter disgrace he has brought to Earth and Mankind.

I remember seeing a video of American Forces arriving in Baghdad, they were carrying supplies and relief brought in and them waving their hands at arriving soldiers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmjq9bCbcNw
I also remember a story out lately of the Taliban attacking an Election HQ in Kabul. They attacked with some varying calibers and RPGs, 5 ASFs were killed, but they were not killed in vain. The attack was repelled and the ASFs ultimately killed the attackers, American training had paid off at that time, a MAGOR difference from when they ran away when they heard shots.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/world/asia/taliban-attack-election-panel-headquarters-before-afghan-voting.html?_r=0
Just imagine what NATO forces would do if they arrived in North Korea!, They would be jumping for joy, yet, suprised at the information they have/n't heard and/or messed around with.

Now on military, there are war cycles, and there are economic and political/societal cycles. All three of which will change (War & Economic) or already have changed (Political/Societal).
http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/very-serious-stuff-war-cycles-hit-this-year-prepare-now-51479
As you can see, is peaks in 2014 then it sky-rockets and peaks larger than ever in 2019. The driving force may be in China or Russia, maybe both, maybe neither.

Honestly, if I was President of the US, I would ultimately have to set a Missile Defense System as the number one priority. Its possible, if missiles/THEL don't work against missiles from the ground, then space would do. There is a clause in the UN Charter about WMD in space, but nothing about conventional, little less about DEFENSIVE weaponry on space. Why? Because Russia would have no pride nor power, Nuclear Weapons is what Putin ultimately has in store if all else fails, also, it would have a bonus of world peace.

NATO hasn't, won't, and will not respond militarily to the Crisis in UKRAINE. But mark my words, if Russia invades in NATO country, blood will be shed, missiles will be launched, and Moscow will be a sea of flames. Although NATO doesn't have a complete missile defense, it isnt a sitting duck. Not only do we have Land-Based Interception Platforms like the Patriot Missile (MIM-104) and THADD, of which we have manufactured over 1,100 and 20 respectively. THADD being the most advanced and recently designed to counter the Russian "Unbeatable Missile", and still in development phase. But really, over 1,100 built, we could take on Russia right now (That is if they are all deployed, and in the right places)! With the MIM able to carry 4 to 16 missiles, all of which can be deployed rapidly, well dang!

With a Transportation Capacity FAR GREATER than Russia's, it can mobilize with MINUTES TO HOURS.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1980/jan-feb/coffey.html
Unbelievable, not to mention that the NATO vehicles and soldiers are CBRN Trained. With NATO accounting with a VAST majority of military funding, it could easily outspend Russia, Russia simply has too many ties with Europe, and war would snip them all.

However, for the sake of peace, its best that the Global Balance of Power not be messed with.

But don't you guys agree? I should be a journalist/reporter, but this chick inspires me.
3rd Person View: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_cold_war-hungry_neocons_stage_managed_liz_wahls_resignation_20140319
MUST SEE; Actual Resignation of RT Anchor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2h79v9uirLY
RT's response, w/o saying WHY she resigned: http://rt.com/usa/rt-reacts-liz-wahl-042/
To be fair, RT's "justification": https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Knr6VrREZbk&list=PLI46g-I12_9p7quGXXanTK2zEWLiOZQvZ

And that's how you close a rant, carry on with your radical and extremist thoughts, because my messages are only for the open-mind, permeable to the truth. Simply because you cannot argue with people like Tito.

The weaponry you've presented are among the things we already have defense for. However, I did see the "Father of all Bombs", coincidentally, a couple days ago. Its around twice the explosion radius as the MOAB, I'll give you that. Also, I don't think you've seen a Peace-keeper Missile nor a Minuteman Missile as well. Not to mention our cruise missiles. One of our specialties. I can't really trust information on the S-400, Putin has a way of hiding information (Which he rightfully can do), and/or over-stating and saying that its the best thing in the world. But I wouldn't be surprised.

The JSF (F-35, Still in development) wanted to have integration with what F-15/16s did in Iraq, hunt SCUDs. Also, if THADD can't intercept ICBMs, tell me WHY we have THADDs in preliminary deployment in Guam and Hawaii?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-deploy-anti-missile-system-to-guam/2013/04/03/b939ecfc-9c89-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html
The Patriot MIM-104 is a Missile Interceptor, not a fighter like the Mig-21. Its constant upgrades have been why its still in service. The MIM-104 is able to intercept missiles and aircraft, its ability to distinguish ECM and typical CM is excellent, and the range is enormous. This doesn't include the world famous Sea-Based AEGIS system.

Transportation capacity, its not only what the US has on land, but what it has on the sea, its obvious that the US Navy has that superiority. However, 1,000 Subs??? Where did you get that? Maybe a typo, I would comprehend 100, but 1,000 is impractical and not realistic. AEGIS and AEGIS equipped ships carry that and specialized aircraft, such as the P8-Poseidon, to hunt pesky subs.

Also, Europe is not a walk in the park (Although they are VERY liberal, and some truly do rely on NATO for their existence), the Brits have their own transportation capabilities and their Challenger 2s, and the Germans with their Leopard 4s (Which might be better than any other tank, its German, so yeah). The Eurofighter (Looks awkward in my opinion) is highly sophisticated and challenges the Russian Air Force. I would also remind you that the US has over twice as many aircraft as Russia, not to mention those that can be recommissioned.

Back to nuclear stuff, Japan knows how to make nuclear weaponry, and probably wouldn't mind giving that technology to some of its pacific friends. Not to mention its vast store of Highly Enriched Uranium, enough to make numerous nuclear weapons quickly. Its ashame it will give 700 pounds (Maybe tons, I doubt though) to the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/world/asia/japan-to-let-us-assume-control-of-nuclear-cache.html?_r=0

You statements are on standing with little to no base, unless you count superstition and conspiracy a base. I trust you statements as long as they are verified. I love a good debate though, and you've put a good one.

Well yes I do get the point, and it seems we are equal at the moment, I agree.

There are two things at play, quality and quantity.

The USSR truly had a monstrous military, extensively larger than the US. But the US would rather have a few excellent units than a bunch of hard to manage units. Both proven themselves in the past. The quality in the Gulf War and 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and Russia's extensively proven number-wise. Even North Korea and China continue to follow these policies. I'd even say that the US and Russia implement both strategies at large, but the US mainly on quality and Russia on quantity. That's why this discussion has taken a while.

Capitalism paves way for natural development, with competition of course.

If we let monopolies get control (Ex: AT&T, Verizon, extensive Russian and American companies), it will hinder. Another example is how relatively slow and expensive internet and wi-fi is in the US, its because of lack of competition.

Frankly, China is trying to copy the American way, without experience. It has a carrier (Over in the US, the Navy calls it a "Museum Carrier". Its air defense zone is constantly violated, and knows the international community sees it as bullying its smaller nations surrounding it. Its quite sad. The US should just sponsor hacking and destroying the "Great Firewall of China".

Its ironic how China wants to stop the US from "spying" on them, when they have a complex that does a GREAT majority of hacking and security breaches in the US. Not to mention its widespread corporate hacking. In the end, we are rather equal, and Russia doesn't say anything, so yeah.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-china-us-cybersecurity-idUSBREA2Q0JO20140327
https://securosis.com/blog/why-chinas-hacking-is-different
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100759961
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/feb/23/mandiant-unit-61398-china-hacking

Well congratulations on your 1,000 Posts, I'm happy to assist you in reaching that goal. A toast to that.

Ukrainian police and Maidan officials disarming Right Sector (neo-nazi group) forces and making then leave Kiev:
http://youtu.be/PbT469xaqmA

I think this is good news

作者： Grimm, 05.04.2014 at 11:54

Ukrainian police and Maidan officials disarming Right Sector (neo-nazi group) forces and making then leave Kiev:
http://youtu.be/PbT469xaqmA

I think this is good news

Totally. And Donetsk may become Russian soon, like 13 days or so.

作者： Universali, 31.03.2014 at 21:33

Well yes I do get the point, and it seems we are equal at the moment, I agree.

There are two things at play, quality and quantity.

The USSR truly had a monstrous military, extensively larger than the US. But the US would rather have a few excellent units than a bunch of hard to manage units. Both proven themselves in the past. The quality in the Gulf War and 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and Russia's extensively proven number-wise. Even North Korea and China continue to follow these policies. I'd even say that the US and Russia implement both strategies at large, but the US mainly on quality and Russia on quantity. That's why this discussion has taken a while.

Capitalism paves way for natural development, with competition of course.

If we let monopolies get control (Ex: AT&T, Verizon, extensive Russian and American companies), it will hinder. Another example is how relatively slow and expensive internet and wi-fi is in the US, its because of lack of competition.

Frankly, China is trying to copy the American way, without experience. It has a carrier (Over in the US, the Navy calls it a "Museum Carrier". Its air defense zone is constantly violated, and knows the international community sees it as bullying its smaller nations surrounding it. Its quite sad. The US should just sponsor hacking and destroying the "Great Firewall of China".

Its ironic how China wants to stop the US from "spying" on them, when they have a complex that does a GREAT majority of hacking and security breaches in the US. Not to mention its widespread corporate hacking. In the end, we are rather equal, and Russia doesn't say anything, so yeah.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-china-us-cybersecurity-idUSBREA2Q0JO20140327
https://securosis.com/blog/why-chinas-hacking-is-different
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100759961
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/feb/23/mandiant-unit-61398-china-hacking

Well congratulations on your 1,000 Posts, I'm happy to assist you in reaching that goal. A toast to that.

I read your posts here with great interest, all in one sitting, in one large readgasm. It is as if I was posting for the first time, reacting to Tito's provocative half-truths with hard evidence and reason. While there are minor details in your posts where I'd disagree or clarify: wonderful.
I especially admire the admission that oligarchical competition in capitalism often leads to minimal market outcomes/choice (our fncked wireless broadband as an example).

I would point out that US Naval Superiority only works as Long As Everyone Follows the (American) Rules - and the Chinese conventional-warfare counter to American carrier power in 2014 is mightier than the USSR's in 1989, equally because of geography, technological development, and China's relative wealth.
The USN may be inherently destabilizing as a result.
1) We all know China spends more of its GDP then reported, because the PLA and PLAN operates as their own enterprises, but no matter how it is sliced, is still outspent by the USA. That being said, the PLAN has assembled a very large navy with a very specific mission, and nearly all from scratch.
2) Carrier-kill tactics/conventional weapons:
- The Russian navy would kill carrier task forces in 1989 using land-based strategic bombers launching antiship (fast, not cruise) missiles. The number and speed of the bombers and missiles, and their basing within the Soviet air defense belt, meant that they had credible threat to American carrier groups anywhere within the sphere of Soviet influence. This approach cannot project power, or control shipping lanes, only credibly deny American power projection if Soviet existence was at question - an attack on an American carrier group is just short of invasion on the War scale.
- The PLAN counter to the USN is manifold. Develop a blue-water navy. Develop a littoral navy with an anti-carrier-group mission. Develop a land-based counter to the carrier group's sphere of influence. The USN has deep tradition, two centuries of continuous hard-won experience, operational excellence, 'luck' and a worldwide scope and many missions (defend the homeland, defend shipping lanes, project power worldwide). The PLAN has a more limited scope, and only three credible threats: JDF, UK Navy, and the USN. Their force disposition and spending can be tailored to meet their threats. Defeat the Japanese navy by denying American assistance, and overwhelm the excellent-but-numerically-deficient opponent. For America: Deny American power projection within the newly-defined Chinese maritime borders with a combination of the assets above. The land-based threat is credible because it is numerically very large, and politically, difficult to counter preemptively.

Russia didn't choose this strategy specifically because of the political issues of preemptive countermeasure.
- The USN had no possibility of taking out all of the Backfire bases except with nuclear weapons, so there wasn't be a destabilizing threat: You challenge Russia in the Black Sea or Vladivostok or Hanoi, Backfires fly 10-1000s of miles and launch fast missiles at you. You may kill some of the Backfires and missiles but you won't get all of them.
- There is a *possibility* than many of the PLAN land-based missile sites might be preemptively attacked by conventional USAF/USN cruise missiles. In order for such an attack to be effective, it would need to happen *before* the American carrier group was within the Chinese 'denial' zone. So destabilize!

Everyone knows that attacking an American carrier group is an act of war, if a state of war doesn't already exist.
China feels attacking defensive weaponry on its soil is an act of war. It is unclear if the USN cares.
Chinese military planners underestimate the power of tradition in the USN - the USA has lost wars. Since 1812, the USN has *never* lost a war for the USA.
If war is inevitable it is always better to strike first - and the Chinese may not be able to destroy an American carrier group outside of its land-based sphere (it also may be able to, but that's a risk analysis).

Tito:
Read the half-truths carefully - because within them is Truth - an opposing viewpoint we just don't get from English-sourced analyses and whitepapers.
The truth is not in the words, it is between the words.
In my short time in AW, I no longer look at Putin the same (he may be a bulwark of liberalism and civil rights against a more reactionary Russian right), and wonder if Russia isn't just the rational actor the post-Stalin USSR was.

作者： Skanderbeg, 31.03.2014 at 06:46

作者： Universali, 30.03.2014 at 16:43

引句:

My statements and arguments doesnt always suit to your way of thinking and way of accepting things. Because we are two worlds, two minds, two camps. I know that because we were isolated and closed in Cold War and communism, we didnt had BBC, CNN to talk about our achievemnts and sucess, we keep it silent, while USA and EU always talk about that. I still remember in 2000 how some EU scientist got prize(cant remember if it is nobel) for creating 3-layers silicone chip. He was boasted on all TV stations and academies. 2 days later russian scientists arrived and shown 9-layers silicone chip made in 1980.

West never saw truth, never tried to do something bigger for civilization and progress. I only know about microsoft inventing radical and useful stuff, unlike apple which make toys for ignorant masses who spend money every other month on those plastic toys. My mind cannot understand that way you think and behave. Our scientists invented glass bar filled with water which can heat whole room in winter, it cost 10$ and can last for decades. While you use electricity and gas which cost 500-1000% every month to heat whole house of 200m/2 and is not reliable because electricity tend to vanish when theres storms, tornatodos. I cant imagine my people camping infront toy store 5 days before it open so they can buy new iphone for 100$. Thats not stupid, thats retarded. If i want a toy i will buy it after 2 weeks so i dont have to wait in line with other 5000 people. If it is expensive i will wait 1 year and buy it cheap. Ive heard people camped when GTA IV was published. I waited few months and download it from the internet for free.

I can continue with comparisons until tomorrow, but i think you get the point.

I somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, but well said in any case.

On Process Orientation vs. Prescriptive Worldviews
America is not all of the West, but it is fair to say that liberal democracy and capitalism in themselves contain no moral directive to 'bring goodness to the world' except maybe more liberal democracy and more capitalism. Communism is mission oriented with an end-state: The Workers Paradise. Depending on one's worldview, one can look at Japan's large foreign aid budget (their % of GDP on foreign aid + military historically met the USA's % of GDP on foreign aid + military) expenditures as being completely altruistic (Japan Helps!) or fully coercive (Do What Japan Says or no Yen!). Similarly, the USSR's external assistance could be seen as assistance to sister revolutions in the Struggle, or merely reinforcement of the Russian empire.
Both sets of examples can be viewed as 'trying to do something for civilization and progress'. If we look to the Koreas as an example, Soviet aid to North Korea could be seen as assistance to a sister revolution, and Japan's aid to South Korea could be seen as supporting a nascent democracy.

That being said, with or without a deliberate intent, capitalism and representative democracy has brought more wealth and more freedom to more people in the world, so overall I disagree. There are Americans who sincerely believe that the USA's mission is to bring freedom to the world, and there are other Americans who use this sincere belief to generate wars for their own profit. Occasionally, both sides virtuously join (WWII).

On Scientific and Technological Innovation in the West v. East
By its very nature, the West will tend to publish its successes more frequently than the USSR, because it leads to a virtuous circle that tends to create more innovation. The Patent system means that all can see how the invention works. There is much waste in duplication of effort but many more opportunities for innovation. The market designates the victor, and tomorrow or next year may choose another. There was less waste in duplication of effort in the USSR, and the Soviet system for technological development was also competitive (unless 'natural monopolies' argued against this). Soviet military technology, development, and production were all competitive: Multiple designs within bureaus, then at least two bureaus contending to build the best design. *However* the victor was not designated by the market, but instead, politically. If the politician is wise, the winning design will be the 'best'.

Market-driven 'selection' has had mixed results, however, the *overall trend* has been that many-many-people openly competing produce the best and cheapest products, compared to a large number of people generally cooperating. This isn't fair, and isn't right, it merely is.

That being said, in certain fields of research the USA and Western Europe are *not open*. There are whole classes of technologies that once a patent is filed, become the property of the government/governments and the inventors must stay silent or face prison. One way is to employ or contract most of the professionals in a field (the USSR would directly employ them, or ensure they couldn't work in their field) or to keep an eye on emerging public-domain research.

Finally, in capitalism, just because something *can* be done doesn't mean it will. If a 9 layer microchip won't produce significant economic value, it is likely unfunded.

On the iPhone and De-Commoditization
Apple has done an outstanding job in taking a commodity (the smartphone) and turning it into a luxury item, essentially de-commodifying it.
Ford and Huawei turned their products into commodities, because Toyota and Acer are waiting to do the same.
BMW and Apple transform their products into value-added luxuries. For a small additional investment in marketing and production cost by the manufacturer, the consumer pays a significant premium, receives an objectively incremental benefit in the product's performance, and likely considers this to be money well spent. They must do this because Lexus and Samsung challenge them at every turn.

For someone whose economic paradigm is encapsulated in the labor-theory-of-value and classical economics, I can see why paying a lot more for a little better makes no sense. Postmodern capitalism sees value creation as a pure abstraction - software, brand recognition, entertainment, financial instruments are all highly profitable, consist almost entirely of information, and can be replicated endlessly (though, to maximize value the producer must still restrict supply).

Rest can be skipped unless the reader is interested in justifications.
=========================
Justification On Process Orientation vs. Prescriptive Worldviews
Interestingly, political scientists tend to agree the Marxist 'End of History' to be liberal democracy and lassie-faire capitalism.

The American Constitution has nothing to say about bringing Democracy, Freedom and McDonalds to the rest of the world.
Capitalism cares nothing for America (or any other country) except where their value exceeds the cost of operations.
The American 'engagement' continuum teeters from strict isolationism <---> full engagement.
The American 'moral/ethical' continuum moves between realpolitik <---> 'Shining City on the Hill'
The American 'coercive' continuum moves between talking <---> fighting.
All countries have the same 3d scale, its just that the USA's capabilities, when fully realized, has singular impact, because it is the most powerful AND the wealthiest, and, as a democracy, quite volatile (once set, likely to stay, once changed, can move in a direction quickly).

America's political 'dogma' is fully agnostic to engagement and morality and only mildly against war. Dogmatically, it only sets up a process by which these questions are resolved. It accepts its existence as imperfect, contains the processes to amend it, and begins with an acknowledgment that the document is there only to provide certain common benefits, such as justice, tranquility, common defense and general welfare, and the continued state of liberty.
America's economic paradigm is expansionist, amoral, and utilitarian on coercion (whatever method produces the most value, long term, war, peace, whatever).
In other words the American 'dogma' is not dogmatic. Politically, the best outcome is the adherence to the process, and economically, there is no one eternal definition of best outcome. There is no 'good and evil' only 'better or worse', and often 'neither better nor worse'. There is no end state because there will never be a perfect representative constitutional presidential federal republic, nor will there be an outcome where zero input of capital immediately produces infinite wealth.
America has no goal but liberty, and no prescription on how it may be maximized, except through competition. By and large, every other liberal democracy chose a more communitarian path than that of the USA.

Communism is an economic and political system that is highly moral and dogmatic. There is good and evil, there are goals. Communism, politically and economically, is fully engaged with the world, fighting for the workers of the world, and highly moral in its mission (to bring the Workers Paradise). The optimization of communism was in allocation of willpower and resources to that mission. Any plan or action can be measured in how much closer the world moved towards the ultimate end, and can thus be evaluated in moral terms. The vanguard of the Proletariat are the leaders of this revolution.
The ultimate goal is the Worker's Paradise. Conflict and cooperation are only meaningful to the degree that this goal is brought closer.


Notes On Scientific and Technological Innovation in the West v. East
Weapon design in the US is similar - I wasn't saying that weapon design processes are different, I just brought up the best example of Soviet Technological progress to contrast market vs. political selection. The American and Soviet military have both chosen some poor designs because of the small number of 'market agents' making the selections.

Real world precedent for classification of certain classes of technology: The algorithm behind RSA Encryption - discovered in 1973 and classified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_%28cryptosystem%29

@ Tito: Can you please post a link to this invention you refer to? Glass tube filled with water $10.
Obviously I am wondering why it isn't in worldwide use, and am highly skeptical.

I find nothing in google, 100 results scanned.

I like when Tito uses the things he learned from Eastern propaganda to use against USA and supporters, but whenever anyone counters, he claims we are brainwashed with Western propaganda. Russia does not stand a chance against the USA and NATO. Russia is nothing next to an alliance of USA, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Not to mention the Pacific allies of Japan and South Korea. In a war between USA and its allies against Russia, USA and Allies win, hands down. That's not propaganda, that's a fact.

作者： Nero, 08.04.2014 at 15:16

I like when Tito uses the things he learned from Eastern propaganda to use against USA and supporters, but whenever anyone counters, he claims we are brainwashed with Western propaganda. Russia does not stand a chance against the USA and NATO. Russia is nothing next to an alliance of USA, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Not to mention the Pacific allies of Japan and South Korea. In a war between USA and its allies against Russia, USA and Allies win, hands down. That's not propaganda, that's a fact.

In a conventional war where each nation's existence is as stake, there is no doubt, I agree. Russia doesn't stand a chance because it *cannot* invade the USA, and if Europe can hold out for ten days (maybe less with the current deployments), American division after division spills into Western Europe, driving eastward.

That being said, in a conventional war, on Russia's terms, it would be a matter of political will vs. military might.
NATO-member-state politicians can be sure that they possess military supremacy, but only if they withdraw and delay a determined Russian thrust westward. Poland would surely be overrun, and will Merkel willingly surrender Berlin because it makes military sense to retreat westward, blunt the Russian thrust with the arrival of fresh troops and equipment, and encircle the invaders?

Wouldn't most political leaders of Germany gladly surrender Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic and Poland to prevent their country from being invaded, and if not, where would they draw the line?
The line obviously isn't across Ukraine's center or southern border, because that's already been crossed.
===
As I've argued before the real concern for American interests in Europe lie in a resurgent, Nationalist, Europe. A re-armed Germany, a re-armed France and Italy.
The combined wealth and population of the EU dwarfs that of the US. Emergent nationalism and a perceived Russian threat pave the way for this unlikely-yet-credible scenario.
I don't think *Putin* has territorial ambitions beyond the USSR's 1989 borders, and I think Putin can wait. Putin is not the only person who wants to lead Russia.

作者： Nero, 08.04.2014 at 15:16

I like when Tito uses the things he learned from Eastern propaganda to use against USA and supporters, but whenever anyone counters, he claims we are brainwashed with Western propaganda. Russia does not stand a chance against the USA and NATO. Russia is nothing next to an alliance of USA, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Not to mention the Pacific allies of Japan and South Korea. In a war between USA and its allies against Russia, USA and Allies win, hands down. That's not propaganda, that's a fact.

I like when people don't realize how Russia can destroy Europe's and USA's economy in a war by not fighting them, but OPEC. In fact, Russia will only need words and force OPEC to boycott. OPEC will tehn sell gas to Russia, Russia resells that gas to Europe and the US. Bam, Russia OP

作者： Skanderbeg, 09.04.2014 at 04:16

作者： zombieyeti, 08.04.2014 at 15:02

@ Tito: Can you please post a link to this invention you refer to? Glass tube filled with water $10.
Obviously I am wondering why it isn't in worldwide use, and am highly skeptical.

I find nothing in google, 100 results scanned.

Heh, of course not, there arent pictures and text about those products.

It wont be in worldwide use because of few reasions:

- USA/EU wont import it because it is cheap and reliable. USA need to sell products over and over again, it cant suffer because of one russian cheap product.
- We were/are communists, and you were/are enemies, we dont trade with enemies.

I can name few more things you wont see; Pavlov's Ointment - baby cream, for gentle baby skin. But also it can be used for other parts of body for males and females of all ages. We used it in the army most for redness crotches and armpits when you are in battle away from camp, not shower for whole week and sun is burning 50C, namely - Afghanistan. It neutralize itching, rash and pain instantly, and recover skin in few minutes. And believe me, i had more problems when i was in battle sweating and camp with shower is 100km far than i had problems with bullets and mines flying above my head.
Yes, you can name some other ointment, but i doubt it heals that fast. I think only Pavlovic cooling ointment can match as it is further development of that cream but thats yugoslav product, not russian.

In America, the home heating device you have has a corollary: The car with fantastic fuel efficiency.
Thank you though - when I was a child, whenever I'd hear about this car, supposedly developed by an American car company, and not released, I would reply "well why don't the Japanese make the car"? If the tale-teller would reply "The Government prevents its release" I would then ask "why don't the Soviets make this car?"
No one, back then, would claim that the USSR was controlled by the American government, or American oil companies.
Everyone also knew that whatever technology the USSR couldn't develop, it could steal. The next reply: "You don't think the Soviet government isn't controlled by ..." <fill in the blank>

I applaud the inexpensive home heating device. For the sake of humanity, I would hope very much that it comes to market soon, and curtails our civilization-threatening dependence on fossil fuels.

作者： Skanderbeg, 09.04.2014 at 06:02

作者： zombieyeti, 08.04.2014 at 17:45

text

You mentioned some representative government is efficient and eastern post-communist governments and politicians arent because they cannot/dont want to admit/acknowledge mistake and therefore eastern eu states governments are corrupted and inefficient.

Please explain further.

When I speak of efficiency in terms of political outcomes, I am making an observation, and conjecturing on the reasons behind it. I don't remember speaking to 'current' eastern EU governments, so I'll have to skip that. Hopefully I am otherwise satisfying your question.

Summary - No goal, no plan, often leads to the most efficient *desired current states*
I claim that authoritarian governments are less efficient at making optimal decisions because of the lack of information available for political choice making.
Equally important, I contend that making no choice on a matter, on a national level, is often the most optimal in terms of resource allocation.
In authoritarian governments, dissent is squashed, some choices are not dogmatically feasible and are therefore not discussed, and there is a clear motivation to provide incomplete or misleading information to decision makers, which cannot be skeptically challenged, because there is no competing information available, or those who would present competing information fear punishment (deprivation of life or property; imprisonment).
The political elites are only as accountable to their citizens to the degree that they cannot squash dissent.

Communism is much better than fascism at political (and therefore economic) decision making because the goals of Communism are universalized, expansionary, some dissent is permitted within the single-party, and (post-Stalin and Mao) dissenters/political losers were largely not killed. The goals are never up for debate, but the *optimal path* to reach these goals *may sometimes be questioned*.
A Russian, a German, and a Chinese could sincerely believe in Communism, but only a German could sincerely believe in the goals of German nationalism as dictated by Hitler. Deng Xiaoping went from political re-education to lead China to a market economy, and Putin reportedly resigned his KGB commission due to the coup against Gorbachev (before there was a clear political winner). Hitler killed his political enemies to the extent of wiping out an entire faction of the Nazi party. Aides dreaded telling him the truth, and he would often deny obvious fact. Communism's universalized goal, general reliance on technical vs. political expertise, and limited capacity to tolerate dissent means that political choice making in Communism is based on more information, with more choices for the leadership, and is therefore more efficient than fascism in terms of political decision making.

Liberal democracies are likely to make fewer-choices with broad impact, and rarely is a choice made without (sometimes near-endless) debate and discussion.
Due to the representative nature of the political decision making, the elites are periodically accountable to their electorate, and in cases where they choose to make decisions where they do not receive broad support, the worst sanction they face is to lose an election. They are free to make the 'right' choice, vs. the popular choice. If their wise-but-unpopular choice yields fruit before the next election, they are thought of as wise, and re-elected. If not, the worse they face is a political loss.
Debate is vigorous, dissent is largely non-violent, and making legal-but-poor political choices does not result in death or deprivation of rights.
There is no lack of information in choice making, and a tradition of making few, low-impact choices and observing the results is usually followed, because of the generally poor track record for making many high-impact choices rashly/
For long-term developments, often the political decision maker is unfairly rewarded or punished by the choices made by her predecessor.

I don't argue that liberal democracy and laissez-faire capitalism aren't inefficient - in retrospect, they almost always are. For any given *desired* current state (the way things are), there was almost always was a more efficient path to that state. There was no 'goal', and no plan to reach the current state, but looking backwards, one could say 'we could have reached this point cheaper/faster if we ...." It is easy to argue that the United States should have eliminated slavery at its foundation - a political fight in 1787 might have averted a civil war in 1861, and saved millions of people enslavement and death. *We will never know* if the optimal decision was made, but we can recognize that the current state of affairs (slavery is illegal; civil rights and protections for all citizens) is desirable.
The claim I make is that, overall, is that there are a greater number of *desired current states* in lassiez-faire democracy, and many many opportunities for future desirable current states.
The material wealth, power, safety and comfort of most citizens of liberal democracies wasn't achieved due to a 'plan' - there was no centrally managed or coordinated five-year plan to double the number of streaming movies available, or to increase the availability of fruit gum. Specifically, in these cases, the lack of a nationally created and managed plan led to the current state of affairs. Sometimes localities create very desirable conditions (Silicon Valley) and sometimes not (Detroit). Most often, the local conditions are more desirable than not, and frequently permit people to make their own choices where to live and work (don't like it, change it, or move). Success is often transitory, and most places and people must currently re-invent themselves (Silicon Valley in the 1950's was a sleepy college town surrounded by farm, in Detroit 1950's the typical family of laborers had more material wealth than typical citizens anywhere else at the time: a car, a house and a dacha, a boat and a television).

Wasteful duplication of effort, squandering of wealth, near-endless arguing and debate, obviously selfish and immoral claims on the common wealth, the supposition that a mob of the common folk is wiser than experts, and the endless business cycle of growth-and-recession are all examples of inefficiency in liberal democracies with laissez-faire economic systems. Even with all of this waste, the 'lack' of national, centralized goal setting means that people, companies, local governments etc. set their *own* priorities.
Often they are *wrong*, or make sub-optimal choices (people over-eat, companies cheat, politicians are corrupt, local communities ignore infrastructure maintenance, there is no national standard for broadband wireless etc.).
But there are many many choices being made, and many many things being tried. Each attempt has only a tiny chance of success, and there are many failures: the number of attempts almost guarantees, overall, an innovation. Each innovation breeds more opportunities, because there is more overall information available.
In an information economy, information IS wealth. Many people taking many chances, like drunken gamblers. Through blind chance, some win, and a few win very big.
Contrast this with an authoritarian model: Each single attempt has a much larger chance of success compared to the laissez-faire model, but the number of attempts is limited. Therefore, the overall opportunity for an innovation is much smaller compared to open systems. A few teams making wise investments, who receive a steady-though-unimpressive return. They generally earn more than they spend, but they might go years without a 'big win' - there are too few risks taken because risk-taken is punished if there is no payoff.

I do not claim that liberal democracy is the *best* possible model in terms of making political choices - I believe it to be the best model in terms of compatibility with human liberty. I make my claim as relative to other existing political systems (see justification for a final thought).

Finally, many others will point to the successes of liberal democracies and laissez-faire capitalism to something other than better political choices. They will make logically-fallacious claims like 'the USSR failed, therefore, politically, Communism failed and therefore democracy is better.' I am not making claims based on historical precedent - while my argument includes historical examples, the claim of information availability influencing the number and quality of choices should evaluated on its own merit.
===
Justification for Tito, or for those who require more detail
When there is a clear, unambiguous goal, with a specific priority, and time constraints (e.g. quadruple national steel production in one year, no matter what) authoritarian power structures tend to do better at accomplishing these goals.

In the USSR, Stalin would make the proclamation, various committees would be rapidly assembled to evaluate if the best path would be to create a few steel complexes or many smaller steel factories. Likely, they had these plans already drawn up as contingencies in their spare time.
The best, second best and worst plan would be presented to Stalin. Stalin would look the Commissar of Steel in the eye, and pick the plan the Commissar of Steel seemed most comfortable with. The plan would be executed, resources allocated at a national level, in harmony with the current five-year plan, and prioritized accordingly.

In China, Mao would make the proclamation, and a Steel Commissar would set goals for each province. Each provincial leader would be responsible to the Steel Commissar, and various provincial chiefs would start building steel factories concerned with quadrupling steel production in their provinces, however they saw fit to meet the goal. Perhaps they would trade their rice surplus from another quota with another province in exchange for finished steel.
Local political commissars, in provinces with no hope of meeting the quota would go to villages and command all iron in the village to be assembled in the village square - from pots and pans to bedframes, anything made of iron, and not associated with steel production, would be scrapped.

In the first case, there was less decentralization of steel production, but experts were assembled to come up with the plan to meet the goal. The Steel Commissar would be accountable (perhaps with his life) for meeting the goal.

In the second case, there was a high degree of decentralization, but little top-level coordination and expertise. The Steel Commissar would be accountable (perhaps with his life) for meeting the goal, and the provincial leaders would be accountable as well.

In both cases, it is mostly irrelevant if the goal was actually reached, or if the goal was met, sustainably or efficiently.
In both systems, if a goal was exceeded, some portion of the steel over-production would be hoarded by the Plant Manager, as a hedge against a shortfall tomorrow, or to trade with valued allies who had a shortfall, or to barter for other resources (coal, iron ore).
If the goal wasn't met, they would lie. Steel commissars have little motivation to check for actual shortfalls against claims of over-fulfillment of quota.
Never was there a consideration for the people affected - in China, they lost bedframes and cooking implements. In the USSR, coal for apartment heating would be in short supply as it would be diverted for steel production.
===
>>> Most importantly, the goal itself may not have been the best allocation of resources and manpower, anyway. <<<

Contrast this with a liberal democracy with laissez-faire capitalism.
*Maybe there is no need for more steel, or maybe the need is temporary, or maybe aluminum or plastic could be substituted for some of the steel*

If there is a need for more steel, the price of steel goes up. If the price of steel goes up, a few risk-taking capitalists build steel companies.
If they guessed wrong, they lose money. If they guessed right they make money. They build more steel plants, according to whatever model they think is the *most efficient use of their wealth*. More capitalists decide to make steel plants. Eventually, the price of steel drops as the supply of steel meets demand. Steel becomes cheaper, people are employed in steel plant construction and operation. Sometimes, the price of steel collapses, plants are shut down, people become unemployed, and capitalists lose money. Steel plants are liquidated for a small percentage of their original construction price.
The price of steel now goes up. And the cycle begins again.
===
In a liberal democracy, the first question wouldn't be how: It would be why. Not 'how do we quadruple steel production' but 'why would we need more steel?' and, quite likely: 'We agree we need more steel. Why would the government need to step in?'
Poor decisions are frequently made, and good plans are frequently left aside, but rarely not because someone refused to ask 'why'.

In the end, it isn't about 'decentralization vs. centralization' or 'command economy vs. market economy' - its because questions of competing demands are resolved with exhaustive review, near-endless debate, and, due to everyone's selfish interests colliding, rarely is a goal even set.

If a politically-authoritarian, command-economy was composed of the most intelligent and diligent leaders with a high degree of expertise, with a shared vision and top priority on all resources, you get examples of excellence like the Soviet space program. First out the gate with satellites in orbit, a living creature in space, a man in space and in orbit. *Within* the space program, for the goals of the space program, there was exhaustive review, near-endless debate, and openness.
The rest of the CCCP was left to struggle onwards.
The USSR 'lost' the space race, because the goal of reaching the moon would have been financially difficult, and would produce less benefit than orbital stations.
The 'space race' is a perfect example of where, in a liberal democracy, political goals were set, resources allocated etc. The question 'why should we go to the moon when we can build a large orbital station with the same effort' was shouted down in the name of beating the USSR, honoring a dead political figure, and raising national spirits in the midst of a losing war.

Footnote: I can conceive of an all-aware, all-knowing, absolutely altruistic and incorruptible artificial intelligence that makes trillions of choices on our behalf, all towards optimizing the human condition, generally. I can even conceive of a political model where one could choose to live according to the AI's rules and reap potential rewards and choose not to, and live in liberty, likely, relatively impoverished. This thought experiment would be an example of a political model which might produce better outcomes than liberal democracy - because choice is still preserved.

作者： Skanderbeg, 09.04.2014 at 04:03

作者： Nero, 08.04.2014 at 15:16

I like when Tito uses the things he learned from Eastern propaganda to use against USA and supporters, but whenever anyone counters, he claims we are brainwashed with Western propaganda. Russia does not stand a chance against the USA and NATO. Russia is nothing next to an alliance of USA, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Not to mention the Pacific allies of Japan and South Korea. In a war between USA and its allies against Russia, USA and Allies win, hands down. That's not propaganda, that's a fact.

You are brainwashed with western propaganda, CNN and BBC is serving you what they want so you obey their cause. You see what THEY want you to see. You cant observe further.

USA calculate too much, and wait. Thats the proof why USA didnt attacked Russia, even when Russia had great crisis in the 90' - USA didnt invaded.

Woah - there is no question that the USA does not have the political will (yet) to confront Russia over the Ukraine.
But please remember: The USA did not take advantage of Russia in the 1990s because Russia *was no longer the enemy*.

George Bush I (later Bill Clinton) had every hope that Russia would cease in its effort for planetary domination, end being an invasion threat for Western Europe, Communism would collapse and its satellite states in Eastern Europe would willing leave the Warsaw Pact.
That is exactly what happened, because they supported Gorbachev's efforts for openness and market liberalization.
Until 2012, American nuclear power plants were glutted with reprocessed Soviet plutonium, stripped from weapons.

If they had pushed the USSR/Russia during that crucial time from 1985-1995, then the 1991 coup might have succeeded, hard-liners might have triumphed, Putin might have been jailed, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would have been retaken by force, and the United States would be facing an enemy that was on edge in the midst of revolution.

It is absolutely true that Russia 2014 isn't what the USA might have hoped for in 1985, but Russia 2014 is *much less of a threat* to the United States than anyone in 1984 could have dreamed, Soviet or American.

作者： Skanderbeg, 15.04.2014 at 10:45

List of countries where capitalism should(is) be main system because nation isnt capable of achieving communism:

- Russia (lazy, autism)

So now you bite the hand that feeds you? I am starting to think that you where born in yugoslavia and got stuck in russia when the country collapsed, and now you feel entitle to claim that you are citizen of all the former yugoslavian republics, while bashing the west as soon as you have the opportunity.

作者： Skanderbeg, 15.04.2014 at 13:35

You just think because i criticized USA im anti-american and all anti-anti.

Lmao, your forum signature is "Anti-American" in fact, your signature contains hate speech and you should be hold accountable for it.

作者： Skanderbeg, 15.04.2014 at 10:45

作者： zombieyeti, 09.04.2014 at 15:29

Text

I read carefully your text, and i already know about quotas in CCCP and China. Point is here we have few politic-economic systems that can give us good, perfect, decent, bad, terrible life. All depends on nation. It is not racism, nor nazism, but it is true people are different. Thats the whole point i wanted to say, i like communism, for me it is the best system man ever created, but it doesnt work for every nation.

List of countries where communism would succeed, from most succesive to least:

- Japan (hardworking, honorable people)
- Norway (hardworking, smart, neutral)
- Sweden (hardworking, smart, neutral)
- Denmark (hardworking, smart, neutral)
- Switzerland (hardworking, smart, neutral)
- Netherland (hardworking, smart, neutral)
- Luxembourg (hardworking, smart, neutral)
- Belgium (hardworking, smart, neutral, proof is political crisis few years ago, yet their economy didnt suffer)
- China (hivemind, hardworking, really believe in communist ideals)
- Korea (hardworking, really believe in communist ideals)

List of countries where capitalism should(is) be main system because nation isnt capable of achieving communism:

- Russia (lazy, autism)
- England (lazy, autism, hostile)
- Italy (lazy, autism)
- Greece (lazy, autism)
- Spain (lazy, autism)
- Turkey (lazy, autism)
- United States (lazy, autism, hostile)
- India (lazy, autism)

Sorry for the late response.
I must point out that I wholeheartedly disagree with your *opinion* on a nation's suitability for a political-economic system based on the cultural characteristics of its people (Nationalistic psychographics/Sociological demographics). That being said, the idea that a 'people' exists, and that they have a 'national character' is an idea that spans at least 1000s of years, and is currently being utilized by both clandestine intelligence services and consumerist organizations.
The ad agencies of many multinational companies spend much time identifying 'national' cultural characteristics, and tailoring worldwide advertising catering to it.
That being said, it is a fascinating world-view (much like Hitler's characterization of Slavs, or the British view on 'Martial' and 'Sedentary' Races, when looking to form colonial armies).

I'm not going to argue against it, I am merely acknowledging that I find the worldview a) fascinating b) wrong and c) acknowledge that it is possessed by *many* decision makers worldwide.
Finally, if you hold these views about 'people' it definitely goes far to explain your worldview.

Before I prepare a reply, I must ask: What do you mean by 'autism' and why is it possessed by India but not by China?

Info for those who aren't familiar with Tito's assertions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychographic

作者： Skanderbeg, 17.04.2014 at 05:12

作者： zombieyeti, 16.04.2014 at 14:17

Sorry for the late response.
I must point out that I wholeheartedly disagree with your *opinion* on a nation's suitability for a political-economic system based on the cultural characteristics of its people (Nationalistic psychographics/Sociological demographics). That being said, the idea that a 'people' exists, and that they have a 'national character' is an idea that spans at least 1000s of years, and is currently being utilized by both clandestine intelligence services and consumerist organizations.
The ad agencies of many multinational companies spend much time identifying 'national' cultural characteristics, and tailoring worldwide advertising catering to it.
That being said, it is a fascinating world-view (much like Hitler's characterization of Slavs, or the British view on 'Martial' and 'Sedentary' Races, when looking to form colonial armies).

I'm not going to argue against it, I am merely acknowledging that I find the worldview a) fascinating b) wrong and c) acknowledge that it is possessed by *many* decision makers worldwide.
Finally, if you hold these views about 'people' it definitely goes far to explain your worldview.

Info for those who aren't familiar with Tito's assertions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychographic

Tell me this then: In Russia and eastern europe, you have ''wild construction''. Everyone can build buildings, houses and appartments, everywhere. No one is taking care of paperwork, urban center, planning, just erect some building, simple as that. When one slav went to Sweden to live and work, he earned some money and started building a house, of course on his own, he didnt payed the land or took local council approval. Police arrived and arrested him, judge couldnt sentence him as there is no law in Sweden which regulated illegal house building. Psychologists and psychiatrists examined that man, and concluded it is best for all they send him to mental hospital. They couldnt understand why he started to build a house without first paying the land where construction is, and without local council & urban center approval. Maybe you understand? I cant, because i think Swedes where right, no sane man would do such stupid thing. I consider myself normal human, if i wanted to build new home i would first find some place, then go to the urban center and ask if that land is for sale and how much does it cost. Then would go to local council for approval and to sign all the paperwork which will prove i have authority approval, their signature i payed the land and have license, and my signature i agreed to all. Then i start construction.

This was just one of simple example.

Other example is one woman i know went to live and study in Japan. Every morning she buy bread in local bakery, one morning when she went to buy bread, owner and workers waited for her, when she entered they bowed to her, said they are sorry and wont happen again, to repair the damage they gave her free bread. Apparently one of the workers didnt return 0.5$ change last morning when woman was buying bread. She heard that worked resigned few days later as he couldnt bear the shame.

You just cant compare people of some countries to people from Japan or Scandinavia. Because they are conscientious, thats why i think communism would succeed there, they doesnt like to cheat.

In the other hand i experienced greek capitalism when i went down there. Greeks are selfish, they know that, so what they did? They work in capitalism but everyone for themselve. Thats why you have 98% of population working in private sector and not for state. Thats why from 4,00,000 capable workers you have 3,500,000 registered companies and firms. 1 man - 1 company, everyone work for himself, if they have to employ someone, they employ a cousin, relative or albanian who are cheap labor force and are willing to do dirty work. They are working 25 hours per day, making 50-60,000$ GDP per capita. As i said they are selfish so they bribe authorities so they dont pay large taxes, so you will find on wikipedia greeks make 20k or 30k, what a lie!
Greece was a rural small poor and hungry state from 1830 to 1960. Check their economic growth in the 70', thats because individual capitalism.
If you install collectivism in Greece, it will collapse after 2 weeks, because they are selfish and wont work when you order them to work for some ''state''. But let them live on their own and they will be second most productive folks(1# are koreans).

作者： zombieyeti, 16.04.2014 at 14:17

Before I prepare a reply, I must ask: What do you mean by 'autism' and why is it possessed by India but not by China?

Because Indians mind their own businesess, they dont care, they like to live simple, even if they live in one of those poor parts of the cities for decades, even their children will be fine with it. But not Chinese, they will work, bite, fight to achieve the goal. Their goal is to develop strong economy, see what they are doing. Similar like post war Germany and post communist Ukraine. Of course West Germany recieved HUGE aid from USA but still they worked overtime and achieved their goals as early in the 60', thats 20 years from WW2 and they became rich and developed. 25 years have passed from communism and Ukraine was never poorer and so demolished. Small countries like Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Slovakia, Czech will always be the target of the stronger predator(militarily, economically, politically), but such a large country like Ukraine with 44 million people should be able to protect its citizens on all fields.

As always, I appreciate your unique insights.
If nations/peoples have certain 'cultural' traits ....

How did this 'nature' arise in a people?

Can the 'nature' of a people be changed, or merely their behavior?
For example, you speak of Greeks being 'selfish' and the Japanese/Scandinavians being 'conscientious'. Could this 'nature' of the people be transformed?

How does a national character become instilled in immigrant-driven countries like the USA?
For example: Did the nature of the USA change with immigration, or did the USA change its immigrants, or did the people who emigrate to the USA choose the USA due to its 'nature'?

If the USA and England are "lazy, autism, hostile" and Scandanavian countries are "hardworking, smart, neutral", what is the 'nature' of Canada?

Let me try this a different way.
Assume you have been put in charge of the New COMINTERN, but the Party Leadership has revoked violence.
How would one transform the 'National Character' of 'autistic' nations to be more suitable for Communism?