Global Warming?

The U.S. has experienced a lot of cold WEATHER so they think the climate isn't changing, even though maps like this (which use data from thousands of weather stations) prove it:

Jacey521 wrote:

1. The USSR fell because it tried to implement capitalism into it's system, unlike China, it failed miserably. (Gorbachev did this)

2. in the late 70's/early 80's the U.S. experienced a depression in which many believed capitalism reached its peak. bread lines, and other stereotypical dark "communist" dystopic things also occurred

3. the USSR was easily keeping up with the U.S. despite losing 27 million people and most of its main cities, they even got to space first, on the other hand, the U.S. struggled behind in science despite gaining most of Britain's offshore territories, resources, and $$ from other nations

4. Look up any communist rebellion/civil war, or any democratic/capitalistic rebellion/civil war during the Cold War. The CIA had a hand in either creating or destroying all of them.

5. Everyone forgets China. China is rising extremely fast, and in 20 years it will look much better then the U.S., maybe still not stronger when it comes to control/military, but stronger in economy. they are communist.

"China are communist" haha, seriously do, they are not Communist, they were, and then they switched to more right wing views, and bam one of the biggest economic powerhouses of the World. Producing countless amount of goods.

Again China has a joke of an army, and actually they dont have an army.

Capitalism made China the nation it is today.

There were 2 koreas

North and South

One is Capitalist

One is Communist

tell me pls, what one you think is doing better?

Jacey521 wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

1. This is before Gorbachev: Due to the years of Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development, economic growth stagnated^{[citation needed]}. Failed attempts at reform, a standstill economy, and the success of the United States against the Soviet Union's forces in the war in Afghanistan led to a general feeling of discontent, especially in theBaltic republics and Eastern Europe.^[1]
2. Yes, if you read one of my previous posts, I admitted the US was far behind in science in the 40s and 50s. But since the 60s, the USSR was far behind the US in science.
3. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: not unwanted imperialism (joke) Soviets encouraging Communist revolutions in places like Yemen: not unwanted imperialism (joke).
4. No, they're not. If they introduced some capitalist reforms, that automatically means that they aren't Communist. You also have private property to some extent in China. Again, not communism.

Finally, if you hate America so much, why don't you go and live in North Korea? They're Communist.

1. Yes, that is very true, but due to him buddying up to Reagan, he became much more capitalistic and democratic, he instituted programs that showed how bad life was in the USSR. "The once-mighty Soviet Union had fallen, largely due to the great number of radical reforms that Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev had implemented during his six years as the leader of the USSR. " - http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/fall-of-soviet-union

2. Then we're on the same page. (even though you said "the US wasn't struggling in science")

3. What I wrote: "Look up any communist rebellion/civil war, or any democratic/capitalistic rebellion/civil war during the Cold War. The CIA had a hand in either creating or destroying all of them."

What you heard: "CIA IS THE FAULT OF EVERYTHING AND THE USSR DID NOTHING WRONG! USSR INVADED OTHERS AND THE US TRIED TO STOP THEM, THE US CAN'T HELP OTHERS!"

Ugh, I wasn't referring to any of soviet transgressions. the Soviets deserved a lot of the stuff they got. They were just as evil and greedy as a lot of American politicians. However, the people the CIA killed had NOTHING to do with USSR, but rather WITH COMMUNISM. The CIA also had a hand in destabilizing every country that dared have the influence of communism, literally being the result of entire countries falling and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people to die in subsequent civil wars and rebellions. THAT was what I was talking about.

4. China's government is officially communist and follows the tenets left by the Soviet Union(some even say they weren't communist). 5 year plan, government controlled economy(not everything), extreme secrecy, regulation of economy.. etc, (also, a lot of people think the US is more socialist then capitalistic, because capitalism involves laissez faire - free market, which doesnt exist because it sucks)

I love America, it's the greatest country on Earth. Maybe not in 20 years but right now, it definitely is.

Also, telling me to move to NK because they're communist is like me telling you to move to drug cartel-ran-Mexico or maybe Qatar, where 99% of the country own 1% of the land. Or maybe Botswana..? The list of bad capitalistic countries is much longer then bad communist countries, so I can go on and on.

One more point. JUST because capitalistic countries (may) have a higher survival rate then non-capitalistic countries, doesn't mean that life isn't equally bad for the people.

1. Gorbachev found the USSR's economy crumbling in the mid 80s. He set out to fix it. However, his one major obstacle was the gas-guzzling inefficieny of the Russian industry. One of his major aims was making the USSR's industry more efficient. For this, he had to use up lots of oil, to build new parts, to get new chemicals, make new products... You get the gist of it. To buy oil, he obviously needed money. Hard foreign currency, which the USSR didn't exactly have much of. So to get more, he tried cuutting the Red Army's and the KGB's budgets. This was why the hardliners attempted a coup d'etat. In the end, it was Kryuchkov's fault that perestroika and glasnost failed, not Gorbachev's.
2. What I meant was that in the mid and late stages of the Cold War, the USA was better at science.
3. I do kinda half-heartedly agree with you here. Yes, the CIA is responsible for the deaths of many people, but I still think it did well, and that itis and was an agency that worked for the good of the West. However, many things like the Bay of Pigs disembarkment (organized by the CIA; failed because it wasn't really backed by JFK) were unjustified and unnecessary.
4. China is Communist only in name. It has private property,, relatively open markets, etc. It does have a few touches of authoritarian Communism here and there (e.g. no Twitter), but it isn't nearly as Communist as NK or the USSR.

Telling you to move to NK was because it seemed that you liked Communism. I like capitalism, don't know 'bout you.

pablo is on the money..

Communism is rubbish, worst Idea I have ever heard.

It hasnt worked, ever. And every single time I hear, "it failed cos of America" do you actually hear yourself?

Communism is a nightmare or Dream to some, that wont work

Capitalism is a dream that will work.

Like jezz, so many Hispanic people, are not joining Conservative and Libertarian ideals, because they have flippin witnessed the failures of the Socialist and Communist ideals, and they have suffered. And to then have people hear, talk about how great communism is, it makes me sick. Go to North Korea or Venezuela and then come back to us

Us commie scum people, whether we are right or wrong, are necessary because we balance out capitalism to a degree and stop it from going out of control.

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

The USA wasn't struggling in science.

They killed a shed-load of animals that they strapped to V2's to try and reach space, the Soviets succeeded quite early on.

Who reached the Moon first? Who had better technology in agriculture? Who invented more things such as the mobile phone?

The Soviets were regularly (and for free) administering certain medical treatments long before they became available in the west.

Yeah, that's why Andropov and the likes were kept alive with Western medicine.

So just because the Soviets discovered the same cures to diseases as the west means they are inferior? I could just as easily say the west stole the medicine from the soviets and used it to keep their exploitative capitalist pigs alive longer, and nobody else because they were the only ones who could afford to stay alive.

Hey, do you guys remember North Vietnam, the communist nation that beat three capitalist nations, proceeding to conquer one? Y'know, that time when they defeated France, then the USA and South Vietnam?

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Us commie scum people, whether we are right or wrong, are necessary because we balance out capitalism to a degree and stop it from going out of control.

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

The USA wasn't struggling in science.

They killed a shed-load of animals that they strapped to V2's to try and reach space, the Soviets succeeded quite early on.

Who reached the Moon first? Who had better technology in agriculture? Who invented more things such as the mobile phone?

The Soviets were regularly (and for free) administering certain medical treatments long before they became available in the west.

Yeah, that's why Andropov and the likes were kept alive with Western medicine.

So just because the Soviets discovered the same cures to diseases as the west means they are inferior? I could just as easily say the west stole the medicine from the soviets and used it to keep their exploitative capitalist pigs alive longer, and nobody else because they were the only ones who could afford to stay alive.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Hey, do you guys remember North Vietnam, the communist nation that beat three capitalist nations, proceeding to conquer one? Y'know, that time when they defeated France, then the USA and South Vietnam?

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Us commie scum people, whether we are right or wrong, are necessary because we balance out capitalism to a degree and stop it from going out of control

Capitalism? It wont get out of control. How could it?

Libertarian to me, works great

However I think a less extreme Conservative take, can work better, with a small bit of government control.

Obviously only from a fiscal standpoint, social wise, Libertarian all the way

Pablo22510 wrote:

Now they're nearly as capitalist as America, and Obama has just signed an arms treaty with them to try and stop China's growing influence in the South Pacific.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Now they're nearly as capitalist as America, and Obama has just signed an arms treaty with them to try and stop China's growing influence in the South Pacific.

But @oceanhawk was saying the Chinese are militarily weak, and have no army though? So surely the US is just power hungry then? It wouldn't be the first time America has allied with Communists before either. Y'know, WWII did happen.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Well, most people, including me, disagree with @oceanhawk on that one.

Pablo22510 wrote:

And 'Nam isn't Commie.

China on paper doesnt actually have an army.

Its "army" is not loyal to China, but rather to the Communist party, hence not actually a Chinese army,

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Well, most people, including me, disagree with @oceanhawk on that one.

Haha, nice. Good to see you can at least read a newspaper or whatever.

Pablo22510 wrote:

And 'Nam isn't Commie.

I was on about when it was just North Vietnam, which was communist.

1. Read it every day on my way to school
2. Ah. Ok

oceanhawk wrote:

China on paper doesnt actually have an army.

Its "army" is not loyal to China, but rather to the Communist party, hence not actually a Chinese army,

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

China on paper doesnt actually have an army.

Its "army" is not loyal to China, but rather to the Communist party, hence not actually a Chinese army,

Then you should specify that, rather than saying one of/the most powerful nation in Asia has no standing army. It makes you look silly.

oceanhawk wrote:

Nah, cos on paper, they actually don.

oceanhawk wrote:

Also, Militarily they are over rated. Their top Military General, said the "Smog" in Shanghai ,would block the American bombers.......

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Nah, cos on paper, they actually don.

Then invade them for me and tell me how it goes since, y'know, technically they have no army so that means they are weak, right?

oceanhawk wrote:

Also, Militarily they are over rated. Their top Military General, said the "Smog" in Shanghai ,would block the American bombers.......

He could actually be right, at best it will make bomb aiming harder, at worst it will clog the planes engines and make them crash. Why do you think planes didn't fly when that ash cloud from that volcano a few years back came over Ireland?

yea, no it wont. It wont the clog the engines, although Id say it will clog the f-35s, but sure that thing cant even take in fuel that is "too warm".

F-18s and a few Boeing 737s are different.

And ASH and some smog, are very different,

oceanhawk wrote:

yea, no it wont. It wont the clog the engines, although Id say it will clog the f-35s, but sure that thing cant even take in fuel that is "too warm".

F-18s and a few Boeing 737s are different.

And ASH and some smog, are very different,

oceanhawk wrote:

Yea they aint, but their Commie party, control the troops, so yea I wouldnt invade there.

Yea, BTW I dont think the F-18 would need to be very close, when they dropping their JDAM's from 50k feet in the air.