NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

An excess of 160 million people killed by that system.

Read carefully: One hundred. Sixty. Million.

ooh good job, you compiled EVERY country that ever CALLED itself communist (there has NEVER been a real communsti country and plenty of CAPITALIST countries have socialist policies so grow up) then say thats how many have been killed


ooh ooh, i know what we should do, lets count how many people have been killed for and because of capitalism, i bet we can get 160 million from the us alone, unless they didnt toll little kids and women who died in unsafe factories during the early 1900s

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

An excess of 160 million people killed by that system.

Read carefully: One hundred. Sixty. Million.

And yet we don't care about the thousands of people in the third world dying every single day due to the fact that they can't afford medecine to prevent diarrhoea, thanks to major drug companies putting huge markups on their products while our capitalist governments fail to stop this exploitation.

While not defending them, those figures are at the extreme maximum level of estimates.

Furthermore, as has been said, these are dictatorial regimes we're talking about here.

It's not the fault of democratic socialist/communists that idiots fucked everything up in these countries...

I also would like to see a list of people killed by death squads supported by pro-western governments in South America, for example, as well. Think you could scrounge me up one?

Yep would be intersting to see the same figures for all the state that have hade capitalizm system sens the 1800 or something the capitalizm arised. But you have a really good point that the Communism fear have been a very effective tool against socialist policies and socialdemocratic parties. That especially in the USA it have been easy to let people think that socialdemocratic and communism is the same thing. But very few and whit little success have compared all the capitalist state. Of course both if wrong you can't compare undemocratic and democratic countries in that way.

They weren't communist. Besides, it has been estimated that capitalism has killed 100 million people in India alone.

What we really need is a list of all the people that capitalist/democratic have killed over the years. I guess it would only be fair to start counting when the first communist revolutions took place.

Communism and Capitalism are philosophical models, theories, mental events in the heads of those who debate them. ideas never kill people...people with ideas kill people, and often in direct conflict with the basic premises of the ideas they claim to hold.

1. The european socialist democracys
concentrate more on social services
than state ownership.

2. As a Cuban, as far as Cuba is concerned,
in cuba you have free education and free medical care but
you are expected to participate in cumpulsory voluntary work
which can help pay for that free education and free medical care,
if you dissagree with any government policy you are watched over
by neighborhood commitees for the revolution that will report you
to the police, in your work center they keep a book stating if you
participated in a pro government march or not when told to do so,
cuban government laws do not permit a cuban citizen to own a
home computer, satelite tv or cable, you have democratic one party
elections, there are no private or religious schools if you wish to send
your sons and dauthers to such a school, and all businesses are
government run.

cumpulsory voluntary work
.


ROFLMAO!

Those genocidal "communist" governments were really just fascists of the left.

Well if Communism and/or Socialism killed that many and those two idealogies are designed to help the masses who knows how many people Capitalism has killed, an idealogy based around helping the select few? :sniper:

Also Cuba is really a dictatorial Communism, not an example of how Communism was intended to be. Also, as other people have pointed out there hasn't really ever been a proper Communist government that was democratic. It's ashame really, it'd be interesting to see how it went. :(
-Yours Sincerely Ross

What does roflmao mean?,

Is it that you dont believe in my statement,
perhaps you should check out that information
to see if it is true or not.

None of them are communist/socialists countries. End of story.

the reason communism is a bad thing is that some people will settle for less. when these people come into any contact with people who want more, it's either "give me some" or "the evil people are keeping me down". that's the basic idea. i know some will argue that that is a flawed arguement. but where i'm from it's true, some people will do the bare minimum to get by and try to argue that someone else's hardwork should benefit them as well.

I'm sure communism would work if everyone was expecting the same benefits for the same amount of work. but that's never gonna happen unless you start handing out compulsory lobotomies. ;)

Your post refers to me? :confused:
If it does, I think I know what a dictatorship is, and quite possibly Communism too. :)
Also, yes Cuba is a horrible place but that doesn't mean all Communism is wrong, I'm not entirely sure by your posts, are you defending Communism or attacking it? (I'm alittle Confused)

-Yours Sincerely Ross

And yet we don't care about the thousands of people in the third world dying every single day due to the fact that they can't afford medecine to prevent diarrhoea, thanks to major drug companies putting huge markups on their products while our capitalist governments fail to stop this exploitation.

No, they are dying because they don't know how to prevent it. What are you doing to help?

They weren't communist. Besides, it has been estimated that capitalism has killed 100 million people in India alone.

I'm sure

Communism is not how it was intended to be,
and no communist or socialist nation has
carried it out as it was intended to be.

Pure communism, socialism, could be the nicest fairest
form of government in the world, the problem is since
everything has to be owned and controled by the state
their can be no oposition to any government policys
and that creates an automatic dictatorship.

The European socialist democracys concentrate
more on social services than state ownership.

In Cuba s case, Cuba is a communist dictatorship,
I wish people would start realizing that and start
treating a dictatorship like a dictatorship, dictatorships
dont change out of the goodness of their hearts, they
need economic and political presures to bring about
any change in government policys.

I agree with you, you are one of the few fellow nations
that I think understand communism, socialism, that I think
understands cuban communism as a dictatorship.

I am just pointing out the reazons communism, socialism
has not been carried out the way it was ment to be,
the reasons can be found on my Cuba post, the way
Cuba is run, state ownership and control of everything
and therefore their can be no oposition to government policys,
creates an automatic dictatorship, in Cuba s case it just
happens to be a dictators choice to stay in power for life.

the problem is that people label figures like stalin, mao, and castro communist, when in fact they were just other bourgeouis and petty bourgeuois revolutionaries. They said they were socialist or communist but they weren't working class revolutionaries. The only socialist country as defined by Karl Marx would have been, the Soviet Union, under lenin, or it would have been the paris commune. But as soon as stalin took power in russia, and killed off all of the revoutionaries, and created nationalism, instead of internationalism, it destroyed the communist dream. The leader of the fourth international, Leon Trotsky was very promising, and his ideas are still very promising, but until the recreation of a new international, socialism, will not be realized.

Lenin and Trotsky were both bourgeois as well.

The only well-known leftist revolutionary I can think of that wasn't was Zapata.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF
An excess of 160 million people killed by that system.
Read carefully: One hundred. Sixty. Million.How many have been killed by capitalism and its exploitations of the 3rd world (and also in earlier centuries the poor populations of the now industrialized countries) ?

Those genocidal "communist" governments were really just fascists of the left.

that is paradoxical, because fascism, means, first off, anti-workingclass, it is a way for the capitalist classes to bring itself back to economic stability while warding off a working class revolution. Look at germany. they didn't first attack the jews, they first attacked the communists and socialists, because the german government was ran by the leaders of the Second International or the Socialist international. It was one of the earliest "social democracies". But because of the economic hardships of world war 1 and the fact they didn't support a world wide workers revolution, they were easily cast asside for the nazi party.

lenin and trotsky were petty- bourgeouis, and they proved themselves to workers, by consistenly fighting for them with the same furver as they always had. the workers needed educated people to lead the revolution, both lenin and trotsky understood, that the armed workers were the ones with the real power, and that they were just there humble servants.

I think it is not the point.
It is not because one man dies in a communist society that communism killed him.
Many people died in USSR because of war.
If you count the number of people who died in WW2, you can say that not too many people died in the US while many died in USSR, but that has nothing to do with capitalism/communism.

that is paradoxical, because fascism, means, first off, anti-workingclass, it is a way for the capitalist classes to bring itself back to economic stability while warding off a working class revolution. Look at germany. they didn't first attack the jews, they first attacked the communists and socialists, because the german government was ran by the leaders of the Second International or the Socialist international. It was one of the earliest "social democracies". But because of the economic hardships of world war 1 and the fact they didn't support a world wide workers revolution, they were easily cast asside for the nazi party.

The Nazi's had socialist economic policy, hence "national socialism". It is easy to draw a link between stalinism and fascism on most levels. Any differences between stalinism and nazism are no greater than that of Italian fascism, or Spanish fascism. The Stalinist regimes of the 20th century were fascist. There can be no dispute.

lenin and trotsky were petty- bourgeouis, and they proved themselves to workers, by consistenly fighting for them with the same furver as they always had. the workers needed educated people to lead the revolution, both lenin and trotsky understood, that the armed workers were the ones with the real power, and that they were just there humble servants.

I'm not discrediting them, just from the nature of your post it seemed you were unaware of their upbringing. My apologies.


Hey Psylos, did you get deleted or something? what happened?

Hey Psylos, did you get deleted or something? what happened?No not at all, I don't know this imposteur.

No not at all, I don't know this imposteur.

*Shifty eyes* Heh, well you must be popular then.

...

HEY! I want an impostor too! :p

the cummonism look like bad thing for some rasons:
-tha american can't forget the cold war so they see russian things as bad.
-stalin and other dictators use it for rule in their countries.
-it's against the capitalism who is an american holy principle.

but socialism is great way to live. it's make your life easier and with more morality. comminism is same thing but with revolution before.

*Shifty eyes* Heh, well you must be popular then.

...

HEY! I want an impostor too! :pI like him actually. It looks like he has the same ideas as me (or maybe he is sarcastic I don't really know).

About the topic, it is all about McCarthy and the cold war me thinks.

The Nazi's had socialist economic policy, hence "national socialism".

Just like to point out that the Nazis never implemented their socialist policies, while at the same time they destroyed all the trade unions and killed off Communists.
Anyone who portrays the Nazis as Socialists, even despicable National Socialists, is therefore incorrect.

And as for those figures, I'd like to see how they were compiled, and more importantly, by who, and who they were funded by. Plus I'd like to see statistic about harshly capitalist countries. How many suffered in the Red Scare I wonder?
It's so easy just to pick on the worst edges of an ideology, on those people who twist it around until it loses it's meaning. When you consider the socialist democracies of Europe, they are lovely places to be, as is liberal Scandinavia.
And when you think about it, Cuba has to be the way it is in order to stay Communist, whether we like it or not, as otherwise who knows what carnage America could cause.

Mikorlias

I like him actually. It looks like he has the same ideas as me (or maybe he is sarcastic I don't really know).

Hehe. It's pretty funny anyway.

Just like to point out that the Nazis never implemented their socialist policies

Autobahn. Nationalised industry. Near-full employment.

It wasn't socialism in terms of income disparity, but it was a socialism of the elite. If that makes sense. It was a socialist economy, but not society. There we go.

Autobahn. Nationalised industry. Near-full employment.

It wasn't socialism in terms of income disparity, but it was a socialism of the elite. If that makes sense. It was a socialist economy, but not society. There we go.

Ah, that's the one, I knew there was some anti-socialistness to it all.

Mikorlias

Autobahn. Nationalised industry. Near-full employment.

It wasn't socialism in terms of income disparity, but it was a socialism of the elite. If that makes sense. It was a socialist economy, but not society. There we go.
I wouldn't call that socialism. The Nazis did all that for the war-effort.
They built the Autobahn to transport equipment form one side of the country to the other.
They nationalised the industry to be able to produce whatever they wanted whenever they needed it, and the full employment is selfexplaining

The reason they did it isn't important, its the fact that it was basically a planned economy. I'm not saying it was good, but even as a democratic socialist, I can't deny that it wasn't "socialist" in some sense of the word.

And back to my main point, you can see clear links with Stalinism. That's all i'm getting at here. Even from your description above, that's pretty self evident.

If you look at it that I have to agree with you. It ist the same thing that Socialism does, but for different reasons.

the fundamental flaw with Marxism (which is after all, where communism comes from with some additions by Lenin, Mao and Stalin) is that it is based on the assumption that in a perfect world, men (and women) would work together in harmony with each getting according to their needs, and producing their all for the common good.

Human nature doesn't appear to work that way (assumption by Marx is that man is fundamentally good)

some men are good, and some are as evil as the lump of coal is black

there has never been a purely communist state, but the states that espoused communism in the 20th century amassed a record of despotism and oppression that is odious in the extreme..... the Gulag Archepeligo, (written by a Nobel Prize winning Russian) estimated nearly 30 million dead by Stalins hand, another 20 million dead in the Revolution and Civil War period (and that is a best guess really by historians), and Mao chalked up lord nows how many dead Chinese in the 1960s. And don't forget about the Killing Fields of Cambodia (1975 -77.... 1/3 of the Cambodian population murdered)

That doesn't even touch the various millions dead in the various wars of "national liberation" fought in the 20th century

Only Fascism comes close in those killed because of their political beliefs (although in fairness, we are talking mostly Hitler here and he didn't have time to put everything he wanted to get going into full effect... a sobering thought)


Capitalism and Democractic Liberialism (at least relative to Fascism and Communism) has never but into bueracratic practice murder as an instrument of policy.

Now yes, millions die daily in the Third World because of conditions created by the market economy and distrubution of wealth.

The basic question is this. Would the Communist or Fascist model help them one iota if put into practice? Has Democracy and Capitalism done a better job preventing complete catastrophe and does it hold out more long term hope?

Compare India and China..... similar in population, and India is a capitalist democratic socialist nation... is it doing better in feeding its population than China? Has there been a major famine in India since 1949? There have been several in China?

Which is better?

Lenin and Trotsky were both bourgeois as well.

The only well-known leftist revolutionary I can think of that wasn't was Zapata.

Stalin was pure prole. He was the son of a shoe maker and nearly became a priest.

ooh good job, you compiled EVERY country that ever CALLED itself communist (there has NEVER been a real communsti country and plenty of CAPITALIST countries have socialist policies so grow up) then say thats how many have been killed


ooh ooh, i know what we should do, lets count how many people have been killed for and because of capitalism, i bet we can get 160 million from the us alone, unless they didnt toll little kids and women who died in unsafe factories during the early 1900s

With your reasoning, capitalism could not have killed anyone. Why? Because capitalism has never truly existed in any nation.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

An excess of 160 million people killed by that system.

Read carefully: One hundred. Sixty. Million.


Yeah it beats the crud out of the 50,000,000 killed by capitalists.

Yeah it beats the crud out of the 50,000,000 killed by capitalists.
Made up numbers aside - you're not very good at math, are you....

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

An excess of 160 million people killed by that system.

Read carefully: One hundred. Sixty. Million.
Funny thing, I fan through that entire list and didn't seem to find a single country that was in fact communist. Whats even more interesting is that a "communist country" is in fact an oxymoron. I did spy a bunch of Stalinist and State Capitalist countries however...

Compare India and China..... similar in population, and India is a capitalist democratic socialist nation... is it doing better in feeding its population than China? Has there been a major famine in India since 1949? There have been several in China?

Which is better?

Funny you should mention the two since China is beating India around in most every aspect. While India is still third-world, China is to the verge of being second-world now. The Chinese GDP far outsizes India, and PCI is more than twice that of India. Furthermore, China has its birthrate under control, exert far more political power, and outpaces India in economic growth. I don't see many people predicting India as a major world power anytime soon- China is predicted to be one within 50 years.

With your reasoning, capitalism could not have killed anyone. Why? Because capitalism has never truly existed in any nation.
And i'd agree with that too. Pure communism and pure capitalism have never existed.

Lets compare the three core economy based systems, and countries that use them. Yes they use them, it's just a sub species of them, kind of like how Lutherian is a branch of Christianity.

Captalism:Other wise know as, rich fool's dash. Get rich quick, by competing in market, and setting your own prices. The government can't pick on you, unless you do wrong. (USA)

Communism:Everyone works for the community as a whole. Like ants they toil under the sun, for equality. It's the best of the three, but because of bleeding heart groups, with noting better to do, but whine about morals, put down the ones go forward as evil.(Soviet Union)

Socialism:The worst of the three. These idiots acually believe that there can be "social equality." Lets all point and laugh at the socialists. Now before you go off, and lose your temper; think about this, in Angola, people are given what they need by the government. Well, last I checked, in Angola, people are starving.

Lesson of the story?
Shut up, they all suck, get used to it. And if you really think you can change that, then you are a pothead. It's the way of the world.

Now let the flames roll. This should be mildly entertaining to watch.
Wait I've got half of them right here, and here they are. They're going to be angry remarks, such as *STFU*, with incoherent explanation. Then there's the, don't you care about people dying? Not the least. I think that if someone is suffering, they deserve the peace of death from the hell, they call "everyday life." People die every day, sure it sucks, but hey, you have to get used to it. Then there's the personal flaming, by saying, "What if you family died, because of an evil governemt?" So? Unlike some, I'm not greedy, if someone was suffering, even in the family, then they deserve the peace of death. If I die, so what? I die, if there's a hell, then I go there, if not? I win.

I didn't read the whole thread, so excuse me if this has already been pointed out.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

An excess of 160 million people killed by that system.

Read carefully: One hundred. Sixty. Million.

Read carefully: One hunded. Sixty. Million. Is the worldwide totall for all democide committed in any country by any government between those years. It says so right on the chart (not in those words).
The figure you're looking for is that roughly 2/3 of all people killed by democide between 1900-1987 were killed in nations that called themselves communist nations.

Or, if you just want a number that you can put periods in, use "One hunded. Ten. Million."

Lets compare the three core economy based systems, and countries that use them. Yes they use them, it's just a sub species of them, kind of like how Lutherian is a branch of Christianity.

Captalism:Other wise know as, rich fool's dash. Get rich quick, by competing in market, and setting your own prices. The government can't pick on you, unless you do wrong. (USA)

Communism:Everyone works for the community as a whole. Like ants they toil under the sun, for equality. It's the best of the three, but because of bleeding heart groups, with noting better to do, but whine about morals, put down the ones go forward as evil.(Soviet Union)

Socialism:The worst of the three. These idiots acually believe that there can be "social equality." Lets all point and laugh at the socialists. Now before you go off, and lose your temper; think about this, in Angola, people are given what they need by the government. Well, last I checked, in Angola, people are starving.

Lesson of the story?
Shut up, they all suck, get used to it. And if you really think you can change that, then you are a pothead. It's the way of the world.

Now let the flames roll. This should be mildly entertaining to watch.
Wait I've got half of them right here, and here they are. They're going to be angry remarks, such as *STFU*, with incoherent explanation. Then there's the, don't you care about people dying? Not the least. I think that if someone is suffering, they deserve the peace of death from the hell, they call "everyday life." People die every day, sure it sucks, but hey, you have to get used to it. Then there's the personal flaming, by saying, "What if you family died, because of an evil governemt?" So? Unlike some, I'm not greedy, if someone was suffering, even in the family, then they deserve the peace of death. If I die, so what? I die, if there's a hell, then I go there, if not? I win.Let's compare communist USSR and capitalist Russia, will we?

Yes, lets compare the two.

Capitalist Russia:Crime infested rathole, where it takes one forth of the average Russian's monthly pay, to buy a pair of pants. Let's not forget the Russian Mob coming like vultures. :rolleyes:

U.S.S.R.:Warmongering rathole, with little regard for human "resources". The only real reason it collapsed, was becuase the idiot in charge, was too busy trying to beat the U.S. in the Cold War, to give a rap about the homefront, and about the subtle, but very real threat of bankruptcy.

1. The european socialist democracys
concentrate more on social services
than state ownership.

I think you mean social welfare :rolleyes:!

U.S.S.R.:Warmongering rathole, with little regard for human "resources". The only real reason it collapsed, was becuase the idiot in charge, was too busy trying to beat the U.S. in the Cold War, to give a rap about the homefront, and about the subtle, but very real threat of bankruptcy.

hehe! Interesting standpoint.

Warmongering?

How many wars did Gorbachev start? How many wars did the USA/CIA get involved with in the same period? warmongering? Don't get me started.

The arms race probably did bring the soviet union (which was only nominally communist) to its knees, but not before the soviet union proposed and was denied arms reducing deals with the peace loving, 'arms race hating' United States.

The Soviet Union didn't see its end coming, and neither does the United States....

... the soviet union proposed and was denied arms reducing deals with the peace loving, 'arms race hating' United States.


That's because they knew they were going to lose.

How many wars did Gorbachev start? How many wars did the USA/CIA get involved with in the same period? warmongering? Don't get me started.


Do you honestly believe that the USSR had nothing to do with the various "communist" uprising around the world?

Please get started.

Do you honestly believe that the USSR had nothing to do with the various "communist" uprising around the world?

Please get started.

Name a communist uprising which occured during Gorbachev's time in power.... just one.....

That's because they knew they were going to lose.

Quite possibly. Looking at their historical record, it is quite probable that they were as cynical as the US. If they thought they were going to lose the arms race, they would probably sue for peace.

The point is they were the ones making arms reduction proposals and the americans (who continue to refuse to sign the nuclear test ban) did not. Which paints a grim picture for the future now there is no counter-weight.

Name a communist uprising which occured during Gorbachev's time in power.... just one.....


You mean the guy who was in power for a few years while the country collapsed around him? Of course he kept the Afgan war going for 4 more years or so.

That's like saying the Nazis were alright, because Alfred Doenitz didn't start any wars.

Quite possibly. Looking at their historical record, it is quite probable that they were as cynical as the US. If they thought they were going to lose the arms race, they would probably sue for peace.

The point is they were the ones making arms reduction proposals and the americans (who continue to refuse to sign the nuclear test ban) did not. Which paints a grim picture for the future now there is no counter-weight.

Don't forget France, China, India, and Pakistan, all of which have detonated nukes in the past decade.

You mean the guy who was in power for a few years while the country collapsed around him? Of course he kept the Afgan war going for 4 more years or so.

That's like saying the Nazis were alright, because Alfred Doenitz didn't start any wars.

Sorry, let me repeat the question, since it was you who implied it... name a communist uprising started during Gorbachev's reign?

You have only stated that he continued an ongoing conflict, which was not related to an uprising.

Because Gorby came to power after the Afghan conflict started is no more a reaon to blame him for Afghanistan than to blame Kerry for Iraq, or a few US presidents for Vietnam

Don't forget France, China, India, and Pakistan, all of which have detonated nukes in the past decade.

and don't forget that only one country dropped the bomb in anger, ever! And the US loved it so much it did it twice.

Talk about Rogue states....

Yes, lets compare the two.

Capitalist Russia:Crime infested rathole, where it takes one forth of the average Russian's monthly pay, to buy a pair of pants. Let's not forget the Russian Mob coming like vultures. :rolleyes:

U.S.S.R.:Warmongering rathole, with little regard for human "resources". The only real reason it collapsed, was becuase the idiot in charge, was too busy trying to beat the U.S. in the Cold War, to give a rap about the homefront, and about the subtle, but very real threat of bankruptcy.

Are you out of your f*cking mind?? the last leader of the U.S.S.R was Gorbachov who in no way was trying to beat the U.S in the cold war. In fact he was the opposite(he was known as America's political money whore who single handedly sold out and destroyed the Soviet Union for a large sum of American money) While I believe the destruction of the soviet union was a very good thing I dont think you should label the last leader of the ussr as a man who wanted to beat the US(get your facts straight before you post)

Sorry, let me repeat the question, since it was you who implied it... name a communist uprising started during Gorbachev's reign?

You have only stated that he continued an ongoing conflict, which was not related to an uprising.

Because Gorby came to power after the Afghan conflict started is no more a reaon to blame him for Afghanistan than to blame Kerry for Iraq, or a few US presidents for Vietnam

No, I stated that the USSR has been involved in plenty of uprising. I did not say any occured between 1985-1990.

You don't think someone who continues a war for four years is guilty of anything? The Iraq conflict is a minor scuffle compared to Afganistan in the 1980s.

and don't forget that only one country dropped the bomb in anger, ever! And the US loved it so much it did it twice.

Talk about Rogue states....

Give me a break.

160 is a highly inflated number, the USSR and Chinese numbers includes fighting fascists in ww2 and bullshit.

And Cuba isn't a dictatorship Fidel Castro gets fairly elected every time he is bound behind a constitution. Its cuba law that someone has to run against you, and someone does run against him each time, last turnout he got 80% of the vote which was monitored by several international organizations including the UN, noone can be appointed to any position in cuba, Too bad the same can't be said of the USA.

160 is a highly inflated number, the USSR and Chinese numbers includes fighting fascists in ww2 and bullshit.

And Cuba isn't a dictatorship Fidel Castro gets fairly elected every time he is bound behind a constitution. Its cuba law that someone has to run against you, and someone does run against him each time, last turnout he got 80% of the vote which was monitored by several international organizations including the UN, noone can be appointed to any position in cuba, Too bad the same can't be said of the USA.
Just like Saddam got 99.9% of the vote, right? In that free and fair election...

also capitalism is responsible for 100 million aboriginal dead in north america, 2 million in iraq just in the past 15 years. 120 million for both world wars. 100 million in india, countless millions in south america, many still under unmarked graves... and this is just info from the top of my head.

Saddam didn't run an election and no international organization was there for the election that didnt take place.

Saddam didn't run an election and no international organization was there for the election that didnt take place.
Sure he did. Did you miss it?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/15/iraq.vote/
:rolleyes:

By the way, do you have any proof of Fidel's "fair" election? I did a quick search on it, and came up with this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2830223.stm
The world's longest serving political leader, Cuban President Fidel Castro, has been re-elected for another five-year term.

Members of Cuba's National Assembly approved the 76-year-old leader's nomination as president.

He was the sole candidate.

With an ease which many world leaders might envy, Fidel Castro comfortably secured his sixth presidential term.

His nomination had been put to the 609 members of Cuba's National Assembly.

They duly lined up to vote in secret, and all voted for Mr Castro.

Sounds like a real democratic election to me. :rolleyes:

also capitalism is responsible for 100 million aboriginal dead in north america,


How? How are capital markets responsible for this?


2 million in iraq just in the past 15 years.


No. How so?


120 million for both world wars.


...riiiiight...


100 million in india,


Inane


countless millions in south america, many still under unmarked graves... and this is just info from the top of my head.

You're knee deep in it now...

Do you even know what capitalism is?

also capitalism is responsible for 100 million aboriginal dead in north america, 2 million in iraq just in the past 15 years. 120 million for both world wars. 100 million in india, countless millions in south america, many still under unmarked graves... and this is just info from the top of my head.

where in the world are you getting your statistics from? I doubt 100 million people lived in the entire Western Hemisphere when Columbus showed up, I am pretty sure from the various historical anthropology texts that I have read that the number is closer to 30 million... and far and away the biggest killer was European diseases spread by contact from one disease pool (a REALLY active one) to a static disease pool... no diseases have been confirmed to have transferred from the Western Hemisphere to the Eastern Hemisphere...

2 million Iraqis? Maybe if the death rate has been accelarated dramatically (and it has) but that many... I don't recall the US using chemical weapons on the Marsh Arabs and we know Saddam did

the numbers in India, and vague references to South America need some definite proof... and how long are you measuring and from what date?

the World Wars... yep, you can hold Europe responsible for causing those... and the death toll is almost high enough (new figures indicate World War 2 killed that many, mostly Chinese and Soviet)

but Capitalism isn't the responsible party at least in the Americas... it wasn't even a concept (other than vague feelings in that direction) until Adam Smith wrote the book The Wealth of Nations in the 18th Century, and he was more concerned about Mercantilism (which is not the same)

Do you even know what capitalism is?
Do you? Stop whining

Do you? Stop whining

How am I whining?

No beer for you young man.