The UN, a basis for a NWO or "worthless organization and should be abolished."

**marx** · 16 Apr 11,, 06:05

It's a hell of a lot more complicated than you can imagine

So then help me to understand. I will not learn anything about why you despise my theories if i do not understand.

OK, so how are thos eviews contradictory to anything you have posted so far?

Marx did not support anything I have mentioned so far, he was for single governments with little international relations.

No problem, so what about the pissing in the wind thing and the flat rock?

yes to the wind, no to the rock.

**Officer of Engineers** · 16 Apr 11,, 06:14

Originally Posted by marx

So then help me to understand. I will not learn anything about why you despise my theories if i do not understand.

I hate to say this. You're not ready to understand. You need a few life's lessons before you can proceed, namely, you need a job and be one of the exploited classes. You need to work long hours for next to nothing wages, only to make your boss look good doing nothing ... except to pay you.

You have yet to appreciate what the next paycheque means to living under a roof, having cooking electricity, and bread on the table. You can intellectually understand it but you have yet to understand hand to mouth existence. Until you do, you cannot understand why those who threaten to take this away from you should be met by all and every force at your hands.

**Wayfarer** · 16 Apr 11,, 06:24

Originally Posted by marx

I am not proposing a NWO, just a world wide alliance where individual countries are still existent.

What would this "alliance" entail and how would it be formed?

**Blue** · 16 Apr 11,, 06:55

Originally Posted by marx

Marx did not support anything I have mentioned so far, he was for single governments with little international relations.

I think you need to re-visit some of your posts. Though not quotes, many of your ideas so far stem from Marxism.

yes to the wind, no to the rock.

Pour something on a flat rock, it splatters and gets on your shoes. Point is, be careful what you discard and how you do it, it can splatter on you and therefore you are not rid of it.

S2 · 16 Apr 11,, 07:12

"...he was for single governments with little international relations..."

Karl Marx actually envisioned an international dictatorship of the proletariet eventually evolving into a stateless and classless society worldwide.

Some call that final stage communism...

**marx** · 18 Apr 11,, 00:39

1. I would like to hear your teachers reply to your email.

just an update on his reply email, He is having a surgery done and will not be able to reply for at least a few days.

**marx** · 21 Apr 11,, 00:28

Being the toughest, meanest, SOB on the block dictates the behaviour of the block.

OOE, sir, with all respect I believe i have found a "loop hole" in your idea that a single world government cannot exist. But first let me start off by saying I have given up on the possibility of a single world government.
By what you said in the topic about defending a modern city, IF lets say a country like the united states ("toughest, meanest, SOB on the block) decided that it wanted to unite the world, then bases on your opnion about the tough guy dictating the behavior of the block, then would it be possible for the world become unified?

p.s. - my teacher has yet to reply to my email.

-marx

**Officer of Engineers** · 21 Apr 11,, 00:48

How many wars has the US lost?

**marx** · 21 Apr 11,, 01:30

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

How many wars has the US lost?

Two. Red Cloud's War and the Vietnam War. However, some consider Red Cloud's War as part of the Indian Wars, which the U.S. won.

the war of 1812 was also a losing war from the beginning and in the end. Barley any military support, 20 naval ships compared to Britain's 1000. America sent a peace offering to England which was signed as the Treaty of Ghent. It was the first Loss for the US. James Madison was the First sitting president to be in battle under fire. during the battle of Washington (DC), Madison took command of a militia artillery unit. He was forced to retreat with the unit during the battle.
the US began the war under Madison with no gains.

EDIT:
The war of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened the U.S. was just that a draw.

**gunnut** · 21 Apr 11,, 01:33

Originally Posted by marx

2, Vietnam and Korea

Zero.

We left Vietnam.

Korea was a tie.

**marx** · 21 Apr 11,, 01:35

Originally Posted by gunnut

Zero.

We left Vietnam.

Korea was a tie.

i Changed my post, and i consider leaving a conflict a loss.

**gunnut** · 21 Apr 11,, 01:39

Originally Posted by marx

i Changed my post, and i consider leaving a conflict a loss.

We're leaving Iraq and will leave A-stan soon.

Vietnam is on the road to capitalism. The old guard commies are gone. Who won that war?

**Parihaka** · 21 Apr 11,, 01:46

Originally Posted by marx

i Changed my post, and i consider leaving a conflict a loss.

Don't do that please if someone has quoted you and you are changing the substance of your statement.
Instead make corrections in a further post "what I meant to say" or "on further reflection" otherwise it gets hopelessly confusing for other members.

**Doktor** · 21 Apr 11,, 01:50

For a scenario that marx described IF someone wins that alone they still need post war taking care of the situation, sorting riots (name it as you want) and the thing is you can't just leave

**Parihaka** · 21 Apr 11,, 01:55

Originally Posted by Doktor

For a scenario that marx described IF someone wins that alone they still need post war taking care of the situation, sorting riots (name it as you want) and the thing is you can't just leave

Why not? If the purpose is regime change, why not just wipe out the regime and leave the survivors to pick new leaders amongst the rubble?