Why communists statets are still alive?

[5.56X45mm]

SORRY, I WAS BORN AND ESCAPED A COMMUNIST NATION. I THINK MY OPINIONS MATTER ON THIS TOPIC...

Communism is still in power because there are those in other nations that have nothing. When someone comes into power and tells them that they can have everything without working for it people believe in the lie and support the movement. But once they figure it out it becomes to late.

Basicily it is because there are those that want everything without working for it.

If you live in a village with no power or running water and someone tells you that you'll have a new house with running water, indoor plumbing, power with AC and heater you'll mor ethan likely support him/her before you figure it out that it was all a lie. Why? Because these people think that the world owes them all something. Instead of them realizing that to make it ibn life and to have what you want that you have to work for it.

Communism is a disease that needs to be wiped out....

 

[CABAL]

This topic has nothing to do with communism in fact if you follow the trend of our fellow forum Sandy have posted in the Political Forums, His/her's latest discussions are mainly driven to swipe at countries he/her does not like.

Given the fact that he is a Japanese Nationalists, I do not take Nationalists lightly. So be warned. I have confronted with Turkish Nationalists, Chinese Nationalists, Indian Nationalists, and Right-leaning Nationalists within my own country in Germany.

Nationalism and religious fundamentalism is the true "disease" of our time, not Communism. Communism is an idea that have been decaying ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union therefore the ideology has not been newly adopted by any nations further.

Communism is a disease that needs to be wiped out....

5.56X45mm, despite the fact that you have fled a communist nation, please consider the fact that my own country have been divided by the east and the west. However your assertions that Communism is a disease and needs to be wiped out is an idea Adolf Hitler once have suggested and exactly would have agreed with you. Be careful of what you wish to say.

 

[Missileer]

When I was in the service, our only enemy was communist USSR. All cold war service people knew who the enemy was and it was not a religion. The Russians told us that they would bury us and as far as I know, they have never said anything to refute that statement.

 

[bulldogg]

The belief that groups of people are bound together by territorial, cultural and (sometimes) ethnic links. Although nationalism developed in the 19th century and led to the formation of the nations of Germany and Italy, it was the cause of some of the most dramatic events of the 20th century

[SIZE=-1]www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/browse/glossary.html

By the very definition of nationalism (^^^) Cabal, you yourself are a nationalist. If you use the concept of "my country" or "I am a German" you are subscribing to nationalism. Would you care to clarify what you mean? Or should we all stay tuned to watch you confront yourself??

[/SIZE]

 

[CABAL]

Stop tap dancing Bulldogg. I'm not in the mood to play around with your questions. I have stated something that you have completely taken it out of context. You can spin it, spank it, and kick it all you want however I will not elaborate any further simply because the statement are simple to comprehend. There is no enigmatic code you should decipher in my comments word to word to determine my political ideology. And what concept of "my country" refers to? Is that your new thesis on Nationalism? Or is it you are simply joining Sandy's club of spin doctoring?

Using two sentence meager definitions from Channel 4 to define Nationalism is insufficient and improper. BUT Denying one's own Country's involvement in world war II war crimes is undoubtedly categorized as an extreme form of Nationalism.

 

[bulldogg]

No it is not. The definition of nationalism is that one feels that there is a language, geography and cultural bond that you have with others that somehow unites you into a "country". Denying history is not nationalism, extreme or otherwise. Words carry meaning and the definitions are easy enough to sort out and you sir are being intellectually disingenuous or you missed a class and don't understand what nationalism is. This is not tap dancing, this is asking you to define what exactly you are on about because you are misusing the language. I am giving you allowances since it is not your first language but you are given to occasional bursts of intelligence so I do give you some credit. Perhaps it was my sources, let us dig deeper, I thought you would be familiar with definitions but since you are not and require quantity so be it.

Nationalism has been the subject of hundreds of analyses and dozens of theories. However, the Evans/Newnham definition is a good start.
Political scientists draw a sharp distinction between the concepts of state and nation. State refers to government and other institutions which run the country. Nation, by contrast, is a psychological characteristic, what individuals identify with. There are nation-states in which almost everyone accepts the state as theirs and makes it the primary home of their political identity and loyalty. That would certainly be true of most people in the United States or France, but is less true in countries where people might think of themselves as Scots more than British, Quebecois more than Canadian, or Walloon more than Belgian. There are also countries with important Diasporas or groups of people who live outside the countries' borders but would rather not do so. As we will see later in this article, one of the most tragic examples of nationalism-induced violence occurred when Yugoslavia disintegrated into now six separate states. Only Slovenia was anywhere near homogeneous, and most ethnic minorities chafed under the nationalistic rule of the majority group's leaders.

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/nationalism/

na·tion·al·ism play_w("N0027700")
n.1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationalism

na·tion·al·ism
n.

1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nationalism

Nationalism as a political force emerged on the European scene with the French Revolution. We find nationalists aligned on both sides in the revolutionary struggles and wars of 1789-1815. But no matter what constitutional form nationalists might favour, they occupy common ground in their insistence that the identity of the nation confers value upon the State. In terms of its capacity to mobilise populations, nationalism is clearly the most effective of our modern ideologies. Taking the longer view of modern European history, it may be that the spectra of the French nation at arms will loom larger in significance than the specific goals the revolutionary armies were pursuing.
The roots of nationalism, however, should be sought beyond the sphere of politics. It had initially emerged in the eighteenth century as a reaction against the predominance of French culture in the literary world. In the minds of most intellectuals France and the Enlightenment had been identified as the acme of civilisation and refinement. Yet to critics such as Herder (1744-1803), French cultural supremacy was viewed as intellectually and morally ruinous. Enlightenment thinkers had tended to adopt an abstract, generalising vocabulary, blind to the subtle distinctions and nuances embedded in local cultural traditions. What made matters worse was that German or Italian or Czech writers were being encouraged to couch their work in an idiom and style which derived essentially from France. Peoples were being alienated from their roots. The only way to halt the decline was to foster local cultures. In the view of most nationalists, it was language, above all, that distinguished national cultural units. Individuals identified with their language at the most basic level. A cultural or political programme which countenanced neglect of so much that was important to them ran the risk of moral and intellectual atrophy.

http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/nationalism41.htm

The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

Nationalism n.
1. The state of being national; national attachment;
nationality.

2. An idiom, trait, or character peculiar to any nation.

3. National independence; the principles of the Nationalists.

http://dict.die.net/nationalism/

nationalism

n.1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/n/n0027700.html

Nationalism
The state of being national; national attachment; nationality.
An idiom, trait, or character peculiar to any nation.
National independence; the principles of the Nationalists.

http://www.brainyquote.com/words/na/nationalism193317.html

Now, are we clear??

 

[Italian Guy]

There is nothing wrong, or negative, with the original meaning of the term "nationalism": nationalism, in its wider sense, is the sentiment having you attached to the values and the culture of your own country.
It does not mean believing that your country is situated on a higher level than others: it means that you feel love for your country and will defend it at any cost. You find pride, dignity, bonds, possession.
It is like a mother, you feel yours is super, but that doesn't mean you'll be going after other mothers trying to kill them or that you think the mothers of your friends are sluts. It's your mother, and that's it.
It's your house, no matter how gorgeous the house of others is, your home is where your own kids play and your wife cooks. You are going to protect it at any cost.
So is nationalism.
Nationalism was born as a typical European phenomenon, back when nation-States were being erected, France to the French, Russia to the Russians. Today nationalism may differ, especially American nationalism is not based on blood and religion, for instance, but it's just as noble as others, if not nobler.
You are right, Cabal, that nationalism may be interpreted and twisted and misused, just like religion. But then everything can, religion= integralism, democracy= corruption, freedom= crime.
But I am not going to let the fanatics change the way I speak and the meaning the dictionary attaches to words.

 

[bulldogg]

 

[sandy]

Vietnam war era,Not so many people of south vietnam didn't believe how terrible life under rule of communist even US had alarmed them　and killing civilian at Huế showed how dangerous communists were.
Yes,politicians of south vietnam were totally corrupted but their economy power was two times stronger　than north's(Don't hope any good financial support by Soviet or China).
They were off guard.
And then,so many people escaped from Red-vietnam by boats but about half of them sank in the sea.

BUT Denying one's own Country's involvement in world war II war crimes is undoubtedly categorized as an extreme form of Nationalism.

This is my answer

http://www.sdh-fact.com/index.html
An Open letter to Representative Honda
The Honorable Mike Honda
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1713 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515?0515

RE: An Open letter to Representative Honda

Dear Representative Honda:

On January 31, 2007 you, along with six other
Representatives, submitted House Resolution 121, which
calls on the Japanese government to apologize for having
forced young women to become sex slaves during World War
II, to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The
import of Resolution 121 is identical to that of
Resolution 759, which expired in committee last year.

On September 28, 2006, we sent the attached letter to
all members of the House of Representatives. In it, we
indicated that the accusations in Resolution 759 were
exceedingly unjust and based on gross distortions of
historical fact. Accordingly, we find it very difficult
to comprehend your reasons for submitting this
resolution.. We strongly urge you to withdraw it without
delay.

If you choose not to withdraw Resolution 121, you must
shoulder the burden of disproving historical fact as
outlined in the aforementioned letter. The persons
referred to as “comfort women” were prostitutes (a
legal profession at the time) working in brothels; they
were indisputably not coerced to engage in such
activities by the Japanese military.

We would like to draw particular attention to excerpts
from two official U.S. military records cited in our
letter. The first is a report issued by the United
States Office of War Information, Psychological Warfare
Team Attached to U.S. Army Forces, India-Burma Theater,
which states that ”comfort girls” are nothing more
than a prostitute or professional “camp follower”, and
the girls’ average total monthly earnings were 1,500
yen, and 750 yen went to their master. (The monthly
salary of a sergeant in the Japanese Army at the time
was 30 yen; thus, the prostitutes made over 25 times
more!)

The second can be found in depositions taken from three
Korean civilian employees of the Japanese army, who
stated the following: In the battle zones of the Pacific
War, the Korean comfort women we met were all either
volunteers, or women who had been sold by their parents.
If the women had been victims of coercion, all the
Koreans both young and old would have risen up in rage,
and regardless of whatever retaliation, killed the
Japanese (from Composite Report on Three Korean
Civilians, List No. 78, dated 28 March 1945, “Special
Question on Koreans” in the U.S. National Archives).

We also attach a research paper that describes the
comfort women, and how misunderstandings about them
originated in Japan and grew into an international
problem of monumental proportions. It also discusses how
the various nations involved in the Pacific War dealt
with the sexual needs of their military personnel in
battle zones. It is our fervent hope that you will read
it and the other attachment, and, thus, arrive at an
accurate understanding of the comfort women and their
circumstances.

We appeal to your wisdom and sense of justice, as this
is a matter of honor for us, as Japanese, and also
affects the human rights of all concerned. We look
forward to your reply.

Very truly yours,[FONT=verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucida grande',arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[CABAL]

This is my answer

What you have done is slap a letter from the "Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact" to the US House of Representatives but What are you implying? Can't use your own words to express your opinion? Then I can't speak with you any further.

What are you doing? What do you want? Who are you?

This letter was written on behalf of "Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact", an organizational that is very suspicious since all the members are Japanese. Their goals are to attempt to lobby efforts in Washington to avert the resolution passed in congress regarding to the subject of Comfort Women. In addition, they write every nonsense there is to deny the existence of the Nanking Massacre. Their intent is to deny the existence of comfort women. To deny the fact that Manchukuo was actually used as a source for war material for the Imperial Japanese Military, claiming it as a "last refuge for the Chinese".

This letter is nothing more than a "face-saving" campaign to keep and maintain Japanese honor. However there is no honor in denying the crimes that have ravaged other nations in the past.

Lastly, Take a look at your government's position on Comfort women in 1993 and use your common sense.

I'm not going to comment any further

 

[bulldogg]

Cabal... have you sorted out what nationalism is yet? IG and I were wondering or are you just going to try and pick on Sandy whose grasp of English is more tenuous than your own?

 

[CABAL]

If we're going to have a discussion about the term Nationalism, I can guarantee the this topic will last to the next 10 pages. There are many different aspects of nationalism that should be taken into account, not just the basic concept of National identity or creation of a nation-state. Unfortunately, I don't have and cannot find the time to discuss Nationalism with you.

Bulldogg, my intentions are to attack at Sandy's right-wing comments. For those who are studying the contemporary politics of East Asia, they are well aware that there is a steady rise of militant right-wing activists in Japan. If you pay attention to the posts Sandy have made on almost every occasion here in the political forums, my sentiments may be true. He or her have taken every article completely out of context in favor for his/her country bashing.

Ever since the North Korean missile tests, the alleged nuclear test, and a rising China, the Uyoku are gaining popularity many of which people like Sandy are following their ideology. Now there is nothing wrong of becoming critical about the policies of Japan's neighbors; North Korea, South Korea and China, however historical denial and ignorance surely does not share the same sentence with justice.

One must wonder, why are the relations between Japan and its neighbors have worsened over the few years? At first the LDP of Japan have become reasonable about history during the 50's, 60's, and 70's, mainly because the generation that led that country have experienced the Second World War. However with a new generation of Japan's leadership in power, it appears almost none of them have a slight idea of what happened 62 years ago. Currently there is a battle between the left and right in Japan, the right becoming the most loudest and violent.

I have been analyzing the possibilities of a boiling war in East Asia, but what are the possibilities and causes from all these tensions? Perhaps Ultra-nationalism is the answer to that question.

What started the first world war? What started the second world war? These wars are started by fanatical ultra-nationalists who believe their political power can be achieved by guns and weapons.