I enjoyed this video but the lecturer asked the TED people if they were liberal/conservative on social issues only. Why? What about economic issues? For me the economic issues of the world are far, far more important than social ones. I simply don't believe any of the great conflicts of the world were fought over social issues. Please refer to Jared Diamond's book "Collapse"..

I also found it surprising that left-wingers are supposedly anti-group and anti-loyalty. This flies in the face of pro-socialism and pro-democracy left-wing movements. Socialism and democracy are largely positive words amongst the left-wing, and both require pro-group and pro-loyalty thinking, much more so than the "every man for himself" capitalist right-wing views. It's the Republicans who are trying to "drown the government in the bathtub" in the hopes that individual Americans, each a capitalist maverick, will benefit society through their own greed. It's the Republicans who are the Destroyers here, dismantling the New Deal, and crushing government benefits, and cheering on globalization and capitalism.

Meanwhile, socialism and democracy are all about majority rule. Groups of people. Huge masses of people. Socialism and democracy were revolutionary concepts in the past, but today they are often seen as obsolete. Please refer to the book "It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism failed in the US".

And in a democracy, even if your team loses the election, you must remain loyal to the nation due to the force of the law. You must pay taxes to wars you oppose for example. In a more capitalist society, taxes might be almost entirely abolished, and if you don't support a war, you wouldn't pay for it. Heck, the military would be non-existent, replaced by mercenary groups..

And are American liberals really more tolerant than the conservatives? If so, in what ways? Most American liberals are highly critical of the non-Western world, usually citing human rights issues ("human rights" having been formulated almost entirely by Westerners by the way). Roughly 80% of the world does not exist in the West and they are all condemned regularly in Western liberal circles, from what I've seen. Meanwhile, Western right-wingers condemn the non-Westerners for other reasons, namely economic ones. "The world isn't capitalist enough, not rich enough, not smart enough. Too lazy." Simply put, most Westerners are "Western Supremacists", regardless of liberal or conservative affiliation.

Here's more food for thought. America, the most capitalist (and supposedly the most right-wing) of the white Western nations, is also the MOST diverse racially and culturally (but perhaps the LEAST politically diverse.. there are only TWO parties.) Meanwhile, northern Europe countries, the most socialist, and supposedly the most left-wing, are also the LEAST diverse racially and culturally, but appear to be far more politically diverse (far more parties in parliamentary systems). Which region of the world is more "open", knowing this?

I just hope its better then Mercenaries 2.

qm, Capitalism is not effective when it comes to providing social services such as education, health care and defense because profit motive drives up costs and provides no motive to give quality service.

For instance Iraq. The government has farmed much of the work out to the private sector which means there is no oversight or accountability. Blackwater mercenaries are allowed to operate outside of the law, murdering American troops and Iraqi civilians without any consequences. Halliburton was contracted to provide food for the troops, so to keep costs down, they served spoiled food and tainted water sending many troops to the hospital. The list of these abuses could fill a library.

It is in the interest of profit that the occupation continues for as long as possible with as little progress made as possible to ensure more profit in the future

Education would be the same way. Expensive high quality schools for the well healed and substandard crap for everyone else.

Same goes for healthcare. Sick people are good for profit, so there would be no logical reason to provide adequate service.

You drive on nanny roads every day, are protected by the nanny firemen, nanny police and nanny military, listen to propaganda on the radio via nanny signal.

Why don't you move to a capitalist paradise like Darfur where you will be unhindered by government regulation?

>> ^Farhad2000:
It's so true. Every game coming out is now a sequel. This is the PC line up for 2008.
Fallout 3
Red Alert 3
Mafia 2
Gears of War 2
Starcraft 2
Stalker 2
Mercenaries 2
GTA 4 (PC)
Warhammer Dan of War 2
Diablo 3
Brothers in Arms 2
Far Cry 2
FEAR 2 (Aka Project Origin)
Sacred 2
Jagged Alliance 3
MotoGP 08
Saints Row 2
Street Fighter IV
Postal 3
I don't think Spore counts as its really on the thin line. It could be just a Sims with biology thrown in. Niether does Left 4 Dead, its just a very popular HL Coop mod set in Zombieville.


Bollocks to them all!!
I want Dan Of War 2!!

It's so true. Every game coming out is now a sequel. This is the PC line up for 2008.

Fallout 3
Red Alert 3
Mafia 2
Gears of War 2
Starcraft 2
Stalker 2
Mercenaries 2
GTA 4 (PC)
Warhammer Dan of War 2
Diablo 3
Brothers in Arms 2
Far Cry 2
FEAR 2 (Aka Project Origin)
Sacred 2
Jagged Alliance 3
MotoGP 08
Saints Row 2
Street Fighter IV
Postal 3

I don't think Spore counts as its really on the thin line. It could be just a Sims with biology thrown in. Niether does Left 4 Dead, its just a very popular HL Coop mod set in Zombieville.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
The only difference is that in a true Democracy something would be done about it.


actually if this was a true democracy we the people would get to vote on what happens to them.. luckily we sort of live in a republic and there are laws that as a population we cant abolish. in other words if the US was a true democracy you could get stupid things like 80% are Christian and they could vote to make it illegal to be atheist they have the majority luckily we have the constitution which protects us from our selfs thus its a republic.

QM if we are the good guys we should lead by example. the gorillas in Iraq could capture mercenaries and torture them and use your logic. mercenaries dont represent a country they represent corporations (yes highered by a country but not part of the national armed forces) and they are not solders.. so its ok with you if American mercenaries get tortured for info right? calling them "enemy combatants" is just a loop hole, you dont torture people.

It really was the best gear for playing army.....bout as much accoutrement as a battle-hungry kid could imagine...and still be able to play with dolls and be cool-all the real Joes' had a rucksack with Barbie's shit innit....oh, and stockings and cocaine, for all the ladies in "enemy" territory....The black one looked great in heels....he had real nappy hair, too......not yer run a th' mill, molded blonde like the whitey-Joe...They should have made rasta wigs for em....for the whole, mercenary doll line....

Whoa!! There's an Idea....Blackwater dolls!!!

I used to do asset protection, for a US company .. here in the US. Never ever carried a gun, never want to for a living. But I did go though training on threats, and this sort of stuff.

Its bullshit training, amounts to a school that give you a black belt just because you showed up.

You cannot shoot any one under a percieved threat. It better be a monster threat, because as a mercenary you operate under the radar therefore your punishment will be under the radar.

The sniper was probably a Cossack mercenary. He sounds well trained, and a lot of the terrorist that are well trained seem to be coming from those types of countries. This is the same war for them that they fought during the Russian occupation.

Those soldiers would have shit their pants if it was american people in that car.

This is bullshit.

Deep sadness over the accident? More lies.

I can tell you what happened, they saw the car coming, and opened fire with out warning. They shined the light on the car to blind the passengers so that they could not return fire.

You heard him, "I had a friend die the when a car wouldn't stop..." Discipline Soldier exercise it. There was no warning, only kill. This is how it works. I work with some reservists, from OIF and OIL, and one from Afghanistan they each tell the same story, but then again I'm not media. One of whom never saw combat at all during the first part of the war, and another who saw operations with mercenaries.

I grew up around this kind of stuff,this is what they call acceptable loss. I was taught by retired soldiers wars like these are a waste of life, and the resources that they use.

Also this is the normal FUBAR SNAFU.

Some desk jockey couldn't get the Intel to the guys at the checkpoint, that negroponte was safe and secure at Charlie Victor. Therefore a communication break down, and I would venture to say Criminal Negligence under the US Rule of Law.

The thing that is frightening is that mercenaries are on a 1:1 ratio to actual combat troops right now in Iraq.

The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government’s capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns.

More than 180,000 civilians - including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis - are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Including the recent troop buildup, 160,000 soldiers and a few thousand civilian government employees are stationed in Iraq. The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq - a mission criticized as being undermanned.

- Private Contractors Outnumber US Troops in Iraq

I actually did a report on how Mercenaries are a thing of the past ever since the rise of Nationalism while I was in college...

...I guess I was wrong!

this is why i find it hard to "support the troops during a time of war"... sympathy yes, support... erm no, that seems like the wrong word to use.

especially if the war is illegal in the first place.

of course we can blame the leaders... but they were elected. by the people who "support" the troops.

and let's not forget the mercenaries are there too, with even less checks and balances.

waiting for the MG take on this...

Great point! He talks about the merciless mercenaries who kill for political gain, and the right wing talking heads immediately think he's talking about the troops! Well, not really. They immediately want their audience to think he's talking about the troops. So they start up the usual word twisting and lies. Really, it's worse than a knee jerk reaction defending the men and women in uniform. It's cold and cruel calculation to play on the ignorance of an audience that believes anything they're told.

Can we please stop calling them contractors and start calling them what they SHOULD be called? They are mercenaries. A private contractor fixes leaking pipes; mercenaries (apparently) make the leaks worse.