Franz Von Dietrich

Peacekeeping.

Yeah, incoming repression is just around the corner. With that being said, Erdogan can now fully place the military under civilian control, build a security apparatus, and slowing transform Turkey into another "Islamic Republic/State". Speculation, but highly likely to happen with the AKP (ruling party) in firm grip of control in the legislature. Victory for Islamism, loss for Secularism. inb4 kurds are cited as the "problem"

Some rumors going around that this could be seen as a "self coup", which means he could use this "coup" as false pretense for assuming "emergency" powers. However, the coup is still ongoing, meaning the Turkish state medias attempt to label this as a failed "attempted coup" is utter garbage. I don't know, personally, I support this coup. Some people try arguing that he was democratically elected and that "democracy must be upheld". However, to protect democracy shouldn't people overthrow an autocratic leader attempting to form a theocratic state that is also attempting to undermine Turkey's secular values? I mean, how can someone support a government that openly bombs Kurd's fighting ISIS, supplies Islamic fanatics, and intentionally tries to stir regional instability to be labeled as a "regional power". Oh, and let's not forget how the Turkish government funds mosques in the west that openly support radicalization of the youth. Erdogan was planning to go to Ankara, but instead heads to Istanbul, meaning he doesn't even politically control nor militarily control his country as he claims. And the U.S support for the Turkish government didn't really surprise me seeing how they're both members of NATO.

Cheap responses are the best, right? I've done my work here, no point in wasting time with a troll.

Lol what? Hold up, have you seen most of these horrible regimes that were supported by both the east and west? Firstly, let's look at Zaire (modern day congo) which was led under Mobutu and supported by the west. Mobutu had INTENTIONALLY made his economy and his military be inefficient and in poor quality. He did this so people could not overthrow him,appear as a "savior of the country", while getting millions upon millions from foreign aid from the west. He is known and was very notorious for embezzlement (latest estimate is 5 billion usd dollars). Now looking on the east sponsored side regimes, you can look at Siad Barre (Somalia) and Idi Amin (Uganda), both were ruthless tyrants that were supported by the east. Both of these regimes have finally collapse, and what is the end result? Somalia has a limited and weak central government, while Uganda experiences daily insurgencies either by Christian theocratic fundamentalist or rebel groups from eastern Congo. The fact of the matter is that Africa is in the state it's currently in is due to many years of foreign meddling and imperialism, that did not benefit the people of Africa in the slightest. South Africa only resembles the only stable economy in Africa, but even then it's starting to wither away. Most people of Africa are now appealing to populist rhetoric, that results in destructive instability for the region. Mugabe is a horrible leader, but uses the economic sanctions as "legitimate" reason on why the outside world is somehow trying to usurp their way of life. Oh and, I will bring an economic idea to Africa, both ideologies that were involved in the cold war had a major component that was directly related to economics.

The classic misconception is to label the USSR and its associates in the cold war "Communist". Were they by definition "Communist"? No. Did they enact the practice of transitioning the country into a Socialist society that would lead to a Communist society? No. Venezuela was transformed by "Bolivarian" nationalist populist state under Hugo Chavez who later left Venezuela near bankruptcy, which not even his successor has begin to counter. The only thing you bash is essentially the idea of centrally planned economies that adopts State Capitalism, and enacts Keynesian economics. Marx and Engels literature clearly defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism (the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value) with ownership or control by a state. By definition, a state capitalist country controls the economy (whenever directly or indirectly) and essentially acts like a singular massive corporation lacking innovation in the market. Engels himself would later say in the book "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" that state ownership of the economy (which most self-proclaimed socialist/communist states do) socialism: is not doing away with capitalism, including the process of capital accumulation (assets to gain more wealth) and structure of wage labor (where the worker sells their labour for payment). Engels even argued that state ownership of commercial industry would represent the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production. The USSR and other "communist/socialist" states ARE not what they claim to be, saying and doing are two different concepts. Karl Marx even summarized that a "Communist" society would be a secular, humane, classless stateless society, with peace and the end of exploitation of the comman man's labor. As for the deaths? I can't argue against that, murder is murder. I honestly don't care how many people they murdered, as murder cannot be justified for even one single person. The USSR and other "communist regimes" were notorious for state sponsored terrorism. Oh and to clear this up, Stalin was a self-centered man who relied on a cult of personality while using state terror to stay in power. Mao was a radical populist and believer of agrarianism, who also adopt Stalin's approach and appeal to nationalism. All of the other regimes, were puppet states that were controlled by the USSR. But Kampuchea (Cambodia) wasn't even trying to achieve socialism, it was trying to achieve "Khmer values" and instill radical nationalism while saying education was "bourgeois", they even believe that rural life was better compared to urban life (Pol Pot was a radical maoist btw). So yeah, these men truly do represent a idea that was meant for a "CLASSLESS" society. The truth is these men were dogmatic and reactionary to Karl Marx's and Engels ideas. You can argue how the idea of Communism and Socialism is flawed, but the same can be said for all economic platforms, as nothing human made is perfect.

No.

Welcome!

1. Gross 2. Nasty Anyways for me; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxhaism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-revisionism

Scotland independence here we come!

Oh, I've been looking at: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36612368 Edit: It just gained some momentum for "Remain", now they're 6.2 million with "Leave" being 6.5 million.

Well yes, it's been interesting looking at the current results. It has "Leave" currently in lead with 6.1 million votes to 5.8 million for "Remain".

No. Just kidding, anyways congratulations to achieving peace.

You didn't say anything about chemical weapons!

Welcome!

Hey, welcome back!

Steve lives matter.

Welcome!

You're all lucky I ran out of missiles.

Most of Phoenix current members aren't exactly angry over this war, we simply went with the attitude "just deal with it". Sure, we're losing, but we're not going to give in. We'll put up as much fight as we can.

Yeah, I understand the point of adding it, especially when it comes to war/conflict.