MGSB wants to destroy America with his liberal policies of erasing our history and putting to shame the actions of men who fought for what they believed no matter how much we may not side with them in modern times. (Note the KKK)

We should not worship the people who, blinded by their own bigotry, went against the Constitution. All men have rights, not just white men.

Screw all three of you, if you want to be Neo-Nazis be Neo-Nazis, but don't even try to say you're doing it in the name of freedom. The KKK was a vile terrorist group, the FBI was a secret police group, and your Che was a vile child killer and sadist.

The Confederacy was a system based on the mass enslavement of folk(more enslaving than modern states) and supporting a aristocratic class on their backs. If they had survived the war the south would be economically, industrially , and agriculturally retarded while having to depend on the Union. Nice to know that Neo-Nazis like Dark Knight really just want a aristocratic class everywhere ruling over folk, makes his love of statism make more sense.

Same to Paugers.

The Falconguy is another common nationalist (shut up Panda) who supports a monopoly of violence and freedom restriction to protect freedom. He wants a never-ending cycle of war in the Middle East fueled by US aggression under the guise of protecting democracy(screw that, 51 percent support or 1 percent support, you don't have the right to rule over another person) and establishing order. Tell me what order has the religious fanatic Bush and the hospital bomber Obama brought to Afghanistan and Iraq? Have they made the lives of folk in Pakistan any better with Obama's constant bombing of folk? Or what about his want for a never-ending occupation of Afghanistan? And Bush, the religious fanatic who wanted the world to come together, protect Israel and defeat Gog and Magog, has he brought order to Iraq? No he was another tyrant , another Saddam, just a foreign master instead of a domestic one.

Oh and Hillary Clinton, your favorite person. She ought to be shot by a firing squad , she's a baby killer. When I'm critical of Che, I don't want to come off as only aggressive against Red Revolutionaries. He's not nearly as bad as Clinton, she's one fascist. Oh and who's next? Bernie the bomber, yeah not going to forgive him for his interventionism, the blood of folk in Beograd is on his hands too.

(Bad day)

If I wanted a never ending cycle of violence, I would let it be (especially in this instance). We have made mistakes in the Middle East in the past (2003 Iraq War), but we need to fix our mistakes in the region. We need to diversify investment in the region and make the oil-heavy governments of the region economically stronger.
And Hillary is my favorite person? Don't assume people you don't like are friends with your personal devil.

Clarifications:
Bush had no right or reason to intervene in the region in 2003. There were no WMDs,and what he did was shameful to the United States. Also, while I may side with some of Clinton's policies, I would NOT vote for her, due to some of her shady work as Secretary of State. I personally would vote for Bernie, although he does have some flaws.


Obama had SOME justification for being in Afghanistan and Pakistan (terrorist cells in mountainous regions). But perhaps his biggest blunder was pulling out fully and putting incompetent governments in charge of a horrible situation.

At the end of the day, Bush is mainly at fault. He destroyed the government that many Iraqis looked up to and replaced it with a sham government that looked like an American puppet. Many distrusted the republic. Many then turned to extremism to return Iraq to glory.
As American troops pulled out, extremism was able to flow through and take hold of the population, resulting in ISIS.

Has Obama been pure in the region? No, but he was put in a bad situation to start with. His worst mistake was pulling out too soon and putting an incompetent Iraq and Afghanistan in charge.

Obama stayed in Iraq and killed thousands, if he had left I doubt ISIS would be a thing since he wouldn't have attacked Syria either. His worst mistake was running on a message of peace then continuing a war of occupation and tyranny against the Afghan and Iraq folk as head of the American empire. He should have left right away, but instead he showed his true colors as another George Bush. He had and has no right to murder, kill and oppress other folk to "free" them. Have the hundreds of people killed by drones been liberated? Have the Afghan farmers defending their livelihood and getting shot at by US hired killers been liberated? Foreign intervention is not stabilizing, and this will ring true from the shores of Vietnam to the deserts of Libya. Obama has made the world a less safe place with his terrorism against folk creating ISIS and killing thousands.

You know who else was put in a bad situation? Hitler. Does that justify his actions? No, and it doesn't for Obama either.

Westerners encompasses all of Europe as well as European based civilizations in America (most of American countries if not all), when I was in China "Waiguoren" and people referred as "Westerners" were all Europeans, Russians included. And it is not only China, people in Africa, South Asians and Natives Americans viewed Europeans from everywhere quite similarly.

No, it "encompasses" the west half of the world, so the Americas + a little of Europe and Africa. It's a geographic word, doesn't matter what Chinese folk, it's objectively not most of Europe that is in the west.

"The western world" entails all of the countries which were capitalist as opposed to socialist during the Cold War. For Example:

Ditto, you are thinking of the (sensibly named) capitalist world.

MGSB wants to destroy America with his liberal policies of erasing our history and putting to shame the actions of men who fought for what they believed no matter how much we may not side with them in modern times. (Note the KKK).

Just shut your damn math sewed.

we need to fix our mistakes in the region. We need to diversify investment in the region and make the oil-heavy governments of the region economically stronger.

Even if you believe America was doing "mistakes" in the Middle East and not trying to destabilise the site, it's done a god-awful job. America - out.

Ditto, you are thinking of the (sensibly named) capitalist world.

Literally nobody actually uses that term (https://www.google.com/search?q=capitalist+world&oq=capitalist+world). The commonly used terms are "First world", or, as I've already stated, "Western world" or just "The west".

These terms don't really have any kind of cultural of geographic connotation either. Greece, although widely considered part of the west, is geographically in eastern europe, and is a predominantly Eastern Orthodox christian country.

Same thing for turkey, although being a transcontinental country covering part of eastern europe and part of western asia, and being a predominantly muslim country, is a member of NATO and almost universally considered a western nation.

Literally nobody actually uses that term (https://www.google.com/search?q=capitalist+world&oq=capitalist+world).

Curb your meaning of the word "literally". It's a word going dangerous inflation right now. It's the third result down, "Military Spending is the Capitalist World’s Fuel". Furthermore, using a look for the actual phrase (you searched for two independent words) brings up way more relevant resultats, some of which were the links that you have in your normal search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=capitalist+world&oq=capitalist+world#q=%22capitalist+world%22

"First world" is kind of outdated or historic word, in my thought, now it means the countries with the best living standards, which doesn't bode well in left countries like Scandinavia.

And "west world" is just axiomatically wrong and a great misconception. West is a geographic word, a direction you find on a compass. If you want to wield west to describe a country, it'd be geographically west.

These terms don't really have any kind of cultural of geographic connotation either. Greece, although widely considered part of the west, is geographically in eastern europe, and is a predominantly Eastern Orthodox christian country.

It's purely geographic. If you want cultural or something else adjector, say "West-branch Christian" or "NATO" or "OECD". Greece is to the west of the European midline, so it is in west Europe, obviously not west Earth, though.

Same thing for turkey, although being a transcontinental country covering part of eastern europe and part of western asia, and being a predominantly muslim country, is a member of NATO and almost universally considered a western nation.

No, it's universally not...I don't know what else to say here, it's just axiomatically not.

My use of "literally" in there was a bit of an editing mistake on my part; I normally read my posts before posting to make sure there's no silly mistakes like that. However, my point still remains, the term "Capitalist world" is not a term that's in widespread use.

Compare this to terms I mentioned, such as:

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&safe=off&q=the+western+world&oq=the+western+world

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&safe=off&q=first+world&oq=first+world

And "west world" is just axiomatically wrong and a great misconception. West is a geographic word, a direction you find on a compass. If you want to wield west to describe a country, it'd be geographically west.

It doesn't matter whether it's a misconception, or an outright misnomer; This is beside the point. The point is that this is a term that people use, and have been using for a really long time, not that it is necessarily a technically or linguistically correct term.

It's purely geographic. If you want cultural or something else adjector, say "West-branch Christian" or "NATO" or "OECD". Greece is to the west of the European midline, so it is in west Europe, obviously not west Earth, though.

Greece is east of the prime meridian, and in fact so are many other western european nations.

There's no reason to use terms that people are unfamiliar with simply because they are technically more correct. I see you doing this sometimes with country names, for example, calling Korea "Hanguk". All this really does is confuse things, and simply because it is more technically correct does not justify using an unfamiliar and obscure term.

As another example, The term "Singapore" is technically an incorrect term, as it is derived from a malay phrase meaning "Lion City", obviously a misnomer since there are not and have never been any lions in Singapore.

Under japanese rule during WW2, the city was named "Shōnantō", meaning "southern island obtained in the age of Shōwa", obviously a much more accurate term than "Lion city", but nobody calls it Shōnantō, no matter how correct this name may (have been) be.

Edited 4/23/2016 06:19:54

my point still remains, the term "Capitalist world" is not a term that's in widespread use.

Your point was "Literally nobody actually uses that term". But yes, it might be less widespread, but it's a righter phrase for it. And I don't know even if there is a better phrase being wielded, this is just something I came up with pretty easily.

It doesn't matter whether it's a misconception, or an outright misnomer; This is beside the point. The point is that this is a term that people use, and have been using for a really long time, not that it is necessarily a technically or linguistically correct term.

I agree with that on most points, but for some words, it's so clear what the righter and better word is, it's practically a duty of everyone who knows this word to wield it, or to keep it to its original meaning. For example, "literally". I'd hate for linguistic inflation to just tear down the meaning of that word to "loads", but it's happening in English. That's just very ridiculous seems to me.

Greece is west of the prime meridian, and in fact so are many other western european nations.

Er, no, it' isn't. Greece's eastmost point is still a good 20* east. Out of the European countries, only British isles, France, Iceland, and Iberia are actually west.

I see you doing this sometimes with country names, for example, calling Korea "Hanguk". All this really does is confuse things, and simply because it is more technically correct does not justify using an unfamiliar and obscure term.

I'm against using two words to describe a country, it really annoys me to wield two or more words for a country. I'm fine with calling Korea as Korea, but the Korean Republic is Hanguk.

using an unfamiliar and obscure term.

I think most folk could guess what "capitalist world" means. As for autonyms, that's a different talk, but I am definitely for autonyms.

Er, no, it' isn't. Greece's eastmost point is still a good 20* east. Out of the European countries, only British isles, France, Iceland, and Iberia are actually west.

Sorry, meant to say east.

I agree with that on most points, but for some words, it's so clear what the righter and better word is, it's practically a duty of everyone who knows this word to wield it, or to keep it to its original meaning.

IMO this isn't true, but rather it's the duty of folks to communicate their thoughts in whichever way is the most clear to the people they're communicating with. Using a term that is unfamiliar to them simply because it is more technically correct just makes you seem condescending ("I'm so much smarter than you because I used this technical term and you use this technically incorrect one").

I think most folk could guess what "capitalist world" means. As for autonyms, that's a different talk, but I am definitely for autonyms.

It's a term that is unfamiliar to most people, and as I've already demonstrated, googling it won't help you out very much.

Using endonyms when speaking english (or any foreign language) is definitely less correct than using english names, since after all you are speaking english. It doesn't really make much sense to switch randomly between two different languages in the same sentence.

No, it "encompasses" the west half of the world, so the Americas + a little of Europe and Africa. It's a geographic word, doesn't matter what Chinese folk, it's objectively not most of Europe that is in the west.

"Westerner" isn't necessarily a geographic term, it can refer to a cultural trait shared by many nations and people, as I showed you earlier with the definition I provided:
"It contrasted Europe with the linked cultures and civilizations of the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia and the remote Far East, which early-modern Europeans saw as the East. Today this has little geographic relevance since the concept of the West has been expanded to include the former European colonies in the Americas, Russian Northern Asia, Australia, and New Zealand". Some others consider "Westerners" as people culturally having in common a "Judeo-christian" or Classical Latin-Greek heritage (actually it is a notion very popular among western european intellectuals).

To conclude, we can say that "Westerner" is actually a very polysemous term and we can say your views on this notion and mine and others' are all valid.

Juq and Panda's law: No matter what, the argument will boil down to the definition of a word or term.

it's the duty of folks to communicate their thoughts in whichever way is the most clear to the people they're communicating with.

No, it isn't, otherwise we'd all be speaking Ido a long time ago, or you'd be learning Kazakh. Just to communicate when talking is the goal, but it's the duty of folk to wield the right words, to make their tongue sensible and not just, wrong or hypocritic, something or that.

"Westerner" isn't necessarily a geographic term, it can refer to a cultural trait shared by many nations and people, as I showed you earlier with the definition I provided:

It's exclusively a geographic word. It can refer to cultures of the geographically west: America, Brazil, Britain, so on. What you (and your quote) tell me, though, is that I can say "north" but really mean a specific group of countries: most are actually south, not north. That's ridiculous, just call it whatever the organisation is. OECD, NATO.

It's a term that is unfamiliar to most people, and as I've already demonstrated, googling it won't help you out very much.

You demonstrated with your look that it does help, but it's just self-explanatory, furthermore: capitalist + world.

Edited 4/23/2016 16:07:09

No, it isn't, otherwise we'd all be speaking Ido a long time ago, or you'd be learning Kazakh.

Warlight is a website that is based in the US, and is mostly comprised of native english speakers such as myself, or foreigners who know english, such as yourself. English is a very widely known language with around 700 million speakers, something that can't be said for Ido or kazakh, which only have 2 thousand and 11 million speakers respectively.

If you know that the language most likely to be understood by the person you're talking to is english since practically everyone on the website uses english, then it is no foul to use english. And indeed, you seem to understand english perfectly well.

You demonstrated with your look that it does help, but it's just self-explanatory, furthermore: capitalist + world.

Simply googling the phrase "Capitalist world" doesn't turn up any sort of definition of the phrase such as "The western world" does. And if for example you live in a communist country, or you're just not very familiar with history, it may not be intuitive what "Capitalist world" means.

Edited 4/23/2016 17:08:08

It's exclusively a geographic word.

Juq and his stubbornness, I will sound quite Juqish here I guess: curb your arrogance would you. This term isn't exclusively a geographic word, the thing is I provided at least a source to support my argument, whereas you got none excepted your own opinion, quite futile imho.