DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on December 26, 2009, 12:13:44 PM
-
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5056190,00.html (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5056190,00.html) ;D
-
"This year, Romania marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of its Stalinist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. For 45 years, the regime ruled with an iron fist, executing, jailing and persecuting Romanian dissidents."
Obviously propaganda.
By the war, spell check doesn't work with firefox. At least not on my computer.
-
By the war, spell check doesn't work with firefox. At least not on my computer.
Bring up the Preferences windows, select Advanced, under the General tab, make sure that "Check spelling as I type" is checked.
-
Thanks Ami.
-
Take a look at http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4905885,00.html
for a quick look at Romania before and after the fall of the "evil communist dictator." What a fucking joke.
Typical story of "development aid" for the "underdeveloped" world, be that Romania, Latin America or South-East Asia. The only variants are how sophisticated or unsophisticated the locals happen to be and the amount of wealth available to be extracted from the target.
BTW, it never fails to amaze me that the fiscal conservative movement hasn't erected any statues to Ceausescu. He was the ONLY European leader, communist or non-communist, whose country never went into debt and always ran a surplus, year after year after year. And that's despite all the "lavish palaces" and "antique automobile" extravaganzas that the Ceausescus were supposedly enriching themselves with out of the public purse.
-
No matter how hard conserve-atives like you try, Snowblower, you can't stop change. You can only postpone the inevitable. Doesn't matter whether the change is for the better, or for the worse. It's gonna happen.
Snowblower, We, and Rich, are all the same person, tip toeing through life trying to preserve some historically fleeting moment.
-
>>BTW, it never fails to amaze me that the fiscal conservative movement hasn't erected any statues to Ceausescu.<<
We don't erect monuments to communist propaganda.
-
<<We don't erect monuments to communist propaganda.>>
I was just being facetious, Rich. I already know what kind of propaganda you erect your monuments to.
-
Bring up the Preferences windows, select Advanced, under the General tab, make sure that "Check spelling as I type" is checked.
On my Foxfire, you have to go to "Tool", then "Options" then "Advanced" There is no preferences tab.
-
<<No matter how hard conserve-atives like you try, Snowblower, you can't stop change. You can only postpone the inevitable. Doesn't matter whether the change is for the better, or for the worse. It's gonna happen.>>
How profound. Too bad nobody told Winston Churchill that he couldn't stop "the wave of the future." He needed a guy like you at his side, BSB. Coulda saved him a whole lot of blood, toil, tears and sweat.
There are some things in life that are worth conserving, otherwise there would never have been a "conservative" movement in the first place. Too bad the present "conservatives" (so-called) have given the whole thing a bad name. It was not always a cheap perversion.
-
BTW, it never fails to amaze me that the fiscal conservative movement hasn't erected any statues to Ceausescu. He was the ONLY European leader, communist or non-communist, whose country never went into debt and always ran a surplus, year after year after year.
Despite his increasingly totalitarian rule, Ceauşescu's political independence from the Soviet Union and his protests against the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 drew the interest of Western powers, who briefly believed he was an anti-Soviet maverick and hoped to create a schism in the Warsaw Pact by funding him. Ceauşescu did not realise that the funding was not always very favorable. Ceauşescu was able to borrow heavily (more than $13 billion) from the West to finance economic development programs, but these loans ultimately devastated the country's financial situation. In an attempt to correct this situation, Ceauşescu decided to eradicate Romania's foreign debts. He organised a referendum and managed to change the constitution, adding a clause that barred Romania from taking foreign debts in the future. The referendum yielded a nearly unanimous "yes" vote.
In the 1980s, Ceauşescu ordered the export of much of the country's agricultural and industrial production in order to repay its debts. The resulting domestic shortages made the everyday life of Romanian citizens a fight for survival as food rationing was introduced and heating, gas and electricity black-outs became the rule. During the 1980s, there was a steady decrease in the living standard, especially the availability and quality of food and general goods in stores. The official explanation was that the country was paying its debts and people accepted the suffering, believing it to be for a short time only and for the ultimate good.
The debt was fully paid in summer 1989, shortly before Ceauşescu was overthrown, but heavy exports continued until the revolution, which took place in December.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu#Foreign_debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu#Foreign_debt)
(http://qrcode.kaywa.com/img.php?s=5&d=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F5287Iw)
-
Hmm, cool, but too big. Would be better if they could be put on the side...
OK, if I bit.ly the link first, it's smaller...
-
>>I was just being facetious, Rich.<<
So was I genius.
You're famous for calling anything that you disagree with propaganda. Two can play that game.
-
Ah Snowblower, it was Hitler that was trying to stop change. Like you he just wanted to kill everybody that disagreed with his idea of the world.
Oh well, this is over your head, KramerII.
-
<<Ah Snowblower, it was Hitler that was trying to stop change. >>
Let's see. He gave Germany a new flag. A new system of political organization. A new grammar. A new official race-based concept of citizenship. A new army (Waffen SS) alongside the old army. New para-military police, the S.A. and the S.S. New youth organizations. New labour organizations.
<<Oh well, this is over your head, KramerII. >>
So you say. So what exactly was the change that he was trying to stop?
-
Didn't he have an extreme dislike for Bolsheviks.
-
All designed to do one thing, Kramer II, avoid change. Make the world over in his eyes and avoid change. Just like Stalin, just like bin Laden, just like Castro, just like you, and just like all the other "put 'em up against the wall and shoot 'em" assholes that flash upon the scene for a moment, then disappear.
-
I'll just repeat the question I asked before that you still haven't answered:
<<So what exactly was the change that he was trying to stop?>>
I wouldn't even bother trying to answer that one, BSB. You obviously don't know WTF you are talking about, as your repetitive and non-responsive last post clearly shows, and you're just going to embarrass yourself further if you try to defend your moronic proposition that Hitler was trying to prevent change.
If you had an answer to my question, you would have given it in your last post, but you didn't because you couldn't.
Hitler was one of the most radically transformative forces in modern European history and his intention was to create a new regime (the Third Reich) that was to last for a thousand years. The old ideas were to be thrown out. Nazism was a movement for the young, not the old. Fortunately, Churchill did not want to see that kind of change and he was willing to sacrifice everything to make sure that it would never happen.
-
Snowblower, the powers that go with change stick around, those who don't don't. It's so obvious to anyone but a commie like you. China has been forced to change. The Soviet Union is gone. Cuba won't be shit until they accept change. The list just goes on and on. Hitler is gone because he was so averse to life as it is with it's natural flow of change he killed 6,000,000 jews and 6,000,000 others for good measure.
Get an education then maybe you won't have to post in this shithole where no one can see your ignorence.
-
LMFAO. Still can't answer the simple question, if Hitler was trying to stop change, then - - What changes was Hitler trying to prevent?
BSB, you've proven again and again you don't know WTF you're talking about. Slithering away from the issue, China, blah, USSR, blah.
Give it up, man, you're embarrassing yourself.
-
Ha ha, I answered the question, Hitler couldn't accept CHANGE. Just like you. Trying to make Germany the power of Europe and next the world is running from the natural change that occurs everyday, every week, every year, every century. You can't freez history asshole. You have to accept the natural order of change. God you're dumb man.
-
Snowblower came in here the day after we elected Obama and said yeah you elected a black president but you haven't CHANGED all that much. And you've been trying to prove that we haven't changed everyday since.
You're just like Hitler. No, CHANGE?, please no.
-
Jesus Christ Snowblower, it takes you forever to post.
-
Jesus Christ Snowblower, it takes you forever to post.
time goes slow when you are high
-
BSB, it's probably better if we don't get into discussions of how dumb I am, or how much more education I need. First of all it's not really all that relevant to the subject at hand, and secondly, you're not exactly immune to the same kind of observations. We're neither one of us scholars, or geniuses, and this non-stop mud-slinging is pointless and offensive.
Other than obstinately repeating that Hitler didn't want to allow change, you have not pointed to a single specific change that Hitler did not want to allow, while I have pointed out about half a dozen specific changes that Hitler DID make in Germany's laws, social structures, basic political philosophy, military and police organization and even in the German grammar.
I just can't waste any further time on this bullshit. I've got to move on.
-
Oh my god. Change doesn't come with a code. You don't know what change will occur. It could be a pandemic. It could be a discovery. It could be a new nation. It could be 9/11. It could be Iraq. People like Hitler think they can control it all. People like you think they can control it. Hitler couldn't, you can't, Castro couldn't. Bush couldn't. LBJ tried to stop the change in Vietnam, but of course he couldn't do it. 50 years ago a black man couldn't sit in the same dinning room as I could. That's all changed because most people aren't like Hitler.
-
<<time goes slow when you are high>>
Yes and no. Time goes slow and fast.
Every second is an eternity and every eternity is a second. And that is a universal truth that doesn't depend on being high or not being high but that you can only fully appreciate and accept when you're high or if you've ever been high once and seen it.
Amazing, huh? WTF IS it all about?
-
Take a look at http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4905885,00.html
for a quick look at Romania before and after the fall of the "evil communist dictator." What a fucking joke.
Typical story of "development aid" for the "underdeveloped" world, be that Romania, Latin America or South-East Asia. The only variants are how sophisticated or unsophisticated the locals happen to be and the amount of wealth available to be extracted from the target.
BTW, it never fails to amaze me that the fiscal conservative movement hasn't erected any statues to Ceausescu. He was the ONLY European leader, communist or non-communist, whose country never went into debt and always ran a surplus, year after year after year. And that's despite all the "lavish palaces" and "antique automobile" extravaganzas that the Ceausescus were supposedly enriching themselves with out of the public purse.
The 20th anniversary of the fall of communism in Romania = my niece turning 20 years old. She was born during the collapse, in Romania. The nurses in the hospital named her "Victoria," expressing their joy over freedom from the dictator's regime.
And true, amazingly, the country was not in debt. But his lavish palaces were at the expense of the ordinary people's suffering.
-
And true, amazingly, the country was not in debt.
Well, except for the billions in debt to other countries...
-
And true, amazingly, the country was not in debt.
Well, except for the billions in debt to other countries...
Can you clarify further, Ami? I think it is general understanding that under communism, somehow, Romania was debtless. That is untrue?
-
Can you clarify further, Ami? I think it is general understanding that under communism, somehow, Romania was debtless. That is untrue?
From this post, earlier in this thread (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=8639.msg90933#msg90933):
Despite his increasingly totalitarian rule, Ceauşescu's political independence from the Soviet Union and his protests against the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 drew the interest of Western powers, who briefly believed he was an anti-Soviet maverick and hoped to create a schism in the Warsaw Pact by funding him. Ceauşescu did not realise that the funding was not always very favorable. Ceauşescu was able to borrow heavily (more than $13 billion) from the West to finance economic development programs, but these loans ultimately devastated the country's financial situation. In an attempt to correct this situation, Ceauşescu decided to eradicate Romania's foreign debts. He organised a referendum and managed to change the constitution, adding a clause that barred Romania from taking foreign debts in the future. The referendum yielded a nearly unanimous "yes" vote.
In the 1980s, Ceauşescu ordered the export of much of the country's agricultural and industrial production in order to repay its debts. The resulting domestic shortages made the everyday life of Romanian citizens a fight for survival as food rationing was introduced and heating, gas and electricity black-outs became the rule. During the 1980s, there was a steady decrease in the living standard, especially the availability and quality of food and general goods in stores. The official explanation was that the country was paying its debts and people accepted the suffering, believing it to be for a short time only and for the ultimate good.
The debt was fully paid in summer 1989, shortly before Ceauşescu was overthrown, but heavy exports continued until the revolution, which took place in December.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu#Foreign_debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu#Foreign_debt)
-
Abu Ghraib was a spa compared to this:
Piteşti prison
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Piteşti prison (Romanian: ?nchisoarea Piteşti) was a penal facility in Piteşti, Romania, best remembered for the brainwashing experiment carried out by Communist authorities in 1949-1952 (also known as Experimentul Piteşti - the "Piteşti Experiment" or Fenomenul Piteşti - the "Piteşti Phenomenon"). The latter was designed as an attempt at violently "reeducating" the mostly young political prisoners, male members of banned groupings such as the National Peasants' and National Liberal parties, as well as those who claimed inspiration from the fascist Iron Guard or Zionist members of the Romanian Jewish community.[1]
The experiment's goal, compliant with the regime's take on Leninism, was for prisoners to discard past political and religious convictions, and, eventually, to alter their personalities to the point of absolute obedience.[2] Estimates for the total number of people passed through the experiment range from 1,000[2] to 5,000.[3] It is considered the largest and most intensive brainwashing torture program in the Eastern bloc.[4]
The prison itself was built at an earlier stage ? according to Eugen Măgirescu, work on it had begun in the late 1930s, under King Carol II, and had been completed during Ion Antonescu's rule (see Romania during World War II).[5] For a while after the proclamation of a Romanian People's Republic, it continued to house primarily those found guilty of misdemeanors.[5]
The early stages of "reeducation" had occurred at the prison in Suceava, being soon adopted in Piteşti and, less violently, in Gherla prison.[6] The group of overseers had been formed from people who had themselves been arrested and found guilty of political crimes, and was headed by Eugen Ţurcanu, a student at the University of Iaşi and former member of the Iron Guard, who had joined the Communist Party before being purged.[7] Ţurcanu, who was probably acting on the orders of Securitate deputy chief Alexandru Nikolski,[8] selected a tight unit of reeducation survivors as his assistants in carrying out political tasks. This group was called the Organizaţia Deţinuţilor cu Convingeri Comuniste (ODCC, "Organization of Convinced Communist Detainees"),[9] and included the future Orthodox priest and dissident Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa and the Jewish Petrică Fux.[10]
The wave of Suceava inmates who had passed through the early stages was sent to Piteşti, where the initially humane treatment became subject to increasing restrictions ? according to Măgirescu, the situation rapidly degenerated in June.[5]
[edit] Stages of "reeducation"
The process begun after that date involved psychological punishment (mainly through humiliation) and physical torture.[11]
Detainees, who were subject to regular and severe beatings, were also required to engage in torturing each other, with the goal of discouraging past loyalties.[12] Guards would force them to attend scheduled or ad-hoc political instruction sessions, on topics such as dialectical materialism and Joseph Stalin's History of the CPSU(B) Short Course, usually accompanied by random violence and encouraged delation (demascare, lit. "unmasking") for various real or invented misdemeanors.[13]
Each victim of the experiment was initially subject to regular interrogation, during which torture was applied as a means to expose intimate details of his life ("external unmasking").[14] Hence, they were required to reveal everything they were thought to have hidden from previous interrogations; hoping to escape torture, many prisoners would confess imaginary misdeeds.[15] The second phase, "internal unmasking", required the tortured to reveal the names of those who had behaved less brutal or somewhat indulgently towards them in detention.[14]
Public humiliation was also enforced, usually at the third stage ("public moral unmasking"),[14] inmates were forced to denounce all their personal beliefs, loyalties, and values. Notably, religious inmates were dressed as figures of Christ, and all others were required to address them insults;[5] they had to blaspheme religious symbols and sacred texts.[9]
The inmates were required to accept the notion that their own family members had various criminal and grotesque features; they were required to author false autobiographies, comprising accounts of deviant behavior.[14] According to Dumitru Bacu: "By injecting gradually into the victim's subconscious information different from what he had always accepted as real and true, by altering and constantly deprecating existing reality and substituting for it a fictitious image, the re-educator at last achieved the final purpose of the unmasking: to make the lie so real to the victim that he would forget what had formerly for him made sense."[16] This led to a "complete reversal, for an indeterminate time, of the values in which the student had always believed".[17]
In addition to physical violence, inmates subject to "reeducation" were supposed to work for exhausting periods in humiliating jobs (for example, cleaning the floor with a rag clenched between the teeth). Malnourished and kept in degrading and unsanitary conditions,[18] inmates were prevented from engaging in contacts with the outside world, and forced to cover their eyes in the few instances where they could walk out of their cells.[5]
It has been argued that techniques used by the ODCC were ultimately derived from Anton Makarenko's controversial pedagogy and penology principles in respect to rehabilitation.[15] On at least one occasion, Makarenko was allegedly cited as inspiration by Ţurcanu himself.[5]
The prison also ensured a preliminary selection for the labor camps at the Danube-Black Sea Canal, Ocnele Mari, and other sites, where squads of former inmates were supposed to extend the experiment.[15]
[edit] Ending and legacy
In 1952, as Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej successfully maneuvered against the Minister of the Interior Teohari Georgescu, the process was stopped by the authorities themselves.[2] The ODCC secretly faced trial for abuse, and over twenty death sentences were handed out (Ţurcanu was held responsible for the murder of 30 prisoners, and the abuse exercised on 780 others);[19] Securitate officials who had overseen the experiment, including Colonel Teodor Sepeanu, were tried the following year ? all were given light sentences, and were freed soon after.[20] Responding to new ideological guidelines, the court concluded that the experiment had been the result of successful infiltration of American and Horia Sima's Iron Guard agents into the Securitate, with the goal of discrediting Romanian law enforcement.[21]
Abandoned and partially in ruin, the building was sold to a construction firm in 1991 (after the Revolution of 1989; several of the facilities have either been torn down or suffered major changes).[3] A memorial was built in front of the prison's entrance.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pite%C5%9Fti_prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pite%C5%9Fti_prison)
-
Apart from beatings, I found absolutely no mention of any specific kind of torture in the account of this prison. Prisoners are beaten in jails all over the world, sometimes fatally. Happens here in Canada, happens in Arkansas and Louisiana, and my guess is that there is no place it does not happen. So I am not going to pretend to be shocked that prisoners were beaten at Pitesti prison. I would not expect Romanian standards to be anywhere near Canadian or U.S. standards. Those people are savages.
Somebody, BTW, should do a little research on the Iron Guard. They are even worse than Nazis in the kind of atrocities they have perpetrated. Whatever happened to them in Pitesti prison was just not bad enough.
To call this prison worse than Abu Ghraib is nothing short of mind-boggling. At Abu Ghraib, prisoners were smothered to death, beaten to death, savaged by attack dogs, hooded, raped and electrocuted. 90% of the photos of Abu Ghraib STILL haven't been released and the Obama regime seems as determined as its criminal predecessor to keep them locked up forever. Abu Ghraib was many times worse than this place, as even the article posted appears to indicate. The psychological, sexual and climate-control abuse at Abu Ghraib, including sleep deprivation and forced sensory overload was equivalent to the physical abuse and torture there.
Only a brain deadened by relentless American propaganda could even think of comparing this place to Abu Ghraib.
-
Can you clarify further, Ami? I think it is general understanding that under communism, somehow, Romania was debtless. That is untrue?
From this post, earlier in this thread (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=8639.msg90933#msg90933):
Despite his increasingly totalitarian rule, Ceauşescu's political independence from the Soviet Union and his protests against the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 drew the interest of Western powers, who briefly believed he was an anti-Soviet maverick and hoped to create a schism in the Warsaw Pact by funding him. Ceauşescu did not realise that the funding was not always very favorable. Ceauşescu was able to borrow heavily (more than $13 billion) from the West to finance economic development programs, but these loans ultimately devastated the country's financial situation. In an attempt to correct this situation, Ceauşescu decided to eradicate Romania's foreign debts. He organised a referendum and managed to change the constitution, adding a clause that barred Romania from taking foreign debts in the future. The referendum yielded a nearly unanimous "yes" vote.
In the 1980s, Ceauşescu ordered the export of much of the country's agricultural and industrial production in order to repay its debts. The resulting domestic shortages made the everyday life of Romanian citizens a fight for survival as food rationing was introduced and heating, gas and electricity black-outs became the rule. During the 1980s, there was a steady decrease in the living standard, especially the availability and quality of food and general goods in stores. The official explanation was that the country was paying its debts and people accepted the suffering, believing it to be for a short time only and for the ultimate good.
The debt was fully paid in summer 1989, shortly before Ceauşescu was overthrown, but heavy exports continued until the revolution, which took place in December.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu#Foreign_debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu#Foreign_debt)
Right - debtless. The debt was paid off before the regime was overthrown. Which is remarkable.
-
Only a brain deadened by relentless American propaganda could even think of comparing this place to Abu Ghraib.
The ODCC secretly faced trial for abuse, and over twenty death sentences were handed out (Ţurcanu was held responsible for the murder of 30 prisoners, and the abuse exercised on 780 others);
And the body count At Abu Ghraib was what?
-
Right - debtless. The debt was paid off before the regime was overthrown. Which is remarkable.
The propaganda is that it was debtless, however, it was in debt for most of it's existence. It wrote off a lot of debt when formed, then promptly went back into debt, and only cleared it's debts immediately before the regime was overthrown. It spent nearly it's entire existence in debt.
-
<<And the body count At Abu Ghraib was what?>>
Nobody's telling and nobody knows. Some of the photos released show guards posing with the corpses of their victims, but over 90% of the pictures were never released.
Besides you're not going to consider a Romanian body count seriously are you? When Ceasescu was in power the body count was close to zero, when his murderers were in power, it suddenly skyrockets to whatever they want it to be. I'm just surprised that they managed to keep it below the total head count of prisoners.
-
The torture and murders took place under Ceasescu 's predecessor and the Soviets themselves, and under Communist Party rule.
-
"...savaged by attack dogs,..."
Well that one is new, I would guess the main diffrence is that the program of beatings in Roumania was official and government established .
At Abu Garaib the evidence sent a brace of soldiers to jail and got a general fired, it didn't go on for more than a few months and the death count was a lot lower.
Apples to apples Abu Graib comes off as a much smaller instance of misbehavior except for one thing, as you mentioned, Americans are held to a high standard.
-
<<The torture and murders took place under Ceasescu 's predecessor and the Soviets themselves, and under Communist Party rule. >>
For christ sake, we are talking about fucking Romanians. You think their tortures and murders started under communism? Under Ceausescu's predecessors? Under the Soviets? You obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
-
For christ sake, we are talking about fucking Romanians.
Yup, subhuman, every one of 'em.
Good thing you're not racist, or we'd hear some REAL bigotry out of you, huh?
-
So now it's "racist" to point out the history of torture in Romanian prisons under the Antonescu and then the Iron Guard regimes?
You're not just deluded, you're crazy.
-
So now it's "racist" to point out the history of torture in Romanian prisons under the Antonescu and then the Iron Guard regimes?
You're not just deluded, you're crazy.
Yes , was there ever a racist who didn't have anecdotes to tell , testifying of the inferiority of his chosen inferiors?
-
For christ sake, we are talking about fucking Romanians. You think their tortures and murders started under communism? Under Ceausescu's predecessors? Under the Soviets? You obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
What I am talking about is the mistreatment of prisoners under Romanian Communism and supposedly under the watchful eye of the Soviets.
We haven't even talked about the cattle cars loaded with 70k peasants to rural areas of Romania, uprooting families to break any resistance to collectivism.
-
<<What I am talking about is the mistreatment of prisoners under Romanian Communism and supposedly under the watchful eye of the Soviets.>>
Which from your own source appeared to consist of beatings no different from those administered in prisons all over the world. When you attempted to link the mistreatment of Romanian prisoners in Romanian jails by Romanian guards to communism your posting became totally ridiculous.
-
<<What I am talking about is the mistreatment of prisoners under Romanian Communism and supposedly under the watchful eye of the Soviets.>>
Which from your own source appeared to consist of beatings no different from those administered in prisons all over the world. When you attempted to link the mistreatment of Romanian prisoners in Romanian jails by Romanian guards to communism your posting became totally ridiculous.
AS long as it isn't a crime to be insuficiently communist. What that story reminded me of was "Clockwork Orange".
-
It has elements of Clockwork Orange. Any attempt at political "re-education" has those echoes. Probably Clockwork Orange was inspired by communist "re-education."
The worst communist "re-education" is more humane than Abu Ghraib. No re-education campaign ever killed more people than the Americans killed in either Viet Nam or Iraq. So I'm not impressed by American "shock and horror" over communist re-education projects. Strikes me as kinda hypocritical, in fact.
-
It has elements of Clockwork Orange. Any attempt at political "re-education" has those echoes. Probably Clockwork Orange was inspired by communist "re-education."
The worst communist "re-education" is more humane than Abu Ghraib. No re-education campaign ever killed more people than the Americans killed in either Viet Nam or Iraq. So I'm not impressed by American "shock and horror" over communist re-education projects. Strikes me as kinda hypocritical, in fact.
Quite the contrary Mao has to be the champion and Stalin the runner up in the twentyeth century mass murder competition.
I think Hitler is the second runner up , but not for want of trying very hard.
Abu Graib was shut down by Americans , the whole sorry episode lasted less than a year and was punishable under laws we already had.
Stalins goons and Maos cadres retired with honors , with a few notable exceptions like Stalins right hand man Beria and Maos Widow , who served well as scapegoats after the great mens death.
-
Right - debtless. The debt was paid off before the regime was overthrown. Which is remarkable.
The propaganda is that it was debtless, however, it was in debt for most of it's existence. It wrote off a lot of debt when formed, then promptly went back into debt, and only cleared it's debts immediately before the regime was overthrown. It spent nearly it's entire existence in debt.
True.
-
Romania has a long tradition of corruption, sadism and abuse of power, dating back to the time when it was the Roman province of Dacia. The culture is a part of this, I hardly think it's genetic.
-
The worst communist "re-education" is more humane than Abu Ghraib. No re-education campaign ever killed more people than the Americans killed in either Viet Nam or Iraq. So I'm not impressed by American "shock and horror" over communist re-education projects. Strikes me as kinda hypocritical, in fact.
Apples to oranges. If you want to compare body counts the Soviets win hands down.
Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.[78] Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million ? a total of about 9 million victims of repression.[79]
Some have also included deaths of 6 to 8 million people in the 1932?1933 famine as victims of Stalin's repression. This categorization is controversial however, as historians differ as to whether the famine was a deliberate part of the campaign of repression against kulaks and others,[53] or simply an unintended consequence of the struggle over forced collectivization.[48][80][81]
Accordingly, if famine victims are included, a minimum of around 10 million deaths?6 million from famine and 4 million from other causes?are attributable to the regime,[82] with a number of recent historians suggesting a likely total of around 20 million, citing much higher victim totals from executions, gulags, deportations and other causes.[83] Adding 6?8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a total of between 15 and 17 million victims. Researcher Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.[84] Others maintain that their earlier higher victim total estimates are correct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin)
-
This categorization is controversial however, as historians differ as to whether the famine was a deliberate part of the campaign of repression against kulaks and others, or simply an unintended consequence of the struggle over forced collectivization.
Controversy?
What is the diffrence?
-
<<Abu Graib was shut down by Americans >>
No it wasn't, it was handed over to the Iraqi puppet government to continue operations on behalf of their American masters.
<< the whole sorry episode lasted less than a year and was punishable under laws we already had.>>
I'll translate that into English for those who might take it at face value: They cleaned up their act when the photos were published, learned to torture more discretely and in other places, and a few scapegoats from the lowest ranks received slap-on-the-wrist "punishments" while the higher-ups in the chain of command who were responsible for the whole thing laughed all the way into their retirement.
<<Stalins goons and Maos cadres retired with honors , with a few notable exceptions like Stalins right hand man Beria and Maos Widow , who served well as scapegoats after the great mens death.>>
I might as well translate that into English too: Those who defended the Revolution against its enemies in Russia and China were honoured for their efforts. Beria lost out in a power struggle and paid with his life for it (whereas J. Edgar Hoover, who had blackmailed his way to power over an entire nation was rewarded for his efforts to kill Martin Luther King and destroy the anti-war movement with an honourable retirement, never being called to account for his crimes.)
-
<<Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million . . . >>
Cry me a fucking river. There were executions of the enemies of the people, deportations of Nazis and Nazi collaborators, deaths of Nazi POWS (Help me!!! I'm choking on my tears) and so what? If "Russian writer Vadim Erlikman" ever wanted to publish the mirror-image figures of the casualties of pre-Revolutionary anti-Semitic pogroms, Holocaust victims, Russian POWS, etc., they would dwarf any of this crybaby stuff he writes for American consumption concerning the fate of the perpetrators.
<<Some have also included deaths of 6 to 8 million people in the 1932?1933 famine as victims of Stalin's repression. This categorization is controversial however, as historians differ as to whether the famine was a deliberate part of the campaign of repression against kulaks and others,[53] or simply an unintended consequence of the struggle over forced collectivization.[48][80][81]>>
That's hilarious. "Some have also included . . . " Who are "some?" They are the apologists for the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the Nazi collaborators of WWII, and by extension the apologists for the other Nazi collaborators, the Romanian Iron Guard included, who have to fabricate some acceptable "reason" (other than the true reason, anti-Semitism) for their collaboration with the Nazis and active participation in the Holocaust, in which the Ukrainians in particular played a prominent role as concentration camp guards and sadists. So they seized upon the phony "famine" claims, as if any government would deliberately starve its own farmers, miners and labourers to death. The most ridiculous claim ever advanced, but apparently not too dumb for the brainwashed American public, fed on decades of unrelenting Cold War propaganda.
This stuff is pure bullshit, yet you guys are lapping it up like it was milk. Well, you were raised on bullshit and you developed an appetite for it, whether the bullshit is WMD or "Islamofascism" or the "millions" killed by the evil communists. What can I say but "Bon appetit?"
-
The ends always justifies the means, as long as it isn't America.
Because we are better than that, ya know.
-
<<The ends always justifies the means, as long as it isn't America.
<<Because we are better than that, ya know.>>
You're not better than anyone else, that's for God-damn sure. Probably a whole lot worse than some, truth be told. But you should ASPIRE to be "better than that."
Because that's what your founders did. And you are really letting them down.
-
Think you could find an even smaller closet to scream in, snowblower?
-
But you should ASPIRE to be "better than that." But you should ASPIRE to be "better than that."
Why?
-
<<Why?>>
I don't know. Don't you want to live up to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, or at least try to? Were their ideals so wrong, so misguided? They looked alright to me.
-
I don't know. Don't you want to live up to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, or at least try to? Were their ideals so wrong, so misguided? They looked alright to me.
The ideals of the Founding Fathers were codified in the constitution, which according to prevailing conventional wisdom, is a living breathing document changeable to the times.
Others believe the document is more static with a strict process for amending as needed.
So which ideals are we talking about, the static,amended ideals or the fluid chameleon like ideals that the living breathing advocates have morphed them into.
-
<<The ideals of the Founding Fathers were codified in the constitution . . .>>
Many of them, yes. I was speaking in a broader sense. The Founding Fathers were liberal, humane, rational men who shared in a Zeitgeist, the Enlightenment. I don't think that, as men of The Enlightenment, they believed in torture, or wars of aggression, or even in slavery, though they may have held racial views, common at the time and "scientific" in their opinion, which could have rationalized slavery. I certainly don't think any of them would have thought that one white man could justifiably enslave another. I believe the Founding Fathers would have wanted Americans to try to be a better nation, to set a higher standard, just because that's the kind of people they were. If you were to ask me, OK, where did they write that down? - - I wouldn't know where to begin looking, but I bet it's more likely than not that I'd find it somewhere, if I spent enough time searching.
-
The founders wanted this to be a nation of laws and set the framework for it to be just that. If they wanted us to be a better nation, they would have written better laws.
-
About half of them thought that slavery should end when they wrote the constitution compromises were made with the other half.
When these compromises broke down about seventy years later the civil war resulted.
-
<<The founders wanted this to be a nation of laws and set the framework for it to be just that. >>
I won't quarrel with that.
<<If they wanted us to be a better nation, they would have written better laws.>>
That's not true. I believe they recognized the inherent limitations of any system of laws and did the best they could. I think they expected more good to come of the nation that they created than actually came.
-
If you don't like what you think this nation has become, Mr. Canada, frankly, that's too god damn bad. You don't pay taxes here, you don't vote here, and you aren't part of any change here, be it for the better, or worse. All you do is whine on the internet from a distance. All you do is tout your own moral view, and actions, and complain about what you perceive to be the moral views and actions of others. That makes you a blowhard. And more to the point, in your case, you're a blowhard with bad intentions.
-
If you don't like what you think this nation has become, Mr. Canada, frankly, that's too god damn bad. You don't pay taxes here, you don't vote here, and you aren't part of any change here, be it for the better, or worse. All you do is whine on the internet from a distance. All you do is tout your own moral view, and actions, and complain about what you perceive to be the moral views and actions of others. That makes you a blowhard. And more to the point, in your case, you're a blowhard with bad intentions.
I will say this -- at least Mikey presents a case and debates and rarely if ever resorts to name-calling. I respect him more than you even though him and I disagree. Personally I feel he is much less a danger to himself and others than you.
-
There you go again, We. After a post that said nothing to, or about, you, you start up your shit.
-
There you go again, We. After a post that said nothing to, or about, you, you start up your shit.
I don't mind defending a friend even though he can defend himself. I defend your option to act like a prick if that is your only recourse. Take a handful of pain medicine, tuck yourself in for the night, and check in tomorrow.
-
If you don't like what you think this nation has become, Mr. Canada, frankly, that's too god damn bad. You don't pay taxes here, you don't vote here, and you aren't part of any change here, be it for the better, or worse. All you do is whine on the internet from a distance. All you do is tout your own moral view, and actions, and complain about what you perceive to be the moral views and actions of others. That makes you a blowhard. And more to the point, in your case, you're a blowhard with bad intentions.
Where I live I won't meet someone whit MT's sort of Point of view very often , years could go by.
What you are complaining about is half of what makes him valuable.
I do not know if there is a Zen of disagreement , but I think there could be. Have you ever heard of something of that sort?
-
We've been through this debate before, Plane. I disagree with you. You don't go after change by calling this country AmericKKKa day after day. That kind of negative approach gets no one anywhere. Further, as an American I don't like it, and I have every right to call out the source of that kind of garbage.
-
Even more to the point, Plane, snowblower said that when we get attacked again, how ever bad it is, it won't be bad enough. Now you may enjoy that kind of debate, Plane, I find it rather sad.
-
We've been through this debate before, Plane. I disagree with you. You don't go after change by calling this country AmericKKKa day after day. That kind of negative approach gets no one anywhere. Further, as an American I don't like it, and I have every right to call out the source of that kind of garbage.
I don't want you to stop .
I do want you to not take it personally, we are not going to resort to the code of duels so your satisfaction is ultimately going to be poor.
But if you are courious about what the opposite way of thinking is comeing up with you can listen to MT .
You are not required to agree with me , I am just observing from my point of view.
I won't have to imagine what MT is thinking, there on the antipodes of logic and history, because he is generous with his thoughts. How would I figure out what that thinking is like without someone like this to discuss it with?
I don't expect that I will agree with MT very often , but I always do agree with myself. If agreement were the ultimate goal I should spend more time talking to myself.
-
Even more to the point, Plane, snowblower said that when we get attacked again, how ever bad it is, it won't be bad enough. Now you may enjoy that kind of debate, Plane, I find it rather sad.
Well it is sorta sad , looking at it like that.
The better off the people of the world become, the more it will seem to him that they are being cheated of the even better world thay could have had. How better could one garuntee frustration?
Lets be glad that we are closer to perfect.
-
The point is this Plane. While I disagree with the rulers of Iran, Cuba, etc., you will never hear me say I hope that their country is attacked by terrorist thugs and that thousands are killed, and even that that won't be bad enough.
-
<<If you don't like what you think this nation has become, Mr. Canada, frankly, that's too god damn bad. >>
That's my honest opinion, for what it's worth. I don't give a shit whether you like it or not.
<<You don't pay taxes here . . . >>
That's not entirely true. I pay a sales tax every time I buy anything in your fucking country. Besides which, you fucking moron, since when did payment of taxes validate an opinion, or non-payment invalidate one?
<< . . . you don't vote here>>
Fuck you, ass-hole. You didn't vote in Viet Nam, but that didn't stop you and your fellow war criminals from bombing, maiming, murdering and torturing any Vietnamese citizen who foresaw a different future for his or her country than you did. So excuse me if I step on your toes, dick-breath, it's a very minor intrusion compared to the one you committed.
<< . . . and you aren't part of any change here, be it for the better, or worse. >>
Read your own posts, shit-head. Or at least try to keep 'em all in tune. You said yourself that my postings caused you to change your mind on the Arab-Israeli issue and furthermore you don't know who else reads this shit. Besides, you should thank God that I DON'T have a bigger following in the U.S., because if I did, I would make God-damn sure that every fucking war criminal would pay for his crimes with his fucking life. So don't bitch about me NOT being a part of any change in your fucked-up country, because if I did, not only would it be one hell of a better place but a lot of the bastards you served in Nam with could be on trial for their lives.
<<All you do is whine on the internet from a distance. >>
Fuck you. The distance is negligible, ninety minutes from Buffalo, three and a half hours from Detroit by car. I'm in Manhattan five or six times a year and I've been all over your fucking country including the Deep South. We watch your movies and TV, listen to your music and comedy and most of us know more about your fucking country than you do. Besides which, WTF do you care where my opinion comes from? If I were beaming my thoughts in from Betelgeuse, they would still be more coherent, more apposite, more logical than your pathetic little brain-farts, wherever you're posting your crap from.
<<All you do is tout your own moral view, and actions . . . >>
Geeze, sorry 'bout THAT, boss, next time I'll make sure to post only yours. Fucking moron.
<< . . . and complain about what you perceive to be the moral views and actions of others. >>
No shit, Sherlock. Those are my opinions. If you want to voice a contrary opinion, feel free. The simple fact is, I'm right and you're wrong. You're full of shit and I can prove it. So I guess that rules out voicing a contrary opinion, doesn't it? What's left? Oh, I know! Let loose a shitload of invective and insult. Oh but you figured that out all by yourself, didn't you? Boy that makes you smart. I knew you had to be smart because you got into the Special Forces. You must be a real fucking intellectual. Killing people and taking them apart requires a really keen mind. Must be frustrating as hell for you when your Neanderthal ideas are exposed for the shit they are and the only logical response is to take out the old K-Bar and dismember your opponent slowly in front of his wife and kids but you can't do it because it's an internet debate and WTF can you do but . . . yeah, you got it, YEAH, more gutter insults. The military "mind" at work. Well thanks for showing us how it works, pal, it's been very instructive.
<<That makes you a blowhard. And more to the point, in your case, you're a blowhard with bad intentions.>>
Yeah, that's it. I'm an evil guy, BSB. I'm for peace and against war, I'm against racism and fascism and militarism, I want all Americans to have equal access to health care regardless of the thickness of their wallets, so I'm a blowhard. With BAD INTENTIONS. Fuck you, man. Fuck you right up the ass with your own rifle cleaning equipment. Get my drift? Go fuck yourself.
-
The point is this Plane. While I disagree with the rulers of Iran, Cuba, etc., you will never hear me say I hope that their country is attacked by terrorist thugs and that thousands are killed, and even that that won't be bad enough.
I agree , but you see the same world he does but without the same filter , what seems red to you seems green to him .
It is like the inhabitants of the city of Oz , required by law to wear green lenzed goggles.
If he seems more frustrated than we do , that isn't bad news.
Did you ever hear the one about two German Jews sitting on a park bench in 1934.
One was shocked by what the other was reading.
"Why are you readoing that newspaper? Don't you know that it is controlled by the Natzi party and everything in it is propaganda?"
"You should read it too " he answered "Look it says we are everywhere , we controll everything ,we have all of the money , and we are the power behind every throne in the world.
What Jew could compose a nicer fantacy?"
-
Even more to the point, Plane, snowblower said that when we get attacked again, how ever bad it is, it won't be bad enough. Now you may enjoy that kind of debate, Plane, I find it rather sad.
what's sad & pathetic is you won't be able to prove that because I never said it.
-
See what I mean, Plane. He's just a blowhard with bad intentions.
-
We, nothing here has been about you.
Plane: "I agree , but you see the same world he does but without the same filter , what seems red to you seems green to him ."
Not at all. What I see is world full of people and that everyone of them is just like me in terms wanting to live, breath, eat, etc. I don't advocate the death of the people of any civilization out of an inate hatred, like snowblower.
-
See what I mean, Plane. He's just a blowhard with bad intentions.
you were bad leader in Vietnam that is why today you are angry and don't have a life plus you don't have a high speed connection and have to use phone modem speed to upload and download.
-
" I knew you had to be smart because you got into the Special Forces."
Do you really know what it takes to be accepted for that training?
Or what that training is like?
It isn't secret , you can find it easily.
You took Canadate for President Obama's good grades in colledge and his being accepted as a lecturerer in an Ivy League Colledge, to be good evidence of his intellectual ability .
I think that if BsB actually could handle the training , his intellectual standing has to be high. The Army is far more picky than the Ivy League and the washout rate is intentionally high , the Ivy League would go broke if they allowed such a washout rate.
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/two-weeks-in-hell/ (http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/two-weeks-in-hell/)
Aside from this , when he is on his game his writeing style is beautifull. I whsh he didn't get bogged down in the petty criticism that is so fruitless. When his real opinion is what I am courious about.
The more BsB is opposite than you , the more his thinking should be interesting , that is my opinion.
-
Plane, did you see snowblowers response? That's the kind of garbage you're saying is good for debate? Please, you know better.
Again, We, nothing about you here.
-
Well, I wrote that in anger. I was entitled. He stepped over the line and I said what I wanted to say in response. I know what it takes to be an officer, my own uncle went from the ranks through OCS to become a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army infantry but God damn it he just pushed too many of the wrong buttons. Fuck him, I don't give a shit but I'm glad I got that off my chest. I was not going to sit still for that kind of shit.
-
Plane, you could write in Crocats forum. In here? There's no point. Everything is dumbed down by the likes of snowblower.
Snowblower, you'll sit still for it as long as you act like a blowhard with bad intentions.
-
We, nothing here has been about you.
Plane: "I agree , but you see the same world he does but without the same filter , what seems red to you seems green to him ."
Not at all. What I see is world full of people and that everyone of them is just like me in terms wanting to live, breath, eat, etc. I don't advocate the death of the people of any civilization out of an inate hatred, like snowblower.
All of these things do have to be discussed somewhere, including the severely irratateing stuff.
Preferably where I can throw in two cents now and then.
The stakes on this forum are pretty low, If I never persuede anyone to be any diffrent none of us are going to be worse off than we were to begin with.
But I am trying to be carefull to insulate my person from my argument, I don't want my virtual sparring to have an undue influence on my real world blood pressure.
I don't think that MT is faking he really does think this rediculous sounding stuff is true, it might be nice if he were tactfull about it , but I want to know the wholle of it.
There are places in the world where that sort of perception of us is more common than here, this is about the best window I have to that wedge of the world.
I am selfish with my couriousity arn't I?
-
BSB, you're an ass-hole with an inability to tolerate any opinion other than those falling within your narrow spectrum of acceptability. I'm not going to waste any more time replying to your mindless moronic bullshit or your childish insults although if I see anything particularly stupid over your name, I am certainly going to point out the stupidity if I feel it's important to do so. Other than that, just grow the fuck up. I'm finished responding to your shit.
-
Crocats forum.
Crocats forum?
I like Crocat, I might want to look in on her forum , got a link?
But our disagreement seems to be fundamental to the purpose of debate , I like MT not in spite of his being very opposite to me , but with his opposition being one of his good features.
He and I don't even agree on what is "good" and "bad" but I have learned a thing now and them from haveing it backlit rather than frount lit.
-
Plane, I was sent to fight in a communist country. Most of them were more then decent people. I admired them greatly. Especially the ones who fought so hard against us. I don't need snowblowers brand of fake Communism. His is just hate given the political name of his choosing.
Snowblower, no one asked you to respond in the first place. You chose to. By all means, choose not to. The conversation will take on a more realistic tone without your involvement.
BTW, Plane, I said you COULD write in crocats forum. Past tense.
-
Plane, I was sent to fight in a communist country. Most of them were more then decent people. I admired them greatly. Especially the ones who fought so hard against us. I don't need snowblowers brand of fake Communism. His is just hate given the political name of his choosing.
Snowblower, no one asked you to respond in the first place. You chose to. By all means, choose not to. The conversation will take on a more realistic tone without your involvement.
BTW, Plane, I said you COULD write in crocats forum. Past tense.
You are offended worse by words chosen to be hurtfull than by bullets aimed in your direction?
Hmmmmm...
Sorry, but my mind is blown right now.
-
Plane, I was sent to fight in a communist country. Most of them were more then decent people. I admired them greatly. Especially the ones who fought so hard against us. I don't need snowblowers brand of fake Communism. His is just hate given the political name of his choosing.
Snowblower, no one asked you to respond in the first place. You chose to. By all means, choose not to. The conversation will take on a more realistic tone without your involvement.
BTW, Plane, I said you COULD write in crocats forum. Past tense.
so you bring Mikey up yet tell him not to respond. surely there is a medical term that would classify your mental illness. save us the time and tells us what you VA mental doctor has diagnosed as your disorder. no doubt it's not one thing but several. I have a hard time believing you were in vietnam or even the army. you come off like a ROTC kind of guy. anyway chester I hope they can help you before you pull a fort hood type of stunt.
-
Reread it Plane, it appears you missed something.
We, sorry, still nothing about you here.
-
Reread it Plane, it appears you missed something.
We, sorry, still nothing about you here.
you wish you could control BT like you controlled Crocat but he's wise to your antics.
-
A little clue for ya, We, no one controlled crocat.
-
A little clue for ya, We, no one controlled crocat.
little clue for ya, chester the molester, you won't control BT like you thought you would. you and her were two pees in a pod.
-
Reread it Plane, it appears you missed something.
We, sorry, still nothing about you here.
I seem to have missed it again.
Or did I?
Like the guy trapped in a shell crater with his freshly slain opponent in "All Quiet on the Western Frount" acnoledgement of the basic sameness and humanity of his fellow soldier he was just forced by circumstances to kill.
Or the huge celebratory croud that met on no mans land on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month hugging and dancing together so glad that they were no longer required to shoot each other.
I understand your respect for couragious soldiers even if their valor was devoted to your destruction, I have met other soldiers who have expressed this sort of reguard for their enemy and I hope I understand it as a genuine and international respect of anchient origin.
My understanding of this is why I would not mind haveing more retired soldiers in government , I think that people who have seen the thing will be just as reluctant to call for war as anyone who hasn't.
What I am not getting
is how forgiveing you can be for those who phisicly scarred you , yet so irritated at someone who is typeing with a lack of tact.
This puzzlement must mean that I have something to learn.
-
Plane, those men who fought us were real. They put their ass on the line. They died as we died but in greater numbers. They lived on a diet almost void of protien. They had little if any medical care. They earned the right to have an opinion about us. Snowblower is a fake. He has never put his ass where his mouth is. His is the kind of hate that starts wars, but never fights in them. He has no right to say a word about the soldiers I fought with. The NVA, however, do. And I earned the right to speak of them.
-
I acnoledge your experience as more direct than mine.
During my military service I was aimed at , but never shot at.
In spite of my lesser earning of the right I still need to have an opinion, as well formed opinion as I am capable of, I hope.
I need therefore to attempt to understand what you have learned if you are able to convey it in terms I can comprehend.
Also I want to understand the antipodeal position when I get a chance to see it.
I don't doubt that if a Russian , Chineese or even Vietnameese veteran of your same vintage were availible I would learn interesting things from them too , I suppose it possible that they might have a respect that mirrors yours, I wouldn't be surprised.
But the military is not the whole picture of a war, neither in its cause nor its procicution , the spears tip depends a lot on the spears shaft which drives it forwards .
As you even now allude, hatred waters the roots of wars , down out of sight sometimes it festers. Misunderstanding serves hatred and warps perception to the ends of violence.
Lets discuss the hatred , even the hatred that is undeserved is real hatred.
But let me reinterate , insulate your self from your argument, this is a theater of conflict with the ultimate of low stakes , any of us can walk away for no more reason than boredom. Your self is a precious thing ,these arguments, however "flaming" they get, are cheap.
You are not being asked to put much on the line this time , less is better, dispassionate logic works just as well as anything elese availible .
Even if you penetrate deeply with a thrust of pure logic opening a hole that a truck could be driven through, it causes such little pain to the victim of the thrust that he often is unaware of the hole .
-
You're only watering the hatred, Plane. But if that's your choice, be my guest. I won't join you though.
BSB
-
Couldn't ask for a better statement of the fascist POV than that last one. A soldier has the right to an opinion. A non-combatant does not. Unless of course the non-combatant POV shows proper deference to the soldier, then it is acceptable for him to speak.
Fucking bullshit. Fascist crap.
BSB was not being honest with you, plane. He's bullshitting you. Basically the guy has respect for his former enemies because he's a fucking worm. A man with a gun told to hunt down and kill people whose only offence was to fight for their country's freedom from foreign occupation, be the foreigners French, Japanese or American. That makes him a hired killer, an assassin, an oppressor.
Think about it carefully. What CAN he call his former adversaries? Criminals? Thugs? Cowards? ARE YOU KIDDING? He's gonna admit that he and his buddies were whipped by a pack of cowards and thugs? Furthermore, if THEY (the VC) were assassins and criminals, WTF does that make BSB and his loser comrades in arms? If the VC, who were infinitely more heroic and successful than BSB and his loser cohorts, are unworthy ass-holes, where would that leave BSB and his loser buddies?
He virtually HAS to show respect to the victors, otherwise he appears in his own eyes and everyone else's to be the lesser man. But look at the facts, not at BSB's phony assumed attitudes towards them. The facts are that the VC/NVA were true heroes, facing forces vastly superior in firepower and technology, with full air support (in which they, the VC, were totally lacking) and nevertheless sacrificed their lives in huge numbers to drive the invading foreigners out. BSB and his fellow soldiers, by comparison, were nothing but cowards who attacked villages, women, children and the elderly indiscriminately, tortured prisoners, threw prisoners out of flying helicopters for christ sake, and still lost the war.
Comparing the two forces is like comparing Resistance fighters to Nazi occupation troops. BSB by showing respect to the winners, hopes to blur the distinction, "one fighting man showing respect for another," the international brotherhood of men in arms, etc. (not really in evidence when the Americans were turfing their VC prisoners out of helicopters, unfortunately) and so he thereby becomes equal in stature to the winners. How big of him to be respectful of his betters. HUH? Isn't that what happens in the real world? The winner earns the respect due to a hero, and the loser is . . . well, he's the loser. It isn't "big" of BSB to show respect to the winner. The WORLD shows respect to the winner. And contempt for the loser. All that BSB was attempting to do was wriggle out of the status of "loser" and try to acquire some of the lustre that belongs rightfully to the victors.
-
You're only watering the hatred, Plane. But if that's your choice, be my guest. I won't join you though.
BSB
I can't ask you to do anything more, you must be a volenteer here.
I think of this hatred as a constant , and I want to understand it even if I do not find a way to reduce it.
Also ...
I am enjoying myself, if you don't like to argue , you indeed should not.
-
Snowblower, your last post is written with all the understanding of a 12 year old, if that.
-
Snowblower, your last post is written with all the understanding of a 12 year old, if that.
you see BSB people pity you, it's sad you can't see it
-
Plane, enough for me with you on this topic. I couldn't have written a more eloquent defense of my position then snowblower just wrote.
Catch you on another debate.
BSB
-
<<Snowblower, your last post is written with all the understanding of a 12 year old, if that.>>
Even a 12-year old knows the smell of fascist shit, BSB. It's an old, old smell.
Sucks that you only get one vote, same as any civilian, doesn't it? Sucks that you can't kill anyone who won't kiss your fascist ass, doesn't it?
-
How bizarre is that? Snowblower, you've become unhinged.
-
"Couldn't ask for a better statement of the fascist POV than that last one......to the victors".
Beleive it or not ,I think you wrong, for logical reasons.
I think my Confederate ancestors fought with valor against a richer , more numerous , tecnologicly more advanced and much more capitolistic enemy , holding defeat at bay untill starvation sapped their last strength.
Yet I am glad they lost , the USA and the CSA woudl have been weak and quarrelling sisters perhaps to the present day and Europe would have had no one to throw them a lifeline when the great conflicts of the twentith century left them starving.
I am sorry the VC won for much the same reasons , they fought valorously for the side of slavery and they won their decendants for seven generations will be harmed more by this victory than they would have been had they lost.
Thirty years after the USA destroyed the Japaneese economy utterly , three decades of shameless exploitation produced in Japan a thriveing democracy and the worlds second biggest national economy.
Thirty years after the Vietnameese "won" they are dirt poor and the Buddhist monks are still burning. The odvious explanation is that by preventing the US from exploiting them they have refused prosperity and freedom.
Valor notwithstanding you have to point your valor in a good direction to get the good results.
-
Plane, enough for me with you on this topic. I couldn't have written a more eloquent defense of my position then snowblower just wrote.
Catch you on another debate.
BSB
well you gave it your best shot -- best to surrender and head to bed
-
<<Snowblower, your last post is written with all the understanding of a 12 year old, if that.>>
Even a 12-year old knows the smell of fascist shit, BSB. It's an old, old smell.
Sucks that you only get one vote, same as any civilian, doesn't it? Sucks that you can't kill anyone who won't kiss your fascist ass, doesn't it?
So you don't like a "liquidate the opposition " sort of attitude?
I don't think that might makes right , but sometimes being right makes might because being wrong can create weakness.
Stalin for example was really a stupe , he killed off a lot of his farmers to improve his colective farms , he killed off a lot of his miners , engineers and laborers to improve productive soviet economys and he killed off a large part of his officer corps to make his army more loyal .
Why is it you do beleive that he purged his soldiers on the eve of a ruinous war but don't beleive he purged his farmers on the eve of an awfull famine?
-
<<Thirty years after the Vietnameese "won" they are dirt poor and the Buddhist monks are still burning. The odvious explanation is that by preventing the US from exploiting them they have refused prosperity and freedom.>>
You've made that argument before, plane. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.
You clearly subscribe to a value system that places a high premium on "material progress," a car in every garage, a chicken in every pot, or however Huey Long put it. I won't argue with that, because I'm pretty much a worshiper at the same church. I also believe in materialism and don't really give a shit about politics. Which is why I'm a keyboard revolutionary and not a real revolutionary.
Where you went wrong in your reasoning was to assume that all over the world, everyone worships at the same church of materialism that we do. No. Wrong. Majorly and clearly wrong. The Vietnamese nationalists believed in their nation. Believed in its freedom from foreign domination. Not in chickens in pots and cars in driveways, they believed in a free Vietnam in charge of its own destiny, free to choose a communist destiny, as it did, regardless of the preferences of the foreigners who tried to steer Vietnamese destiny in other directions.
And they got that freedom. They won it. It was a victory. If they weren't fighting for a car in every garage, you can't say that they were defeated because they didn't get a care in every garage. They got what they fought for. Their enemies didn't get what they fought for. In my definition, that is victory.
Now you may have Vietnamese today who reject the victory of their fathers and grandfathers. They may WANT a new car in every garage. Tough shit. People change over time. Look at the U.S.A.. In WWII, you fought against fascism. Since the end of WWII, you supported fascist regimes in more countries than I can count. Today's Americans aren't horrified by fascism, they embrace it. Look at BSB, he thinks he has more right to express an opinion than a non-combatant does, because he's a killer and a non-combatant is not a killer. A killer is a superior man to a non-killer. Hitler would have understood that, so would Mussolini, so would Tojo. You can't say that America LOST the Second World War because today no American gives a shit about fascism.
It's nuts to claim the U.S. didn't lose in Viet Nam. That would be the ultimate denial of reality. By any standard of winning and losing, the Vietnamese won and the Americans lost. What happened afterward in Viet Nam was a new story that began after the war was won and ended. How well or how badly it turned out for the Vietnamese is a whole other story.
-
>>Look at BSB......blah............blah.........fascist......blah...... <<
You get more childish by the moment. You can't even tell the difference between what you project outwards and what is really there. That's how children are.
-
<<So you don't like a "liquidate the opposition " sort of attitude?>>
I have no problem when the Party liquidates the opposition as for example Allende could have done to the opposition before the coup that deposed him. I have a problem with it in a personal man-to-man discussion in a debating club.
<<I don't think that might makes right , but sometimes being right makes might because being wrong can create weakness.>>
Yeah. So?
<<Stalin for example was really a stupe , he killed off a lot of his farmers to improve his colective farms >>
No he did not, he killed enemies of the people who were trying to sabotage the Revolution.
<< he killed off a lot of his miners , engineers and laborers to improve productive soviet economys >>
That is bullshit.
<<and he killed off a large part of his officer corps to make his army more loyal .>>
I don't know what the hell you are talking about. There were some purges of disloyal elements in the army, sure, but how do you get from that to "a large part of the officer corps?"
<<Why is it you do beleive that he purged his soldiers on the eve of a ruinous war but don't beleive he purged his farmers on the eve of an awfull famine?>>
I've explained the reason for the purge of army officers numerous times. He did not want to be stabbed in the back by his own army in the course of a war with Hitler. He took the necessary precautions. He won the war. He was not stabbed in the back by his military. The Trotskyites, Czarists, Western and Nazi agents and spies in the officer corps were neutralized by the purge and not able to harm the cause of the Revolution. What is your problem with any of this?
Why do I not believe that he purged his farmers? What kind of crazy question is that? Who says he "purged" his farmers? Obviously those farmers who were hoarding produce and wouldn't deliver up their fair share to feed the miners and urban workers were enemies of the people and had to be shot. Their farms would still produce, only now they would be run by the farm workers themselves and owned by the people, not the rich kulaks. What was Stalin supposed to do? Let the hoarders keep all their produce, hide it from his Commissars and starve the urban proletariat, the miners and the railroad workers? You're just talking complete nonsense. It wouldn't make sense for ANY government, Communist, Anarchist, Capitalist or Fascist, to allow the small farmers to hoard while the urban factory workers, the miners, the railway workers, etc. all starved. That would be nuts.
-
the urban proletariat, the miners and the railroad workers? You're just talking complete nonsense. It wouldn't make sense for ANY government, Communist, Anarchist, Capitalist or Fascist, to allow the small farmers to hoard while the urban factory workers, the miners, the railway workers, etc. all starved. That would be nuts.
It made no real sense . true
It was nuts , true
Stalin did it senselessly adn because he was nuts this is all true.
You cannot argue that Stalin did not do it because it would have been stupid of him to do , I simply then agree that Stalin was stupid that way.
Did Hitler get accused of killing a lot of productive citizens too just because they were Jews ? this was a dumb thing and of course he did not do it because he wasn't dumb that way.
Oh wait after he lost the war his records of doing just that exact dumb thing in a big way were availible.
It is a matter of record, just try to find records you and I both trust.Stalin was able to cover his tracks better than Hitler was.
-
It made no real sense . true
<<It was nuts , true
<<Stalin did it senselessly adn because he was nuts this is all true.>>
Well, at least I am hearing new historical theories here. Stalin was nuts? You have the diagnosis of a respected medical practitioner who examined Stalin in the 1930s when all these events took place and determined that there was a mental illness?
I didn't think you did.
If Stalin was so mentally ill that he radically endangered the U.S.S.R. even in peace-time, how did this dangerous lunatic manage not only to survive 4 years of warfare with Nazi Germany but to win the war in the end? Quite an accomplishment for a dangerous lunatic?
Plane, "he was nuts" is the usual bullshit that U.S. propaganda employs when it wants to spread a lie that is so obviously untrue that even a child can see through it. "Why would Saddam Hussein, even if he HAD nukes, want to use them against the U.S. or give them to somebody else to use against the U.S., when either course of action would result in the incineration of him and his whole fucking country?" Zio-Nazi answer: "Because he was nuts."
Similarly, why would Stalin decimate his own army on the eve of war, starve his own miners, farmers and urban proletariat to death? Cold War propaganda answer: "Because he was nuts."
Come on, plane, cut the bullshit and try to form the semblance of a logical answer.
<<You cannot argue that Stalin did not do it because it would have been stupid of him to do , I simply then agree that Stalin was stupid that way.>>
LOL. Sure, you'd have to agree that the Central Committee was also stupid, because Stalin was only the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Party, which included a lot of powerful Revolutionary leaders at the time. I guess "they were all stupid" is your only recourse now, or "they were all insane." Give it up, plane, you'll never pull this crap off.
<<Did Hitler get accused of killing a lot of productive citizens too just because they were Jews ? this was a dumb thing and of course he did not do it because he wasn't dumb that way.>>
Yeah, he did. Albert Speer in Inside the Third Reich says precisely that.
<<Oh wait after he lost the war his records of doing just that exact dumb thing in a big way were availible.>>
It wasn't a secret. Most of the top scientists on the Manhattan Project, for example, were Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany who escaped with their lives. My mum didn't need secret Nazi records to figure out what happened to her aunts, uncles and cousins in Poland. The survivors knew. You're really living in some fantasy world that just doesn't seem to correspond with the real world in any way, at least that's how it seems when you opine on matters related to WWII.
<<It is a matter of record, just try to find records you and I both trust.>>
Well, if there are no reliable records, then it's not a matter of record at all, is it?
<<Stalin was able to cover his tracks better than Hitler was.>>
You're making one helluva big assumption, that there WERE tracks for Stalin to cover. OK, it's possible. Anything is possible, but on the basis of what I know today, I have to say that Stalin has little if anything to apologize for. He was in a real jungle, and he did what he had to do to assure his own survival and that of the Revolution in that environment.
-
It made no real sense . true
<<It was nuts , true
<<Stalin did it senselessly adn because he was nuts this is all true.>>
Well, at least I am hearing new historical theories here. Stalin was nuts? You have the diagnosis of a respected medical practitioner who examined Stalin in the 1930s when all these events took place and determined that there was a mental illness?
I didn't think you did.
What I have is your agreement that the things he did would have been nuts to do.
Thus if he did them we agree that he was nuts.
And he did do them sweeping as much under the rug as he could , survivors and historians that you can ignore notwithstanding.
Would you agree that sending your best aircraft designers to prison on the eve of major conflict with the Luftwaffe would be nuts?(http://www.tu144sst.com/history/pictures/Andrei_Nikolayevich_Tupolev.jpg)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/609441/Andrey-Nikolayevich-Tupolev (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/609441/Andrey-Nikolayevich-Tupolev)
A life Hitler saved I suppose , pulled from exile when his talents became critical.
And he was not alone.
Stalin was nuts.(http://newcentrist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/mixed-nuts.jpg)
Marx was Dopey(http://www.dizpins.com/archives/images/2008julypics/dopey_smiling.jpg)
-
<<Would you agree that sending your best aircraft designers to prison on the eve of major conflict with the Luftwaffe would be nuts?>>
Who went to prison? Why? Who says they were the best? Who else was left to design planes? How long were they in prison for? How long would it have taken for them to produce new designs, test them and have the finished product rolling off the assembly lines? What was the state of the air fleet at that time anyway? How much design work were they asked to do in prison?
You asked a question that was obviously oversimplified and makes no sense without a huge amount of context, which you did not provide. Therefore I can't answer the question.
PS - - - oops, sorry, I just scrolled back and saw the photo and the link. The first time I read that post of yours, the photo and link had not appeared, of if they had, I didn't see them.
-
You clearly subscribe to a value system that places a high premium on "material progress," a car in every garage, a chicken in every pot, or however Huey Long put it. I won't argue with that, because I'm pretty much a worshiper at the same church. I also believe in materialism and don't really give a shit about politics. Which is why I'm a keyboard revolutionary and not a real revolutionary.
What they acheived was slavery on a national scale .
In what way are the Japaneese less free?
Yes I am better off for the Confederacy looseing and the Vietnameese are worse off for wining slavery even if they call it freedom in an orwellian sense.
-
<<Yes I am better off for the Confederacy looseing and the Vietnameese are worse off for wining slavery even if they call it freedom in an orwellian sense.>>
I think your problem is that you are unable to conceive of a value system that is in any significant way different from your own.
The Vietnamese are an intensely nationalistic people. To put it as simply as possible, they just cannot abide being ruled by foreigners or their puppets, even if this brings jobs, cars, beachfront condos for the rich, etc. They don't give a shit. They are happy in their villages leading their traditional lives and it's important for them to know that whoever their rulers are, they are Vietnamese rulers installed by Vietnamese force of arms and not by foreigners.
Maybe in your eyes they would be better off if they had accepted Nguyen Cao Ky as their ruler and taken jobs in a Nike factory to pay for the mortgage on a new condo in downtown Ho Chi Minh City. Fine if they were a nation of planes, but they are NOT a nation of planes, they are a nation of nationalist fighters and warriors under Communist Party leadership, who wanted to live a uniquely Vietnamese life on Vietnamese soil under genuine Vietnamese leaders.
So fuck the Nike factory, they got what they were fighting for.
-
They weren't any better off under uncle Ho, and they wouldn't have been better off if things had stayed the same. What the war allowed them to do was unify the north and the south. Now, after going trough 35 years of the kind of stuff countries that fractured go through, they are emerging, slowly, as a competent nation on the international scene. Momentarily, because we buy so many of their exports, and because consumers here aren't buying the way they used to, Vietnam is caught up in the global downturn. But, they'll be back.
-
<<Yes I am better off for the Confederacy looseing and the Vietnameese are worse off for wining slavery even if they call it freedom in an orwellian sense.>>
I think your problem is that you are unable to conceive of a value system that is in any significant way different from your own.
I can understand Luddites and Communists.
-
I think "Luddite" is one of the most loaded descriptions in the English language. For one thing, it makes a huge assumption in equating progress with novelty.
The newest is NOT necessarily the best, and the fisher folk who opposed being relocated to the interior to make way for high-rise development are not necessarily against all forms of progress. I'm sure they'd welcome the latest in navigational aids, school locators, fuel efficiency, etc. It's ludicrous to label them as "Luddites" for wanting to preserve their livelihoods and traditional way of life.
-
I think "Luddite" is one of the most loaded descriptions in the English language. For one thing, it makes a huge assumption in equating progress with novelty.
The newest is NOT necessarily the best, and the fisher folk who opposed being relocated to the interior to make way for high-rise development are not necessarily against all forms of progress. I'm sure they'd welcome the latest in navigational aids, school locators, fuel efficiency, etc. It's ludicrous to label them as "Luddites" for wanting to preserve their livelihoods and traditional way of life.
I did not make that comparison, I don't think it apt.
I mean to compare Communists to Luddites.
-
Sorry, I mistook your meaning.
You might have a point, but "Luddite"has acquired such a negative connotation, in order to apply it to Communists, we might have to explore first the actual ramifications of the Luddite movement. I just associate it with smashing the machines, standing firmly in the way of progress. Maybe in view of the experience of the less developed world with the destructive nature of global capitalism, the present-day "Luddites" might not be all that bad or all that wrong.
-
>> That's how children are.<<
Actually PTSD, children act tough and then whine to mommy when they get put in their place.
Bitch.
-
Sorry, I mistook your meaning.
You might have a point, but "Luddite"has acquired such a negative connotation, in order to apply it to Communists, we might have to explore first the actual ramifications of the Luddite movement. I just associate it with smashing the machines, standing firmly in the way of progress. Maybe in view of the experience of the less developed world with the destructive nature of global capitalism, the present-day "Luddites" might not be all that bad or all that wrong.
Hahahahaha!
I have to admit ,I have not established that being a Luddite is always a bad thing.
-
<<I have to admit ,I have not established that being a Luddite is always a bad thing.>>
Also not established is whether there are various shades of Luddite.
-
>> That's how children are.<<
Actually PTSD, children act tough and then whine to mommy when they get put in their place.
Bitch.
he thinks he can stump you but he can't
-
<<I have to admit ,I have not established that being a Luddite is always a bad thing.>>
Also not established is whether there are various shades of Luddite.
Are Communists a sort of Luddite lite?