Romania Marks 20th Year Since Kommie Kollapse

[Plane]

"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.

[Kramer]

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

[Plane]

<<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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BSB]

>>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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

 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.

[Michael Tee]

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.

[Plane]

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.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.

Marx was Dopey

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BSB]

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.

[Plane]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

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.