DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on February 07, 2010, 02:48:37 AM
-
"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk#ws)
via (http://econstories.tv/home.html)
-
That was funny. Kinda repetitive in parts but funny. Great concept.
-
A concept you obviously know nothing about you commie piece of shit. Keep to the things you know, like applauding the murder of women and children you asshole.
-
I detest rap, but this was clever.
Rich, you are truly sick. Seek help.
-
A concept you obviously know nothing about you commie piece of shit. Keep to the things you know, like applauding the murder of women and children you asshole.
I explained my opinion of MT haveing role to play as an opponent or even a foil.
Could someone elese justify reason that we need to keep Rich the boil?
-
The fire burns bright
it consumes all available fuel
and then it smolders
until more fuel is added.
else it is extinguished.
-
The fire burns bright
it consumes all available fuel
and then it smolders
until more fuel is added.
else it is extinguished.
Excellent!
-
Plane, I understand what you are. You're a back bencher. A coward.
Feel free to suck my boil little man. Real men stand up for their country against foreign cocksucking terrorists who revel in the deaths of Americans. You sir, are a slippery little cunt who doesn't deserve the protection of the FBI and anyone else who defends America.
I think you should take a trip to Canada and suck Mike's withered commie dick. It's what you're longing for. Anything to suck the dick of Americas enemies right? I'm sure if Osama bin Laden was a member you'd afford him every courtesy. Right jackass?
Fuck you little man. Fuck you.
And Schimdt. You've just made sure that it never ends. Ban me asshole. You can live with Mike. That's fine with me. Explain it to your son. Explain how your give a reach around to someone who want him dead. Explain that to his wife, your wife. Ban me forever asshole.
-
Why should i ban you?
Why should i care what you guys do to this forum?
Why do you guys even come here.
I come because i have hope that someday real debate will happen.
I know, I'm an optimist.
But to accept the impossibility of it happening , is to admit wasting a ton of blood sweat and tears on a doomed ideal.
-
Osama Ben Laden I would turn in.
Quite eagerly.
But if he could adress us with impunity , or from a cell I would argue with him, yes.
I feel confident that his ideas could be refuted with logic and facts, Osama has never proven to be a real student of history , in spite of what he says he seems to have little idea of what Americans are like or what we can do or even how long we can keep on doing it.
I think that if we really need to fight his people for generations we certainly can , if we loose patience we are less likely to surrender to him than to simply resort to more harmfull methods and allow more colleteral damage to accrue around our targets.
In the very first place his man Mohemmed Atta proved that he had no need to attack us at all, then the aftermath of 9-11 proved that his chosen method of attack is severely counterproductive. Many places that Al Queda was welcome it now is not.
The whole world is waiting for the Al Queda to have another big success , it is almost inevitable that someday a big dummy like Richard Reed will blunder through security checks with enough explosive in his shoes to wreck an aircraft. At that time the US will be enraged enough to burn down another Islamic government stupid enough to harbor the Al Quieda and all of the others will become more strict again hopeing to strangle Al Quieda suffeciently to prevent Americans from showing up.
President Bush was successfull enough to allow our people to begin to scoff at the danger posed by Al Queda , the president at the time of the next Al Queda success , or elese the next one elected will have to promise the American people stronger action than President Bush ever considered, he will not have any other choice.
So yea ,Rich, I would relish a chance to argue with OBL, but unfortuneately, I suspect he would be no better at it than you are.
-
Right, I understand that you put your little excercise here above country, family, and God.
Good for you asshole.
-
<<In the very first place his man Mohemmed Atta proved that he had no need to attack us at all, then the aftermath of 9-11 proved that his chosen method of attack is severely counterproductive. Many places that Al Queda was welcome it now is not.>>
LOL. Al Qaeda was not fighting for rooms in the Kabul Hilton. What they fought for they got - - the U.S.. spending hundreds of billions to fight flying handfuls of jihadis who can pop up anywhere on earth to inflict another pinprick that elicits another trillion-dollar response. Your currency is in the toilet, your economy is on the brink, and al Qaeda has NOTHING to do with any of this? They are leveraging your own militarism, fascism and aggression, stoking it so that it bleeds you to death earlier than it would have without them.
-
Why should i ban you?
Why should i care what you guys do to this forum?
Why do you guys even come here.
I come because i have hope that someday real debate will happen.
I know, I'm an optimist.
But to accept the impossibility of it happening , is to admit wasting a ton of blood sweat and tears on a doomed ideal.
You know I try.
Frankly I am complimented that you accepted me into this league.
I admire your perserverance and I love your project.
I am disapointed at the steepness of the learning curve sometimes , but I feel well served myself.
-
Maybe it's time.
If this is what it's come to, then you might want to consider spending your money on things for your son. He deserves it. He doesn't deserve this bullshit.
My son will be joing the army soon. Neither one of them should be subjected to the Canadian cocksucker. I'll never give another dime to this place while he's here. I know, you'll be fine, but I'll be better.
-
We get sidetracked sometimes on personal issues. Nobody's perfect. But I think there have been some good debates in here in the past. Maybe the tone recently has been too acrimonious. I really hope you're not serious when you say there weren't any good debates in here. There weren't as many as there could have been, sure. But I'm pretty sure we have had some productive ones in the past.
-
<<In the very first place his man Mohemmed Atta proved that he had no need to attack us at all, then the aftermath of 9-11 proved that his chosen method of attack is severely counterproductive. Many places that Al Queda was welcome it now is not.>>
LOL. Al Qaeda was not fighting for rooms in the Kabul Hilton. What they fought for they got - - the U.S.. spending hundreds of billions to fight flying handfuls of jihadis who can pop up anywhere on earth to inflict another pinprick that elicits another trillion-dollar response. Your currency is in the toilet, your economy is on the brink, and al Qaeda has NOTHING to do with any of this? They are leveraging your own militarism, fascism and aggression, stoking it so that it bleeds you to death earlier than it would have without them.
Were they really fighting for their own extinction?
Osama Bin Ladens home country is Saudi Arabia , which has quintupled its population since it started dealing with the United States , if we tank, Saudis will starve and the Arabians will be hurt pretty bad too.
We are not as hurt as you think , and most of the hurt you see is from a poor presidential choice. Al Quieda is on the Run in the Phillipines ,Iraq, Afganistan.
Next on the menu is Al Queda in Packistan and Yemen.
If you think it is impossible to exaust the Al Queda then you don't really beleive in Evolution and so,....you are argueing with Darwin.
-
<<Were they really fighting for their own extinction?>>
They fly planes into buildings. You tell me.
<<Osama Bin Ladens home country is Saudi Arabia , which has quintupled its population since it started dealing with the United States , if we tank, Saudis will starve and the Arabians will be hurt pretty bad too.>>
The whole fucking planet went from one or two billion to six billion since Saudi Arabia started dealing with the U.S. OBL doesn't give a shit if the population of Saudia Arabia quintupled, he gives a shit that the soil be free from infidels, that the Wahabbi sect be supreme in the land and that the Jews, the British and the Americans don't tell the Saudis what to do.
<<We are not as hurt as you think . . . .>>
You're whistling past the graveyard. Your whole fucking country is going down because you have invested in war, death and torture and gotten little in return for it. A tiny country of 23 million people resisted your aggression more fiercely than you ever anticipated and by Prof. Stieglitz' estimate cost you $3 trillion (against the Bush administration's estimate of $50 billion, soup to nuts) and the costs of the Afghan War are not even tallied, and you're still escalating. I read somewhere that the costs of the Viet Nam War weren't even paid off when you started the war in Iraq. You're fucked, plane.
<< . . . and most of the hurt you see is from a poor presidential choice. >>
Yeah? Who?
<<Al Quieda is on the Run in the Phillipines ,Iraq, Afganistan.>>
You spent TRILLIONS to put a handful of ignorant fanatics on the run? And in so doing, you probably created a thousand times more jihadis ready to die in martyrdom than the entire operational strength of al Qaeda on the 10th of September, 2001. And you can't understand why you are going bust? What are your most valuable resources? How much did you spend to kill hundreds of thousands of poor dumb fucking Arabs in Iraq and how much to educate, feed, house and medically care for your own population? You did everything wrong, and al Qaeda greased the skids for you. Their attacks ruined you, or rather helped you to ruin yourselves and you still don't see where you went wrong.
<<Next on the menu is Al Queda in Packistan and Yemen.>>
I hope so. They'll fuck you up worse than their brothers are doing in Afghanistan. You're on a one-way trip to the junkyard.
<<If you think it is impossible to exaust the Al Queda then you don't really beleive in Evolution and so,....you are argueing with Darwin.>>
Darwin knows something about survival of the fittest. The fittest is a 20-year-old with an AK 47 who isn't afraid to die and wants to be a martyr, coming from a population of a billion people, and the unfittest is an overweight "warrior" in an office chair under a Las Vegas shopping centre, pushing buttons that fire missiles from a drone into an undefended Third World village. Did you learn nothing from Viet Nam? A population ready to fight and die for its independence from foreigners will defeat any foreign army of any country too soft and too cowardly to make sacrifices on the same scale as its Third World opponent.
-
The Vietnameese never got stupid enough to attack the US on its own territory .
The Al Queda is exactly that stupid , they repeatedly attacked the US to draw it into war and prepared to fight us to exaustion in Afganistan.
Julius Ceaser said that you should build bridges for your enemy to retreat over even if you must build them of Gold , not to back them into corners unless you can annihilate them.
Al Queida which can't really hope to destroy us has made the mistake of making it impossible for us to stop fighting them.
I know you think all we have to do is allow Isreal to be destroyed and we would have no further problems , Mr Chamberlain, you think it would be easy to have peace in our time.
-
<<The Vietnameese never got stupid enough to attack the US on its own territory .>>
Why would they? They were fighting for their independence and you were stupid enough to be drawn into the battle. They came from a populous country and had China at their backs. Why on earth would they leave that terrain to fight you on yours.
<<The Al Queda is exactly that stupid , they repeatedly attacked the US to draw it into war and prepared to fight us to exaustion in Afganistan.>>
Different strategy. But so far they succeeded in draining trillions of bucks from you at minimum cost for them. And it's getting worse as we speak. You can't win.
<<Julius Ceaser said that you should build bridges for your enemy to retreat over even if you must build them of Gold , not to back them into corners unless you can annihilate them.>>
Doesn't matter what Julius Caesar said. Better learn what Osama bin Laden says. He's winning this struggle, not Julius Caesar. In any event, the U.S. can build its own retreat bridges. They can get the fuck out of Arab lands any time they wish.
<<Al Queida which can't really hope to destroy us has made the mistake of making it impossible for us to stop fighting them.>>
Add up the numbers, and you'll see that the mistake is yours.
<<I know you think all we have to do is allow Isreal to be destroyed . . . >>
Not true. Just stop supporting them. Or start exacting some concessions as a condition of your continued support.
<< . . . and we would have no further problems , Mr Chamberlain, you think it would be easy to have peace in our time.>>
Chamberlain abandoned Czechoslovakia to the Nazis because he was stalling for time. He knew he had to fight Hitler, but needed time to get up his aircraft production numbers, and a God-damn good thing that he did. I am not proposing an abandonmnent of Israel, but an abandonment of support for its expansionist policies.
-
<<I know you think all we have to do is allow Isreal to be destroyed . . . >>
Not true. Just stop supporting them.
What is the diffrence there? Or start exacting some concessions as a condition of your continued support.
We extract so many concessions from them , that they are hamstrung , if the us were to just dump Isreal their one hope would be to injure the Palistinians beyond hope of recovery , they would try and would have no other hope.
<< . . . and we would have no further problems , Mr Chamberlain, you think it would be easy to have peace in our time.>>
Chamberlain abandoned Czechoslovakia to the Nazis because he was stalling for time. He knew he had to fight Hitler, but needed time to get up his aircraft production numbers, and a God-damn good thing that he did. I am not proposing an abandonmnent of Israel, but an abandonment of support for its expansionist policies.
Why were the production numbers of Spitfires ever low?Chamberlin has got no real excuses , you are just accuseing him of duplicity in order to save him from a charge of stupidity, the facts could make a good case for both.
-
What is the difference between allowing Israel to be destroyed and stopping support of Israel?
WOW, plane you just lobbed a softball very slowly right across home plate and in the strike zone. Thank you.
Stopping support would induce them to strike a deal with the Palestinians, get the almost 300,000 Jewish settlers out of the West Bank and allow the West Bank finally to become the territory of the new Palestinian state. I think I elaborated on this in my last post, where I said that support could be conditional on real concessions from the Israelis. If realistic concessions were still turned down by the Palestinians and an attack made on Israel, at that point the U.S. could step in to defend it.
<<We extract so many concessions from them , that they are hamstrung , if the us were to just dump Isreal their one hope would be to injure the Palistinians beyond hope of recovery , they would try and would have no other hope.>>
When you speak in generalities like that, your point is lost and the statement itself is meaningless. The concessions necessary to peace are well known. All settlements in the Occupied Territories out, an end to the Occupation, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with all powers and rights of any other state. (i.e. truly independent) It is bullshit to claim that such concessions will "hamstring" them. Those should be the conditions of further U.S. support of Israel, and the Arab League knows that, they have already promised full diplomatic recognition and peace to the Israelis if they accept the plan. The U.S. is supporting their refusal of the plan.
Your question about Spitfires is off-point, it was the Hawker Hurricane that was the mainstay of the RAF during the Battle of Britain. And yes, all of Britain's war production (and Frances') was on a crash program to catch up in the arms race with Germany and Italy. Appeasement of Hitler made sense, there was a trade-off. They looked like weak powers while Hitler made asses of them, this encouraged others, the Japs in the Far East, the Italians in the Med, to move against British and French Imperial possessions and they couldn't afford to look like weaklings forever, still they did need more time to catch up in war production. The tables are in Professor Overy's book on the origins of WWII and are very interesting. Chamberlain was still PM when Hitler invaded Poland and at that time he DID declare war on Germany when his ultimatum to get out of Poland ran out on Sept. 3.
-
Stopping support would induce them to strike a deal with the Palestinians, get the almost 300,000 Jewish settlers out of the West Bank and allow the West Bank finally to become the territory of the new Palestinian state
At which time you would be back to 67 , when no body was satisfied at all.
This plan has no potential for causeing any peace, it was very exactly tried already.
A return to the 67 border invites a replay of the 67 war , but with stronger weapons on both sides and less mercy this time.
I don't know what convoluted logic leads you to hope that appeasement would lead to anything but greater demands for appeasement.
Chamberlain could have listened to Chirchill and could have been busy building Spitfires while the fight in Spain was still going on, I know about the Hurricane and I know that the Spitfire outclassed it and was in prototype before the invasion of Chezoslovokia. Better preparation would have ment more Spitfires and less reliance on the Hurricane which wasn't quite as good as the ME109.
Looks like it was ready for production in 1935.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire)
I don't buy the rehabilitation of Chaimberlain , I rather beleive Churchills apraisal that the wasted time was " eaten by the locust" and that there was foolishness involved in being poorly prepared while the Germans restored their war machine, even before Hitler even came to power.
Meanwhile Stalin knew the Germans were building aircraft in violation of treaty , some were built on his own territory.If there was anyone dumber than Chaimberlain it was Stalin.
-
<< . . . you would be back to 67 , when no body was satisfied at all.>>
Hopefully, both sides will have learned something in the 43 intervening years. The Jews that they can't have the whole package, the Palestinians that they can't drive the Jews into the sea. People DO get tired of fighting, that HAS been known to happen, and 43 years is a long time for people to learn to coexist.
The problem today is the right-wing Zionists of the Likud Party and the religious fanatics who are backing them - - to them, the whole land is theirs, promised by God and to give up on any part is to spit in God's face. If these fucking maniacs are allowed to drive Israeli policy, and through the Israelis, through the influence of the Zionist lobby on the corrupt, sham-democratic U.S. Congress, U.S. foreign policy as well, then Israel will still be fighting Palestinian "terrorism" for another 43 years and the U.S. will still be broke from its misguided efforts to fight "Muslim terrorism" long before the 43 years expire.
<<This plan has no potential for causeing any peace, it was very exactly tried already.>>
That is just not true, it was never tried. There was no Israeli concession even to the idea of a Palestinian state at that time (see Golda Meir's infamous remark, "Who are the Palestinians?") - - their existence as a people, let alone their right to a state of their own, was denied by the entire Israeli nation.
<<A return to the 67 border invites a replay of the 67 war , but with stronger weapons on both sides and less mercy this time.>>
How can it invite a repeat, when all the Arab participants in the war are members of the Arab League then and are now, and the Arab League has endorsed the peace plan and guaranteed diplomatic recognition and normal relations with the Israeli state if it accepts the peace plan?
<<I don't know what convoluted logic leads you to hope that appeasement would lead to anything but greater demands for appeasement.>>
There is nothing convoluted in my logic, it is straightforward enough: when you stop oppressing people, they stop fighting back. That's convoluted? It couldn't be simpler. Sounds to me like you don't even know what "convoluted" means if you think THAT was convoluted.
You like to think in simplistic generalizations which have no basis in reality. To you, every situation resolves back to 1938 and anyone who is not calling for torture, war, mayhem and murder as a solution to any problem is Neville Chamberlain.
In the first place, you don't even understand the dynamics of 1938, so any "lessons" you draw from it for application to 2010 are bound to be flawed. Neville Chamberlain was not the villain in 1938 and it was not his policies that directly resulted in WWII, it was Hitler who was both the villain and the cause of the war.
In the second place, you seem to think that appeasement originated in 1938. Appeasement is a tactic and only a tactic. It has been around as long as diplomacy itself, which is a sign that it must work sometimes. If in fact it failed as a tactic consistently every time it was resorted to, if in fact it had a 100% failure rate, it would not have persisted as a tactic for the thousands of years that humans have practised the art of diplomacy. The root word of "appeasement" is "peace" and the basic meaning of the word is to calm down, to remove a motive for war to resolve things peacefully. It's a perversion of the word to allow it from the mouth of an oppressor to justify his on-going oppression of others; to end an ILLEGAL (by international law) 43-year-old military occupation of another people is NOT "appeasement" in any negative sense, it is merely doing right and abandoning doing wrong.
<<Chamberlain could have listened to Chirchill and could have been busy building Spitfires while the fight in Spain was still going on, I know about the Hurricane and I know that the Spitfire outclassed it and was in prototype before the invasion of Chezoslovokia. Better preparation would have ment more Spitfires and less reliance on the Hurricane which wasn't quite as good as the ME109.>>
The men in the planes were better men, plane. That was what decided the outcome. That plus Hitler's fucking stupidity in giving up while the fight was still going on. They didn't have to outlast the Germans, just inflict casualties at a rate that caused them to lose their nerve. If you want to diss Chamberlain for his policies at Munich, I think I have trashed that argument. If you want to diss him for not being Churchill, you will get no argument from me. Churchill wasn't arguing for war in the earlier part of the thirties, he was arguing for early armament, for preparedness, following the massive disarmament that followed the end of WWI, as a means of avoiding waR.
<< I don't buy the rehabilitation of Chaimberlain , I rather beleive Churchills apraisal that the wasted time was " eaten by the locust" and that there was foolishness involved in being poorly prepared while the Germans restored their war machine, even before Hitler even came to power.>>
Well, that's why I referred to the armaments production tables in Prof. Overy's book on the Origins of WWII. They're very interesting and they clearly justify Chamberlain's policies, at least to the extent of preparations and rearmament.
<<Meanwhile Stalin knew the Germans were building aircraft in violation of treaty , some were built on his own territory.If there was anyone dumber than Chaimberlain it was Stalin.>>
Meantime, Stalin was able to buy more time than Chamberlain did, used the interval to move most of his weapons factories beyond the Urals and out of German reach, and finished the war in possession of Eastern Europe with an army that, if it wished, could have driven to the English Channel. Some dummy!
-
We get sidetracked sometimes on personal issues. Nobody's perfect. But I think there have been some good debates in here in the past. Maybe the tone recently has been too acrimonious. I really hope you're not serious when you say there weren't any good debates in here. There weren't as many as there could have been, sure. But I'm pretty sure we have had some productive ones in the past.
I find this highly ironic, when you consider this little war of words you've been having with Rich, which I agree Rich has been pretty much your hyperbolic polar equivalent, yet you still go at it. But apparently find it implausible, even, dare I say, unable to faciliate any "debate" in my direction. Haven't simply been calling you any 3rd grade names repetatively. Have prefaced many questions as open-ended with the goal of generating the above debate you're referring to. I have to admit, very ironic, given the amount of time/energy/bandwidth you're devoting time to vs what you don't
And I'm confident I'm not the only one
-
I don't like to be called a liar, sirs, and you pulled that on me once too often. I was in the midst of composing a reply, calling you a liar in return, and I suddenly realized, this is not debating and it's not what I had in mind when I joined this club. I certainly wasn't enjoying composing the response, and I realized I didn't have to do it. Didn't have to respond with "liar yourself" every time a poster, usually you, called me a liar. So I stopped debating with you and I immediately felt much better.
I agree, it's kind of ironic that I can respond to a guy like Rich, basically a demented fascist ignoramus, who calls me every name in the book, squeals on me to the FBI (OK, it has its comic aspects,) threatens my life in various inventive ways and tells me about his perverted fantasies of getting a blow job from my wife and kids while I'm forced to watch the whole thing, but that's more for comic relief than anything else. Actually, I finally decided not to bother with Rich either, at least for the time being, just because I was getting tired of it and I think we've both said about everything we had to say to one another.
"Debating" with you, if that's what it can be called, was very dispiriting. Not only did I not appreciate being called a liar, I was actually even more dispirited when I let myself be dragged down to your level and actually found myself responding in kind. That just is not my style of debate and I had to wonder what I was doing in here. I really have to say it feels much better NOT "debating" things with you, and I don't intend to get sucked into it again.
-
I don't like to be called a liar, sirs, and you pulled that on me once too often.
Then don't, and you won't get called on it. Your problem Tee is that I wasn't "calling you a liar", along the lines of you and Rich hurling 3rd grade insults at each other, over and over. I specifically referenced a particular allegation(s), and demonstrated HOW it was a lie. No simple invective personal slur, but a validatition of why your comments were false. If you can't handle when your comments are objectively scrutinized and demonstrated to be a fallicy, that merely shows your interest isn't to validate your claims, its simply to be allowed to make them, and that should be it. And if anyone doubts any of that, we have a nice record to go back to, via our archives, and at no time will you see me playing this tit for tat 3rd grade name calling game you and Rich are performing on the saloon stage. My comments and conclusions were specific to what you were trying to pull. Not my problem that you couldn't handle the kitchen heat.
Nor have I hurled any perseverating insults within this little paragraph either. yet, you seem to have no problem responding to those, but acknowledging your error in various allegations is obviously not going to "fit your template"
-
My facts get challenged on a daily basis, sirs, but I'm not called a liar on a daily basis. I know what happened and I stand by the words I just wrote. We're just not going to be "debating" one another. End of story.
-
Nor do you lie on a daily basis, nor did I call you a liar on a daily basis. Again, archives will CLEARLY demonstrate, how you would make specific allegations that were factually wrong, then stand by them, despite them being factually wrong. That's when your feet are held to the fire, and NOT in some tit for tat "liar liar pants on fire" dren, you're trying to infer. You're being either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest in trying to apply the latter, when it was consistently the former.
It's your call as far as you not wanting to debate, but that's a unilateral disarmament on your part. You get no immunity bubble from either lying or making hypocritical claims. Especially with how hyperbolic you can get, in making them. By all means, focus all your energy in more purposeful efforts, such as coming up with more unsubstantiated names to call people. Crypto-fascist is so....yesterday
-
<<Meanwhile Stalin knew the Germans were building aircraft in violation of treaty , some were built on his own territory.If there was anyone dumber than Chaimberlain it was Stalin.>>
Meantime, Stalin was able to buy more time than Chamberlain did, used the interval to move most of his weapons factories beyond the Urals and out of German reach, and finished the war in possession of Eastern Europe with an army that, if it wished, could have driven to the English Channel. Some dummy!
You are totally wrong on every point you tried to make , but this last is a real whopper!
Stalin didn't move much East before the invasion because the invasion cought him flat footed ,I mean if you can't trust treatys made with your fellow dictator what can you trust? Krushev was the hero of the hour AFTER the invasion , Kruchev moved everything he could ahead of the invaders and salvaged an amazeing amount , that was later reassembled in the eastern parts of europe beyond the invaders reach. If the Invasion had reached as far as Magnitorsk they would ahve captured everything of consequence anyway, it was a near thing .
The fantastic strength of caricter common in the Russian Army made up for a lot of Stalins foolishness, and that half of Hitlers air strength was unavailible, or destroyed,due to the failure of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britian . The USSR owed more then to the native toughness of the Russian people and to the RAF than it owed to Stalin . There is hardly any reason to consider Stalin to be anything but an impediment to the Defense of the Motherland.
Of course anyone who might have said so certainly didn't survive to say so twice , that is the real strength oand virtue of Stalin , he could shut you up, Stalin was a lot really , like Rich wishes he is in his dreams.
-
The USSR owed more then to the native toughness of the Russian people and to the RAF than it owed to Stalin . There is hardly any reason to consider Stalin to be anything but an impediment to the Defense of the Motherland.
Of course anyone who might have said so certainly didn't survive to say so twice , that is the real strength oand virtue of Stalin , he could shut you up, Stalin was a lot really , like Rich wishes he is in his dreams.
D'OH ;)
-
<<Stalin didn't move much East before the invasion because the invasion cought him flat footed ,I mean if you can't trust treatys made with your fellow dictator what can you trust? Krushev was the hero of the hour AFTER the invasion , Kruchev moved everything he could ahead of the invaders and salvaged an amazeing amount , that was later reassembled in the eastern parts of europe beyond the invaders reach. If the Invasion had reached as far as Magnitorsk they would ahve captured everything of consequence anyway, it was a near thing .>>
Well, I started out to prove you wrong on that point, but it looks like you are correct in that that bulk of the movement of the Soviet industrial production eastwards took place in the second half of 1941, during and after the German invasion. However, the move had begun earlier:
<<Even before the war, the Soviet leadership began the relocation of Russian industry in and beyond the Ural Mountains so that it would not be susceptible to immediate ground attack from the West.>>
http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/3/4_2.html (http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/3/4_2.html)
Khruschev obviously did not have the power to initiate anything, he was Stalin's appointee; interestingly enough, the Wikipedia bio of Khruschev makes no mention at all of Khruschev's alleged role in the eastward movement of Soviet industry, so I have to ask you where you got that information from.
<<The fantastic strength of caricter common in the Russian Army made up for a lot of Stalins foolishness, and that half of Hitlers air strength was unavailible, or destroyed,due to the failure of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britian . The USSR owed more then to the native toughness of the Russian people and to the RAF than it owed to Stalin .>>
That's an assessment almost impossible to verify in any way. Obviously the Battle of Britain must have had some effect on German air strength, but in 1941, new planes were still rolling off of German production lines at a fairly healthy clip, IIRC.
<<There is hardly any reason to consider Stalin to be anything but an impediment to the Defense of the Motherland.>>
Ridiculous. It was under his command that the movement of Soviet industry east of the Urals was initiated before the German invasion and continued thereafter. It was also his responsibility to review the progress of the Red Army and to promote or fire its commanders as necessary. He was the Top Dog, and as such takes the credit and the blame for everything that happens - - for the initial defeats and losses of territory, for Stalingrad, and for the victories that followed Stalingrad. For the production numbers of Soviet industry. For the morale of the Red Army.
<<Of course anyone who might have said so certainly didn't survive to say so twice , that is the real strength oand virtue of Stalin , he could shut you up, Stalin was a lot really , like Rich wishes he is in his dreams.>>
His was the power, regardless of what anyone said or thought, and under that power, the greatest victory in the history of human warfare was achieved. The credit goes to Stalin for the utter destruction of Nazi Germany, shared of course with the Western Allies and the Anti-Fascist Resistance Forces of occupied Europe.
-
Well, I started out to prove you wrong on that point, but it looks like you are correct in that that bulk of the movement of the Soviet industrial production eastwards took place in the second half of 1941, during and after the German invasion. However, the move had begun earlier:
The Bulk? what proportion is the bulk?
<<The fantastic strength of caricter common in the Russian Army made up for a lot of Stalins foolishness, and that half of Hitlers air strength was unavailible, or destroyed,due to the failure of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britian . The USSR owed more then to the native toughness of the Russian people and to the RAF than it owed to Stalin .>>
That's an assessment almost impossible to verify in any way. Obviously the Battle of Britain must have had some effect on German air strength, but in 1941, new planes were still rolling off of German production lines at a fairly healthy clip, IIRC.
Do you think that the hunndreds of aircraft lost in Britian were not missed? Or the experienced pilots that were replaced with rookies? If Hitler had succeded in the Battle of Britian he could have seen less loss and he could have rolled a lot more Luftwaffe east , and the Luftwaffe would have included Hurricanes and Spitfires and four engine Bombers, the Luftwaffe was always short on the very heavy bombers.
<<There is hardly any reason to consider Stalin to be anything but an impediment to the Defense of the Motherland.>>
Ridiculous. It was under his command that the movement of Soviet industry east of the Urals was initiated before the German invasion and continued thereafter. It was also his responsibility to review the progress of the Red Army and to promote or fire its commanders as necessary. He was the Top Dog, and as such takes the credit and the blame for everything that happens - - for the initial defeats and losses of territory, for Stalingrad, and for the victories that followed Stalingrad. For the production numbers of Soviet industry. For the morale of the Red Army.
<<Of course anyone who might have said so certainly didn't survive to say so twice , that is the real strength oand virtue of Stalin , he could shut you up, Stalin was a lot really , like Rich wishes he is in his dreams.>>
His was the power, regardless of what anyone said or thought, and under that power, the greatest victory in the history of human warfare was achieved. The credit goes to Stalin for the utter destruction of Nazi Germany, shared of course with the Western Allies and the Anti-Fascist Resistance Forces of occupied Europe.
I am unaware of Stalin ever accepting the fault for a bad decision.
I am also unaware of any time that Stalin welcomed healthy criticism.
That might be a bit of ignorance you could help me with.
-
<<I am unaware of Stalin ever accepting the fault for a bad decision.>>
LMFAO. Yes, I know how all your Presidents, especially your last one, were so forthcoming to accept the blame for their bad decisions. They lacerate themselves constantly in public, accepting the blame for everything that goes wrong on their watch, whether it's their fault or not. Not like that miserable commie SOB Stalin.
Actually, once we pull out of Planet Cold War's bullshit-filled orbit, we can see that Stalin has in fact admitted error, specifically between the first and second editions of his Foundations of Leninism, in which he went from denying to affirming the viability of "Socialism in One Country."
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol03/no06/editorial.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol03/no06/editorial.htm)
<<I am also unaware of any time that Stalin welcomed healthy criticism.>>
That's because you were locked out of all Politburo meetings for political unreliability.
-
<<I am unaware of Stalin ever accepting the fault for a bad decision.>>
LMFAO. Yes, I know how all your Presidents, especially your last one, were so forthcoming to accept the blame for their bad decisions. They lacerate themselves constantly in public, accepting the blame for everything that goes wrong on their watch, whether it's their fault or not. Not like that miserable commie SOB Stalin.
Actually, once we pull out of Planet Cold War's bullshit-filled orbit, we can see that Stalin has in fact admitted error, specifically between the first and second editions of his Foundations of Leninism, in which he went from denying to affirming the viability of "Socialism in One Country."
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol03/no06/editorial.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol03/no06/editorial.htm)
<<I am also unaware of any time that Stalin welcomed healthy criticism.>>
That's because you were locked out of all Politburo meetings for political unreliability.
Our President Bush accepted a highly critical press, getting every day criticism that Stalin would have killed for.
Stalin was not strong enough to put up with that much criticism , a reporter who might question Stalins wisdom in decimateing his officer corps and exileing his aircraft designers on the very eve of conflict, or jailing anyone with the termidity to say that Darwin was right would have died young.
-
<<Our President Bush accepted a highly critical press, getting every day criticism that Stalin would have killed for.>>
Well, at least you seem to accept that, unlike Stalin, Bush did NOT admit to his mistakes.
Bush ACCEPTED a highly critical press? BFD, it wasn't in his power to strike out at his critics, since he saw what had happened to Nixon when he tried to do so. This may be a great tribute to your system (well, I gotta face it, your system can't be ALL bad) but it is not much of a credit to Bush.
<<Stalin was not strong enough to put up with that much criticism >>
Stalin WAS strong, very strong as you would have found out had you ever voiced any of your own criticisms of him on his turf, in his time. It was WEAK Communists, communists like Gorbachev, who are responsible for the downfall of the system because they fell for this "let a thousand flowers bloom" crap that had already failed in China and decided to let everyone have a voice. Whole fucking thing fell apart in no time. If Stalin had lived, the U.S.S.R. would still be a power on this earth, and we wouldn't have seen the kind of shit happening like the invasion of Iraq or the oppression of the Palestinians.
<< a reporter who might question Stalins wisdom in decimateing his officer corps and exileing his aircraft designers on the very eve of conflict, or jailing anyone with the termidity to say that Darwin was right would have died young.>>
Which is to say that a reporter who might have tried to undermine national unity and party unity on the eve of the Nazi attack on the USSR by trying to voice your criticisms, would have paid the price for his treasonous acts. I'd say Stalin knew what he was doing and you didn't. Their system works one way, and it has its weaknesses for sure. Your system works a different way, and while you seem to be well aware of its strengths, I don't think you like to admit any of its weaknesses. The mistake you always make is in trying to judge Uncle Joe by the standards of the one system, while the system that he was functioning in was a whole nuther system. Like applying football rules to a game of baseball -- why didn't the shortstop tackle the base runner? kind of thing. Everyone will make mistakes in any system, maybe Uncle Joe made some, the issue is, how did he deal with his mistakes and what did they lead to? In his case, he recovered nicely, the evacuation of Soviet industry to beyond the Ural Mountains went on to a successful completion, the Red Army regrouped, after some command changes, ultimately went on the offensive and killed more Nazis than all the Western Allies combined. Two thirds of all the Nazis killed in WWII were killed by the Red Army. Their success is measured in miles of territory gained and numbers of Nazi corpses. Uncle Joe was the leader in what turned out to be the biggest triumph of Communism in its history to date, all the "sour grapes" griping that follows notwithstanding.
-
<< a reporter who might question Stalins wisdom in decimateing his officer corps and exileing his aircraft designers on the very eve of conflict, or jailing anyone with the termidity to say that Darwin was right would have died young.>>
Which is to say that a reporter who might have tried to undermine national unity and party unity on the eve of the Nazi attack on the USSR by trying to voice your criticisms, would have paid the price for his treasonous acts. I'd say Stalin knew what he was doing and you didn't. Their system works one way, and it has its weaknesses for sure.
Boy, doesn't that sum things up nicely
-
You almost get it.
Stalin himself was a weakness of the Soviet system, he had to contain and supress criticism harshly and present a picture of perfection to the people as real as a Potemkin-ville.
An American style system would have exposed him to criticism and presented the people with choices , I can imagine that in the whole of the Soviet Union there might have been a few better leaders , but they unfortunately lived in a system with a critical weakness , impossibly strong incumbancy is a weakness for the nation.
-
Like applying football rules to a game of baseball -- why didn't the shortstop tackle the base runner? kind of thing.
Because even in football you can only tackle the ball carrier.
-
<<Because even in football you can only tackle the ball carrier.>>
Alright, so football/baseball wasn't the right analogy. How about boxing/baseball? Why doesn't the shortstop deck the base runner with a right uppercut to the jaw?
-
<<Because even in football you can only tackle the ball carrier.>>
Alright, so football/baseball wasn't the right analogy. How about boxing/baseball? Why doesn't the shortstop deck the base runner with a right uppercut to the jaw?
Interesting proposal , let the base runner keep the bat as he runs also.
You could charge three times as much for tickets.
-
Starting to sound like hockey without the ice...