America in the Middle-East

[_Atti_]

Interesting..(..also..a good HipHop track:) ) (<-Click)

[Zmid]

To White Wolf

 

Hitler signed the non-aggression pact when it was offered so he wouldn't have to worry about the Russians attacking from the east. Stalin offered and signed it to buy some time. Hitler disregarded it when he thought he would be able to fight a two (or even three) front war.

Yes.

 

To quote Peregrine:

 

CONCESSION ACCEPTED.

 

But you said that such a mobilisation would have caused Russia to collapse. If what you said is correct, he either did mobilise the army, and Russia collapsed, or he didn't mobilise.

 

Of course, the third option is that you've been speaking utter crap for the last few posts.

 

Oh, by the way, it is generally regarded that the USSR emerged from WW2 stronger than it went into it despite the losses it received, so that kind of means it's not the first option.

It would have collapsed if Stalin hadn't atacked.

 

Stalin didn't attack. Hitler attacked. Stalin defended.

 

To support an army so huge, you need enormous amount of money. When you atack (especially when that army is Russians) this army lessens. That way you need less money to support it.

 

You have to mobilise BEFORE you attack, and therefore BEFORE you begin to accrue losses, so, if your claims are correct, where did Stalin get the money to mobilise?

 

Maybe USSR was stronger after the war because it thieved the nuclear weapon?

 

No, it was stronger because Hitler underestimated the Russian army. He thought that he could win victory in the USSR by the winter. He was wrong. Stalin managed first of all to halt the German advance just outside Moscow, then turn it around and, eventually, meet the other Allied forces coming the opposite direction in Germany. As a result, he managed to gain a hell of a lot of territory.

 

But if you want to defend your country, you defend it's borders. The only way you can defend it's borders is by moving your army there. Any army needs ammunition. Yes, you can fall back to strategic locations if you fail to defend your borders, but you have to at least make the attempt unless you don't really mind making it easy for your enemy.

When you defend in better places, you lose less troops.

 

True, but the enemy also loses less troops.

 

I think, it is best to leave the border, defeat the enemy in these places and then reclaim the border.

 

...or cause as much damage as possible to the enemy at the border, then fall back and attempt to hold these 'better places'. That way, the enemy has to pay in blood for every mile they take.

 

I said to name a form of government that was not born of a revolution or war of some description. If there was no war, there would have been no need for feudalism, so feudalism does not qualify.

Feodalism was born to protect from war, there was no revolution or war, whose goal was to establish feodalism.

 

Arguably there was - it was instead of one large war, there was lots of little ones. However, as I have already said, without war there is no need for feudalism. Not only that, the very existance of feudalism sparks wars, and usually ends in war. As such, the self-same argument you had (it's evil because it causes wars) can be made against feudalism.

 

Wrong translation. If you had read closely, you would have noticed, that your quoted excerpt proves that "such servitude" cannot be voluntary.

 

Yes, it does prove it - by saying that such force is necessary for all rules:

 

and the minute any amount of force or compulsion is coupled with those rules --which is necessary if they are to be rules at all

 

So, therefore, according to this, all rules are bad.

[ThetaOrionis01]

The 'article' clearly shows that there's no difference. And since you haven't managed to find any decent proof of it being illogical...  :tongue2:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The 'article' clearly shows only the author's narrow-minded and biased opinion, and lack of understanding of his subject. And your post shows a complete lack of critical facilities as well as lack of understanding of the subject. Once again, you have managed to highlight the ignorance you have already displayed in abundance in this thread.

 

It is slavery, because communists make people work for them.

 

*sighs*

This is like talking to a wall - actually, that's probably an insult to walls.

 

Your definition of slavery is flawed. Slavery is not 'being made to work for someone else' - in that case, everyone working for a living would a slave, because the need to satisfy essential material requirements forces people to work so that those basic needs can be met. Slavery also entails an absence of freedom, bonded labour, absence of basic human rights. Slaves are property of their owner.

 

Communism: everyone works for the common benefit, which as a result brings with it individual benefits.

 

 

All people have right to their property, not other's property. Taking other people's property is stealing. It is obvious.

 

So all governments are stealing their citizens' property via taxation?

 

That's such total crap, it's hardly worth debating.

 

Please, grow up and get yourself a little bit better informed before you post here again.

[Darnoc]

@Theta Orionis and draighox:

 

As a sidenote concerning slavery:

 

Roman law defined a slave as a person, working for someone else and receiving salary for this work, so he was dependent on the person giving him the salary.

 

A free person was defined as a person who wasn't dependent on someone else, ergo not receiving salary. A trader, for example, was considered a free person, while a teacher or doctor was not (at least when this person was working in someones household and not in his own school/practice).

 

When applying this to our modern situation, all employees would be slaves, while all self-employed people would be free people. Also note that slaves were not considered to be Roman citizens. They had not the rights of citizens and their masters could practically do everything they wanted with them.

[ThetaOrionis01]

@Theta Orionis and draighox:

 

As a sidenote concerning slavery:

 

Roman law defined a slave as a person, working for someone else and receiving salary for this work, so he was dependent on the person giving him the salary.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interesting, and not a definition I have come across before. Could you provide a source, please?

[draighox]

To White Wolf

 

Stalin didn't attack. Hitler attacked. Stalin defended.

Stalin's army lessened nevertheless.

 

You have to mobilise BEFORE you attack, and therefore BEFORE you begin to accrue losses, so, if your claims are correct, where did Stalin get the money to mobilise?

He had enaugh money to mobilise, but not to support the army after the mobilisation.

 

...or cause as much damage as possible to the enemy at the border, then fall back and attempt to hold these 'better places'. That way, the enemy has to pay in blood for every mile they take.

Well, yeah, that's a good plan too.

 

Arguably there was - it was instead of one large war, there was lots of little ones. However, as I have already said, without war there is no need for feudalism. Not only that, the very existance of feudalism sparks wars, and usually ends in war. As such, the self-same argument you had (it's evil because it causes wars) can be made against feudalism.

Of course feodalism is somewhat evil.

 

So, therefore, according to this, all rules are bad.

It never said that rules are bad. It just said that rules have to be enforced, that's all.

 

 

To Theta Orionis

 

The 'article' clearly shows only the author's narrow-minded and biased opinion, and lack of understanding of his subject. And your post shows a complete lack of critical facilities as well as lack of understanding of the subject. Once again, you have managed to highlight the ignorance you have already displayed in abundance in this thread.

:rolleyes:

 

Your definition of slavery is flawed. Slavery is not 'being made to work for someone else' - in that case, everyone working for a living would a slave, because the need to satisfy essential material requirements forces people to work so that those basic needs can be met. Slavery also entails an absence of freedom, bonded labour, absence of basic human rights. Slaves are property of their owner.

 

Communism: everyone works for the common benefit, which as a result brings with it individual benefits.

Working for yourself isn't slavery. Working for others under constraint is slavery.

Communism: more productive people are enslaved to support the society.

 

So all governments are stealing their citizens' property via taxation?

Kind of. If the taxes aren't a payment for services the government provides.

[Darnoc]

Interesting, and not a definition I have come across before. Could you provide a source, please?

 

It isn't a real definition. Call it a comment on the situation. It isn't really written somewhere, but you can conclude it from the juristic status and the acctuall situation. The first one who showed me the analogy to the situation of today was my latin teacher.

 

Slaves in Rome were considered res (thing) and not persona. Their master could do with them what he wanted, for juristically they weren't persons, altough roman law also stated that slaves were natural humans.

 

First most slaves were debtors. If someone could not pay his debts, he could sell himself as slave to the person he was in debt. Later on this was forbidden. The new law stated that persons in debt who could not pay had only to work until their debt was paid off with their work. He didn't receive salary tough, like normal slaves. The debtor had to give his salary to the one he was in debt.

 

The situation with "normal" slaves was different. First they didn't receive salary, but later it came into tradition to pay them peculium (capital). In later times, slaves were often well educated men (teachers, doctors etc.) for whom quite a price was paid and who also received a good peculium.

 

Free people didn't receive salary. Free people were people working for themselves, like farmers, traders or craftsmen (craftsmen made things for people, but they weren't given their salary by someone, they earned money by selling their products). Some of the farmers were so called coloni, their land was not their own, they leased it and paid the owner something for it. This is the source of the middle-age bondslaves.

 

Juristically, a slave had no possessions. A free man had possession, like land, a house or his own work (with "own" I mean he didn't work for someone and he acctually owns what he creates with his talents). Exception of this rule were the coloni who didn't possess the land, but who could sell what they grew on this land.

 

Just apply it to our situation. Most people don't work for themselves, but they are paid by someone else to do work. Therefore their work is not their possession, but the possession of the one who pays them. If you work in a factory, you only craft something, but you don't earn money by selling what you have crafted. Your work is not your own. Therefore you are a "work-slave", for you work for someone who is kind enough to pay you for it (or to be more precise, the law forces him to pay you; but it isn't stated in the law, how much he has to pay you).

[Zmid]

He had enaugh money to mobilise, but not to support the army after the mobilisation.

 

So you're saying Stalin counted on having humungous losses? He may have been an evil paranoid dictator, but he wasn't stupid. Any even halfway competent general prepares for losses, but doesn't count on receiving them.

 

Arguably there was - it was instead of one large war, there was lots of little ones. However, as I have already said, without war there is no need for feudalism. Not only that, the very existance of feudalism sparks wars, and usually ends in war. As such, the self-same argument you had (it's evil because it causes wars) can be made against feudalism.

Of course feodalism is somewhat evil.

 

So I ask again - name a single form of government this argument cannot be used against.

 

So, therefore, according to this, all rules are bad.

It never said that rules are bad. It just said that rules have to be enforced, that's all.

 

And the whole argument it had against communism is that communism is evil because the rules of a communist society have to be enforced.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Darnoc:

 

In that case, your original statement is misleading, is it not?

 

None of the definitions of slavery under Roman law I have encountered mention receipt of a salary as an indication of slavery. Slavery was a legal, not an economic status.

 

 

And I disagree with your conclusion about work and slavery. There is a difference between owning the output of your work, and being in possession of the actual labour itself. Being in paid employment, you yourself have control over your labour, your capacity to work. You choose what kind of labour you do, how much of it, who you work for etc. A slave has none of these choices.

 

 

If you wanted to take this to an extreme, then by having basic requirements - such as for food and shelter - we are slaves to our bodies.

 

 

However, interesting as this is, this is straying even further from the topic......

[Darnoc]

@Theta Orionis:

 

However, interesting as this is, this is straying even further from the topic......

 

It is an interesting subject, I agree. I would like to further debate it, so I'll open a new thread.