America in the Middle-East

[draighox]

Civil war?

Yeah, well, apart from that.

[Zmid]

To White Wolf

 

So the idea that Stalin persuaded Hitler to start WW2 is a load of nonsense. The above is why Hitler started WW2.

He WANTED to atack, he was just wavering when to do it.

 

So why would he listen to any persuasion by Stalin, when he loathed the guy?

 

Wrong. The 'mobilisation' was because Stalin was PARANOID. He saw threats everywhere, most of the time from inside the USSR. If he managed to suppress all dissent, nobody could touch him.

He wasn't paranoid

 

Sorry, have you even read any history of the USSR under Stalin? The guy was probably the most paranoid world leader there ever was in history. Here's a few short histories and biographies:

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figu...in_joseph.shtml

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Stali...;s%20Russia.htm

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Stalin.html

 

, and mobilisation can't defend you from the threats from inside.

 

Yes it can. Use the army to arrest and kill the people who are a threat to you. In Stalin's case, most of the time, the people arrested and killed were only people he perceived as a threat, not actual threats.

 

Even if he was paranoid, he couldn't have started so huge mobilisation. It would have collapsed USSR.

 

You've just spent the last few posts asking why he started said mobilisation. Now you're saying he couldn't and didn't?

 

Completely wrong. Stalin wanted to DEFEND AGAINST Hitler when he did attack.

If he had wanted to defend, he wouldn't have moved almost ALL of his armies to the border, and certainly not ALL ammunition. He would have placed it in strategic places not at the border.

 

So, what do you suggest? Stalin's army defends the border from Moscow? And they fire potatoes out their guns?

 

Now you're really having a laugh. Feudalism? In every single case, that was born of war, was marked by war throughout and ended in war.

It formed naturaly. It CAUSED many wars, but it formed naturaly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wrong. Feudalism formed as a way of better protecting areas that were at risk because of war. Dividing the land up into smaller provinces, with nobles responsible for each one, meant that, if any one came under attack, there would already be men in that province, raised by and under the command of that noble, able to respond promptly to that attack. Not only that, if the worst came to the worst, and the attacking force won, it was only a relatively small area that was taken. This would allow the king to raise an army from the forces in the surrounding provinces to boot the invader out.

[Malchik]

To Malchik

 

Which democracy, where? In the UK we had a civil war. The US had wars with the native Indians, whom they massacred in their landgrabbing, the UK to get freedom

USA did not fight for domocracy. They fought against England for freedom, and against Indians for land. [/unquote]

 

You made a statement that democracy was a form of government that was brought about without revolution. I disagree and gave examples (there are lots more but it shouldn't be necessary to go into that much detail.) I am not sure how your comment above is relevant. The Thirteen Colonies were not conquered by England, they were founded by them. The US revolution was to change the form of government they had to one they liked better. Whether what they wanted was democracy was irrelevant, they could not have achieved a change in governemt without a revolution.

 

One thing that seems to escape a large number of people is that democracy is a stage in government reached after a considerable period of time and via several stages. You cannot simply impose it on a society that has not reached the stage to cope with it. There are many examples of failed attempts to do this in the past. It may be possible to install a government and call it a democracy but it won't work. Where it is still being tried the 'democracies' only exist because they are propped up by the troops of foreign invaders. Only candidates acceptable to these invaders are allowed to stand. How is that a democracy?

 

Try taking off the blinkers for a moment and study more widely. You may still dislike the communist ideology and your basic opinions may not change but you will at least be speaking after having examined all the available facts. At the moment it is clear that you have not.

[draighox]

To White Wolf

 

So why would he listen to any persuasion by Stalin, when he loathed the guy?

I don't know about loathing. They got together quite well. They signed the non-aggresion pact and even shared weapon technologies.

 

Sorry, have you even read any history of the USSR under Stalin? The guy was probably the most paranoid world leader there ever was in history. Here's a few short histories and biographies:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figu...in_joseph.shtml

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Stali...;s%20Russia.htm

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Stalin.html

Yes I have read it. Stalin may have been paranoid AFTER the WW2, but certainly not before.

 

Yes it can. Use the army to arrest and kill the people who are a threat to you. In Stalin's case, most of the time, the people arrested and killed were only people he perceived as a threat, not actual threats.

Yes. Use army, big enaugh to defeat Hitler, to hunt your oponents. Especially when soldiers have no experience in such matters, KGB and its predecessors were used for this.

 

You've just spent the last few posts asking why he started said mobilisation. Now you're saying he couldn't and didn't?

He couldn't have started mobilisation UNLESS he intended to atack Hitler.

 

So, what do you suggest? Stalin's army defends the border from Moscow? And they fire potatoes out their guns?

There must have been a lot of good places to defend from between Moscow and the border. And they should have kept their ammunition in these places.

 

Wrong. Feudalism formed as a way of better protecting areas that were at risk because of war. Dividing the land up into smaller provinces, with nobles responsible for each one, meant that, if any one came under attack, there would already be men in that province, raised by and under the command of that noble, able to respond promptly to that attack. Not only that, if the worst came to the worst, and the attacking force won, it was only a relatively small area that was taken. This would allow the king to raise an army from the forces in the surrounding provinces to boot the invader out.

True. But you didn't prove that feudalism was born of revolution. "Feudalism formed as a way of better protecting areas that were at risk because of war.", like you said.

 

To Malchik

 

You made a statement that democracy was a form of government that was brought about without revolution. I disagree and gave examples (there are lots more but it shouldn't be necessary to go into that much detail.) I am not sure how your comment above is relevant. The Thirteen Colonies were not conquered by England, they were founded by them. The US revolution was to change the form of government they had to one they liked better. Whether what they wanted was democracy was irrelevant, they could not have achieved a change in governemt without a revolution.

Well, OK. I made a mistake there. Democracy in USA was brought with revolution.

 

Try taking off the blinkers for a moment and study more widely. You may still dislike the communist ideology and your basic opinions may not change but you will at least be speaking after having examined all the available facts. At the moment it is clear that you have not.

http://useastprb.optiview.com/HTTP:/manila...parentview=1782

A nice article, which proves that communism is evil not just because you have to murder mass of people to establish it, it is evil as an idea too.

[ThetaOrionis01]

http://useastprb.optiview.com/HTTP:/manila...parentview=1782

A nice article, which proves that communism is evil not just because you have to murder mass of people to establish it, it is evil as an idea too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I would not call this an article - it is a person's statement of opinion which proves precisely nothing.

 

Please bear in mind that anyone can post anything on a website, no matter how badly researched it is, and no matter how twisted and illogical their conclusions are.

[Malchik]

Dear Old Karl Marx was an idealist and a dreamer. His vision of Utopian society is impractical, at least in the current world. But it is not of itself evil. The desire to promote a society in which everyone is working for the good of that society and not himself or herself is laudable. As I have said before it is similar to the Christian ethic although the reasons why you follow the ethic are quite different (personal altruism as against doing what the creator wants). I cannot see how anyone can call it evil to seek a harmonious basis to society.

 

It cannot work because it assumes a homogeneity of society that is impossible to foresee (as well as a lack of self interest that is utterly naive). A few small experiments have sometimes worked over a short time (is it Port Sunlight in the UK, I forget) and in some religious communities (again it is a long time since I studied any of this but the Ephrata cloister in Pennsylvania springs to mind - if I've got the wrong one I apologise). But there has never been a communist country. The term communism is used completely wrongly for Stalinism, Maoism, the shenanigans of the Burmese etc.

 

I have no personal axe to grind here. I am not a communist, or a Marxist. I disagree with it not because the ideology is evil, which it isn't, but because I cannot believe it would work in practice. The same is true of any non-secular form of government too. Only in a country where there is only one faith, and I don't mean one allowed faith but one faith in which everyone truly believes, can such a government work other than by becoming totalitarian and therefore evil. Whatever high ideals are set at the beginning, they cannot last. Either the principles are compromised and betrayed or the government is overthrown (voted out in a 'democracy').

 

Since the ideals of democracy (not actually the US style of government which is closer to a commercially funded plutocratic oligarchy i.e a few very wealthy organisations have a disproportionate amount of influence) have been imposed on Iraq, it will only function if opposition is banned, crushed or bought off. This is not democracy and is far more insidiously evil than poor Karl Marx's pipe dream!

 

I find it incomprehensible that from GWB's perspective if you don't agree with him you must be against him. Isn't this a totalitarian dictator in the making? Lets hope he doesn't change the law so that he can't be voted out as happened in Belarus not so long ago! Of course he will say it's for the good of the people. Fortunately I suspect the other members of the oligarch wouldn't let it happen.

[draighox]

To Theta Orionis

 

Please bear in mind that anyone can post anything on a website, no matter how badly researched it is, and no matter how twisted and illogical their conclusions are.

And what exactly is twisted and illogical in this "person's statement of opinion which proves precisely nothing"?

[Zmid]

To White Wolf

 

So why would he listen to any persuasion by Stalin, when he loathed the guy?

I don't know about loathing. They got together quite well. They signed the non-aggresion pact and even shared weapon technologies.

 

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.

 

Sorry, have you even read any history of the USSR under Stalin? The guy was probably the most paranoid world leader there ever was in history. Here's a few short histories and biographies:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figu...in_joseph.shtml

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Stali...;s%20Russia.htm

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Stalin.html

Yes I have read it. Stalin may have been paranoid AFTER the WW2, but certainly not before.

 

Stalin's paranoia deepened and became almost ludicrously out of control after WW2, but he was extremely paranoid almost his entire reign. The most notable occassions were the great purges he instigated against 'enemies of the state', which was basically anyone he perceived as a threat or anyone who did the most minor of crimes, for example:

 

'A tailor laying aside his needle stuck it into a newspaper on the wall so it wouldn't get lost and happened to stick it in the eye of a portrait of Kaganovich [a member of the Soviet Politburo]. A customer observed this. Article 58, ten years (terrorism).'

 

Ten years in a Russian gulag, in those days, was a death sentence. Guess when these purges started? 1936.

 

Yes it can. Use the army to arrest and kill the people who are a threat to you. In Stalin's case, most of the time, the people arrested and killed were only people he perceived as a threat, not actual threats.

Yes. Use army, big enaugh to defeat Hitler, to hunt your oponents. Especially when soldiers have no experience in such matters, KGB and its predecessors were used for this.

 

The NKVD was used for this (as the KGB didn't exist yet) along with the army.

 

You've just spent the last few posts asking why he started said mobilisation. Now you're saying he couldn't and didn't?

He couldn't have started mobilisation UNLESS he intended to atack Hitler.

 

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.

 

So, what do you suggest? Stalin's army defends the border from Moscow? And they fire potatoes out their guns?

There must have been a lot of good places to defend from between Moscow and the border. And they should have kept their ammunition in these places.

 

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.

 

Wrong. Feudalism formed as a way of better protecting areas that were at risk because of war. Dividing the land up into smaller provinces, with nobles responsible for each one, meant that, if any one came under attack, there would already be men in that province, raised by and under the command of that noble, able to respond promptly to that attack. Not only that, if the worst came to the worst, and the attacking force won, it was only a relatively small area that was taken. This would allow the king to raise an army from the forces in the surrounding provinces to boot the invader out.

True. But you didn't prove that feudalism was born of revolution. "Feudalism formed as a way of better protecting areas that were at risk because of war.", like you said.

 

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.

 

 

EDIT:

And what exactly is twisted and illogical in this "person's statement of opinion which proves precisely nothing"?

 

For example:

 

it becomes the responsibility of those few to support the needs and wants of the society as a whole; the most capable members of the community are, in essence, forcibly harnessed to the common good. There is a term for that, and it's "slavery."

 

...or 'them not being egocentric, selfish cunts who only look out for themselves'.

 

Once a community has made that step -- once it has, collectively, agreed that the (community-defined) needs of the community outweigh the (community-defined) needs of any given individual within that community, then the above desire that such an ideal Communist state be absent government is rendered inevitably void. Any system of rules by which a group of people agree to live their lives is at least in some sense a government; 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 -- it is unquestionably such. ("Government" is often defined as "a monopoly on force" for precisely this reason.) Even if those rules are merely the lightest of guidelines, even if the only force behind them is the collective disapproval of the community, they are still a form of government over that community

 

Translation: All rules are bad. Let's have total anarchy where it's every man for himself.

 

Those are just a couple that jumped out at me after quickly scanning this article. I could tear it apart piece by piece, but, to be perfectly honest, I can't be bothered.

[ThetaOrionis01]

no state how-ever a democratic even in the red republic!..once there's a master there's a slave...do you want to be slave?????by there principle and lies??..OPEN UP UR MIND!!

 

???

 

 

Here is a prime example of the twisted ill logic referred to.

 

Since, in any society, some people are going to be more capable of advancement than others, and some people are going to be more productive and efficient than others, it becomes the responsibility of those few to support the needs and wants of the society as a whole; the most capable members of the community are, in essence, forcibly harnessed to the common good. There is a term for that, and it's "slavery."

 

No, it is not slavery. It is putting the good of the community above self-interest. It's why we don't kill off people once they have reached the end of their working life. It's why we don't kill disabled persons at birth. It's why we don't expose our children on a hillside and leave them to fend for themselves.

 

And more in the same vein:

 

For any community of people to say, to an innocent individual, "our collective needs outweigh your individual ones," is an insanely, horribly selfish act on the part of that community, whether they then force that poor individual to sacrifice his needs or not.

 

Whoever wrote this crap has it the wrong way around - it is the selfishness of the individual which is insane and horrible, and it is individual greed which has put the planet into such a precarious state.

 

Taken to its extreme, this person's ideal world would be one where every person inhabits their own island, free from the need to make concessions to anyone else. Would that really be an ideal situation?

 

 

There is no moral difference between a society built upon Communism and a society built upon slavery.

 

There is a huge difference. Communism means shared ownership of everything by the community - slavery is the ownership of some people by others.

However, I suspect that communism demands a level of maturity that the human race has not yet attained.

 

The 'article' on the site is a piece of opinionated rhetoric, nothing more.

[draighox]

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.

 

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. 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.

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Once a community has made that step -- once it has, collectively, agreed that the (community-defined) needs of the community outweigh the (community-defined) needs of any given individual within that community, then the above desire that such an ideal Communist state be absent government is rendered inevitably void. Any system of rules by which a group of people agree to live their lives is at least in some sense a government; 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 -- it is unquestionably such. ("Government" is often defined as "a monopoly on force" for precisely this reason.) Even if those rules are merely the lightest of guidelines, even if the only force behind them is the collective disapproval of the community, they are still a form of government over that community

Translation: All rules are bad. Let's have total anarchy where it's every man for himself.

Wrong translation. If you had read closely, you would have noticed, that your quoted excerpt proves that "such servitude" cannot be voluntary. "Now, some try to get around this by arguing that, in an "ideal state," such servitude would be voluntary."

 

To Theta Orionis

 

No, it is not slavery. It is putting the good of the community above self-interest. It's why we don't kill off people once they have reached the end of their working life. It's why we don't kill disabled persons at birth. It's why we don't expose our children on a hillside and leave them to fend for themselves.

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

 

Whoever wrote this crap has it the wrong way around - it is the selfishness of the individual which is insane and horrible, and it is individual greed which has put the planet into such a precarious state.

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

 

There is a huge difference. Communism means shared ownership of everything by the community - slavery is the ownership of some people by others.

However, I suspect that communism demands a level of maturity that the human race has not yet attained.

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: