Who were the Top 10 Greatest US Presidents?

[Richard Nixon]

Both for restricted and non-restricted members. Who were the Top 10 Greatest Presidents of the United States?

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
4. Harry Truman
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. James K. Polk
7. Thomas Jefferson (For Louisiana Purchase)
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. Lyndon B Johnson
10. Ronald Reagan

[LOLseph Stalin]

I can only say FDR. Ronald Reagan was a laughing stock for he became best friends with Gorbachev and contributed to the fall of the USSR. At least he's last on your list though. Oh, and then Truman nuked Japan which could easily be considered a War Crime since it targeted civilians.

[Richard Nixon]

I can only say FDR. Ronald Reagan was a laughing stock for he became best friends with Gorbachev and contributed to the fall of the USSR. At least he's last on your list though. Oh, and then Truman nuked Japan which could easily be considered a War Crime since it targeted civilians.

Japan wouldn't have surrendered if we hadn't nuked Hiroshima. And there was the Japanese 14th Army there, a legitimate military target. And why not say Theodore Roosevelt who improved the lot of the workers or Johnson with his Great Society programs?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Japan wouldn't have surrendered if we hadn't nuked Hiroshima. And there was the Japanese 14th Army there, a legitimate military target. And why not say Theodore Roosevelt who improved the lot of the workers or Johnson with his Great Society programs?

Even years after the civilians were still feeling the effects of the bomb. They were developing cancer and other such sicknesses. It was dropped for propaganda reasons to scare Stalin. And wasn't Johnson the one who supported invading Vietnam?

[OneNamedNameLess]

Japan wouldn't have surrendered if we hadn't nuked Hiroshima. And there was the Japanese 14th Army there, a legitimate military target. And why not say Theodore Roosevelt who improved the lot of the workers or Johnson with his Great Society programs?

It would be interesting to hear your perception on this matter, if one of the USA's enemies nuked your country killing thousands of civilians as it was considered 'a legitimate military target'.

[Richard Nixon]

It would be interesting to hear your perception on this matter, if one of the USA's enemies nuked your country killing thousands of civilians as it was considered 'a legitimate military target'.

As I've said, Japan was not surrendering. Any other strategy would have resulted in more deaths.

[LOLseph Stalin]

As I've said, Japan was not surrendering. Any other strategy would have resulted in more deaths.

As Anti-Capitalist said, I doubt you would be thinking that way if it were the US that got nuked.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Two words: Dubya Dubya Dubya.

[Jack]

Japan wouldn't have surrendered if we hadn't nuked Hiroshima. And there was the Japanese 14th Army there, a legitimate military target. And why not say Theodore Roosevelt who improved the lot of the workers or Johnson with his Great Society programs?

We anarchists hat Teddy, fyi. He was possibly the most vicious president concerning anarchists. If I was less lazy I would show you specific incedents.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Both for restricted and non-restricted members. Who were the Top 10 Greatest Presidents of the United States?

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
4. Harry Truman
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. James K. Polk
7. Thomas Jefferson (For Louisiana Purchase)
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. Lyndon B Johnson
10. Ronald Reagan
11. None of the above

Hmm... I wonder ;)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Two words: Dubya Dubya Dubya.

That's three words! Fail. :p

[scarletghoul]

What a stupid poll. You might as well ask "what are the top 10 tastiest pieces of shit?"

[Qayin]

Mckinley because he got his ass handed to him

[Il Medico]

1. None
2. Imaginary
3. Non-existent
4. Unreal
5. In your dreams
6. Myth
7. Urban Legend
8. Fairy Tale
9. Tall Tale
10.Nonsense

[scarletghoul]

11. jimmy carter

lol

[ArdentCapitalist]

In no particular order, the presidents I am fond of are: Calvin Coolidge, Harding (everything he actually "did" was great, if only he had kept down the corruption surrounding him), Reagan, Washington... and that's pretty much it. Maybe Thomas Jefferson for his ideas, not actions. Polk gets points for efficiency. (Albeit efficiency at imperialism...)

[Agrippa]

William Henry Harrison.

Because he died in 30 days.

[R_P_A_S]

LMAO! I love it.

[R_P_A_S]

William Henry Harrison.

Because he died in 30 days.

Hey old boy New Bolivar...

in 1824 he became a member of the Senate. There he served a truncated term before being appointed as Minister Plenipotentiary to Colombia in May 1828. In Colombia, he lectured Simon Bolívar on the finer points of democracy before returning to his farm in Ohio, where he lived in relative retirement until he was nominated for the presidency in 1836. Defeated, he retired again to his farm before being elected president in 1840.

[RGacky3]

Japan wouldn't have surrendered if we hadn't nuked Hiroshima. And there was the Japanese 14th Army there, a legitimate military target. And why not say Theodore Roosevelt who improved the lot of the workers or Johnson with his Great Society programs?

You apply this reasoning to ANY other nation and see how it sounds.
Iraq using checmial weapons against Iran "they would'nt have surrendered".
Al Quaida killing civilians "its the only option we had"

Japan was ready to set up peace, but the US wanted unconditional surrender and wanted to use the bomb to get a head start over the USSR. So saying that mass murder of civilians was the only option is rediculous and hypocritical. That reasoning applies to most terrorist organizations as well.

You say greatest but what do you mean? Greatest speakers? Politicians (manipulaters)? Greatest generals?

[Demogorgon]

Japan wouldn't have surrendered if we hadn't nuked Hiroshima. And there was the Japanese 14th Army there, a legitimate military target. And why not say Theodore Roosevelt who improved the lot of the workers or Johnson with his Great Society programs?
The Japanese Government was discussing the best way to negotiate peace before the bombs were dropped. Indeed there was a significant and powerful faction in the Government was willing to accept a treaty where the only concession they got was the Emperor keeping his throne-and that happened anyway. The bombs were dropped for the benefit of the Soviet Union (whose attack on Manchuria may have been enough to get surrender on its own given the Japanese vastly preferred the prospect of American occupation to Soviet occupation.

The bombing of Japan was a war crime to be sure and the plain fact is that if Truman had been judged on the same basis as the axis war criminals, he would have gone to the gallows for sure. Don't forget too, that those same war criminals also thought they were only doing what had to be done. Just because a war crime is committed by your side, it does not mean it was acceptable.

[MarxSchmarx]

Japan wouldn't have surrendered if we hadn't nuked Hiroshima.

Nonsense. Read George Lensen "The Strange Neutrality: Soviet-Japanese relations during the Second World War." Japan had for years tried to negotiate a conditional surrender with the allies via its embassy in Moscow.


And there was the Japanese 14th Army there, a legitimate military target.

Why was Hiroshima basically untouched before the atom bomb, then?

[LOLseph Stalin]

William Henry Harrison.

Because he died in 30 days.


If I recall correctly, that's the guy who died after giving a long speech out in the cold. He probably wasn't too bright to begin with if he allowed himself to catch hypothermia due to a speech. :laugh:

[JimmyJazz]

As I've said, Japan was not surrendering. Any other strategy would have resulted in more deaths.

Thanks for your take on things, armchair general. Too bad the real generals at the time disagreed with you:

1945: US responses to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://libcom.org/history/1945-us-responses-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-nagasaki):


"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman

"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy

"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.
"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.
"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
see also here (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/06/10835):


In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world," reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague". For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated.

...

"Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Regardless of whether one uses nuclear or conventional warheads, bombing cities full of civilians is still an atrocity.

[RGacky3]

To me its discusting that anyone would defend the atomic bomb, even if Japan did'nt want to surrender, the fact that murdering civilians to save soldiers is even an option is really telling.

[Revy]

William Henry Harrison.

Because he died in 30 days.

Seconded! :cool:

[Bud Struggle]

Thanks for your take on things, armchair general. Too bad the real generals at the time disagreed with you:

1945: US responses to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://libcom.org/history/1945-us-responses-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-nagasaki):


see also here (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/06/10835):

Libcom and Common Dreams aren't exactly impartial websites on te subject.:rolleyes:

[Revy]

Japan wouldn't have surrendered if we hadn't nuked Hiroshima.

Yeah, because Germany was defeated after we nuked Berlin.:blink:

Japan was going to surrender. The US just wanted to make sure Japan stayed theirs instead of the Soviet Union. That's all. So they marked their territory with the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

[Bud Struggle]

Japan was going to surrender. The US just wanted to make sure Japan stayed theirs instead of the Soviet Union. That's all. So they marked their territory with the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Those are the risks involved with starting a total all out war. That being said I do think a few demonstration bombs that didn't kill thousands of civilians might have been a better way to proceed.

Maybe bombing Mt. Fuji.

[RGacky3]

Those are the risks involved with starting a total all out war.

What does that mean, are you saying the risk was something japan took by starting a war?

I better not catch you at all *****ing about terrorists killing American or European civilians, as I will respond "Those are the risks involved with living in an Imperialist nation."

You are as Christian as the Crusaders were Christian.


Libcom and Common Dreams aren't exactly impartial websites on te subject.

Those are direct quotes ...

[Demogorgon]

Libcom and Common Dreams aren't exactly impartial websites on te subject.:rolleyes:

They are just a collection of quotes. Would an identical set of quotes on a website you viewed more favourably be better? They can be found all over the place after all, particularly the Eisenhower ones.

[RHIZOMES]

Revleft, who were the top 10 greatest capitalists?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Revleft, who were the top 10 greatest capitalists?
I am the greatest capitalist.

[Richard Nixon]

To me its discusting that anyone would defend the atomic bomb, even if Japan did'nt want to surrender, the fact that murdering civilians to save soldiers is even an option is really telling.

However President Truman's responsibility was to the citizens of the United States-including it's soldiers not the soldiers and/or civilians of Japan. Therefore saving American lives had to be the top priority in any military action.

[RHIZOMES]

However President Truman's responsibility was to the citizens of the United States-including it's soldiers not the soldiers and/or civilians of Japan. Therefore saving American lives had to be the top priority in any military action.

see this is why nationalism is so retarded.

let's kill x group of people to save y group of people!!

[Radical]

Japan wouldn't have surrendered if we hadn't nuked Hiroshima. And there was the Japanese 14th Army there, a legitimate military target. And why not say Theodore Roosevelt who improved the lot of the workers or Johnson with his Great Society programs?


I hope you die a slow and painful death if your actually trying to justifiy the atomic bombings.

Its funny because these Conservatives always crititize Che for executing Counter-Revolutionarys without trial. Yet they then contridict themseleves when they try to justify the biggest atrocity in recorded history.

Over 400.000 were instantly murdered by America's disgression. I'm pretty sure we could find a country somewhere on the planet that would also disgress America being wiped off the map.

If I somehow managed to drop an atomic bomb on an American Military base, America would label me a terrorist.

[Richard Nixon]

I hope you die a slow and painful death if your actually trying to justifiy the atomic bombings.

Its funny because these Conservatives always crititize Che for executing Counter-Revolutionarys without trial. Yet they then contridict themseleves when they try to justify the biggest atrocity in recorded history.

Over 400.000 were instantly murdered by America's disgression. I'm pretty sure we could find a country somewhere on the planet that would also disgress America being wiped off the map.

If I somehow managed to drop an atomic bomb on an American Military base, America would label me a terrorist.

More like 200,000 (combining both atomic bombs) actually. Also it's interesting how you enjoy defending tyrants like Mao or Stalin but then pore and wank over every minor mistake the USA has made in it's history. Also a blockade or invasion would have killed more people while conditional surrenders would have gotten Japan's war criminals off the hook and Japan needed to learn the lesson of unconditional surrender or it wouldn't have reformed.

[Radical]

More like 200,000 (combining both atomic bombs) actually. Also it's interesting how you enjoy defending tyrants like Mao or Stalin but then pore and wank over every minor mistake the USA has made in it's history. Also a blockade or invasion would have killed more people while conditional surrenders would have gotten Japan's war criminals off the hook and Japan needed to learn the lesson of unconditional surrender or it wouldn't have reformed.

Thats no reason for dictating that over 400.000 INNOCENT people should instantly die, due to the Disgression of one Government.

I find it rather funny that America try to sanction and attack countries that conclude nuclear tests, but forget theirs only one country on the planet that has actually used a Nuclear Missile on aother country.. AMERICA

I'm not a fan of Mao or Stalin, but I'll always defend the truth. Which is that both dictators are two very misunderstood people, mainly due to the lies and propganda spread by America.

Stalin or Mao never ordered the atomic bombing of 400.000 innocent people, thats for sure. And the "Atomic Bombings" were FAR from a "minor" mistake. America planned and plotted to do it. THATS NO MISTAKE, Thats a deliberate act of war.

[Richard Nixon]

Thats no reason for dictating that over 400.000 INNOCENT people should instantly die, due to the Disgression of one Government.

I find it rather funny that America try to sanction and attack countries that conclude nuclear tests, but forget theirs only one country on the planet that has actually used a Nuclear Missile on aother country.. AMERICA

I'm not a fan of Mao or Stalin, but I'll always defend the truth. Which is that both dictators are two very misunderstood people, mainly due to the lies and propganda spread by America.

Stalin or Mao never ordered the atomic bombing of 400.000 innocent people, thats for sure. And the "Atomic Bombings" were FAR from a "minor" mistake. America planned and plotted to do it. THATS NO MISTAKE, Thats a deliberate act of war.

Did you read my latter part of my argument?

Also Stalin and Mao killed FAR more people then the atomic bombs ever did-well into the tens of millions.

[Radical]

Did you read my latter part of my argument?

Also Stalin and Mao killed FAR more people then the atomic bombs ever did-well into the tens of millions.

The difference is, Mao or Stalin never attacked somebody knowing that hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people would die.

[Richard Nixon]

The difference is, Mao or Stalin never attacked somebody knowing that hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people would die.

Ridiculous, Stalin's purges, the destruction of the kulacks, the Great Leap Backwards, and the Anti-Cultural Revolution were all done knowing that millions of innocents would be killed-either that or Mao and Stalin were insane paranoid maniacs.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

1. Thomas the tank engine
2. Hulk Hogan
3. Queen Victoria
4. Bobkidles
5. The stig
6. Whoever invented the word "moob"
7. Me
8. Adolf Hitler
9. Gengis kahn
10. The milkybar kid.

[RHIZOMES]

Ridiculous, Stalin's purges, the destruction of the kulacks, the Great Leap Backwards, and the Anti-Cultural Revolution were all done knowing that millions of innocents would be killed-either that or Mao and Stalin were insane paranoid maniacs.

The kulaks were sinister class enemies who were exploiting the Russian peasants and workers. They have been romanticized by the bourgeoisie for purely ideological reasons.

[Bud Struggle]

The kulaks were sinister class enemies who were exploiting the Russian peasants and workers.

Yea right. Let's butcher them! :rolleyes:

[Richard Nixon]

The kulaks were sinister class enemies who were exploiting the Russian peasants and workers. They have been romanticized by the bourgeoisie for purely ideological reasons.

You're sounding like pure communist propaganda. Kulaks were just successful peasants and who were having their property taken away and as a result went into social disobedience protests not unlike what say the hippies did. In response hundreds of thousands of kulaks were slaughtered by Stalin.

[LOLseph Stalin]

You're sounding like pure communist propaganda. Kulaks were just successful peasants and who were having their property taken away and as a result went into social disobedience protests not unlike what say the hippies did. In response hundreds of thousands of kulaks were slaughtered by Stalin.

The Kulaks killed their livestock and destroyed crops making people starve though. :crying:

[Bud Struggle]

The Kulaks killed their livestock and destroyed crops making people starve though. :crying:

There is no excuse for butchering people. If they were wrong, try them for their crimes.

All you are doing is justifying murder.

[RHIZOMES]

You're sounding like pure communist propaganda.

When a Marxist has an opinion, it's "propaganda". When a right-wing US patriot has an opinion, it's "a fact". :rolleyes:


Kulaks were just successful peasants

Capitalists.


and who were having their property taken away

To the benefit of everyone else.


and as a result went into social disobedience protests not unlike what say the hippies did.

Yeah except a majority of what the "hippies" committed social disobedience for was progressive.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node31.html


If the kulaks, who represented already 5 per cent of the peasantry, had succeeded in extending their economic base and definitively imposing themselves as the dominant force in the countryside, the socialist power in the cities would not have been able to maintain itself, faced with this encirclement by bourgeois forces. Eighty-two per cent of the Soviet population was peasant. If the Bolshevik Party had no longer succeeded in feeding the workers at relatively low prices, the very basis of working class power would have been threatened.

Hence it was necessary to accelerate the collectivization of certain sectors in the countryside in order to increase, on a socialist basis, the production of market wheat. It was essential for the success of accelerated industrialization that a relatively low price for market wheat be maintained. A rising rural bourgeoisie would never have accepted such a policy. Only the poor and middle peasants, organized in co-operatives, could support it. And only industrialization could ensure the defence of the first socialist country. Industrialization would allow the modernization of the countryside, increasing productivity and improving the cultural level. To give a solid material base for socialism in the countryside would require building tractors, trucks and threshers. To succeed would imply increasing the rate of industrialization.
In response hundreds of thousands of kulaks were slaughtered by Stalin.

Oh so sort of like what Truman did with Hiroshima then, killing the Japanese to save the Americans. :rolleyes:


There is no excuse for butchering people. If they were wrong, try them for their crimes.

All you are doing is justifying murder.

Which our good friend Richard Nixon has been doing this entire thread.

[LOLseph Stalin]

There is no excuse for butchering people. If they were wrong, try them for their crimes.

All you are doing is justifying murder.

Well there you go then. They could have been tried as criminals rather than killed. I don't support them being killed either. I was just making a point that they were counter revolutionaries. lol

[Richard Nixon]

When a Marxist has an opinion, it's "propaganda". When a right-wing US patriot has an opinion, it's "a fact". :rolleyes:


Well he could have reworded it so it wouldn't be so self-parodic. I mean "sinister Kulaks"? :lol:



Capitalists.

And we don't have to give a damn about capitalists. They can all be slaughtered, right?



To the benefit of everyone else.

Just tax or otherwise coerce them. Not seize all of their property.




Yeah except a majority of what the "hippies" committed social disobedience for was progressive.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node31.html



So social disobedience is only right if the movement is "progressive". Pure hypocrisy.



Oh so sort of like what Truman did with Hiroshima then, killing the Japanese to save the Americans. :rolleyes:

Except no other lives had to be saved and several times-well into the hundreds of thousands even by Soviet estimates- more were slaughtered.

[RHIZOMES]

Well he could have reworded it so it wouldn't be so self-parodic. I mean "sinister Kulaks"? :lol:

GAWD BLESS AMERICAAA


And we don't have to give a damn about capitalists. They can all be slaughtered, right?

There's a difference between indiscriminately slaughtering people and the working class resisting rich fucks trying to maintain the capitalist status quo.


Just tax or otherwise coerce them. Not seize all of their property.

And maintain capitalist exploitation in the countryside. Ok bro.


So social disobedience is only right if the movement is "progressive". Pure hypocrisy.

Why should I support social disobedience if it isn't progressive? This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch) is social disobedience, if I lived in 1920's Germany should I immediately support it, even though it's furthering the aims of capitalism and fascism?


Except no other lives had to be saved and several times-well into the hundreds of thousands even by Soviet estimates- more were slaughtered.

Nope, if the kulaks had continued their course and "civil disobedience" they would have caused famine and starvation, something you right-wingers love to harp on about Stalin and Mao allegedly doing by your tenuous logic.

[JimmyJazz]

Regardless of whether one uses nuclear or conventional warheads, bombing cities full of civilians is still an atrocity.

True. The firebombing of Tokyo on March 9-10 killed more people (about 100,000) than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I would post a picture of one of the victims of that raid, but it's too gross.


Libcom and Common Dreams aren't exactly impartial websites on te subject.

I don't understand, are you claiming the quotes are inaccurate?

[Sarah Palin]

Japan wouldn't have surrendered if we hadn't nuked Hiroshima.

The surrender of Japan was only part of the goal of dropping the bombs. It was mainly done to keep the Soviet Union from expanding into Japan and the Pacific. I can't even say FDR was a great president. He did nothing to stop the Japanese from attacking Pearl Harbor, and did everything in his power to save capitalism.
I guess I'll say Abraham Lincoln was the greatest, for holding the country together and abolishing slavery.

[Demogorgon]

Did you read my latter part of my argument?

Also Stalin and Mao killed FAR more people then the atomic bombs ever did-well into the tens of millions.
What do Stalin and Mao have to do with whether or not the use of the A-bombs can be justified? You are trying to change the subject, hoping to put us on the defensive having to explain we don't support those two or else get us into a fight over whether the numbers were inflated or not. But that was not the argument, a crime is not justified or lessened because somebody elsewhere may have committed a worse one.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't understand, are you claiming the quotes are inaccurate?

I am claiming they are bias and from a website that no one takes seriously.

Otherwise they are just great! :)

[Gleb]

I guess I'll say Abraham Lincoln was the greatest, for holding the country together and abolishing slavery.

It's always bizarre to hear leftists say things like this. Seriously, why in fuck you consider holding US together as somehow positive thing? It's really flabbergasting how many American leftist are still buying all that nationalist humbug.

[Ele'ill]

I think that George W. Bush was our best president ever.

He was so ignorant that it made me want to have a beer with him and just relax.
No politics. No religion. Just a human being having a great time.

























:lol:

[Richard Nixon]

GAWD BLESS AMERICAAA


You will realize I've never said that.


There's a difference between indiscriminately slaughtering people and the working class resisting rich fucks trying to maintain the capitalist status quo.

The kulaks were hardly "rich fucks". They were the wealthier peasants, whom the old oligarchs had exploited and would have been willing to support the communists had they not without compensation or anything simply seized the property. Indeed Stalin ordered the complete destruction of kulaks, which was certainly unwarranted.




And maintain capitalist exploitation in the countryside. Ok bro.


Set up regulations, put up officials to oversee that deals are done fairly. Socialism has been done without completely annihalting capitalism y'know.



Why should I support social disobedience if it isn't progressive? This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch) is social disobedience, if I lived in 1920's Germany should I immediately support it, even though it's furthering the aims of capitalism and fascism?


So free speech for revolutionists only, eh?



Nope, if the kulaks had continued their course and "civil disobedience" they would have caused famine and starvation, something you right-wingers love to harp on about Stalin and Mao allegedly doing by your tenuous logic.

Had they been left alone or at least won over with flowers not guns they would have been more willing to cooperate.


It's always bizarre to hear leftists say things like this. Seriously, why in fuck you consider holding US together as somehow positive thing? It's really flabbergasting how many American leftist are still buying all that nationalist humbug.

And the Confederate States of America would have oppressed more people then the USA ever did.

[JimmyJazz]

I am claiming they are bias and from a website that no one takes seriously.

Otherwise they are just great! :)

So you're not contesting the authenticity of the quotes.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Did you read my latter part of my argument?

Also Stalin and Mao killed FAR more people then the atomic bombs ever did-well into the tens of millions.
The whataboutery is strong in this one.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

General Mung Beans was the greatest president. ;):lol: He'll know what I mean.

[Richard Nixon]

General Mung Beans was the greatest president. ;):lol: He'll know what I mean.

Or President Catboy..... :D

[mykittyhasaboner]

Hey Richard-Nixon, I think you were the greatest president of all time. :)

I think this depiction of your character fits your posts well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvYm68dOQ4k

[Manifesto]

2. George Washington

What did he do at all during his presidency? And LOL Simpsons should have been canceled instead of Futurama.

[RGacky3]

There is no excuse for butchering people. If they were wrong, try them for their crimes.

All you are doing is justifying murder.

Wait a minute, earlier did you just try to justify the A-Bombs? Hypocrite.


However President Truman's responsibility was to the citizens of the United States-including it's soldiers not the soldiers and/or civilians of Japan. Therefore saving American lives had to be the top priority in any military action.

Again, don't let me ever catch you *****ing about what terrorists do, or any other nations atrocities and war crimes.


Did you read my latter part of my argument?

Also Stalin and Mao killed FAR more people then the atomic bombs ever did-well into the tens of millions.

very few people here have any love for stalin or mao. Or even consider them remotely socialist.

[Bud Struggle]

So you're not contesting the authenticity of the quotes.

Oh no, I'm sure all the quotes are correct. The problem I have is with context and with hindsight. Myself, I even think the direct bombing of population centers wasn't the best way to go--certainly a more humaine way of demonstrating the power that the USA had in the Atomic Bomb might have been devised--something without such a tragic loss of civilian life.

But such things are difficult to second guess.

[RGacky3]

Oh no, I'm sure all the quotes are correct. The problem I have is with context and with hindsight. Myself, I even think the direct bombing of population centers wasn't the best way to go--certainly a more humaine way of demonstrating the power that the USA had in the Atomic Bomb might have been devised--something without such a tragic loss of civilian life.

But such things are difficult to second guess.

Every single excuse you gave can be the exact same for justifying Stalin, Mao, and the 911 terrorists.

Also your not actually addressing the quotes, they show that the bombs were not to get peace, peace was already along the way.

[Richard Nixon]

What did he do at all during his presidency?

Well he kept the USA united.


Wait a minute, earlier did you just try to justify the A-Bombs? Hypocrite.

Atomic bombs were a neccessary evil. The Japanese as a conditional surrender was demanding that war criminals be tried by them and no occupation-but Japan needed to reform.



Again, don't let me ever catch you *****ing about what terrorists do, or any other nations atrocities and war crimes.


So you think there is a moral equivalency between the strategic bombings of Axis countries and mass induced famines of the Soviet Union and China?




very few people here have any love for stalin or mao. Or even consider them remotely socialist.

Yet people here seem to defend them.

[Gleb]

Well he kept the USA united.

cool


Atomic bombs were a neccessary evil. The Japanese as a conditional surrender was demanding that war criminals be tried by them and no occupation-but Japan needed to reform.

I'm somewhat sure most Japanese were more willing to decide for themselves when they really need a reform instead of the United States coming, reforming Japan according to their ideals and bombing the shit out of couple of their cities, leaving hundreds of thousands folks dead. Maybe. If we are willing to abandon the idea of the United States being the one and only moral example for every living human on this planet of ours.


So you think there is a moral equivalency between the strategic bombings of Axis countries and mass induced famines of the Soviet Union and China?

Yet people here seem to defend them.

There's a moral difference between something that occurred because of failed policies and something that's intentionally planned to kill lots of people. If you don't see the difference, then you're a fucking moron.

(Whether these famines were intentional or not is relevant when it comes to morals, for I'm sure nobody here is actually saying that the famines were right thing to do - like you're saying about a-bombing of Japan - but that they were an unfortunate event that can't be directly blamed on the governments in question and often also exaggarated in occidental medias.)

[Richard Nixon]

cool


Good.


I'm somewhat sure most Japanese were more willing to decide for themselves when they really need a reform instead of the United States coming, reforming Japan according to their ideals and bombing the shit out of couple of their cities, leaving hundreds of thousands folks dead. Maybe. If we are willing to abandon the idea of the United States being the one and only moral example for every living human on this planet of ours.


Well had the US not occupied Japan as I have said many times, reforming by their ideals would have meant that Japan would have stayed militaristic ready to strike at the US again. Emperor Hirohito would not have announced that he was not a god.



There's a moral difference between something that occurred because of failed policies and something that's intentionally planned to kill lots of people. If you don't see the difference, then you're a fucking moron.

(Whether these famines were intentional or not is relevant when it comes to morals, for I'm sure nobody here is actually saying that the famines were right thing to do - like you're saying about a-bombing of Japan - but that they were an unfortunate event that can't be directly blamed on the governments in question and often also exaggarated in occidental medias.)

I'm not saying the A-bombs were the right thing to do, it was the lesser of evils.

[Brother No. 1]

Well he kept the USA united.

What was there some divide in the US at this time I didnt experience?



Well had the US not occupied Japan as I have said many times, reforming by their ideals would have meant that Japan would have stayed militaristic ready to strike at the US again. Emperor Hirohito would not have announced that he was not a god.

The US made japan their puppet and to maintain a Capitalist domiance in the pacific. They also didnt want to share Japan with the USSR or let the USSR take japan for they didnt want more Socialist states. And I dont remember that the Emperor of Japan ever called himself a god.



I'm not saying the A-bombs were the right thing to do, it was the lesser of evils.

The Atomic-bombings really cant be justified. The US did it to make sure the USSR wouldnt invade Japan and liberated it and to make sure its own Domiance in Japan was secure.



Yet people here seem to defend them.

Its becuase Capialist propaganda slanders their names alot and the Death toll has been over-exagerated by the Capitalists to make them look like "evil mass-murdering bastards" and such.

[nerditarian]

Both for restricted and non-restricted members. Who were the Top 10 Greatest Presidents of the United States?

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
4. Harry Truman
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. James K. Polk
7. Thomas Jefferson (For Louisiana Purchase)
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. Lyndon B Johnson
10. Ronald Reagan
I kind of got tired of arguing with commies who would never ever listen to what point I was making in a thousand years but I came back to this site and I saw this...

I can only say that I am assured all these men are now rotting in hell.

[IcarusAngel]

Yep, they're down there burning in hell with Ludwig von Mises right along side them, and all other fascists (Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, and other Libertarians).

*Stomps foot on ground*

How you doin' down there, von Mises? You enjoying an enternity in hell?

And you left because your "clan leader" decided to pull out of the forum invasion when it started going badly and he realized you were embarrassing the cause. Your typical Misean "forum invasion" in other words.

You couldn't show any logical conclusions of your axioms of human nature, and you couldn't even explain how you derived at your axioms. Your "axiom," human action, violates what we know about the human condition and makes no philosophical sense. This is why it leads Miseans to invalid conclusions, like that humans all "share the same mind" and all see the same things, and that capitalism creates the fundamental laws of the universe. It even violates ontological principles, thus putting Miseans on par with mystics.

Only a fascist could come up with something so bizarre, but at least he's a dead one. And his ideas are forgotten as well.

[RGacky3]

Atomic bombs were a neccessary evil. The Japanese as a conditional surrender was demanding that war criminals be tried by them and no occupation-but Japan needed to reform.

The twin tower bombings were a neccessary evil.

So Japans war criminals could be tried at home, ok, no way, lets bomb 2 entire cities. Let me ask you, how many American war criminals during WW2 have been tried, the A bombs WERE WAR CRIMES, every war crime could be considered a "neccessary evil" you sick douche.

The Ameriacns did'nt even negociate.


I'm not saying the A-bombs were the right thing to do, it was the lesser of evils.

so murdering 2 entire civilian cities was a lesser evil than conditional surrender, even negociations?


Well had the US not occupied Japan as I have said many times, reforming by their ideals would have meant that Japan would have stayed militaristic ready to strike at the US again. Emperor Hirohito would not have announced that he was not a god.


Theres no way of knowing that, nor does that justify the A-Bombs.

If it does, then osama bin laden was actually MORE justified in the twin tower bombings.


So you think there is a moral equivalency between the strategic bombings of Axis countries and mass induced famines of the Soviet Union and China?

Those "strategic bombings" wiped out the entire civilian populations of 2 cities. Be them Axis or Allied countries does'nt make a difference.

Talking about famines is'nt the right comparison, because there wer emany causes, and famine was'nt the intention.

THe right comparison is the twin tower bombings, which is actually morally more defendable.

[Richard Nixon]

What was there some divide in the US at this time I didnt experience?



Confederate States of America attempted to secede from the USA, Lincoln stopped it.


The US made japan their puppet and to maintain a Capitalist domiance in the pacific. They also didnt want to share Japan with the USSR or let the USSR take japan for they didnt want more Socialist states. And I dont remember that the Emperor of Japan ever called himself a god.

Actually Truman asked Stalin to call off landings in Japan seperately from the A-Bombs which he did and were it true then all of Korea and Northern Japan would have become Communist along with hundreds of thousands more dead from conventional bombings and invasion landings.







The twin tower bombings were a neccessary evil.

So Japans war criminals could be tried at home, ok, no way, lets bomb 2 entire cities. Let me ask you, how many American war criminals during WW2 have been tried, the A bombs WERE WAR CRIMES, every war crime could be considered a "neccessary evil" you sick douche.

The Ameriacns did'nt even negociate.



so murdering 2 entire civilian cities was a lesser evil than conditional surrender, even negociations?


The United States could not, would not do that. The United States refused to do so-that was one thing that was certain. So:

1. Conventional invasion
2. Bombings and blockade
3. Atomic bomb



I kind of got tired of arguing with commies who would never ever listen to what point I was making in a thousand years but I came back to this site and I saw this...

I can only say that I am assured all these men are now rotting in hell.

So are you religious? :confused:

[Brother No. 1]

Confederate States of America attempted to secede from the USA, Lincoln stopped it.

11 states from the Union, the "United states" of America, seceded and formed the Confederate states of America or the Confederacy. They already seceded for many reasons. If you think Lincoln is a "hero" for stoping slavery then you dont know what slavery was in both the north and south. South had Primative Capitalism using agricultutre while the North had Inudsty Capitalism ,aka Modern Capitalism, and they were still opressiong people. Abraham lincoln only "freed" the slaves in the south to gain more support and to utterly destroy the enemies way of existence.




Actually Truman asked Stalin to call off landings in Japan seperately from the A-Bombs which he did and were it true then all of Korea and Northern Japan would have become Communist along with hundreds of thousands more dead from conventional bombings and invasion landings.


source to prove your statement? And "Northern" Japan and Korea wouldnt have become Communist but Socialist. Besides if you think that justifies a nuclear attack then please check your sanity.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The US president I "like" the most would probably be Ulysses S. Grant.

[Richard Nixon]

11 states from the Union, the "United states" of America, seceded and formed the Confederate states of America or the Confederacy. They already seceded for many reasons. If you think Lincoln is a "hero" for stoping slavery then you dont know what slavery was in both the north and south. South had Primative Capitalism using agricultutre while the North had Inudsty Capitalism ,aka Modern Capitalism, and they were still opressiong people. Abraham lincoln only "freed" the slaves in the south to gain more support and to utterly destroy the enemies way of existence.



The Confedracy's way of existence was plantation agriculture and it persisted well after the Civil War. Also as a unionist I am extremely opposed to any secession of US states from the Union and support the crushing of them.



source to prove your statement? And "Northern" Japan and Korea wouldnt have become Communist but Socialist. Besides if you think that justifies a nuclear attack then please check your sanity.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall that's why the atomic attacks were neccessary. Also China and North Korea became communist and also in it's early days (until the split in the '60s) close allies of the Soviets. Finally that's not the main reason I supported the atomic bombings see my link for that but it's a secondary reason.

[Brother No. 1]

The Confedracy's way of existence was plantation agriculture and it persisted well after the Civil War.

No I mean using African slaves to do their biding. That was their way of existence, and that was Primative Capitalism.






Also as a unionist I am extremely opposed to any secession of US states from the Union and support the crushing of them.


So if people in alaska want to seccede you dont mind it if people are killed? And you say We're the monsters.:laugh: But seriously you even support the crushing of them? I'm sure you loved it when they crushed the Native american oppostion.




that's why the atomic attacks were neccessary.

No a Capitalist Elite wanted the land to himself and Domanice over the pacific thats what the US wanted and thats what truman wanted.




Also China and North Korea became communist and also in it's early days

Your an idiot to confuse Communism and Socialism but most Capitlaists do.

China became a Socialist state out of its own Revolution while the DPRK was created through the help of the USSR. The Americans invaded South Korea 6 weeks after the bombings to make sure they had a presense in the Korean pensuila.



(until the split in the '60s)

So apperently if you spilt from a Revisionist goverment in an alliance you are no longer considered Socialist.:rolleyes:

China was still a Socialist states in the 60s and the ones who broke away from the USSR's alliances are Albania, and China. They were still socialist but Socialist China died in 1976.



close allies of the Soviets.

Fighting for the same cause and they had the same ideology. Marxism-Leninism.



Finally that's not the main reason I supported the atomic bombings see my link for that but it's a secondary reason.

Its insane to support the atomic bombings even for an American who supports his propaganda sprewing country.

[Richard Nixon]

No I mean using African slaves to do their biding. That was their way of existence, and that was Primative Capitalism.


Well it continued on because most former slaves were attached to the land and they still ended up working for their former masters so unfortunately that system was not destroyed.







So if people in alaska want to seccede you dont mind it if people are killed? And you say We're the monsters.:laugh: But seriously you even support the crushing of them? I'm sure you loved it when they crushed the Native american oppostion.



It'd be preferable for the solution to be solved peaceably but military action is neccessary if they don't. And by Native American opposition when? The AIM movement were certainly terrorists most notably Leonard Peltier.




No a Capitalist Elite wanted the land to himself and Domanice over the pacific thats what the US wanted and thats what truman wanted.




And why is it wrong for capitalists to spread influence but not socialists?



Your an idiot to confuse Communism and Socialism but most Capitlaists do.

China became a Socialist state out of its own Revolution while the DPRK was created through the help of the USSR. The Americans invaded South Korea 6 weeks after the bombings to make sure they had a presense in the Korean pensuila.



China is COMMUNIST. It's ruling party is the Chinese Communist Party and Korea/Japan would have been Communist states since they would have been soviet puppets.



So apperently if you spilt from a Revisionist goverment in an alliance you are no longer considered Socialist.:rolleyes:

China was still a Socialist states in the 60s and the ones who broke away from the USSR's alliances are Albania, and China. They were still socialist but Socialist China died in 1976.



No I don't I meant that they had a close relationship and China still is pretty communist.

[Brother No. 1]

Well it continued on because most former slaves were attached to the land and they still ended up working for their former masters so unfortunately that system was not destroyed.


Source? *other then wikipedia.*




And by Native American opposition when?

When your armies took their land as your own calling for a "Manifes Destiny" and all other crap. They said "Its our divine destiny to go from East coast to west."



And why is it wrong for capitalists to spread influence but not socialists?

Our influence is what the workers want. Capitalist influence is their own and they oppress people on a daily basis in Capitalist societys. Or have you not noticed that people suffer from Capitalism in China? in Africa? in most of Asia?


China is COMMUNIST.

You dont know what Communism is and yet your stating a Capitalist state is somehow a Communist society. Communism=/=state, Communism=stateless.


It's ruling party is the Chinese Communist Party


You mean the Chinese Elite? Their not even Communists. Not everything that has the name "Communist" is Communist. The USCP isnt Communist their reformists who betrayed us.



and Korea/Japan would have been Communist states since they would have been soviet puppets.

They would have been Socialist becuase they were Socialist states. But not Communist.




No I don't I meant that they had a close relationship and China still is pretty communist.

They had an alliance that the Chinese broke from becuase of Revisionism. And China isnt Communist at all. It's Socialist self died in the mid 1970s due to Capitalist restordiation by Deng-Xiopeng.

[Plagueround]

It'd be preferable for the solution to be solved peaceably but military action is neccessary if they don't. And by Native American opposition when? The AIM movement were certainly terrorists most notably Leonard Peltier.


Abraham Lincoln was president in the 1860s. AIM was most active in the 1960s-and 70s. I think he's referring to the systematic oppression and genocide that the United States carried out as policy for most of it's existence, including Lincoln.

Also, As someone who's grandfather was assigned (by the Bureau of Indian Affairs) to regularly hold talks with AIM and knew a great deal about them, I think labeling them as terrorists is reductionist and small minded.

I find it funny that someone who's forum name is Richard Nixon is trying to act as the voice of moral authority, given the estimated 6+ million Asian civilians Nixon had firebombed to death.

[Richard Nixon]

Source? *other then wikipedia.*



Look, most blacks kept working on the plantations at substandard wages-an actual example of wage slavery.


When your armies took their land as your own calling for a "Manifes Destiny" and all other crap. They said "Its our divine destiny to go from East coast to west."

Yes it was morally wrong and shouldn't have been done.





Our influence is what the workers want. Capitalist influence is their own and they oppress people on a daily basis in Capitalist societys. Or have you not noticed that people suffer from Capitalism in China? in Africa? in most of Asia?


If socialism is the truth then let the workers here both sides.



You dont know what Communism is and yet your stating a Capitalist state is somehow a Communist society. Communism=/=state, Communism=stateless.



Which is impossible.



You mean the Chinese Elite? Their not even Communists. Not everything that has the name "Communist" is Communist. The USCP isnt Communist their reformists who betrayed us.



No, they just were practical



They would have been Socialist becuase they were Socialist states. But not Communist.





They had an alliance that the Chinese broke from becuase of Revisionism. And China isnt Communist at all. It's Socialist self died in the mid 1970s due to Capitalist restordiation by Deng-Xiopeng.


They still have regulations on the economy and it's not completely capitalist.

[Brother No. 1]

Yes it was morally wrong and shouldn't have been done.


Then why do you support America? Since they caused alot of opression to people and have destroyed alot why support it?




Which is impossible.

Becuase you've lived in Capitalism and love being goverend around. And now you want to make an excuse on how a stateless society cna never exist,etc.

"Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (http://www.timelessquotes.com/famous_quotes/Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin/25259.html)




If socialism is the truth then let the workers here both sides.

Oh please the Capitalists will be just like you and your pathetic attempts to make justification. Trying to make them selfs look innocent and good. While their true intenions have already been seen globally.




No, they just were practical

That doesnt really prove anything. The CPUS lost its way after Revisionism came and became Reformists after abandoning Communist/Socialist ways such as support for Violent Revolution and supporting the Bejing Olympics.



Look, most blacks kept working on the plantations at substandard wages-an actual example of wage slavery.


Thats still Capitalism. Capitalism runs on the basis of Capital and basicly the workers there being oppressed is another example on how Capitalism oppressess people.




They still have regulations on the economy and it's not completely capitalist.

Um no it is fully Capitalist state. The Elite control the bussniesses. The workers do not own the means of production, there is a Bougouise, there is a divide between Rich and poor. So yes since it has a class system and a class struggle , once again, it is a Capitalist state.

[Richard Nixon]

Then why do you support America? Since they caused alot of opression to people and have destroyed alot why support it?


Same reason why you support socialism/communism although it has been tyrannical and/or irresponsible in many cases.



Becuase you've lived in Capitalism and love being goverend around. And now you want to make an excuse on how a stateless society cna never exist,etc.

"Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (http://www.timelessquotes.com/famous_quotes/Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin/25259.html)


Now that's very libertarian of you and while you can always say it can work it never actually did. Well I guess you could include communes but no national scale ones ever did.





Oh please the Capitalists will be just like you and your pathetic attempts to make justification. Trying to make them selfs look innocent and good. While their true intenions have already been seen globally.


As I said let the people choose. And I'm no fanatical libertarian capitalist I am social democratic in many respects (though not completely so).






That doesnt really prove anything. The CPUS lost its way after Revisionism came and became Reformists after abandoning Communist/Socialist ways such as support for Violent Revolution and supporting the Bejing Olympics.



Violence? That would cause World War 3 if China forcibly attempted to export revolution.




Thats still Capitalism. Capitalism runs on the basis of Capital and basicly the workers there being oppressed is another example on how Capitalism oppressess people.


Not with proper regulations and the workers having a voice through unions.





Um no it is fully Capitalist state. The Elite control the bussniesses. The workers do not own the means of production, there is a Bougouise, there is a divide between Rich and poor. So yes since it has a class system and a class struggle , once again, it is a Capitalist state.

Ask the average Chinese "Are you better off then you were thirty years ago?"

[Brother No. 1]

Same reason why you support socialism/communism although it has been tyrannical and/or irresponsible in many cases.

Socialism hasnt been Tyrannical only been portaraed as so in Capitalist propaganda. So really since Communism hasnt been laid into pratice you cant prove how its bad/tyrannical.




Now that's very libertarian of you and while you can always say it can work it never actually did. Well I guess you could include communes but no national scale ones ever did.

Oh I'm being called a libertarian by a Capitalist.:lol:

Communism hasnt been laid into pratice so it hasnt been tried. So your saying of it "working" or not can not be proven by real information. Your propaganda from American can barely prove how its "evil."



As I said let the people choose.

Lets see the Capitalists lie,over-exagerate,etc so this "choice" of chosing which system cant be done with all the propaganda in their heads.



And I'm no fanatical libertarian capitalist I am social democratic in many respects (though not completely so).

Then I'm sure you and Gorbachev would get along greatly.



Violence? That would cause World War 3 if China forcibly attempted to export revolution.

I said the CPUS didnt support Violent Revolutions and wants peaceful Revolutions which is not what true Marxist-Leninist parties support. Thus the CPUS is not Marxist-Leninist. China wouldnt force Violent Revolution on anyone and thats not what Communists do. You know as much about Violent Revolution as you do on Communism.




Not with proper regulations and the workers having a voice through unions.

Trade unions are used by the Capitlaists to make the workers feel they have control or havem some "rights." Its false like Bougouise Democracy.


This is on Bougouise Demoracy among other things from Vladimir Lenin.


The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists. Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic 'freedom of assembly' is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants -- the overwhelming majority of the population -- are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, 'equality', i.e., 'pure democracy', is a fraud.
'Freedom of the press' is another of the principal slogans of 'pure democracy'. And here, too, the workers know -- and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times -- that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains -- a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically -- the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example... The capitalists have always use the term 'freedom' to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of 'pure democracy' prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement. .................................... V.I. Lenin, First Congress of the Communist International, 4th March 1919.





Ask the average Chinese "Are you better off then you were thirty years ago?"


1976 is where Capitalist restoritadion came in China, And it depends who you ask. Will you ask the owner of a company or the worker?

[Richard Nixon]

Socialism hasnt been Tyrannical only been portaraed as so in Capitalist propaganda. So really since Communism hasnt been laid into pratice you cant prove how its bad/tyrannical.



Well I meant those systems that called itself communist but which you call "state capitalist" were oppressive such as the Soviet Union or the PRC.


Oh I'm being called a libertarian by a Capitalist.:lol:

Communism hasnt been laid into pratice so it hasnt been tried. So your saying of it "working" or not can not be proven by real information. Your propaganda from American can barely prove how its "evil."





There are 6.6 billion people on this planet and the only world states that can exist is either a dictatorship or possibly a democracy. A true communist system of no need for government would mean that disgruntled capitalists may revolt.


Lets see the Capitalists lie,over-exagerate,etc so this "choice" of chosing which system cant be done with all the propaganda in their heads.




Then I'm sure you and Gorbachev would get along greatly.




I said the CPUS didnt support Violent Revolutions and wants peaceful Revolutions which is not what true Marxist-Leninist parties support. Thus the CPUS is not Marxist-Leninist. China wouldnt force Violent Revolution on anyone and thats not what Communists do. You know as much about Violent Revolution as you do on Communism.


As I've said they are just being practical and want to be friendly with everyone.





Trade unions are used by the Capitlaists to make the workers feel they have control or havem some "rights." Its false like Bougouise Democracy.


This is on Bougouise Demoracy among other things from Vladimir Lenin.



Nonsense. Many industries become paralyzed when strikes happen most notably the automobile industry and the movie industry. For instance the writers strike last year.

[Brother No. 1]

Well I meant those systems that called itself communist but which you call "state capitalist" were oppressive such as the Soviet Union or the PRC.

They never called themselfs Communist you Capitalists called them Communists. the term "Communist state" came from Capitalists and the Elite of the country.


There are 6.6 billion people on this planet and the only world states that can exist is either a dictatorship or possibly a democracy.

Most States on this earth are "Bougoise Democracies" which means "Freedom" and "Democracy" for the Bougoise,Elite aka Rich, while the rest must work for the same treatment.



A true communist system of no need for government would mean that disgruntled capitalists may revolt.

Communes are still in existance and besides what makes you think after the Revolution the Capitalists will still be here?



As I've said they are just being practical and want to be friendly with everyone.

Well they arent Communists and for being that their being Reformists and Pacafists.




Nonsense. Many industries become paralyzed when strikes happen most notably the automobile industry and the movie industry.

Thats becuase thats when the workers actually take it to themselfs to change things. The Unions that the rightists control keep them in line and to make sure they follow the Bougoise rules.

[Richard Nixon]

Thats becuase thats when the workers actually take it to themselfs to change things. The Unions that the rightists control keep them in line and to make sure they follow the Bougoise rules.

Uh, no. The union hierarchy calls for a vote on whether to strike or not and they do. Besides it's still part of the capitalist system which would imply it works.

[Brother No. 1]

The union hierarchy calls for a vote on whether to strike or not and they do.

This "vote" decides on wether they should strike or not? It gives evedince that the rightist control it. becuase if the vote says "no you dont strike" then the workers wont strike, if the follow those rules, but these "unions" are basicly tools. Used to make sure the Elite have control on wether the workers rebel or not.


Besides it's still part of the capitalist system which would imply it works.

works for whom? The power,rich, and Elite that control? Or the poor,hard working, ones who suffer?

[Richard Nixon]

[
QUOTE=Polish Soviet;1483439]This "vote" decides on wether they should strike or not? It gives evedince that the rightist control it. becuase if the vote says "no you dont strike" then the workers wont strike, if the follow those rules, but these "unions" are basicly tools. Used to make sure the Elite have control on wether the workers rebel or not.



No, it's democracy. :)


works for whom? The power,rich, and Elite that control? Or the poor,hard working, ones who suffer?
[/QUOTE]

Well the workers have a say in the capitalist system.

[Brother No. 1]

No, it's democracy.

theres never been a Democracy in American. the "Democracy" you've reffered to is "Bougoise Democracy", its an oxymoron for Dictatorship of the Bougoise, and this is used to make people think they have a say in the political referance in the American "land of opportunity." Its solgan brings more workers for the Elite which means more are oppressed and they get more money. Its a "more,more,more" type of thing.

Once again Read this.


Said by Vladimir Lenin

The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists. Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic 'freedom of assembly' is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants -- the overwhelming majority of the population -- are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, 'equality', i.e., 'pure democracy', is a fraud.
'Freedom of the press' is another of the principal slogans of 'pure democracy'. And here, too, the workers know -- and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times -- that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains -- a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically -- the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example... The capitalists have always use the term 'freedom' to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of 'pure democracy' prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement. .................................... V.I. Lenin, First Congress of the Communist International, 4th March 1919.




Well the workers have a say in the capitalist system.

The quote above will explain how they have a "say." also this thinking of them having a say in the system gives the Capitalists the advantage to control them. Its how to keep control and make the people think they had control.

[Demogorgon]

It'd be preferable for the solution to be solved peaceably but military action is neccessary if they don't.
What conceivable justification for that would there be? Ought not people to be allowed to choose the form of Government they wish? If Alaska were to vote at referendum to become an independent nation, are you really saying that military force would be acceptable to prevent this from happening? Indeed would any attempt to stop the will of the people being carried out be justifiable?

[danyboy27]

The quote above will explain how they have a "say." also this thinking of them having a say in the system gives the Capitalists the advantage to control them. Its how to keep control and make the people think they had control.

speak for yourself you pro stalin lover, your ideology is a travesty of real communism, Lenin and stalin did nothing but to reinforce power over themselves, maybe for benevolent goal but still, it ended up badly anyway.

i have no problem with communist telling this stuff, but from you, a fervent supporter of autoritarian dictatorship, its is truly sickening.

[Brother No. 1]

speak for yourself you pro stalin lover

Do you say that to all Marxist-Leninists or just me?




your ideology is a travesty of real communism,

Your oppion but really how has my ideology, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, affected Communism?




I have no problem with communist telling this stuff, but from you, a fervent supporter of autoritarian dictatorship, its is truly sickening.

Aw you hurt my little MLM feelings.:crying:

So apperently I am not a Communist but a "Ferevnt supporter of authorian dictatorship" and not a leftist from your tone. Yet I'm still here and other Marxist-Leninists are here.

[danyboy27]

.

[LOLseph Stalin]

eliminated any communist elements that could have represented a threat to them, most of the time progressive peoples.

Like Trotsky and the rest of the Bolsheviks.

[danyboy27]

.

[Brother No. 1]

unconditional support of stalin

So you think I support Stalin's ban on Abortions? on The making Homosexual marraige illegal? Apperently you dont know what I dont like about him becuase we've never aruged about it.


while they where struggling to fight the nazi in 1944,

Isnt it at 1943 when the Soviets pushed the Nazis out of the USSR and into poland?




during over 50 year marxist leninism was deeply implented in europe

Over 50 years? Last time I remembered Marxism-Leninismed ended in the Main hold of Eastern Europe in 1956 when Nikiata went into power and started Capitlaist restordiaton in the USSR in the 60s and it was continued into the 70s placed as "economic Reform."




how the fuck the world is supposed to see communism after that!

the world didnt see Communism and lets not forget the oh so many lies the Capitlaists made to make us look like "monterous bastards."





other dead dictator who pretended to be socialist.

What now you think I like Pol Pot?:confused:




evil social democrat so who am i to judge you eh.

Not as evil as the Conservative who justifies a nuclear attack for some reason.

[danyboy27]

.

[danyboy27]

.

[khad]

i dont know, you tell me, you are the marxist leninist supporting Mao burning book campaign, and the year of repression during the stalin era.
maybe you dont realize it but when you tell stalin was a good guy you somehow endorse the repression method he did, if you do that perfectly fine, but if you dont be coherent.
Be quiet, Vlasov. You're the one who thinks that the demographic implosion in today's Russia is a healthy development.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/depopulating-russia-t105978/index.html?t=105978

[danyboy27]

.

[Brother No. 1]

i dont know, you tell me,

No I dont like/support Pol Pot.



isnt in 1939 that stalin made a deal with hitler and occuped half of poland til 1941, crushing any opposition group, no matter of they where leftist or not?

didnt Hitler do the same deal with Poland but they refused? *the deal was for Nazi German and Poland to attack Ukraine.* and the USSR was still an un-developed Socialist states that had a un-moderized military that couldnt stand a chance against the Wermarcht if they attacked before 1941. But source on how they crushed leftist groups in poland?





that not the point , the world didnt see communism beccause it was crushed under the boot of marxism leninism.

Marxism-Leninism didnt crush the idea of Communism for how can you crush something that isnt there? The world wouldnt see Communism duringthat era for it wouldnt just pop out if a Marxist-Leninist world Soviet Socialist state was in power it wouldnt pop out if a world Trotskyist Soviet Socialist state was in power,etc. It takes time and when the world is fully Socialist. People have to get used to governing themselfs before they get used to no governing at all.



was brutally crushed by krutchev, and i dont quite think stalin would have done differently.

I agree with you on the Nikata Krutachev becuase he was a really bad leader for the USSR, "peaceful co-existance", making the left get divided, not helping Cuba in its time of need,etc. Stalin would have done alot things differently when we go by economics,industry development,etc.




isnt in the early year of ww2 that stalin gave formation and equipement to germany while there was a worldwide embargo on it?

A world wide Embargo? Capitalists countries reguarlly traded with Nazi Germany since it still had the Bougouise in control of the industrys,bussniess,etc so Nazi Germany was , in their eyes, another Capitalist state. I dont know of formation Stalin "gave" to Germany. Still Germany was economicly powerful and militarily powerful at the times of the 1939 and beging of the 1940s.



conservatives are jerk,

At least we agree on that.

[khad]

On your other points:


isnt in 1944 that the warsaw uprising was crushed by the SS while the red army was at a fews km of the city and decided to sat and do nothing?

At the very limit of the operational tether, the First Polish Army, along with elements of two other Soviet Armies made the Vistula crossing. After a week, the forces had to be withdrawn with heavy losses. The Polish partisan support that had been promised never arrived, because they did not deem the "commies" worthy of help. Since the bridgeheads were not held, STAVKA rightly chose to not risk another disastrous attempt with the depleted resources they had.

The final Soviet advance past the Vistula did not occur until January of 1945--that's how much recuperation and consolidation period the army needed after the success of Bagration.


isnt in 1939 that stalin made a deal with hitler and occuped half of poland til 1941, crushing any opposition group, no matter of they where leftist or not?
isnt in the early year of ww2 that stalin gave formation and equipement to germany while there was a worldwide embargo on it?Polish nationalists had a non aggression pact with Hitler since 1934 and helped Germany carve up central Europe. Czechoslovakia was a confirmed victim, and Polish nationalists were salivating greedily towards the Baltics and the Ukraine. Where's the moral indignation? At least the Soviet Army allowed many Polish civilians to flee to a safe place.

[danyboy27]

.

[Brother No. 1]

the treaty of versaille was restricting germany from making certain weapon and accessing certain ressources.

the Treaty of the Verallie was made to make sure Germany would mass such an army and would gain that much territory again , for the whole war was blamed apon it, and ths treaty didnt allow Germany a territory in-between France and Germany, forgot its name, and when the Germans rolled in they could have been defeatd by the french. french didnt do it becuase they were most likely not wanting to fight them and letting them have the territory and the Germans did so much so that they brought in a band to make it like a show of vicory agaisnt an enemy. In the early years hitler could have been stoped by them but they werent interested in losing a trading partner.




The soviet union gave them everything they needed

1940 trades arent the same as 1933 trades. in 1940 the Germans pretty much had everything they needed.




if the capitalist where so helpful, why did he made this desesperate pact with russia?

Desperate? if it was so "desperate" then how come he betrayed it so quickly and easily? It wasnt deperate its just that he wanted to counqer Poland, since they rejected his deal to attack ukraine, and asked the USSR for a non-agression pact that would keep the USSr out of a war with Germany. The USSR was in no condtion to fight against the Wermarcht.

[danyboy27]

.

[makesi]

fuck that, i am out of here.
This could go on for hours and i dont have time for this shit.


Ну, если не можешь отвергнуть утверждения твоих сообщеников просто признайся это. Мне интересно, ты из восточной европе или России? Знаешь кто такой Власов, кем он был?

И знаешь что Россия и Советский Союз с населением на двоем больше жил на своё производство сельского хозяйства? Купил да еду заграницу когда была нужна после сталинского эпоха но имел хорошее пространство очень плодотворную почву в южной россии.

Это просто предательство западу и глупое недоумении верить такую чущь о нужде уменшении населения в пост-совесткой россии.

Но ты говорил что уже не хочешь продолжать спор.

[Brother No. 1]

For people who dont understand Russian i made a translation.



Originally posted by makesi
Well, if cannot reject the assertion of your [soobshchenikov] simply acknowledge this. To me it is interesting, you from to East Europe or Russia? Do know who similar Vlasov, whom he was?
And you do know that Russia and the Soviet Union with the population on the the [dvoem] is more than veins in its production of agriculture? It purchased yes food foreign countries when it was necessary after Stalinist epoch but it had a good space very fruitful soil in South Russia.
This is simple treachery to the West and foolish bewilderment to believe this [chushch] about the need of [umenshenii] of population in Post-[sovestkoy] of Russia.
But you spoke that no longer you want to continue dispute.

[makesi]

Я предпочитаю думать что я пишу на русском лучше, по крайне мере немножко, чем было показанно в этом переводе.

Но, русский - не мой родной язык.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Зачем России в этой Английский выступая место? Существует российского раздела.

[makesi]

Хотел знать притворяется ли этот спецназ21 человек когда он пишет на английском с ошибками.

И почему коверкаешь русскую грамматику пользуя прогаммой бабелфиша когда ты смог бы просто спросить меня на английском?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Spetnaz is French-Canadian, not Russian.

[khad]

Spetnaz is French-Canadian, not Russian.
He should change his damn name because he is a disgrace to Soviet military science and history.

[makesi]

You sure he's French-Canadian? I ask because it sounds like he got his historical account of World War II in an American high school classroom.

[LOLseph Stalin]

You sure he's French-Canadian? I ask because it sounds like he got his historical account of World War II in an American high school classroom.

Yes he is. I know for sure. Oh, and by the way the education system here in Canada isn't much better than the American one as far as Anti-Communism goes...

[makesi]

Yes he is. I know for sure. Oh, and by the way the education system here in Canada isn't much better than the American one as far as Anti-Communism goes...

As an American high school teacher who's had the opportunity to teach social studies and read the curriculum guide and state standards for where I live I might quibble with that at least on a few points. Ok, he's French-Canadian but why doesn't he call himself Maple Leaf Mountie instead of Spetsnaz, then?

[makesi]

fuck that, i am out of here.
this could go on for hours and i dont have time for this shit.

And, since you're French-Canadian, you have a lot of nerve saying that its a good thing for Russia (and its not the only post-Soviet state to have this problem. Its happening in breadbasket Ukraine, too.) to have a catastrophic demographic decline.

[danyboy27]

.

[danyboy27]

okay, first of all i shouldnt attacked Polish soviet, even if i find his belief disgusting, i should let him alone, it was not my fight.

i have to give you that khad, you know the history of your country, but well, you live there so, what can i say? you know detail i didnt, and i know stuff about canada and quebec that you dont. I would like to have your sources someday.

still, there will always have historical divergeances about Stalin and the event of ww2, from one people to another, history is biaised anyway. You might be right, you might be wrong.

i shouldnt have flamed like this and i am seriously sorry.

still, for your lack of respect toward me i will always consider you a bunch of freaking assoles.

tanks.
lets continue talking about the top 10 us president now.