When You See Military Personnel

[Krypto-Communist]

You don't have to resort to cliches but they are rather quick and conveinent especially when yelling at military personnel in uniform while walking down the street or driving in your car. Have any of you encountered any military personnel and got into a discussion with them about the military and why it is evil? Whenever I get the chance to see someone in uniform I always make my presence known to them. The other day I left a note on a marine's car windshield with the words inscribed on it: "You belong in jail you imperialist murdering slug." "I hope the rest of your fellow monsters die and burn in hell, where you belong." "As the ol' saying goes: Hey, hey how many kids did you kill today?"


Or just yell the following things at them as you pass them by whether on foot or by car:

"War Criminal"
"Baby Killer"
"Murderer"
"Redneck"
"You may love your country but it doesn't love you"
"Staring down gun barrels for the sake of oil barrells?"
"You indoctrinated moron, go get a brain and use it for once"
"Don't you have anything else better to do?"
"Were you abused as a child, Mr. War Criminal?"
"What compels someone to join the military? Stupidity or um....stupidity?"
"I'll be sure to send flowers to your memorial, stinkweed would be appropriate"
"I hate you"
"You're such a tool"


Please add more to the list and tell me of your run-ins with these so-called "Great American Heroes who are protecting us from tyranny". I can't believe they still use that phrase in discourse.


I HATE THE MILITARY!!

[Xvall]

Maybe I should just wear a sign that says "Shoot me for subversive activity" instead.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yeah, they're war-criminals, murderers, class-traitors, mercenaries, etc.... but harassing them is kind of pathetic, innit? What's that gonna accomplish?

Probably this: they'll yell at you, intimidate you, and unless you wanna die, you're gonna have to be a submissive ***** by the end of your little encounter.

[rioters bloc]

a couple of those were okay but most of them just sounded kinda childish and boring. i'd rather some funny/creative ones myself.

[drain.you]

Personally provoking military doesn't seem the greatest of ideas... :unsure:

[danny android]

Harasing military is unpreductive. If you really hate the military so much you should start a counter recruitment program in your school and spread opt-out forms to your peers.(I'm assuming you are still in school) Educate your peers and tell them the truth about the military. Eventually kick the military recruiters out of your school for good. I'm in the process of starting a counter reccruitment organization in my school.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Jeesh. Are things really gone that far to waste in the US? Are the military really recruiting on EVERY school or is that just my impression of things? (I don't live in the US)

[danny android]

yeah pretty much in most schools. I'm pretty sure schools have to allow them to come in and recruit if the school exepts federal money. Atleast this is what I understand from my principle. Though some schools are kicking the recruiters out.

[JKP]

Those slogans are far too childish and disrespectful to be considered of any value. Name calling only gives them more validation. A better slogan would be one that challenges the fundamental causes, like why they fight.

Things like" staring down barrels for oil barrels?" are good.

Or "why do the rich send you to fight their wars?"

That's what we need.

[which doctor]

Many of those are quite childishand do nothing to the soldiers. Instead we need say things to them to make them think.

"Don't be just another mindless pawn controled by the all powerful King"

I like using chess analogies.

[WendigoSpooks]

I can't say harassing military personel is right. Yeah, I'm new to the forums, but I cannot justify harassing them. If they were overtly jingoistic or gun ho, well, they'd be open game as far as I'm concerned, but plenty aren't.

A lot of military personel don't particularly agree with how the military is being used, but there isn't much they can do once enlisted (without facing severe penalties). They've become 'government property'.

Oddly enough, the rights that the military are supposedly sworn to 'defend' don't apply to them. They don't have the same rights as civilians do.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:47 PM
Jeesh. Are things really gone that far to waste in the US? Are the military really recruiting on EVERY school or is that just my impression of things? (I don't live in the US)
Actually, it's now the law. The "No Child Left Behind" Act, put forward by the Bush regime and adopted by both parties in Congress, mandates that schools turn over their student enrollment lists to military recruiters. Any school district where administrators refuse to turn over the lists, or refuse recruiters access to their facilities, is denied federal funding.

Miles

[slim]

Why oppose the army knowing that it will be a matter of time before these very people join us? I suggest you keep away form them. Theyll view you more neutrally. Oppose them and they will oppose you. I doubt you want to fight an army when the revolution comes.

[SonofRage]

What should really do is:

1. go here: http://www.militaryproject.org/
2. Print some of those out
3. Give them to military people you encounter.


It's a project I'm involved in....

[Martin Blank]

You could also put one of these on your car....

http://www.communistleague.org/images/ribbon-large.gif

:D

Miles

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Oct 26 2005, 01:13 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Oct 26 2005, 01:13 PM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 01:47 PM
Jeesh. Are things really gone that far to waste in the US? Are the military really recruiting on EVERY school or is that just my impression of things? (I don't live in the US)
Actually, it's now the law. The "No Child Left Behind" Act, put forward by the Bush regime and adopted by both parties in Congress, mandates that schools turn over their student enrollment lists to military recruiters. Any school district where administrators refuse to turn over the lists, or refuse recruiters access to their facilities, is denied federal funding.

Miles [/b]
:huh: That's pretty fucking sick.

:D @ CommunistLeague

[Livetrueordie]

i don't know about that stickker cuz at a quick glance it looks like one of the support our troops stickers so most people would assume thats what it say when they pass it, it has to be more distinctly different.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 02:42 PM
i don't know about that stickker cuz at a quick glance it looks like one of the support our troops stickers so most people would assume thats what it say when they pass it, it has to be more distinctly different.
We should get one with the outline of a dead Soldier and have some text on it say "I support the DEATH of the troops!"

[farleft]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Oct 26 2005, 07:23 PM--> (Ownthink @ Oct 26 2005, 07:23 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 02:42 PM
i don't know about that stickker cuz at a quick glance it looks like one of the support our troops stickers so most people would assume thats what it say when they pass it, it has to be more distinctly different.
We should get one with the outline of a dead Soldier and have some text on it say "I support the DEATH of the troops!" [/b]
I should get some t-shirts with that done on it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Why don't you try to engage them in a rational intelligent debate. Calling someone a "baby killer," no matter how true it is, is not going to make someone more receptive to your ideas.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

How exactly do you start an intellectual debate with someone who is "driven on a mission by God himself" and who is "proud to be able to defend my country" ?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:36 PM
How exactly do you start an intellectual debate with someone who is "driven on a mission by God himself" and who is "proud to be able to defend my country" ?
Totally off topic but about that....

I was watching a documentary about soldiers in Iraq and before every mission, many of them would pray "Please, dear Lord of compassion, make the terrorists weapons ineffective. In jesus' name we pray, amen"

Now, please, someone, tell me the difference between Akbar over there blowing himself up for "Global Holy Jihad" and a bunch of stupid Imperialists praying to God before they go out and murder innocent people "because they were told to"?

There IS no difference! One of the soldiers was even a minister! :rolleyes:


Oh, they also asked the Soldier's what they though about the war.....

Every single one of them said "I think we should be here, I mean, they attacked us on 9/11, so it's time for payback. Besides, our government has a reason for us to be here, so shouldn't we just go?"

Anyone that fucking stupid deserves death anyway.

[Amusing Scrotum]

How exactly do you start an intellectual debate with someone who is "driven on a mission by God himself" and who is "proud to be able to defend my country" ?

Theres no harm in trying, you never know you might find yourself talking to a soldier who has serious doubts. Thats unlikely, but it could happen.

[workersunity]

i like that sticker, is it for sale somewhere or did you make it in photoshop of something. also many of those sayings are quite juvenile, i would try to enact them in a debate, and see it goes from there, going to those sayings will either get you beat or in the least regarded as quite immature

[camilo_cienfuegos]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:03 PM
You could also put one of these on your car....

http://www.communistleague.org/images/ribbon-large.gif

:D

Miles
im loving that one, where van you get one of those things?

[bezdomni]

One of my friends/co-workers joined the marines so he could get money to pay for an education. He hates the military, but he saw few other options.

Also, my cousin's husband is being sent to Iraq in a few months. I'll leave it at this, if there were a revolution, he would be on our side. He has nothing good to say about the army and the only reason he won't desert is because he has a duty to his platoon (the people under him).

So, be careful when you indiscriminately yell at all military personell, because many of them are just doing it because they have little other choice.

However, all military recruiters are scum. Plain and simple.

[Guerrilla22]

My favoite thing to say is " If only you knew what a tool you are."

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:43 PM
One of my friends/co-workers joined the marines so he could get money to pay for an education. He hates the military, but he saw few other options.

Also, my cousin's husband is being sent to Iraq in a few months. I'll leave it at this, if there were a revolution, he would be on our side. He has nothing good to say about the army and the only reason he won't desert is because he has a duty to his platoon (the people under him).

So, be careful when you indiscriminately yell at all military personell, because many of them are just doing it because they have little other choice.

However, all military recruiters are scum. Plain and simple.
"I need the money"
"There's no alternative"

These are not excuses, I dont care if these people are your friends or family, all marines have family and friends.

They ALL deserve nothing more that death.

They are out there occupying someone else's country and killing innocent people so dont give this blinded view of "it's not their fault" "they need the money" "they want an education" bullshit!

[drain.you]

Farleft, think you ought to chill. Soldiers aswell as the Iraqi civilians are innocents, the difference is that alot of US Soldiers have been brainwashed by propaganda, forced into it by parents/grandparents, doing it just to survive (you can't deny that some americans like in actual poverty) and many other things. Some feel compelled by the 9/11 bombings, etc.
I don't think all soldiers ought to die, I don't think the Iraq war should have happened but its happening.
And you seen the amount of suicide bombings attacking civilians targets aswell as military, I would be suprised if the 'insurgents' haven't killed as many people, I mean, they've been killing people wanting to vote on the constitution.
No one is perfect. And I'm sure some people will feel you are out of line to say that all US Soldiers 'deserve nothing more that death.'

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:28 AM

"I need the money"
"There's no alternative"

These are not excuses, I dont care if these people are your friends or family, all marines have family and friends.

They ALL deserve nothing more that death.

They are out there occupying someone else's country and killing innocent people so dont give this blinded view of "it's not their fault" "they need the money" "they want an education" bullshit!
That's a very bourgeois fucking attitude you have there man. The military is disproportionatly made up of working class people and working class people of color.

I can't see someone from a working class background have the attitude you are displaying here. You're pretty fucking clueless.

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:17 PM
Farleft, think you ought to chill. Soldiers aswell as the Iraqi civilians are innocents, the difference is that alot of US Soldiers have been brainwashed by propaganda, forced into it by parents/grandparents, doing it just to survive (you can't deny that some americans like in actual poverty) and many other things. Some feel compelled by the 9/11 bombings, etc.
I don't think all soldiers ought to die, I don't think the Iraq war should have happened but its happening.
And you seen the amount of suicide bombings attacking civilians targets aswell as military, I would be suprised if the 'insurgents' haven't killed as many people, I mean, they've been killing people wanting to vote on the constitution.
No one is perfect. And I'm sure some people will feel you are out of line to say that all US Soldiers 'deserve nothing more that death.'
I am not interested if people think im out of line. I am not that fickle that I will be affected by people getting upset by my opinions.

[farleft]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Oct 27 2005, 04:55 PM--> (SonofRage @ Oct 27 2005, 04:55 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 05:28 AM

"I need the money"
"There's no alternative"

These are not excuses, I dont care if these people are your friends or family, all marines have family and friends.

They ALL deserve nothing more that death.

They are out there occupying someone else's country and killing innocent people so dont give this blinded view of "it's not their fault" "they need the money" "they want an education" bullshit!
That's a very bourgeois fucking attitude you have there man. The military is disproportionatly made up of working class people and working class people of color.

I can't see someone from a working class background have the attitude you are displaying here. You're pretty fucking clueless. [/b]
bourgeois because I think impirialists occupying a country should be killed? and im the clueless one :lol:

The military may be mainly made up of the working class but that is irrelevent, they need to liberate themselves, if the military was the only option then the army would have the majority of the population so there are alternatives.

I am working class and this is not an "attitude" its an opinion. You on the other hand, like your military comrades are a little brainwashed.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

I agree "i need money" or "there's no alternative" can't be an excuse to go kill innocent people in a distant country. that's no worker's class attitude either, thats pure "me, me, me -attitude". However, comrade farleft, chill the fuck out man. :P

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:47 PM
I agree "i need money" or "there's no alternative" can't be an excuse to go kill innocent people in a distant country. that's no worker's class attitude either, thats pure "me, me, me -attitude". However, comrade farleft, chill the fuck out man. :P
Forgive me to taking communism seriously.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Don't you even read my posts or what? I just explained the worker's class shouldn't give in to the money by joining the army.
I don't like being accused of not taking communism seriously :angry:

[Ownthink]

Soldiers = death.


Plain and simple.

[Xvall]

They could be on our side at some point in the future — but until then, they aren't. Until then, they are the weapons of an oppressive government and if these weapons can not be taken away, their must be disabled or destroyed.

[rioters bloc]

One of my friends/co-workers joined the marines so he could get money to pay for an education. He hates the military, but he saw few other options.

Also, my cousin's husband is being sent to Iraq in a few months. I'll leave it at this, if there were a revolution, he would be on our side. He has nothing good to say about the army and the only reason he won't desert is because he has a duty to his platoon (the people under him).

So, be careful when you indiscriminately yell at all military personell, because many of them are just doing it because they have little other choice.

However, all military recruiters are scum. Plain and simple.




i understand these arguments, but i don't agree with them. i don't know how the education system works in the us, do you have to pay your college/uni fees upfront? either way, if that were the case here i would rather work and save up, even if it meant i 'd have to wait a coupla years to go to uni. sure that may be dull, and sure i wouldn't be with my friends. but fuck, i would never ever sign up to a program which involved killing people to further a country's imperialistic goals to avoid those things.

no offence to your cousin, but it seems he's putting his 'duty' above his own ethics. and while in the case of a revolution it's admirable to be in solidarity to your comrades, if he doesn't believe in what he's fighting for that's just...dumb.

[enigma2517]

There are many many mannny alternatives to joining the military. Its unfortunate that these people got suckered in but if everybody looks hard I'm sure they can other ways.

Not to mention, if you did your research you'd know that getting college assistance from the military is extremely hard. Its difficult to collect on it and they can revoke it at ANY TIME.

A crushing defeat of the imperialists would be a good thing. Do they have to die? That was in another thread before, to tell you the truth is a very good question.

They're working class, yet they're reactionary. Well, most of the working class is, although I think people with guns and tanks are bit more dangerous than the others. Although, disatisfied soliders can make both good comrades and can definetely help with armed insurrection.

Attacking soliders is as stupid as attacking politicians. Both just play a smaller part in the bigger game of class. Education is key at this point.

[DisIllusion]

There are other options rather than the military, it's just that the military makes it look like "IF YOU JOIN THE MILITARY, YOU'RE GUARANTEED TO HAVE A FANTASTIC FUFILLING LIFE AND EVERYBODY WILL LOVE YOU."

It really pisses me off when I see the recruiters at my high school, passing out their propaganda. I guess it's still a voluntary military service if they're brainwashed.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:33 PM
They could be on our side at some point in the future — but until then, they aren't. Until then, they are the weapons of an oppressive government and if these weapons can not be taken away, their must be disabled or destroyed.
Quoted for truthery.

I would like to add that the way to disable and/or destroy a mechanized army, without the use of a larger mechanized army, is to cripple the economey that funds it.

Bodies are only one resource the War Machine consumes, so counter-recruitment can only be part of the solution.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:33 PM
They could be on our side at some point in the future — but until then, they aren't.
Some of them are, right now -- not just a few, but many.

Miles

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 01:40 PM

bourgeois because I think impirialists occupying a country should be killed? and im the clueless one :lol:

The military may be mainly made up of the working class but that is irrelevent, they need to liberate themselves, if the military was the only option then the army would have the majority of the population so there are alternatives.

I am working class and this is not an "attitude" its an opinion. You on the other hand, like your military comrades are a little brainwashed.
How many members of the ruling class are in Iraq actually fighting? What kind of class analysis gives you the idea that the soldiers are bourgeois?

You don't seem to have much of an understanding of what it is like to be a working class person growing up in an area where your only options seem to be drug dealer, military, or starvation.

You sound like a Republican slamming welfare mothers.

The fact is that the military is made up of members of the working class and disproportionatly made up of people of color. Some are brainwashed with nationalism, others just want to better themselves.

If you think you're ever going to reach these people by telling them you hope they die, you're sorely mistaken. I do a lot of work reaching out to troops and it's important work.

Our watchword should be: We support our troops, when they shoot their officers!

[WendigoSpooks]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:43 PM

So, be careful when you indiscriminately yell at all military personell, because many of them are just doing it because they have little other choice.

However, all military recruiters are scum. Plain and simple.
I 100% agree with you. My brother, who joined the Marines to pay for college (my family could not afford it any other way, despite numerous scholarships), is going to Iraq December 3rd for nine months to fight a 'war' which he feels is entirely bullshit.

My brother joined the Marines to pay for college, but because of the Marines he will not be finishing college. He was promised that he'd have to finish college before he would even be considered to be sent over to Iraq, and that his unit 'wouldn't be combat ready for atleast another two years' and 'would probably never see combat'. My brother has only been in the Marines since January of this year.

If he refuses to go over or tries to get out of the Marines, the Marines will revoke the tuition support they gave him. We can't afford to pay off to cover that money ourselves.

He's since talked several of his friends out of joining the military.

So, in short: My brother joined the Marines to pay for college, because he joined the Marines and is going to Iraq he can't finish college. :huh:

If he leaves the Marines, they revoke tuition money for college that he won't even finish. We can't pay the tuition ourselves. Is that a 'Catch 22'? :angry:

A recruiter's job isn't to help you pay for college, but to get you to join the military. Only 1/3rd of students that sign up for the military to pay for college actually graduate.

"Support The fuckedover Troops, Not The War"

If anyone wants counter recruitment information, go to WarResistersLeague (http://www.warresisters.org)

[CommieTommy]

So, be careful when you indiscriminately yell at all military personell, because many of them are just doing it because they have little other choice.

However, all military recruiters are scum. Plain and simple.

I am ashamed at everybody who is putting down the armed forces of United States of America. Is IT NOT KNOWN, THAT MANY MEN IN THE SERVICE SIGNED UP TO GET A COLLEGE EDUCATION! Every person I know who enlisted into the millitary are doing it for educational experiences. Do you think they wanna go over and kill Iraqi children!? NO! They are the people! They did this because its the only thing they can do to make a living in life! They are instruments of the state! So what you have to do is, take that instrument from them and use it as for yourself! Soldiers joined Lenin, Soldiers joined Castro. Soldiers of the state can be instruments for a revolution! Unlike Police, they don't really wanna go off in war! I am against the goverment of America, but I am most def. not against the troops!

[Black Dagger]

Is IT NOT KNOWN, THAT MANY MEN IN THE SERVICE SIGNED UP TO GET A COLLEGE EDUCATION!

And many others decide that 'getting an education' is not worth becoming a murderous tool of US imperialism.



Do you think they wanna go over and kill Iraqi children!? NO!

This is what they will be undoubtedly be doing at some stage, if not children specifically, non-combatants generally, if even by 'accident'. If they don't want to serve US imperialism, and they don't want to kill innocents they shouldn't join the army, it's a pretty cut and dry issue. At the end of the day they're saying that their education is more important than say, the lives of innocents in Iraq or the prevention of US imperialism.



They did this because its the only thing they can do to make a living in life!

Rubbish, the vast majority of people seem to find other ways to live that don't involve signing up to fight for the interests of the US ruling class- maybe they joined because they want to kill some 'sandniggers'? Or because they like guns? Or because they think they're 'fighting terrorists'? Or because 'god' told them to?
It's farcical to say that in the US there are no options for young proles other than joining the military, scholarships? Loans? non-military based employment is not an option?



They are instruments of the state!

We finally agree! They are instruments of the state, they are the states 'big stick'.



So what you have to do is, take that instrument from them and use it as for yourself!

Except that soldiers are usually one of the most reactionary elements of any society, and are also not really reliable in terms of support, the military does not usually side with 'the communists'.



Soldiers joined Lenin, Soldiers joined Castro. Soldiers of the state can be instruments for a revolution!

Praising soldiers of other nations is worth nothing in the defence of US soldiers of imperialism.



Unlike Police, they don't really wanna go off in war!

Then why did they join the military? :unsure:



I am against the goverment of America, but I am most def. not against the troops!

You realise that the govt. and military are a part of the same structure yeah?
So you support US troops in Iraq? You support the invasion? You hope they 'win'?
Why do you support murderers and agents of imperialism? :(

[drain.you]

Maybe I'm naive but the police force aren't made up of trigger happy people like the army, they want a better society, a safer society and to uphold the law. Though I suppose some must go on a power trip occassionally, the majority want to do good. Maybe the troops want to do 'good' and may think that they are but at the end of the day, they have actively signed up and trained to kill other human beings and that, my friends, is wrong.

[Black Dagger]

Maybe I'm naive

Yup.



but the police force aren't made up of trigger happy people like the army,

There are many police forces who are notorious for being 'trigger happy'. Gunning down unarmed people, or 'shooting-to-kill' in situations where there are other options, or when the person could easily have been disabled without having to be shot in the head/chest. Especially if you're a person of colour!



they want a better society, a safer society and to uphold the law.

Huh? The police are the violent arm of the state, they uphold bourgeois 'law', protect private property and violently supress dissent. They want a society that is 'safe' for capitalists, not the working class, why do you think it is proles that fill 'our' prisons?



Though I suppose some must go on a power trip occassionally, the majority want to do good.

The job attracts people that relish in being in a position of authority, or maybe they like 'having a gun'. You really think the police force attracts progressive people? o0

[drain.you]

I wouldnt say the UK police force is trigger happy and most police I have met have been fine with me. Yes the police uphold bourgeois 'law' but I think the laws against murder, violence,etc will still be here under communism and its this kind of stuff which needs to be eliminated down to the bare minimum for the start of a better, safer society.

[Black Dagger]

I wouldnt say the UK police force is trigger happy and most police I have met have been fine with me.

Did you see that documentary on racism in the british police force? It got quite a lot of attention... As far as your individual interaction with police, ever been to or rally/protest/any kind of 'political' event? If not- go, your opinion of the police should change quite quickly. If you have, go to more.



Yes the police uphold bourgeois 'law' but I think the laws against murder, violence,etc will still be here under communism and its this kind of stuff which needs to be eliminated down to the bare minimum for the start of a better, safer society.

Of course upholding prohibition on murder is important, but murder and person-to-person violence are the extreme minority of crimes and laws.
The vast majority of law enforcement is not to prevent murder, but to prosecute people who commit property or drug offences. These are bourgeois spheres of 'law.

[farleft]

SONOFRAGE

Soldiers are like the police enforcers of the capitalist system, the are the defenders of the bourgois system.

[American_Trotskyist]

SONOFRAGE

Soldiers are like the police enforcers of the capitalist system, the are the defenders of the bourgois system.

Farleft, how can you claim to be a communist and have absolutely no sympathy for the workers? Have you ever worked? Have you lived in poverty? From you posts I reckon that you have not.

Even if you haven’t lived in poverty it is apparent that you are too self-righteous to listen to the facts about the working class soldiers.

The Armed Forces are a parasite on the working class; they prey on the working class and those in poverty. The teenage parents and impoverished teens don't have the luxury of mother and father paying for college or medical expenses, like you do. The desperation of someone who can't afford the basic necessities to survive can drive people into crime and the army.

Farleft if you want to take communism seriously you need at least learn about the perils of the working class.

So truly who the hell are you to judge anyone in poverty if you are just another radical student from suburbia?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:44 PM

SONOFRAGE

Soldiers are like the police enforcers of the capitalist system, the are the defenders of the bourgois system.

Farleft, how can you claim to be a communist and have absolutely no sympathy for the workers? Have you ever worked? Have you lived in poverty? From you posts I reckon that you have not.

Even if you haven’t lived in poverty it is apparent that you are too self-righteous to listen to the facts about the working class soldiers.

The Armed Forces are a parasite on the working class; they prey on the working class and those in poverty. The teenage parents and impoverished teens don't have the luxury of mother and father paying for college or medical expenses, like you do. The desperation of someone who can't afford the basic necessities to survive can drive people into crime and the army.

Farleft if you want to take communism seriously you need at least learn about the perils of the working class.

So truly who the hell are you to judge anyone in poverty if you are just another radical student from suburbia?
Let's hear you say that after a " oh so disenfranchised working class struggler" bombs your house and/or kills your entire family and/or country.


If I need cash because I am poor and I turn to crime or murdering, should I get any sympathy? No, I don't care what fucking class you are, there is no excuse for "murdering for money".


YOU need to educate yourself about how Communists should oppose Imperialism and its lackeys, everywhere.

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 07:44 PM

SONOFRAGE

Soldiers are like the police enforcers of the capitalist system, the are the defenders of the bourgois system.

Farleft, how can you claim to be a communist and have absolutely no sympathy for the workers? Have you ever worked? Have you lived in poverty? From you posts I reckon that you have not.

Even if you haven’t lived in poverty it is apparent that you are too self-righteous to listen to the facts about the working class soldiers.

The Armed Forces are a parasite on the working class; they prey on the working class and those in poverty. The teenage parents and impoverished teens don't have the luxury of mother and father paying for college or medical expenses, like you do. The desperation of someone who can't afford the basic necessities to survive can drive people into crime and the army.

Farleft if you want to take communism seriously you need at least learn about the perils of the working class.

So truly who the hell are you to judge anyone in poverty if you are just another radical student from suburbia?
Additionally from what Ownthink said.

Yes I have worked and still work, if i didnt i would be homeless and starving. I live alone so i am the only one responsible for paying the bills.

I support the working class but not when they kill innocent people, invade other countries unjustly etc etc, they are no comrade of mine and will not be until they turn around and shoot their commanding officers and refuse to carry out impirialist actions.

[drain.you]

Is this just my opinion or has this thread went quite off-topic? Its turned into another debate regarding war rather than shouting at military personnel, a thread that seemed originally pointless anyhow.

[American_Trotskyist]

Let's hear you say that after a " oh so disenfranchised working class struggler" bombs your house and/or kills your entire family and/or country.


If I need cash because I am poor and I turn to crime or murdering, should I get any sympathy? No, I don't care what fucking class you are, there is no excuse for "murdering for money".


YOU need to educate yourself about how Communists should oppose Imperialism and its lackeys, everywhere.

No I am not arguing for sending them more bombs and bullets. I most defiantly support fraging and I would encourage them to do it. I don't approve in anyway of the murder of the people of Iraq, but I understand why they joined and I understand why people turn to crime.

It is pure ignorance to claim that you are a coward for joining a gang or the Gang in Green, the Army. When you are in place of high unemployment, poverty and brutality, people don't worry about what some mercenary class warrior in dorm is going to think, they do it because if they don't they go broke and their families are evicted and many times homeless.

If you believe people who commit robbery and murder trying to live are just ‘bad people’ you have obviously not left many of your bourgeois illusion behind.

To the working-class youth the military offers them, claims to offer, a possibility they never would have, college. The system places many working class people in a position of starvation or crime (Civil or War Crime it doesn't matter). To judge how people in that kind of a desperate situation act without any experience in it is foolish.

If you don't think there is a draft within the United States you are living in fairy tale. They don't need draft cards they have poverty and unemployment to compel the unemployed workers and youth into the armed forces. They take away basic human rights, employment healthcare, education and basic necessities and the people have to do something to get even a few of those.

To claim that people trying to survive out of desperation should all be killed is absurd. The system of exploitation forces people to do what they never wanted or dreamed of doing to live.

Farleft I now have more respect for you, but if you want revolution you cannot declare all people who are oppressed and out of basic necessity join the military or go into crime should all be dead you will alienate yourself completely from the working class.

[Guest_October 1917]

I've been viewing this forum for quite awhile now and I must say that alot of the discussions on this board are interesting, intelligent, and for the most part I agree with alot of what is said on this board. However what I just read on this thread was not only mind blowing it was downright sickening in everyway. I want you people to take a look back and actually read what many of you have said, what several of you have just said is that you advocate the extermination of over 1 million service men and women. I dont even know where to begin to explain what is wrong with this and to any reasonable person I shouldn't have to. First off I want to make this very clear: NO American who joins the military joins with the explicit purpose of killing babies and spreading American imperialism. As many of you have already said many people who join the military join because they see it as the only option and many join out of desperation, for you to wish them death because of this is absurd to say the least. Not all those who join the military are "brainwashed" and many join for something called pride and patriotism, and they join with the idea of serving their country and protecting YOUR rights, no matter how false this may be. It seems that all you people are doing is blaimg the military and its soldiers for the governments policy's. Many soldiers in Iraq disagree with the war and if given the choice would probably have no part of it and the other half who agree with the war believe that they are "spreading peace and Democracy", I can't believe any of you would support killing those who are simply misinformed.
I would like to criticize some of the members who posted in this thread starting with krypto communist. I first off like to ask how in any way is this productive? insulting soldiers is not only pointless it is quite childish. You go on to say that all soldiers are murderers and "imperialist slugs" even though you fail to notice that only a small percent of the military is actually composed of combat soldiers. Also if you can show me an instance of a soldier "murdering" an Iraqi I would like to see it, because actually severe penalties are imposed on those who commit war crimes, we all saw what happened to those involved in the Abu Gharib scandal. I would like to ask you something, what if someone was shooting at you would you not shoot back? well this is the what happens the majority of the time and for you to call them "murderers" for simply defending themselves is absolutely ridiculous. I would also like to add that nearly any American soldier that your slandering would be there in a second if you needed help, and this can be seen with the National Guard who responded to the hurricane Katrina disaster and provided as much help as possible to normal citizens. All I have to say to you is grow up and get realistic, people like you cripple any chance of Socialism being taken seriously.
Ownthink, I read your post on that TV show and the show you are talking about is called "Off to War" and having seen every episode, your information is completely misinformed and false. What the soldiers said was a quick prayer for good luck before going off on patrol, and the prayer you mentioned had no resemblance whatsoever to the actual prayer said on the show. The soldier who said the prayer was not a minister although he was religious and attended a small church in his home state. A small prayer for good luck is alot different than the Islamic fundamentalists who behead people in the name of religion and Allah and who fight solely in the name of religion, that is the difference between the two. Also if you had actually watched the show besides one episode you would know that most of the soldiers DISAGREED with the war and some of them of them even voted for Kerry, the quote you stated was something you made up. I would even be willing to go to lengths to get the transcript of the show and send it to you to show how wrong you are.
Redleft your words could possibly be the most ignorant words I have ever had the displeasure of reading. For you to call for the death of all soldiers is equivilent to Hitler's call of extermination of the Jews. You say they are occupying another country, which I won't disgaree with, but what was the alternative? Saddam Hussein, a near Fascist who it basically seems you support. You are no Communist or Socialist of any kind and you are a genocidal maniac who probably sits in his parents nice suburban house while soldiers in Iraq suffer the stress of combat. You are a disgrace to Socialism.
For all you people slamming recruiters you need to get informed. Recruiter is not an actual job in the military and all the recruiters you see at you school have other jobs and were forced to do recruiting work. I have met several recruiters at my school, one was an Army Combat Engineer, one a Marine Infantryman, and another a Navy Mechanic. Most of them just wanted kids to sign there papers so they could leave. The only professional recruiters are those you actually see in the military recruitng offices who are mostly retired veterens who probably do it for the money.
I would like to say another thing regarding the American military and its history. While so many of you claim you are crusaders for the opressed and champions of freedom and democracy, who do you think has gone out and actually liberated those who were opressed? Who liberated the Europeans under Nazi rule? Who freed the slaves? Who prevented Communist occupation of North Korea? Where were the Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists than? oh thats right sitting in their local library reading books on why people should be free while American soldiers died actually freeing them. Ask yourself this, if America was ever invaded and you were ever put in danger who would you run to for help and who would be there in a second to protect you, no matter if you hated them or not?
People like you are the reasons Socialism will never be taken seriously. You say you represent the common worker and common man but I challenge you to go to the door of any common American worker and tell them you want all American soldiers dead, I would love to see thier reactions. I can tell you that if any teenage white suburban kid came to my door and said they support the death of American soldiers, I would not only slam the door on them I would probably beat them profusely.You people really think you will ever get the American public on your side with ridiculous claims like this. Heres a newsflash most Americans, even those with leftist views, support our soldiers. Why not insted of insulting them you actually inform them about Socialism and some of its ideals? The only realistic way there will ever be a successful revlution in American is with the Soldiers on your side, just as in the Bolshevik revolution. The military is a valuable asset in revolution, why do you think Trotsky ended up begging former Tsarist officers to join the Red army?
I'm done for now, thats all I will say and I feel I have said all I needed. Although I probably could have continued I dont feel it neccesary to insult you like you have done to the military and all those whose lives are in danger right now while you sit in your cushy house. However I did find this video which I think all of you should watch to truly see how ridiculous all of you sound. This is a video of a man named Michael Crook who according to rumors was fortunately murdered by veterans. This man had similar views as you do, have fun seeing him be humilated by Sean Hannity and even liberal Colmes: http://www.filecabi.net/v.php?file=MichaelCrook.wmv

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Guest_October [email protected] 30 2005, 08:25 PM
I've been viewing this forum for quite awhile now and I must say that alot of the discussions on this board are interesting, intelligent, and for the most part I agree with alot of what is said on this board. However what I just read on this thread was not only mind blowing it was downright sickening in everyway. I want you people to take a look back and actually read what many of you have said, what several of you have just said is that you advocate the extermination of over 1 million service men and women. I dont even know where to begin to explain what is wrong with this and to any reasonable person I shouldn't have to. First off I want to make this very clear: NO American who joins the military joins with the explicit purpose of killing babies and spreading American imperialism. As many of you have already said many people who join the military join because they see it as the only option and many join out of desperation, for you to wish them death because of this is absurd to say the least. Not all those who join the military are "brainwashed" and many join for something called pride and patriotism, and they join with the idea of serving their country and protecting YOUR rights, no matter how false this may be. It seems that all you people are doing is blaimg the military and its soldiers for the governments policy's. Many soldiers in Iraq disagree with the war and if given the choice would probably have no part of it and the other half who agree with the war believe that they are "spreading peace and Democracy", I can't believe any of you would support killing those who are simply misinformed.
I would like to criticize some of the members who posted in this thread starting with krypto communist. I first off like to ask how in any way is this productive? insulting soldiers is not only pointless it is quite childish. You go on to say that all soldiers are murderers and "imperialist slugs" even though you fail to notice that only a small percent of the military is actually composed of combat soldiers. Also if you can show me an instance of a soldier "murdering" an Iraqi I would like to see it, because actually severe penalties are imposed on those who commit war crimes, we all saw what happened to those involved in the Abu Gharib scandal. I would like to ask you something, what if someone was shooting at you would you not shoot back? well this is the what happens the majority of the time and for you to call them "murderers" for simply defending themselves is absolutely ridiculous. I would also like to add that nearly any American soldier that your slandering would be there in a second if you needed help, and this can be seen with the National Guard who responded to the hurricane Katrina disaster and provided as much help as possible to normal citizens. All I have to say to you is grow up and get realistic, people like you cripple any chance of Socialism being taken seriously.
Ownthink, I read your post on that TV show and the show you are talking about is called "Off to War" and having seen every episode, your information is completely misinformed and false. What the soldiers said was a quick prayer for good luck before going off on patrol, and the prayer you mentioned had no resemblance whatsoever to the actual prayer said on the show. The soldier who said the prayer was not a minister although he was religious and attended a small church in his home state. A small prayer for good luck is alot different than the Islamic fundamentalists who behead people in the name of religion and Allah and who fight solely in the name of religion, that is the difference between the two. Also if you had actually watched the show besides one episode you would know that most of the soldiers DISAGREED with the war and some of them of them even voted for Kerry, the quote you stated was something you made up. I would even be willing to go to lengths to get the transcript of the show and send it to you to show how wrong you are.
Redleft your words could possibly be the most ignorant words I have ever had the displeasure of reading. For you to call for the death of all soldiers is equivilent to Hitler's call of extermination of the Jews. You say they are occupying another country, which I won't disgaree with, but what was the alternative? Saddam Hussein, a near Fascist who it basically seems you support. You are no Communist or Socialist of any kind and you are a genocidal maniac who probably sits in his parents nice suburban house while soldiers in Iraq suffer the stress of combat. You are a disgrace to Socialism.
For all you people slamming recruiters you need to get informed. Recruiter is not an actual job in the military and all the recruiters you see at you school have other jobs and were forced to do recruiting work. I have met several recruiters at my school, one was an Army Combat Engineer, one a Marine Infantryman, and another a Navy Mechanic. Most of them just wanted kids to sign there papers so they could leave. The only professional recruiters are those you actually see in the military recruitng offices who are mostly retired veterens who probably do it for the money.
I would like to say another thing regarding the American military and its history. While so many of you claim you are crusaders for the opressed and champions of freedom and democracy, who do you think has gone out and actually liberated those who were opressed? Who liberated the Europeans under Nazi rule? Who freed the slaves? Who prevented Communist occupation of North Korea? Where were the Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists than? oh thats right sitting in their local library reading books on why people should be free while American soldiers died actually freeing them. Ask yourself this, if America was ever invaded and you were ever put in danger who would you run to for help and who would be there in a second to protect you, no matter if you hated them or not?
People like you are the reasons Socialism will never be taken seriously. You say you represent the common worker and common man but I challenge you to go to the door of any common American worker and tell them you want all American soldiers dead, I would love to see thier reactions. I can tell you that if any teenage white suburban kid came to my door and said they support the death of American soldiers, I would not only slam the door on them I would probably beat them profusely.You people really think you will ever get the American public on your side with ridiculous claims like this. Heres a newsflash most Americans, even those with leftist views, support our soldiers. Why not insted of insulting them you actually inform them about Socialism and some of its ideals? The only realistic way there will ever be a successful revlution in American is with the Soldiers on your side, just as in the Bolshevik revolution. The military is a valuable asset in revolution, why do you think Trotsky ended up begging former Tsarist officers to join the Red army?
I'm done for now, thats all I will say and I feel I have said all I needed. Although I probably could have continued I dont feel it neccesary to insult you like you have done to the military and all those whose lives are in danger right now while you sit in your cushy house. However I did find this video which I think all of you should watch to truly see how ridiculous all of you sound. This is a video of a man named Michael Crook who according to rumors was fortunately murdered by veterans. This man had similar views as you do, have fun seeing him be humilated by Sean Hannity and even liberal Colmes: http://www.filecabi.net/v.php?file=MichaelCrook.wmv
1) Learn to use paragraphs.

2) They WERE praising God right before going out to "do their job", aka killing for the US of A. I don't see how anyone could confuse that.

3) Leave.

[Guest]

1. This is my first post here

2. They were not "praising" anyone they were simply asking for protection, big difference

3. No

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:47 PM
1. This is my first post here

2. They were not "praising" anyone they were simply asking for protection, big difference

3. No
Asking for protection from an entity that does not exist to protect over them while they murder people because they were ordered to?

How is that much different than a "global holy jihad"? Oh yeah, it isn't. Every single one of those soldiers is a fucking criminal, and I don't want to have to go over this shit again with some slow minded troop supporting moron.

Some of them supported Kerry? Ooh, big difference. So? I hate him as much as Bush. Next.

Opposed the war? Yeah, so are a lot of liberals, except they think we could have "waged it differently", with an "exit strategy" and whatnot. I don't care if you oppose the criminal acts you commit, the fact is you still comitted them.

Oh, and most of the fighters over there that are part of the Insurgency are not "religious fundamentalists bent upon the creation of a global Islamic state" like America would like to have you believe. They are ordinary working class people who are simply exercising their right to resist Imperialist domination.

[Guest]

It does not matter if the entity exists or not they should have the right to ask for protection from whatever they want be it god or a bug on the ground. Actually they didnt murder anyone and if I remember correctly they were the one's being shot at on that mission. I never said I supported anything I was only saying that your remark on that was false.

[Guest]

Heres a question how is it in anyways like a "holy jihad"? How are these troops criminals? Besides your ridiculous claims. It dosnt matter if you support kerry or not but you said that all of these troops said they supported the war, by them voting for Kerry it pretty much disproves that point. So now you support the Islamic fundamentalists? no matter if they are misrepresented by America or not they coomit the same "crimes" you are accusing American soldiers of. For you to support people who behead working class citizens and stone their women is quite hypocritical dont you think?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 09:08 PM
Heres a question how is it in anyways like a "holy jihad"? How are these troops criminals? Besides your ridiculous claims. It dosnt matter if you support kerry or not but you said that all of these troops said they supported the war, by them voting for Kerry it pretty much disproves that point. So now you support the Islamic fundamentalists? no matter if they are misrepresented by America or not they coomit the same "crimes" you are accusing American soldiers of. For you to support people who behead working class citizens and stone their women is quite hypocritical dont you think?
Maybe your dumbass should go back and read my fucking post. I never said I supported "islamic fundamentalists", but maybe reading is too hard of a concept for you. These troops are criminals plain and simple, and I can't debate with an idiot like you who would believe otherwise and try to defend his liberal view of this matter, that "oh whether you're left or right you must suppoert the troops blah blah". No, that is not how things are. Yes, there really are people who wish death upon the troops. Yes, their really are people who will challenge the status quo and American patriotism that is upheld everywhere. Hard to believe, isn't it?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:08 AM
Heres a question how is it in anyways like a "holy jihad"? How are these troops criminals? Besides your ridiculous claims. It dosnt matter if you support kerry or not but you said that all of these troops said they supported the war, by them voting for Kerry it pretty much disproves that point. So now you support the Islamic fundamentalists? no matter if they are misrepresented by America or not they coomit the same "crimes" you are accusing American soldiers of. For you to support people who behead working class citizens and stone their women is quite hypocritical dont you think?
jihad is always holy

they are criminals because they occupy, because they kill innocents, because they pillage, because they support the theft of a country's national resources.

if the troops did not support the war, they wouldnt be in iraq (just desert for fuck sake)...now the iraqi civilians dont have that choice...so i wont shed a single tear when another yank is shot by people defending their country.

I for one support the right of the iraqi people to defend their homes.

Al-Zarqawi beheads, only extremists stone women...the iraqi resistance is made up of many groups, including secular ones.

[Guest]

Sure sounded like you supported them and besides you accused me of the very same thing. Reading is not a hard concept and it is because I read that I realize your ideas and your posts are completely idiotic. I never said you had to support the troops but wishing death on them is absolutely absurd, complete counter revolutionary, and has no justification other than your own paranoia. Yes, I do realize there are people who wish death upon the troops and I also realize its because of people like you that Socialism will never succeed. Yes, your stupidity is hard to believe.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 09:20 PM
Sure sounded like you supported them and besides you accused me of the very same thing. Reading is not a hard concept and it is because I read that I realize your ideas and your posts are completely idiotic. I never said you had to support the troops but wishing death on them is absolutely absurd, complete counter revolutionary, and has no justification other than your own paranoia. Yes, I do realize there are people who wish death upon the troops and I also realize its because of people like you that Socialism will never succeed. Yes, your stupidity is hard to believe.
Wishing death on them is "completely counter revolutionary"? :lol: '

I guess 75% of the people here are counter revolutionaries.

I do not and never would support a bunch of theocratic islamic fundamentalists. You're putting words into my mouth and being a total moron. Go away, we don't need your pro troops bullshit stinking this place up.

[Guest]

I realize our actions over there are quite stupid but how are they in anyway holy? Sotemporary American occupation of France during World War II after we liberated it from germany was criminal? They dont kill innocents provide examples. Where do they pillage? Although we are probably straling their oil no American soldier enlists thinking that hes supporting that. The soldiers in the military dont have a choice whether they go to Iraq or not and I will show you examples of several soldiers who do not support the war. Not all those peopel are just trying to defend their country, many are fighting for religion and just want to killa s many Americans as possible. Most of those fighting to "defend their country" like you say are extremists and not just Zarqawi beheads, besides his claim was that he was defending his homeland right? I guess you must support him to.

[Guest]

Actually I think only about 1 other agreed with your view. I challenge you to have a poll on the matter and see if 75% actually agree with you.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 09:26 PM
I realize our actions over there are quite stupid but how are they in anyway holy? Sotemporary American occupation of France during World War II after we liberated it from germany was criminal? They dont kill innocents provide examples. Where do they pillage? Although we are probably straling their oil no American soldier enlists thinking that hes supporting that. The soldiers in the military dont have a choice whether they go to Iraq or not and I will show you examples of several soldiers who do not support the war. Not all those peopel are just trying to defend their country, many are fighting for religion and just want to killa s many Americans as possible. Most of those fighting to "defend their country" like you say are extremists and not just Zarqawi beheads, besides his claim was that he was defending his homeland right? I guess you must support him to.
1) Jihad is not holy. It means "struggle" in Arabic.

2) It doesn't matter if they enlist "knowingly" or "un knowingly" of American Imperialism and aggression. The point is that they participate in it, and that is all that matters.

3) Yes, I, along with many others here, support the Iraqi Resistance.

4) Take your liberal shit somewhere else! :angry:

[Ownthink]

This liberal troll is not even worth it. Keep posting your effluvious bullshit, but don't expect a reply from me.

[Guest]

1. Yet you just said "jihad is always holy"

2. So you rwilling to kill someone simply because they are misinformed? let me guess your also willing to kill half of the US population who support the war?

3. Great so I guess you support a "theocratic" movement after all, because thats what the Iraqi resistace movement is. Show me one Iraqi resistance fighter who dosnt do it in the name of religion.

4. I'm a liberal because I dont support killing American soldiers? its called common sense.

The only reason you wont continue this is because you can't

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 09:34 PM
1. Yet you just said "jihad is always holy"

2. So you rwilling to kill someone simply because they are misinformed? let me guess your also willing to kill half of the US population who support the war?

3. Great so I guess you support a "theocratic" movement after all, because thats what the Iraqi resistace movement is. Show me one Iraqi resistance fighter who dosnt do it in the name of religion.

4. I'm a liberal because I dont support killing American soldiers? its called common sense.

The only reason you wont continue this is because you can't
Alas, I must continue to resist such idiocy:

1) That was a different member, NewKindOfSoldier. Once again: Learn to read.

2) Misinformed? Try misinformed and with a weapon and orders to kill. Big fucking difference.

3) While I cannot point out to you specific members, I can point out to you practices of certain fighters that do not align with the usual fundamentalist practices of car bombings, civilian massacring, etc. The fighter? Juba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juba_%28sniper%29) There are also many different sects that are part of the resistance, and they are not all "pro Saddam-ites" or "Sunni Supremacists" as the American News will tell you.

4) Common sense? :lol:!! Really, you are making yourself look like a bigger idiot every time you post. Just stop.


The only reason you wont continue this is because you can't
That makes absolutely no fucking sense you dolt.

[Guest]

So because they are misinformed and given a weapon they should be killed? Most Iraqi Resistance are misinformed about religion and have a weapon shouldnt they be killed to? One fighter, in which there is still no proof to show he isnt a fundamentalist, is not enough evidence to show that the majority of these people are not fundamentalists, I would also like to know what these other sects are that you are talking about? To me it is common sense to not want to murder American soldiers, and it should be for anyone, I challenge you to ask the peopel on this board if they agree with you and I guarantee you will be suprised. My last remark did make sense because it said that you cant argue back be cause you have no realisitc claims anymore.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 09:55 PM
So because they are misinformed and given a weapon they should be killed? Most Iraqi Resistance are misinformed about religion and have a weapon shouldnt they be killed to? One fighter, in which there is still no proof to show he isnt a fundamentalist, is not enough evidence to show that the majority of these people are not fundamentalists, I would also like to know what these other sects are that you are talking about? To me it is common sense to not want to murder American soldiers, and it should be for anyone, I challenge you to ask the peopel on this board if they agree with you and I guarantee you will be suprised. My last remark did make sense because it said that you cant argue back be cause you have no realisitc claims anymore.
This shit just doesn't sink in for you.

I'm through responding to this troll.

[Guest]

It dosnt sink in because there is NOTHING to sink in, it is completely idiotic and hyprocritical.

[Ian]

Good friend of mine is in the Army, he's intelligent and he's not going to see combat at all, plus he's getting paid to do very little. Good for him.

[Guest]

Listen carefully my pedigree chums. Your all asking for trouble. My friends and I would jump at the chance to turn you un-faithful, hate-mongering, anti-military scumbags into a pile of teeth and blood. I DARE you to yell at someone with a RANGER tab on their arm. See how far you can run before you get your legs broken. The case wont even be brought to court. Yell at a Marine and see how quickly your choked out on the sidewalk. This isnt the 1960's, nobody is going to get away with this anti-military bullshit. Try it, I dare you.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:04 PM
Listen carefully my pedigree chums. Your all asking for trouble. My friends and I would jump at the chance to turn you un-faithful, hate-mongering, anti-military scumbags into a pile of teeth and blood. I DARE you to yell at someone with a RANGER tab on their arm. See how far you can run before you get your legs broken. The case wont even be brought to court. Yell at a Marine and see how quickly your choked out on the sidewalk. This isnt the 1960's, nobody is going to get away with this anti-military bullshit. Try it, I dare you.
:lol:

That is fucking hysterical, really. I don't think anyone (No, not even a "RANGER") could stop bullets. ;)

:lol:

[Guest_October 1917]

The above remark was not made by me by the way

[gewehr_3]

marines are big pussies
The french foreign legion has a training camp in french guiana and they can gat thru the obstical course in 45 Minuets. It took a visiting marine team 7 hours to complete it.

and id like to see the rangers go up against the swiss pretorian guard. the swiss challanged the SEALS to wargames and the seals had 70% casualties.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:45 PM
marines are big pussies
The french foreign legion has a training camp in french guiana and they can gat thru the obstical course in 45 Minuets. It took a visiting marine team 7 hours to complete it.

and id like to see the rangers go up against the swiss pretorian guard. the swiss challanged the SEALS to wargames and the seals had 70% casualties.
India's Air Guard kicked the USAF's ass 2 years in a row at a National War Games conference.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Listen carefully my pedigree chums. Your all asking for trouble. My friends and I would jump at the chance to turn you un-faithful, hate-mongering, anti-military scumbags into a pile of teeth and blood. I DARE you to yell at someone with a RANGER tab on their arm. See how far you can run before you get your legs broken. The case wont even be brought to court. Yell at a Marine and see how quickly your choked out on the sidewalk. This isnt the 1960's, nobody is going to get away with this anti-military bullshit. Try it, I dare you.

You know what's funny about that? I personally beat the shit out of an U.S. Army Ranger a few years ago... he is my cousin.

:)

[Cyanide Suicide]

Last month the Army came to my highschool and covered all of the lunch tables with tons of papers for signing up to the army. It pissed me off so I wrote "murder propaganda" on a few of them. Wow, I'm so hardXore.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:04 PM
Listen carefully my pedigree chums. Your all asking for trouble. My friends and I would jump at the chance to turn you un-faithful, hate-mongering, anti-military scumbags into a pile of teeth and blood. I DARE you to yell at someone with a RANGER tab on their arm. See how far you can run before you get your legs broken. The case wont even be brought to court. Yell at a Marine and see how quickly your choked out on the sidewalk. This isnt the 1960's, nobody is going to get away with this anti-military bullshit. Try it, I dare you.
Young man, does your mother know you're playing on the computer while they're out tonight? Don't let the babysitter catch you or else no Jello!

Miles

[bed_of_nails]

I invite any military personel to try and prove to me how "tough" they are. I say shit to their faces all the time, and if they want to try and beat me down I will be more than happy to lose my temper with them.

Go KeYbOaRd KoMmAnDo'S!

[Martin Blank]

If some jarhead wants to play with me, I'll part his hair at 200m.

Miles

[Guest_October 1917]

The reason they dont "beat you down" bed of nails is because they have something called class and patience and would rather not jeapordize their career by beating the shit out of some moronic teenager

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Guest_October [email protected] 31 2005, 10:59 PM
The reason they dont "beat you down" bed of nails is because they have something called class and patience and would rather not jeapordize their career by beating the shit out of some moronic teenager
According to a Marine I talked to, they can legally kill someone who threatens them.

Fuck the military. They just submit themselves to our fuckin' government.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:43 PM
If some jarhead wants to play with me, I'll part his hair at 200m.

Miles
You consider yourself a goodshot?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by JKP+Jan 1 2006, 12:46 AM--> (JKP @ Jan 1 2006, 12:46 AM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 07:43 PM
If some jarhead wants to play with me, I'll part his hair at 200m.

Miles
You consider yourself a goodshot? [/b]
Sure. Why not? The person who recertified my marksman rating last time around did.

Miles

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Guest_October [email protected] 1 2006, 04:59 AM
The reason they dont "beat you down" bed of nails is because they have something called class and patience and would rather not jeapordize their career by beating the shit out of some moronic teenager
Yeah, we just forgot the military is such a warm, friendly, openminded and absolutely non-fascist organisation whose only concern is to protect the weak.. :rolleyes:

Idiot.

[Global_Justice]

i would never say any of that to our UK forces, don't forget a large proportion of the iraq war, and joined the army to protect people, not kill people.

soldiers might be tools, but aren't we all? thats the problem. i assume alot of us here work for large corporations. is the military not oppressed working class aswell?

[Global_Justice]

Also if you can show me an instance of a soldier "murdering" an Iraqi I would like to see it, because actually severe penalties are imposed on those who commit war crimes

um............... :blink:

severe penalties imposed on those who commit war crimes.....like a re-elected 2nd term? :unsure:

the irap war, is a war crime, FACT. it's illegal and it's is murder.

you say they are only shooting back and defending themselves, is that what SHOCK AND AWE was all about?

[DeathtoPrejudice]

No thanks, I'll instead encourage them, and compliment them on their selfless service to the nation they and their comrades are puting their lives on the line to protect...

You might not like the military for whatever reason, but every military is filled with people of all backgrounds and personalities, that feel the need to serve the country that has birthed and raised them. If you must 'hate' anyone for what the military is doing, 'hate' the government... as they decide the militarys actions.

But, it's best not to hate anyone. anyone...


the irap war, is a war crime, FACT. it's illegal and it's is murder.

The iraq war is too much to classify, views are entirely different from person to person, and only the future history books (.. not talking school texts) will really shed light on it, and it's affects on the world around them... As the people will have had time to let it pass, reflect, and put it into writing.

And opinions and facts are worlds apart... Best learn that sooner then later. My views on the iraq war? I don't know, not yet.

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:41 PM
No thanks, I'll instead encourage them, and compliment them on their selfless service to the nation they and their comrades are puting their lives on the line to protect...

You might not like the military for whatever reason, but every military is filled with people of all backgrounds and personalities, that feel the need to serve the country that has birthed and raised them. If you must 'hate' anyone for what the military is doing, 'hate' the government... as they decide the militarys actions.

But, it's best not to hate anyone. anyone...
:angry:

if you don't hate you won't bring change

and about the counrty that has birthed and raised them, that is bollocks, to claim we owe the country anything is ridiculous.

the US government doesn't "raise" anyone, it keeps them down!

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:41 PM
No thanks, I'll instead encourage them, and compliment them on their selfless service to the nation they and their comrades are puting their lives on the line to protect...

You might not like the military for whatever reason, but every military is filled with people of all backgrounds and personalities, that feel the need to serve the country that has birthed and raised them. If you must 'hate' anyone for what the military is doing, 'hate' the government... as they decide the militarys actions.

But, it's best not to hate anyone. anyone...


the irap war, is a war crime, FACT. it's illegal and it's is murder.

The iraq war is too much to classify, views are entirely different from person to person, and only the future history books (.. not talking school texts) will really shed light on it, and it's affects on the world around them... As the people will have had time to let it pass, reflect, and put it into writing.

And opinions and facts are worlds apart... Best learn that sooner then later. My views on the iraq war? I don't know, not yet.
well my "opinion" is that the death of 50,000 people to spread US oppression is that if it's not illegal, it fuckin should be.

[DeathtoPrejudice]

Well, most people wouldn't accept that as what the Iraq war is. Even those against it...

I'm not defending the Iraq war, as I'm on the fence. It doesn't affect me or involve me, and I'm merely a spectator with no real connection to it other then i know people over there...

But I will do my best to put out the most simplistic, bias, and paranoid views of the war, out. Pro or Con...

You have your beliefs, but that's just what they are. Beliefs.



if you don't hate you won't bring change

and about the counrty that has birthed and raised them, that is bollocks, to claim we owe the country anything is ridiculous.

the US government doesn't "raise" anyone, it keeps them down!

Hate, is one of the most destructive things out there. Hate is what leads to death, and anything but progress. It Brings change, but never for the better...

And what makes you think i was referring to the US government? The US government is complicated... I shall not go into it as theres just too much.

And personaly, i feel the US is uptight about WAY too many things, but that's more homefront then foreign affairs...

[Ownthink]

I'm disgusted by this liberal trash I keep reading on this thread. Really, what is with this infiltration as of late?

*Sigh*

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected]Dec 31 2005, 02:43 AM
1. Yet you just said "jihad is always holy"


dont confuse posts, i said that.

it has that connotation.

as a word you fuck

doesnt mean that what they do while screaming it is holy

I can scream "for freedom!" and oppress the entire world...same goes for jihad, i can scream it while doing the unholiest of unholy things

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by Guest_October [email protected] 31 2005, 08:59 PM
The reason they dont "beat you down" bed of nails is because they have something called class and patience and would rather not jeapordize their career by beating the shit out of some moronic teenager
They have better things to do like kill civilians?

The military isnt made up of some superhuman group. They are merely flesh and blood like everyone else. They feel pain, they bleed, and they die. I giggle when I see the last one.

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:57 PM
Well, most people wouldn't accept that as what the Iraq war is. Even those against it...

I'm not defending the Iraq war, as I'm on the fence. It doesn't affect me or involve me, and I'm merely a spectator with no real connection to it other then i know people over there...

But I will do my best to put out the most simplistic, bias, and paranoid views of the war, out. Pro or Con...

You have your beliefs, but that's just what they are. Beliefs.



if you don't hate you won't bring change

and about the counrty that has birthed and raised them, that is bollocks, to claim we owe the country anything is ridiculous.

the US government doesn't "raise" anyone, it keeps them down!

Hate, is one of the most destructive things out there. Hate is what leads to death, and anything but progress. It Brings change, but almost never for the better...

And what makes you think i was referring to the US government? The US government is complicated... I shall not go into it as theres just too much.

And personaly, i feel the US is uptight about WAY too many things, but that's more homefront then foreign affairs...
the US has it's nose in every country in the world, every battle, dictator, revolution, the US is on a side and that is the side that will most benefit the US.

[DeathtoPrejudice]

True, the US after world war two have become sort of a, "world police." They are doing the job the UN was intended to do, whether that's a bad thing or good thing is yet to be decided (in my mind... either have a UN that doesnt do it's job, and the US that tries to do it for it. Or have neither).

The US isn't taking the sides that will benefit it, it's taking the sides it sympathizes with. The US can't draw benefit from many of the things it's doing.. a fictional example, supporting anti-communist rebels in some run-down country... How would that further or advance the US?

The US i have observed, sides with those it sympathizes with. Whether or not it benefit (gain something) is another question.

But the question is, wouldn't you do the same if you were in the position to?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:37 PM
True, the US after world war two have become sort of a, "world police." They are doing the job the UN was intended to do, whether that's a bad thing or good thing is yet to be decided (in my mind... either have a UN that doesnt do it's job, and the US that tries to do it for it. Or have neither).

The US isn't taking the sides that will benefit it, it's taking the sides it sympathizes with. The US can't draw benefit from many of the things it's doing.. a fictional example, supporting anti-communist rebels in some run-down country... How would that further or advance the US?

The US i have observed, sides with those it sympathizes with. Whether or not it benefit (gain something) is another question.

But the question is, wouldn't you do the same if you were in the position to?
No.

[DeathtoPrejudice]

So, if you saw a conflict in a third world country, and you saw an oppurtunity to help the side you sympahtized with, you wouldn't? Just to avoid criticism?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:59 PM
So, if you saw a conflict in a third world country, and you saw an oppurtunity to help the side you sympahtized with, you wouldn't? Just to avoid criticism?
I don't sympathize with Imperialists, Corrupt Dictators and criminal henchmen.

[DeathtoPrejudice]

Ok good for you. That doesn't answer the qeustion, and i think you misinterprited my original question:
But the question is, wouldn't you do the same if you were in the position to?

Clarification: If you were in the same position as the US is now, to get involved in any conflict you pleased, to help out the side you sympathized with. Wouldn't you?

Example: Helping communist rebels overthrow a colonial government.

[Cyanide Suicide]

Maybe so but what the US is doing over there is overthrowing what they had, and installing a dictatorship in the name of democracy.

[DeathtoPrejudice]

Yes, it is comical. They are overthrowing a leader they once backed tremendously back in the 80's, back when Iran and Communism were much more feared enemies then this Saddam person.

But i think it's much too premature to call what the US are doing, installing a dictatorship. Afterall, it's the iraqis who are voting for their leaders.

[Ownthink]

fterall, it's the iraqis who are voting for their leaders.
:lol:

[JC1]

Here's what I tell Millitary "person"el;

" When I'm in youre neighboorhood, ya better duck/
Cuz JC1 is crazy as fuck !"

[Ol' Dirty]

That's diguisting, and I am disguisted. How could you say that to a person who has seen the evils of America? Of war? Of Capitalism, and its war for oil? How could you say that about a young kid, oppresed by the upper class, practically forced into the millitary
because of poverty? Who has fought and died for this sham of a country, and its lies?
How?

Disguisting...

Peace...

Or not?

[Atlas Swallowed]

Don't bother insulting them just fuck their wives when they are shipped overseas.

[Ol' Dirty]

Ohhhhh...

So women are sex objects now? Wow, sexism and hate all in the same day...

What a load of shit!

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:04 PM
That's diguisting, and I am disguisted. How could you say that to a person who has seen the evils of America? Of war? Of Capitalism, and its war for oil? How could you say that about a young kid, oppresed by the upper class, practically forced into the millitary
because of poverty? Who has fought and died for this sham of a country, and its lies?
How?

Disguisting...

Peace...

Or not?
Oh boo hoo hoo! Those poor poor murderers! We should all gush over them and organize parades for them because "they are our protectors" and they have seen the horrors of war. Oh yeah, suddenly they come home and they are better than everyone else because "they protect us". :rolleyes:

These kids are illiterate 18 year old west virginians with guns for the most part. No, all kidding and generalization aside, most of these idiots joined up after 911 to "serve their country". They weren't conscripted, they joined the war machine themselves. Hell, most of them are whooping and hollering every time they kill some innocent Iraqis (from the number of first hand accounts I've read and real videos taken by the troops I've seen, they sure as hell don't seem anti war). Honestly -- Videos and clips of troops bemoaning the fact they can't fire on a 7 year old with a rock to clips of soldiers cheering when they demolish houses or blow an enemy apart. Who gives a shit if these murdering idiots die, I sure as hell don't.

Oh, and if I offended you, I totally don't give a shit. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is the type of response you will get from someone around here if you say that the troops are "oh so disenfranchised" and that they are "oppressed and are the victims". We don't disagree with you there at all!. However, a savage murderer who was the victim of cruel and inhuman abuse as a kid does not excuse his savage behavior later in life.

I hope you will see why these murderers do not deserve our (or anyone's) support for the crimes they have committed. Countless thousands are dead and lives are torn apart all because of their actions. It's material reality and it's harsh, but it's war.

[Guest_October 1917]

Redfaction I never said the military was warm or friendly but nearly every member of the military I have met is and yes many of them do join with the intention of protecting the weak and would protect you if you or your family were ever in trouble. I would love to see a foriegn power invade this country and then see who you run to for help. Global justice YES their are severe penalties imposed on soldiers who commit war crimes thats why so many soldiers who participated in the Abu Gharib scandal have lost thier career and are now in prison. You idea that Bush commited a war crime, which by the way makes no sense, is stricly your opinion, but it is my opinion that I think no matter what war America has been involoved it is probably a war crime to you. Face reality, countries go to war and governments send soldiers to fight them, not just America does this. Also global justice in a sense you do owe this country something, this is probably the only country on earth that would tolerate your idiotic views. However feel free to go to Communist China or North Korea and see how well they would accept you if you preached your views there. Ownthink look up the definition of liberal because I want you to go to any Socialist, Communist, or Anarchist meeting and tell them you want all American soldiers dead, you will either get thrown out or laughed out of the building. All you are is a paranoid irrational idiot who has a personal vendetta against America and anyone who supports it, grow up and get some realistic views. Bed of nails give me an example of an American soldier killing a civilian. Second of all what about the Iraqis that murder and behead civilians I guess they are just so much better than the American "imperialist". You people are a fucking joke with absolutely no realistic views what so ever, your basic ideas are "lets just kill 75% of Americans who think differently than us and then we'll have a majority revolution!!!!!". Heres a tip: not everyone thinks like you do and just because you have your own oppinion dosn't mean its the right one.You people are basically just as bad as Stalin when it comes to ruining the name of Socialism.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Guest_October [email protected] 2 2006, 02:25 AM
Redfaction I never said the military was warm or friendly but nearly every member of the military I have met is and yes many of them do join with the intention of protecting the weak and would protect you if you or your family were ever in trouble. I would love to see a foriegn power invade this country and then see who you run to for help. Global justice YES their are severe penalties imposed on soldiers who commit war crimes thats why so many soldiers who participated in the Abu Gharib scandal have lost thier career and are now in prison. You idea that Bush commited a war crime, which by the way makes no sense, is stricly your opinion, but it is my opinion that I think no matter what war America has been involoved it is probably a war crime to you. Face reality, countries go to war and governments send soldiers to fight them, not just America does this. Also global justice in a sense you do owe this country something, this is probably the only country on earth that would tolerate your idiotic views. However feel free to go to Communist China or North Korea and see how well they would accept you if you preached your views there. Ownthink look up the definition of liberal because I want you to go to any Socialist, Communist, or Anarchist meeting and tell them you want all American soldiers dead, you will either get thrown out or laughed out of the building. All you are is a paranoid irrational idiot who has a personal vendetta against America and anyone who supports it, grow up and get some realistic views. Bed of nails give me an example of an American soldier killing a civilian. Second of all what about the Iraqis that murder and behead civilians I guess they are just so much better than the American "imperialist". You people are a fucking joke with absolutely no realistic views what so ever, your basic ideas are "lets just kill 75% of Americans who think differently than us and then we'll have a majority revolution!!!!!". Heres a tip: not everyone thinks like you do and just because you have your own oppinion dosn't mean its the right one.You people are basically just as bad as Stalin when it comes to ruining the name of Socialism.
Spread your trash somewhere else you dolt. The fact alone you think that many radicals would be opposed to not supporting our murderous troops is funny in and of itself. You're the fucking joke you idiot, if your dumbass hasn't noticed, you're the only one here with the stupid reformist peacenik bullshit opinion, not the other way around.

[Guest]

Actually no if im correct only about 3 others have agreed with your ideas so I guess your the fucking joke. I know many wouldnt support the troops but very few would advocate killing them. Your not a Socialist of any kind your just simply anti-American and by the way you think it basically just seems like you want to kill someone.

[the elephant]

i think that all american soldiers are heroes and that even though i dont agree with everything that goes on in the u.s were a lot better off then most places
if you disagree with the goverment then fine but dont hate the soldiers who protect us. even if it may be justifiable or not there still there for us.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Guest_October [email protected] 2 2006, 08:25 AM
Redfaction I never said the military was warm or friendly but nearly every member of the military I have met is and yes many of them do join with the intention of protecting the weak and would protect you if you or your family were ever in trouble.
I don't need to be protected by fascists; I'd rather die. And if you really believe that the majority of those soldiers join with the intention of only protecting other people, you really are an ignorant fuck.

I would love to see a foriegn power invade this country
Now who's violent?

Global justice YES their are severe penalties imposed on soldiers who commit war crimes thats why so many soldiers who participated in the Abu Gharib scandal have lost thier career and are now in prison. You idea that Bush commited a war crime, which by the way makes no sense, is stricly your opinion, but it is my opinion that I think no matter what war America has been involoved it is probably a war crime to you.
Finish elementary school first, kid. Bush directly denied resoutions of the UN who were only starting to solve the Saddam problem in a peaceful and democratic way. But all of a sudden, Dubya comes rushing in 'cause he wants to play soldier. And of course it wasn't because the US could benefit from Iraq's oil infrastructures, no no, it was because Saddam had Weapons Of Mass Destruction :!: :!: Oh My God! Weapons Of Mass Destruction!! While the US only has, what, about 3000 of them? And what'd you know, where are all those Iraqi weapons now? Disappeared? No problem, mister President, we've done a good job. Grow up, ignorant fool.

Face reality, countries go to war and governments send soldiers to fight them, not just America does this. Well, my country never invaded no country, and certainly not for its own benefit.

Also global justice in a sense you do owe this country something, this is probably the only country on earth that would tolerate your idiotic views.
:lol: :lol: Do you even realise what you just said? America is the only country where communism is accepted?? What are you, 8 years old? Still believe in Santa Claus as well, I suppose? Once again, grow up and educate yourself.

However feel free to go to Communist China or North Korea and see how well they would accept you if you preached your views there.
Yeah, let me spread socialist views in a socialist environment, I'm bound to be arrested and tortured.. :huh: Wtf?

Ownthink look up the definition of liberal because I want you to go to any Socialist, Communist, or Anarchist meeting and tell them you want all American soldiers dead, you will either get thrown out or laughed out of the building.
Yeah, I can see you attend a lot of communist/socialist/anarchist meetings and know everything about them. We organize those meetings, moron.

All you are is a paranoid irrational idiot who has a personal vendetta against America and anyone who supports it,

Yeah, absolutely, personal vendetta and stuff, rock on.

grow up and get some realistic views.
Don't make me repeat myself.

Second of all what about the Iraqis that murder and behead civilians I guess they are just so much better than the American "imperialist".
What, you think Iraqis are killing their "own people" instead of US soldiers? :D

You people are a fucking joke with absolutely no realistic views what so ever, your basic ideas are "lets just kill 75% of Americans who think differently than us and then we'll have a majority revolution!!!!!"
Yep, that's communism for you allright. :rolleyes: You know so much about us, you should write a book about it.

Heres a tip: not everyone thinks like you do and just because you have your own oppinion dosn't mean its the right one.
Wow, really? I'm sorry, I never realised not every person on this planet is a socialist. :rolleyes:

You people are basically just as bad as Stalin when it comes to ruining the name of Socialism.
It sounds like you're offended that we are ruining the name of "your" socialism, but seriously, National Social-Democratic isn't really socialism. Your kind of "socialism" would fit in much better here (http://www.***************)


Comrade RedFaction :hammer:

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:37 PM


The US isn't taking the sides that will benefit it, it's taking the sides it sympathizes with. The US can't draw benefit from many of the things it's doing.. a fictional example, supporting anti-communist rebels in some run-down country... How would that further or advance the US?

so someone like pinochet in chile or batista in cuba, murdering dictators supported by the US, or the oppressive royal family in saudi arabia who have just about the worst human rights record in the world and are funded and supported by the US, and your saying the US support these murderers and oppressers because they sympathize with them? :blink:

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 2 2006, 04:14 AM
Don't bother insulting them just fuck their wives when they are shipped overseas.
Harsh! :lol:
Thats not a very good way to subvert and radicalize the soldiers..lol

[Guest]

HAHA. If there was ever a chance of convincing me you guys could start a revolution you fucked it up in this thread. Just like real leftists, you guys fight amongst yourselves more than you fight the right wing. It will be just like why the left didnt win the Spanish Civil war, they fight amongst themselves, never agree on anything and the anarchists eventually fuck it up. You guys will never be "organized in solidarity" or whatever your talking about. Your all a joke.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:01 PM
HAHA. If there was ever a chance of convincing me you guys could start a revolution you fucked it up in this thread. Just like real leftists, you guys fight amongst yourselves more than you fight the right wing. It will be just like why the left didnt win the Spanish Civil war, they fight amongst themselves, never agree on anything and the anarchists eventually fuck it up. You guys will never be "organized in solidarity" or whatever your talking about. Your all a joke.
I see we got you a little angry. Don't worry, go ask mummy for a tissue, itt'l be alright. :lol:

[Goatse]

HAHA.

Rofl yep. :lol:


If there was ever a chance of convincing me you guys could start a revolution you fucked it up in this thread.

Aww darn :(


just like real leftists, you guys fight amongst yourselves more than you fight the right wing.

And of course all rightists agree with each other on everything?


It will be just like why the left didnt win the Spanish Civil war, they fight amongst themselves, never agree on anything and the anarchists eventually fuck it up.

So one event dictates the result of every event with similar goals to come after it?


You guys will never be "organized in solidarity" or whatever your talking about.

Oh crap, he's just disproved more than a hundred years of theories by stating a single fact with no evidence whatsoever to support it! Damn, that's us owned then. :o


Your all a joke.

So is your grammar.

[Guest_OCtober 1917]

First of all I want to say that the above guest was not me. Anyways Redfaction first of all its real funny how you say you would rather die before being protected by American soldiers, the funny thing is most people with strong views like yourself always say things like that but when it really happens I truly doubt you would refuse their help. I also want to know how they are "fascists", consult you dictionary and maybe go to the local library and understand what fascism is. You also say that most of them dont join with intention of serving their country and protecting its people, so what do they join for then? have you ever even talked to a an American soldier? I have talked to several and have several relatives who have been in the military.

Maybe if you would have read the whole sentance you would have realized that I said "I would love to see a foriegn power invade this country AND then see who you run to for help." On your ideas about Bush, im sure you dont even like the UN so dont even bring that up. Yes, I do realize their were no weapons of mass destruction and I do realize he attacked them without peaceful means, but WAKE UP what leader who has gone to war hasnt? this is how war is are you going to try and ask the government for peace before you start a revolution? no, get a clue on military strategy you humanitarian, he is not a war criminal for starting a war, if he is than so is every other leader who started a war. I also dont know what country you live in but unless its madagascar I guarantee your country has gone to war atleast once.

Yes Redfaction I dare you to go China and tell them you want thier army dead and thier government overthrown im sure that will justr go over great. Have you forgotten Tiamanem square? You dont organize any meetings other than probably gathering the neighborhood hippies, do you organize all the CPUSA, RCP, ISO, etc meetings? I didnt think so. Actually Yes, their were Iraqis killing their own people, many kill those who cooperate with the Americans, and what about Saddam Hussein he didnt kill his own people? get a fucking clue, you will support anyone who hates America, thats your entire philosophy. I just love how you people keep calling me a "liberal" or "Social democrat" because I actually have realistic views and dont want to murder US troops and spend my whole day insulting US soldiers. YOu people are a joke you really think puttin gbumper stickers on soldiers car and insulting tem is really going to do anything but harm the Socialist movement? heres a question what have any of you actually done for the working class lately?

[Goatse]

Yes, I do realize their were no weapons of mass destruction and I do realize he attacked them without peaceful means, but WAKE UP what leader who has gone to war hasnt?

I'm sure there are some leaders who have gone to war haven't gone to war.

[Guest_October 1917]

What?

[Goatse]

...

Moron. Read what you said, you might notice something.

[Guest_October 1917]

Yes, what I said was that what leader hasnt gone to war without using peaceful means. Maybe you should read your own sentance better.

[Goatse]

what leader hasnt gone to war without using peaceful means.

Ehh, well not Bush anyway.


Maybe you should read your own sentance better.

Its mine now? Awesome!

[Guest_October 1917]

Yea, I pretty much made it clear that Bush invaded them by non peaceful means. Also Yes, the sentance that goes something like "Moron. Read what you said, you might notice something." was yours.

[Goatse]

I think I'm reading it sufficiently well as it is.

Anyway, I don't know about the rest of us but I just found what I quoted originally hilarious. It could just be taken in so many ways.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Guest_OCtober [email protected] 2 2006, 10:29 PM
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
:rolleyes:

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Guest_OCtober [email protected] 2 2006, 10:29 PM
First of all I want to say that the above guest was not me.
Yeah, we know, your name is Guest_OCtober 1917 and not Guest. Stop repeating that.

Anyways Redfaction first of all its real funny how you say you would rather die before being protected by American soldiers, the funny thing is most people with strong views like yourself always say things like that but when it really happens I truly doubt you would refuse their help.
I dunno about you, but I'm not used to saying things I don't mean.

I also want to know how they are "fascists", consult you dictionary and maybe go to the local library and understand what fascism is.
Wikipidea definition of fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)

You also say that most of them dont join with intention of serving their country and protecting its people, so what do they join for then? have you ever even talked to a an American soldier? I have talked to several and have several relatives who have been in the military.

Which might explain why you are so retarded. If you actually believe all of their propaganda, you're an idiot. But we knew that already, now didn't we?

Maybe if you would have read the whole sentance you would have realized that I said "I would love to see a foriegn power invade this country AND then see who you run to for help."
Which still implies you'd love to see a foreign power invade the US. What's your point?

On your ideas about Bush, im sure you dont even like the UN so dont even bring that up.
:lol: What the hell? You're just deciding in my place that I don't like the UN? Why do you think I defended them in my previous post, moron?

Yes, I do realize their were no weapons of mass destruction and I do realize he attacked them without peaceful means, but WAKE UP what leader who has gone to war hasnt?
None you idiot, how could you go to war with peaceful means?

this is how war is are you going to try and ask the government for peace before you start a revolution?
Whatever makes you think we favor war? I just told you we are against war and now you come crying "well this is how war is". That's exactly why we're against it, idiot.

no, get a clue on military strategy you humanitarian
Humanitarian is an insult now? I'm flattered :wub:
Wikipedia definition of humanitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian)

he is not a war criminal for starting a war
So you say I'm correct by saying he started war for US benefit only, yet he is no war criminal? You find selfishness justified then?

if he is than so is every other leader who started a war.
Which is exactly my point.

I also dont know what country you live in
Belgium

but unless its madagascar I guarantee your country has gone to war atleast once
Cool, you know my country's history better than me. Please specify which war(s), I'm dying to know.

Yes Redfaction I dare you to go China and tell them you want thier army dead and thier government overthrown im sure that will justr go over great.
:huh: Why would I want the Chinese government overthrown and their army dead? Though they're not actually communists (yet/anymore), they're still way better than your imperialistic friends.

Have you forgotten Tiamanem square?
The correct name is Tiananmen, and no I've certainly not forgotten those
Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989)

You dont organize any meetings other than probably gathering the neighborhood hippies
Yeah, hippies, that's us allright. Moron.

do you organize all the CPUSA, RCP, ISO, etc meetings? I didnt think so.
Of course not, I told you a dozen times, I live in Belgium. Think before you write.

Actually Yes, their were Iraqis killing their own people, many kill those who cooperate with the Americans,
Well *duuh* , wouldn't you be pretty fuckin angry at those who sympathize with the invaders of your country and the murderers of your people?

and what about Saddam Hussein he didnt kill his own people?
Of course he did, that's exactly why the UN reacted, idiot! Do I really have to repeat every time that I don't (= DO NOT) support, or have ever supported, Saddam Hussein?

get a fucking clue, you will support anyone who hates America, thats your entire philosophy.
Once again, glad you know more about us than we do ourselves. So when's your book being published? What's it gonna call? "The truth about communism" ? :rolleyes:

I just love how you people keep calling me a "liberal" or "Social democrat"
Oh, so that's why you keep coming back to have your "facts" revealed as simple lies every time again? You liberal social-democrat ! ;)

because I actually have realistic views
Oh yeah, absolutely :rolleyes:

and dont want to murder US troops and spend my whole day insulting US soldiers.
Yeah, that's what we do all day long :D

YOu people are a joke you really think puttin gbumper stickers on soldiers car and insulting tem is really going to do anything but harm the Socialist movement?
That won't be any of your problems, as you're clearly not a part of the movement you refer to.

heres a question what have any of you actually done for the working class lately?
-Organised massive protest agains liberal laws making people work longer than the age of 65
-Went to work for free in a ngo providing free food to the poorer people
-Had long and interesting conversations with some unemployed people lately
-Volunteered to help at a party of which parts of the profit went to chairity
-Helped organise an exhibition in 2 important museums with photographs (some of which my own work) of people who weren't given any real chances in society.
-...

Comrade RedFaction :hammer:

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 12:31 PM

Yes, I do realize their were no weapons of mass destruction and I do realize he attacked them without peaceful means, but WAKE UP what leader who has gone to war hasnt?
None you idiot, how could you go to war with peaceful means?
He means peace for the oil traders, silly.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Oh :rolleyes:

[Fidelbrand]

I love my country's People's Liberation Army.

[Guest]

Actually I have posted several times with the name guest since I forgot to put in October 1917 so I just want to make sure no one mistakes me for someone else. I'm quite familiar with the definition of Fascism, maybe you can explain to me how our military is "Fascist" instead of just labeling it that. That wikipedia article did not prove your point at all. Actually I know several people in the military and even more who plan to join and the majority are joining or joined for the reasons I listed, how is this propaganda if I know them on a personal level? have you ever even talked to an American soldier before? I didnt think so, so how would you know how they feel or why they join? if they don't join for the reasons I listed than why do you think they join? I also think its quite hypocritical that you support the UN who is basically composed of Capitalist "imperialist" nations, and the many nations that support us in Iraq who are apart of the UN. Your right though, how can any leaders go to war using peaceful means? but yet you blame Bush exclusively for failing to ask Iraq for peace before invading them, this is what all leaders who go to war do, so why do you single out Bush as some "imperialist murderer"? I also think its absolutely absurd that you are against all war, how else do you ever think a socialist revolution will be successful and what do you think will follow? Look at the Russian and nearly all Socialist revolutions for example. The only other way is by either evolutionary or democratic means, which I and you should know, get this movement no where. Stop trying to understand war or why leaders go to war because you are nothing more than a humanitarian and would never understand, any war is bad to you and no matter who wages it you will call an "imperialist war monger".

Concerning Belgium ever heard of the the Eighty Years war? the Belgian Revolution? or their imperialism over Congo? I suppose not. Its also great to here that China to you is better than "imperialist" USA, a country which has more freedoms than any other and a country which millions flee to from China and other countries every year. Feel free to read about glorious Communist China though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_t...public_of_China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China) sounds like a real paradise to me. Also im going to take a wild guess that you dont plan all the meetings for the Socialist/Communist parties in Belgium, so you dont organize those meetings, do tell me though which meetings you yourself personally organize? I would like to hear it.

What you said in your last post was "What, you think Iraqis are killing their "own people" instead of US soldiers?" and yet now you basically admit that they do? get your facts straight, its already beyond hypoicrisy that you would support a resistance movement which is both theocratic, opressive, and brutal. Also if you dont support Saddam why do you care so damn much that the US took him out of power? and what is the deal with the UN trying to peacefully negotiate with him because from what I remember he refused peaceful terms? and what if he did accpet peaceful terms you would rather have him in power than the US? but you honestly think Saddam would have just walked out of power by listening to the UN's negotiations? absolutely not. My facts have never been "revealed as lies" only yours and those who agree with you, and ive done it several times already. The fact is that I do have realistic views which do not consist of " I hate the murdering imperialist soldiers lets massacre all of them and then maybe we can get the American and international working class on the side of teenage communists!!!!!!" sound mornoic? yes it is. I really dont see how you ever hope to get people on your side with your ridiculous views you really have no idea how stupid you sound. In an attempt to be a rebel radical Socialist you have only further destroyed the ideals of Socialism and have even further distanced it from the ideals of the common working class, of which very few would want to see their country's soldiers dead and many of whom are their sons and daughters. Get a fucking clue really because if you dont see the idiocy of this than please reread your posts.

[Guest_October 1917]

Actually I have posted several times with the name guest since I forgot to put in October 1917 so I just want to make sure no one mistakes me for someone else. I'm quite familiar with the definition of Fascism, maybe you can explain to me how our military is "Fascist" instead of just labeling it that. That wikipedia article did not prove your point at all. Actually I know several people in the military and even more who plan to join and the majority are joining or joined for the reasons I listed, how is this propaganda if I know them on a personal level? have you ever even talked to an American soldier before? I didnt think so, so how would you know how they feel or why they join? if they don't join for the reasons I listed than why do you think they join? I also think its quite hypocritical that you support the UN who is basically composed of Capitalist "imperialist" nations, and the many nations that support us in Iraq who are apart of the UN. Your right though, how can any leaders go to war using peaceful means? but yet you blame Bush exclusively for failing to ask Iraq for peace before invading them, this is what all leaders who go to war do, so why do you single out Bush as some "imperialist murderer"? I also think its absolutely absurd that you are against all war, how else do you ever think a socialist revolution will be successful and what do you think will follow? Look at the Russian and nearly all Socialist revolutions for example. The only other way is by either evolutionary or democratic means, which I and you should know, get this movement no where. Stop trying to understand war or why leaders go to war because you are nothing more than a humanitarian and would never understand, any war is bad to you and no matter who wages it you will call an "imperialist war monger".

Concerning Belgium ever heard of the the Eighty Years war? the Belgian Revolution? or their imperialism over Congo? I suppose not. Its also great to here that China to you is better than "imperialist" USA, a country which has more freedoms than any other and a country which millions flee to from China and other countries every year. Feel free to read about glorious Communist China though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_t...public_of_China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China) sounds like a real paradise to me. Also im going to take a wild guess that you dont plan all the meetings for the Socialist/Communist parties in Belgium, so you dont organize those meetings, do tell me though which meetings you yourself personally organize? I would like to hear it.

What you said in your last post was "What, you think Iraqis are killing their "own people" instead of US soldiers?" and yet now you basically admit that they do? get your facts straight, its already beyond hypoicrisy that you would support a resistance movement which is both theocratic, opressive, and brutal. Also if you dont support Saddam why do you care so damn much that the US took him out of power? and what is the deal with the UN trying to peacefully negotiate with him because from what I remember he refused peaceful terms? and what if he did accpet peaceful terms you would rather have him in power than the US? but you honestly think Saddam would have just walked out of power by listening to the UN's negotiations? absolutely not. My facts have never been "revealed as lies" only yours and those who agree with you, and ive done it several times already. The fact is that I do have realistic views which do not consist of " I hate the murdering imperialist soldiers lets massacre all of them and then maybe we can get the American and international working class on the side of teenage communists!!!!!!" sound mornoic? yes it is. I really dont see how you ever hope to get people on your side with your ridiculous views you really have no idea how stupid you sound. In an attempt to be a rebel radical Socialist you have only further destroyed the ideals of Socialism and have even further distanced it from the ideals of the common working class, of which very few would want to see their country's soldiers dead and many of whom are their sons and daughters. Get a fucking clue really because if you dont see the idiocy of this than please reread your posts.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

:lol: :lol: Your intelligence and self-declared "logic" have dropped to a level below even my limit to what I will respond to (sorry if this sentence is too hard for you).

The only thing I will respond to is what you claimed about Belgium:
-The Eighty Year War took place before Belgium even existed; Belgium was founded in 1830, while the Eighty Year War was from 1568-1648 !!! The country you talk about was the Netherlands, along with the region Flanders. And anyway, they did not go to war, they were invaded by Spain.
-Belgian Revolution: A revolution is by no means a war, idiot. Did they attack another country? Don't think so. And besides, how could Belgium have started this war, as the Belgian Revolution was the first step towards the creation of Belgium ???
-Imperialism over Congo: That was king Leopold I, who annexated Congo as a private property. Belgium had nothing to do with this. Later, when he was done plundering the country and it was in heavy financial need and despair, he donated Congo to Belgium.

Seems like you just googled some stuff on Belgium and threw it in your post. Come back when you're ready to have a real discussion, for example when your voice changed and you're starting to grow pubic hair.
Kind regards,

Comrade RedFaction :hammer:

[Goatse]

Actually I have posted several times with the name guest since I forgot to put in October 1917 so I just want to make sure no one mistakes me for someone else.

k


I'm quite familiar with the definition of Fascism, maybe you can explain to me how our military is "Fascist" instead of just labeling it that.


an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views

Source (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fascist)


a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

Source (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fascism)


That wikipedia article did not prove your point at all.

And you're a castrati.

Aren't blind accusations fun?


Actually I know several people in the military and even more who plan to join and the majority are joining or joined for the reasons I listed

k


how is this propaganda if I know them on a personal level?

I assume that was directed at RedFaction, since he was the one that accused you of this.


have you ever even talked to an American soldier before?

Well I have.


I didnt think so,

lol


so how would you know how they feel or why they join?

The fact that they're willing to kill children in defence of their country kinda sums up their reasons.


if they don't join for the reasons I listed than why do you think they join?

List your reasons, I can't find them.


I also think its quite hypocritical that you support the UN who is basically composed of Capitalist "imperialist" nations, and the many nations that support us in Iraq who are apart of the UN.

Wasn't directed at me, can't answer. (And for the books I dislike the UN.)


Your right though, how can any leaders go to war using peaceful means?

Easy: Don't go to war.


but yet you blame Bush exclusively for failing to ask Iraq for peace before invading them,

:rolleyes:


this is what all leaders who go to war do

That's mainly because they, uh, go to war.


so why do you single out Bush as some "imperialist murderer"?

Because he... is?


I also think its absolutely absurd that you are against all war, how else do you ever think a socialist revolution will be successful

No war but class war.


and what do you think will follow?

... Socialism?


Look at the Russian and nearly all Socialist revolutions for example.

I'm looking.

Russia was put into a bad state by World War 2 and weren't exactly rich to begin with either. They were forced to reform.

China was extremely poor, and were also forced into capitalist reform.

Cuba is a socialist country, or is close

North Korea is a joke, and were basically made by the USSR.

Most "socialist" countries are unsuccessful because the material conditions which are necessary are not there.


The only other way is by either evolutionary or democratic means, which I and you should know, get this movement no where

Quite.


Stop trying to understand war or why leaders go to war

Why the hell should he?


because you are nothing more than a humanitarian and would never understand

Yes, and humanitarians are of course inherently idiots. :rolleyes:


any war is bad to you and no matter who wages it you will call an "imperialist war monger".

I'm quite sure this isn't true of Comrade RedFaction.


Concerning Belgium ever heard of the the Eighty Years war? the Belgian Revolution? or their imperialism over Congo? I suppose not. Its also great to here that China to you is better than "imperialist" USA, a country which has more freedoms than any other and a country which millions flee to from China and other countries every year. Feel free to read about glorious Communist China though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_t...public_of_China sounds like a real paradise to me. Also im going to take a wild guess that you dont plan all the meetings for the Socialist/Communist parties in Belgium, so you dont organize those meetings, do tell me though which meetings you yourself personally organize? I would like to hear it.

This was pretty much all directed completely at RF, and he's already answered it. Not much to say here.

Same with the last paragraph too, plus my fingers are exhausted, and I need a shit.

-Regards
George

PS. October 1917, why the hell do you have that name when you seem to be pro-imperialism and against any form of leftism?

[Guest_October 1917]

Wow nice job ducking all questions except for one redfaction. If im so illogical and unintelligent why dont you disprove ALL of my points? maybe you are the illogical and unintelligent one. As for Scottish fist off I would like to say that the above post was not a repsonse to you it was meant for redfaction. In response to your ideas about Fascism and the US military, how are they adherents of Fascism? How are they more right wing than any other military? Yes they have a heirarchial system, but what military dosnt? what a moronic thing to say. I fail to see how they are Fascist because of this. Any military has the same exact characteristics. Very few soldiers in the military would actually be willing to kill children but than again if you ahve talked to so many why dont you ask them yourself, you might be suprised. The reasons that they join are usually 2, these being they either join for benefits or with the idea of serving thier country and protecting its people, no matter if this is untrue or not. Besides these reasons why else do YOU think people would enlist in the military?
Your idea that countries should just "not go to war" is simple unrealistic, countries and people have been going to war since basically the beginning of mankind. If all leaders who go to war like you said are "imperialist murderers" what about Roosevelt and Churchill who effectively defeated Nazism in Europe, were they imperialist murderers? oh but I guess if it were up to you we would have just "not gone to war" and let Hitler take control of Europe. Its also great how you say "dont go to war" than you say "no war but class war" wow sounds hypocritical to me. You also totally misread my pouints about the Russian and Socialist revolutions what I was saying is that nearly all of them came out of war or were follwed by war, hence the Russian civil war, so how can you be advocate Socialist revolution but be against war?

[Goatse]

To start with, please quote my post. It's makes it so much easier to respond to your bullshit. Perhaps that's the reason RedFaction didn't reply to all your crap.

Second of all, I've have replied to you before and you ignore my points. This is obviously not the case but please don't do this.

Now, onto the shit! :D


As for Scottish fist off I would like to say that the above post was not a repsonse to you it was meant for redfaction.

Who fucking cares, I responded to it, didn't I? Telling me to fist off because I replied to you when RedFaction didn't kinda makes it seem like you don't even want a response.


In response to your ideas about Fascism and the US military, how are they adherents of Fascism?

Using the same dictionary, the result for "adherent" is:


someone who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of another

Source (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=adherent)

How are they NOT adherents of fascism?


How are they more right wing than any other military?

Because they are adherents of one of, if not the most right wing countries in the world.


Yes they have a heirarchial system, but what military dosnt?

I never said the military themselves shouldn't have such a system. After the revolution that's probably the only place it will exist, because that's the only practical way to run it.


what a moronic thing to say.

Well I'm still chuckling at "Yes, I do realize their were no weapons of mass destruction and I do realize he attacked them without peaceful means, but WAKE UP what leader who has gone to war hasnt?" :lol:


I fail to see how they are Fascist because of this.

So do I, but you're ignoring the way that they are fascists.


Any military has the same exact characteristics.

They're all adherents of fascism?


Very few soldiers in the military would actually be willing to kill children

But it's still too many, as it still happens.


but than again if you ahve talked to so many why dont you ask them yourself, you might be suprised.

However I only said I have spoken to one American soldier.


The reasons that they join are usually 2, these being they either join for benefits

Honourable, leeching off the yankee war machine. :lol:


or with the idea of serving thier country and protecting its people,

Then they are fascists. America is only the land of the free for the corporation managers, and they're serving this policy.


no matter if this is untrue or not.

Well if serving your country involves forcing its corrupt system onto other countries in the name of profit, while killing the odd child or two, I guess it is true.


Besides these reasons why else do YOU think people would enlist in the military?

I have no idea, but then again I don't have schizophrenia.


Your idea that countries should just "not go to war" is simple unrealistic, countries and people have been going to war since basically the beginning of mankind.

War such as Iraq is unnecessary, it was simply in the name of profit.


If all leaders who go to war like you said are "imperialist murderers"

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I can't find that particular quote of mine. As I said, it would be much easier if you quoted the phrases you were referring to. Thank you.


what about Roosevelt and Churchill who effectively defeated Nazism in Europe, were they imperialist murderers?

Not really, no. The war against Nazi Germany was quite necessary, although it was mainly the USSR that skinned their asses.


oh but I guess if it were up to you we would have just "not gone to war" and let Hitler take control of Europe.

Did I say that?

No, so shut the fuck up.


Its also great how you say "dont go to war" than you say "no war but class war" wow sounds hypocritical to me.

Don't go to war, as in, needless wars in the name of profit disguised as a struggle for freedom?

The workers wouldn't be going to war anyway, they'd be fighting it roughly where they were.


You also totally misread my pouints about the Russian and Socialist revolutions what I was saying is that nearly all of them came out of war or were follwed by war, hence the Russian civil war, so how can you be advocate Socialist revolution but be against war?

My bad, since you asked "What comes after?" I assumed you were suggesting socialism would never work.

Anyway, perhaps we are against needless wars which are just fought to spread McDonalds to the Middle East?

So... what about your name then?

:hammer:

[steel town boot boy]

I have friends in the military, they're there because its the only way they can afford to get through school. While I don't agree with what the military stands for, I don't think harassing working people for doing what they have to do is productive, now a loudmouth son of a ***** is a different story, but remember that in every people's revolution soldiers have played a part. To alienate ourselves from them is to render the movement impotent as a force for revolutionary change.

[Guest_October 1917]

"who fucking cares, I responded to it, didn't I? Telling me to fist off because I replied to you when RedFaction didn't kinda makes it seem like you don't even want a response."

I wrote that because I dont want questions that were directed at Redfaction to be answered by you, which you did several times in your post.
"How are they NOT adherents of fascism?"

Do you have ay idea what political system of fascism is besides a 2 sentance dictionary entry? Im assuming that mean the US military is fascist because they support the American government which you also see as fascist. First off the US is in no way similar to the regime of Mussolini or Hitler, we have more freedoms than any other country in the world and if it was a fascist country thier would be no congress and no 2 parties, aswell as no elections. People who think like you woul dbe constantly persecuted, do you see any of this happening? I didnt think so.

"Because they are adherents of one of, if not the most right wing countries in the world."

America is the most right wing country in the world? please explain this brilliant logic.Considering we have more freedoms than most countries I some how see that false.

"So do I, but you're ignoring the way that they are fascists."

Actually educate yourself on the system of Fascism created by Benito Mussolini and they tell me how they are fascists.
"But it's still too many, as it still happens"

Give me an example of an American soldier killing an Iraqi child. Even if their have been child casualties they are very small in comparison to past wars. Civilians die in war this is called reality.

"However I only said I have spoken to one American soldier"

But you think that all soldiers are baby killing imperialist murderers?

"Honourable, leeching off the yankee war machine"

Donst matter if they are or not but this proves that no American enlists with the intention of spreading imperialism or killing children. Many join out of desperation just like many people work very low paying jobs. I dont see why you wish them death because of this.

"Then they are fascists. America is only the land of the free for the corporation managers, and they're serving this policy"

Ive already explain this, again go to your local library and read up on the political system known as fascism, imperialism is not fascism.

"War such as Iraq is unnecessary, it was simply in the name of profit."

Your right it is unnecesary but you think that all soldiers should die just for taking part in it?

"Not really, no. The war against Nazi Germany was quite necessary, although it was mainly the USSR that skinned their asses."

You just said "Easy: Don't go to war." yet now its somehow justified? dont forget it was American soldiers liberating Europe. Also although the USSR did take the brunt of the attck without American supplies they never would have survived, not to mention that the USSR was basicallt capitalist by that time so I dont know what your trying to imply.

"Did I say that? No, so shut the fuck up"

Actually yes you did look at the quote above this. What do you think would have happened if the allies tried to negotiate peacefully with Hitler? oh thats right Britain tried that and it failed horribly.

"My bad, since you asked "What comes after?" I assumed you were suggesting socialism would never work."

No, what I was saying that after must revolutions comes war, and since you seemed so opposed to war I didnt understand how you can support a Socialist revolution.

"So... what about your name then?"

I use that date because it was important date in history and an important one for Socialism. Also because I greatly admire Lenin, who knew as well as I did, that if he would have shot all the Russian soldiers on the eastern front he would have gotten no where. Not to mention that he tried to save as many of them as possible by signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty.

Also I want to say that the reason redfaction didnt write anything else is because he couldnt. He couldnt defend his own points and I think its quite ridiculous to not write back because of someones grammar and if you dont feel like writing back because of mine than thats fine but it just shows that you have nothing else to say accept how bad my grammar is.

[1984]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:54 AM
Personally provoking military doesn't seem the greatest of ideas... :unsure:
I agree... I suppose playing Russian Roulette could be less dangerous.

:wacko:

[C_Rasmussen]

Don't be an immature fuck about it and call them names, be sly about it. What I mean is if they confront you about being in the military make them THINK that they're getting another victim for their pointless war. Then when they ask when they can call tell them that you dont know because you'll be busy for the next few days. Hey thats what I told them and I haven't heard from them since ^_^.

[VictoryOverWar]

what i think is funny is how you are all approaching this like members of the military dont relize they are pawns. Many Many people in the military are not happy with the leadership and even more would like to see change but when you sit outside there homes and places of work shouting immature insults at them you are only pushing them farther from your cause. When these kids get out of the military they will be you strongest supporters if instead of insulting you work with them toward change. I honestly can not believe that there is a thread about effective ways to insult members of the military. Thats pathedic

[Guest_October 1917]

Agreed

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Urgh.. October 1917, find another place for your monolgue. I've done away with all of your arguments, yet you fail to do anything else than to avoid my counterarguments and simply reapeat yours. As for your attack on ScottishPinko, he is a
comrade, so he has every right to reply to what you wrote. He's also correct if he says that it seems as if you don't even want a reply. Why are you here actually? And why can't you have a decent, "grown-up" discussion?

Comrade RedFaction :hammer:

[Goatse]

Thank you Comrade RedFaction.


I wrote that because I dont want questions that were directed at Redfaction to be answered by you, which you did several times in your post.

:(

Cry me a river.


Do you have ay idea what political system of fascism is besides a 2 sentance dictionary entry? Im assuming that mean the US military is fascist because they support the American government which you also see as fascist. First off the US is in no way similar to the regime of Mussolini or Hitler, we have more freedoms than any other country in the world and if it was a fascist country thier would be no congress and no 2 parties, aswell as no elections. People who think like you would be constantly persecuted, do you see any of this happening? I didnt think so.

You don't have more freedoms than all other countries, and if you do it's likely because the other countries are oppressed under the boot of Uncle sam.. Congress is full of pussies, the two parties are just the same shit with a different bunch of assholes, the elections were fucked up.


America is the most right wing country in the world? please explain this brilliant logic.Considering we have more freedoms than most countries I some how see that false.

Who told you that? The government? :lol:

But like I said, they can still spread fascism to other countries without being oppressiveon their own population.


Actually educate yourself on the system of Fascism created by Benito Mussolini and they tell me how they are fascists.

I win (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm)


Give me an example of an American soldier killing an Iraqi child. Even if their have been child casualties they are very small in comparison to past wars. Civilians die in war this is called reality.

And that makes it a-ok?


But you think that all soldiers are baby killing imperialist murderers?

No.


Donst matter if they are or not but this proves that no American enlists with the intention of spreading imperialism or killing children.

Wait a second, so if one American soldier enlists to leech off the machine, it proves without a doubt that no American enlists with the intention of spreading imperialism or killing children? :huh:


Many join out of desperation just like many people work very low paying jobs. I dont see why you wish them death because of this

I don't wish them all to death.


Ive already explain this, again go to your local library and read up on the political system known as fascism, imperialism is not fascism.

America is spreading fascism. Perhaps not onto themselves, but to others. And they could turn into a fascist regime in the blink of an eye if the need arose, but it's better to look democratic as long as they could.


Your right it is unnecesary but you think that all soldiers should die just for taking part in it?

Uhh... when did I say they should?


You just said "Easy: Don't go to war." yet now its somehow justified? dont forget it was American soldiers liberating Europe. Also although the USSR did take the brunt of the attck without American supplies they never would have survived, not to mention that the USSR was basicallt capitalist by that time so I dont know what your trying to imply.

I was referring to Iraq with my "Don't go to war." comment. Also I was mentioning the USSR because you were saying the glorious American army freed the world from the evil nasty racists.


Actually yes you did look at the quote above this. What do you think would have happened if the allies tried to negotiate peacefully with Hitler? oh thats right Britain tried that and it failed horribly.

And I invalidated what you just said with the statement above this.


No, what I was saying that after must revolutions comes war, and since you seemed so opposed to war I didnt understand how you can support a Socialist revolution.

I'm opposed to war in the name of profit. (Compared to necessary war.)


Also I want to say that the reason redfaction didnt write anything else is because he couldnt. He couldnt defend his own points and I think its quite ridiculous to not write back because of someones grammar and if you dont feel like writing back because of mine than thats fine but it just shows that you have nothing else to say accept how bad my grammar is.

Well if you want to be taken seriously, type a coherent post out. Learn to use quote tags and take time to type properly. You can't expect this to be like the Oxford Debating Club if you don't even take time over your posts.


[quote]This is a quotation[/quote]

Becomes


This is a quotation




























Well I suppose that's kinda true.

:hammer:

EDIT: WTF? My quotes fucked themselves. Two mins, I'll fix them.

EDIT 2: No matter what I do, the quotes don't show. Maybe it's because of this computer. Or maybe you guys can see them properly? I dunno, well I'll fix them when I get back to my beloved computer. (I'm stuck on a piece of shit for the moment.)

EDIT 3: Fixed.

[Guest_October 1917]

Redfaction you have not answered all of my points, you haven't even answered half. You basically avoided all of my points in my previous posts by calling me "stupid". I have answered nearly all of your arguements, show me one that I have avoided?

"You don't have more freedoms than all other countries, and if you do it's likely because the other countries are oppressed under the boot of Uncle sam.. Congress is full of pussies, the two parties are just the same shit with a different bunch of assholes, the elections were fucked up."

It dosnt matter if we dont have more freedoms than any other country, which is actually true, the point is we have enough freedoms to not be considered Fascist by any means. I'd also like to know what countries that are opressed by us? S. Korea, Japan, Germany? they don't seem very opressed to me. It also dosnt matter if congress is fucked up or whatever else, the point is we still have them. This country is far from a democracy i'll admit, but it is in no way Fascist.

"Who told you that? The government? But like I said, they can still spread fascism to other countries without being oppressive on their own population."

Actually its called common sense, it's pretty easy to realize we have alot of rights in this country protected by the bill of rights which most other countries don't have. If America was so Fascist, why are there mass anti-war protests all the time? Again I would also like to know what countries we spread Fascism to? if your talking of Iraq than the last leader there was far more "fascist" than us, so you should be happy he was disposed of.

"I win"

No, you didnt win anything and that same retarded 14 points are used by basically every one who cries Fascist. Nearly every powerful country have gone through those points one time or another. Try actually learning about the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco, instead of using some rediculous article published by an American.

"And that makes it a-ok?"

Never said it did but it pretty much refutes the claims of alot of people on this board who think American soldiers enlist with the sole purpose of killing children.

"Wait a second, so if one American soldier enlists to leech off the machine, it proves without a doubt that no American enlists with the intention of spreading imperialism or killing children?"

Get realistic you honestly think 17, 18, and 19 year olds who enlist in the military actually enlist with these goals in mind?

"I don't wish them all to death."

Than why are defending people like redfaction and others who do?
America is spreading fascism. Perhaps not onto themselves, but to others. And they could turn into a fascist regime in the blink of an eye if the need arose, but it's better to look democratic as long as they could.

"America is spreading fascism. Perhaps not onto themselves, but to others. And they could turn into a fascist regime in the blink of an eye if the need arose, but it's better to look democratic as long as they could."

Refer to the numerous points above this. Your right they could turn into a Fascist regime, but by saying that you just basically admitted that they are not right now. Also with all the protests against the war in Iraq its pretty hard to imagine Americans just accepting Fascism.

"Uhh... when did I say they should?"

Your defending those who did.

"I was referring to Iraq with my "Don't go to war." comment. Also I was mentioning the USSR because you were saying the glorious American army freed the world from the evil nasty racists."

No you werent actually what you were referring to was that those leaders who dont try and negotiate with peaceful means should just not go to war. I do realize the USSR helped as well as many other countries, what Iw as trying to say is that those who condemn the American army while at the same time proclaim themselves as cahmpions of freedom and liberty are hypocrites. Not to menion that although the USSR freed alot of countried from Germany they just put them under Communist rule afterwords which although not as bad as German control was still opressive.

"Well if you want to be taken seriously, type a coherent post out. Learn to use quote tags and take time to type properly. You can't expect this to be like the Oxford Debating Club if you don't even take time over your posts."

If your so damn offended by my online debating grammar, than don't take the time to reply. It is quite coherent if it wasnt you wouldnt be replying at all. Why dont you join a forum for proper internet grammar if you care so much.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

:rolleyes: He just doesn't get it does he.

[Goatse]

It dosnt matter if we dont have more freedoms than any other country, which is actually true, the point is we have enough freedoms to not be considered Fascist by any means. I'd also like to know what countries that are opressed by us? S. Korea, Japan, Germany? they don't seem very opressed to me.

Vietnam, Korea, Guetamala, Iraq and more all have been in the past.


It also dosnt matter if congress is fucked up or whatever else, the point is we still have them. This country is far from a democracy i'll admit, but it is in no way Fascist.

So... it doesn't matter if all the windows in your house are broken, the fact that you still have them will keep the cold air out?

Way to go. :lol:


Actually its called common sense, it's pretty easy to realize we have alot of rights in this country protected by the bill of rights which most other countries don't have.

Bill of Rights lol.


If America was so Fascist, why are there mass anti-war protests all the time? Again I would also like to know what countries we spread Fascism to? if your talking of Iraq than the last leader there was far more "fascist" than us, so you should be happy he was disposed of.


Refer to the above.


No, you didnt win anything and that same retarded 14 points are used by basically every one who cries Fascist. Nearly every powerful country have gone through those points one time or another. Try actually learning about the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco, instead of using some rediculous article published by an American.

Way to avoid the points.


Never said it did but it pretty much refutes the claims of alot of people on this board who think American soldiers enlist with the sole purpose of killing children.

Thinking that would be sheer idiocy, I agree.



Get realistic you honestly think 17, 18, and 19 year olds who enlist in the military actually enlist with these goals in mind?

That's not the point, you didn't justify the stupid logic of your post.



Than why are defending people like redfaction and others who do?

Because I'm the lovechild of RedFaction and Ownthink.


Refer to the numerous points above this. Your right they could turn into a Fascist regime, but by saying that you just basically admitted that they are not right now. Also with all the protests against the war in Iraq its pretty hard to imagine Americans just accepting Fascism.

I don't think the government would really care about what the people think. Just like they don't care now.



Your defending those who did.

So I didn't say they should?



No you werent actually what you were referring to was that those leaders who dont try and negotiate with peaceful means should just not go to war.

So you know what's going on inside my head better than I do?


I do realize the USSR helped as well as many other countries, what Iw as trying to say is that those who condemn the American army while at the same time proclaim themselves as cahmpions of freedom and liberty are hypocrites.

They're almost the opposite of hypocrites.


Not to menion that although the USSR freed alot of countried from Germany they just put them under Communist rule afterwords which although not as bad as German control was still opressive.


Yes, because the USSR was really communist.


If your so damn offended by my online debating grammar, than don't take the time to reply. It is quite coherent if it wasnt you wouldnt be replying at all. Why dont you join a forum for proper internet grammar if you care so much.

I'm not offended by it, I'm giving you friendly advice. Fucking lighten up, man.


























How dare you? :angry:

-Regards
Comrade George

:hammer:

[Guest_October 1917]

Redfaction, why do you keep saying the same thing over again? If you have nothing else to say and cant actually disprove my points than dont write at.

"Vietnam, Korea, Guetamala, Iraq and more all have been in the past."

We fought a war in Vietnam thats hardly enough to say we have opressed them and definately not enough to day that we spreaded Fascism there, considering we never even had control of that country. We were the only thing that saved Korea from N. Korean invasion if it wasnt for us they would be under the same dictatorship as the N. Koreans are now. I dont know anything about Guatamala, so maybe your right about that. Iraq I already talked about in my last post which I guess you ignored.

"So... it doesn't matter if all the windows in your house are broken, the fact that you still have them will keep the cold air out?"

Well first off this analogy makes no sense and second of all the fact that we have these and that the members of congress are composed of two parties proves how this country is not Fascist. Did Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco still have congress? no.

"Bill of Rights lol"

I dont see whats so funny, who me one right we dont have?

"Way to avoid the points."

I didnt avoid the points, those points do not define Fascism. The best way to see what Fascism is is to actually study Fascist regimes, which you still have yet to do, and actually compare those to America now, or if your to lazy to do that actually read works written by Fascists like the Fascist Doctrine. Would you try and understand Communism by reading a 14 point guideline written by someone who wasnt a Communist?

"That's not the point, you didn't justify the stupid logic of your post."

Theres nothing to justify, I want to know if you think these kids actually enlist with this in mind?

"I don't think the government would really care about what the people think. Just like they don't care now."

If the majority of Americans stood up to them im pretty sure they would have to care. Thats not always true about teh government anyways alot of the reason the Vietnam war ended when it did was because of the people's opinion.

"So I didn't say they should?"

So what the hell are we even arguing about? my original point in writing here was to show how wrong wishing to kill the troops was and how stupid alot of peoples views on the soldiers were.

"So you know what's going on inside my head better than I do?"

No, actually its something you wrote.

"They're almost the opposite of hypocrites."

How?

"Yes, because the USSR was really communist."

Yes, I realize they weren't truly Communists but you know what I meant.

"How dare you?"

Its probably going to do it again and I dont know why

[Goatse]

We fought a war in Vietnam thats hardly enough to say we have opressed them and definately not enough to day that we spreaded Fascism there, considering we never even had control of that country. We were the only thing that saved Korea from N. Korean invasion if it wasnt for us they would be under the same dictatorship as the N. Koreans are now. I dont know anything about Guatamala, so maybe your right about that. Iraq I already talked about in my last post which I guess you ignored.

Yes, maybe I am right.

Also, I don't really see anything much about Iraq in your last post. So meh.


Well first off this analogy makes no sense and second of all the fact that we have these and that the members of congress are composed of two parties proves how this country is not Fascist. Did Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco still have congress? no.

It just shows what bullshit your point was. You're saying it doesn't matter how fucked up Congress is, you still have it and that's all that matters, which is not true.



I dont see whats so funny, who me one right we dont have?

Who you what? :huh:


I didnt avoid the points, those points do not define Fascism. The best way to see what Fascism is is to actually study Fascist regimes, which you still have yet to do, and actually compare those to America now, or if your to lazy to do that actually read works written by Fascists like the Fascist Doctrine. Would you try and understand Communism by reading a 14 point guideline written by someone who wasnt a Communist?

No, but 14 points which compared the defintition of communism to a country when one already knows what communism is would help decide if the country was or was not communist.



Theres nothing to justify, I want to know if you think these kids actually enlist with this in mind?

No, you said this:



Donst matter if they are or not [leeching off the system] but this proves that no American enlists with the intention of spreading imperialism or killing children.

That is complete bullshit and you never justified it, although it's not surprising.


If the majority of Americans stood up to them im pretty sure they would have to care. Thats not always true about teh government anyways alot of the reason the Vietnam war ended when it did was because of the people's opinion.

We'll see when it happens.


So what the hell are we even arguing about? my original point in writing here was to show how wrong wishing to kill the troops was and how stupid alot of peoples views on the soldiers were.

Then you went on to claim I said they should all be dead, then claimed I was backing up those who did, therefore I must have said that.


No, actually its something you wrote.

Quote?


How?

Because you said this:


those who condemn the American army while at the same time proclaim themselves as cahmpions of freedom and liberty are hypocrites.

This implies that the American army are the champions of freedom and liberty, which they are obviously not. So how the hell are people who proclaim themselves to be the champions of freedom and liberty hypocrites if they also condemn the American army?



Yes, I realize they weren't truly Communists but you know what I meant.

Just don't use the term "communist rule" k?

:hammer:

[Guest_October 1917]

"Yes, maybe I am right. Also, I don't really see anything much about Iraq in your last post. So meh"

I said you might be right abou tone ****ry, which I doubt you are, but unlike you I dont talk about things I dont know about. What I said about Iraq was: " if your talking of Iraq than the last leader there was far more "fascist" than us, so you should be happy he was disposed of.". I also don't kno whow they are opressed, we ar ethe only ones giving them some sort of democracy even if it is a sham it is still better than Hussein.

"It just shows what bullshit your point was. You're saying it doesn't matter how fucked up Congress is, you still have it and that's all that matters, which is not true."

It's fucked up in your opinion, but its till true that the peopel stil elect the representatives and so the peopel still hold the power, it dosnt matter if the congress is composed of Capitalists or whatever the fact is we still have one and one which limits the power of the president. If we have this we do not fit the definition of Fascism, how do you no tunderstand this?

"Who you what?"

Show me one

"No, but 14 points which compared the defintition of communism to a country when one already knows what communism is would help decide if the country was or was not communist."

Your basically just ignoring everything I tell you to do, but regarding that im sure there are similar guidelines created by right wingers which show that America is Communist, do you believe them?

"That is complete bullshit and you never justified it, although it's not surprising."

I guess it cant prove that a 19 year old enlists with the intention of killing babys, but can you atleast use common sense? I have never talked to a soldier in the US military, and I have talked to alot, who join with that reason.

"Then you went on to claim I said they should all be dead, then claimed I was backing up those who did, therefore I must have said that."

I have no idea what you just said but i'm pretty sure I never said that i think you want them all dead.

"Quote?"

I said: "Your right though, how can any leaders go to war using peaceful means?" than you said: "Easy: Don't go to war." Go to page 6 if you dont believe me.

"This implies that the American army are the champions of freedom and liberty, which they are obviously not. So how the hell are people who proclaim themselves to be the champions of freedom and liberty hypocrites if they also condemn the American army?"

Actually they are, look at their history: They fought Great Britain and established American independence, they freed the slaves, helped Cuba gain its independence, liberated Europe and Italy, Protected S. Korea from N. Korean invasion, Saved Kuwait fromIraq invasion, and even in this current war they atleast got rid of Hussein and established some form of democracy.

[Guest_October 1917]

I meant to say Europe and Asia not Europe and Italy

[Ownthink]

October1917, you're an idiot with nothing valuable to say, please save us all on this thread some trouble and leave now.

He's not worth it, ScottishPinko.

[Goatse]

I hope you noticed the mention of you, Ownthink. :)

[Guest_October 1917]

What I want to know is why does everyone on this forum who cant argue against someone have to resort to calling them "idiots" or "stupid? If these people are so stupid why dont you easily prove them wrong?

[Goatse]

I have done, check my past few posts.

I'll respond to your shit in a minute dude, wait a second.

EDIT: On second thoughts, I'll be leaving in two mins. Sorry, but our glorious battle will have to be fought tomorrow.

[Guest_October 1917]

Actually I was referring more to ownthink

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:13 PM
October1917, you're an idiot with nothing valuable to say,
Sorry Ownthink but that's not an acceptable way to engage in debate. If you disagree with his points, debate them properly, If you don't think he's coherent, don't talk to him.

I don't think the language was heavy enough for a warning point. But you can have a verbal one.


What I want to know is why does everyone on this forum who cant argue against someone have to resort to calling them "idiots" or "stupid?

It happenes. Everyone tends to throw in a bit of flavoured language, it's not so bad if they actually make points as well. Just as long as the topic doesn't degenerate to far into name calling.

be nice children

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jan 8 2006, 04:51 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jan 8 2006, 04:51 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 09:13 PM
October1917, you're an idiot with nothing valuable to say,
Sorry Ownthink but that's not an acceptable way to engage in debate. If you disagree with his points, debate them properly, If you don't think he's coherent, don't talk to him.

I don't think the language was heavy enough for a warning point. But you can have a verbal one.


What I want to know is why does everyone on this forum who cant argue against someone have to resort to calling them "idiots" or "stupid?

It happenes. Everyone tends to throw in a bit of flavoured language, it's not so bad if they actually make points as well. Just as long as the topic doesn't degenerate to far into name calling.

be nice children [/b]
Maybe you didn't notice the last few pages. I, along with others, have tried to debate him/her. It didn't work, so I resorted to being a total dick.

Is there any way to ban guests? Probably not. Thanks for not giving me a warning point, though. :)

I'll just leave this thread alone.

[Guest_October 1917]

You have not tried to debate me at all, if I remember your response to my first reply was to "leave". You have avoided nearly every arguement aswell as redfaction by trying to insult me. How did debating me not work? I responded to nearly every arguement you had and then when you couldn't counter it you simply call me "stupid". Even if I disagree ScottishPinko atleast he actually debates. Stop trying to validate your own stupidity by trying to tell the moderator that I cant deabte right.

[Guest_October 1917]

Just to prove it here are some of ownthink's brilliant replies:

"1) Learn to use paragraphs.

2) They WERE praising God right before going out to "do their job", aka killing for the US of A. I don't see how anyone could confuse that.

3) Leave."

"This liberal troll is not even worth it. Keep posting your effluvious bullshit, but don't expect a reply from me."

"This shit just doesn't sink in for you. I'm through responding to this troll."

"Spread your trash somewhere else you dolt. The fact alone you think that many radicals would be opposed to not supporting our murderous troops is funny in and of itself. You're the fucking joke you idiot, if your dumbass hasn't noticed, you're the only one here with the stupid reformist peacenik bullshit opinion, not the other way around."

Even though he failed to realize that nearly every one disagreed with him.

"October1917, you're an idiot with nothing valuable to say, please save us all on this thread some trouble and leave now."

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:28 AM
Maybe you didn't notice the last few pages. I, along with others, have tried to debate him/her. It didn't work, so I resorted to being a total dick.


Well, if you get frustrated, as we all do, it's easier to just walk away online than it is in real life. Ands probably better than throwing insults around.


Is there any way to ban guests? Probably not. Thanks for not giving me a warning point, though. :)

You can ban IPs, which essentially cuts out guests, but Red_October doesn't need to be banned. And I can confirm that the Guest who has been posing offensive comments is not Red_october.


I'll just leave this thread alone.

Fair enough.

Oh and Red October, It'd be nice if you'd register, your welcome to anytime.

[Goatse]

I said you might be right abou tone ****ry, which I doubt you are, but unlike you I dont talk about things I dont know about. What I said about Iraq was: " if your talking of Iraq than the last leader there was far more "fascist" than us, so you should be happy he was disposed of.". I also don't kno whow they are opressed, we ar ethe only ones giving them some sort of democracy even if it is a sham it is still better than Hussein.

I agree Hussein was a bad guy. However, you don't need to firebomb civilians and gun down cars with children in them to get rid of him.


It's fucked up in your opinion, but its till true that the peopel stil elect the representatives and so the peopel still hold the power, it dosnt matter if the congress is composed of Capitalists or whatever the fact is we still have one and one which limits the power of the president. If we have this we do not fit the definition of Fascism, how do you no tunderstand this?

They're not representatives though. Less than a third of the country supports the war in Iraq. Is the US army still there? Yes. There are many more examples of this. The people do not hold the power.



Show me one

Show you a what?


Your basically just ignoring everything I tell you to do, but regarding that im sure there are similar guidelines created by right wingers which show that America is Communist, do you believe them?

You're really sure of that? Idiot.


I guess it cant prove that a 19 year old enlists with the intention of killing babys, but can you atleast use common sense? I have never talked to a soldier in the US military, and I have talked to alot, who join with that reason.

You still never justified your logic (which is impossible to do.) You said that if a soldier joins to leech off the system, it proves beyond a doubt that no one enlists with the intention to kill children.



I have no idea what you just said but i'm pretty sure I never said that i think you want them all dead.

O RLY?


Your right it is unnecesary but you think that all soldiers should die just for taking part in it?

YOU LOSE

GOOD DAY SIR


I said: "Your right though, how can any leaders go to war using peaceful means?" than you said: "Easy: Don't go to war." Go to page 6 if you dont believe me.

No, but you were claiming you knew what I was referring to and I didn't.



No you werent actually what you were referring to was that those leaders who dont try and negotiate with peaceful means should just not go to war.

I know what I was referring to, which was Iraq, not conflict in general. Rarely do I support conflict but class war is an exception.


Actually they are, look at their history:

Yes, because a nation always remains exactly the same throughout several hundred years. :rolleyes:


They fought Great Britain and established American independence,

Fighting an empire when they had to a hundred years ago means they're the champions of freedom and liberty?


they freed the slaves,

They fought other Americans to do so, so some of the Americans aren't the champions of freedom and liberty you say they are.


helped Cuba gain its independence,

And then blockaded it.


liberated Europe and Italy,

Italy isn't part of Europe now?

Anyway, the USSR did this too, does this make them the champions of freedom and liberty?


Protected S. Korea from N. Korean invasion

Only to stop the spread of socialism.


Saved Kuwait fromIraq invasion,

Didn't they also sell Iraq chemical weapons?


and even in this current war they atleast got rid of Hussein

Which could have been done without 30,000+ casualties.


and established some form of democracy.

LMFAO

American democracy, yes?

The USA is not the champion of freedom and liberty. It's a borderline fascist, capitalist imperialist nation. How you could even think such bullshit is beyond me, let alone publish it for all the internet to see.


I meant to say Europe and Asia not Europe and Italy

Ahh k... so remind me how they liberated Asia? :blink:

[Ownthink]

Ahh k... so remind me how they liberated Asia?
When they nuked Japan, duh! :rolleyes:

[Goatse]

Oh yeah, sorry.

So did you notice my mention of you a few posts up, btw?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:13 PM
Oh yeah, sorry.

So did you notice my mention of you a few posts up, btw?
Yeah, I did. Come here, my little lovechild! :lol:

[October 1917]

"I agree Hussein was a bad guy. However, you don't need to firebomb civilians and gun down cars with children in them to get rid of him."

I agree we didnt need to firebomb cities but I dont remember hearing any stories of kids being gunned down in cars. Also yes, force was pretty much the only way Hussein would have have stepped down from power, you seriously think he would have just gave up power when the US demanded it? I dont think so. If so he would have surrendered right when the bombings commenced.

"hey're not representatives though. Less than a third of the country supports the war in Iraq. Is the US army still there? Yes. There are many more examples of this. The people do not hold the power."

In the definition of the word yes they are representatives of their state and it is the people who elect them to do so. I also dont think that only 1/3 of the country supports the war, the last poll I checked it was more like 1/2. The people have never truly held the power in nearly any form of government up until today so that dosnt neccesarily make the US Fascist, the people have alot more power in this country than they did under Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco.

"Show you a what?"

It was a mispelling in my last post, refer to it.

"You're really sure of that? Idiot."

Yes, heres one:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...c6-b61f68b5746c (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2198088&blogID=73512577&MyToken=6098db19-8b72-421d-9cc6-b61f68b5746c) just make a side note thats not my profile by the way.

"You still never justified your logic (which is impossible to do.) You said that if a soldier joins to leech off the system, it proves beyond a doubt that no one enlists with the intention to kill children."

I never said it could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and I will even say that it probably dosnt but how about you answer my question if you really think any young American enlists with that goal in mind?

"YOU LOSE"

This is the stupidest thing i've ever heard I asked you a question, I never said "you want all soldiers dead" I simply asked if you did or not.

"I know what I was referring to, which was Iraq, not conflict in general. Rarely do I support conflict but class war is an exception."

You obviously don't did you even read your own quote? Iraq was never mentioned, no matter if thats what you meant or not it was never stated.

"Fighting an empire when they had to a hundred years ago means they're the champions of freedom and liberty?"

Thats just one example read the others.

"They fought other Americans to do so, so some of the Americans aren't the champions of freedom and liberty you say they are."

I'm talking about the American Army not Americans in general and the Confedrate Army wasnt considered the American Army because they broke away from the union. However if you can name an Army that sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men so that slaves can be free I would like to hear it.

"Anyway, the USSR did this too, does this make them the champions of freedom and liberty?"

Thats because compared to thier other acts its not that impressive. Also America did not put them under another dictatorship when they freed them. The USSR also didnt fight with the intention of freeing anyone they fought because they were attacked and had to and failed to even support some countries under German control liek Poland in the Warsaw uprising for instance, the US and Britain were the only ones who sent the Poles supplies, meanwhile Russia right across the river sat by and watched the Polish resistance fighters be slaughtered.

"Only to stop the spread of socialism"

No matter if that was the reasons or not they still stepped in and prevented N. Korean take over. Not to mention N. Korea wasnt really trying to spread Socialism they trying to conquest S. Korea.

"And then blockaded it."

About 60 years later when Castro was in power who was doing nothing to help the people.

"Which could have been done without 30,000+ casualties."

Where did you get these numbers from?

"The USA is not the champion of freedom and liberty. It's a borderline fascist, capitalist imperialist nation. How you could even think such bullshit is beyond me, let alone publish it for all the internet to see."

Well it shows that it has certainly done more than Socialism/Communism ever has for human rights, liberty, and freedom, which was my original point in the first place. Its also funny how you say its now "borderline" Fascist, when you just spent like 2 pages writing why America is so Fascist. How is my opinion and history more bullshit than yours?

Ownthink you have already been disgraced why are you even here when you keep saying you are going to leave? Do you like watching yourself be humiliated all the time?

[Goatse]

I agree we didnt need to firebomb cities but I dont remember hearing any stories of kids being gunned down in cars. Also yes, force was pretty much the only way Hussein would have have stepped down from power, you seriously think he would have just gave up power when the US demanded it? I dont think so. If so he would have surrendered right when the bombings commenced.

It's called assassination. The USA might be familiar with this, especially when it involves leaders of opposing countries.


In the definition of the word yes they are representatives of their state and it is the people who elect them to do so. I also dont think that only 1/3 of the country supports the war, the last poll I checked it was more like 1/2.

Well I've heard it's 1/3.


The people have never truly held the power in nearly any form of government up until today so that dosnt neccesarily make the US Fascist, the people have alot more power in this country than they did under Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco.

Up until today? So the people do truly hold the power? :huh:


It was a mispelling in my last post, refer to it.

I still don't get it.


Yes, heres one:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...c6-b61f68b5746c just make a side note thats not my profile by the way.

How does that prove America is a communist country? :blink:


im sure there are similar guidelines created by right wingers which show that America is Communist

That's what you said.


I never said it could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and I will even say that it probably dosnt but how about you answer my question if you really think any young American enlists with that goal in mind?

No, but they still do it.



This is the stupidest thing i've ever heard I asked you a question, I never said "you want all soldiers dead" I simply asked if you did or not.

Previously you have stated that I have. Because of this I assumed it was a rhetorical question.



You obviously don't did you even read your own quote? Iraq was never mentioned, no matter if thats what you meant or not it was never stated.

Iraq was the subject at hand.


Thats just one example read the others.

One down.


I'm talking about the American Army not Americans in general and the Confedrate Army wasnt considered the American Army because they broke away from the union

I don't really see how you can let them speak for the army today.

Regardless, both sides were still American, and the reason was mainly politics and not simply to free the slaves.


However if you can name an Army that sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men so that slaves can be free I would like to hear it.


The Red Army.


Thats because compared to thier other acts its not that impressive.

It's not impressive, liberating a continent from racist fascists?


Also America did not put them under another dictatorship when they freed them.

The USSR was fascist only because it had to be to get its economy in line with other nations, as the Russian Empire was extremely poor before. Stalin was actually moving the USSR towards democracy before he died, I believe.


The USSR also didnt fight with the intention of freeing anyone they fought because they were attacked

Pearl Harbour?

Even then, they were reluctant to join the D-Day landings, but they had to, since Hitler declared war on them.


and had to and failed to even support some countries under German control liek Poland in the Warsaw uprising for instance

Because it would have been a disaster for them, they had a military strategy, they were going to stick to it.


the US and Britain were the only ones who sent the Poles supplies, meanwhile Russia right across the river sat by and watched the Polish resistance fighters be slaughtered.


But the uprising failed, didn't it? So they didn't send quite enough.


No matter if that was the reasons or not they still stepped in and prevented N. Korean take over. Not to mention N. Korea wasnt really trying to spread Socialism they trying to conquest S. Korea.

Yes, but they wanted the media image of stopping the evil communists in their evil plan for world domination. They didn't really give a damn about the actual country, but now it gives them an opportunity to attack North Korea.



About 60 years later when Castro was in power who was doing nothing to help the people.

So because the country wasn't doing so well, that's why they blockaded it? Sounds stupid to me.

Also, Castro is very highly regarded in Cuba.


Where did you get these numbers from?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

That's only civilians, I believe.


Well it shows that it has certainly done more than Socialism/Communism ever has for human rights, liberty, and freedom, which was my original point in the first place.

Hardly. They spread capitalism which kills as many people as Stalin every year.


Its also funny how you say its now "borderline" Fascist, when you just spent like 2 pages writing why America is so Fascist.


Simple minds are easily amused.


How is my opinion and history more bullshit than yours?

Your history is arguable, since it was written by the victors, and also the conclusions drawn from it are opinion. As for your opinion... you're saying my opinion that your opinion is bullshit is just as bullshit as the claim? BIGOT! :angry:


Ownthink you have already been disgraced why are you even here when you keep saying you are going to leave? Do you like watching yourself be humiliated all the time?

Because I made a post directed at him?

As for him being disgraced, it's only in your eyes. I consider him a very respectable individual, and his statement that you should leave and claims that you are an idiot, while violent, were justified. I realise they were slightly forceful, but that's just his way. If you don't like it, maybe you should follow his advice.

Also, I am not surprised, but still disappointed, that you failed to answer two of my points. These were:


American democracy, yes?

And this:


Ahh k... so remind me how they liberated Asia? :blink:

Good day.

:hammer:

[October 1917]

"It's called assassination. The USA might be familiar with this, especially when it involves leaders of opposing countries."

It's not really as easy as it sounds, and even if he was chaos would have ensued and for all we know another person even worse than Hussein would have came to power. Assainating a leader and than having no plan on what to do afterwords is not a very good idea.

"Up until today? So the people do truly hold the power?"

No, I meant to say that even till today there has never been a government in which the people truly held power, maybe I just wrote it wrong or something.

"I still don't get it."

Nevermind than.

"How does that prove America is a communist country?"

How does your 14 points of Fascism prove that America is Fascist? Your right those 14 points dont show how America is Communist but it does show you how anyone can make a similar guideline.

"No, but they still do it."

If you just admitted that no soldiers enlist with that purpose than how can you hold any of them at fault?

"Previously you have stated that I have. Because of this I assumed it was a rhetorical question."

I asked that to others who admitted to saying they supported killing American soldiers but I dont remember stating that you did.

"Iraq was the subject at hand."

It dosnt matter you still didnt say that and it was easy to take your sentance for a different meaning.

"Regardless, both sides were still American, and the reason was mainly politics and not simply to free the slaves."

Dosnt matter if they did it for the right reasons or not they still did

"The Red Army"

When was this?

"It's not impressive, liberating a continent from racist fascists?"

Compared to their other atrocities not really.

"The USSR was fascist only because it had to be to get its economy in line with other nations, as the Russian Empire was extremely poor before. Stalin was actually moving the USSR towards democracy before he died, I believe."

Thats not what I meant, what I meant was that after the war Stalin put countries like Poland under Communist occupation instead of letting them choose thier own government.

"Pearl Harbour? Even then, they were reluctant to join the D-Day landings, but they had to, since Hitler declared war on them."

If the Americans were concerned about only defending themselves they never would have sent supplies to the Allies before Pearl Harbor and they would have attacked and defeated the Japaneese first before sending full force to Europe, when in reality they did the opposite. The D-Day landing came 3 years after Hitler declared war on them so they didnt have to do anything. One reason they did launch D-Day was because Stalin kept nagging Churchill and Roosevelt to open a second front so pressure would be taken off of Russia.

"Because it would have been a disaster for them, they had a military strategy, they were going to stick to it."

How would it have been a disaster? the Soviets could have easily defeated the Germans at Warsaw.

"But the uprising failed, didn't it? So they didn't send quite enough"

Atleast they sent something unlike the Soviets who did absolutely nothing.

"They didn't really give a damn about the actual country, but now it gives them an opportunity to attack North Korea."

They still protected them

"So because the country wasn't doing so well, that's why they blockaded it? Sounds stupid to me"

No, but you made it sound as if the US immediately put a blockade on cuba right after they achieved independence which is actually untrue, they only blockaded them because missle silos were spotted in cuba which were being sent from the Soviets how can you blame them for this?

"Also, Castro is very highly regarded in Cuba."

Yea maybe thats why so many people drown in rowboats trying to get to Florida every year.

"http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ That's only civilians, I believe."

Its hard to believe that these numbers are even correct

"Hardly. They spread capitalism which kills as many people as Stalin every year."
How do they US spread Capitalism this is the first country they have invaded since the last gulf war. It seems as if your blaimng all of the deaths attributed to Capitalism solely on America. Besides you cant possibly compared the deaths America has caused to massacres caused by Stalin and the USSR, which I believe was in the high tens of millions.

"As for your opinion... you're saying my opinion that your opinion is bullshit is just as bullshit as the claim? BIGOT:

This makes no sense to me.

"for him being disgraced, it's only in your eyes. I consider him a very respectable individual, and his statement that you should leave and claims that you are an idiot, while violent, were justified"

How can you consider him that? all he does is insult and has nothign intelligent to say and not just in this thread alone. I also dont know how his claims were justified? why should I leave because he cant argue against me?

"American democracy, yes?"

I didnt even see this in the last post but if this is refering to if I think America is a democracy or not I said in a previous post that it was far from it.

"Ahh k... so remind me how they liberated Asia?"

By defeating the Japaneese they liberated alot of islands that were under Japaneese imperialism. Not to mention that Japan would not be the industrial and technological power it is today without American intervention.

[Iroquois Xavier]

October 1917 just dont get the point does he? be gone you fool! oh and HAVE A NICE DAY! :lol: p.s. nice essays you write.

[Goatse]

It's not really as easy as it sounds, and even if he was chaos would have ensued and for all we know another person even worse than Hussein would have came to power. Assainating a leader and than having no plan on what to do afterwords is not a very good idea.

I'm sure the CIA could guide events. It is their job, right?


No, I meant to say that even till today there has never been a government in which the people truly held power, maybe I just wrote it wrong or something.


But then... they don't hold the power in the USA like you said.



Nevermind than.

k


How does your 14 points of Fascism prove that America is Fascist? Your right those 14 points dont show how America is Communist but it does show you how anyone can make a similar guideline.

But that link was nothing to do with communism!

So I'm right, such a set of points do not exist.



If you just admitted that no soldiers enlist with that purpose than how can you hold any of them at fault?

So they're not guitly, because they didn't have the intention of it but still did it?



I asked that to others who admitted to saying they supported killing American soldiers but I dont remember stating that you did.

You did, but anyway, to answer your question: No, I do not support killing every single American soldier, only if they oppose communism when the revolution happens. (Which is likely to be the majority.)



It dosnt matter you still didnt say that and it was easy to take your sentance for a different meaning.

Well I don't give a shit, I know what I mean, and it doesn't affect me a great deal if you don't understand what I'm talking about.



Dosnt matter if they did it for the right reasons or not they still did

Why?

And you ignored my other point.



When was this?

World War 2. You might have heard of it.



Compared to their other atrocities not really.

Yet the United States America is still the champion of freedom and liberty in your eyes. Why?


Thats not what I meant, what I meant was that after the war Stalin put countries like Poland under Communist occupation instead of letting them choose thier own government.

Communist occupation?

Anyway, while I doubt he had intentions to free them later on, their occupation did help rebuild the country. And it doesn't matter if they occupied the countries for politics, and not to rebuild, they still did it. ;)


If the Americans were concerned about only defending themselves they never would have sent supplies to the Allies before Pearl Harbor and they would have attacked and defeated the Japaneese first before sending full force to Europe, when in reality they did the opposite. The D-Day landing came 3 years after Hitler declared war on them so they didnt have to do anything. One reason they did launch D-Day was because Stalin kept nagging Churchill and Roosevelt to open a second front so pressure would be taken off of Russia.

They only entered the war because they were attacked. They are no better on this subject than the USSR.



How would it have been a disaster? the Soviets could have easily defeated the Germans at Warsaw.

How do you know? Things worked out they way they did. The Nazis were defeated. No "what if"s are certain, as there's no way of proving them.



Atleast they sent something unlike the Soviets who did absolutely nothing.

Even if it was just for public image and they knew they weren't sending enough?


They still protected them

No, they protected themselves.



No, but you made it sound as if the US immediately put a blockade on cuba right after they achieved independence which is actually untrue, they only blockaded them because missle silos were spotted in cuba which were being sent from the Soviets how can you blame them for this?

Because they haven't lifted it. They're only doing this to try and show socialism always has a bad economy. Cuba still manages to keep itself up even with a blockade.



Yea maybe thats why so many people drown in rowboats trying to get to Florida every year.

Source.


Its hard to believe that these numbers are even correct

Too bad. They are.


How do they US spread Capitalism this is the first country they have invaded since the last gulf war.

They can invade in more subtle ways. Not always with military power.


It seems as if your blaimng all of the deaths attributed to Capitalism solely on America.

America is the biggest and most powerful capitalist imperialist country in the world.


Besides you cant possibly compared the deaths America has caused to massacres caused by Stalin and the USSR, which I believe was in the high tens of millions.

Yes I can, and I doubt it was that high.


This makes no sense to me.

I was simply creating humour, nothing more.


How can you consider him that? all he does is insult and has nothign intelligent to say and not just in this thread alone. I also dont know how his claims were justified? why should I leave because he cant argue against me?

I consider him that because it's my opinion. Guess who also hated other people having opinions? HITLER! :angry:



I didnt even see this in the last post but if this is refering to if I think America is a democracy or not I said in a previous post that it was far from it.


No, I was referring to the fact that you said Iraq was now a democratic country.


By defeating the Japaneese they liberated alot of islands that were under Japaneese imperialism. Not to mention that Japan would not be the industrial and technological power it is today without American intervention.

Yeah, nevermind the, uhhh, nuclear bombs.

[October 1917]

"I'm sure the CIA could guide events. It is their job, right?"

Actually no, and even if it was there job to plan what happened after Saddam was assasinated im sure it would involve US occupation, so I dont se how you can advocate assasinating him.

"But then... they don't hold the power in the USA like you said"

I said that the people have never TRULY help power in a government but the peiple in thsi country do have the power to elect their representatives and the president so it is far from the definition of Fascism. They dont truly hold power because if they did, they would make the laws instead of the representatives and would run all aspects of the government, which they dont. Although in comparison to many governments both past and present, the American people do hold a large oamount of power, the problem lies in the fact that most Americans are just to lazy to use it.

"But that link was nothing to do with communism! So I'm right, such a set of points do not exist"

It dosnt matter if it exists or not thats not the point I was just trying to show how any idiot can come up wth a similar gudeline to show how America is liberal, communist, fascist or whatever and that none of these guidelines actually represent what a liberal, communist, fascist governmet really is.

"So they're not guitly, because they didn't have the intention of it but still did it?"
Did what?

"You did, but anyway, to answer your question: No, I do not support killing every single American soldier, only if they oppose communism when the revolution happens. (Which is likely to be the majority.)"

No I didnt, but anyways if you look at the Russian Revolution as an example of what will happen to the soldiers it is hard to believe that the majority will oppose it.

"Well I don't give a shit, I know what I mean, and it doesn't affect me a great deal if you don't understand what I'm talking about."

No would could have undersood it in the context you wrote it in because Iraq was never mentioned, must I show you your quote again?

"Why? And you ignored my other point."

Why? because the slaves wouldnthave been freed at all if Americans hadnt died to free them, it dosnt matter if it was there intention or not, they were freed weren't they? I let that speak for the Army today because I judge the US Army on its history and not one even like Iraq, and the majority of thier actions throughout history have been for the most part good. You cant let one action be enough reason to call the US Army imperialists murderers or whatever, this is teh same reason many peple hate Communism is because they look at Stalin and the USSR as the only example and forget alot of the good things Socialism/Communism has done throughout history.

"World War 2. You might have heard of it."

So the USSR actually freed slaves during World War II? no I havent heard of this before.

"Yet the United States America is still the champion of freedom and liberty in your eyes. Why?"

Because of the several events I listed along with many others, which can hardly be compared to the USSR's record in which World War II was the only event that the USSR took place in that was anythign near freedom or liberty in thier 80 year history.

"Anyway, while I doubt he had intentions to free them later on, their occupation did help rebuild the country. And it doesn't matter if they occupied the countries for politics, and not to rebuild, they still did it."

I dont know which countries your talking about but you can look at east Germany for an example of the nearly the opposite of what you stated. Also Hitler also rebuilt Germany but does that make his opression somehow more justifiable?
"They only entered the war because they were attacked. They are no better on this subject than the USSR."

Yes, but they were sending massive amounts of supplies to both Russia and Britain before they entered and atleast showed that they were not on the side of the Axis, unlike Stalin who forged a pact with Hitler and divided Poland between himself and Hitler, wow he must really have hated Fascists.

"How do you know? Things worked out they way they did. The Nazis were defeated."

Yes, but the uprising was crushed when the Soviets could have easily lended military aid.

"Even if it was just for public image and they knew they weren't sending enough?"

The public didnt even know about it. They couldnt send enough because theyw ere flying over German occupied Poland which was dangerous enough.

"No, they protected themselves."

And the South Koreans.

"Because they haven't lifted it. They're only doing this to try and show socialism always has a bad economy. Cuba still manages to keep itself up even with a blockade."

I thought you were referring to the naval blockade during the cuban missle crisis, I dont know what blockade you are talking about now unless you are referring to the fact that we dont allow Americans to travel there and buy stuff or trade with America. I agree this is a litle harsh but Communism is the American governments enemy so you cant blame them for this and if America and Cuba were switched Cuba would probably have done the same thing.

"Source."

This is just stupid, im not even going to provide a source for a fact that is common knowledge to most Americans. If you want proof why dont you ask yourself why Florida has such a large and constantly growing Cuban population, but I guess this and all the anti-Castro cuban fighters in Florida that I have seen on 60 minutes, all the news articles I read of this, and elian Gonzales were just coincidences?

"Too bad. They are."

I was lookign over this site and even if the numbers are correct, if you actually look at the casualties list or whatever and look at the reason these people died none of them say they were caused by US forces, most of them just simply say gunfire which could be from other people besides just US forces, I have also seen a few that have said roadside bombs or suicide bombings, these hardly seem like these tactics would be employed by the US military.

"They can invade in more subtle ways. Not always with military power."

We've alrwady been over this.

"America is the biggest and most powerful capitalist imperialist country in the world."

So this somehow proves that America is at fault for the deaths Capitalism has incurred? More deaths can be attributed to the British Empire during imperialism aswell as many other capitalist nations, contrary to your belief America is not at fault for everything.

"Yes I can, and I doubt it was that high."

Prove to me how you can? And yes it was somewhere around there, some people have even put it as high as 100 million so I think my numbers are actually small.

"I consider him that because it's my opinion. Guess who also hated other people having opinions? HITLER!"

Thats the thing he has no opinion he simply insults people and then makes one sentance remarks which I guess makes him feel smarter about himself. Dont even start with the Hitler comparrison that is getting old, very old.

"No, I was referring to the fact that you said Iraq was now a democratic country."

No, actually thats not what I said I said America established SOME form of democracy in Iraq and it can be considered so since so many people have shown up for the elections. How ever it is far from a democratic country, America isnt even a real democratic country.

"Yeah, nevermind the, uhhh, nuclear bombs"

Im gettign really tired of hearing this from peopel who have absolutely no knowledge of miltary strategy whatsoever. It saved thousands of American lives from having to invade the Japaneese mainland. ANY MILITARY LEADER would have done the exact same thing if he knew it would save his own soldiers lives and end the war quicker. War is not always nice, and is not won by humanitarian ideals.

[Iroquois Xavier]

October 1917 that waffling on piece of drivel took me over an hour to read! and im a fast reader! :lol: why dont you summarise or something? not that i can be arsed to read such crap. HAVE A NICE DAY! :)

[October 1917]

"October 1917 that waffling on piece of drivel took me over an hour to read! and im a fast reader!" Your obviously not because I just re-read it and it took me about 10 minutes.

"why dont you summarise or something?"

Why dont you actually write something worth reading or something?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Iroquois [email protected] 13 2006, 02:02 PM
October 1917 that waffling on piece of drivel took me over an hour to read! and im a fast reader! :lol: why dont you summarise or something? not that i can be arsed to read such crap. HAVE A NICE DAY! :)
Does this help the discussion? i don't think so, no matter how hard 1917s posts were at least they had content. Try to be more positive, we're all on the same side here.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 13 2006, 03:33 PM
"October 1917 that waffling on piece of drivel took me over an hour to read! and im a fast reader!" Your obviously not because I just re-read it and it took me about 10 minutes.

"why dont you summarise or something?"

Why dont you actually write something worth reading or something?
Nice to see you are trying. :) p.s. Additives Free im not saying it didnt have content im just saying how crap the content was!HAVE A NICE DAY! :)

[Goatse]

Actually no, and even if it was there job to plan what happened after Saddam was assasinated im sure it would involve US occupation, so I dont se how you can advocate assasinating him.

Why would it?


I said that the people have never TRULY help power in a government but the peiple in thsi country do have the power to elect their representatives and the president so it is far from the definition of Fascism. They dont truly hold power because if they did, they would make the laws instead of the representatives and would run all aspects of the government, which they dont. Although in comparison to many governments both past and present, the American people do hold a large oamount of power, the problem lies in the fact that most Americans are just to lazy to use it.


Since most of them don't use it, you can't really say it would work if they tried.


It dosnt matter if it exists or not thats not the point I was just trying to show how any idiot can come up wth a similar gudeline to show how America is liberal, communist, fascist or whatever and that none of these guidelines actually represent what a liberal, communist, fascist governmet really is.

No, you said you were sure such an page existed, which is not the case. A well-constructed site exists which says America is fascist, or at least close.


Did what?

Killed the kiddies?


No I didnt, but anyways if you look at the Russian Revolution as an example of what will happen to the soldiers it is hard to believe that the majority will oppose it.

We'll find out when it happens, won't we? :)



No would could have undersood it in the context you wrote it in because Iraq was never mentioned, must I show you your quote again?

I'll tell you again:

I DO NOT CARE

I don't give two shits if you didn't get my point, I know what it meant, there is no point arguing over it.


Why? because the slaves wouldnthave been freed at all if Americans hadnt died to free them, it dosnt matter if it was there intention or not, they were freed weren't they? I let that speak for the Army today because I judge the US Army on its history and not one even like Iraq, and the majority of thier actions throughout history have been for the most part good. You cant let one action be enough reason to call the US Army imperialists murderers or whatever, this is teh same reason many peple hate Communism is because they look at Stalin and the USSR as the only example and forget alot of the good things Socialism/Communism has done throughout history.

Yes, because Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Guetamala, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were all good.



So the USSR actually freed slaves during World War II? no I havent heard of this before.

They liberated concentration camps. They were pretty much slaves there.


Because of the several events I listed along with many others, which can hardly be compared to the USSR's record in which World War II was the only event that the USSR took place in that was anythign near freedom or liberty in thier 80 year history.

Who said the USSR was the champion of freedom and liberty?

Please list these "many other" events, as the several events you listed have been nullified by myself.


I dont know which countries your talking about but you can look at east Germany for an example of the nearly the opposite of what you stated. Also Hitler also rebuilt Germany but does that make his opression somehow more justifiable?

Fact: The countries of the USSR were better off during the Soviet times than they were previously, and than they are today.


Yes, but they were sending massive amounts of supplies to both Russia and Britain before they entered and atleast showed that they were not on the side of the Axis, unlike Stalin who forged a pact with Hitler and divided Poland between himself and Hitler, wow he must really have hated Fascists.

There's the slight fact that Germany is separated from the USA by a large body of water.



Yes, but the uprising was crushed when the Soviets could have easily lended military aid.

The Soviets needed what they had.


The public didnt even know about it. They couldnt send enough because theyw ere flying over German occupied Poland which was dangerous enough.


The public found out afterwards.

It was likely that it was just so they could say they were better than the USSR.


And the South Koreans.

And themselves.


I thought you were referring to the naval blockade during the cuban missle crisis, I dont know what blockade you are talking about now unless you are referring to the fact that we dont allow Americans to travel there and buy stuff or trade with America. I agree this is a litle harsh but Communism is the American governments enemy so you cant blame them for this and if America and Cuba were switched Cuba would probably have done the same thing.

And Cuba is of course communist?

There is opposition within the USA too, but nothing comes of it.


This is just stupid, im not even going to provide a source for a fact that is common knowledge to most Americans. If you want proof why dont you ask yourself why Florida has such a large and constantly growing Cuban population, but I guess this and all the anti-Castro cuban fighters in Florida that I have seen on 60 minutes, all the news articles I read of this, and elian Gonzales were just coincidences?

SOURCE.


I was lookign over this site and even if the numbers are correct, if you actually look at the casualties list or whatever and look at the reason these people died none of them say they were caused by US forces, most of them just simply say gunfire which could be from other people besides just US forces, I have also seen a few that have said roadside bombs or suicide bombings, these hardly seem like these tactics would be employed by the US military.

Yes, but they were caused by the invasion.


We've alrwady been over this.

Nope.


So this somehow proves that America is at fault for the deaths Capitalism has incurred? More deaths can be attributed to the British Empire during imperialism aswell as many other capitalist nations, contrary to your belief America is not at fault for everything.

Did I say that? NO.


Prove to me how you can? And yes it was somewhere around there, some people have even put it as high as 100 million so I think my numbers are actually small.

Well, how many do you mean by tens of millions?


Thats the thing he has no opinion he simply insults people and then makes one sentance remarks which I guess makes him feel smarter about himself. Dont even start with the Hitler comparrison that is getting old, very old.

Hitler.


No, actually thats not what I said I said America established SOME form of democracy in Iraq and it can be considered so since so many people have shown up for the elections. How ever it is far from a democratic country, America isnt even a real democratic country.

Glad you admit it.


Im gettign really tired of hearing this from peopel who have absolutely no knowledge of miltary strategy whatsoever. It saved thousands of American lives from having to invade the Japaneese mainland. ANY MILITARY LEADER would have done the exact same thing if he knew it would save his own soldiers lives and end the war quicker. War is not always nice, and is not won by humanitarian ideals.

Saved his own soldiers, nevermind the babies that are still born mutated today.

:hammer:

[October 1917]

"Why would it?"

If the CIA went through the trobule of assasinating Hussein dont you think they would have some sort of role in the new government which would established afterwords? and if they didnt Iraq would become chaotic and new even more opressive dictator could be put in his place.

"Since most of them don't use it, you can't really say it would work if they tried"

No, but that wasnt really the point of the whole paragraph. Although if they did and millions of Americans actually exercised there power there is little the government would be able to do.

"No, you said you were sure such an page existed, which is not the case. A well-constructed site exists which says America is fascist, or at least close."

It dosnt say America is Fascist because those points are just made up by that guy and those points can apply to several countries, they are a general and broad view which is supposed to convince teh reader that it is fascist although it has nothing in common with actual Fascist regimes.

"Killed the kiddies?"

Since your so keen on sources, where is your source for this?

"I don't give two shits if you didn't get my point, I know what it meant, there is no point arguing over it."

Your the one who started it.

"Yes, because Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Guetamala, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were all good."

Afghamistan was not even bad and we established more freedom there than in centuries, atleast you dont see thier women getting stoned anymore. Vietnam was stupid I agree. Korea, Cuba, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki I already explained and your provided pitiful excuses against them. Dresden can hardly be considered an atrocity considering the Germans had been using the same tactics with the V2 rockets and during the Battle of Britain. America is not perfect and you cant expect it o be so.

"They liberated concentration camps. They were pretty much slaves there."

They liberated them in the process of fighting the Germans their intention was not to liberate the camps they just did so when they found them. This can hardly be compared to the American civil war in which the purpose was to free the slaves. Also America liberated camps aswell.

"Please list these "many other" events, as the several events you listed have been nullified by myself"

I already did list many other events and you did not nullify them at all you provided pathetic excuses and I countered them all.

"Fact: The countries of the USSR were better off during the Soviet times than they were previously, and than they are today."

Thats great although that really that had nothingto do with it, and yes you may be right economically wise but not freedom wise.

"There's the slight fact that Germany is separated from the USA by a large body of water."

So that justifies him signing a pact with a Fascist who he supposedly hated so much?

"The Soviets needed what they had."

They had a massive amount of forces by the time they crossed into Poland in 1944.

"The public found out afterwards. It was likely that it was just so they could say they were better than the USSR"

They found out years afterwords, and you rsecond comment is just assinine considering America and britain were freinds with russia at the time.

"And themselves."

Yes that was already stated, what do you expect them to do let themselves die?

"There is opposition within the USA too, but nothing comes of it."

thats because Cuba CANT do anything to America that would hurt it. But maybe youd liek to prove otherwise?

"Yes, but they were caused by the invasion."

Read my paragraph again.

"Well, how many do you mean by tens of millions?"

It was estimated around 40 million or so.

"Glad you admit it"

Actually I "admitted" this earlier and I didnt admit anything I ahve been saying that for a long time.

"Saved his own soldiers, nevermind the babies that are still born mutated today."

Read my post over again and learn a little about military strategy. You should also learn about a little vent called the rape of Nanking.

Im kind of in a hurry so if I didnt answer anything just tell me and ill answer it later.

[October 1917]

"SOURCE."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba wow this sounds like a real paradise to me.

[Goatse]

If the CIA went through the trobule of assasinating Hussein dont you think they would have some sort of role in the new government which would established afterwords? and if they didnt Iraq would become chaotic and new even more opressive dictator could be put in his place.

If they went to the trouble it would be to create a democratic paradise... wouldn't it?! :o


No, but that wasnt really the point of the whole paragraph. Although if they did and millions of Americans actually exercised there power there is little the government would be able to do.

Since millions don't, you can't say what the government would do. Although it would likely ignore them.


It dosnt say America is Fascist because those points are just made up by that guy and those points can apply to several countries, they are a general and broad view which is supposed to convince teh reader that it is fascist although it has nothing in common with actual Fascist regimes.

However such a set of points exist and are well written. You being so sure of a set of points saying America is a communist country written by a right-winger as an argument against it is a poor point, since such a set of points does not exist.



Since your so keen on sources, where is your source for this?

Source. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/01/MN279362.DTL)



Your the one who started it.

:rolleyes:


Afghamistan was not even bad and we established more freedom there than in centuries, atleast you dont see thier women getting stoned anymore. Vietnam was stupid I agree. Korea, Cuba, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki I already explained and your provided pitiful excuses against them. Dresden can hardly be considered an atrocity considering the Germans had been using the same tactics with the V2 rockets and during the Battle of Britain. America is not perfect and you cant expect it o be so.


You said they were the champions of freedom and liberty. Surely they wouldn't do something horrible like that! :o


They liberated them in the process of fighting the Germans their intention was not to liberate the camps they just did so when they found them. This can hardly be compared to the American civil war in which the purpose was to free the slaves. Also America liberated camps aswell.

But according to you, it doesn't matter what the intentions are, it still happened. :)



I already did list many other events and you did not nullify them at all you provided pathetic excuses and I countered them all.

List the others.

Oh wait, you, uh, can't.



Thats great although that really that had nothingto do with it, and yes you may be right economically wise but not freedom wise.


They were a LOT worse beforehand.



So that justifies him signing a pact with a Fascist who he supposedly hated so much?

Yes, to protect his country.

The USA would have done the same if the Nazis could have reached them.



They had a massive amount of forces by the time they crossed into Poland in 1944.

So?


They found out years afterwords, and you rsecond comment is just assinine considering America and britain were freinds with russia at the time.

They both hated the system. At least the leaders did.



Yes that was already stated, what do you expect them to do let themselves die?

They only did it to protect their interests.



thats because Cuba CANT do anything to America that would hurt it. But maybe youd liek to prove otherwise?

What the fuck?



Read my paragraph again.

No, why the hell should I? If you wanted to do anything other than stall the debate, you'd have copied it.



It was estimated around 40 million or so.


And how many people have died in...

Russia
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Korea
Vietnam
Iraq
Afganistan
Cuba
Guetamala

Because of the USA? Along with all the starvation and poverty they cause?



Actually I "admitted" this earlier and I didnt admit anything I ahve been saying that for a long time.

OK, this string of points is finished.



Read my post over again and learn a little about military strategy. You should also learn about a little vent called the rape of Nanking.

And that justifies it?

Tu quoque!

:hammer:

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

I have neither the time nor the need to reply to your arguments (which are exactly the same as in your first posts, and have all been proven wrong), but if you have any kind of selfrespect, October 1917, re-read your posts, think carefully, educate yourself and come back in a few months. Please. There is a limit to how much one can embarass himself without me feeling sorry for him.And I'm not just trying to insult you (although that as well ;) ) , I'm serious.

Kind regards,
Comrade RedFaction :hammer:

[October 1917]

"If they went to the trouble it would be to create a democratic paradise... wouldn't it?!"

What the hell are you talking about did you even read my post?

"Since millions don't, you can't say what the government would do. Although it would likely ignore them."

People have exercised thier power in the past and things have changed drmatically, for example the protests during the vietnam war, MLK and his civil rights marches, etc.

"However such a set of points exist and are well written. You being so sure of a set of points saying America is a communist country written by a right-winger as an argument against it is a poor point, since such a set of points does not exist."

No, they are not well written they are a broad set of points written by an anti fascist intended to convince gullible readers like yourself that America is Fascist, they are not well written at all because they dont actualy involve any examples of true Fascist regimes or doctrine. I never said I was sure of it those points I listed, those points I listed were absolutely stupid and I did it to show you how stupid yours were. Why are we even arguing about if America is Fascist or not you already admitted it wasnt.

"Source."

Yea it really seemed like they were just waiting for a car to pass by with children in it so they can slaughter them all. If you actually read the article they seemed pretty remorseful and if you were in Iraq and had expericance with car bombers and you saw a car speeding towards you that refuses to stop I doubt you would have done diffferent. They didnt even know there were children in the car and it they didnt shoot the car to murder kids like alot ofpeople on this forum say.

"You said they were the champions of freedom and liberty. Surely they wouldn't do something horrible like that!"

Can you stop making sarcastic replies and actually make a realistic counter arguement for once. AMERICA IS NOT PERFECT BUT THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS THROUGHOUT HISTORY CONTRARY TO WHAT PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD THINK. There is that simple enough? However if you wish to ignore history and be like the Capitalists who blame Communism for every problem than go ahead.

"But according to you, it doesn't matter what the intentions are, it still happened"
Your right it dosnt and thier liberation of the camps were a good thing but when you are tryng to compare this and the America civil war it is just ridiculous.

"List the others."

I already did, why dont you check the last three pages. If you want me to find more I will do so.

"They were a LOT worse beforehand."

Before the revolution? wow I didnt know the Tsar put people in Gulags.

"Yes, to protect his country."

At that time Stalin had no idea Germany would invade them, no one did. Also if he did this only to protect his country liek you say why did he split Poland with Hitler?

"So?"

So they could have afforded to spare some of thier men to help the Polish.

"They only did it to protect their interests."

They still protected them and without the US, the S. Koreans would have been put under the same opressive control as the N. Koreans are. What would you rather have?

"What the fuck?"

You said that America has done bad things to Cuba but Cuba hasnt done anything back and I said the reason they havent is because they cant they dont have anything that would harm America, like America can harm Cuba with an embargo.
"And how many people have died in..."

We have already been over everyone of these lame examples and yet you continue to bring the same ones up. The thing that differs between this and the Soviet Union is that those murders were intentional in resemblance to the holocaust. The ones you listed were wars, but if you want we can go over all the additional casualties inflicted by the Soviet Unions participation in wars.

"And that justifies it?"

No, but I was just trying to show examples that Japan is not some innocent country like everyone seems to think. The Atomic bomb was neccesary to save American lives and end the war, which could have dragged on for years, as I already have said multiple times any military leader would have done the same thing especially against an opponent like Japan who was unwilling to surrender.This is a lame example used by nearly ebery anti-American to try and show how they murder people, but really it is just the use of military stategy that would have been employed any country especially the Japaneese if they had gotten thier hands on it.

Also Redfaction do you know how stupid you and ownthink look popping into the thread every page or so to say the same lame replies over and over again? I didnt ask you to reply to my argument and judging by the way you have in the past I really dont want you to. None of my arguements have been proven wrong and certainlt not by you, but I guess the only thing you have going for you in your life is your so called intelligence and it gives you some sort of validation by making the same old replies everytime. I guess everyone who has a different opinion other than you is "embarrasing" himself and EVERYONE is stupider than the mighty brain of redfaction.

[Goatse]

What the hell are you talking about did you even read my post?

No, of course I did not read your post.

You said this:


If the CIA went through the trobule of assasinating Hussein dont you think they would have some sort of role in the new government which would established afterwords?

But of course, the champions of freedom of liberty, they wouldn't want a role!


People have exercised thier power in the past and things have changed drmatically, for example the protests during the vietnam war, MLK and his civil rights marches, etc.

Iraq.


No, they are not well written they are a broad set of points written by an anti fascist intended to convince gullible readers like yourself that America is Fascist, they are not well written at all because they dont actualy involve any examples of true Fascist regimes or doctrine. I never said I was sure of it those points I listed, those points I listed were absolutely stupid and I did it to show you how stupid yours were. Why are we even arguing about if America is Fascist or not you already admitted it wasnt.


Your basically just ignoring everything I tell you to do, but regarding that im sure there are similar guidelines created by right wingers which show that America is Communist, do you believe them?

They do not exist. This nullifies this whole point.


Yea it really seemed like they were just waiting for a car to pass by with children in it so they can slaughter them all. If you actually read the article they seemed pretty remorseful and if you were in Iraq and had expericance with car bombers and you saw a car speeding towards you that refuses to stop I doubt you would have done diffferent. They didnt even know there were children in the car and it they didnt shoot the car to murder kids like alot ofpeople on this forum say.

It still goes on. It's unacceptable. The children never did anything. They were never a thread to the United States of America. They never had any WMDs. Wait a second, neither was or did the government.


Can you stop making sarcastic replies and actually make a realistic counter arguement for once. AMERICA IS NOT PERFECT BUT THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS THROUGHOUT HISTORY CONTRARY TO WHAT PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD THINK. There is that simple enough? However if you wish to ignore history and be like the Capitalists who blame Communism for every problem than go ahead.


They're not the champions of freedom and liberty. You lose.



Your right it dosnt and thier liberation of the camps were a good thing but when you are tryng to compare this and the America civil war it is just ridiculous.

Why?



I already did, why dont you check the last three pages. If you want me to find more I will do so.

I said the OTHERS. Not the ones you've already listed.



Before the revolution? wow I didnt know the Tsar put people in Gulags.

I did.


At that time Stalin had no idea Germany would invade them, no one did. Also if he did this only to protect his country liek you say why did he split Poland with Hitler?

Of course he knew he was going to be invaded.



So they could have afforded to spare some of thier men to help the Polish.

Were you there? Do you know the exact conditions they were in? No, so don't pass judgement.


They still protected them and without the US, the S. Koreans would have been put under the same opressive control as the N. Koreans are. What would you rather have?

I'm unsure, both are just as bad.


You said that America has done bad things to Cuba but Cuba hasnt done anything back and I said the reason they havent is because they cant they dont have anything that would harm America, like America can harm Cuba with an embargo.

So because they would if they could, it justifies America harming them?


We have already been over everyone of these lame examples and yet you continue to bring the same ones up. The thing that differs between this and the Soviet Union is that those murders were intentional in resemblance to the holocaust. The ones you listed were wars, but if you want we can go over all the additional casualties inflicted by the Soviet Unions participation in wars.

Your high numbers probably include those caused by wars. At least the 100 million will.

Secondly, please actually go over these things, rather than just saying you have.


No, but I was just trying to show examples that Japan is not some innocent country like everyone seems to think. The Atomic bomb was neccesary to save American lives and end the war, which could have dragged on for years, as I already have said multiple times any military leader would have done the same thing especially against an opponent like Japan who was unwilling to surrender.This is a lame example used by nearly ebery anti-American to try and show how they murder people, but really it is just the use of military stategy that would have been employed any country especially the Japaneese if they had gotten thier hands on it.

If America had cared about saving their own lives, would they have gone to war. And if the only reason was to save people, they wouldn't have used atomic bombs on civilian targets. Seems a bit hypocritical.


Also Redfaction do you know how stupid you and ownthink look popping into the thread every page or so to say the same lame replies over and over again? I didnt ask you to reply to my argument and judging by the way you have in the past I really dont want you to. None of my arguements have been proven wrong and certainlt not by you, but I guess the only thing you have going for you in your life is your so called intelligence and it gives you some sort of validation by making the same old replies everytime. I guess everyone who has a different opinion other than you is "embarrasing" himself and EVERYONE is stupider than the mighty brain of redfaction.

Don't you do the same thing? LMAO

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

So basically, you've been repeating my accusations towards you in practically every post you made since the insults started. I say that you keep repeating the same things, and in response to that you repeat the same things.
:huh:

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 14 2006, 09:46 PM
everyone who has a different opinion other than you is "embarrasing" himself and EVERYONE is stupider than the mighty brain of redfaction.
:wub: Now that really is way too much of an honour for me..

[October 1917]

"But of course, the champions of freedom of liberty, they wouldn't want a role!"

What are you talking about of course they would I acknowledge that they have a role in Iraq now dont I? I dont know what kind of point you are trying to make.

"Iraq."

There have not been anywhere near as many anti-war protesters over Iraq as there was over Vietnam and considering that, from the last poll I saw on aol.com that 50% of this country agrees with the war and that this country elected Bush, its not exactly hard to see why nothing is being done. You also chose to ignore the two other examples I put.

"They do not exist. This nullifies this whole point."

Do you have some sort of mental problem where you cant understand what im trying to say? do you even read my posts or just one sentance? I only wrote Communism because I knew it would appeal to you, that had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the original point, I was trying to show that similar guidelines could be created for any political ideology. How do you not understand this? not to mention that the fact that you already admitted that America is not Fascist NULLIFIES the original arguement, which was that America was Fascist.

"It still goes on. It's unacceptable. The children never did anything. They were never a thread to the United States of America. They never had any WMDs. Wait a second, neither was or did the government."

So what is your sollution to the problem? to kill the troops for this? because that was the original topic. What are you arguing about? I acknowledge mistakes are made but you seem to lay the fault soley on teenage seoldiers, soldiers dont enlist with the intentions of killing babies or whatever, that was the point I was trying to make, and if the troops in that article were feeling remorse for that incident it pretty much proves it. Also what are you bringing up WMDS for? did I ever say I supported the war in Iraq, the reasons for going or George Bush? No, I didnt.

"They're not the champions of freedom and liberty. You lose"

First of all I never said they were champions of freedom of liberty what I originally said on page 3 was "While so many of you claim you are crusaders for the opressed and champions of freedom and democracy, who do you think has gone out and actually liberated those who were opressed?" So I dont lose anything, they have done alot for other countries including the events I listed. However if you want to provide some examples of how you or anyone else on this board has actually gone out and liberated the opressed than feel free to prove me wrong.

"Why?"

Hundreds of thousands of America soldiers died with the purpose of freeing the slaves, this is alot different than the USSR whose purpose was defeating Germany and freed camps as they stumbled upon them.

"I said the OTHERS. Not the ones you've already listed."

The ones I listed are already more than enough.

"I did."

When was this?

"Of course he knew he was going to be invaded."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28WWII%29 read the sectyion entitled background. Not only that but you failed to answer my second question.

"Were you there? Do you know the exact conditions they were in? No, so don't pass judgement."

The fact that America and Britain who were no where near Poland was able to risk flying through enemy lines to provide some aid to the Polish, while the Soviets who were rigth across the river did nothing says alot about the USSR.

"I'm unsure, both are just as bad."

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea that sure sounds alot better than S. Korea.

"So because they would if they could, it justifies America harming them?"

that wasnt the point I was trying to say that Cuba would do the same thing that America is doing if Cuba was in teh same position. If you were a leader in a Communist country(actual Communism) would you cooperate freely with Capitalist countries?

"Your high numbers probably include those caused by wars. At least the 100 million will"

Go here: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin these estimate Stalins murders at 20 milion which is low compared to other statistics I have seen. I have also never said it was 100 milion I only said that was one statistic I have seen.

"Secondly, please actually go over these things, rather than just saying you have."

I already have several times just look in the previous posts. I am not going to type them all again because even if I did you would just say this same thign next post.

"If America had cared about saving their own lives, would they have gone to war. And if the only reason was to save people, they wouldn't have used atomic bombs on civilian targets. Seems a bit hypocritical."

They were directly attacked by Japan, they had no choice but to go to war. What were they supposed to do just let the Japaneese take over? The whole civilian target thing is another excuse. With the government that Japan had that was unwilling to surrender the only way they could be brought to the negotiating table was through such a destructive bomb. Bombing military installations wouldnt have made a difference since most of them were already destroyed, so bombing civilian cities and incurring massive casualties was the only way to get the Japaneese government to reconsider, which unfortunately took 2 bombings for them to do.

"Don't you do the same thing?"

No, I actually have an arguement they dont.

[Goatse]

What are you talking about of course they would I acknowledge that they have a role in Iraq now dont I? I dont know what kind of point you are trying to make.

But they wouldn't want a role in the new country. They're the champions of freedom and liberty, remember?


There have not been anywhere near as many anti-war protesters over Iraq as there was over Vietnam and considering that, from the last poll I saw on aol.com that 50% of this country agrees with the war and that this country elected Bush, its not exactly hard to see why nothing is being done. You also chose to ignore the two other examples I put.

Well I've read it's less than a third that supports it.


Do you have some sort of mental problem where you cant understand what im trying to say? do you even read my posts or just one sentance? I only wrote Communism because I knew it would appeal to you, that had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the original point, I was trying to show that similar guidelines could be created for any political ideology. How do you not understand this? not to mention that the fact that you already admitted that America is not Fascist NULLIFIES the original arguement, which was that America was Fascist.

Your point was that I would not be convinced by a set of points declaring the opposite, and that such a set of points do exist. THEY DON'T.


So what is your sollution to the problem? to kill the troops for this? because that was the original topic. What are you arguing about? I acknowledge mistakes are made but you seem to lay the fault soley on teenage seoldiers, soldiers dont enlist with the intentions of killing babies or whatever, that was the point I was trying to make, and if the troops in that article were feeling remorse for that incident it pretty much proves it. Also what are you bringing up WMDS for? did I ever say I supported the war in Iraq, the reasons for going or George Bush? No, I didnt.

Why do you support it then?


First of all I never said they were champions of freedom of liberty what I originally said on page 3 was "While so many of you claim you are crusaders for the opressed and champions of freedom and democracy, who do you think has gone out and actually liberated those who were opressed?" So I dont lose anything, they have done alot for other countries including the events I listed. However if you want to provide some examples of how you or anyone else on this board has actually gone out and liberated the opressed than feel free to prove me wrong.

You said this:


Actually they are

You did say they are the champions of freedom and liberty.


Hundreds of thousands of America soldiers died with the purpose of freeing the slaves, this is alot different than the USSR whose purpose was defeating Germany and freed camps as they stumbled upon them.

Both situations were just political. Neither of them had the intention of freeing anything much.



The ones I listed are already more than enough.

No, they are not. I nullified them, and you claim to have a lot more, however you constantly avoid having to post them.



When was this?

Uhhh... Tsarist Russia?

Life was a lot worse before the revolution, and it is a lot worse after it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28WWII%29 read the sectyion entitled background. Not only that but you failed to answer my second question.


Adolf Hitler had always intended to renege on the pact with the Soviet Union and invade. He had argued in Mein Kampf of the necessity of acquiring new territory for German settlement in Eastern Europe. He envisaged settling Germans as a master race in western Russia, while deporting most of the Russians to Siberia and using the remainder as slave labour. After the purges of 1930s he saw the Soviet Union as militarily weak and ripe for conquest: "We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down."

It's kinda obvious, as Hitler published a book saying he was going to.



The fact that America and Britain who were no where near Poland was able to risk flying through enemy lines to provide some aid to the Polish, while the Soviets who were rigth across the river did nothing says alot about the USSR.

Maybe they didn't have spare supplies?



Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea that sure sounds alot better than S. Korea.

Stalinism does indeed suck.

But I meant ideally, socialism > capitalism. However I guess South Korea is better off.

Although, if America had the interests of Korea at heart, why was the whole of Korea not freed from the evil fascist commies?


that wasnt the point I was trying to say that Cuba would do the same thing that America is doing if Cuba was in teh same position. If you were a leader in a Communist country(actual Communism) would you cooperate freely with Capitalist countries?

No, because there are no single leaders in communist countries, nor does it exist in a single country at one time.

Do you even have a tiny idea what communism is?


Go here: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin these estimate Stalins murders at 20 milion which is low compared to other statistics I have seen. I have also never said it was 100 milion I only said that was one statistic I have seen.


Yes, I know you weren't saying 100 million, but anyway.

I can't speak for every one of these 20 million, but a lot of them would have been enemies of the state, traitors etc. Things like that are necessary, although perhaps not on a huge scale, in a poor country which is attempting socialism.


I already have several times just look in the previous posts. I am not going to type them all again because even if I did you would just say this same thign next post.

Yet again, you avoid it.

It's called copying and pasting.


They were directly attacked by Japan, they had no choice but to go to war. What were they supposed to do just let the Japaneese take over? The whole civilian target thing is another excuse. With the government that Japan had that was unwilling to surrender the only way they could be brought to the negotiating table was through such a destructive bomb. Bombing military installations wouldnt have made a difference since most of them were already destroyed, so bombing civilian cities and incurring massive casualties was the only way to get the Japaneese government to reconsider, which unfortunately took 2 bombings for them to do.

Well, now you admit it, all they cared about was themselves. I really don't see how anyone can justify using nuclear bombs on civilians targets.



No, I actually have an arguement they dont.

Yet you're reluctant to even fucking post them.

Idiot.

[October 1917]

"But they wouldn't want a role in the new country. They're the champions of freedom and liberty, remember?"

Sometimes government intervention is neccesary to provide and secure freedom to the people. Nearly every event I previously listed involved US government intervention. If the US had just left S.Korea they would have probably been taken over by the North, if they had left Japan it could have been retaken over by pro-Hirohito types, etc.

"Well I've read it's less than a third that supports it."

Well these polls say different: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/iraq.poll/ http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm also the fact that Bush was elected by a majority pretty much proves that atleast half of the country support him.

"Your point was that I would not be convinced by a set of points declaring the opposite, and that such a set of points do exist. THEY DON'T."

No, that was not the point, the point was that you brang up those original 14 points and I was trying to show that a similar guideline can be created to fit any political ideology, so I gave you a guideline which showed 14 points of what the Anti-America left is, which is basically just anothr way of saying Communism. Its like saying right wing totalinarianism, what would you think that was? Fascism. besdies if you already admitted America is not fascist it dosnt matter if I lose in providing a 14 points of Communism or not you still lose the original debate which was that America was Fascist.

"Why do you support it then?"

When did I ever say I supported it? I support not killing our soldiers, if thats what you mean. Or if someone makes a ridiculous claim invloving Iraq than I will prove them wrong, but that dosnt mean I support the war just because I dont hop on the trendy Communist bandwagon which involves calling all soldiers imperialist murderers and wishing the theocratic insurgents to win.

"You did say they are the champions of freedom and liberty."

No, actually if you read the paragraph before that I was referring to the fact that those people were hypocrites, not that America was the champions of freedom and liberty. Read it again.

"Both situations were just political. Neither of them had the intention of freeing anything much."

It may have been political, but a large reason of why the civil war was fought was to free the slaves. A large reason the USSR fought World War II was not to liberate the concentration camps, so you cant compare the two.

"No, they are not. I nullified them, and you claim to have a lot more, however you constantly avoid having to post them."

How did you nullify any of these?

"Uhhh... Tsarist Russia? Life was a lot worse before the revolution, and it is a lot worse after it."

we've already been over this, economically wise you are right but not freedom wise. There were also no gulags or mass execuutions during the Tsars reign.

"It's kinda obvious, as Hitler published a book saying he was going to."

So your saying Stalin and his administration actually read that book? highly doubtable. That webpage also says "The German invasion therefore caught the Soviet military and leadership largely by surprise." So obviously they couldnt have known it was coming.

"Maybe they didn't have spare supplies?"

You can believe that if you want.

"Although, if America had the interests of Korea at heart, why was the whole of Korea not freed from the evil fascist commies?"

Because the war was essentially a stalemate and alot more Americans, Chineese, and Koreans would have died if the Americans would have pursued that goal.

"Do you even have a tiny idea what communism is?"

Dont try and educate me on what Communism is, im quite familiar with Communist ideology. Since you refused to answer the last question lets just say hypothetically that you were apart of a adviosry group in the new Communist world and there was one Capitalist country left would you cooperate with it?

"I can't speak for every one of these 20 million, but a lot of them would have been enemies of the state, traitors etc. Things like that are necessary, although perhaps not on a huge scale, in a poor country which is attempting socialism."

So mass murder is neccesary to convert to Socialism? Oh but I guess the workers are the enemies of the Communist state, because that was who Stalin murdered wasnt it?

"Yet again, you avoid it."

Just go to page 7 and read them, are you that lazy?

"Well, now you admit it, all they cared about was themselves. I really don't see how anyone can justify using nuclear bombs on civilians targets."

Yes, your right they did care about saving their own soldiers lives from a war that had already caused 10 of thousands of casualties and a war which was directly caused by Japaneese military agression. if they wouldnt have "cared about themselves" like you said thousands more soldiers could have died all to fit some humanitarian ideals. No military leaders owuld sacrifice his own soldiers to save the enemies lives, that is just not realistic. You also really think that if Japan had a nuclear weapon, which they were close to producing, that they would have hesitated to use it on San Francisco or another civilian target? no.

"Yet you're reluctant to even fucking post them."

What do you think ive been doing for the last 5 pages? Do I come in every page or so and say "Scottish you are so stupid I cant even argue with you"? no I dont.

[Goatse]

Sometimes government intervention is neccesary to provide and secure freedom to the people. Nearly every event I previously listed involved US government intervention. If the US had just left S.Korea they would have probably been taken over by the North, if they had left Japan it could have been retaken over by pro-Hirohito types, etc.

Well it's quite obvious I was being sarcastic, towards the fact that you say America is the champion of freedom and liberty.

But I guess that's this point dropped now.


Well these polls say different: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/iraq.poll/ http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm also the fact that Bush was elected by a majority pretty much proves that atleast half of the country support him.


Monday, October 7, 2002

The first one is quite a few years old.




.
Made a
Mistake Did Not Make
a Mistake Unsure
% % %
1/6-8/06 50 47 3

Uhhh... so less than half supports it.


No, that was not the point, the point was that you brang up those original 14 points and I was trying to show that a similar guideline can be created to fit any political ideology, so I gave you a guideline which showed 14 points of what the Anti-America left is, which is basically just anothr way of saying Communism. Its like saying right wing totalinarianism, what would you think that was? Fascism. besdies if you already admitted America is not fascist it dosnt matter if I lose in providing a 14 points of Communism or not you still lose the original debate which was that America was Fascist.

K, point dropped.


When did I ever say I supported it? I support not killing our soldiers, if thats what you mean. Or if someone makes a ridiculous claim invloving Iraq than I will prove them wrong, but that dosnt mean I support the war just because I dont hop on the trendy Communist bandwagon which involves calling all soldiers imperialist murderers and wishing the theocratic insurgents to win.

Sorry, I meant to type "What do you support?"


No, actually if you read the paragraph before that I was referring to the fact that those people were hypocrites, not that America was the champions of freedom and liberty. Read it again.

But it still implies the USA is the champion of freedom and liberty.


It may have been political, but a large reason of why the civil war was fought was to free the slaves. A large reason the USSR fought World War II was not to liberate the concentration camps, so you cant compare the two.

True, I guess.



How did you nullify any of these?

List ANY that you still believe in and I will show you again.


we've already been over this, economically wise you are right but not freedom wise. There were also no gulags or mass execuutions during the Tsars reign.

No amount of political freedom will feed the hungry masses.

Anyway, I believe people were still sent to Siberia in the Tsarist times.


So your saying Stalin and his administration actually read that book? highly doubtable. That webpage also says "The German invasion therefore caught the Soviet military and leadership largely by surprise." So obviously they couldnt have known it was coming.

So they're not going to read the book by a demented racist dictator wrote, when the said dictator is invading all surrounding countries and is at your door?

Of course they knew it was coming. It was just a matter of time.



You can believe that if you want.

And you can believe that America is the champion of freedom and liberty; you're still wrong.


Because the war was essentially a stalemate and alot more Americans, Chineese, and Koreans would have died if the Americans would have pursued that goal.

So now you're saying America was concerned about loss of human life now?



Dont try and educate me on what Communism is, im quite familiar with Communist ideology. Since you refused to answer the last question lets just say hypothetically that you were apart of a adviosry group in the new Communist world and there was one Capitalist country left would you cooperate with it?

There's no way one of those would exist.

If the whole world bar one country was living in freedom and luxury, there's no way the citizens of that country would still stick by their country.


So mass murder is neccesary to convert to Socialism? Oh but I guess the workers are the enemies of the Communist state, because that was who Stalin murdered wasnt it?

I'm not trying to justify ALL of the murders. Some were justified, though. I admit, Stalin was a fucking dick.

However, America kills so many people regularly, I don't see how you can consider them ethically superior.



Just go to page 7 and read them, are you that lazy?

LMAO!

By calling me lazy for not doing it, you're calling yourself lazy for not doing it.

And you just avoided it again. Just fucking do it.


Yes, your right they did care about saving their own soldiers lives from a war that had already caused 10 of thousands of casualties and a war which was directly caused by Japaneese military agression. if they wouldnt have "cared about themselves" like you said thousands more soldiers could have died all to fit some humanitarian ideals. No military leaders owuld sacrifice his own soldiers to save the enemies lives, that is just not realistic. You also really think that if Japan had a nuclear weapon, which they were close to producing, that they would have hesitated to use it on San Francisco or another civilian target? no.

Japan was? That's news to me.

Anyway, Japan was going down anyway. America could have avoided doing it. How would they have been saving their enemys' lives, anyway? CIVILIANS ARE NOT ENEMIES. I guess that doesn't apply to America.



What do you think ive been doing for the last 5 pages? Do I come in every page or so and say "Scottish you are so stupid I cant even argue with you"? no I dont.

Well, you never seem to actually post your arguments, just say you've made them and leave it at that. The last 5 pages have been made up of that, mainly.

[October 1917]

"Uhhh... so less than half supports it."

Thats still far from 1/3 and not anywhere near enough to actually change policy in Iraq.

"Sorry, I meant to type "What do you support?""

Im not pro or anti Iraq, and honestly im geting tired of that being the only subject that seems to be on the mind of the American public, when there are more important issues at hand. However, no matter if I agree with the government or not I will continue to support the soldiers unless they intentionally start murdering people like many of many of you claim they do already.

"But it still implies the USA is the champion of freedom and liberty."

No, it dosnt I said they were hypocrites if THEY call themselves champions of freedom and liberty and are against the US Army and its history.

"List ANY that you still believe in and I will show you again."

What about all of them: American Revolution, Civil War, Spanish American War, World War II(both European and Pacific), Korea, Gulf War, etc.

"No amount of political freedom will feed the hungry masses. Anyway, I believe people were still sent to Siberia in the Tsarist times."

Although there economy is worse they are not exactly in the streets starving in Russsia right now, what would you rather have a worse economy with more freedoms or a better economy with no freedoms? And you are partially correct about Siberia, Lenin himself was sent to Siberia, but contrary to popular belief he was treated rather well. Those camps were in no comparison to the mass death camps known as the gulags which were set up by Stalin.

"So they're not going to read the book by a demented racist dictator wrote, when the said dictator is invading all surrounding countries and is at your door?"

Wikipedia says this: "Some historians have speculated that a wider reading prior to Hitler's rise to power (or at least prior to the outbreak of World War II) might have alerted the world to the dangers Hitler would pose to peace in Europe and to the Holocaust that he would pursue." So it is highly doubtable that Stalin, who didnt read much, actually read this book, and even if he did who knows if he actually took it seriously. Also consdiering that the Russians were so caught off guard by the German invasion how could they have known? would they not have formed a defense if they knew invasion was inevitable?

"And you can believe that America is the champion of freedom and liberty"

Yes, I do believe the American Army is more of a champion of freedom and liberty than the posters on this board and more so than what most Socialists have done thorughout history.

"So now you're saying America was concerned about loss of human life now?"
When did I ever say they werent?

"There's no way one of those would exist."

WILL YOU JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!! its a hypothetical question.

"However, America kills so many people regularly, I don't see how you can consider them ethically superior."

I never said they are ethically superior, I believe the original arguement was that America has created deaths parrelel to that of Stalin, which is untrue. Also who do they kill regulary because I have no idea who these people are.

"And you just avoided it again. Just fucking do it."

Im talking about the arguments we had over the American Revolution, Civil War, Spanish American War, WW II, etc Im not going to sit here and type up all of the quotes we both made on the subject this would take and hour and if you want the informmation so bad its easier for you to just scroll up a litlle and read them.

"Japan was? That's news to me"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

"Anyway, Japan was going down anyway. America could have avoided doing it. How would they have been saving their enemys' lives, anyway? CIVILIANS ARE NOT ENEMIES. I guess that doesn't apply to America."

No, they werent ready to "go down" yet and were already prepared for an invasion of the Japaneese mainland which would have caused thousands of American lives. In miltary terms the Japaneese were the enemy and the fact is that they wouldnt be willing to invade the Japaneese mainland and lose American lives to save japaneese lives who would most likely fight them on the mainland, the Japaneese were not all innocent no matter if they were civilians or not.

"Well, you never seem to actually post your arguments, just say you've made them and leave it at that. The last 5 pages have been made up of that, mainly."

What do you think im doing this whole post? Those arguements do exist its not my fault your to lazy to scroll up and read them but rather expect me to spend an hour typing all of the quotes from those arguements.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 16 2006, 05:27 AM
"Uhhh... so less than half supports it."

Thats still far from 1/3 and not anywhere near enough to actually change policy in Iraq.

"Sorry, I meant to type "What do you support?""

Im not pro or anti Iraq, and honestly im geting tired of that being the only subject that seems to be on the mind of the American public, when there are more important issues at hand. However, no matter if I agree with the government or not I will continue to support the soldiers unless they intentionally start murdering people like many of many of you claim they do already.

"But it still implies the USA is the champion of freedom and liberty."

No, it dosnt I said they were hypocrites if THEY call themselves champions of freedom and liberty and are against the US Army and its history.

"List ANY that you still believe in and I will show you again."

What about all of them: American Revolution, Civil War, Spanish American War, World War II(both European and Pacific), Korea, Gulf War, etc.

"No amount of political freedom will feed the hungry masses. Anyway, I believe people were still sent to Siberia in the Tsarist times."

Although there economy is worse they are not exactly in the streets starving in Russsia right now, what would you rather have a worse economy with more freedoms or a better economy with no freedoms? And you are partially correct about Siberia, Lenin himself was sent to Siberia, but contrary to popular belief he was treated rather well. Those camps were in no comparison to the mass death camps known as the gulags which were set up by Stalin.

"So they're not going to read the book by a demented racist dictator wrote, when the said dictator is invading all surrounding countries and is at your door?"

Wikipedia says this: "Some historians have speculated that a wider reading prior to Hitler's rise to power (or at least prior to the outbreak of World War II) might have alerted the world to the dangers Hitler would pose to peace in Europe and to the Holocaust that he would pursue." So it is highly doubtable that Stalin, who didnt read much, actually read this book, and even if he did who knows if he actually took it seriously. Also consdiering that the Russians were so caught off guard by the German invasion how could they have known? would they not have formed a defense if they knew invasion was inevitable?

"And you can believe that America is the champion of freedom and liberty"

Yes, I do believe the American Army is more of a champion of freedom and liberty than the posters on this board and more so than what most Socialists have done thorughout history.

"So now you're saying America was concerned about loss of human life now?"
When did I ever say they werent?

"There's no way one of those would exist."

WILL YOU JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!! its a hypothetical question.

"However, America kills so many people regularly, I don't see how you can consider them ethically superior."

I never said they are ethically superior, I believe the original arguement was that America has created deaths parrelel to that of Stalin, which is untrue. Also who do they kill regulary because I have no idea who these people are.

"And you just avoided it again. Just fucking do it."

Im talking about the arguments we had over the American Revolution, Civil War, Spanish American War, WW II, etc Im not going to sit here and type up all of the quotes we both made on the subject this would take and hour and if you want the informmation so bad its easier for you to just scroll up a litlle and read them.

"Japan was? That's news to me"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

"Anyway, Japan was going down anyway. America could have avoided doing it. How would they have been saving their enemys' lives, anyway? CIVILIANS ARE NOT ENEMIES. I guess that doesn't apply to America."

No, they werent ready to "go down" yet and were already prepared for an invasion of the Japaneese mainland which would have caused thousands of American lives. In miltary terms the Japaneese were the enemy and the fact is that they wouldnt be willing to invade the Japaneese mainland and lose American lives to save japaneese lives who would most likely fight them on the mainland, the Japaneese were not all innocent no matter if they were civilians or not.

"Well, you never seem to actually post your arguments, just say you've made them and leave it at that. The last 5 pages have been made up of that, mainly."

What do you think im doing this whole post? Those arguements do exist its not my fault your to lazy to scroll up and read them but rather expect me to spend an hour typing all of the quotes from those arguements.
You know i was pleased that you tried but you couldnt help yourself could you? you definitely should re-read your essays...oops, i mean messages! coz they do contain some repetition. i'll come back in a week so you have time to reply, HAVE A NICE DAY! :) (i know i say it all the time but its a personal trademark!) :D

[Goatse]

Thats still far from 1/3 and not anywhere near enough to actually change policy in Iraq.

I suppose they weren't really bothered about a majority in the elections either... "nearly half" supporting a candidate would do.


Im not pro or anti Iraq, and honestly im geting tired of that being the only subject that seems to be on the mind of the American public, when there are more important issues at hand. However, no matter if I agree with the government or not I will continue to support the soldiers unless they intentionally start murdering people like many of many of you claim they do already.

What the fuck? So you have no stance on Iraq?



No, it dosnt I said they were hypocrites if THEY call themselves champions of freedom and liberty and are against the US Army and its history.

Or perhaps they're against America imperialism, and not the history of the US army?


American Revolution

Well, I'll use the October Revolution as an example... it was great, but it lead to shit.


Civil War

What's so great about it? Freeing the slaves was only a byproduct.


Spanish American War

That's where they freed Cuba right? I don't know the exact details of that one, but checking Wikipedia...


The Spanish-American War took place in 1898, and resulted in the United States of America gaining control over the former colonies of Spain in the Caribbean and Pacific.

And they gave Cuba its freedom, but...


Result: Treaty of Paris: Cuba gains its independence and Spain cedes the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico to the United States for the sum of $20 million.

Sounds like another war of capitalist superpowers which the poor are made to fight.


World War II(both European and Pacific)

They were attacked by Japan, it wasn't an act of mercy. And they replied to this by dropping nuclear bombs. It doesn't seem that saving anyone but themselves was the goal at hand.


Korea,

Which they fucked up.


Gulf War

They also sold Iraq the weapons which lead to the Gulf War...


etc.


There's more?


Although there economy is worse they are not exactly in the streets starving in Russsia right now

Yes they are.

Except for the bourgeoisie, I guess.


hat would you rather have a worse economy with more freedoms or a better economy with no freedoms?

I think if you were starving like they were beforehand, you'd be willing to give up a few freedoms in return for food. My quote of Lenin still applies.


And you are partially correct about Siberia, Lenin himself was sent to Siberia, but contrary to popular belief he was treated rather well. Those camps were in no comparison to the mass death camps known as the gulags which were set up by Stalin.

It still happened, though, something which you just denied.


Wikipedia says this: "Some historians have speculated that a wider reading prior to Hitler's rise to power (or at least prior to the outbreak of World War II) might have alerted the world to the dangers Hitler would pose to peace in Europe and to the Holocaust that he would pursue." So it is highly doubtable that Stalin, who didnt read much, actually read this book, and even if he did who knows if he actually took it seriously.

He has quite a few followers to read for him. And if the fastest moving army in the world which was on your doorstep was led by the author, I think you'd take it seriously.


Also consdiering that the Russians were so caught off guard by the German invasion how could they have known? would they not have formed a defense if they knew invasion was inevitable?

Yeah, they just invaded Finland for kicks.


Yes, I do believe the American Army is more of a champion of freedom and liberty than the posters on this board and more so than what most Socialists have done thorughout history.

Why?


When did I ever say they werent?

When you said Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.



WILL YOU JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!! its a hypothetical question.

It's irrelevant.



I never said they are ethically superior, I believe the original arguement was that America has created deaths parrelel to that of Stalin, which is untrue. Also who do they kill regulary because I have no idea who these people are.

People in underdeveloped countries die from the starvation caused by the USA's exploitation.


Im talking about the arguments we had over the American Revolution, Civil War, Spanish American War, WW II, etc Im not going to sit here and type up all of the quotes we both made on the subject this would take and hour and if you want the informmation so bad its easier for you to just scroll up a litlle and read them.

You want me to read the information so bad, actually.

Just do it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program

Heh, thanks, I hadn't heard of that. Although, from briefly reading the article, it seems that Japan was doing a pretty shit job.


No, they werent ready to "go down" yet and were already prepared for an invasion of the Japaneese mainland which would have caused thousands of American lives.

This suggests that America was only concerned about itself, further proving my point that America was not in the war to save everyone, but because it had to.


In miltary terms the Japaneese were the enemy and the fact is that they wouldnt be willing to invade the Japaneese mainland and lose American lives to save japaneese lives who would most likely fight them on the mainland

I doubt it, they'd mostly surrender. After being firebombed and starved, I doubt they'd be up for a fight.


the Japaneese were not all innocent no matter if they were civilians or not.

So they're all enemies, and killing them all would be justified?


What do you think im doing this whole post? Those arguements do exist its not my fault your to lazy to scroll up and read them but rather expect me to spend an hour typing all of the quotes from those arguements.

It's not your fault. You could easily do it though. (And you wouldn't be typing it, just copying and pasting. :huh: )

[October 1917]

"I suppose they weren't really bothered about a majority in the elections either... "nearly half" supporting a candidate would do."

I dont know what your trying to say but George Bush did win by a majority vote.

"What the fuck? So you have no stance on Iraq?"

I would say im against us being there but its not because of the imperialism we supposedly spread.

"Or perhaps they're against America imperialism, and not the history of the US army?"

Well judging by the remarks people have made on this thread I dont think thats the case. When people are wishing death upon American soldiers its kind of hard to believe that they are against imperialism and not the Army.

"Well, I'll use the October Revolution as an example... it was great, but it lead to shit."

The American Revolution actually succeded in its original goal which was to to free itself from Britain and establish a Republic, it did these things. The October Revolution failed in its goal of establishing a Socialist society. Among those things the American Revolution was a major step forward in human rights and sparked the French Revolution which officially ended the Monarchy there. You should actually read about the American Revolution and its leading figures, alot of them had goals common to the Socialist movement of today like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin.

"What's so great about it? Freeing the slaves was only a byproduct."

Well I guess 350,000 American soldiers dying so that the slaves could be free wasnt such a great deal.

"Sounds like another war of capitalist superpowers which the poor are made to fight."

Cuba recieved its independence and these countries were ceded to America because Spain lost the war. The countries were far better off under American control than Spanish anyway who were often opressive.

"They were attacked by Japan, it wasn't an act of mercy. And they replied to this by dropping nuclear bombs. It doesn't seem that saving anyone but themselves was the goal at hand."

It dosnt matter how they entered the war but you cant ignore the fact that they greatly helped in the liberation of europe and soley liberated Asia from Japaneese imperialist control. Not only that but even if they werent officially in the war, they still sent massive ammounts of supplies to both Russia and Britain, if they had not Russia would have not been able to hold on as long as it did and Britain would have starved and most likely lost the Battle of Britain. How can you say they werent saving anyone but themselves? if this was the case why did they even fight in Europe? why didnt they just defeat the Japaneese first before helping in Europe?

"Which they fucked up."

How?

"They also sold Iraq the weapons which lead to the Gulf War..."

It dosnt matter if they did or not but they stepped in and basically saved Kuwait from Iraqi invasion which if succeeded Saddam would have probably masscred the Kuwaitis. Not only that but im not talking abou the American goernment here im talking about the US Army.

"Yes they are."

No they are not, where is the proof of this.

"I think if you were starving like they were beforehand, you'd be willing to give up a few freedoms in return for food."

So youd be willing to go to the gulag for food, or fear that your neighbor is going to turn you into the Cheka because he wants food aswell? these werent a "few" freedoms you lost, alot of the time it meant your life.

"It still happened, though, something which you just denied."

How did I deny it I just said in the last post that even Lenin was in one. What I was denying is the fact that you are comparing these camps with the mass death camps constructed by Stalin, this is absolutely ridiculous.

"He has quite a few followers to read for him. And if the fastest moving army in the world which was on your doorstep was led by the author, I think you'd take it seriously."

So if he read it according to you, why did he even make the peace pact in 1939? If he or his administration read it, which I doubt, why was he so unprepared for it?
"Yeah, they just invaded Finland for kicks."

What are you talking about, Finland was invaded for territory simple as that.

"Why?"

Well you show me any of these board members who has actually freed the opressed like the US Army and ill reconsider. Oh wait they are to keen on just reading about freeing these people and *****ing about their opression to actually do anything about it.

"When you said Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified"

It was justified, and they did care about life except this time it was there own life.

"It's irrelevant."

No, its not it shows how America cant be blamed for the embargo on Cuba.

"People in underdeveloped countries die from the starvation caused by the USA's exploitation."

What countries are these?

"Just do it."

Since we already started arguing about them again there is no point now.

"This suggests that America was only concerned about itself, further proving my point that America was not in the war to save everyone, but because it had to."

So they are only concerned about themselves because they dont want thier own soldiers to be massacred on the Japaneese mainland? are you fucking kidding?

"I doubt it, they'd mostly surrender. After being firebombed and starved, I doubt they'd be up for a fight."

You obviously dont know much about the Japaneese mentality. If they were so willing to surrender why did it take two Atomic bombs to do so? also thier use of Kamikaze pilots in mass numbers shows that they were not willing to surrender and would have employed any means of resistance if America actually invaded the mainland.

"So they're all enemies, and killing them all would be justified?"

I never said they were all enemies or that killing them all would be justified I was just trying to say that not all Japaneese civilians were innocent, and that the Atomic bombs were neccesary.

[Goatse]

I dont know what your trying to say but George Bush did win by a majority vote.

Both times? :huh:



I would say im against us being there but its not because of the imperialism we supposedly spread.

Then why?


Well judging by the remarks people have made on this thread I dont think thats the case. When people are wishing death upon American soldiers its kind of hard to believe that they are against imperialism and not the Army.

Well that's not me. End of story.


The American Revolution actually succeded in its original goal which was to to free itself from Britain and establish a Republic, it did these things. The October Revolution failed in its goal of establishing a Socialist society. Among those things the American Revolution was a major step forward in human rights and sparked the French Revolution which officially ended the Monarchy there. You should actually read about the American Revolution and its leading figures, alot of them had goals common to the Socialist movement of today like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin.

But again they were acting in self interest. It was a great deed but you can't say they're spreading love and joy to everyone else out of goodwill.



Well I guess 350,000 American soldiers dying so that the slaves could be free wasnt such a great deal.

So what?

120,000 Japanese people died during the nuclear bombings, along with many thousands afterwards. INNOCENT CIVILIANS. They were not sign up, nor were they recruited. They were not prepared to die, they had not asked to fight and die for a cause.


Cuba recieved its independence and these countries were ceded to America because Spain lost the war. The countries were far better off under American control than Spanish anyway who were often opressive.

So? It seems more of an example of self interest.


It dosnt matter how they entered the war but you cant ignore the fact that they greatly helped in the liberation of europe and soley liberated Asia from Japaneese imperialist control. Not only that but even if they werent officially in the war, they still sent massive ammounts of supplies to both Russia and Britain, if they had not Russia would have not been able to hold on as long as it did and Britain would have starved and most likely lost the Battle of Britain. How can you say they werent saving anyone but themselves? if this was the case why did they even fight in Europe? why didnt they just defeat the Japaneese first before helping in Europe?

Because Hitler declared war on them.


How?

Because North Korea was not liberated from the evil communists!


It dosnt matter if they did or not but they stepped in and basically saved Kuwait from Iraqi invasion which if succeeded Saddam would have probably masscred the Kuwaitis. Not only that but im not talking abou the American goernment here im talking about the US Army.

The US army fought the war. The US government started it.

How can you say it doesn't matter if they caused it, all that matters is that they finished it? It was needless.



No they are not, where is the proof of this.

In Russia.


So youd be willing to go to the gulag for food, or fear that your neighbor is going to turn you into the Cheka because he wants food aswell? these werent a "few" freedoms you lost, alot of the time it meant your life.

And of course this happened to every single Russian.

They had to do this in order to establish a proper economy. If people hadn't resisted, they'd have got to a stage where civil liberties could be increased.



How did I deny it I just said in the last post that even Lenin was in one. What I was denying is the fact that you are comparing these camps with the mass death camps constructed by Stalin, this is absolutely ridiculous.

Wait, so this was sarcasm? :huh:


Before the revolution? wow I didnt know the Tsar put people in Gulags.


So if he read it according to you, why did he even make the peace pact in 1939? If he or his administration read it, which I doubt, why was he so unprepared for it?

They signed the pact because they had to postpone the war to a stage where they could increase their army size.



What are you talking about, Finland was invaded for territory simple as that.

Indeed, so there would be more territory for Hitler to cross before reaching Moscow.



Well you show me any of these board members who has actually freed the opressed like the US Army and ill reconsider. Oh wait they are to keen on just reading about freeing these people and *****ing about their opression to actually do anything about it.

The USA has done a lot more bad for the world than it has done good.



It was justified, and they did care about life except this time it was there own life.

It was their own lives ALL the time.

For fuck sake, 95% of the people in the nuclear bombings were civilians. HOW WAS THIS A MOVE FOR FREEDOM?



No, its not it shows how America cant be blamed for the embargo on Cuba.

Liar.



What countries are these?

Any countries which the jaws of America imperialism have ensnared.


So they are only concerned about themselves because they dont want thier own soldiers to be massacred on the Japaneese mainland? are you fucking kidding?

They were only concerned about themselves full stop.


You obviously dont know much about the Japaneese mentality. If they were so willing to surrender why did it take two Atomic bombs to do so? also thier use of Kamikaze pilots in mass numbers shows that they were not willing to surrender and would have employed any means of resistance if America actually invaded the mainland.


You're mixing up the government with the civilians. Of course the military would fight on, but the civilians were innocent.


I never said they were all enemies or that killing them all would be justified I was just trying to say that not all Japaneese civilians were innocent, and that the Atomic bombs were neccesary.

Killing more than one hundred thousand civilians was necessary?

It was a show of power:

The USA: Don't fuck with us.

[October 1917]

"Both times?"

what are you talking about? if you mean the first election than it wouldnt matter anyways since that was before 9/11 and would be irrevelent to the arguement.

"Then why?"

I personally dont think we should involve ourselves in any foriegn affairs unless we are attacked directly.

"Well that's not me. End of story"

Well you said: "Or perhaps they're against America imperialism, and not the history of the US army?" So by you saying they're I was assuming you meant the rest of the people on this board.

"But again they were acting in self interest. It was a great deed but you can't say they're spreading love and joy to everyone else out of goodwill."

Of course they were fighting in thier own self interest it was a war for thier independence who else would they be fighitng for? I never said they were spreading love or joy to anyone, but the ideals of the revolution did spread to other countries such as France for example.

"So what?"

Are you kidding? do you have any idea how many people 350,000 is? No other country has lost this many people so that slaves could be free, but we have already gone over this. Also why are you bringing up Japan again that has nothing to do with the civil war. Is that like your only example to show how America is the big bad imperialist monster?

"So? It seems more of an example of self interest."

You can look at it that way if you want and even if you do if it wasnt for America acting in thier own self interest Cuba could still be under Spanish rule today.

"Because Hitler declared war on them."

That dosnt mean anything its not like Hitler posed an actual threat to America, its not like his forces could actually reach America, so if they chose to America could have simply just ignored the European theatre and concentrated all of thier forces on Japan, which they did not.

"Because North Korea was not liberated from the evil communists!"

We have already been over this, if they would have chosen that route tens of thousands more would have died in that war and that war might have went on for years. Not only that but it would mean an even larger war with China if they would have done that.

"How can you say it doesn't matter if they caused it, all that matters is that they finished it? It was needless."

They didnt cause it, no American speciffically told Saddam to invade Kuwait, he did it out of his own choice. You people blame America for everything.

"In Russia."

Wow I guess that really proves your point.

"And of course this happened to every single Russian."

It happened to 20 million of them and possibly more. Most Russians living in the city lived in fear and the peasants lived even worse.

"They had to do this in order to establish a proper economy. If people hadn't resisted, they'd have got to a stage where civil liberties could be increased."

So 20 million peopel had to die for them to achieve economic prosperity? also who resisted? if you were sent to the gulags wouldnt you resist? this could be the most ludacris thing you have said yet.

"Wait, so this was sarcasm?"

Yes, the Tsar did not put peoplein gulags he put people in camps there is a big difference between these camps and the ones Stalin set up. Kind of like the difference between the internment camps and concentration camps.

"They signed the pact because they had to postpone the war to a stage where they could increase their army size."

Yet somehow the Germans were able to get to the gates of Moscow in record time?

"Indeed, so there would be more territory for Hitler to cross before reaching Moscow."

What are you talking about the majoirty of his forces crosses through mainland Europe. Heres a map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eastern..._to_1941-12.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-12.png)

"The USA has done a lot more bad for the world than it has done good."

Thats just your opinion and I disagree with it.

"For fuck sake, 95% of the people in the nuclear bombings were civilians. HOW WAS THIS A MOVE FOR FREEDOM?"

It was a move for freedom because the war, which had been going on for 6 years, could finally come to an end. If there was another option im sure they would have done it but the dropping of the bombs were neccesary to save American lives and end the war as soon as possible.

"Liar."

Than answer the question.

"Any countries which the jaws of America imperialism have ensnared."

Yea, I here alot of people say this but no one mentions any specific countries.

"They were only concerned about themselves full stop."

They wanted to end the war so that American lives would be saved and so they wouldnt have to invade the Japaneese mainland which would have virtually destroyed the Japaneese island and would have probably led to the deaths of even more Japaneese than in the atomic bombings.

"You're mixing up the government with the civilians. Of course the military would fight on, but the civilians were innocent."

The military is made up of civilians, and how do you know the Japaneese government would not have forced civilians and children to resist the American forces? Hitler did this in the Battle of Berlin.

"Killing more than one hundred thousand civilians was necessary?"

Yes, it was to end the war. But if your so brilliant on military matters what do you think America should have doen to end the war and minimize American casualties?

[Vladislav]

October 1917, may I ask what you have against my homeland, Russia? :angry:

In the Soviet times there was hardly any crime and people were happy. Now, under capitalistic rule, you have to bribe yourself in to University to get an education. If you don't, then you HAVE to join the army, it's compulsory. People have turned to crime and alcohol. My country is slowly dying under capitalism, yet you dare to degrade the Soviet Union times. I had to immigrate with my family so I wouldn't be taken into the army. My cousin had to work for 2 years to pay for his University entrance. My other cousin couldn't afford it so he joined the army and later was shot dead in combat.

Under capitalistic rule Russia is nothing now. Is this what the United States wanted? They want the world to see that they are the "Biggest world power," and so that no one else will "Fuck with them." I do not understand your views and I will always be angry at the United States government for letting the people of my homeland die slow and miserable deaths in poverty.

Also. During World War 2 the United States Army invaded on D-Day in fear that the U.S.S.R will spread communism over Europe. They did not invade due to fear of defeat by the Nazis.

My Grandparents fought in WWII and they know what happened. The Red Army sacrificed thousands of men and women to free Europe from Fascism. The United States Army, however, dropped nuclear bombs over Japan just beacuase they knew they were fighting a losing battle. What if Germany did the same to America?


I do not hate Americans. I just despise your government, which is degrading your country.

I would write more, but I can't be bothered. Did you hear what some U.S army soldiers did during Vietnam?If you haven't then tell me and I will write a full acount.


ScottishPinko and others, I agree with your views and well done on arguing so well, so long with this fool.

I apologise for my poor grammer.

American communists unite!

[October 1917]

Vladislav I have nothing against your country, however I do have something against Stalin's rule which killed millions of people, and this is what we are discussing. I know as well as you do that the economy was probably better under Soviet rule, but thier are more social freedoms under the current government. If I remember correctly though military servive was mandatory under Soviet rule as well, not just in that country today, and mandatory military service in present in several other countries.

Where are you getting the idea that somehow the US is responsibe for the collapse of the Soviet Union? It was the USSR that destroyed the USSR. You also seem to think that the Soviet Union was actually a Communist country, the USSR wasnt even a Socialist country, it was far from it. The USSR had a state Capitalist economy. The United States however is not responsible for "letting the people of my homeland die slow and miserable deaths in poverty." That was the fault of the Soviet government.

The United States and Britiain did not launch D-Day to stop the spread of Communism, I dont know where you got that idea. A large part of why that operation was launched was because Stalin was constantly asking the US and Britain to open a second front so that pressure would be taken off of the Red Army in the east. Your right though the USSR did sacrifice millions of men to free Europe from fascism and I commend them for that. The US did not drop bombs on Japan because they were losing the battle, the war with Japan was virtually won by that time, they only dropped them so that they wouldnt have to invade the mainland and drag the war on even longer. I know what alot of soldiers did in Vietnam was wrong and that whole war was wrong, but alot of Soviet soldiers aswell have done things they shouldnt have and have invaded countries they shouldnt have such as Afghanistan for example.

[Vladislav]

[/QUOTE]You also seem to think that the Soviet Union was actually a Communist country, the USSR wasnt even a Socialist country, it was far from it. The USSR had a state Capitalist economy. The United States however is not responsible for "letting the people of my homeland die slow and miserable deaths in poverty." That was the fault of the Soviet government.



Yes I admit I was wrong there. I got carried away. And I do not support what Communist leaders around the world have done. I especially despise Stalin. But I disagree with you about D-Day. A lot of the Documentaries and sources have been modified to say the wrong thing. There is however a very good set of documentaries called - Why We Fight, directed by Frank Cappa. They were filmed during World War 2, before America and the Soviet Union had anything against each other, and they tell the complete truth. It is very interesting. I suggest you have a look at these set of documentaries.

I disagree with the Afghanistan war,but remember that the United States sent weapons to Afghanistan so they could fight U.S.S.R. These same weapons are being used for terrorist attacks. Thanks a lot United States Government.

Also remember Somalia. What happened there? The U.S army went in, got their asses kicked and left. Nothing has changed there.

...but alot of Soviet soldiers aswell have done things they shouldnt have and have invaded countries they shouldnt have such as Afghanistan for example.[QUOTE]

Afganistan is a good example. Do you have any more? And what do you mean by Soviet Soldiers doing things they shouldn't have?

No country has ever been communist, but we will try to make them. But as a person who was born in the U.S.S.R, I must admit that they were happy times, now everything has changed and all the rich people only seem to care about themselves.
I will never see my country as my parents see it, and for that I am sad. I do not want any other kids to grow up seeing what I have. I will always hate the capitalist ideology.

If all the presidents and prime ministers stop sucking George W. Bushs pin dick then we will be better off.

Once again I apologise for poor grammer.

[Vladislav]

"You also seem to think that the Soviet Union was actually a Communist country, the USSR wasnt even a Socialist country, it was far from it. The USSR had a state Capitalist economy. The United States however is not responsible for "letting the people of my homeland die slow and miserable deaths in poverty." That was the fault of the Soviet government." - October 1917


Yes I admit I was wrong there. I got carried away. And I do not support what Communist leaders around the world have done. I especially despise Stalin. But I disagree with you about D-Day. A lot of the Documentaries and sources have been modified to say the wrong thing. There is however a very good set of documentaries called - Why We Fight, directed by Frank Cappa. They were filmed during World War 2, before America and the Soviet Union had anything against each other, and they tell the complete truth. It is very interesting. I suggest you have a look at these set of documentaries.

I disagree with the Afghanistan war,but remember that the United States sent weapons to Afghanistan so they could fight U.S.S.R. These same weapons are being used for terrorist attacks. Thanks a lot United States Government.

Also remember Somalia. What happened there? The U.S army went in, got their asses kicked and left. Nothing has changed there.

"...but alot of Soviet soldiers aswell have done things they shouldnt have and have invaded countries they shouldnt have such as Afghanistan for example." - October 1917

Afganistan is a good example. Do you have any more? And what do you mean by Soviet Soldiers doing things they shouldn't have?

No country has ever been communist, but we will try to make them. But as a person who was born in the U.S.S.R, I must admit that they were happy times, now everything has changed and all the rich people only seem to care about themselves.
I will never see my country as my parents see it, and for that I am sad. I do not want any other kids to grow up seeing what I have. I will always hate the capitalist ideology.

If all the presidents and prime ministers stop sucking George W. Bushs pin dick then we will be better off.

Once again I apologise for poor grammer.

Sorry about last post. I screwed up the quote thingos.

[October 1917]

"I disagree with the Afghanistan war,but remember that the United States sent weapons to Afghanistan so they could fight U.S.S.R. These same weapons are being used for terrorist attacks. Thanks a lot United States Government."

Thats true but also remember that the USSR sent supplies to the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War and to N.Korean forces during the Korean War. Also many USSR weapons are being used by terrorists, where do you think all those AK-47's and RPG's come from?

"Also remember Somalia. What happened there? The U.S army went in, got their asses kicked and left. Nothing has changed there."

If I remember Somalia correctly they were trying to provide aid to the war torn Somalians, it was the idea of warlords like Aidid that roused the people against American forces. Nothing has changed because the Somalians didnt want our help and they showed this during the Mogadishu attack. Why would we provide aid to a country that killed 18 of our soldiers?

"Afganistan is a good example. Do you have any more? And what do you mean by Soviet Soldiers doing things they shouldn't have?"

Do you have any examples besides Vietnam? And I mean that Soviet soldiers have commited acts similar to those commited by American soldiers in Vietnam, alot of these were during the Afghan war and also some during World War II, like the Katyn Massacre.

"But as a person who was born in the U.S.S.R, I must admit that they were happy times, now everything has changed and all the rich people only seem to care about themselves."

But you have to remember that those were "happy times" because millions of workers died under the command of Stalin to industrialize the economy. I realize that the rich people only care about themselves but its the same with rich people everywhere in every Capitalist society, including the State Capitalist society of the USSR.

[Goatse]

what are you talking about? if you mean the first election than it wouldnt matter anyways since that was before 9/11 and would be irrevelent to the arguement.

Heh.

It's not as if Kerry would have pulled the US troops out of Iraq by now if he'd been elected anyway.



I personally dont think we should involve ourselves in any foriegn affairs unless we are attacked directly.


Even though you use Iraq, Korea and Vietnam as examples of how great America is?


Well you said: "Or perhaps they're against America imperialism, and not the history of the US army?" So by you saying they're I was assuming you meant the rest of the people on this board.

Well, it's for them to say what they think.

I am against US Imperialism, and the US government and its branches. Just the soldiers, though, I do not think should all be shot or anything.

Point dropped.

(I realise I'm dropping a lot of points, but I want to drop the irrelevant ones so it doesn't take ages to reply.)


Of course they were fighting in thier own self interest it was a war for thier independence who else would they be fighitng for? I never said they were spreading love or joy to anyone, but the ideals of the revolution did spread to other countries such as France for example.

Well this point is also irrelevant. It does not make them champions of freedom or liberty at all.


Are you kidding? do you have any idea how many people 350,000 is? No other country has lost this many people so that slaves could be free, but we have already gone over this. Also why are you bringing up Japan again that has nothing to do with the civil war. Is that like your only example to show how America is the big bad imperialist monster?

Well not many other countries had so many slaves to set free either...


You can look at it that way if you want and even if you do if it wasnt for America acting in thier own self interest Cuba could still be under Spanish rule today.

I'm glad you think I'm entitled to my opinion, then.


That dosnt mean anything its not like Hitler posed an actual threat to America, its not like his forces could actually reach America, so if they chose to America could have simply just ignored the European theatre and concentrated all of thier forces on Japan, which they did not.

Fact: By 1946, if not for the Allies raiding their nuclear research facilities, Hitler would not only have a had nuclear bomb, but also a bomber capable of reaching America and flying back to Europe in one go.


We have already been over this, if they would have chosen that route tens of thousands more would have died in that war and that war might have went on for years. Not only that but it would mean an even larger war with China if they would have done that.

Then why did they fight in the first place?


They didnt cause it, no American speciffically told Saddam to invade Kuwait, he did it out of his own choice. You people blame America for everything.

No, I blame them for selling chemical weapons to insane dictators.



Wow I guess that really proves your point.

Indeed.

You suck at sarcasm, by the way.



It happened to 20 million of them and possibly more. Most Russians living in the city lived in fear and the peasants lived even worse.

I will pose a question to Comrade Vladislav here: Judging by what you have learnt from your parents and grandparents, or just general knowledge in Russia, which was the worst and which was the best? Tsarist Russia, Soviet Russia, or Modern Russia?


So 20 million peopel had to die for them to achieve economic prosperity? also who resisted? if you were sent to the gulags wouldnt you resist? this could be the most ludacris thing you have said yet.

No, civil liberties had to be restricted to achieve economic prosperity.

And I meant people resisted the changes, not being sent to the Gulags.

Use your fucking common sense.


Yes, the Tsar did not put peoplein gulags he put people in camps there is a big difference between these camps and the ones Stalin set up. Kind of like the difference between the internment camps and concentration camps.

But you denied it happened at all.



Yet somehow the Germans were able to get to the gates of Moscow in record time?

Yep.



What are you talking about the majoirty of his forces crosses through mainland Europe. Heres a map:

He probably did that BECAUSE Finland had been captured. I'm sure beforehand it was a viable route to reach St Petersburg.



Thats just your opinion and I disagree with it.

:rolleyes:


It was a move for freedom because the war, which had been going on for 6 years, could finally come to an end. If there was another option im sure they would have done it but the dropping of the bombs were neccesary to save American lives and end the war as soon as possible.

THEY WERE CIVILIANS.

How can you justify the killing of 100,000 civilians to save a few American soldiers?


100,000. Do you have any idea how many that is? How many innocent lives were just snuffed out?



Than answer the question.

The question is a stupid example. I realise it is hypothetical, but it just wouldn't happen.



Yea, I here alot of people say this but no one mentions any specific countries.

We can name continents. Africa and Asia.


They wanted to end the war so that American lives would be saved and so they wouldnt have to invade the Japaneese mainland which would have virtually destroyed the Japaneese island and would have probably led to the deaths of even more Japaneese than in the atomic bombings.


What the fuck?

How would an invasion directed at the military and government destroy the island more than two atomic bombs would have?


The military is made up of civilians, and how do you know the Japaneese government would not have forced civilians and children to resist the American forces? Hitler did this in the Battle of Berlin.


The civilians would have refused, or given up instantly. They had hardly any food. The government was so weak, how would they enforce it?


Yes, it was to end the war. But if your so brilliant on military matters what do you think America should have doen to end the war and minimize American casualties?

Blockaded Japan until they surrendered. Continually send planes in to bomb specific military and government targets.

Few/no innocent lives lost. Few/no America lives lost. No mutated babies still being born.

And thanks Comrade Vladislav.

[October 1917]

"It's not as if Kerry would have pulled the US troops out of Iraq by now if he'd been elected anyway."

What does John Kerry have to do with anything? I was trying to show how the majoirty of the peopel in this country supported Bush, and therefore the reason nothing is being done.

"Even though you use Iraq, Korea and Vietnam as examples of how great America is?"

No, first of all I never used Vietnam that was a mistake. I use the other two examples to show that American Army has helped other countries in the past and that they dont deserve the slander that they recieve on this forum.

"Well this point is also irrelevant. It does not make them champions of freedom or liberty at all."

How is this irrevelent? your last post on this was irrevelent and made no sense, tryign to say that America was acting in thier own self interest in a war that was for thier own independence? I never said this even made them campions of anything, but it does illustrate how the US Army gave America thier freedom and liberty.

"Well not many other countries had so many slaves to set free either."

Slavery was a big part of the economy back than so many other Europeans countries had slaves aswell as many during ancient times.

"By 1946, if not for the Allies raiding their nuclear research facilities, Hitler would not only have a had nuclear bomb, but also a bomber capable of reaching America and flying back to Europe in one go."

The war was over in 1945 so that made no sense, also that project was far from completed. Not only that but that project was only revealed long after the war was over, so why would it have mattered anyway?

"Then why did they fight in the first place?"

South Korea was directly attacked by the N. Koreans, they had to.

"No, I blame them for selling chemical weapons to insane dictators."

I doubt there is proof of that, but besides that no matter if they sold it to them or not they didnt tell him to use them or to invade Kuwait.

"You suck at sarcasm, by the way."

You suck at proving your point.

"No, civil liberties had to be restricted to achieve economic prosperity."

So 20 million deaths was a restriction of civil liberties? I seriously hope you are kidding. What George Bush is doing today is a restriction on civil liberties but what Stalin did was mass murder.

"And I meant people resisted the changes, not being sent to the Gulags."

How did they resist the change? because they didnt want to starve?

"But you denied it happened at all."

when did I deny it? I admitted the Tsar put people in camps but I never said he put them in gulags. How do you not see the difference between the two?

"He probably did that BECAUSE Finland had been captured. I'm sure beforehand it was a viable route to reach St Petersburg."

There were two immediate goals for the invasion of Russia, those being th ecapture of Moscow and the oil fileds in the Caucases in the south. Finland would have provided no strategic value, considering Moscow was closer by just going east rather than coming from the north.

"How can you justify the killing of 100,000 civilians to save a few American soldiers?"

A few? one estimation put the expected American casualties rate in the hundreds of thousands. Yes, it is justified and its a little thing called military strategy.

"The question is a stupid example. I realise it is hypothetical, but it just wouldn't happen."

Forget it you obviously wont answer a simple question.

"We can name continents. Africa and Asia."

Most of these are corporations, how can you blame the American Army for the corporations there? do they stand guard with machine guns to protect the buisnessmen? did they conquer those countries so that corporations could be there? no.

"How would an invasion directed at the military and government destroy the island more than two atomic bombs would have?"

Massive aerial bombings would have been neccesary to ensure victory on the mainland. These would have virtually wiped out nearly every major city where resistance was found, which probably would have been all of them. If ground fighting actually commenced in cities like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Tokyo, losses would have been stagering for both sides and would have probably led to the death of even more Japaneese than that caused by the Atomic bombs.

"The civilians would have refused, or given up instantly."

The Japaneese are a very patriotic people I highly doubt they would have just surrendered even if they were starving. German civilians did not and they were faced with even worse conditions. Not to mention that judging by the amount of volunteer kamikaze fighters the will of the Japaneese would have probably been even more fierce than that of the Germans.

"Blockaded Japan until they surrendered. Continually send planes in to bomb specific military and government targets."

The Japaneese navy still existed along with several kamikaze pilots who would have probably slammed into American ships enacting the blockade, killing thousands of Americans. Not only that but with the stubborness of the Japaneese government who knows if he would have just let thousands or even hundreds of thousands starve before surrendering, and with the bombings you described its not that easy to locate military targets especially on the Japaneese mainland when they still had Anti Aircraft guns. So many of those bombs probably wuld have fell on civilians and even if they did hit military targets those would basically just be civilians in a Japaneese Army uniform by than.

[Vladislav]

I will pose a question to Comrade Vladislav here: Judging by what you have learnt from your parents and grandparents, or just general knowledge in Russia, which was the worst and which was the best? Tsarist Russia, Soviet Russia, or Modern Russia?


Soviet Russia was definitely the best.
Hospital entry was free. You recieved medical attention for free. Preschool and school admission was free and you didn't have to buy your way into Uni or college either, you just needed the right amount of knowledge to enter. The stuff that was taught in schools was advanced. The crime rate was small and people from around the world were treated with as much respect as fellow comrades. The police wasn't corrupt and there were no crime organizations. Bribes weren't accepted. Everyone was willing to help each other. NO ONE WAS MONEY HUNGRY.

Modern Russia is a hellhole.
The amount of crime is huge. There are a large amount of fascist supporters and people with a different skin color get beaten and stabbed and sometimes even killed. The police take bribes. So if your caught dealing drugs, you just slip the cop some money and your free to deal again. You have to pay to get into Uni whether your smart or not. People do not obey the law in any way and there is a stench of capitalism in every household. You will not get admitted into hospital if you can't afford to pay the bill. People with health problems who are too poor to pay for medicine live with their diseases/illnesses and die. The only people that are happy living there are the rich. They are the ones benefitting from the poor. The government in Russia has their own secret mafia who have the power to kill people who uncover secrets about the dark Russian politics. It is certainly un unwelcome place to live in these days. I wish it was still U.S.S.R.


I hope that has answered your question comrade ScottishPinko and I have a question for October 1917. Do you believe that capitalist countries are benefitting the poor?If yes,How?

[October 1917]

To answer your question Vladislav the majority of the time the answer is no. However in highly indutrialized countries like America you can be extremely poor and yet rise to riches, so to an extent sometimes it just involves how much work you want to put into it, alot of the time the reason someone is working at Mcdonalds is because they are simply lazy. Although alot of the times this is not the case. The thing is though is that the USSR was a Capitalist country, so if the USSR was so economically successful wouldn't that mean that you agree that that specific form of Capitalism is beneficial to the population? because it seems like thats what your advocating, if you are a Communist shouldnt you be against all forms of Capitalism including the State Capitalist economy of the Soviet Union? I also want to ask you a question though, if the USSR was so prosperous and everything was so good why did the USSR collapse?

[Vladislav]

cuz of dickheads like Gorbachev. I'll answer your question properly later.

please register if you want to get so involved.

[Goatse]

First of all I would like to say a huge thank you to Comrade Vladislav. Brilliant post.


What does John Kerry have to do with anything? I was trying to show how the majoirty of the peopel in this country supported Bush, and therefore the reason nothing is being done.

Because he was the other option.

The elections wouldn't have affected Iraq.


No, first of all I never used Vietnam that was a mistake. I use the other two examples to show that American Army has helped other countries in the past and that they dont deserve the slander that they recieve on this forum.

Yes, they really helped Iraq, by causing 30,000 civilian casualties.


How is this irrevelent? your last post on this was irrevelent and made no sense, tryign to say that America was acting in thier own self interest in a war that was for thier own independence? I never said this even made them campions of anything, but it does illustrate how the US Army gave America thier freedom and liberty.

OK, point over.


Slavery was a big part of the economy back than so many other Europeans countries had slaves aswell as many during ancient times.


But it was huge in America.


The war was over in 1945 so that made no sense, also that project was far from completed. Not only that but that project was only revealed long after the war was over, so why would it have mattered anyway?

You're saying Hitler posed no threat to the USA but they still attacked.

But he did.



South Korea was directly attacked by the N. Koreans, they had to.

I'm still pretty sure it was self interest.



I doubt there is proof of that, but besides that no matter if they sold it to them or not they didnt tell him to use them or to invade Kuwait.

There's no proof that the USA sold Iraq weapons?

What the fuck?

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~freedom/saddam%20and%20mr%20r.jpg

They were very friendly, anyway...



You suck at proving your point.

You suck at using my own line against me with slight modification.


So 20 million deaths was a restriction of civil liberties? I seriously hope you are kidding. What George Bush is doing today is a restriction on civil liberties but what Stalin did was mass murder.

No, you're saying that you'd prefer a shite economy and more freedom. Stalin has little to do with it, I'm referring to the earlier USSR.



How did they resist the change? because they didnt want to starve?

I have no idea what they think; I'm not a reactionary idiot.



when did I deny it? I admitted the Tsar put people in camps but I never said he put them in gulags. How do you not see the difference between the two?

OK, fair enough.


There were two immediate goals for the invasion of Russia, those being th ecapture of Moscow and the oil fileds in the Caucases in the south. Finland would have provided no strategic value, considering Moscow was closer by just going east rather than coming from the north.

Finland was still a move for defence.


A few? one estimation put the expected American casualties rate in the hundreds of thousands. Yes, it is justified and its a little thing called military strategy.

Holy shit.


Most of these are corporations, how can you blame the American Army for the corporations there? do they stand guard with machine guns to protect the buisnessmen? did they conquer those countries so that corporations could be there? no.

Didn't the US Army create modern America?

I believe you just said something along those lines...


Massive aerial bombings would have been neccesary to ensure victory on the mainland. These would have virtually wiped out nearly every major city where resistance was found, which probably would have been all of them. If ground fighting actually commenced in cities like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Tokyo, losses would have been stagering for both sides and would have probably led to the death of even more Japaneese than that caused by the Atomic bombs.

Targetted bombings..?


The Japaneese are a very patriotic people I highly doubt they would have just surrendered even if they were starving. German civilians did not and they were faced with even worse conditions. Not to mention that judging by the amount of volunteer kamikaze fighters the will of the Japaneese would have probably been even more fierce than that of the Germans

I doubt as many civilians would have died as there did.



The Japaneese navy still existed along with several kamikaze pilots who would have probably slammed into American ships enacting the blockade, killing thousands of Americans.

Hardly. Kamikaze flying rarely happened at the end of the war, and it didn't work well anyway.


Not only that but with the stubborness of the Japaneese government who knows if he would have just let thousands or even hundreds of thousands starve before surrendering,

I think I'd have taken that chance.


and with the bombings you described its not that easy to locate military targets especially on the Japaneese mainland when they still had Anti Aircraft guns.

So they can't find specific military targets, they just drop atomic bombs and hope for the best?


So many of those bombs probably wuld have fell on civilians and even if they did hit military targets those would basically just be civilians in a Japaneese Army uniform by than.

Isn't that what a soldier is?

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:43 PM
It's not as if Kerry would have pulled the US troops out of Iraq by now if he'd been elected anyway.
Forgive me for pointing out that Dean might've. That may be a pipe dream, but c'est la vie.

[October 1917]

"Because he was the other option. The elections wouldn't have affected Iraq."

My point had nothing to do with the elections,what I was trying to say is that the reason the government is not stopping the war or changing thier policy is because to many Americans agree with it, and I used the example of Bush winning the elections to show that if the majority of Americans support this war than the policy is not going to change.

"Yes, they really helped Iraq, by causing 30,000 civilian casualties."

I was talking about the first gulf war, and that 30,000 casualty calculator isnt even accurate and I already said why it wasnt. Although in a sense yes, they did help Iraq, atleast they got rid of Saddam who was far more opressive than the US is.

"But it was huge in America."

It dosnt matter how big it is or not, and believe me it was far bigger in places like Ancient Rome, the point is is that no other country has lost hundreds of thousands of men so they would be free.

"But he did."

No, he didnt if you jsut said that bomb wasnt going to b completed till 1946 how did he pose a threat during the war years, or specifically during 1941 when America entered the war? Nearly all of his troops were already tied up in the Eastern Front, so how did he pose a threat? not only that but if he did actually create the bomb im pretty sure he would have used it on the Soviet forces before trying to bomb New York.

"I'm still pretty sure it was self interest."

We've seriously been over this about 20 times.

"There's no proof that the USA sold Iraq weapons?"

Of course they sold them weapons, but I doubt they sold them chemical weapons like you said. Also your beloved USSR gave the Vietnameese and the N. Koreans weapons to fight us, so whats the big deal?

"No, you're saying that you'd prefer a shite economy and more freedom. Stalin has little to do with it, I'm referring to the earlier USSR."

Im saying that id prefer a shit economy over having to worry about going to the gulag because I didnt meet my working quota of the month, and therefore deemed "counter revolutionary". Also even before Stalin how were these people resisting? It was realized that Socialism simply couldnt succeed and thats why Lenin created the NEP, it was not the people of Russia's fault that Russia didnt have the resources to become Socialist.

"I have no idea what they think; I'm not a reactionary idiot."

So they are reactionary because they didnt want to strave? you know damn well you would have resisted to.

"Finland was still a move for defence."

I just proved it wasnt, so how can you prove it was?

"Didn't the US Army create modern America?"

So the US Army is responsible for the formation of Corporations?

[October 1917]

Regarding all the posts about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just read this:

"Although supporters of the bombing concede that the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiques as far back as January of 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, they point out that Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb.

While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, on their own they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile as it was in retrospect, as the war came to its inevitable conclusion. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops (72,000 casualties) were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings. When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945 and carried out Operation August Storm, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill-supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man. Major General Masakazu Amanu, chief of the operations section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel any Allied invasion of the home islands with minimal losses. The Japanese would not give up easily because of their strong tradition of pride and honor — many followed the Samurai code and would fight until the very last man was dead.

After the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more and more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. Even after the destruction of Nagasaki, the Emperor himself needed to intervene to end a deadlock in the cabinet.

According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." According to these historians and others, the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons. Akio Morita, founder of Sony and a Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace.

Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month. The firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan, since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the U.S. Army Air Force's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshu from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. This, combined with the delay in relief supplies from the Allies, could have resulted in a far greater death toll in Japan, due to famine and malnutrition, than actually occurred in the attacks. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, offensives were scheduled for September in southern China, and Malaysia.

The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946, would have been needed. Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost—and that number has since been repeated authoritatively, but in the summer of 1945, U.S. military planners projected 20,000–110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. Many military advisors held that a worst-case scenario could involve up to 1,000,000 American casualties.

In addition to that, the atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens, including about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. In addition, Japanese atrocities against millions of Chinese, such as the Nanking Massacre, were ended.

Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944. The order dealt with the disposal and execution of all Allied POWs, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place. (It is also likely that, considering Japan's previous treatment of POWs, were the Allies to wait out Japan and starve it, the Japanese would have killed all Allied POWs and Chinese prisoners.)

In response to the argument that the large-scale killing of civilians was immoral and a war crime, supporters of the bombings have argued that the Japanese government waged total war, ordering many civilians (including women and children) to work in factories and military offices and to fight against any invading force. Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo's Catholic University, and an eyewitness to the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima wrote:

"We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians." [16]
Some historians have claimed that U.S. planners also wanted to end the war quickly to minimize potential Soviet acquisition of Japanese-held territory.

Finally, supporters also point to Japanese plans, devised by their Unit 731 to launch Kamikaze planes laden with plague-infested fleas to infect the populace of San Diego, California. The target date was to be September 22, 1945, although it is unlikely that the Japanese government would have allowed so many resources to be diverted from defensive purposes."



Also regarding the Kamikazes here is another quote: "According to an official Japanese announcement, the missions sank 81 ships and damaged 195, and according to a Japanese tally, suicide attacks accounted for up to 80 percent of US losses in the final phase of the war in the Pacific."

Hopefully this answers some of your questions.

[Iroquois Xavier]

October 1917......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! :)

[Goatse]

My point had nothing to do with the elections,what I was trying to say is that the reason the government is not stopping the war or changing thier policy is because to many Americans agree with it, and I used the example of Bush winning the elections to show that if the majority of Americans support this war than the policy is not going to change.


My point had nothing to do with the elections,

O RLY


the example of Bush winning the elections


I was talking about the first gulf war, and that 30,000 casualty calculator isnt even accurate and I already said why it wasnt. Although in a sense yes, they did help Iraq, atleast they got rid of Saddam who was far more opressive than the US is.

They also did them a favour by selling them chem weapons...


It dosnt matter how big it is or not, and believe me it was far bigger in places like Ancient Rome, the point is is that no other country has lost hundreds of thousands of men so they would be free.

You can't really compare a 2000 year old civilization to the "New World."


No, he didnt if you jsut said that bomb wasnt going to b completed till 1946 how did he pose a threat during the war years, or specifically during 1941 when America entered the war? Nearly all of his troops were already tied up in the Eastern Front, so how did he pose a threat? not only that but if he did actually create the bomb im pretty sure he would have used it on the Soviet forces before trying to bomb New York

No, I'm saying if they had not stepped in then, perhaps he would have been in a position to pose a threat. Deal with things before you come to them.

And as for the Soviet comment, I'm pretty sure that if he'd survived that long, Russia would have been overthrown.


Of course they sold them weapons, but I doubt they sold them chemical weapons like you said. Also your beloved USSR gave the Vietnameese and the N. Koreans weapons to fight us, so whats the big deal?

Beloved USSR?

lol.

And it's common knowledge they sold them chem weapons. Well, that's what I've heard...


Im saying that id prefer a shit economy over having to worry about going to the gulag because I didnt meet my working quota of the month, and therefore deemed "counter revolutionary".

Source for this happening.


Also even before Stalin how were these people resisting? It was realized that Socialism simply couldnt succeed and thats why Lenin created the NEP, it was not the people of Russia's fault that Russia didnt have the resources to become Socialist.

If you had actually signed up, you'd have been restricted for that...



So they are reactionary because they didnt want to strave? you know damn well you would have resisted to.

They resisted economy changes so as not to starve?

What the fuck?



I just proved it wasnt, so how can you prove it was?

How did you prove it was?



So the US Army is responsible for the formation of Corporations?

Well they didn't exactly oppose it.

In regards to the article on the nuclear bombings...


Although supporters of the bombing concede that the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiques as far back as January of 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, they point out that Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb.

Furthering my point.


While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, on their own they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds.

Also furthering my point.


Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile as it was in retrospect, as the war came to its inevitable conclusion. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops (72,000 casualties) were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings. When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945 and carried out Operation August Storm, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill-supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man. Major General Masakazu Amanu, chief of the operations section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel any Allied invasion of the home islands with minimal losses. The Japanese would not give up easily because of their strong tradition of pride and honor — many followed the Samurai code and would fight until the very last man was dead.

Even though 120,000 of their military just died... with comparatively tiny losses on the yankee side... yep.



After the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more and more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. Even after the destruction of Nagasaki, the Emperor himself needed to intervene to end a deadlock in the cabinet.

Furthering my point still, the civilians did NOT want to fight.


According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." According to these historians and others, the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons. Akio Morita, founder of Sony and a Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace.

And I suppose that was the ONLY way to convince them...



Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month.

And the atom bombs were the only way to ending this death...


The firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan, since February of 1945, directly and indirectly

Another crime.


That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion.

It was also shit.


The submarine blockade and the U.S. Army Air Force's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshu from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands.

I doubt they'd have lasted long after that...


This, combined with the delay in relief supplies from the Allies,

Or maybe it wasn't coming at all.


could have resulted in a far greater death toll in Japan, due to famine and malnutrition, than actually occurred in the attacks

And the famine and malnutrition stopped right after the bombings. In fact, the magic dust from the bombs has stopped it completely up to the present day.


"Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, offensives were scheduled for September in southern China, and Malaysia.

Apparently civilian lives aren't at the top of their agenda anyway...


The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946, would have been needed.

Furthering my point.


Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost—and that number has since been repeated authoritatively, but in the summer of 1945, U.S. military planners projected 20,000–110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded.

Furthering my point.


Many military advisors held that a worst-case scenario could involve up to 1,000,000 American casualties

Highly unlikely. Infact, that was probably bullshit made up to justify the horrific war crime.


In addition to that, the atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens, including about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. In addition, Japanese atrocities against millions of Chinese, such as the Nanking Massacre, were ended.

They would have ended anyway.


Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944. The order dealt with the disposal and execution of all Allied POWs, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place. (It is also likely that, considering Japan's previous treatment of POWs, were the Allies to wait out Japan and starve it, the Japanese would have killed all Allied POWs and Chinese prisoners.)

I'd take the slight chance that soldiers who were prepared to fight and die might be executed rather than the definite chance that 100,000 innocent people die.


In response to the argument that the large-scale killing of civilians was immoral and a war crime, supporters of the bombings have argued that the Japanese government waged total war, ordering many civilians (including women and children) to work in factories and military offices and to fight against any invading force

Hardly likely, since a lot of civilians were trying to surrender anyway.


"We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population.

More or less.


Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers,

Sick bastards.


, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians.

It seems logical to me that anyone who thinks soldiers and civilians are the same but would act in horrific ways such as nuclear bombing to end bloodshed is an idiot.


Some historians have claimed that U.S. planners also wanted to end the war quickly to minimize potential Soviet acquisition of Japanese-held territory.

Nuclear radiation: The anti commie inside all of us.


Finally, supporters also point to Japanese plans, devised by their Unit 731 to launch Kamikaze planes laden with plague-infested fleas to infect the populace of San Diego, California. The target date was to be September 22, 1945, although it is unlikely that the Japanese government would have allowed so many resources to be diverted from defensive purposes.

Well if you're about to have two atom bombs rammed up your ass, you'd want to go out with a bang.

(Not that you have much choice.)


"According to an official Japanese announcement, the missions sank 81 ships and damaged 195, and according to a Japanese tally, suicide attacks accounted for up to 80 percent of US losses in the final phase of the war in the Pacific."

The 80 percent is misleading, it does not tell you how many American ships were destroyed by other means, and what these means were.



Hopefully this answers some of your questions.

'Fraid not. :(

PS. I'm going to murder you. I had almost streamlined the argument to a stage that I could reply in five or ten minutes. Now you've doubled the size. Asshole. :angry:

[October 1917]

"O RLY"
Do you even read the whole posts? "I used the example of Bush winning the elections to show that if the majority of Americans support this war than the policy is not going to change." Read the WHOLE thing next time before writing, this is getting ridiculous.

"They also did them a favour by selling them chem weapons..."

Good job saying another statement with no proof, and ignoring a postive thing the American Army has done.

"You can't really compare a 2000 year old civilization to the "New World.""

Why does it matter the principle is still the same.

"No, I'm saying if they had not stepped in then, perhaps he would have been in a position to pose a threat. Deal with things before you come to them."

If the United States didnt know about the bomb until after the war how would they have known that they could have posed a threat? I dont understand what your trying to say.

"And it's common knowledge they sold them chem weapons. Well, that's what I've heard..."

No, its not common knowledge, and I have never heard of that before.

"Source for this happening."

A show on the history channel called Stalin: Man of Steel, in which a person living in Stalinist Russia gave the testimony. However if you wish to ignore the truth and deny histroy than thats up to you, I really dont care, I really have no idea why your defending Soviet Russia in the first place.

"If you had actually signed up, you'd have been restricted for that..."

If your referring to this board, this is the most absurd thing I have read yet, restricting someone for pointing out a historical fact? That really shows the true Communist spirit here, what a fucking joke.

"They resisted economy changes so as not to starve?"

The economic changes were not goign over well, they were not a postive thing and led to starvation, and you still havent showed how anyone resisted these changes? Who resisted?

"How did you prove it was?"

Look at the fucking map, and this "There were two immediate goals for the invasion of Russia, those being the capture of Moscow and the oil fileds in the Caucases in the south. Finland would have provided no strategic value, considering Moscow was closer by just going east rather than coming from the north." Now show me how it was defensive?

"Well they didn't exactly oppose it."

Oppose corporations? what the hell are you talking about? why would the US Army oppose corporations? this makes no sense.

Im not even going to refute your points on the nuclear bombings, that article did well enough to prove my point, but if you want me to I will definately do so, I just dont want this arguement to go on for weeks. However after reading your counter arguements against that article, im beginnig to think that you didnt even read the whole thing or just skimmed through it, because the points where you said "furthering my point" did absolutely nothing to further your point, and actually went against your original points, and your other arguements were just simply illogical. This is just ridiculous arguing with someone over military matters who obviously knows nothing about warfare and with an anti-American bias, its like arguing with a hardcore Capitalist about Marxism. I dont think it matters what I say about this because you will keep coming up with the same lame excuses, it dosnt matter if I told you that dropping the bombs would save a billion people, all that matters to you is that it was dropped by America and you will continue to come up any arguement that somehow shows that America is a country full of murdering imperialists.

[Kittie Rose]

Yeah, this is stupid. Hate the people sending them out, not the troops themselves. Some of them(I say some, I mean most) are just kids from disadvantaged areas who had no bright future ahead of them who were promised one if they join the military.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Yeah, guess they were suprised to wake up one day with an AK to their head somewhere in the middle of nowhere, Iraq. Some bright future you got there.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

And October 1917: For the last time, stop saying things like "all you want is this", "communism is all about that", "you believe in that". Fucking stop speaking in our name.
If you wanna make an argument, fine, but don't pretend to know what communism is.

[October 1917]

Actually I know quite well what Communism is and im not stupid enough to think that by advocating the death of US soldiers that somehow the working class is just going to jump to the Communist cause. I also know enough to know that Communism has nothing to do with killing US soldiers. It seems you are the one who knows nothing about Communism and have no realistic goals to actually get people to join the movement, all you and your ideas do is push people farther away, all so you can play some "radical rebel" role.

[Tormented by Treachery]

*****, please. Calm down. First of all, the fucking topic of this is what to say when you see some soldiers, so there's no need to delve WWII and ancient Rome. I agree with Kittie Rose: I don't want my fellow Americans dying, because who is more apt to come back from a war fought for oil, after seeing their friends and brothers die, and then join the movement? Who if not these lower class, underprivelaged men? I don't hate someone who enlists so they can have a college education paid for. I don't hate anyone who gets drafted and serves. I Fucking hate the politicians that cause this, however. I also agree with RedFaction: don't speak in the name of someone else. You have no idea what I want. You have no idea what my idealogy is all about. Don't state that you do, please.

Now. Stop arguing about this bullshit and concentrate on the matters at hand.

[October 1917]

Im not speaking in the name of anyone else, where in my posts do you see this? The only ones I speak for are those who im actually arguing with and actually know thier ideology. I never stated anythign about you. Its obvious that you havent been reading this whole thread or else you would know why i'm talking about WWII and Ancient Rome, I dont just talk about these things for no reason.

[Vladislav]

First of all I would like to say a huge thank you to Comrade Vladislav.

No worries.

October 1917, sorry but I am not answering any more of your questions.

And I would not say anything to Miltary personnel because I never talk or shout to people I don't know.

Remember kids. Never talk to strangers.

I would join the army as a medic and help people.Not kill them.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Yep im goin to ignore the moron as well ;)

[Goatse]

Do you even read the whole posts? "I used the example of Bush winning the elections to show that if the majority of Americans support this war than the policy is not going to change." Read the WHOLE thing next time before writing, this is getting ridiculous.

O RLY



Good job saying another statement with no proof, and ignoring a postive thing the American Army has done.

The USA would never have needed to do the fucking thing.

It's like saying... mmm... you'd rather spill a glass of milk and clean it up rather than it not happening at all.



Why does it matter the principle is still the same.

Isn't.


If the United States didnt know about the bomb until after the war how would they have known that they could have posed a threat? I dont understand what your trying to say.

Then maybe you should read it again.


A show on the history channel called Stalin: Man of Steel, in which a person living in Stalinist Russia gave the testimony. However if you wish to ignore the truth and deny histroy than thats up to you, I really dont care, I really have no idea why your defending Soviet Russia in the first place.

Because you seem to think the USA is above warcrimes?



If your referring to this board, this is the most absurd thing I have read yet, restricting someone for pointing out a historical fact? That really shows the true Communist spirit here, what a fucking joke.

You said socialism wouldn't work.


The economic changes were not goign over well, they were not a postive thing and led to starvation, and you still havent showed how anyone resisted these changes? Who resisted?

How the fuck was it bad?

The USSR had an amazing leap in economy prowess.


Look at the fucking map, and this "There were two immediate goals for the invasion of Russia, those being the capture of Moscow and the oil fileds in the Caucases in the south. Finland would have provided no strategic value, considering Moscow was closer by just going east rather than coming from the north." Now show me how it was defensive?

They're not gonna invade country right before another country is about to invade them for no reason.


Oppose corporations? what the hell are you talking about? why would the US Army oppose corporations? this makes no sense.

Of course it makes no sense.

After all, they don't mind laying the foundations for McDonalds' in Iraq.



Im not even going to refute your points on the nuclear bombings, that article did well enough to prove my point, but if you want me to I will definately do so, I just dont want this arguement to go on for weeks. However after reading your counter arguements against that article, im beginnig to think that you didnt even read the whole thing or just skimmed through it, because the points where you said "furthering my point" did absolutely nothing to further your point, and actually went against your original points, and your other arguements were just simply illogical. This is just ridiculous arguing with someone over military matters who obviously knows nothing about warfare and with an anti-American bias, its like arguing with a hardcore Capitalist about Marxism. I dont think it matters what I say about this because you will keep coming up with the same lame excuses, it dosnt matter if I told you that dropping the bombs would save a billion people, all that matters to you is that it was dropped by America and you will continue to come up any arguement that somehow shows that America is a country full of murdering imperialists.

That's the most fucking hilarious thing you've said in this whole thread. I honestly laughed out loud after I read it a few times. (Which was sufficient to understand it.)


Im not even going to refute your points on the nuclear bombings,

Idiot.


that article did well enough to prove my point

Apparently it didn't, since you can't even back them up.


but if you want me to I will definately do so,

Now.


, I just dont want this arguement to go on for weeks

Then stop spouting bullshit like this.


However after reading your counter arguements against that article, im beginnig to think that you didnt even read the whole thing or just skimmed through it

I'm beginning to think you just skimmed through my arguments against it.


because the points where you said "furthering my point" did absolutely nothing to further your point, and actually went against your original points,

So I've not been trying to say civilians were trying to surrender, just like the article.


and your other arguements were just simply illogical

My other arguments were the ones that didn't say something about futhering my point.

Therefore, arguments that don't further my point are illogical.

Therefore, arguments that don't further your point are illogical.

Therefore, your arguments are illogical.


This is just ridiculous arguing with someone over military matters who obviously knows nothing about warfare and with an anti-American bias, its like arguing with a hardcore Capitalist about Marxism.

As opposed to someone who pretends to know something with military matter and warfare, with a tendancy to defend nuclear bombing of civilian targets...


I dont think it matters what I say about this because you will keep coming up with the same lame excuses,

Now, let me see...



no, get a clue on military strategy you humanitarian,


Stop trying to understand war or why leaders go to war because you are nothing more than a humanitarian and would never understand


Im gettign really tired of hearing this from peopel who have absolutely no knowledge of miltary strategy whatsoever. It saved thousands of American lives from having to invade the Japaneese mainland. ANY MILITARY LEADER would have done the exact same thing if he knew it would save his own soldiers lives and end the war quicker. War is not always nice, and is not won by humanitarian ideals.


like you said thousands more soldiers could have died all to fit some humanitarian ideals


This is just ridiculous arguing with someone over military matters who obviously knows nothing about warfare and with an anti-American bias, its like arguing with a hardcore Capitalist about Marxism.

One of the many things you said and keep on saying.


it dosnt matter if I told you that dropping the bombs would save a billion people, all that matters to you is that it was dropped by America and you will continue to come up any arguement that somehow shows that America is a country full of murdering imperialists.

Way to make assumptions.

You simply will not let it go, will you? YOU ARE WRONG. You can barely even answer against my points, just claim they are pathetic, but give nothing to back this up.


Actually I know quite well what Communism is and im not stupid enough to think that by advocating the death of US soldiers that somehow the working class is just going to jump to the Communist cause. I also know enough to know that Communism has nothing to do with killing US soldiers. It seems you are the one who knows nothing about Communism and have no realistic goals to actually get people to join the movement, all you and your ideas do is push people farther away, all so you can play some "radical rebel" role.

KEKEKE

[October 1917]

"O RLY"
Yes, really.
"The USA would never have needed to do the fucking thing."

What are you taling about? first of all you have no proof America sold them nuclear weapons, second of all if your trying to say that America took Saddam out of power because he had chemical weapons that we sold him you just contradicted yourself because you previously said that Iraq never had WMD's so there was no justification in invading them.

"Isn't."

Why isnt it? stop saying ridiculous one word sentances.

"Then maybe you should read it again."

I did several times it makes no sense, explain to me how it does?

"Because you seem to think the USA is above warcrimes?"

No, I didnt you tried to compare the atrocities caused by Stlain to American policy which is absolutely ridiculous.

"You said socialism wouldn't work."

Thats not what I said at all you moron, do you know how to read? I said Socialism in Russia failed, which it did, this is a historical fact, unless you somehow think that the USSR was actually Socialist.

"The USSR had an amazing leap in economy prowess."

We were talking about during Lenin's time. The only reason they had an "amazing leap" is because Stalin murdered millions so Russia could become industrialized.

"They're not gonna invade country right before another country is about to invade them for no reason."

I dont even know what your trying to say but it dosnt really show capturing Finland was part of a defensive plan.

"After all, they don't mind laying the foundations for McDonalds' in Iraq."

There are McDonalds all over the world, this has nothign to do with the US Army and has to do with Capitalism, I believe there are even McDonalds in China and other countries where the US Army has had no involvement.

"Apparently it didn't, since you can't even back them up."

Ok I guess this will have to go on even longer.

"Furthering my point."

No, it did not further your point it showed how the Japaneese government was unwilling to make any peace negotiations until after the atomic bombs were dropped "Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb."

"Also furthering my point."

I dont think you even read the paragraph so here it is again: "Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds."

"Even though 120,000 of their military just died... with comparatively tiny losses on the yankee side... yep."

What does this have to do with anything? It shows that Japaneese were willing to take enourmous losses even at the ending years of the war.

"Furthering my point still, the civilians did NOT want to fight."

It dosnt matter if they did or not, if the government wanted to continue the fight than civilians didnt have a choice, and I didnt see any revolts against the government by the civilians to try and end the war. The only way to get peace was to force the Japaneese government to peace terms.

"And I suppose that was the ONLY way to convince them..."

Yes, unfortunately it was, this entire article is showing that it was. Did you even read the quotes in this paragraph by the Japaneese?

"And the atom bombs were the only way to ending this death..."

Yes, what other options were there?

"Another crime."

Yet in your last statement your solution to ending the war was by conventional bombings. Sounds hypocritical to me.

"It was also shit."

Read above.

"I doubt they'd have lasted long after that..."

How do you know?

"And the famine and malnutrition stopped right after the bombings. In fact, the magic dust from the bombs has stopped it completely up to the present day."

So youd rather have millions of Japaneese and other Asians starve to death?

"Apparently civilian lives aren't at the top of their agenda anyway..."

What does this have to do with the paragraph? All you keep making are opinion based arguments.

"Furthering my point."
How? read the paragraph below which shows how tens of thousands of American soldiers were expected to die.

"Furthering my point."

How in the fuck does this further your point? 20,000-110,000 isnt a lot of casualties to you?

"Highly unlikely. Infact, that was probably bullshit made up to justify the horrific war crime."

Good opinion, im sure the American capitalist pigs just lied about everything.

"They would have ended anyway."

How? thousands more could have died if the war dragged on.

"I'd take the slight chance that soldiers who were prepared to fight and die might be executed rather than the definite chance that 100,000 innocent people die."

Slight chance? This sentance is so absurd and idiotic I will not even reply to it.

"Hardly likely, since a lot of civilians were trying to surrender anyway."

But if the Japaneese government wont why would it matter? The fault lies with the Japaneese government for not listening to thier people and not the US military.

"Sick bastards."

Its called reality and this philosphy was embraced by nearly every participant in the war, including the Soviet Union.

"It seems logical to me that anyone who thinks soldiers and civilians are the same but would act in horrific ways such as nuclear bombing to end bloodshed is an idiot"

Same excuse again, read the article again to see why this was neccesary.

"Well if you're about to have two atom bombs rammed up your ass, you'd want to go out with a bang."

So now you support the deaths of American civilians?

"(Not that you have much choice.)"

America didnt have much of a choice either, and yet you accuse them of being war criminals.

"The 80 percent is misleading, it does not tell you how many American ships were destroyed by other means, and what these means were."

"According to an official Japanese announcement, the missions sank 81 ships and damaged 195" Thats more than enough to show that they were inflicting serious damage.

There you go I answered all your ridiculous points happy now?

[Goatse]

Yes, really.

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/nowai-42443.jpg


What are you taling about? first of all you have no proof America sold them nuclear weapons, second of all if your trying to say that America took Saddam out of power because he had chemical weapons that we sold him you just contradicted yourself because you previously said that Iraq never had WMD's so there was no justification in invading them.

First of all, I never said nuclear weapons. Secondly, it's known that he used them all, and weapons insepctors found no more. The first invasion was only necessary because of them selling him the weapons. The second was because of WMDs, but guess what... there were none.



Why isnt it? stop saying ridiculous one word sentances.

Ok then.

Is not.



I did several times it makes no sense, explain to me how it does?

Hitler did pose a threat to the US.

He was well on the way to building an atom bomb, and it's obvious he would have used it.



No, I didnt you tried to compare the atrocities caused by Stlain to American policy which is absolutely ridiculous.

No, not really.



Thats not what I said at all you moron, do you know how to read?

No, of course I cannot read. Afterall, I've been responding to your arguments, typing out my own with fairly consistent spelling, punctuation and BB code, which makes it obvious to anyone who is an idiot that I cannot read.


I said Socialism in Russia failed, which it did, this is a historical fact, unless you somehow think that the USSR was actually Socialist.

Of course I know that it failed, and that the USSR was not socialist.

However you said that early on in the USSR, they realised socialism wouldn't work. People have been restricted for less.


We were talking about during Lenin's time. The only reason they had an "amazing leap" is because Stalin murdered millions so Russia could become industrialized.

I thought you said they weren't for the economy?



I dont even know what your trying to say but it dosnt really show capturing Finland was part of a defensive plan.

They wanted to expand their territory so Hitler had more to cross. They couldn't exactly invade Nazi controlled territory, so they went for Finland.


There are McDonalds all over the world, this has nothign to do with the US Army and has to do with Capitalism, I believe there are even McDonalds in China and other countries where the US Army has had no involvement.

I was using McDonalds' as an example.

The US army is making way for the corporations in Iraq.



Ok I guess this will have to go on even longer.

Indeed.

Unless you just realise how idiotic your stance is and back down.


No, it did not further your point it showed how the Japaneese government was unwilling to make any peace negotiations until after the atomic bombs were dropped "Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb."

Of course I know the government were unwilling to surrender. I am by no means a defendant of Japanese imperialism. However, the government in a country like Japan, the government does not speak for the people. The civilians wanted to give up.


I dont think you even read the paragraph so here it is again: "Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds."

See above.



What does this have to do with anything? It shows that Japaneese were willing to take enourmous losses even at the ending years of the war.

Yes, but the Japs were going down much faster than the Yanks. So much for heavy losses for the US.


It dosnt matter if they did or not, if the government wanted to continue the fight than civilians didnt have a choice, and I didnt see any revolts against the government by the civilians to try and end the war. The only way to get peace was to force the Japaneese government to peace terms.


Dropping the most destructive bombs in the world on civilian targets?



Yes, unfortunately it was, this entire article is showing that it was. Did you even read the quotes in this paragraph by the Japaneese?

No, I can't read, remember?



Yes, what other options were there?

Invasion.

Blockading.

Conventional bombing.



Yet in your last statement your solution to ending the war was by conventional bombings. Sounds hypocritical to me.

TARGETED conventional bombings.

Douche.



Read above.

TARGETED conventional bombings.

Douche.



How do you know?

It's pretty obvious.



So youd rather have millions of Japaneese and other Asians starve to death?

No.

However, the way you put it makes it sound like the bombings stopped that.



What does this have to do with the paragraph? All you keep making are opinion based arguments.

It's not as if the US was cared about anyone but themselves, so why would it matter if Asians starved to death?



How? read the paragraph below which shows how tens of thousands of American soldiers were expected to die.

AS OPPOSED TO 100,000 CIVILIANS.



How in the fuck does this further your point? 20,000-110,000 isnt a lot of casualties to you?

Not really, considering they'd be military deaths, as compared to civilians dying in the same amount.



Good opinion, im sure the American capitalist pigs just lied about everything.

Well of course they would.

Anyone would do the same. Make an incredibly high estimate, to try and justify horrific war crimes carried out by giddy generals.



How? thousands more could have died if the war dragged on.

Of course, but less than the atomic bombings caused.



Slight chance? This sentance is so absurd and idiotic I will not even reply to it

Translation: I can't think of anything to reply, so I'll don my tough guy costume and claim it's below me.


But if the Japaneese government wont why would it matter? The fault lies with the Japaneese government for not listening to thier people and not the US military.

Nevermind that they, uh, dropped the bombs.



Its called reality and this philosphy was embraced by nearly every participant in the war, including the Soviet Union.

And that justifies it?



Same excuse again, read the article again to see why this was neccesary.

I still have the same stance.



So now you support the deaths of American civilians?

No.

I'm saying, if you were about to be totally destroyed by nuclear bombings, and was given a chance to get back at the government who bombed you, you'd take it.



America didnt have much of a choice either, and yet you accuse them of being war criminals.

:lol:


Thats more than enough to show that they were inflicting serious damage.

No, unless it shows you what the other 20% was made up of, it's misleading.



There you go I answered all your ridiculous points happy now?

If giggling at you because that statement was incredibly ironic counts as being happy, then yes. Yes I am.

[October 1917]

"First of all, I never said nuclear weapons. Secondly, it's known that he used them all, and weapons insepctors found no more. The first invasion was only necessary because of them selling him the weapons. The second was because of WMDs, but guess what... there were none"

I meant chemical weapons. No, its not known that he used them all, I have never heard of this and I dont know where you did. The first invasion was neccesary because he invaded Kuwait, what does this have to do with chemical weapons?

"He was well on the way to building an atom bomb, and it's obvious he would have used it."

Thats great but like I have said multiple times already, if the US didnt even know about the bomb plans until after the war why would it have mattered? How would Americans be threatened if they didnt even find out about it until after the war?

"No, not really."

Actually yes you did, do I really have to go dig up the quote?

"No, of course I cannot read. Afterall, I've been responding to your arguments, typing out my own with fairly consistent spelling, punctuation and BB code, which makes it obvious to anyone who is an idiot that I cannot read."

Then why dont you actually read what I write?

"However you said that early on in the USSR, they realised socialism wouldn't work. People have been restricted for less."

Socialism couldnt succeed in Russia, they werent industrialized enough for it to succeed and other industrialized countries werent becoming Socialist like Lenin thought they would, this is why Lenin adopted the NEP program. If people have been restricted for less than that than that really dosnt say much for this board.

"I thought you said they weren't for the economy?"

What?

"They wanted to expand their territory so Hitler had more to cross. They couldn't exactly invade Nazi controlled territory, so they went for Finland."

Heres a quote: "Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed a mutual non-aggression pact, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on August 23, 1939. The pact also included a secret clause allocating the countries of Eastern Europe between the two signatories. Finland was agreed to be in the Soviet "sphere of influence"." Its easy to see that it was invaded for the purpose of conquest. Also if they knew Germany was massing its forces on the Russian border why would they possibly think that Germany was going to invade through Finland?

"The US army is making way for the corporations in Iraq."

I dont see any Mcdonalds in Iraq. Corporations are at fault not the US Army. Corporations from all over the world expand thier buisnesses to other countries, it has nothing to do with military intervention and everything to do with Capitalism. Its not the US Army's fault that foriegn people like the taste of Mcdonalds, its not like Soldiers wait in Mcdonalds and force people to eat there. If people from these foreign countries didnt support Mcdonalds and other corporations they wouldnt be there, because they would be making no money.

"The civilians wanted to give up."

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE CIVILIANS WANTED, it depends on the government and thier willingness to negotiate peace terms. What dont you understand about this? And not all civilians were willing to give up many were still willing to fight against America.

"Yes, but the Japs were going down much faster than the Yanks. So much for heavy losses for the US."

What does the amount of US soldiers dying have to with anything? it dosnt matter if they took heavy losses or not, it shows that Japan was willing to fight on, no matter if the Japs were going down faster or not.

"Dropping the most destructive bombs in the world on civilian targets?"

Can you explain to me how this had anything to do with what I said?

"No, I can't read, remember?"

Apparently not, since its clear you did not read those quotes.

"Invasion. Blockading. Conventional bombing."

The entire article was about how these would not have succeeded, im starting to believe that you didnt even the article.

"TARGETED conventional bombings."

How do you know these werent targeted conventional bombings? Targeted conventional bombings are not that easily done, and targeting military installations, whcih were hard to find, wouldnt have really solved anythign that late in the war anyways. Not to mention, that to actually have an impact, industrial centers would have had to be bombed so that new equipmenet and machines could not be produced, and considering that civilians would be the ones working in these centers, civilians would have died anyways.

"It's pretty obvious."

Actually no its not.

"However, the way you put it makes it sound like the bombings stopped that."

It did to a large extent. A blockade, like you yourself suggested, would have led to millions starving to death, that article estimated it at 10 million.

"It's not as if the US was cared about anyone but themselves, so why would it matter if Asians starved to death?"

If they didnt they would have enacted a blockade that could have lasted for months or even years which could have starved millions to death.

"AS OPPOSED TO 100,000 CIVILIANS."

Yes, and the other millions of Japaneese and Asians aswell as the thousands of Allied POW's who would have eventually died if it were not used.

"Not really, considering they'd be military deaths, as compared to civilians dying in the same amount."

What do you think all of those soldiers were? civilians drafted into service. I shouldnt even have to justify this absolutely ridiculous point. No sane general would sacrifice tens if not hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers so that civilians living in the enemy country could live.

"Anyone would do the same. Make an incredibly high estimate, to try and justify horrific war crimes carried out by giddy generals."

You can believe this if you want, but it really shouldnt take much knowledge to realize that an invasion would have costed many American and Japaneese lives.

"Of course, but less than the atomic bombings caused."

"In addition to that, the atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens, including about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. In addition, Japanese atrocities against millions of Chinese, such as the Nanking Massacre, were ended." That is actually more than the deaths caused by the atomic bombings. I cant believe that you somehow think a Japaneese civilians life is more important than a Dutch or Indonesians.

"Translation: I can't think of anything to reply, so I'll don my tough guy costume and claim it's below me"

Do you have any idea how incredibly stupid your previous statement was? First of all they were not "prepared" to die, most of them were drafted into service, and second of all thier is no "slight chance" if you actually know abouyt Japaneese POW atrocities and events like the River Kwai you would know that thier was nothing "slight" about this happening. To even think that a general would actually let his own soldiers rot to death or be executed by the enemy just to save civilians lives, is absolutely absurd beyond all reason, this is honestly so ridiculous I dont even know why im continuing an argument with someone who thinks like this.

"Nevermind that they, uh, dropped the bombs."

THEY DROPPED THE BOMB BECAUSE THE JAPANEESE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT SURRENDER! Do youy have some sort mental problem where you cant comprehend simple facts?

"And that justifies it?"

No, but why are you blaming America solely when nearly every participant of the war used the same dcotrine?

"I'm saying, if you were about to be totally destroyed by nuclear bombings, and was given a chance to get back at the government who bombed you, you'd take it."

You wouldnt be gettign back at the government you would be getting back at the civilians because thats who would die in such an attack.

":lol:"

Translation: I can't think of anything to reply, so I'll don my tough guy costume and claim it's below me

"No, unless it shows you what the other 20% was made up of, it's misleading."

It dosnt matter, if thats how many ships were sunk than that is a large amount and enough to be considered a serious threat.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 20 2006, 02:52 AM
Actually I know quite well what Communism is and im not stupid enough to think that by advocating the death of US soldiers that somehow the working class is just going to jump to the Communist cause. I also know enough to know that Communism has nothing to do with killing US soldiers. It seems you are the one who knows nothing about Communism and have no realistic goals to actually get people to join the movement, all you and your ideas do is push people farther away, all so you can play some "radical rebel" role.
What?! That's fucking offensive you *****. Take it back. I've done more for communism today than you have in your entire life, no doubt.





*ScottisPinko is actually keeping up with this nonsense quite long.. we should buy him some cherry pie.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Scottish, is there anything I can get you, any water or something? You're running a long marathon right now. A hard one too, indoctrinated capitalists are very hard to convert or educated, but I give you credit. Good work, comrade.

[Vladislav]

I reckon. It's like being going on for 5 pages and it looks as if ScottishPinko is winning by a mile. :)

Well done comrade.

[October 1917]

Why is it that everyone who refuses to hate America or accept the normal Neo-Communist rhetoric labeled an "indoctrinated Capitalist"? Have I ever said I supported Capitalism? Just because I dont hate my country or its soldiers that makes me a Capitalist? How do you know your not just an "indoctrinated" Communist? Also how exactly is Scottish winning?

[Vladislav]

In a previous post I stated that I am not going to answer any more of your questions October 1917.So meh.
I don't hate America.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 22 2006, 06:13 AM
Have I ever said I supported Capitalism? Just because I dont hate my country or its soldiers that makes me a Capitalist? How do you know your not just an "indoctrinated" Communist? Also how exactly is Scottish winning?
I think his objections leaned more towards your criticisms of him not doing anything productive for the cause.

But there is a difference between supporting the troops and not wanting them all to die.

[Goatse]

I meant chemical weapons. No, its not known that he used them all, I have never heard of this and I dont know where you did. The first invasion was neccesary because he invaded Kuwait, what does this have to do with chemical weapons?

He did use them all. There was no evidence that there were any left, even though that's the reason of the invasion. And the first invasion only happened because the USA sold their fellow freedom fighter Saddam weapons.


Thats great but like I have said multiple times already, if the US didnt even know about the bomb plans until after the war why would it have mattered? How would Americans be threatened if they didnt even find out about it until after the war?

They didn't know about it... yet they attacked the facilities researcing it?



Actually yes you did, do I really have to go dig up the quote?

'Fraid so.



Then why dont you actually read what I write?

Because I can't.



What?

You said they died for economy advances, but you also said they weren't.


Its easy to see that it was invaded for the purpose of conquest. Also if they knew Germany was massing its forces on the Russian border why would they possibly think that Germany was going to invade through Finland?


No idea.

However, you just said Germany was massing its forces on the Russian border. Stalin wasn't a complete idiot, you know.


I dont see any Mcdonalds in Iraq.

They're coming.


Corporations are at fault not the US Army. Corporations from all over the world expand thier buisnesses to other countries, it has nothing to do with military intervention and everything to do with Capitalism.

Iraq will be a capitalist hellhole since the military invasion.


Its not the US Army's fault that foriegn people like the taste of Mcdonalds, its not like Soldiers wait in Mcdonalds and force people to eat there. If people from these foreign countries didnt support Mcdonalds and other corporations they wouldnt be there, because they would be making no money.

Foreign people don't sit inside bread buns with cheese and ketchup.


IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE CIVILIANS WANTED, it depends on the government and thier willingness to negotiate peace terms. What dont you understand about this? And not all civilians were willing to give up many were still willing to fight against America.

And that justifies dropping a nuclear bomb on them?


What does the amount of US soldiers dying have to with anything? it dosnt matter if they took heavy losses or not, it shows that Japan was willing to fight on, no matter if the Japs were going down faster or not.

Yes it does.

How long would the Japanese army last if they were losing several men for every dead yankee?



Can you explain to me how this had anything to do with what I said?

Was dropping atomic bombs the only way to get the Japanese government to surrender?



The entire article was about how these would not have succeeded, im starting to believe that you didnt even the article.

Tell me why they wouldn't have succeeded.

Remember to type it in braille, please.


How do you know these werent targeted conventional bombings? Targeted conventional bombings are not that easily done, and targeting military installations, whcih were hard to find, wouldnt have really solved anythign that late in the war anyways. Not to mention, that to actually have an impact, industrial centers would have had to be bombed so that new equipmenet and machines could not be produced, and considering that civilians would be the ones working in these centers, civilians would have died anyways.

And both of the cities were industrial factories.



It did to a large extent. A blockade, like you yourself suggested, would have led to millions starving to death, that article estimated it at 10 million.

And the article wasn't biased. At all.



If they didnt they would have enacted a blockade that could have lasted for months or even years which could have starved millions to death.

So they dropped the bombs because they cared about the Japanese civilians?



Yes, and the other millions of Japaneese and Asians aswell as the thousands of Allied POW's who would have eventually died if it were not used.

That's only if nothing else had been done.

Atomic bombing wasn't the ONLY solution.


What do you think all of those soldiers were? civilians drafted into service. I shouldnt even have to justify this absolutely ridiculous point. No sane general would sacrifice tens if not hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers so that civilians living in the enemy country could live.

The generals are sick sadistic fuckers then.

That does not mean it was justified in any way.


That is actually more than the deaths caused by the atomic bombings. I cant believe that you somehow think a Japaneese civilians life is more important than a Dutch or Indonesians.

Of course I don't.

However, they were liberated by the bombs. Their lives weren't saved. (And they weren't mostly civilians.)


Do you have any idea how incredibly stupid your previous statement was? First of all they were not "prepared" to die, most of them were drafted into service, and second of all thier is no "slight chance" if you actually know abouyt Japaneese POW atrocities and events like the River Kwai you would know that thier was nothing "slight" about this happening. To even think that a general would actually let his own soldiers rot to death or be executed by the enemy just to save civilians lives, is absolutely absurd beyond all reason, this is honestly so ridiculous I dont even know why im continuing an argument with someone who thinks like this.

You think a soldier's life, someone who has been trained to fight and knows the risks, is more important to keep alive than a civilian?


THEY DROPPED THE BOMB BECAUSE THE JAPANEESE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT SURRENDER! Do youy have some sort mental problem where you cant comprehend simple facts?

And the government represents the civilians. Oh wait. Dumbass.



No, but why are you blaming America solely when nearly every participant of the war used the same dcotrine?

I am not blaming America solely.

However, this debate is about America.



You wouldnt be gettign back at the government you would be getting back at the civilians because thats who would die in such an attack.

It doesn't matter. They're about to drop nuclear bombs on you, of course you're going to use whatever you can.

Anyway, the plane would likely have been intercepted.



Translation: I can't think of anything to reply, so I'll don my tough guy costume and claim it's below me


Translation: I can't think of anything to reply, so I'll don my tough guy costume and claim it's below me.



It dosnt matter, if thats how many ships were sunk than that is a large amount and enough to be considered a serious threat.

Beside the point.

The 80% figure was misleading.

As for the rest of you guys...



*ScottisPinko is actually keeping up with this nonsense quite long.. we should buy him some cherry pie.

Yum.


Scottish, is there anything I can get you, any water or something? You're running a long marathon right now. A hard one too, indoctrinated capitalists are very hard to convert or educated, but I give you credit. Good work, comrade.

Yes, please and thanks.


I reckon. It's like being going on for 5 pages and it looks as if ScottishPinko is winning by a mile. :)

Well done comrade.

Heh thanks.


Why is it that everyone who refuses to hate America or accept the normal Neo-Communist rhetoric labeled an "indoctrinated Capitalist"?

Because, in this case at least, it's true.


Have I ever said I supported Capitalism?

Yes.


Just because I dont hate my country or its soldiers that makes me a Capitalist?

No.

But you still should anyway.


How do you know your not just an "indoctrinated" Communist?

We don't. Your point?


Also how exactly is Scottish winning?

Because the stance I have is inherently a winning one, kinda because it's right.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Why oppose the army knowing that it will be a matter of time before these very people join us?

:lol:

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:38 PM

Why oppose the army knowing that it will be a matter of time before these very people join us?

:lol:
What? Who said that? Where's that quote coming from?

[October 1917]

"He did use them all. There was no evidence that there were any left, even though that's the reason of the invasion. And the first invasion only happened because the USA sold their fellow freedom fighter Saddam weapons."

If he supposedly used them all, then where did he use them? The last part of your sentance makes no sense, how is the cause of the invasion due to the American government selling him weapons? Thats like saying the reason the Soviets fought in WWII is because of America because we gave them alot of weapons and equipment.

"They didn't know about it... yet they attacked the facilities researcing it?"

During the final years of the war America and Britain began a large scale bombing of German industrial and research centers its posible that the facility where the atom bomb was being develpoed was destroyed by these bombings. Alot of research centers where the V-2 rocket was being produced were destroyed and the Allies didnt even know they were being produced in them.

"'Fraid so."

I said: "Besides you cant possibly compared the deaths America has caused to massacres caused by Stalin and the USSR, which I believe was in the high tens of millions." Then you said: "Yes I can, and I doubt it was that high."

"You said they died for economy advances, but you also said they weren't."

I still have no idea what your talking about. What did I say they werent able to do?

"However, you just said Germany was massing its forces on the Russian border. Stalin wasn't a complete idiot, you know."

Well either Stalin was an idiot or completely oblivious to the invasion, because if your solution to a mass mobilization of forces on your own border is to invade Finland than its pretty obvious.

"Iraq will be a capitalist hellhole since the military invasion."

Like it wasnt a hellhole already? What do you think it was before America got there? Socialist? It was still Capitalist.

"And that justifies dropping a nuclear bomb on them?

Yes, it does. You say this same thing to avoid point every time. Dropping the bomb was the only way to get the government to surrender, it does not matter what the people want. Should the Viet Cong have stopped fighting the Americans because the American civilians didnt want us there?

"How long would the Japanese army last if they were losing several men for every dead yankee?"

How many Russians were the Russians losing to every German? yet they continued to fight on. How many Germans were the Germans losing compared to the Russians, British, and Americans, in the final years of the war? Yet they fought on. Japan had millions more able bodied men, and there is not doubt that they would have sent them off to fight.

"Was dropping atomic bombs the only way to get the Japanese government to surrender?"

Read 2 above.

"Tell me why they wouldn't have succeeded."

Invasion would have costed tens of thousand of American lives, could have extended the war for years killing even more Allies in POW camps and would have killed more Japaneese then the original bombings. Blockade would have starved millions and would have led to the deaths of Allied POWs and western cvilians and would have dragged the war on for longer. Conventional bombing wouldnt have succeeded alone and invasion would have been neccesary, conventional bombings still would have incurred civilian casualties. Do not make me go over this again.

"And both of the cities were industrial factories."

Than you can se how conventional bombings would have killed even more.

"And the article wasn't biased. At all."

No, I dont think it was, it gave examples to show how the use of the bomb was necessary, the estimations given were either given by American military advisors or the Japaneese government.

"So they dropped the bombs because they cared about the Japanese civilians?"
Im not going to lie, im pretty sure they cared more about thier own soldiers who would have taken enourmous losses if the invasion had taken place. The bombs however did stop the blockade from occuring and saved millions from starvation.
"Atomic bombing wasn't the ONLY solution."

Yes, it was I have already been over this about 10 times. Not using the bomb would have prolonged the war and eventually cause the deaths of those people.

"The generals are sick sadistic fuckers then. That does not mean it was justified in any way."

They're sick because they care about thier own troops? Yes, it is justified and any general would have done the same same. If 100,000 Communist guerillas which you were the leader of were sitting in a POW camp and they were ordered for execution and the only way to get them out was to bomb an American city, your saying you wouldnt?

"However, they were liberated by the bombs. Their lives weren't saved."

If they were liberated by the bomb how were they not saved?

"You think a soldier's life, someone who has been trained to fight and knows the risks, is more important to keep alive than a civilian?"

If it is a strategic goal to end the war quicker than yes I do. You may be one of a kind, but im pretty sure most Americans wouldnt have minded killing Japaneese civilians to keep thier sons alive.

"And the government represents the civilians. Oh wait. Dumbass."

Ive already answered this question.

"However, this debate is about America."

So your just going to pick out every little thing that you think America has done wrong?

"It doesn't matter. They're about to drop nuclear bombs on you, of course you're going to use whatever you can."

So the Japaneese are justified in killing civilians for revenge but the Americans arnt justified in killing civilians to save thier own soldiers lives? this is just moronic.

"Beside the point."

No, its not besides the point the point was to show that kamikazes were a serious threat.

"Because, in this case at least, it's true."

Why is that? because I believe in something called historical fact?

"Yes."

When was this?

"But you still should anyway."

So I should hate my country and soldiers for no reason?

"We don't. Your point?"

How do you know I am an indoctrinated Capitalist? How do you know your not indcotrinated if judging by what you just said above that you should hate your country and its soldiers just because "you should" than some sort of propaganda is getting to you.

"Because the stance I have is inherently a winning one, kinda because it's right."

The reason everyone thinks your winning is because everyone is on your side here and are unwilling to accept historical fact. If we went to an I love America board and had this arguement who do you think they say would be winning? The fact is is that if I wrote about how America killed 10,000 Ethiopians even though it was a complete lie, and you came in and provided proof to show how this was false, the peopel on this board would still be saying " October has this won for sure." Why? because simply whoever is the most anti-American on this board wins and anyone who challenges this is either a Capitalist, Fascist, or Counter Revolutionary.

[Goatse]

If he supposedly used them all, then where did he use them? The last part of your sentance makes no sense, how is the cause of the invasion due to the American government selling him weapons? Thats like saying the reason the Soviets fought in WWII is because of America because we gave them alot of weapons and equipment.

No, it's not like saying that.

Saddam fought wars with those weapons.


During the final years of the war America and Britain began a large scale bombing of German industrial and research centers its posible that the facility where the atom bomb was being develpoed was destroyed by these bombings. Alot of research centers where the V-2 rocket was being produced were destroyed and the Allies didnt even know they were being produced in them.

No, the facilities were destroyed by agents, as were several trainloads of Heavy Water. (Vital in the developement of the atomic bomb.)



I said: "Besides you cant possibly compared the deaths America has caused to massacres caused by Stalin and the USSR, which I believe was in the high tens of millions." Then you said: "Yes I can, and I doubt it was that high."

Remind me what you're trying to prove here.


Well either Stalin was an idiot or completely oblivious to the invasion, because if your solution to a mass mobilization of forces on your own border is to invade Finland than its pretty obvious.

It was to expand the area the Germans would have to cover.

A stupid move, but the reason still proves they knew it was coming.



Like it wasnt a hellhole already? What do you think it was before America got there? Socialist? It was still Capitalist.

OK, fair point.

But it doesn't prove anything.


Yes, it does. You say this same thing to avoid point every time. Dropping the bomb was the only way to get the government to surrender, it does not matter what the people want. Should the Viet Cong have stopped fighting the Americans because the American civilians didnt want us there?

There's a huge difference between conventional warfare and dropping atomic bombs on civilian targets.



How many Russians were the Russians losing to every German? yet they continued to fight on. How many Germans were the Germans losing compared to the Russians, British, and Americans, in the final years of the war? Yet they fought on. Japan had millions more able bodied men, and there is not doubt that they would have sent them off to fight.

It doesn't matter, it just shows they wouldn't have lasted much longer.



Invasion would have costed tens of thousand of American lives, could have extended the war for years killing even more Allies in POW camps and would have killed more Japaneese then the original bombings. Blockade would have starved millions and would have led to the deaths of Allied POWs and western cvilians and would have dragged the war on for longer. Conventional bombing wouldnt have succeeded alone and invasion would have been neccesary, conventional bombings still would have incurred civilian casualties. Do not make me go over this again.

Conventional bombings wouldn't if they'd been targetted. A combination of ground invasion and targetted air support would have brought it to an end pretty quickly.



Than you can se how conventional bombings would have killed even more.

Pardon?


Im not going to lie, im pretty sure they cared more about thier own soldiers who would have taken enourmous losses if the invasion had taken place. The bombs however did stop the blockade from occuring and saved millions from starvation.

Then they're a bunch of assholes. Soldiers, prepared to die, should be sacrificed to save many more civilian lives.


They're sick because they care about thier own troops? Yes, it is justified and any general would have done the same same. If 100,000 Communist guerillas which you were the leader of were sitting in a POW camp and they were ordered for execution and the only way to get them out was to bomb an American city, your saying you wouldnt?

Except the Allied prisoners weren't going to be executed?



If they were liberated by the bomb how were they not saved?

Because the bomb being dropped did not prevent them from dying.


If it is a strategic goal to end the war quicker than yes I do. You may be one of a kind, but im pretty sure most Americans wouldnt have minded killing Japaneese civilians to keep thier sons alive.

Anyone who thinks like that is extremely sick. If the positions had been reversed, I'm sure they'd have been more concerned about themselves than Japanese soldiers.



So your just going to pick out every little thing that you think America has done wrong?

Yes, because that's what the discussion is about.


So the Japaneese are justified in killing civilians for revenge but the Americans arnt justified in killing civilians to save thier own soldiers lives? this is just moronic.

I never said it was justified, I'm saying it's understandable.



No, its not besides the point the point was to show that kamikazes were a serious threat.

However the 80% figure is misleading.



Why is that? because I believe in something called historical fact?

No, because you're a sick person, trying to justify atomic bombing of civilian targets.



When was this?

When you said this:


Originally posted by October 1917
I am a capitalist. I condone imperialism and I eat babies.



So I should hate my country and soldiers for no reason?

No, hate them for a reason.


How do you know I am an indoctrinated Capitalist? How do you know your not indcotrinated if judging by what you just said above that you should hate your country and its soldiers just because "you should" than some sort of propaganda is getting to you.

God knows everything.

Therefore, God knows what reason there was to that paragraph.

God is non-existant.

Therefore, his knowledge is also nonexistant.

Therefore, the reason there was to that paragraph is nonexistant.


The reason everyone thinks your winning is because everyone is on your side here and are unwilling to accept historical fact. If we went to an I love America board and had this arguement who do you think they say would be winning? The fact is is that if I wrote about how America killed 10,000 Ethiopians even though it was a complete lie, and you came in and provided proof to show how this was false, the peopel on this board would still be saying " October has this won for sure." Why? because simply whoever is the most anti-American on this board wins and anyone who challenges this is either a Capitalist, Fascist, or Counter Revolutionary.

I'm afraid you're bullshitting, friend. Have you ever tried any of these examples?

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 22 2006, 06:13 AM
Why is it that everyone who refuses to hate America or accept the normal Neo-Communist rhetoric labeled an "indoctrinated Capitalist"? Have I ever said I supported Capitalism? Just because I dont hate my country or its soldiers that makes me a Capitalist? How do you know your not just an "indoctrinated" Communist? Also how exactly is Scottish winning?
Well, for starters, you have no open mind. How come I'm not just an indoctrinated communist? When was the last time you've seen any pro-communist propaganda in the United States? Please. That's like saying the government is gushing with anti-Christian propaganda. How do I know I'm not? I guess it could be that there is a lack of communist cant in this country, it could be the three parents I have that are Bushies to boot, it could be that I've had to research every point of view before deciding what one I agreed with, simply because no one was willing to teach it to me. Have you ever supported capitalism? Supporting the troops = supporting capitalist, brutal imperialism. I don't wish them to die, but I do wish that they kill no more humans under any circumstance, and I hope military operations flop. That's the difference. How is Scottish winning? His argument is stronger and is backed by more fact.

[October 1917]

"Saddam fought wars with those weapons."

The Soviets fought wars with those weapons.

"No, the facilities were destroyed by agents, as were several trainloads of Heavy Water."

Where the hell did you get this information from?

"Remind me what you're trying to prove here."

I said: "No, I didnt you tried to compare the atrocities caused by Stalin to American policy which is absolutely ridiculous." than you said: "No, not really."
"It was to expand the area the Germans would have to cover."

But if they knew they were gong to invade through the Russian border why would they have invaded Finland? Also it dosnt prove that it was for defense how do you know it wasnt simply for conquest.

"There's a huge difference between conventional warfare and dropping atomic bombs on civilian targets."

Thats not the point I was trying to show that unless the government actually stops the fighting than it dosnt matter what the civilians say, and that an Army cant stop fighting just because the civlians of the opposing country want to stop, unless the civilians actually overthrow the government and change the policy like in the Russian Revolution, which I did not see happening in Japan.

"Conventional bombings wouldn't if they'd been targetted. A combination of ground invasion and targetted air support would have brought it to an end pretty quickly."

Targetted conventional bombings are not that easy, and even if they were it wouldnt have mattered if you bombed military installations, the only thing the Japaneese had to defend the island were its soldiers and people and they werent all in military installations, so what good would that have done? An invasion would have costed tens of thousands of American lives, like ive said 50 times already, and it might not have put an end to the war quickly, the Battle of Berlin was bombarded and then invaded by Russian troops, but hundreds of thousands of people still died in that battle.

"Pardon?"

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers and a large amount of people were killed there, it would have been worse using conventional bombings on industrial cites for an extended time and on more than just two, which would be the case.

"Then they're a bunch of assholes. Soldiers, prepared to die, should be sacrificed to save many more civilian lives."

It proabably should be but this is just not realistic and this is not how wars are fought, and very few soldiers are prepared to die.

"Except the Allied prisoners weren't going to be executed?"

I meant the expected casualties from an invasion of the mainland. Also yes the POWs would have most likely died, previous treatment of POW's and civlians by the Japaneese can pretty much prove this.

"Because the bomb being dropped did not prevent them from dying."

If they were left in the camps they would have died, the bomb freed them from the camps.

"Anyone who thinks like that is extremely sick. If the positions had been reversed, I'm sure they'd have been more concerned about themselves than Japanese soldiers."

So you would rather have your son, brother, or father who was drafted into service die than a Japaneese civlian? if you answer no than you must be extremely sick.

"Yes, because that's what the discussion is about."

So basically your arguement has no real point your just trying to point out the bomb was evil because it was dropped by America and killed civilians, even though you ignore the strategic reasons why it was used.

"I never said it was justified, I'm saying it's understandable."

So killing civlians out of revenge is more understandable than killing civilians to save your own soldiers? This is so stupid it basically nullifies all of your previous points.

"However the 80% figure is misleading."

It dosnt matter if it was or not it still shows that it was serious threat which you said it wasnt.

"No, because you're a sick person, trying to justify atomic bombing of civilian targets."

There was justification to it that ive already pointed out numerous times. I just love how you accuse me of being sick yet you defend Stalin and his killing of millions of civilians becuase they somehow "resisted change", maybe I think your extremely sick.

"No, hate them for a reason."

I have no reason to hate them unlike you who blames them for every wrong in the world. Thats also not what you said, you said "But you still should anyway."

"I'm afraid you're bullshitting, friend. Have you ever tried any of these examples?"

Well judging by the amount of people in this forum who get restricted or banend for pointing out fact or challenging the normal viewpoint and also by the fact that I just got called a Capitalist for no reason is proof enough.

[October 1917]

I have no open mind? I seriously hope your kidding, I present my viewpoint which is backd up with fact and you refuse to even acknowledge it. Judging by all the people who get restricted or banned on this board and the fact that I got called an "indoctrinated Capitalist" just because I have a different viewpoint seems pretty closed minded to me. When was the last time you have seen any Pro-Nazi propaganda in America? but yet im sure you think of them as indoctrinated right? just because something is not widely supported dosnt mean you cant be indoctrinated by its propaganda. You may not be indoctrinated but neither am I an indoctrinated Capitalist. Just because I support the troops dosnt mean I support Capitalism or Imperialism, they are not the ones who made the policy, and they didnt join with the reason to do so. What if they are being fired upon you dont think they should fire back to protect themselves? You blame them for that? Let me guess you also support Saddam Hussein and the theocratic Iraqi Resistance who stones thier women, worships Allah, and beheads civlians? What a joke.

[Goatse]

The Soviets fought wars with those weapons.

This is nothing to do with the Union.



Where the hell did you get this information from?

The History Channel.

It was the SOE, I believe.


I said: "No, I didnt you tried to compare the atrocities caused by Stalin to American policy which is absolutely ridiculous." than you said: "No, not really."

Your point is?


But if they knew they were gong to invade through the Russian border why would they have invaded Finland? Also it dosnt prove that it was for defense how do you know it wasnt simply for conquest.

That was the reason. Honestly.


Thats not the point I was trying to show that unless the government actually stops the fighting than it dosnt matter what the civilians say, and that an Army cant stop fighting just because the civlians of the opposing country want to stop, unless the civilians actually overthrow the government and change the policy like in the Russian Revolution, which I did not see happening in Japan.

Maybe because they were starved and had no access to weapons?


Targetted conventional bombings are not that easy, and even if they were it wouldnt have mattered if you bombed military installations, the only thing the Japaneese had to defend the island were its soldiers and people and they werent all in military installations, so what good would that have done? An invasion would have costed tens of thousands of American lives, like ive said 50 times already, and it might not have put an end to the war quickly, the Battle of Berlin was bombarded and then invaded by Russian troops, but hundreds of thousands of people still died in that battle.


I'm willing to give up tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives to save 100,000+ civilians.



If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers and a large amount of people were killed there, it would have been worse using conventional bombings on industrial cites for an extended time and on more than just two, which would be the case.


The whole city was not an industrial target.



It proabably should be but this is just not realistic and this is not how wars are fought, and very few soldiers are prepared to die.

Fewer still civilians are.


I meant the expected casualties from an invasion of the mainland. Also yes the POWs would have most likely died, previous treatment of POW's and civlians by the Japaneese can pretty much prove this.

They could have negotiated their release.



If they were left in the camps they would have died, the bomb freed them from the camps.

Yes but it's the end of the war that liberated them. The bomb brought on the end but there were other means.


So you would rather have your son, brother, or father who was drafted into service die than a Japaneese civlian? if you answer no than you must be extremely sick.

I'm extremely sick because I would rather I saved my relative than a civilian I don't know from a different country?


So basically your arguement has no real point your just trying to point out the bomb was evil because it was dropped by America and killed civilians, even though you ignore the strategic reasons why it was used.

I do not ignore the strategic reasons, I nullify them. :)


So killing civlians out of revenge is more understandable than killing civilians to save your own soldiers? This is so stupid it basically nullifies all of your previous points.

It is understandable that they'd do that. And no, it doesn't.



It dosnt matter if it was or not it still shows that it was serious threat which you said it wasnt

It does matter because your argument was based around the figure.


There was justification to it that ive already pointed out numerous times. I just love how you accuse me of being sick yet you defend Stalin and his killing of millions of civilians becuase they somehow "resisted change", maybe I think your extremely sick

Good thing I don't give two shits what you think, then, isn't it?


I have no reason to hate them unlike you who blames them for every wrong in the world. Thats also not what you said, you said "But you still should anyway."

Get me a quote where I blame them for every wrong in the world.



Well judging by the amount of people in this forum who get restricted or banend for pointing out fact or challenging the normal viewpoint and also by the fact that I just got called a Capitalist for no reason is proof enough.

That had no relation to my point. Whatsoever.


I have no open mind? I seriously hope your kidding, I present my viewpoint which is backd up with fact and you refuse to even acknowledge it. Judging by all the people who get restricted or banned on this board and the fact that I got called an "indoctrinated Capitalist" just because I have a different viewpoint seems pretty closed minded to me. When was the last time you have seen any Pro-Nazi propaganda in America? but yet im sure you think of them as indoctrinated right? just because something is not widely supported dosnt mean you cant be indoctrinated by its propaganda. You may not be indoctrinated but neither am I an indoctrinated Capitalist. Just because I support the troops dosnt mean I support Capitalism or Imperialism, they are not the ones who made the policy, and they didnt join with the reason to do so. What if they are being fired upon you dont think they should fire back to protect themselves? You blame them for that? Let me guess you also support Saddam Hussein and the theocratic Iraqi Resistance who stones thier women, worships Allah, and beheads civlians? What a joke.

Holy smokes... what the fuck just happened?

[October 1917]

"This is nothing to do with the Union."

If you mean the Soviet Union yes it does, you just said "No, it's not like saying that. Saddam fought wars with those weapons." So yes it is like saying that. Just because you give someone the means to do something dosnt mean your responsible for them using those means in a certain way.

"It was the SOE, I believe."

Well I've studied this war for a long time now and ive never heard anything about agents destroying a facility where the Germans were building a bomb. If you said they didnt even find out about the bomb until 1946 when the war was over, then why would agents have to destroy these facilities?

"Your point is?"

I asked you why you were defending the Svoiet Union and you said "Because you seem to think the USA is above warcrimes?" and then I said "No, I didnt you tried to compare the atrocities caused by Stalin to American policy which is absolutely ridiculous." and you said you didnt.

"Maybe because they were starved and had no access to weapons?"

Or maybe because they wanted to fight on against the Americans? And considering how many people were volunteering to be kamakazi pilots to fit some Bushido code of honor, it seems more reasonable.

"I'm willing to give up tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives to save 100,000+ civilians."

Thats great, but in reality no sane American military leader would, and neither would any military leader from any country.

"The whole city was not an industrial target."

Yet you just said: "And both of the cities were industrial factories."

"Fewer still civilians are."

What does this have to do with anything?

"They could have negotiated their release."

Negotiated? Yea maybe like how the Jews could have negotiated there ways out of concentration camps.

"Yes but it's the end of the war that liberated them. The bomb brought on the end but there were other means."

Yes, and the bomb ended the war thus liberating them. Any other solution would have prolonged the war and eventually led them to their deaths.

"I'm extremely sick because I would rather I saved my relative than a civilian I don't know from a different country?"

Exactly, do you have you any idea that you just said that in your previous post? You said that any American who would rather save thier son than a Japanese civlian is extremely sick. You also said that any general who would rather save his own troops lives than Japaneese civilians was also sick.

"I do not ignore the strategic reasons, I nullify them."

Actually you failed to nullify any of these and you also failed to give a reasonable alternatvie to the bombs, your only supposed nullification of the strategic use of the bombs was that it killed civilians.

"It is understandable that they'd do that."

Heres the same question again: "So killing civlians out of revenge is more understandable than killing civilians to save your own soldiers?"

"It does matter because your argument was based around the figure."

No, it dosnt the original arguement was that you said kamakazis did little damage and this is obviously false no matter if the percentage is wrong or not.

"Good thing I don't give two shits what you think, then, isn't it?"

Than stop saying im sick or that others are sick when your advocating the same thing for an even stupider purpose.

"Get me a quote where I blame them for every wrong in the world."

Read the last 5 pages it sure sounds like you do.

"That had no relation to my point. Whatsoever"

Yes, it does because of alot of those people presented a Pro-American historical fact and were restricted or banned. Theres no doubt that if I were a registered member I would have already been restricted for what ive said.

"Holy smokes... what the fuck just happened?"

That was in response to tormented.

[Iroquois Xavier]

October 1917... Shut it asshole! you have clearly been asskicked by Scottish Pinko so go home and cry to your mama! :lol:

[Goatse]

If you mean the Soviet Union yes it does, you just said "No, it's not like saying that. Saddam fought wars with those weapons." So yes it is like saying that. Just because you give someone the means to do something dosnt mean your responsible for them using those means in a certain way.


However the situations were completely different. You need to stop seeing in black and white.

And secondly, the USA gave the Soviets weapons to fight the war, not because they bought them. ;)



Well I've studied this war for a long time now and ive never heard anything about agents destroying a facility where the Germans were building a bomb. If you said they didnt even find out about the bomb until 1946 when the war was over, then why would agents have to destroy these facilities?

No, I said that by 1946 the bomb would have been completed. It's estimated, anyway.

Secondly, I'm am almost certain it's what I read. The "Heavy Water" was sank near Norway, if I recall correctly.



I asked you why you were defending the Svoiet Union and you said "Because you seem to think the USA is above warcrimes?" and then I said "No, I didnt you tried to compare the atrocities caused by Stalin to American policy which is absolutely ridiculous." and you said you didnt.

Yes, but what's your point?



Or maybe because they wanted to fight on against the Americans? And considering how many people were volunteering to be kamakazi pilots to fit some Bushido code of honor, it seems more reasonable.

That fucking beloved article of yours even says the Japanese civilians wanted to surrender. Jeez.



Thats great, but in reality no sane American military leader would, and neither would any military leader from any country.


Then you are, like I said, a sick, sick person for condoning it.



Yet you just said: "And both of the cities were industrial factories."

So not a single non-industrial building was hit?



What does this have to do with anything?

Everything.

You said few soldiers are prepared to die, so they're on equal level with civilians. Aside from the obvious, fewer civilians are prepared.

Also, the soldiers were given arms. They were given a fighting chance to survive. They were trained to stay alive.

It's more than the civilians ever got.



Negotiated? Yea maybe like how the Jews could have negotiated there ways out of concentration camps.

Yes. Tell the Japanese to keep the prisoners alive, and their land won't be occupied for as long, or such.



Yes, and the bomb ended the war thus liberating them. Any other solution would have prolonged the war and eventually led them to their deaths.

So how long would other methods have taken?

And what's the cut-off point for them dying?


Exactly, do you have you any idea that you just said that in your previous post? You said that any American who would rather save thier son than a Japanese civlian is extremely sick.

You said the same about me. ;)


So you would rather have your son, brother, or father who was drafted into service die than a Japaneese civlian? if you answer no than you must be extremely sick.

Also, you were saying 10,000-100,000 SOLDIERS (as you said tens of thousands) should be spared to save 100,000+ civilians?


Actually you failed to nullify any of these and you also failed to give a reasonable alternatvie to the bombs, your only supposed nullification of the strategic use of the bombs was that it killed civilians.

Then why do you choose to ignore my points, and just claim they're too idiotic to earn a response from the intellectual master that is yourself?



Heres the same question again: "So killing civlians out of revenge is more understandable than killing civilians to save your own soldiers?"

Well to go back to the start of this point...

You seem to think it's justifiable to use atomic bombs on civilians because the Japanese were PLANNING to do something such as the plagued flies?



No, it dosnt the original arguement was that you said kamakazis did little damage and this is obviously false no matter if the percentage is wrong or not.

However your whole argument is based around this percentage.



Than stop saying im sick or that others are sick when your advocating the same thing for an even stupider purpose.

Then stop pulling claims such as this from your ass.



Read the last 5 pages it sure sounds like you do.

I said a quote.

Suppose you couldn't find one, eh?


Yes, it does because of alot of those people presented a Pro-American historical fact and were restricted or banned. Theres no doubt that if I were a registered member I would have already been restricted for what ive said.


No, but it still had nothing to do with my point.



That was in response to tormented.

I think I know what's tormenting him.

[October 1917]

"However the situations were completely different. You need to stop seeing in black and white."

No, they are not different the US gave the Soviets weapons to fight the Germans so according to your logic America is responsible for them fighting in the war, its the same exact thing it dosnt matter if they bought or if they were given to them. Like I already said, just because you give someone the means to do something dosnt mean your responsible for them using those means in a certain way. How can you blame America for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait just because they sold Saddam weapons? this is just aboslutely stupid.

"Secondly, I'm am almost certain it's what I read. The "Heavy Water" was sank near Norway, if I recall correctly."

According to wikipedia: "There has been a historical debate, however, as to whether the German scientists purposefully sabotaged the project by under-representing their chances at success, or whether their estimates were based in either error or inadequacy." So German scientists destroyed the project, not some secret agent. The German nuclear program could hardly be thought of as a serious threat to the US and whats even more doubtful is that they actually participated in the European theatre because they were felt threatened by this.

"Yes, but what's your point?"

It is part of the arguement we were having.

"That fucking beloved article of yours even says the Japanese civilians wanted to surrender. Jeez."

No, it dosnt it said the civilian LEADERSHIP wanted to surrender not the civilians themselves and even the civilian leadership said the atomic bombing was a "salvation" that brought the war to an end.

"hen you are, like I said, a sick, sick person for condoning it."

Yes, military leaders are real sick for not wanting thier troops to get slaughterd on the mainland, I guess everyone is a sick sick person compared to you.

"So not a single non-industrial building was hit?"

So your saying that the only builgindgs that would be hit in a conventional bombing are the targeted industrial ones? They did not have laser guided missles back then, those bombs were inaccurate and would have inevitably caused collateral damage, even if every bomb only hit industrial centers, it would still be civilians working in them, so what is your point? conventional bombings would eventually cause as much damage, they would be used in more cities for an extended period of time.

"You said few soldiers are prepared to die, so they're on equal level with civilians. Aside from the obvious, fewer civilians are prepared. Also, the soldiers were given arms. They were given a fighting chance to survive. They were trained to stay alive."

So just because a few may be prepared to die, they should all be sacrificed on the mainland to save Japaneese civlian lives? How do you know the civlians wouldnt be armed? They were in Germany during the Battle of Berlin, and just because they are given arms and a "way to defend themselves" they should should risk all of thier lives so Japaneese civilians can live? This is just absolutely ridiculous, what your trying to say is something no military leader in his right mind would do, its not sick, its called caring for your own troops rather than some foreign civilian like you said yourself. If you were an American soldier who was about to invade mainland Japan im sure your opinion would change very quickly.

"Yes. Tell the Japanese to keep the prisoners alive, and their land won't be occupied for as long, or such."

Yea, im really sure the Japaneese, who kill POW's because surrendering is dishonorable, is really going to fall for this, especially when it took 2 atomic bombs to even bring them to the negotiating table.

"So how long would other methods have taken? And what's the cut-off point for them dying?"

A blockade, invasion, or conventional bombings would have obviously taken longer than the atomic bombs did. They shouldnt have a "cut off point" for dying, these were civlians and soldiers in brutal Japaneese prison camps, any means should have been used to free them. What if you were sitting in one of those camps starving to death, and leaders were thinking like this?

"You said the same about me."

When I said " if you answer no than you must be extremely sick." I was mocking you because you had said that in a previous post and I was trying to show you how stupid it really sounded.

"Also, you were saying 10,000-100,000 SOLDIERS (as you said tens of thousands) should be spared to save 100,000+ civilians?"

What does this have to do with anything? I was trying to show you how stupid you sounded when you said that American people were extremely sick because they would rather see a Japaneese civilian die than thier own son.

"Then why do you choose to ignore my points, and just claim they're too idiotic to earn a response from the intellectual master that is yourself?"

I answered everyone of these several times, invasion, blockade,conventional bombing, in my last post I wrote a paragraph explaining why these wouldnt have succeeded, as well as numerous other times, and that entire article explained how they wouldnt have succeeded. How many times do I have to go over this?

"Well to go back to the start of this point..."

Why dont you stop avoiding the question and just answer the question because thats what you just fucking said?

"You seem to think it's justifiable to use atomic bombs on civilians because the Japanese were PLANNING to do something such as the plagued flies?"

What the hell are you talking about? You said that its understandable for Japan to do such a thing out of revenge but not for America to do such a thing to save thier own soldiers lives. What you just said had absolutely nothing to with the arguement, so just answer the fucking question and stop trying to change the subject.

"However your whole argument is based around this percentage."

No, it wasnt the original arguement was that you said kamikazes posed little threat to the US late in the war, and by showing you the number of ships they sunk it proves that thats not true, it dosnt matter about the percentage, what matters is how much ships they sunk, stop making ridiculous excuses. Will you atleast admit that sinking over 100 ships is enough to be called a threat?

"Then stop pulling claims such as this from your ass."

So now your trying to claim that you didnt defend Stalin and his murder of civlians by simply saying they were "resisting change"? will you stop fucking lying.

Also Iriquois, why do you keep saying your going to ignore me, the "moron", but yet you keep coming back writing useless posts? I dont care about your opinion or who you think is winning the arguement, if you have nothign valueable to say stop writing nonsense messages that no one cares about.

[kaaos_af]

The Russians would have smited the Japanese easily. The yanks dropped the bombs to stop the Sovs liberating Japan.