Why Do You Want War? [Archive]

Comrade-Z

25th June 2006, 02:35

yeah US is in Iraq for oil, and? let me see, it's a superpower trying to survive , trying to implement it's power for another bunch of years, who doesn't do things for their own interest? or are you guys meaning to tell me your all a bunch of Mother Theresas?

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. But I have to ask you, do you really identify with the ruling class like that? Do you really think that the U.S.'s imperialism benefits you? Let's see, how much is the Iraq War going to cost?

Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/)

The most current estimates of the war's cost generally start with figures from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which as of January 2006 counted $323 billion in expenditures for the war on terrorism, including military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just this week the House approved another $68 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the total allocated to date to about $400 billion. The Pentagon is spending about $6 billion a month on the war in Iraq, or about $200 million a day, according to the CBO. That is about the same as the gross domestic product of Nigeria.

So, $6 billion per month...that's $72 billion per year. Then add on top of that the Pentagon's formal budget, which is over $400 billion per year. Let's say $300 billion of that is spending that is entirely superfluous as far as domestic defense goes and wholly serves defending overseas property and imperial possessions, such as military bases, geopolitical posturing, etc. So we are pissing away $375 billion per year. That's $1875 per year for you. Do you think that you are "breaking even" on this "investment"?

Janus

25th June 2006, 04:16

why is gas so damn expensive after 2 years.. still?
Instability in the Middle East and parts of Africa in general.

Avtomatov

25th June 2006, 05:37

I wonder what 1 trillion would do in africa. Considering all of africa makes about 1 trillion a year.

RNK

25th June 2006, 07:35

Yes they invaded Iraq for oil...

Yes oil has only gotten more expensive...

Yes George W. Bush is a fuckin' moron who can't do anything right...

Does it surprise you?

ummProfessional

25th June 2006, 09:26

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. But I have to ask you, do you really identify with the ruling class like that? Do you really think that the U.S.'s imperialism benefits you? Let's see, how much is the Iraq War going to cost?

do i identify with the ruling class? HELL NOO!!! i aint rich but i don't identify myself with nobody either, only with myself. I walk past a poor bastard and i say to myself "how unfortunate", i walk past a rich bastard and i say to myself "how fortunate"! don't really give a shit but my own life, and to tell you the truth whether you like it or not, thats life and thats how 90something% of humans act, that is why i said we aint a bunch of Mother Theresas...and plus what does this "identifying" signify? if i think im rich or something? im middle class i guess, i don't know, im normal, i don't really have any hardships and i live pretty well...and also when you say "indentify with the ruling class LIKE THAT?"...like what? :huh:

do i think the US's imperialism benefits me? of course it does, since im part of the "empire" lol...not all my taxes are going to the Iraq war, and if some of them are im helping the "empire" thus benefiting from it, other portion of my taxes go to the building of better roads, better everything in my city, and to maintain the best army in the world which then keeps maintaining us in the #1 spot...the ones who sure aren't benefiting at least like people here are, is the Iraqis and others around the world..but who are we kidding, ill say it i don't care, we don't give a shit about the Iraqis, and about any other in the world for that matter but ourselves...but yet again, nobody gave a fuck about Rwanda when 900,000 FREAKING PEOPLE DIED IN 100 DAYS!! i can't even stress that enough....so it takes me back to what i was saying man, and i know you understand it, we aren't a bunch of Mother Theresas, in fact we are more likely a bunch of bad people, filled with greed ,envy, and the drive that drives all humans selfishness and benefitting yourself....unfortunately thats who we are, it's in our genes and nothing is going to change it....you think worst wars haven't happened? Iraq is child's play compared to the world history of wars and conflicts, and if you guys like guiding yourself by history like your idol Marx did, then you can surely infer there will always be war and conflict....just like there is here as we speak between me and you leftists...till the day we as a species vanish from the face of the planet, there will be when conflict , wars, and so on will end...

"Only the dead have seen the end of war"- Plato

I wonder what 1 trillion would do in africa. Considering all of africa makes about 1 trillion a year.

thats true, but it's kind of stupid to say what somethig could do somewhere else when it's being used for something else...i personally would prefer to know that the cost of the war would be going instead to help fight AIDS, poverty, and hunger in Africa, but yet again why wasn't it going to these things before the war? when there wasn't 1 trillion being spent on war? a yess it was probably being spent on something else? :unsure: plus why is it the US? if we are spending our money on something else, why do you attack us? why don't you attack the ones who aren't spending it on Africa either, at least we as a nation even still with the cost of war deliver more relief aid and so on to starving people around the world...this is a global effort, not a USA only effort, why be bias and criticize us instead of the world as a whole, shit we are acting like everyone else is and would...or is it since we are the #1 you expect us to save the world? remember Mother Theresa? ;)

Comrade-Z

25th June 2006, 19:28

and also when you say "indentify with the ruling class LIKE THAT?"...like what?

I mean, why do you think what benefits the ruling class also benefits you? Another example is with the "death tax" repeal. If you don't have an estate greater than $4 million, you have no logical reason, from a self-interest point of view, to support that. So why would you think that, in this instance, what is benefitting the ruling class is also benefitting you?

and to maintain the best army in the world which then keeps maintaining us in the #1 spot

But why does having the "#1 spot" benefit you from a material/financial point of view? Is it just a pride thing? It would seem to me like $1875/year would be quite an expensive fee for bolstering my pride.

we aren't a bunch of Mother Theresas, in fact we are more likely a bunch of bad people, filled with greed ,envy, and the drive that drives all humans selfishness and benefitting yourself

Phrased more scientifically and accurately (in terms of self-interest), I wouldn't dispute that.

there will always be war and conflict

It's not war and conflict that bothers us. For instance, we support class war. It's war and conflict that doesn't help us or even harms us that bothers us. It's about selfishness. Even if I'm not getting shot, I deem that the Iraq War is harming me in a number of ways: financially through taxes and budget deficits (which often leads to cutting social services that had benefitted me), in terms of reinforcing nationalism, weakening proletarian solidarity, and strengthening the ruling class, which means lower wages and fewer jobs for me.

this is a global effort, not a USA only effort

Well, the U.S. is by far the greatest financier and participant in the Iraq War, as well as the one that was the most gung-ho about getting it going in the first place.

Really, now that I think about it, wouldn't you expect things to be a lot better for me and you in the "#1 country in the world"? The ruling class should easily be able to afford a minimum wage of $10 per hour, no? Medical care should be a lot cheaper, no? Or else, what good is this #1 spot?

ummProfessional

25th June 2006, 23:08

I mean, why do you think what benefits the ruling class also benefits you? Another example is with the "death tax" repeal. If you don't have an estate greater than $4 million, you have no logical reason, from a self-interest point of view, to support that. So why would you think that, in this instance, what is benefitting the ruling class is also benefitting you?

i guess your right there, im not going to counter argue that because frankly im sort of ignorant towards this issue. But i know that the more rich there are it's better for the society, i guess it's a way of showing that people here are better off than in other countries?

But why does having the "#1 spot" benefit you from a material/financial point of view? Is it just a pride thing? It would seem to me like $1875/year would be quite an expensive fee for bolstering my pride.

it's not just a pride thing i guess, it's the fact that if you are an American citizen part of the #1 country in the world your surely going to have the benefits nobody else has anywhere in the world....if i was a Zimbabwian citizen in Rwanda during the genocide and you were an American citizen, whom do you think would of been better protected? whom do you think would have gotten evacuated or so on...?

Phrased more scientifically and accurately (in terms of self-interest), I wouldn't dispute that

fair enough

It's not war and conflict that bothers us. For instance, we support class war. It's war and conflict that doesn't help us or even harms us that bothers us. It's about selfishness. Even if I'm not getting shot, I deem that the Iraq War is harming me in a number of ways: financially through taxes and budget deficits (which often leads to cutting social services that had benefitted me), in terms of reinforcing nationalism, weakening proletarian solidarity, and strengthening the ruling class, which means lower wages and fewer jobs for me.

ohh yeah, god nows how many ways war is affecting me indirectly, but do i really see it or feel it that much? than if it was affecting me directly?

Well, the U.S. is by far the greatest financier and participant in the Iraq War, as well as the one that was the most gung-ho about getting it going in the first place.

Really, now that I think about it, wouldn't you expect things to be a lot better for me and you in the "#1 country in the world"? The ruling class should easily be able to afford a minimum wage of $10 per hour, no? Medical care should be a lot cheaper, no? Or else, what good is this #1 spot?

i wasn't refering to the Iraq war, i was refering to battling poverty and so on...but yeah man i agree with you that it would be awsome to have cheaper health care and so on, we could have so many things better, but yet again nothing is perfect in this world, and we are "better" on so many other things that outweight the bad than every other country..

EwokUtopia

26th June 2006, 10:30

Very very selfish attitudes. The human race is not limited to your fickle suburban experiance. You are just another gear in the same machine that forces kids to make hundreds of happy meal toys an hour for a few cents. You are the consumer of those cheaply made products that do not make you happy at all, but lead to your craving of more and more of those cheaply made products for a ridiculous price. Your country isnt #1 to live (I live in Canada, its far better up here, though it has the same problems, juust to a lesser degree) but rather it is an ugly, cheaply made abomination for alot of parts. Your highways are numerous and disgusting. I absolutly hate the bilboards that are raised hundreds of feet in the air to get as many people to be tempted by the ad as possible. I love your countryside, and some actual remnants of your all but dead culture, for now it has become a suburban hellhole for the vast majority. Someone said earlier that 90% of the worlds population feels like the system is good and they work for themselves. no, this os only 90% of you suburban americans. 90% of the world is being pushed to the edge and will not take it for much longer. Your way of life is running on empty, but come now, surely you know that all Empires come to an end. America is on the decline, it is up to the American people to decide what next for life in their country.

fitzcarraldo

26th June 2006, 13:32

And yet everyone wants to move to the land of opportunity. Amazing that, considering what an evil rotten place America really is.

The Resistor

26th June 2006, 16:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:33 AM
And yet everyone wants to move to the land of opportunity. Amazing that, considering what an evil rotten place America really is.
yeah BECAUSE there is indeed a prospect of a better live, that doesn't mean you get one! If your fooled by your fantasies that you get rich, you've never seen the poverity (New Orleans). Sure if you suceed in live, maybe your lucky, have the right race, right education, right amount of money....... Its simpel in America, if your ''good'' you get heaven and if your ''bad'' you get hell.

Si Pinto

26th June 2006, 17:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:22 PM
are you guys meaning to tell me your all a bunch of Mother Theresas? :rolleyes:
and what if we were? Would it make any difference to you?

If Mother Theresa herself came upto you and asked if you really cared about people what would you say?

Would it make you give up your capitalist notions, would the corporations stop using and abusing the vast majority of mankind?

Of course you wouldn't and neither would they.

Your happy with capitalism, you've got a job, you eat well, have holidays, enjoy all the comforts of a modern home, so why would you want to change it? I can't blame you for that, because most of us live like that.

It's hard to be revolutionary when you are tied to a job and feeding a family, but you shouldn't blame the ones who DO feel like that, despite the 'trappings' they have.

Your and my way of life is resulting in the destruction of the environment, resulting in the deaths of millions of people, resulting in the utter misery of those who do manage to barely feed themselves, and our society is sending you and me to fight to maintain this!!!

Ask yourself something, and answer truthfully, are you really 'not bothered' about this? Do you really need Mother Theresa to tell you this is wrong?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say I don't think you do. You DO know it's wrong, you do realise how unfair and unbalanced the world is, the difference is your not trying to do anything about it.

Should you be so critical of those who are?

Osman Ghazi

28th June 2006, 02:16

I wonder if anyone really seriously considered the alternative to the war in Iraq? I mean, since 1991, there has been war. Sanctions, missile attacks and bombing happened without warning.People complain that 500,000 died during the sanctions, and then they complain that 50,000 more died in the invasion, while forgetting the fact that the war ended the sanctions. The alternative to war was just as bad as the war itself, only now consciousness has been raised. Moreover, the war has merely sped up a number of processes that would otherwise have taken decades: the dissolution of American imperialism, the strengthening of the UN and weakening of islam.

I really wish I had glasses that let me see the world as either black or white, I really do. Unfortunetly though, I must recognize that there are no good and bad people, only people doing what they think is right.

Moreover, is it better to simply let a people suffer under the boots of military dictatorship? Do you support the military junta of Burma? If not, would you support military action by the US or UN to destroy these tyrants? If not, what is the alternative? Obviously, you will say revolution, but that has not happened in 40 years, and I don't know if it will anytime soon.

we support class war

The world envisioned by Marx and others will be born not of blood but of thought. Murder destroys thought, and thus class war only destroys what it tries to make.

You are just another gear in the same machine that forces kids to make hundreds of happy meal toys an hour for a few cents.

You are just so righteous it's cute. Obviously it is not ideal, but consider that child labour has existed and does exist in every single society. Ever. In fact, I wish I had worked more when I was young. Communists always emphasize that people are making a few pennies a day, without realizing that it is a marginal wage in their society, comparable to $8/hour CDN in Canada. Ever heard of purchasing power parity? It is possible to live on this and it can be merely a stepping stone to something better. I know many people who have worked illegally for less than the minimum wage and if you are smart enough to see a way out it is entirely possible.

It makes more sense to see the world's struggle as one of rural vs. urban than of capitalism vs. communism. Soon urban society will lay the framework for a better world, but now it is simply impossible. Fortunately though, the UN's conference on cities coincided with the majority of the world's population living in an urban environment for the first time. Urbanites are now offically the majority, and soon our revolution will shatter the remnants of the barbaric world forged by ignorance and scarcity.

Abolish Communism

28th June 2006, 03:15

Why do you support wars?

This question appears to be independent of the first question on the Iraq War, so I'll answer it specifically:

Why do "I" support wars?

Of course it depends on the war and on what side my country (the United States) happens to be on.

I'm only 16, so I only have history books and comments by historians to guide my views, but:

I believe the United States was correct to join and lead the Allied Powers of World War II.

I believe the United States was correct in fighting against Britain to create its independence.

I believe the United States was correct in fighting against Britain to defend its soil from 1812 to 1814.

You asked why.

Hitler had to be destroyed. So did the Japanese military.

The two other wars I mentioned are obvious, because if we didn't fight in them, there would be no United States.

imperialist

28th June 2006, 10:58

mmmm, that's right. the US has always been correct in every war it has fought, even Vietnam. The US responds to aggression. It never creates it. That is the difference.

If anything, we need more wars to help fund the defence industry and develop cool sophisticated weaponry. I advocate blasting North Korea into a parking lot, followed by Cuba.

RaiseYourVoice

28th June 2006, 11:08

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 28 2006, 12:16 AM

Why do you support wars?

This question appears to be independent of the first question on the Iraq War, so I'll answer it specifically:

Why do "I" support wars?

Of course it depends on the war and on what side my country (the United States) happens to be on.

I'm only 16, so I only have history books and comments by historians to guide my views, but:

I believe the United States was correct to join and lead the Allied Powers of World War II.

I believe the United States was correct in fighting against Britain to create its independence.

I believe the United States was correct in fighting against Britain to defend its soil from 1812 to 1814.

You asked why.

Hitler had to be destroyed. So did the Japanese military.

The two other wars I mentioned are obvious, because if we didn't fight in them, there would be no United States.
Well, are there wars you dont support? For which reasons that would happen?

I think to the wars mentioned above many leftists would also agree, WW2 to destroy fashism, the others to fight for indepence.

mmmm, that's right. the US has always been correct in every war it has fought, even Vietnam. The US responds to aggression. It never creates it. That is the difference.

If anything, we need more wars to help fund the defence industry and develop cool sophisticated weaponry. I advocate blasting North Korea into a parking lot, followed by Cuba.
are you so bored that you need to gain attention in a left internet forum or are you really serious?

Martin Blank

28th June 2006, 11:33

Originally posted by Abolish Communism+Jun 27 2006, 07:16 PM--> (Abolish Communism @ Jun 27 2006, 07:16 PM)I'm only 16, so I only have history books and comments by historians to guide my views[/b]

A tip: broaden the number of historians you read and avoid talking heads.

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 27 2006, 07:16 PM
I believe the United States was correct to join and lead the Allied Powers of World War II.

Of course, the reason the U.S. waited so long to enter the European Theater was because it wanted to come in as the "lead". The "silent" economic war between the U.S. and Britain from 1945 to 1947 finished that job.

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 27 2006, 07:16 PM
I believe the United States was correct in fighting against Britain to create its independence.

As do I.

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 27 2006, 07:16 PM
I believe the United States was correct in fighting against Britain to defend its soil from 1812 to 1814.

If the U.S. hadn't invaded Canada, the White House would never have been put to the torch.

Originally posted by Abolish [email protected] 27 2006, 07:16 PM
Hitler had to be destroyed.

Too bad that didn't extend to the rest of the Nazi apparatus, much of which was brought to the U.S. to serve as functionaries and operatives of Washington in the Cold War.

Abolish [email protected] 27 2006, 07:16 PM
So did the Japanese military.

The Japanese military was more or less crushed by the spring of 1945. That's why the Japanese government attempted to open surrender negotiations in June 1945 (incidentally, the Japanese were willing to offer unconditional surrender at that time; the only thing they wanted was the maintenance of the emperor, which they got anyway in the August 1945 agreement). But Washington felt it was necessary to use Japan as a proving ground for its new weapon, in order to attempt to intimidate Moscow. Didn't work.

Miles

imperialist

28th June 2006, 12:11

The Japanese military was more or less crushed by the spring of 1945. That's why the Japanese government attempted to open surrender negotiations in June 1945 (incidentally, the Japanese were willing to offer unconditional surrender at that time; the only thing they wanted was the maintenance of the emperor, which they got anyway in the August 1945 agreement). But Washington felt it was necessary to use Japan as a proving ground for its new weapon, in order to attempt to intimidate Moscow. Didn't work.

This is true. We refused to grant the request to maintain the emperor and then gave in after we dropped the weapons - as if to apologise? So what, they would never have surrendered unconditionally without the atomic weapons. You making out like the Japanese were so good or something and the Americans were evil? Who started the goddam war anyway? US? :rolleyes: Japs were insane morons who should've attacked USSR to win the war and instead attacked uninhabited islands populated by Robinson Crusoe and the Yeti. They needed a lesson in military superiority, and goddamit they got one. You think they weren't praying to sweet Jesus when the nukes were falling?

Jazzratt

28th June 2006, 15:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:12 AM

The Japanese military was more or less crushed by the spring of 1945. That's why the Japanese government attempted to open surrender negotiations in June 1945 (incidentally, the Japanese were willing to offer unconditional surrender at that time; the only thing they wanted was the maintenance of the emperor, which they got anyway in the August 1945 agreement). But Washington felt it was necessary to use Japan as a proving ground for its new weapon, in order to attempt to intimidate Moscow. Didn't work.

This is true. We refused to grant the request to maintain the emperor and then gave in after we dropped the weapons - as if to apologise? So what, they would never have surrendered unconditionally without the atomic weapons. You making out like the Japanese were so good or something and the Americans were evil? Who started the goddam war anyway? US? :rolleyes: Japs were insane morons who should've attacked USSR to win the war and instead attacked uninhabited islands populated by Robinson Crusoe and the Yeti. They needed a lesson in military superiority, and goddamit they got one. You think they weren't praying to sweet Jesus when the nukes were falling?
I bet people have to remind you that you can close your mouth when you breathe don't they? But enough personal attacks (no matter how true and satisfying they may be) but instead onto your drivel, er, post:

1. Whooo shit, they wouldn't have surrendered uncoditionally, best nuke the fuck out of them. They expect some conditions for their surrender, jesus those pesky Japs! Seriously so what if it wasn't a surrender that was 'We surrender, you can do whatever you like to us now!'.

2. The question of who started the war is a little more complex than 'Them ays-ean basterts attayaked pahrl harbar!' I suggest you read into the causes of japanese involvement in WWII. Also whilst I'm on the subject of WWII, Americans and learning history 'YOU CAME IN LATE FOR BOTH WARS, YOU DID PRETTY MUCH FUCK ALL BUT SHOOT BRITS IN THE BACK AND THEN YOU CLAIMED ALL THE GLORY! THE USSR WERE ALREADY WELL ON THE WAY TO BERLIN BEFORE YOU STARTED! STOP BEING CRETINS! URGH!' (sorry its a personal dilike of mine this 'Way-ell we sayved y'alls asses in tha wurld waars')

3. Sorry? The Japanese attacked uninhabited islands? What have you been smoking and can I have some?

3. 'They needed a lesson in military superiority' and what they got was a lesson in the malignant psychoisis of the U$ war machine. No I very much doubt they were praying to Jesus, most of them died in seconds, especdially the schoolchildren from Hiroshima (or did they leave that part out, you know when the schoolchildren were helping build as part of the war effort and they got blown up. You can still see the black silhouettes of their final nanosecond on the surving walls over there, it's haunting.). I do know who was offering paryer to Jesus, no for saving but for salvation - the guy who actually dropped the first nuke "My God what have we done?" ring any bells.

imperialist

28th June 2006, 16:19

1. Whooo shit, they wouldn't have surrendered uncoditionally, best nuke the fuck out of them. They expect some conditions for their surrender, jesus those pesky Japs! Seriously so what if it wasn't a surrender that was 'We surrender, you can do whatever you like to us now!'.
They were in no position to negotiate. They were fools. They chose to ignore reason and suffered the necessary punishment for their prior wargaming.

2. The question of who started the war is a little more complex than 'Them ays-ean basterts attayaked pahrl harbar!'
lmao. :lol:

I suggest you read into the causes of japanese involvement in WWII. Also whilst I'm on the subject of WWII, Americans and learning history 'YOU CAME IN LATE FOR BOTH WARS, YOU DID PRETTY MUCH FUCK ALL BUT SHOOT BRITS IN THE BACK AND THEN YOU CLAIMED ALL THE GLORY! THE USSR WERE ALREADY WELL ON THE WAY TO BERLIN BEFORE YOU STARTED! STOP BEING CRETINS! URGH!' (sorry its a personal dilike of mine this 'Way-ell we sayved y'alls asses in tha wurld waars')
What a crock of bullshit. In WW1 Ludendorf would never have pursued his crazy scheme of smashing through France had he considered American reinforcement would not be arriving. US provided the finance and goods necessary to tip Germany over the edge. This is obvious For crying out loud Germany had just crushed the Russians and were free to move all their men to the West. Austria was free to concentrate on Italy, and France would have been German were there no USA. How can you think the US did nothing? Ungrateful red - I should bust your ass. You need an asskicking like you wouldn't beleive. To WW2, Zhukov himself acknowledged USSR would have been finished without the help pouring in from USA. Why? Couldn't get steady supplies as had a crap chemicals industry. Hell, USSR was just one giant steel mill. Got all chemicals, rare metals from USA. Who gave Britain 50 destroyers in 1941? Santy Claus? Hell, USSR on their way to Berlin, when, in 1942? The Germans were halfway to India when the USSR started getting some help. Commie bastards couldn't even fight proeprly even though they outnumbered the Germans. All the USSR tanks were falling appart. Had to use Shermans. All Soviet Planes made in Inner Mongolia crap. Had to use p-47 as a high altitude interceptor. Used P-39 for ground attack. Hell, you're an asshole. And US stabbed the Brits in the back? How? And as for Japan, USA is evil because we shouldn't have given them an oil embargo to stop the Japanese war machine which led to Pearl Harbor? Excellent, so you're an imperialist like me! How about that. lmao. :lol:

edit - more incorrect information I missed and it would kill me not to reply to this garbage:

3. Sorry? The Japanese attacked uninhabited islands? What have you been smoking and can I have some?
Do I sound like some pot smoking hippy? :rolleyes: You know part of the Jap plan was to create an 'island shield' against the US. Indonesia=20,000 islands. Phillipines=6000. Plus millions of pacific attols. There were still Japanese in 1947 who refused to surrender not knowing the war was over.

3. 'They needed a lesson in military superiority' and what they got was a lesson in the malignant psychoisis of the U$ war machine.
Better than your communist mental rectitis.

No I very much doubt they were praying to Jesus, most of them died in seconds, especdially the schoolchildren from Hiroshima (or did they leave that part out, you know when the schoolchildren were helping build as part of the war effort and they got blown up.
The poor chilren! Maybe their parents should have thought of the consequences of attacking a superpower! Anyway, these were as much legitimate military targets as cities. I mean if you're going to hit their production, you have to do it at the source. What's a better way of nullifying an oponent's offensive power? Destroy their army or destroy their factories?

You can still see the black silhouettes of their final nanosecond on the surving walls over there, it's haunting.). I do know who was offering paryer to Jesus, no for saving but for salvation - the guy who actually dropped the first nuke "My God what have we done?" ring any bells.
Well, I guess we shouldn't have bothered winning the war. We should have let them walk all over us and you'd be speaking Japanese and shining an officer's fascist boots? You would like that? Evil US, how could I be so naive!

Si Pinto

28th June 2006, 17:07

Who gave Britain 50 destroyers in 1941?

They were old pre-WWI vessels and you exchanged them for bases in the Caribbean. So it wasn't exactly charity was it?

Commie bastards couldn't even fight proeprly even though they outnumbered the Germans.

21,000,000 dead not enough for you?

All the USSR tanks were falling appart. Had to use Shermans

That, Mr Imperialist is 'Bollocks', the main Soviet tank in WWII was the T34-41 and then the T34-85, widely regarded by all (including Germans and Americans) as the best medium tank of WWII. At this time the Sherman was earning the nickname 'The Tommy Cooker' or 'The Ronson'.

It was the most produced tank of any nation in WWII.

All Soviet Planes made in Inner Mongolia crap. Had to use p-47 as a high altitude interceptor. Used P-39 for ground attack.

Yep..'Bollocks' again.

The Yak 3 is widely regarded as the best prop fighter ever, German pilots were warned not to engage it.

The IL-2 was the best ground attack plane of WWII, produced in greater numbers than any other plane in WWII. The Germans even tried to copy it, and failed. The American A-10 Warthog (modern US ground attack aircraft) has it's origins in the IL-2.

The P-39 wasn't used as a ground attack aircraft but simply as a low level fighter.

The P-47 wasn't used as a high level interceptor (by the time the US sent any P-47's to the USSR there was nothing left to intercept, the Germans had long since stopped high level bombing of Soviet targets), it was actually used as a ground attack plane.

Ungrateful red - I should bust your ass. You need an asskicking like you wouldn't beleive.

Yep, another 'All-American Hero". :rolleyes:

----------

I do agree that the US played it's part in sending materials and arms to the allied nations in WWII, but it certainly wasn't out of kindness or the goodness of your hearts.

It was for money, bases and political influence.

Does that 'ring any bells'???

Sounds kind of familiar.

Jazzratt

28th June 2006, 19:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:20 PM

1. Whooo shit, they wouldn't have surrendered uncoditionally, best nuke the fuck out of them. They expect some conditions for their surrender, jesus those pesky Japs! Seriously so what if it wasn't a surrender that was 'We surrender, you can do whatever you like to us now!'.
They were in no position to negotiate. They were fools. They chose to ignore reason and suffered the necessary punishment for their prior wargaming.

You actually believe that don't you? You do know that they were negotiating and that if it wasn't for a certian cabal of high up generals wanting to show the world that the US had the biggest penis the conditional surrender would have gone ahead. Please explain to me exactly how nuking the shit out of two cities is in any way a just punishment for anything?How's this for an added challenge: try to explain it in such a way that wouldn't justify a similar action by an arabic nation against America.

I suggest you read into the causes of japanese involvement in WWII. Also whilst I'm on the subject of WWII, Americans and learning history 'YOU CAME IN LATE FOR BOTH WARS, YOU DID PRETTY MUCH FUCK ALL BUT SHOOT BRITS IN THE BACK AND THEN YOU CLAIMED ALL THE GLORY! THE USSR WERE ALREADY WELL ON THE WAY TO BERLIN BEFORE YOU STARTED! STOP BEING CRETINS! URGH!' (sorry its a personal dilike of mine this 'Way-ell we sayved y'alls asses in tha wurld waars')
What a crock of bulls
hit. In WW1 Ludendorf would never have pursued his crazy scheme of smashing through France had he considered American reinforcement would not be arriving. US provided the finance and goods necessary to tip Germany over the edge. This is obvious For crying out loud Germany had just crushed the Russians and were free to move all their men to the West. Austria was free to concentrate on Italy, and France would have been German were there no USA. How can you think the US did nothing? Ungrateful red - I should bust your ass. You need an asskicking like you wouldn't beleive. To WW2, Zhukov himself acknowledged USSR would have been finished without the help pouring in from USA. Why? Couldn't get steady supplies as had a crap chemicals industry. Hell, USSR was just one giant steel mill. Got all chemicals, rare metals from USA. Who gave Britain 50 destroyers in 1941? Santy Claus? Hell, USSR on their way to Berlin, when, in 1942? The Germans were halfway to India when the USSR started getting some help. Commie bastards couldn't even fight proeprly even though they outnumbered the Germans. All the USSR tanks were falling appart. Had to use Shermans. All Soviet Planes made in Inner Mongolia crap. Had to use p-47 as a high altitude interceptor. Used P-39 for ground attack. Hell, you're an asshole. And US stabbed the Brits in the back? How? And as for Japan, USA is evil because we shouldn't have given them an oil embargo to stop the Japanese war machine which led to Pearl Harbor? Excellent, so you're an imperialist like me! How about that. lmao. :lol:

Most of this bollocks has been adressed. I was pissed off and exxagerating when I said you guys did fuck all, but yes you did shoot many allies in the back - literally Americans are famous for their 'friendly' fire record in the world wars. As for most of that other shite I'd like to point out that Hitler was already fighting on two fronts and the russian winter had wiped out most of his forces, they also din't expect the Red Army to rally quite so brilliantly at Stalingrad. I'd also like to ask you precisly who had a tank division roll up into Berlin first? Yep that's right the USSSR.

As for the internet tough guy 'I should bust your ass' it just conjours up an image of some sweaty kid with pimples and pustules who gets the shit nocked out of him every lunch time. Either that or some huge redneck cretin with more fingers than teeth and more teeth than brain cells. Neither of which really pose any kind of threat to me.

edit - more incorrect information I missed and it would kill me not to reply to this garbage:

Why? Why did you reply when you could have died instead?

3. Sorry? The Japanese attacked uninhabited islands? What have you been smoking and can I have some?
Do I sound like some pot smoking hippy? :rolleyes: You know part of the Jap plan was to create an 'island shield' against the US. Indonesia=20,000 islands. Phillipines=6000. Plus millions of pacific attols. There were still Japanese in 1947 who refused to surrender not knowing the war was over.

Sorry you don't come across as a pot smoking hippy at all. Still I'd like to visit your Meth ab one day and get a whiff of some of those fumes. As for that, yes it was a luaghable sratergy but not the entire plan of the Japanese.

3. 'They needed a lesson in military superiority' and what they got was a lesson in the malignant psychoisis of the U$ war machine.
Better than your communist mental rectitis.

I love how you yanks use that quaint doctrin of relative filth. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS WORSE (or in this case you believe it to be worse) DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE IN ANY WAY GOOD OR INDEED EVEN JUSTIFIED IN YOUR ACTIONS. You guys still fall back on this even today when it comes to things like Iraq 'Way-ell theym abrabs is doin' worser thangs thayn us so we kin do what we lahk'.

No I very much doubt they were praying to Jesus, most of them died in seconds, especdially the schoolchildren from Hiroshima (or did they leave that part out, you know when the schoolchildren were helping build as part of the war effort and they got blown up.
The poor chilren! Maybe their parents should have thought of the consequences of attacking a superpower! Anyway, these were as much legitimate military targets as cities. I mean if you're going to hit their production, you have to do it at the source. What's a better way of nullifying an oponent's offensive power? Destroy their army or destroy their factories?

Those factories would have been just as destroyed had america not insisted, in its infinite belligerent stupidity, on using nukes and instead used normal weapons. Also you don't need to destroy the 'offensive capabilities' of somone who is prepared to negotiate surrender.

You can still see the black silhouettes of their final nanosecond on the surving walls over there, it's haunting.). I do know who was offering paryer to Jesus, no for saving but for salvation - the guy who actually dropped the first nuke "My God what have we done?" ring any bells.
Well, I guess we shouldn't have bothered winning the war. We should have let them walk all over us and you'd be speaking Japanese and shining an officer's fascist boots? You would like that? Evil US, how could I be so naive!

I'd be doing no such thing! Have you not been paying attention: THEY WERE PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE SURRENDER. How many times does that fact have to be rammed into your tiny, tiny little mind?

imperialist

29th June 2006, 03:41

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 28 2006, 02:08 PM

Who gave Britain 50 destroyers in 1941?

They were old pre-WWI vessels and you exchanged them for bases in the Caribbean. So it wasn't exactly charity was it?

Commie bastards couldn't even fight proeprly even though they outnumbered the Germans.

21,000,000 dead not enough for you?

All the USSR tanks were falling appart. Had to use Shermans

That, Mr Imperialist is 'Bollocks', the main Soviet tank in WWII was the T34-41 and then the T34-85, widely regarded by all (including Germans and Americans) as the best medium tank of WWII. At this time the Sherman was earning the nickname 'The Tommy Cooker' or 'The Ronson'.

It was the most produced tank of any nation in WWII.

All Soviet Planes made in Inner Mongolia crap. Had to use p-47 as a high altitude interceptor. Used P-39 for ground attack.

Yep..'Bollocks' again.

The Yak 3 is widely regarded as the best prop fighter ever, German pilots were warned not to engage it.

The IL-2 was the best ground attack plane of WWII, produced in greater numbers than any other plane in WWII. The Germans even tried to copy it, and failed. The American A-10 Warthog (modern US ground attack aircraft) has it's origins in the IL-2.

The P-39 wasn't used as a ground attack aircraft but simply as a low level fighter.

The P-47 wasn't used as a high level interceptor (by the time the US sent any P-47's to the USSR there was nothing left to intercept, the Germans had long since stopped high level bombing of Soviet targets), it was actually used as a ground attack plane.

Ungrateful red - I should bust your ass. You need an asskicking like you wouldn't beleive.

Yep, another 'All-American Hero". :rolleyes:

----------

I do agree that the US played it's part in sending materials and arms to the allied nations in WWII, but it certainly wasn't out of kindness or the goodness of your hearts.

It was for money, bases and political influence.

Does that 'ring any bells'???

Sounds kind of familiar.
Si Pinto:

QUOTE
Commie bastards couldn't even fight proeprly even though they outnumbered the Germans.

21,000,000 dead not enough for you?

That's the problem with communist warfare. In Stalingrad they lost whole divisions in a single day, why? If the commanders didn't send out so many troops as cannon fodder, to 'take back the city', they would have been shot as 'traitors'. Do you know as many as 2 million Russians died in Stalingrad? compared to say maybe 300,000 Germans? Why? Because communists hate good technology and strategy. Hitler threw everything into that conflict and Russia was only too happy to oblige with cannon fodder of its own. In fact every single war the commies have been in they have had 10 times the casualties of their oponents. Its a sick disgrace.

QUOTE
All the USSR tanks were falling appart. Had to use Shermans

That, Mr Imperialist is 'Bollocks', the main Soviet tank in WWII was the T34-41 and then the T34-85, widely regarded by all (including Germans and Americans) as the best medium tank of WWII. At this time the Sherman was earning the nickname 'The Tommy Cooker' or 'The Ronson'.

It was the most produced tank of any nation in WWII.

Everything was falling appat so they had to build the t-34. And its so good, I suppose that's why North Korea still uses it? :rolleyes: Anyway, the t-34 was undergunned and obsolete by 1944.

Yep..'Bollocks' again.

The Yak 3 is widely regarded as the best prop fighter ever, German pilots were warned not to engage it.
Which is why the top Soviet Ace flew a p-39? Yep, thanks for convincing me of the superiorty! I'm totally blown away! But yeah it was maneuverable like a Jap plane, i'll give you that, but what's the point if the pilots don't have any training, as they invariably don't in all communist nations?

The IL-2 was the best ground attack plane of WWII, produced in greater numbers than any other plane in WWII. The Germans even tried to copy it, and failed. The American A-10 Warthog (modern US ground attack aircraft) has it's origins in the IL-2.
The US copied the USSR? WTF? Here's the IL-2:
http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/wwii/il2-f.jpg

And here's the Warthog:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10-19990422-f-7910d-518.jpg
Don't even think Soviet stuff is comparable to capitalist technology.

The P-39 wasn't used as a ground attack aircraft but simply as a low level fighter.

The P-47 wasn't used as a high level interceptor (by the time the US sent any P-47's to the USSR there was nothing left to intercept, the Germans had long since stopped high level bombing of Soviet targets), it was actually used as a ground attack plane.

The P-39 wasn't used as a ground attack aircraft but simply as a low level fighter.
Yah, they used it for everything/

The P-47 wasn't used as a high level interceptor (by the time the US sent any P-47's to the USSR there was nothing left to intercept, the Germans had long since stopped high level bombing of Soviet targets), it was actually used as a ground attack plane.
Yeah right. :rolleyes: The Americans used it for ground attack. The Soviets however had to do things their own way and discovered the unmaneuverable jug suddenly became super maneuverable at high altitudes. Additionally, the massive 2500 horsepower, double other fighters, made it an excellent altitude climber.

I do agree that the US played it's part in sending materials and arms to the allied nations in WWII, but it certainly wasn't out of kindness or the goodness of your hearts.

It was for money, bases and political influence.

Does that 'ring any bells'???

Sounds kind of familiar.

No. If we were being kind, US would have joined up with a rejuvenated Wehrmacht once Hitler was out of the way as Patton wanted and smashed the USSR once and for all. Imagine that, No Red China, No Vietnam war, Korean war! No Soviet nukes! 50 extra years of freedom. But, NO! the EVIL USA had to be kind and let the USSR live. What a shame.

Vendetta

29th June 2006, 04:13

I'd rather it be "no US nukes."

And I think that the Vietnam/Korea wars would have still happen if the USSR was "smashed."

Which, I do hope you know, would not have happened. For as I remember, Nazi Germany was using two things at the end of WWII.

Old people, and kids. I'm sure they could have stood up to a large mass of pissed off soldiers.

Martin Blank

29th June 2006, 08:20

Originally posted by imperialist+Jun 28 2006, 04:12 AM--> (imperialist @ Jun 28 2006, 04:12 AM)So what, they would never have surrendered unconditionally without the atomic weapons.[/b]

Actually, yes, they were offering to surrender unconditionally. The difference was that the Japanese didn't see the emperor as part of the deal. And, again, they ended up signing a surrender accord that was the same as what they agreed to months before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:12 AM
You making out like the Japanese were so good or something and the Americans were evil? Who started the goddam war anyway? US? :rolleyes:

That can be argued. In the fall of 1941, the U.S. imposed an oil and steel embargo on Japan. That was the provocation. Recent evidence also points to the fact that Washington knew about the Japanese fleet descending on Pearl Harbor days in advance, but did not issue a warning.

Makes you wonder what we'll find out about 9/11 about 60 years from now, doesn't it?

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:12 AM
Japs were insane morons who should've attacked USSR to win the war and instead attacked uninhabited islands populated by Robinson Crusoe and the Yeti.

They tried in 1938 and had their asses handed to them by the Red Army.

[email protected] 28 2006, 04:12 AM
They needed a lesson in military superiority, and goddamit they got one. You think they weren't praying to sweet Jesus when the nukes were falling?

Well: a) considering the Japanese are either Shinto or Buddhist, and b) they didn't know what a "nuke" was, the answer to that incredibly stupid statement is ... NO.

Miles

imperialist

29th June 2006, 08:42

You actually believe that don't you? You do know that they were negotiating and that if it wasn't for a certian cabal of high up generals wanting to show the world that the US had the biggest penis the conditional surrender would have gone ahead. Please explain to me exactly how nuking the shit out of two cities is in any way a just punishment for anything?How's this for an added challenge: try to explain it in such a way that wouldn't justify a similar action by an arabic nation against America
Oh, yeah, Japan was SOOOO close to surrender! HAH! You've been reading the propaganda of Marxist historians. Listen, if the Japs were so close to surrender, how come they pledged to fight to the death in Japan to resist every American invader? How come they didn't surrender after the first nuke was dropped? They had ample time to guage the situation. I'll tell you why they didn't surrender because I have studied history and have the opinions of researchers. They actually thought America had only ONE nuke. In actuality, the US had ONLY TWO, one uranium, one plutonium, just in case one of the technologies didn't work. So I guess if the Japs didn't surrender after the second one, it would have taken the US a couple of months to build a few more. So there you have it, even after the first blast, why didn't they surrender? Because they were completely insane!

Most of this bollocks has been adressed. I was pissed off and exxagerating when I said you guys did fuck all, but yes you did shoot many allies in the back - literally Americans are famous for their 'friendly' fire record in the world wars. As for most of that other shite I'd like to point out that Hitler was already fighting on two fronts and the russian winter had wiped out most of his forces, they also din't expect the Red Army to rally quite so brilliantly at Stalingrad. I'd also like to ask you precisly who had a tank division roll up into Berlin first? Yep that's right the USSSR.

I agree, America, the allies and a newly Democratic Germany should have liberated the Eastern Europeans and smashed the USSR when they had the chance. But that doesn't matter now.

And you know the real reason why the USSR got to Berlin first? Becuase Eike let them. Patton was against it. I mean are you aware that Germans were voluntarily surrendering to the Americans like crazy but still fiercely resisting the Soviets? In many places, the Americans penetrated too far and had to withdraw back to the established East-West divide.

And the battle of Stalingrad was a farce. Do you think capitalists would have run it as badly as the Russians? Platoons were run by political commisars instead of trained officers. The Germans cut through them like swiss cheese and the Soviets lost 2,000,000 soldiers in one city. An Utter absolute disgrace in military incompetence.

I love how you yanks use that quaint doctrin of relative filth. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS WORSE (or in this case you believe it to be worse) DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE IN ANY WAY GOOD OR INDEED EVEN JUSTIFIED IN YOUR ACTIONS. You guys still fall back on this even today when it comes to things like Iraq 'Way-ell theym abrabs is doin' worser thangs thayn us so we kin do what we lahk'.
America rules. The land of the free. Freer than anyone else. Deal with it.

I'd be doing no such thing! Have you not been paying attention: THEY WERE PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE SURRENDER. How many times does that fact have to be rammed into your tiny, tiny little mind?
Oh, they were 'preparing to surrender' were they? So we should have interrupted the war and waited until they made up their minds? They had a choice and they refused to surrender. They wanted to kill more allies, so they lost a few cities. Its as simple as that.

COMMUNISTLEAGUE:

That can be argued. In the fall of 1941, the U.S. imposed an oil and steel embargo on Japan.
Cause they were massacring Chinese. US was supposed to let that continue?

That was the provocation. Recent evidence also points to the fact that Washington knew about the Japanese fleet descending on Pearl Harbor days in advance, but did not issue a warning.
This is true. Allegedly, the worst the Americans expected at Pearl Harbor was a Jap sub attack. And yeah, they did know in advance but general incompetence prevented action. Some have suggested a conspiracy to let the Japs attack. I think its more like incompetence.

They tried in 1938 and had their asses handed to them by the Red Army.

But do you know what was responsible for the success of the winter offensice at the end of 1941? Those same divisions who beat Japan in 1938. Imagine if they were tied up in the east? Germans would have kept Stalingrad and the caucasus up to Grozny.

Well: a) considering the Japanese are either Shinto or Buddhist, and b) they didn't know what a "nuke" was, the answer to that incredibly stupid statement is ... NO.
They were in a panic, trust me.

Loknar

29th June 2006, 09:29

The Russian military in WW2 was shit. This shows in the winter war especially considering they got an ass whoopin by the Fins.

The Russian air force was junk as well. Sure they had good planes but they wernt good pilots like the Germans were.

The T-34 was one of the best tanks in WW2. However, they did not compare to the Leopard or King Tiger. You can read accounts of good German tank crews knocking out a dozen T-34s...

Also, the competence really showed around Kiev when the German army achieved the largest encirclement in history.....600,000 troops were netted by German attack.

Now, this whole thing about Japan. Why don’t you assholes read about the crimes committed by the Japanese army across China since the 1930s. The death rate trumps the combined death toll of both atom bombs. They would conduct bio warfare attacks...then move into the village and harvest the organs of their victims and drop these organs into large population centers. This caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

On the day the 2nd atomic bomb was dropped, the Japanese government was just the meeting to discuss a surrender option. They weren’t ready to surrender.

And this whole nation about America taking away the glory. In the Pacific we did most of the fighting. In Europe we did 1/3 of the fighting. The Russians though were so incompetent that men were falling at thousands every day. Just before Berlin, Stalin wired Zhukov and told him there would be no reinforcements if he failed as the Soviet reserves were exhausted. They even resorted to conscripting people from eastern Europe.

And let me inform you all of something else. The Russians would have gotten their asses kicked by US and the Commonwealth armies if a fight broke out. The Americans had the atomic bomb. In fact we had a big one ready after Japans surrender. The money meant for the marshal plan could have neutralized the Russians tank divisions. They were absolutely exhausted. Almost every analysis of the situation in Europe after WW2 shows the Russians did not have a chance. Our bombers were out of their fighters ability to intercept. We had nukes (they didn’t).

The Russians wernt the only nation to loose 20 million. China did as well.

READ: Rape of Nanking
Unit 731

Si Pinto

29th June 2006, 12:39

Jesus, were do I start with all this crap? It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it!

Because communists hate good technology and strategy.

I can smell that statement from here!!

For gods sake man READ!!! It makes learning so much more interesting and worthwhile.

In fact every single war the commies have been in they have had 10 times the casualties of their oponents. Its a sick disgrace.

Well, mostly because the US killed them, soldiers, civilians, women, children, oap's, anything that gets in the way of the 'american dream' but then as you say 'better dead than red!'. :rolleyes:

Everything was falling appat so they had to build the t-34. And its so good, I suppose that's why North Korea still uses it? :rolleyes: Anyway, the t-34 was undergunned and obsolete by 1944.

Again, I could bore with you with technical stuff proving that every word of that is a deep shade of brown but it would go way over your head.

Which is why the top Soviet Ace flew a p-39? Yep, thanks for convincing me of the superiorty! I'm totally blown away! But yeah it was maneuverable like a Jap plane, i'll give you that, but what's the point if the pilots don't have any training, as they invariably don't in all communist nations?

Where are you getting this shit from?

No. If we were being kind, US would have joined up with a rejuvenated Wehrmacht once Hitler was out of the way as Patton wanted and smashed the USSR once and for all. Imagine that, No Red China, No Vietnam war, Korean war! No Soviet nukes! 50 extra years of freedom. But, NO! the EVIL USA had to be kind and let the USSR live. What a shame.

You'd have liked that wouldn't you!?!

Walking round in your shiny uniform, sticking your arm out straight at a 45 degree angle, goose-stepping down the road and growing your own little black moustache.

Slaughtering anybody who got in your way!!!

ahhhh...dreams....eh
------------

Congratulations, that is the most uninformed, blinkered and sychophantic load of crap It's ever been my misfortune to have to read.

Please don't be insulted if I don't reply to your posts again, it's just that I left my nursery a long time ago and I have no wish to return, not even as a teacher.

imperialist

29th June 2006, 13:13

Because communists hate good technology and strategy.

I can smell that statement from here!!

For gods sake man READ!!! It makes learning so much more interesting and worthwhile.
Is that a refutation? Read? Read what? My palm? Wow, you're right, my lifeline states Communist governments indeed had excellent technology, far more sophisticated than all Western nations. Hell, they were exporting computers to the USA by the late 80's they were so advanced. As for strategy, well, if you call killing half your army in a single offensive strategy you have me.

QUOTE
In fact every single war the commies have been in they have had 10 times the casualties of their oponents. Its a sick disgrace.

Well, mostly because the US killed them, soldiers, civilians, women, children, oap's, anything that gets in the way of the 'american dream' but then as you say 'better dead than red!'.

No, communist governments only go after the families of the enemy and their own families, because in a communist regime, you're not just fighting the enemy. You're fighting yourselves to keep socialism alive when its kicking and screaming to let it die.

And you think the commie dream is superior to the American dream? :blink: The commie dream is utopia and the American dream is rewards of hard work. Which one is more likely to occur? Hmmm, let me think for a microsecond. Ah yes, the American one. And you're still thinking presumably since you're still commie. Oh well, some people are just slow in the head.

Everything was falling appat so they had to build the t-34. And its so good, I suppose that's why North Korea still uses it? Anyway, the t-34 was undergunned and obsolete by 1944.

Again, I could bore with you with technical stuff proving that every word of that is a deep shade of brown but it would go way over your head.

Wow, I'm totally blown away by all that non-existent info. Looks like I was wrong after all! :rolleyes:

Which is why the top Soviet Ace flew a p-39? Yep, thanks for convincing me of the superiorty! I'm totally blown away! But yeah it was maneuverable like a Jap plane, i'll give you that, but what's the point if the pilots don't have any training, as they invariably don't in all communist nations?

Where are you getting this shit from?

HAH, yeah, commie pilots really have great training. DO you know where all the top German aces scored their kills? That's right, not against US/British but against crap USSR garbage flown by people who couldn't fly. Heaps of German pilots had like 300 kills. Only one USSR pilot had a comparable tally and he flew a p-39.

You'd have liked that wouldn't you!?!

Walking round in your shiny uniform, sticking your arm out straight at a 45 degree angle, goose-stepping down the road and growing your own little black moustache.

Slaughtering anybody who got in your way!!!

ahhhh...dreams....eh

I would have liked a world without the USSR? sure! And NAZIism was finished under the Americans so where are you getting the fascism stuff from?

Congratulations, that is the most uninformed, blinkered and sychophantic load of crap It's ever been my misfortune to have to read.
I can only take that as a complement, coming from a communist :P

Please don't be insulted if I don't reply to your posts again, it's just that I left my nursery a long time ago and I have no wish to return, not even as a teacher.
You never left the nursery mate...You're like the fat guy on LOST.

Ah, you really think the USSR was better than the USA don't you! Thanks for the hilarity. :P

bombeverything

29th June 2006, 14:00

The commie dream is utopia and the American dream is rewards of hard work.

Hard work barely provides workers with a living wage, so any talk of the American dream is clearly idealistic. No, the profits from the labour of the working class reward capitalists who know nothing about hard work.

Si Pinto

29th June 2006, 15:15

Ah, you really think the USSR was better than the USA don't you!

Nope!!!

Is that a refutation?

The statement wasn't worth refuting, it is just a typical, jingoistic, uneducated, sweeping generalisation.

How the hell can I refute 'because Communists hate good technology' it's just stupid, if you have the mentality to make such an insane statement, then their is little point me refuting it with facts because they are wasted on you.

No, communist governments only go after the families of the enemy and their own families, because in a communist regime, you're not just fighting the enemy. You're fighting yourselves to keep socialism alive when its kicking and screaming to let it die.

So, you aren't refuting the fact that the US did all those things too? At last progress!

And you think the commie dream is superior to the American dream? :blink: The commie dream is utopia and the American dream is rewards of hard work. Which one is more likely to occur? Hmmm, let me think for a microsecond. Ah yes, the American one. And you're still thinking presumably since you're still commie. Oh well, some people are just slow in the head.

Do I think the 'commie dream' is superior to the 'american dream'?

No, just fairer, more humane (remember humanity?).

Wow, I'm totally blown away by all that non-existent info. Looks like I was wrong after all! :rolleyes:

I'm not going to sit here and type out loads of info for someone who wouldn't understand or believe it anyway.

If you are able to read, you might like to try these.

Tanks of the World - by David Miller
Janes (you've heard of Janes's right?)
Fighting Aircraft of WWII - Bill Gunston
American Aircraft of WWII - David Mondey
Second World War - Martin Gilbert

and I don't know if you play computer games but if you do try buying Il-2 Sturmovik or Forgotten Battles and read the descriptions of each aircraft (all of them studiously researched).

Only one USSR pilot had a comparable tally and he flew a p-39.

Like I said before read and learn.

As for the top USSR marksman he flew a P-39 for a period of a few months, that's all!

HAH, yeah, commie pilots really have great training. DO you know where all the top German aces scored their kills? That's right, not against US/British but against crap USSR garbage flown by people who couldn't fly. Heaps of German pilots had like 300 kills.

So!! The German pilots were good, very good in the early days.

Again phrases like 'crap USSR garbage' just show how uneducated you are on the matter, and how bigoted.

NAZIism was finished under the Americans so where are you getting the fascism stuff from?

Nazism was/is finished under the Americans? :lol: :lol:

so where are you getting the fascism stuff from?

Take a shrewd guess.

You never left the nursery mate...You're like the fat guy on LOST.

Lesson over children :rolleyes:

imperialist

29th June 2006, 15:52

QUOTE
Ah, you really think the USSR was better than the USA don't you!

Nope!!!
GOOD!!!

The statement wasn't worth refuting, it is just a typical, jingoistic, uneducated, sweeping generalisation.

How the hell can I refute 'because Communists hate good technology' it's just stupid, if you have the mentality to make such an insane statement, then their is little point me refuting it with facts because they are wasted on you.
Try as you can you can't refute it can you? Why? Because deep down, or even not very deep you know it to be true. Technology is anathama to socialism. Your planes were still using vacuum tubes when USA planes had ICs. You nuclear reactors were frying and USA used proper computers to control them.

QUOTE
No, communist governments only go after the families of the enemy and their own families, because in a communist regime, you're not just fighting the enemy. You're fighting yourselves to keep socialism alive when its kicking and screaming to let it die.

So, you aren't refuting the fact that the US did all those things too? At last progress!

Bad things happen on both sides in war. But at least the USA deosn't lock up all the triplets in the kingdom because Kim Jong Il had a dream he would be overthrown by triplets. Do you know in North Korea they boil up dead babies when they run short on food? RREAL family values there. "Keeping it in the family" has new meaning. :P Guess what else North Korea does! If they have a dissenter, say someone who scribbles on a factory wall: "Down with Big brother", the imprison his whole family because they beleive in capitlaist DNA! Did you know there are as I type and you read 200,000 North Koreans in Auchwitz uniform, (I'm not kidding), Auchwitz uniform rotting in concentration camps! Did you know that? USA does not go after families in peace-time like communists do. FACT.

Do I think the 'commie dream' is superior to the 'american dream'?

No, just fairer, more humane (remember humanity?).
What's fair about getting something for nothing when someone else worked for it?
Its like pushing into a line and not going to the back.

I'm not going to sit here and type out loads of info for someone who wouldn't understand or believe it anyway.
Look the t-34 was ok but after 1943/43 German tanks were better. Quantity over quality I suppose.

If you are able to read, you might like to try these.

Tanks of the World - by David Miller
Janes (you've heard of Janes's right?)
Fighting Aircraft of WWII - Bill Gunston
American Aircraft of WWII - David Mondey
Second World War - Martin Gilbert

Tanks of the world is familiar. So if fighting aircraft of WW2. I have parused them on occasions as I am interested in military specificaitons. various Janes as well. Seriously though, some of the JAnes are boring. Some are on transport ships and crap.

and I don't know if you play computer games but if you do try buying Il-2 Sturmovik or Forgotten Battles and read the descriptions of each aircraft (all of them studiously researched).
'Aces over Europe', 'Aces of the Pacific' have similar.

Like I said before read and learn.

As for the top USSR marksman he flew a P-39 for a period of a few months, that's all!

yeah, I was thinking about this guy. Unofficially he is the highest scorer cause he gave his victories to dead comrads so their families could get more money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Ivanovich_Pokryshkin

And it says he flew the p-39 from 1942-45.

So!! The German pilots were good, very good in the early days.

Again phrases like 'crap USSR garbage' just show how uneducated you are on the matter, and how bigoted.
The USSR did make garbage and you know it. FACT.

Nazism was/is finished under the Americans?
They outlawed the SS. I suppose the Wehrmacht were NAZIs too? Hardly. You know how unruly the German generals were towards Hitler's madness.

Jazzratt

29th June 2006, 15:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:14 AM

Because communists hate good technology and strategy.

I can smell that statement from here!!

For gods sake man READ!!! It makes learning so much more interesting and worthwhile.
Is that a refutation? Read? Read what? My palm? Wow, you're right, my lifeline states Communist governments indeed had excellent technology, far more sophisticated than all Western nations. Hell, they were exporting computers to the USA by the late 80's they were so advanced. As for strategy, well, if you call killing half your army in a single offensive strategy you have me.

Is there actual room for a brain in that thick skull of yours Imperialist? I think he was suggesting you read a book on history, as in what actually happened, not some piece of shit 'duhh...USA #1. U.S.A U.S.A' book that you appear to be using as a source.

QUOTE
In fact every single war the commies have been in they have had 10 times the casualties of their oponents. Its a sick disgrace.

Well, mostly because the US killed them, soldiers, civilians, women, children, oap's, anything that gets in the way of the 'american dream' but then as you say 'better dead than red!'.

No, communist governments only go after the families of the enemy and their own families, because in a communist regime, you're not just fighting the enemy. You're fighting yourselves to keep socialism alive when its kicking and screaming to let it die.

That is, yes, due to their 'weight of numbers' tactics. Do you know the interesting thing about it, they never lost that much 'weight' which leads me to conclude that their may have been a little bit of exxageration on the part of historians (not much though, it's still a dangerous tactic.)

And you think the commie dream is superior to the American dream? :blink: The commie dream is utopia and the American dream is rewards of hard work. Which one is more likely to occur? Hmmm, let me think for a microsecond. Ah yes, the American one. And you're still thinking presumably since you're still commie. Oh well, some people are just slow in the head.

When? When in the name of Mohammed's Scrotum will you cretins realise that the 'hard work' you're 'rewarding' is THEFT, pure fucking THEFT.The leeching classes take the labour of the working classes and the ingenuity of the intellectual classes and turn that into profit for themselves, never having to sling so much as one box or invent a single device. Sorry so because we don't wax nationalist witihin a millisecond we're rather slow, because we have a tendency to think things through we're rather slow. Nice thinking there.

Everything was falling appat so they had to build the t-34. And its so good, I suppose that's why North Korea still uses it? Anyway, the t-34 was undergunned and obsolete by 1944.

Again, I could bore with you with technical stuff proving that every word of that is a deep shade of brown but it would go way over your head.

Wow, I'm totally blown away by all that non-existent info. Looks like I was wrong after all! :rolleyes:

Oh Jesus fucking a camel. He didn't bother telling you, you stupid ****, because you would be too stupid to understand it, you've demonstarted a certian lack in the brain department which means that saying anything with too many numbers in it will confuse you so how do you expect to understand tech-specs for military hardwear?

Which is why the top Soviet Ace flew a p-39? Yep, thanks for convincing me of the superiorty! I'm totally blown away! But yeah it was maneuverable like a Jap plane, i'll give you that, but what's the point if the pilots don't have any training, as they invariably don't in all communist nations?

Where are you getting this shit from?

HAH, yeah, commie pilots really have great training. DO you know where all the top German aces scored their kills? That's right, not against US/British but against crap USSR garbage flown by people who couldn't fly. Heaps of German pilots had like 300 kills. Only one USSR pilot had a comparable tally and he flew a p-39.

Consider that claim more carefully, cite me a source and then we talk. Also consider that a lot of German aircraft were brought down by soviet pilots FLYING INTO THEM as a final act of bravery rather than suffer being shot down or captured.

You'd have liked that wouldn't you!?!

Walking round in your shiny uniform, sticking your arm out straight at a 45 degree angle, goose-stepping down the road and growing your own little black moustache.

Slaughtering anybody who got in your way!!!

ahhhh...dreams....eh

I would have liked a world without the USSR? sure! And NAZIism was finished under the Americans so where are you getting the fascism stuff from?

Consider where you live. Every day you're inching closer ot facism, the fascism of the leeching classes. Ein Volk, Ein Riech, Ein CEO.

Congratulations, that is the most uninformed, blinkered and sychophantic load of crap It's ever been my misfortune to have to read.
I can only take that as a complement, coming from a communist :P

Really? I'd consieder being uninformed, blinkered and sychophantic bad no matter who told me. But then again your one of the 'I'd rather be a rednceck-retard than a commie' crowd.

Please don't be insulted if I don't reply to your posts again, it's just that I left my nursery a long time ago and I have no wish to return, not even as a teacher.

You never left the nursery mate...You're like the fat guy on LOST.

Ah, you really think the USSR was better than the USA don't you! Thanks for the hilarity. :P

1) Don't hink Mr.Pinto would appreciate you calling him 'mate'. Also, comparisions to a bloke from a TV program? You're shitting me right? You do actually have something better up your sleeve and you're going to edit that right?

2) The vision of Lenin was better than that of the founding fathers. America succeeded because it had no great enemies for a few hundred years (apart from itself, which is fucking hlarious. 'Tha sawth will rise agayan' and all that.) and din't have to deal with overturning a system that was antagonistic to a majority of its peoples (once you kicked us brits, the french and the spanish out you could pretty much do as you wished), whereas America had always acted as an enenemy to the USSR and they had to put down many counter revolutions from the Leeching classes. Start them on even footing and you've got yourself a USSR>USA situation.

imperialist

29th June 2006, 16:24

Is there actual room for a brain in that thick skull of yours Imperialist? I think he was suggesting you read a book on history, as in what actually happened, not some piece of shit 'duhh...USA #1. U.S.A U.S.A' book that you appear to be using as a source.
:lol: lol he was'nt very specific was he but he clarified it didn't he.

QUOTE
In fact every single war the commies have been in they have had 10 times the casualties of their oponents. Its a sick disgrace.

Well, mostly because the US killed them, soldiers, civilians, women, children, oap's, anything that gets in the way of the 'american dream' but then as you say 'better dead than red!'.

No, communist governments only go after the families of the enemy and their own families, because in a communist regime, you're not just fighting the enemy. You're fighting yourselves to keep socialism alive when its kicking and screaming to let it die.

That is, yes, due to their 'weight of numbers' tactics. Do you know the interesting thing about it, they never lost that much 'weight' which leads me to conclude that their may have been a little bit of exxageration on the part of historians (not much though, it's still a dangerous tactic.)
Sure it is dangerous. 20,000,000 Russians died when it should have been more like half that if non-communists were in charge. Oh, and so all the historians are all of the sudden biased, from every war communists were ever in, well isn't that great.

When? When in the name of Mohammed's Scrotum will you cretins realise that the 'hard work' you're 'rewarding' is THEFT, pure fucking THEFT.The leeching classes take the labour of the working classes and the ingenuity of the intellectual classes and turn that into profit for themselves, never having to sling so much as one box or invent a single device. Sorry so because we don't wax nationalist witihin a millisecond we're rather slow, because we have a tendency to think things through we're rather slow. Nice thinking there.
Hard work is not rewarding theft. Hard work is rewarding yourself. If you don't think so I invite you to stop working and see what happens. Go on, force yourself not to go to your employer every morning and you'll soon realise who is exploiting who.

Oh Jesus fucking a camel. He didn't bother telling you, you stupid ****, because you would be too stupid to understand it, you've demonstarted a certian lack in the brain department which means that saying anything with too many numbers in it will confuse you so how do you expect to understand tech-specs for military hardwear?\
We learn from counting our money and bookkeeping. After that military specs is ABC123.

HAH, yeah, commie pilots really have great training. DO you know where all the top German aces scored their kills? That's right, not against US/British but against crap USSR garbage flown by people who couldn't fly. Heaps of German pilots had like 300 kills. Only one USSR pilot had a comparable tally and he flew a p-39.

Consider that claim more carefully, cite me a source and then we talk. Also consider that a lot of German aircraft were brought down by soviet pilots FLYING INTO THEM as a final act of bravery rather than suffer being shot down or captured.

Look it up yourslef. Si Pinto will confirm it for you. There were stacks of Germans with kill ratios of 300. Soviets generally coulnt' fly to save their life. Bad equipment and bad training. And as for flying into them, well I suppose since the Russian planes didn't have any proper guns except dumb peashooters on tiny ammo, why not?

QUOTE

You'd have liked that wouldn't you!?!

Walking round in your shiny uniform, sticking your arm out straight at a 45 degree angle, goose-stepping down the road and growing your own little black moustache.

Slaughtering anybody who got in your way!!!

ahhhh...dreams....eh

I would have liked a world without the USSR? sure! And NAZIism was finished under the Americans so where are you getting the fascism stuff from?

Consider where you live. Every day you're inching closer ot facism, the fascism of the leeching classes. Ein Volk, Ein Riech, Ein CEO.

:lol: That's great. You crack me up.

Really? I'd consieder being uninformed, blinkered and sychophantic bad no matter who told me. But then again your one of the 'I'd rather be a rednceck-retard than a commie' crowd.
If Stalin called you a retard what would you think?

1) Don't hink Mr.Pinto would appreciate you calling him 'mate'. Also, comparisions to a bloke from a TV program? You're shitting me right? You do actually have something better up your sleeve and you're going to edit that right?

Nah, thats good enough. It'll do.

2) The vision of Lenin was better than that of the founding fathers. America succeeded because it had no great enemies for a few hundred years (apart from itself, which is fucking hlarious. 'Tha sawth will rise agayan' and all that.) and din't have to deal with overturning a system that was antagonistic to a majority of its peoples (once you kicked us brits, the french and the spanish out you could pretty much do as you wished), whereas America had always acted as an enenemy to the USSR and they had to put down many counter revolutions from the Leeching classes. Start them on even footing and you've got yourself a USSR>USA situation.

1) USSR was inferior. They actually fell apart after a collapse in oil prices and a few prods from Regan. Somthing about tearing down a wall. Then there was Gorbachev: "It was my ambition to destroy communism". not quite sure what drugs he was taking as he wanted to keep the empire together. Can you imagine that happening to the US? Collapsing?

2) Well, the only thing I can say to that is: 'Tha sawth will rise agayan' :P You're a funny guy. I like you.

Si Pinto

29th June 2006, 16:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 12:53 PM
You nuclear reactors were frying and USA used proper computers to control them.
What? Like 'Three mile island'

imperialist

29th June 2006, 16:32

So you've conceded everything else?

Edit: Are you typing somehting or wating for me to reply with three mile island?

Ok i'll give you that one. Looks like both our empires needed some nuclear maintenance. But at least we didn't contaminiate half of Belarus eh? At least we didn't DRAIN the Aral sea eh?

Si Pinto

29th June 2006, 17:00

Hard work is not rewarding theft. Hard work is rewarding yourself.

:wacko: :wacko:

Do you want to try reading what he wrote and then answering in English please.

Soviets generally coulnt' fly to save their life. Bad equipment and bad training. And as for flying into them, well I suppose since the Russian planes didn't have any proper guns except dumb peashooters on tiny ammo, why not?

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS CRAP FROM?????

Quote me one source that says the Soviet pilots couldn't fly or their equipment was 'garbage'.

That's just your blinkered view of it, which I'm afraid doesn't add upto much from where I'm sitting.

Your precious Sherman was labelled "The Tommy Cooker" and "The Ronson" by German forces because it exploded into flame when it got hit!!!, jesus it must have been good then! :lol:

The Normandie Niemen squadron (French volunteers who went to the USSR to fight) had the choice of any allied plane to use. ANY ALLIED PLANE!!!

They chose the Yak series, Yak-1, 7, 9 and then 3.

Go onto their website and read- up for christ's sake!!!

lol: That's great. You crack me up.

Is THAT a refutation?

USSR was inferior. They actually fell apart after a collapse in oil prices and a few prods from Regan

Inferior?

Meaning you think that America is superior?

Meaning you think that Americans are superior to Russians?

Meaning that the American race is superior to the Slavic race?

So it was America's mission to defeat the inferior slavs?

Any idea who you sound like there?

QE fucking D

The Resistor

29th June 2006, 17:21

How the f*ck can you become an imperialist? :blink: you must be Bush or either some dumm d*ck. Can't you atleast see whats wrong with imperialism? really the dummest iideologie I ever heard of, atleast i mean somebody who follows it.....Not somebody like Bush I mean, not a ruler or such. I think you're quite ignorant when you're a imperialist. And you can say all about communism now but Imperialism? Capitalist, ok.....however i cant agree.....but I can see why.....But Imperialsim what can humankind gain with that?!!

Karl Marx's Camel

29th June 2006, 17:51

Imperialist, the A-10 Thunderbolt II was introduced in 1977, not WW2. :rolleyes:

But I do agree with you. The mentality of the USSR leadership was reckless. And yes, they used their soldiers as cannon fodder. Literally.

Delta

29th June 2006, 19:41

im not defending the war but i've had this thought and then again i have no idea if is relevant. if the U.S. is there for the Oil. why is gas so damn expensive after 2 years.. still?

I don't believe that it's because of some sort of supply and demand issue. Did you hear about that Exxon CEO (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989) that received a $400 million retirement package a month or so ago? Plus, it's been reported time and time again that the oil companies are making record profits. It's pure price gouging.

Martin Blank

29th June 2006, 21:39

Originally posted by imperialist+Jun 29 2006, 12:43 AM--> (imperialist @ Jun 29 2006, 12:43 AM)Cause they were massacring Chinese. US was supposed to let that continue?[/b]

Well, they "let that continue" for 10 years (including four years after the Rape of Shanghai) without doing anything. It was only when Japan threatened the U.S. colonies (the Philippines, Hawaii) that Washington did anything.

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 12:43 AM
This is true. Allegedly, the worst the Americans expected at Pearl Harbor was a Jap sub attack. And yeah, they did know in advance but general incompetence prevented action. Some have suggested a conspiracy to let the Japs attack. I think its more like incompetence.

I tend to think it was a little of both.

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 12:43 AM
But do you know what was responsible for the success of the winter offensice at the end of 1941? Those same divisions who beat Japan in 1938. Imagine if they were tied up in the east? Germans would have kept Stalingrad and the caucasus up to Grozny.

You don't get it. The Japanese were routed when they fought the Red Army. They could not "tie up" the eastern divisions at all. The Soviets forced the Japanese into a truce that was more for the benefit of the latter, because it freed up forces for the invasion of Indochina and the Philippines.

[email protected] 29 2006, 12:43 AM
They were in a panic, trust me.

Oh! I didn't know you were there. Well, damn.

Miles

Nothing Human Is Alien

29th June 2006, 22:06

Phillipines=6000 [islands].

7,107.

Otherwise, most of the shit being spewed by the right wingers here is just that, shit.

This article is accurate: When the communists stopped the Nazis (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/ryw5a.html)

imperialist

30th June 2006, 02:01

QUOTE
Hard work is not rewarding theft. Hard work is rewarding yourself.

Do you want to try reading what he wrote and then answering in English please.

I said hard work is not rewarding theft. Hard work is rewarding yourself. R-E-W-A-R-D-I-N-G Y-O-U-R-S-E-L-F.

QUOTE
Soviets generally coulnt' fly to save their life. Bad equipment and bad training. And as for flying into them, well I suppose since the Russian planes didn't have any proper guns except dumb peashooters on tiny ammo, why not?

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS CRAP FROM?????

Quote me one source that says the Soviet pilots couldn't fly or their equipment was 'garbage'.

That's just your blinkered view of it, which I'm afraid doesn't add upto much from where I'm sitting.

Your precious Sherman was labelled "The Tommy Cooker" and "The Ronson" by German forces because it exploded into flame when it got hit!!!, jesus it must have been good then!

The Normandie Niemen squadron (French volunteers who went to the USSR to fight) had the choice of any allied plane to use. ANY ALLIED PLANE!!!

They chose the Yak series, Yak-1, 7, 9 and then 3.

Go onto their website and read- up for christ's sake!!!

You don't think Soviet Planes used peashooters? Look at you precious Yak. 2x 7.62mm peashooters and only one 12.7mm. On German planes 12.7 mm was the standard machine gun, with extra 20mm cannon. Japs used the same which proved pathetic against American armoured planes. And who cares about the French? I would have chosen a spitfire with slightly better armament or a mustang with some decent 12.7mm calibre on six machine guns, not goddam 2, or 1.

And as for the Shermans, I never defended them. But to be fair the USA did come slightly later into the war and didn't have any combat experience to know exactly how to build a tank. One thing is certain however. Early USA ww2 tanks were way batter than early ww2 USSR tanks. Look at that t-26 garbage.

And you think Soviet pilots could fly? How come the Germans ran rings around them with a smaller air-force then?

QUOTE
USSR was inferior. They actually fell apart after a collapse in oil prices and a few prods from Regan

Inferior?

Meaning you think that America is superior?

Meaning you think that Americans are superior to Russians?

Meaning that the American race is superior to the Slavic race?

So it was America's mission to defeat the inferior slavs?

Any idea who you sound like there?

QE fucking D
Did I say the race was inferior? Nope. I said USSR was inferior because it had a communist governement which led to untrained crews, political incompetence and mass slaughter. Look at the Soviet army in 1941 after Stalin mangled it up. It was massive and yet completely demoralised and inneficinet. They needed heavy aid from America before they could start coming up with something decent in 1942/43 to pose a credible challenge to the Germans. Do you deny this?

EDIT: Wow, i've got a warning poitn already. Looks like you guys can't take the heat. :)

Jazzratt

30th June 2006, 02:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 11:02 PM

QUOTE
Hard work is not rewarding theft. Hard work is rewarding yourself.

Do you want to try reading what he wrote and then answering in English please.

I said hard work is not rewarding theft. Hard work is rewarding yourself. R-E-W-A-R-D-I-N-G Y-O-U-R-S-E-L-F.
Wow, you really are an imbecile. I didn't say that hard work was rewarding theft, you mouth breathing cretin, I said. And I quote "When in the name of Mohammed's Scrotum will you cretins realise that the 'hard work' you're 'rewarding' is THEFT, pure fucking THEFT". As in it is not the hard work that is rewarded by capitalism but theft. So you fail.

EDIT: Wow, i've got a warning poitn already. Looks like you guys can't take the heat. smile.gif

Yeah that's it. It's not because nothing we say penetrates the thick layer of 'duuuhhh cap. it. al. ism is right. uhhh. MAW I FAHGOWTS HOW TA TYE MAH SHOOOZ AGAYAN!' idiocy that surrounds your brain.

Nothing Human Is Alien

30th June 2006, 02:32

You got a warning point for your repeated use of the word "Jap".

imperialist

30th June 2006, 06:36

Wow, you really are an imbecile. I didn't say that hard work was rewarding theft, you mouth breathing cretin, I said And I quote "When in the name of Mohammed's Scrotum will you cretins realise that the 'hard work' you're 'rewarding' is THEFT, pure fucking THEFT". As in it is not the hard work that is rewarded by capitalism but theft. So you fail.
No you fail. Hard work is not theft. Hard work is hard work which rewards yourself if you do it. If you disbeleive me, stop working! :P But perhaps you wouldn't know anything about that. Keep bludging off the nanny state.

QUOTE

EDIT: Wow, i've got a warning poitn already. Looks like you guys can't take the heat. smile.gif

Yeah that's it. It's not because nothing we say penetrates the thick layer of 'duuuhhh cap. it. al. ism is right. uhhh. MAW I FAHGOWTS HOW TA TYE MAH SHOOOZ AGAYAN!' idiocy that surrounds your brain
lmao :lol: I love the way you do that! But you think I'm thick? I'm not the one that's supporting a system which separates families, kills indiscriminately and puts pilots into military aircraft without any training. The system I support has generated enormous wealth for the people of the world. It has liberated enormous wealth from the soil and rewards ingenuity very very well. Capitalism is the best sytem there ever was. And your system is a was.

You got a warning point for your repeated use of the word "Jap".
UNBELEIVABLE! I'm penalised because I can't be bothered typing out JAPANESE! Just another reason why communism is so inefficient I suppose.

Nothing Human Is Alien

30th June 2006, 07:03

"Jap" is a racist slur. That should be no suprise to someone who knows so much about WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jap

Jap (variants: Japo, Japse) is a slur used against the Japanese people.

Jap, n was first used in 1860 to refer to members of the Japanese embassy in the United States. It was later popularized during World War II to describe those of Japanese/Asian descent, and was then commonly used in newspaper headlines to refer to the Japanese.

the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor...

In Japanese dictionaries, the term "Jap" is only defined as a disparaging term used against the Japanese people, like it is the case in many English language dictionaries.

imperialist

30th June 2006, 07:13

I was just abreviating 'Japanese'. Anyway, you think they like being called Japanese when its really called Nippon? What's so special about getting it right when both are wrong? I mean my political corectomometer has just gone off the richter scale. I mean when this happened:

the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor...

The standard response would be shock and horror at the actual attack. You would look at it and say: "Oh MY GOD! They said a bad word!" "I mean someone call the thought police"! This is TERRIBLE!" "We're all gonna die unless this OUTRAGE of ABREVIATION is corrected!" And you think correcting people in their speaking will bring about a revolution? That will just push them away because at the end of the day they will just tell you to go to hell. Its the reason you guys are so marginalised. You push everything you don't like away, which includes 99% of the population.

bombeverything

30th June 2006, 11:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:14 AM
And you think correcting people in their speaking will bring about a revolution? That will just push them away because at the end of the day they will just tell you to go to hell. Its the reason you guys are so marginalised. You push everything you don't like away, which includes 99% of the population.

We don't tolerate racism. If that alienates people, then so be it. You cannot say that 99 per cent of people would disagree with us about the use of that term.

Jazzratt

30th June 2006, 13:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:37 AM

Wow, you really are an imbecile. I didn't say that hard work was rewarding theft, you mouth breathing cretin, I said And I quote "When in the name of Mohammed's Scrotum will you cretins realise that the 'hard work' you're 'rewarding' is THEFT, pure fucking THEFT". As in it is not the hard work that is rewarded by capitalism but theft. So you fail.
No you fail. Hard work is not theft. Hard work is hard work which rewards yourself if you do it. If you disbeleive me, stop working! :P But perhaps you wouldn't know anything about that. Keep bludging off the nanny state.
Gah! How do you so obviously miss the point I am making. Hard Work is not theft. THe capitalist system does not reward hard work. How fucking hard is it for you to understand that. Capitalism rewards theft not hard work. Otherwise we'd have millionare dockers and slingers.

QUOTE

EDIT: Wow, i've got a warning poitn already. Looks like you guys can't take the heat. smile.gif

Yeah that's it. It's not because nothing we say penetrates the thick layer of 'duuuhhh cap. it. al. ism is right. uhhh. MAW I FAHGOWTS HOW TA TYE MAH SHOOOZ AGAYAN!' idiocy that surrounds your brain
lmao :lol: I love the way you do that! But you think I'm thick? I'm not the one that's supporting a system which separates families, kills indiscriminately and puts pilots into military aircraft without any training. The system I support has generated enormous wealth for the people of the world. It has liberated enormous wealth from the soil and rewards ingenuity very very well. Capitalism is the best sytem there ever was. And your system is a was.

Where to begin? "Seperates Families" I suppose what you mean is "challenges traditional gender roles and applies these challenges to family relationships". Why yes, yes I do because I'm not a cretin. "Kills indiscrimanatly" if by that you mean "kills during a revolution which is a war anyway." then yes you would be right again. As for most of the rest of that claptrap I'm communist not stat-capitalist so you can shove the USSSR reference rght where the sun don't shine. You have supported a system which has brought untold SUFFERING to the ordinary people of the world for the prosperity of the few. It has 'liberated' enormous amounts of oil from the ground is what I think you mean and 'rewards ingenuity' pheh don't make me laugh. The system I supported is <grammatical error>? Seriously if it is 'so, like, last year' then why the hell are you here debating it? Is it because you are afriad it's coming back?

You got a warning point for your repeated use of the word "Jap".
UNBELEIVABLE! I'm penalised because I can't be bothered typing out JAPANESE! Just another reason why communism is so inefficient I suppose.
Er...Jap is a racial slur and actually fairly offensive. Think of it as me saying: "UNBELEIVABLE! I'm penalised because I can't be bothered typing out African/Black /Oriental ect... and instead wrote Nigger/Wog/Chink." If you use the language of racists you are a racist.

imperialist

30th June 2006, 13:50

Come on, I can take both of you on, you and Si Pinto and whoever else wants to join in. See how strong capitalism is. It fills me with infinite energy. :lol:

Gah! How do you so obviously miss the point I am making. Hard Work is not theft. THe capitalist system does not reward hard work. How fucking hard is it for you to understand that. Capitalism rewards theft not hard work. Otherwise we'd have millionare dockers and slingers.
Minimum wage jobs are not 'hard-work'. If they were, why on earth are they so popular? You can't fight for the right to be paid a certain amount under minimum wage if there are a thousand people waiting outside to take your job. It encourages inefficiency and waste. This is why socialist and communist governments are so horribly poor. And yes, capitalism does reward hard work. You think work can only be manual? Manual jobs employ the least intellectual work, which is why they pay so low. There are different ways of working see?

Where to begin? "Seperates Families" I suppose what you mean is "challenges traditional gender roles and applies these challenges to family relationships". Why yes, yes I do because I'm not a cretin. "Kills indiscrimanatly" if by that you mean "kills during a revolution which is a war anyway." then yes you would be right again. As for most of the rest of that claptrap I'm communist not stat-capitalist so you can shove the USSSR reference rght where the sun don't shine. You have supported a system which has brought untold SUFFERING to the ordinary people of the world for the prosperity of the few.
Untold suffering? Well, I'm sorry that through hard work you suffer, but that's just why we are so rich. Hard labor is what brings wealth. What, the workers are going to be richer if they don't work so hard? :wacko: And since we know crime doesn't pay, prosperity only goes to those worthy to receive it as a reward for their services.

It has 'liberated' enormous amounts of oil from the ground is what I think you mean and 'rewards ingenuity' pheh don't make me laugh. The system I supported is <grammatical error>? Seriously if it is 'so, like, last year' then why the hell are you here debating it? Is it because you are afriad it's coming back?
If it comes back its only a matter of time before it goes away again. You guys always think capitalism is ready to 'crash' because there is a stock-market correction or something. To bad you can't apply that same logic to communisms which keep disappearing and not bouncing back like capitalism.

Er...Jap is a racial slur and actually fairly offensive. Think of it as me saying: "UNBELEIVABLE! I'm penalised because I can't be bothered typing out African/Black /Oriental ect... and instead wrote Nigger/Wog/Chink." If you use the language of racists you are a racist.
I really was just abreviating it. I like the Japanese people. Jap..............anese cars are good. :D

Si Pinto

30th June 2006, 13:57

I said hard work is not rewarding theft. Hard work is rewarding yourself. R-E-W-A-R-D-I-N-G Y-O-U-R-S-E-L-F.

I know what you wrote, and I can still see what you wrote, and it still doesn't have anything to do with the point Jazzrat made.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. :lol: :rolleyes:

And who cares about the French?

Degrading with a hint of racism and a big splash of your 'American superiority' in that statement.

Tell me something, do you make friends easy?

You don't think Soviet Planes used peashooters?

Your proven technical expertise :P is such that it is pointless to carry on the debate. If indeed it ever reached the level of a debate.

Did I say the race was inferior? Nope. I said USSR was inferior because it had a communist governement

No you didn't you said simply that the USSR was inferior, meaning, obviously, that you consider yourself 'above' the people of the USSR, or Russia and the other former Soviet countries, as they are still the same people.

So my theory stands.

They needed heavy aid from America before they could start coming up with something decent in 1942/43 to pose a credible challenge to the Germans. Do you deny this?

If I say no will it make you stop posting this drivel.

OK.....NO!!!!!!

Now you've won...your the boss....numero uno honcho....the big cheese....the top dog.

You can go and meet up with your friends and tell them how you 'defeated the evil commie'.

Award yourself the Medal of Honour if you like!!!

Jazzratt

30th June 2006, 14:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:51 AM
Come on, I can take both of you on, you and Si Pinto and whoever else wants to join in. See how strong capitalism is. It fills me with infinite energy. :lol:
You know people who get so throughly beaten in arguments ansd still hold onto their stupid claims and strawmen are usually called imbeciles. Or twats.

Gah! How do you so obviously miss the point I am making. Hard Work is not theft. THe capitalist system does not reward hard work. How fucking hard is it for you to understand that. Capitalism rewards theft not hard work. Otherwise we'd have millionare dockers and slingers.
Minimum wage jobs are not 'hard-work'. If they were, why on earth are they so popular? You can't fight for the right to be paid a certain amount under minimum wage if there are a thousand people waiting outside to take your job. It encourages inefficiency and waste. This is why socialist and communist governments are so horribly poor. And yes, capitalism does reward hard work. You think work can only be manual? Manual jobs employ the least intellectual work, which is why they pay so low. There are different ways of working see?
Yes I know about intellectual work, you have to be if you have an interest in science and I will say this for your argument: All the true intellectual work, the actual innovation is still underpaid. Manual and intellectual still need to be rewarded equally for you cannot have either exculisvly. Also the fruits fo most innovation is taken by 'entrepeneurs' (friend of mine once quipped: "French for scum") and bussinessmen and women (Another symonym for scum right there.).

Where to begin? "Seperates Families" I suppose what you mean is "challenges traditional gender roles and applies these challenges to family relationships". Why yes, yes I do because I'm not a cretin. "Kills indiscrimanatly" if by that you mean "kills during a revolution which is a war anyway." then yes you would be right again. As for most of the rest of that claptrap I'm communist not stat-capitalist so you can shove the USSSR reference rght where the sun don't shine. You have supported a system which has brought untold SUFFERING to the ordinary people of the world for the prosperity of the few.
Untold suffering? Well, I'm sorry that through hard work you suffer, but that's just why we are so rich. Hard labor is what brings wealth. What, the workers are going to be richer if they don't work so hard? :wacko: And since we know crime doesn't pay, prosperity only goes to those worthy to receive it as a reward for their services.

URGH! Stop using your hard work fetish as an argument! YES" Communisim rewards hard work! We just don't let the criminals in ties and suits get away. "We know crime doesn't pay" do we? Funny I'd always thought the most lucrative thing to be was a criminal, look at Bill Gates he's a criminal and I don't see him going down anytime soon, the guy who founded Walmart has a whole criminal family going and I don't see no cops busting down HIS door. What have these people contributed? Bill Gates gave us a substandard operating system that was overpriced and THe guy who founded Walmart gave us: ANOTHER supermarket, as if we didn't already have those. What a pair of criminal ****s. And don't get me started on the rest of the ruling and leeching classes, criminals the lot of them, furthermore they wouldn't know hard work if it got up and raped their dog. Stop it with the Hard work fetish, really.

It has 'liberated' enormous amounts of oil from the ground is what I think you mean and 'rewards ingenuity' pheh don't make me laugh. The system I supported is <grammatical error>? Seriously if it is 'so, like, last year' then why the hell are you here debating it? Is it because you are afriad it's coming back?
If it comes back its only a matter of time before it goes away again. You guys always think capitalism is ready to 'crash' because there is a stock-market correction or something. To bad you can't apply that same logic to communisms which keep disappearing and not bouncing back like capitalism.
Most of us recognise it needs that extra push. Hence Revolutionary.

Er...Jap is a racial slur and actually fairly offensive. Think of it as me saying: "UNBELEIVABLE! I'm penalised because I can't be bothered typing out African/Black /Oriental ect... and instead wrote Nigger/Wog/Chink." If you use the language of racists you are a racist.
I really was just abreviating it. I like the Japanese people. Jap..............anese cars are good. :D

Mind if I call you "hick" "american" just takes too long to type out.

imperialist

30th June 2006, 15:15

Jazzrat:

You know people who get so throughly beaten in arguments ansd still hold onto their stupid claims and strawmen are usually called imbeciles. Or twats.
Steady on. Beat me first.

Yes I know about intellectual work, you have to be if you have an interest in science and I will say this for your argument: All the true intellectual work, the actual innovation is still underpaid. Manual and intellectual still need to be rewarded equally for you cannot have either exculisvly. Also the fruits fo most innovation is taken by 'entrepeneurs' (friend of mine once quipped: "French for scum") and bussinessmen and women (Another symonym for scum right there.).

HAH! Who will take the risk if entrepreneurs don't to get the innovations to the marketplace? Do you know how many flops there are? If you think entrepreneurs are scum, just stop using your computer before I bust your ass.

URGH! Stop using your hard work fetish as an argument! YES" Communisim rewards hard work! We just don't let the criminals in ties and suits get away. "We know crime doesn't pay" do we? Funny I'd always thought the most lucrative thing to be was a criminal, look at Bill Gates he's a criminal and I don't see him going down anytime soon, the guy who founded Walmart has a whole criminal family going and I don't see no cops busting down HIS door. What have these people contributed? Bill Gates gave us a substandard operating system that was overpriced and THe guy who founded Walmart gave us: ANOTHER supermarket, as if we didn't already have those. What a pair of criminal ****s. And don't get me started on the rest of the ruling and leeching classes, criminals the lot of them, furthermore they wouldn't know hard work if it got up and raped their dog. Stop it with the Hard work fetish, really.
Its true I have a hard work fetish. And you think communism rewards hard work? Oh I guess that's why the government comes and takes everything away, because we really have to reward hard work don't we :rolleyes: And you think crime pays? Fine, be a criminal and find out the hard way how much revenge your victims can take. You think its easy being a billionaire? Gates says nothing good comes of it. He wants out! Walmart is a ciminal organisation!? Now i've heard it all :lol: They provide efficiency. Why don't you go the goddam corner store which sells for massive prices then? See how your system rewards inneficiency? And they wouln'dt know hard work if they got up and raped their dog? What's that supposed to mean? More communist logic? :lol: I LOVE hard work. Funny how you proved so well that communism rewards hard work. I'm cracking up here!

Si Pinto

30th June 2006, 15:47

Hey Imperialist!!

I've got a present for you!!!

I saw this and thought of you!!

Yeeeeehaaaaaa!!!!

imperialist

30th June 2006, 16:03

HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! That's a good one. I like the commie humor. Where's it from? or is it photoshop?

Incidently, here's my reply to your 'statements':

QUOTE
And who cares about the French?

Degrading with a hint of racism and a big splash of your 'American superiority' in that statement.

Tell me something, do you make friends easy?
I make friends very easily. And look at the moron French. They ignored De Gaul's ideas of mobile warfare and used dumb WW1 tactics. They helped organise the Polish army in the same way so both got smashed in a month. Then the US and commonwealth liberated them. They even got their own zone in Berlin even if they didn't do much - the collaborators! I mean the French WW2 tactic was to turn up their noses to the Germans and pretend they we'rent there. How heroic? :rolleyes:
And I do make friends easy. Even with communists.

QUOTE
You don't think Soviet Planes used peashooters?

Your proven technical expertise is such that it is pointless to carry on the debate. If indeed it ever reached the level of a debate.
It didn't. You don't use enough evidence to back up anything you say. Oh and more flattery will get you nowhere. :P

QUOTE
Did I say the race was inferior? Nope. I said USSR was inferior because it had a communist governement

No you didn't you said simply that the USSR was inferior, meaning, obviously, that you consider yourself 'above' the people of the USSR, or Russia and the other former Soviet countries, as they are still the same people.

So my theory stands.

If your theory stands you will be able to come up with the quote where I said the Russians were inferior racially. I actually said communism was inferior. You can't be a good debater if you need to put words into my mouth. I think its a disgrace to yourself and to communism, not that it needed to be disgraced any further. :P

QUOTE
They needed heavy aid from America before they could start coming up with something decent in 1942/43 to pose a credible challenge to the Germans. Do you deny this?

If I say no will it make you stop posting this drivel.

OK.....NO!!!!!!

Now you've won...your the boss....numero uno honcho....the big cheese....the top dog.

You can go and meet up with your friends and tell them how you 'defeated the evil commie'.

Award yourself the Medal of Honour if you like!!!

I knew IT! You're not a real supporter of the USSR. You are just in sympathy with their beleifs. Your heart isn't in this fight. I WIN! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! The USA is superior and you know it! But its not enough. Now I need to totally crush your spirit as well and grind it into the mud with my shiny jackboot. I won't be satisfied until you quote the following: "The USA rules the world". "Communism is but a shadow to capitalism". Also take a picture of yourself holding up the sign: "I submit my body to 'imperialist' as a source of perpetual hard work in his factory". I also want your women. :lol:

Si Pinto

30th June 2006, 18:36

I actually said communism was inferior.

Ok seeing as you clearly can't remember what you yourself typed a few posts ago I'll remind you.

You said 'The USSR was inferior'.

That phrase doesn't mention communism and does not even refer to communism since the USSR was not communist.

The USA is superior

The USA rules the world

There you go again, you really have a 'king of the jungle' fixation that should be treated by professional mental care.

I knew IT! You're not a real supporter of the USSR

That's the first and only sensible thing you've said in 3 days of posting.

I also want your women.

I just asked them and they said for you to come back when your balls drop, and whilst they like a big prick, they usely prefer it in the trouser department, rather than personality wise.

Goodnight & Godbless

Jazzratt

30th June 2006, 19:02

Originally posted by imperialist+Jun 30 2006, 12:16 PM--> (imperialist @ Jun 30 2006, 12:16 PM) Jazzrat:

You know people who get so throughly beaten in arguments ansd still hold onto their stupid claims and strawmen are usually called imbeciles. Or twats.
Steady on. Beat me first. [/b]
We have. Consistently.

Yes I know about intellectual work, you have to be if you have an interest in science and I will say this for your argument: All the true intellectual work, the actual innovation is still underpaid. Manual and intellectual still need to be rewarded equally for you cannot have either exculisvly. Also the fruits fo most innovation is taken by 'entrepeneurs' (friend of mine once quipped: "French for scum") and bussinessmen and women (Another symonym for scum right there.).

HAH! Who will take the risk if entrepreneurs don't to get the innovations to the marketplace? Do you know how many flops there are? If you think entrepreneurs are scum, just stop using your computer before I bust your ass.
Without the marketplace there would be no need for entrepeneurs to take somone elses innovation and make money off it. 'before you bust my ass' there you go again with your internet tough guy act, you probably don't get quite how funny it is from my end.

URGH! Stop using your hard work fetish as an argument! YES" Communisim rewards hard work! We just don't let the criminals in ties and suits get away. "We know crime doesn't pay" do we? Funny I'd always thought the most lucrative thing to be was a criminal, look at Bill Gates he's a criminal and I don't see him going down anytime soon, the guy who founded Walmart has a whole criminal family going and I don't see no cops busting down HIS door. What have these people contributed? Bill Gates gave us a substandard operating system that was overpriced and THe guy who founded Walmart gave us: ANOTHER supermarket, as if we didn't already have those. What a pair of criminal ****s. And don't get me started on the rest of the ruling and leeching classes, criminals the lot of them, furthermore they wouldn't know hard work if it got up and raped their dog. Stop it with the Hard work fetish, really.
Its true I have a hard work fetish. And you think communism rewards hard work? Oh I guess that's why the government comes and takes everything away, because we really have to reward hard work don't we :rolleyes: And you think crime pays? Fine, be a criminal and find out the hard way how much revenge your victims can take. You think its easy being a billionaire? Gates says nothing good comes of it. He wants out! Walmart is a ciminal organisation!? Now i've heard it all :lol: They provide efficiency. Why don't you go the goddam corner store which sells for massive prices then? See how your system rewards inneficiency? And they wouln'dt know hard work if they got up and raped their dog? What's that supposed to mean? More communist logic? :lol: I LOVE hard work. Funny how you proved so well that communism rewards hard work. I'm cracking up here!
The government does what now? I think you misunderstand communism as in a CLASSLESS, STATELESS society. As for taking everything away if by taking back the fruits of crimes then yes, yes we do we take back what is ours. I know crime pays, I can see it objectivley - all you have to do is call yourself a buissnessman and your out of jail free. My 'system' rewards ineffeciancy? That's an odd claim, but one I would expect from the likes of you. As for the 'wouldn't know hard work' thing it's a figure of speech: for example You wouldn't know a figure of speech if it punched you in the head. I can tell you're cracking up, your arguments are deteriorating, and considering how they were to begin...

EDIT:

Si Pinto
I just asked them and they said for you to come back when your balls drop, and whilst they like a big prick, they usely prefer it in the trouser department, rather than personality wise.
I just love the smell of pwnage in the morning.

Si Pinto

30th June 2006, 19:11

Jazzratt, I admire your patience comrade ;) .

But I really wouldn't bother with this anymore. I enjoy a technical debate, either on material things or on political theory, but this guy just isn't worth the bother my friend.

Anyone who can come up with a line like 'do you think it's easy being a billionaire', is clearly not in any fit state to debate anything.

imperialist

1st July 2006, 01:38

Si Pinto:

Ok seeing as you clearly can't remember what you yourself typed a few posts ago I'll remind you.

You said 'The USSR was inferior'.

That phrase doesn't mention communism and does not even refer to communism since the USSR was not communist.

Yeah, notice I didn't say 'Russia', or 'Slavs'. I said 'USSR', which was kinda a country run by bolsheviks. And you've admitted yourself USA was better than USSR, hence I suppose kinda means you think USSR was inferior was well.

QUOTE
The USA is superior

QUOTE
The USA rules the world

There you go again, you really have a 'king of the jungle' fixation that should be treated by professional mental care.
Its nothing to do with phsychology. USA rules the world is a statement of fact I would have thought.

Jackassrat:

QUOTE (imperialist @ Jun 30 2006, 12:16 PM)
Jazzrat:

QUOTE
You know people who get so throughly beaten in arguments ansd still hold onto their stupid claims and strawmen are usually called imbeciles. Or twats.

Steady on. Beat me first.

We have. Consistently.
How? I said Si Pinto's precious Yak used peashooters from the first world war. The last american plane to use that calibre was the pre-war p-39. And it made up for it by also using 2x .5 calibre and an extra special high calibre 37mm. Later they just switched to 4x .5 calibre plus the 37mm.(love to see a soviet fighter with a gun like that), Si Pinto knows it to be true. The best Soviet Plane had less armament less than the worst US plane. :lol:

Without the marketplace there would be no need for entrepeneurs to take somone elses innovation and make money off it. 'before you bust my ass' there you go again with your internet tough guy act, you probably don't get quite how funny it is from my end.
What sort of argument is that? Your saying its the fault of a 'marketplace'? :blink:

The government does what now? I think you misunderstand communism as in a CLASSLESS, STATELESS society. As for taking everything away if by taking back the fruits of crimes then yes, yes we do we take back what is ours. I know crime pays, I can see it objectivley - all you have to do is call yourself a buissnessman and your out of jail free. My 'system' rewards ineffeciancy? That's an odd claim, but one I would expect from the likes of you. As for the 'wouldn't know hard work' thing it's a figure of speech: for example You wouldn't know a figure of speech if it punched you in the head. I can tell you're cracking up, your arguments are deteriorating, and considering how they were to begin...
HAH, there are plenty of businessmen in jail just to prove how crime doesn't pay. Remember the Enron executive who shot himself in his expensive BMW. Tell me he was having a good time in that car. Being rich is'nt everything. And yes, your system does reward inefficiency by punishing efficiency. Look at a socialist country if you don't beleive me. As for your precious Britain, do you know what 30 years of extreme socialist policy did? In the 70's it was discussed that by the 80's your Britiain would be the first country ever to go from first world nation to 'developing country'. Do you think that would happen if the capitalists were in charge? That's what socialism is all about see, turning everything into Cuba. Too many handouts and not enough hard work is the cause of economic deterioration and subsequent poverty.

EDIT:

QUOTE (Si Pinto)
I just asked them and they said for you to come back when your balls drop, and whilst they like a big prick, they usely prefer it in the trouser department, rather than personality wise.

I just love the smell of pwnage in the morning
HAHAH, thats a good one, more a joke than pwnage though. :lol:

Anyone who can come up with a line like 'do you think it's easy being a billionaire', is clearly not in any fit state to debate anything
You obviously havn't read many billionaire biographies. They are way unhapper than ordinary folk. Getty: "Is there a correlation between wealth and unhappyness...perhaps". His own children were suing him all the time for more money! Look at the Onassis family. They had a daughter who overdosed because of being spoilt and her mother constantly thinking she was ugly. You want unhappyness? look at the Onassis family story. That's the problem with possessions, they make you unhappy unless you appreciate them. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

Jazzratt

1st July 2006, 02:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:39 PM
Jackassrat:
The comic genius of the right ladies and gentelmen, the comic genius of the right. If at first you realise you're a retard insult change the other person's username in an ostensibly humorous way - it works for ummproffesional, it can work for you.

QUOTE (imperialist @ Jun 30 2006, 12:16 PM)
Jazzrat:

QUOTE
You know people who get so throughly beaten in arguments ansd still hold onto their stupid claims and strawmen are usually called imbeciles. Or twats.

Steady on. Beat me first.

We have. Consistently.
How? I said Si Pinto's precious Yak used peashooters from the first world war. The last american plane to use that calibre was the pre-war p-39. And it made up for it by also using 2x .5 calibre and an extra special high calibre 37mm. Later they just switched to 4x .5 calibre plus the 37mm.(love to see a soviet fighter with a gun like that), Si Pinto knows it to be true. The best Soviet Plane had less armament less than the worst US plane. :lol: ...and? I thought the argument was about nukes in Japan. But you lost that so switched the focus to soviet areoplanes. masterful arguing that is.

Without the marketplace there would be no need for entrepeneurs to take somone elses innovation and make money off it. 'before you bust my ass' there you go again with your internet tough guy act, you probably don't get quite how funny it is from my end.
What sort of argument is that? Your saying its the fault of a 'marketplace'? :blink: No. It is the system that perpetuates the market.

The government does what now? I think you misunderstand communism as in a CLASSLESS, STATELESS society. As for taking everything away if by taking back the fruits of crimes then yes, yes we do we take back what is ours. I know crime pays, I can see it objectivley - all you have to do is call yourself a buissnessman and your out of jail free. My 'system' rewards ineffeciancy? That's an odd claim, but one I would expect from the likes of you. As for the 'wouldn't know hard work' thing it's a figure of speech: for example You wouldn't know a figure of speech if it punched you in the head. I can tell you're cracking up, your arguments are deteriorating, and considering how they were to begin...
HAH, there are plenty of businessmen in jail just to prove how crime doesn't pay. Remember the Enron executive who shot himself in his expensive BMW. Tell me he was having a good time in that car. Being rich is'nt everything. And yes, your system does reward inefficiency by punishing efficiency. Look at a socialist country if you don't beleive me. As for your precious Britain, do you know what 30 years of extreme socialist policy did? In the 70's it was discussed that by the 80's your Britiain would be the first country ever to go from first world nation to 'developing country'. Do you think that would happen if the capitalists were in charge? That's what socialism is all about see, turning everything into Cuba. Too many handouts and not enough hard work is the cause of economic deterioration and subsequent poverty.
What about the hundreds of entrepeneurs and bussinessmen that walk free? Er in the 70s Thatcher was in power, are you saying Thatcher was a socialist? If so she hid it well :lol: When did we have this socialist rule, please tell me. The Labour party is about as socilist as the Democrat party and the New Labour party is about as socialist as the Republi****s.

Anyone who can come up with a line like 'do you think it's easy being a billionaire', is clearly not in any fit state to debate anything
You obviously havn't read many billionaire biographies. They are way unhapper than ordinary folk. Getty: "Is there a correlation between wealth and unhappyness...perhaps". His own children were suing him all the time for more money! Look at the Onassis family. They had a daughter who overdosed because of being spoilt and her mother constantly thinking she was ugly. You want unhappyness? look at the Onassis family story. That's the problem with possessions, they make you unhappy unless you appreciate them. But you wouldn't know anything about that. Eberyone says their life sucks. The problem is I have NO SYMPATHY for these rich execs, entrepeneurs and CEOs because they have no idea what real work and real hardship are.

I am now fed up of bashing my intellect against the brick wall that is your ignorance. Do not expect further replies.

imperialist

1st July 2006, 08:36

The comic genius of the right ladies and gentelmen, the comic genius of the right. If at first you realise you're a retard insult change the other person's username in an ostensibly humorous way - it works for ummproffesional, it can work for you.
It was humurous and it was accurate.

...and? I thought the argument was about nukes in Japan. But you lost that so switched the focus to soviet areoplanes. masterful arguing that is.
I owned you both on Soviet 'technology' so now you want to talk Japan again? Don't you recall my response? Ok, Japan deserved everything it got. Read about the massacres they perpetrated in China and Korea before you criticise the US response. I love how much warning the Jap-anese gave to the US before Pearl Harbor as well. :rolleyes: Why don't you talk about that? Why are you supporting fascist Japan over Republican USA? Do you feel more aligned with that regime?

No. It is the system that perpetuates the market.
Yeah, I suppose you've never been to a marketplace because they're so evil :rolleyes: GROW UP!

What about the hundreds of entrepeneurs and bussinessmen that walk free? Er in the 70s Thatcher was in power, are you saying Thatcher was a socialist? If so she hid it well When did we have this socialist rule, please tell me. The Labour party is about as socilist as the Democrat party and the New Labour party is about as socialist as the Republi****s.
Yeah, Thatcher was kinda at the end of the 70's. And you think a government which states they are going to make the rich pips squek and implements a 98% top tax rate is not socialist? :rolleyes: Even Marx would agree that it was.

Eberyone says their life sucks. The problem is I have NO SYMPATHY for these rich execs, entrepeneurs and CEOs because they have no idea what real work and real hardship are.
Yeah, blah blah blah, more jealosy of the rich. Tell your poor friends to get a job.

I am now fed up of bashing my intellect against the brick wall that is your ignorance. Do not expect further replies.
Capitalism is the brick wall and communism is your soft and squishy head. :P Oh and what intellect? :huh: You support communism don't you? :rolleyes: And If you really think you're superior to me that makes you what, a fascist? HAHAHHAHH! Thanks for all the laughs and keep smokin the wacky tabacci with the other hippys. HAHHAHAHAHAH!

The Resistor

1st July 2006, 12:51

Still I ask you imperialist what can Humankind gain with Imperialism?

imperialist

1st July 2006, 14:10

Originally posted by The [email protected] 1 2006, 09:52 AM
Still I ask you imperialist what can Humankind gain with Imperialism?
Capitalists go to the poorest countries to establish industries, taking 'advantage' of cheap labor and giving people jobs. Over time, wages increase as more and more capitalists move in, wages go up. As a bi-product, the economy becomes industrialised.

These days imperialism in a political sence has been replaced with aid, which just goes into militaries and building palaces and swiss banking. We don't need the political imperialism anymore though. The older imperialism of private companies running countries is good enough. I suppose imperialism is just another word for the globailisation that is happening anyhow.

Do we need imperialism? yes, because how is a poor country suddenly expected to up and build factories and infrastructure? Sure, they can build it on their own, but is'nt it more effective to have a direct transplant from the first world, and let capitalists take on all the risk so the poor countries don't start to accumulate debt?

This is why I am an imperialist. It allows the transplanting of the first world into the third.

The Resistor

1st July 2006, 14:49

Originally posted by imperialist+Jul 1 2006, 11:11 AM--> (imperialist @ Jul 1 2006, 11:11 AM)
The [email protected] 1 2006, 09:52 AM
Still I ask you imperialist what can Humankind gain with Imperialism?
Capitalists go to the poorest countries to establish industries, taking 'advantage' of cheap labor and giving people jobs. Over time, wages increase as more and more capitalists move in, wages go up. As a bi-product, the economy becomes industrialised.

These days imperialism in a political sence has been replaced with aid, which just goes into militaries and building palaces and swiss banking. We don't need the political imperialism anymore though. The older imperialism of private companies running countries is good enough. I suppose imperialism is just another word for the globailisation that is happening anyhow.

Do we need imperialism? yes, because how is a poor country suddenly expected to up and build factories and infrastructure? Sure, they can build it on their own, but is'nt it more effective to have a direct transplant from the first world, and let capitalists take on all the risk so the poor countries don't start to accumulate debt?

This is why I am an imperialist. It allows the transplanting of the first world into the third. [/b]
:D O yeah like the diament mines in Africa :D :D :D :D :D And the capitalist build those mines, and takes the diaments and the people of africa die ! JUPPIE wooohh i want to become an imperialist. Making myself better and then coming up with lamm excuses to justifie my doing :D :D :D Capitalism 4ever!!!! And i forgot all the othet plusses like exploition of the working class, ruling over other people. Making war with Iraq to get some oil, but then i say blood for oil....euh i mean food for oil and i can continieu my crimes..( damm those people let them die for my misstakes) MWAHAHA viva la capitalism

:blink:

The Resistor

1st July 2006, 14:51

What an idiot am I believing in justice peace equilty and freedom.

imperialist

1st July 2006, 14:52

O yeah like the diament mines in Africa And the capitalist build those mines, and takes the diaments and the people of africa die ! JUPPIE wooohh i want to become an imperialist. Making myself better and then coming up with lamm excuses to justifie my doing Capitalism 4ever!!!! And i forgot all the othet plusses like exploition of the working class, ruling over other people. Making war with Iraq to get some oil, but then i say blood for oil....euh i mean food for oil and i can continieu my crimes..( damm those people let them die for my misstakes) MWAHAHA viva la capitalism
You got it kid, that's it! :)

CUBA LIBRE

1st July 2006, 14:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 04:36 AM
Yes they invaded Iraq for oil...

Yes oil has only gotten more expensive...

Yes George W. Bush is a fuckin' moron who can't do anything right...

Does it surprise you?
you go, man

i'm on your side

imperialist

1st July 2006, 14:54

Originally posted by The [email protected] 1 2006, 11:52 AM
What an idiot am I believing in justice peace equilty and freedom.
Ur not an idiot. U just way too romantic. But lucky for you imperialism is romantic as well! :)

And by the way, are you one who resists or a component of electronics circuitry?

Vladislav

1st July 2006, 15:46

imperialist, can you back up your arguments with sources or are you just pulling shit out of your arse and posting it?

You have a lot of research to do. Go Go.

The Resistor

1st July 2006, 15:50

Originally posted by imperialist+Jul 1 2006, 11:55 AM--> (imperialist @ Jul 1 2006, 11:55 AM)
The [email protected] 1 2006, 11:52 AM
What an idiot am I believing in justice peace equilty and freedom.
Ur not an idiot. U just way too romantic. But lucky for you imperialism is romantic as well! :)

And by the way, are you one who resists or a component of electronics circuitry? [/b]
Nee ik ben geen weerstand duhhh :blink: But I have a lot of friends saying that I have good ideas but the world is just like it is. And that its got to be the way, but I resist that somebody has control over me, I resist this world of envy, hate and all I appose. I won't stand and watch how people die...

imperialist

1st July 2006, 16:08

Originally posted by The Resistor+Jul 1 2006, 12:51 PM--> (The Resistor @ Jul 1 2006, 12:51 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:55 AM

The [email protected] 1 2006, 11:52 AM
What an idiot am I believing in justice peace equilty and freedom.
Ur not an idiot. U just way too romantic. But lucky for you imperialism is romantic as well! :)

And by the way, are you one who resists or a component of electronics circuitry?
Nee ik ben geen weerstand duhhh :blink: But I have a lot of friends saying that I have good ideas but the world is just like it is. And that its got to be the way, but I resist that somebody has control over me, I resist this world of envy, hate and all I appose. I won't stand and watch how people die... [/b]
Everyone want the world to be perfect. But evil humans themselves prevent it by their greed. Sure it would be great if we had distribution according to need as these guys suggest, but at the end of the day you either need someone to enforce that, (dictatorship), or someone is just gonna steal it all way. Surely that's the way the world is. Surely we can't alter or ameliorate the effects of human nature without dictatorship? Otherwise I might be for communism.

imperialist, can you back up your arguments with sources or are you just pulling shit out of your arse and posting it?

You have a lot of research to do. Go Go.
I'm just pulling it out of my ass. :lol: Nah, really, you can only convince yourself a certain way if you really do the research yourself, not someone else telling you.
I think the end of imperialism is simply to just let countries go their own way once they are rich enough not to need some Nike factory coming in and giving jobs. Once Nike moves away, imperialism is no longer necessary. I just think its important to build factories in the poorest countriess. Now What's wrong with that?

RedAnarchist

1st July 2006, 17:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:09 PM
I think the end of imperialism is simply to just let countries go their own way once they are rich enough not to need some Nike factory coming in and giving jobs. Once Nike moves away, imperialism is no longer necessary. I just think its important to build factories in the poorest countriess. Now What's wrong with that?
Whats wrong with that? Only the fact that the workers have little rights and are not paid as mucha s they should for their labour. You seem to think that if Nike and other greedy multi-national corporations were to build factories in Third World countries, that people would have jobs and that they can become more affluent. If your imperialism is supposed to work in this way, why are the people of the Third World still trapped in a situation that capitalism and imperialism put them in in the first place?

imperialist

1st July 2006, 17:54

Originally posted by ThisAnarchistKillsNazis+Jul 1 2006, 02:46 PM--> (ThisAnarchistKillsNazis @ Jul 1 2006, 02:46 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 02:09 PM
I think the end of imperialism is simply to just let countries go their own way once they are rich enough not to need some Nike factory coming in and giving jobs. Once Nike moves away, imperialism is no longer necessary. I just think its important to build factories in the poorest countriess. Now What's wrong with that?
Whats wrong with that? Only the fact that the workers have little rights and are not paid as mucha s they should for their labour. You seem to think that if Nike and other greedy multi-national corporations were to build factories in Third World countries, that people would have jobs and that they can become more affluent. If your imperialism is supposed to work in this way, why are the people of the Third World still trapped in a situation that capitalism and imperialism put them in in the first place? [/b]
Corrupt undemocratic governments. That's why they need to be invaded in stage 2 of my plan.

The Resistor

1st July 2006, 17:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 01:09 PM
Everyone want the world to be perfect. But evil humans themselves prevent it by their greed. Sure it would be great if we had distribution according to need as these guys suggest, but at the end of the day you either need someone to enforce that, (dictatorship), or someone is just gonna steal it all way. Surely that's the way the world is. Surely we can't alter or ameliorate the effects of human nature without dictatorship? Otherwise I might be for communism.

Enforce no but a lot of people follow the herd, you underestemate the power of the state and by that I dont mean dictatorship. I always said that communism without a state wont work:

Red Army Soldier 4 live: after a lot of thinking : I think that anarcho communism will lead , after a time to again capitalism
Red Army Soldier 4 live: why? because if there are no rules, and people will not be checked and some people will gain power and possesions back, with will lead to the classstruggle again...nice ideals but it wont work, thats where communism steps in,

And we have to try atleast, we will work it out, we must

Herman

2nd July 2006, 00:13

Everyone want the world to be perfect. But evil humans themselves prevent it by their greed. Sure it would be great if we had distribution according to need as these guys suggest, but at the end of the day you either need someone to enforce that, (dictatorship), or someone is just gonna steal it all way. Surely that's the way the world is. Surely we can't alter or ameliorate the effects of human nature without dictatorship? Otherwise I might be for communism.

Evil humans? Greed? What on earth are you talking about? Do you even have SCIENTIFIC proof that this is true? Of any kind? No, you do not. So shut up.

bombeverything

2nd July 2006, 05:19

lmao I love the way you do that! But you think I'm thick? I'm not the one that's supporting a system which separates families, kills indiscriminately and puts pilots into military aircraft without any training. The system I support has generated enormous wealth for the people of the world. It has liberated enormous wealth from the soil and rewards ingenuity very very well. Capitalism is the best sytem there ever was. And your system is a was.

Yeah, and this is why the richest 20 % of the world’s population consumes 86 % of the worlds resources, and the poorest 80 % consume just 14 % of the worlds resources. What this shows is that capitalism generates enormous wealth for the rich of the world. Capitalism is destroying the soil and promotes conformity rather than creativity.

Minimum wage jobs are not 'hard-work'. If they were, why on earth are they so popular? You can't fight for the right to be paid a certain amount under minimum wage if there are a thousand people waiting outside to take your job. It encourages inefficiency and waste. This is why socialist and communist governments are so horribly poor. And yes, capitalism does reward hard work. You think work can only be manual? Manual jobs employ the least intellectual work, which is why they pay so low. There are different ways of working see?

They are “popular” because people have no choice but to work in them (for the very reason that you stated above, that is the reserve pool of labour that capitalism requires).