Stalin was a tyrant and a dictator. Against socialist principles, he re-divided his people into classes, including, but not limited to, peasants, kulaks, workers, and Party members, the lattermost who were almost exactly the same as the "bourgeois" they despised, the élite who gained luxuries while the "lower classes" suffered of poverty and famine. Stalin also exercised his infamous Red Terrors that led to the deaths of tens of millions of people, "purging" his subordinates on every possible level until his death in 1953.
Stalin's actions raise him above Hitler in monstrosity, but his actions were hidden from Western eyes mostly because of two reasons: 1) he wasn't the aggressor of World War II and 2) information under his reign was falsified and propaganda was abundant so the Western states, in addition to not wanting to intervene enough, couldn't find out the true severity of the situation.
Please don't connect the Red Tsar to Communism in the word's meaning of a classless, stateless society. It's like saying Hitler was a Founding Father. A blatant and ridiculous lie, unless you ambiguate it to mean "Founding Father of Nazism."
good idea... my socialist/commie/national socialist friend... ;D :trout:
A killing is still a killing...
...and makes whoever does it a moster even if it's by proxy.
I agree with Tal on this point (big surprise).QuoteA killing is still a killing...
This is a fact, and I agree with that.Quote...and makes whoever does it a moster even if it's by proxy.
This is opinion. I think that one SHOULD, in fact kill any person that comes into a country with deadly intent, or substantial reason to believe they have deadly intent. Plus, as a "capitalist", I prefer that my tax money doesn't go to provide these scumbags with comfortable jail cells, so I advocate getting rid of them to not waste tax money.
I agree with Tal on this point (big surprise).
Let's assess the logic of prisons:
Okay, you murdered somebody in cold blood. Are we going to sentence you to a lifetime of hard labor? Nooo, you could escape. We'll lock you in your very own private room where you'll get any magazine or book you want (provided it has no sexual or violent content) and you'll get free meals and a bed and a warm place to sleep. You won't even have to work for it. You'll never have to make a big decision again. Just be sure to send a nice letter to the family(ies) of the victim(s) who are currently paying for your jail cell.
I don't know about you, but to me, this doesn't make much sense. The way I figure it, you either sentence them to hard labor (farming for the financially disadvantaged or for their own food, making license plates, manufacturing simple tools, you know the drill), so they're working for their living and paying their debt to society, or you execute them. I feel the former is better in almost all of the cases. It creates in a prisoner a sense of responsibility and purpose, which is key to rehabilitation and also helps them pay their debt.
However, there are a few cases in which placing a prisoner in a somewhat secured workplace is not secure enough, and it is not feasible to make it so. There are also cases in which the crime is so heinous, an extreme deterrent is needed for prevention. In these cases, I would strongly encourage the use of the death penalty. I would elaborate on more specific conditions on persons who should get the death penalty and how a death sentence should be carried out, but this post is too long as it is.
And just HOW can you proove someone has deadly intent if they haven't done anything?
And what about the US troops all over the world, they are evidently in other countries with deadly or heinous intent as the violent crime rates soar around US bases. With your reasoning, that would mean that the nations in where the US has bases has all the right in the world to just arrest and execute the lot of them without trial and confiscate the equipment. Or do you belive you have some sort of divine right to decide about people's lives that others don't?
I agree with you on that point. Prisons are supposed to be for two purposes, punishment and rehabilitation. Putting a hardened killer in a cushy room to read magazines doesn't do either, and if a prisoner is beyond rehabilitation, he should get the death penalty.
In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.
If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.
And why would a Japanese defense force worth it's name be so bad? And as far as I can tell, that's not the US's business either. Besides, the Japanese have changed immensely since WW2, they are far better at dominating through economy now than before and no matter how much they mobilized they wouldn't be able to match their mainland neighbours enough to stage offensives but more than enough to protect themselves.
EDIT: By the way, it would save the US taxpayers billions of dollars to withdraw and probably an increase in international good-will
In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.
If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.
Frankly, that would be okay with me. And it probably wouldn't make much difference in Europe. But I could see big problems in Asia. Without us, Japan might decide they need to build their own military to protect themselves. I don't think anyone in Asia wants to see a Japanese military buildup.
In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.I feel that if the host country's government has no problem with a U.S. military presence, there is no problem. You could say in a hypothetical situation that the EU could fend for itself. This is true. However, this hypothetical war would be a lot quicker if America helped, and if it had strategically located military bases to help it do so.
If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.
QuoteA killing is still a killing...
This is a fact, and I agree with that.Quote...and makes whoever does it a moster even if it's by proxy.
This is opinion. I think that one SHOULD, in fact kill any person that comes into a country with deadly intent, or substantial reason to believe they have deadly intent. Plus, as a "capitalist", I prefer that my tax money doesn't go to provide these scumbags with comfortable jail cells, so I advocate getting rid of them to not waste tax money.
is this about the installation of american anti-missile launchers across EU? I'm totally against it. As empire said we'r able to defend ourselves, lets not forget USA didn't help in WWI, wouldn't help in WWII if it wasnt Pearl Harbor, and a fight against emerging different political or economical systems.
Had America not intervened in WW II, chances are that the Cold War would have been between Germany and the US. They were as such provoked by the need to save themselves as well as European money.
So we should disregard human life because a) we can't be bothered to help them actually and b) fear is good?
another thing, europe wasnt dominated by the nazi germany, they just invaded the opposing countries. for example the URSS was an ally, got invaded when Hitler realised he had to, blame the relations they had. Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, and other would be never invaded....we had our own Hitlers anyway.
Yes, these people are beyond help, and to believe they aren't is to believe in divine intervention and not the fallibility of man, and I do not believe in such. Fear, in this case, is good to a point. It serves to slow the amount of civilian murders or rapes because people (as they are only humans) want to live and don't want to be sentenced to death for committing these crimes. Therefore, they will not commit them.There you are just dead wrong in a number of ways.
There you are just dead wrong in a number of ways.
1) People DO change without divine intervention if there is a proper, positive incentive to change.
2) Fear DOESN'T work in that way due to the fact that NO criminal expects to be caught and if they aren't caught what does any penalty matter? Yup, that's it, making an example or many doesn't mean shit to crime rates.
3) Fear does however make people with access to guns more prone to using them just in case, most often resulting in innocent deaths.
d) After Hitler helped in the overthrow of the said countries of Spain and Portugal, he essentially appointed the rulers of those respective nations. Italy was his ally, and he considered them weak and could've taken Italy at any time, Switzerland probably could've kept the Germans at bay for years.
If some guy murders/rapes someone, odds are they're still going to do it.
Fear DOESN'T work in that way due to the fact that NO criminal expects to be caught and if they aren't caught what does any penalty matter? Yup, that's it, making an example or many doesn't mean shit to crime rates.
Fear does however make people with access to guns more prone to using them just in case, most often resulting in innocent deaths.
But seriously, all other nations that has stricter gun-laws still don't have as much violent crimes, thus it must be something cultural or the fact that it's the nation with the simplest access to guns in the world or a ccombination of the two.
lol, very funny, but it's actually different. As far as i know CIA and US government were the only ones financing the king of Iran to fight against the people. Actually financed Iraqi army against Iran people as well, also invaded Afghanistan when CIA never wanted Bin Laden dead for some reason. Even last week there were Afghan killed in a bombardment..maybe you killed Taliban that supported al qaeda, who knows. Who cares for that in USA? (yes not everyone, but the majority doesnt, the fact Bush is still there makes it true in all possible ways), same goes for the environment...'oh but USA spends alot of money researching for alternate fuels', can be, but why dont you start now? Just wait until you have a cheap and reasonable environmental answer for petrol? Same goes for gun ownership.
Even last week there were Afghan killed in a bombardment..maybe you killed Taliban that supported al qaeda, who knows. Who cares for that in USA? (yes not everyone, but the majority doesnt, the fact Bush is still there makes it true in all possible ways)
as far as i know, Us government is spending on research. the point is it isn't doing anything. In Europe we're already promoting clean industries. There's commercials on TV about all that. And there's nothing like that in USA.
It's a international problem, and the nation with the most supposed power isn't doing anything. That's why it's the same as gun ownership, what have been done to increase security or decrease gun related mortality in USA? not much more than nothing, beyond the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq that are not doing any good, specially Iraq one.
Saddam's Death was an avenge, no question on that.
Talmann. Did you hear about the Madrid and London bombings? Why don't you go and tell the families of the victims that no-one is attacking Europe because it doesn't matter?
At New History Lovers, the USSR could have destroyed Nazi Germany single handedly, of this I am positive. The bombing of Germany by the Allies helped, with vast resources being withdrawn to defend Germany, as did the Second Front in Northern France. However, when Stalin said that he would turn the USSR into a 'single war camp', it wasn't rhetoric. Once it got going by late 1943 Soviet production far outstripped that of Germany. Your analysis of counterfactual outcomes of World War Two seems to be entirely ignorant of any understanding of Russia in that conflict.
American intervention in WWII helped secure the victory which eventually was. If America did not intervene, there would have been another kind of victory. A victory which would not suit us Westerners, but a victory over Nazi Germany nonetheless.
The USMC wannabe in this thread earlier stated that Americans 'live by principles, fight for principles and die by principles'. First of all, this laughably seems to imply that elsewhere in the world, people don't fight for causes, they just fight for the hell of it. Second, it takes a very myopic view of American foreign policy. Shall we look at the War of 1812, in which America allied herself with a dictatorship to attack a democracy? Or shall we look at the 1970s and 1980s, when America funded insurgents and even sent her own agents to undermine democratically elected socialist governments in Latin America?
I am not saying the US is worse than every other country. What I am saying is that it's the same, no better, no worse. The US acts for its own interests, just like every other country. It's called realism, and it's the way the world works. You can try to justify it anyway you like, every country does. For the last couple of hundred years the method of justification in the West has been 'liberal democracy' and, more recently, 'humanitarianism'. To truly believe all this, though, takes a special kind of blinkering that no human being should be capable of. Sadly, not everyone engages their intellect as much as they should.
Quote
Saddam's Death was an avenge, no question on that.
That assumption is incorrect. Revenge is useless, when all is said and done. It cannot undo the damage done in the past. The greater concern was to prevent him from committing the atrocities in the future that he had in the past.
Quotefor that you could just jail him. The fact his sentence was already determined in the beginning of the trial and that he couldn't even defend himself is the facts that support my assumption. Have you seen the trials? If not you should, the man was sentenced every day for death. They didn't care for defense.
And you would find him innocent? I don't see how anyone could actually think he wasn't guilty of the charges brought against him.QuoteAnd about USA funding dictators, there's more than Napoleon, you have the Iran Monarchy, you have the Taliban insurgents to fish the soviet army, etc. Was Vietnam a mistake? many Americans now think it was, why can't you say Iraq was a mistake?
I'm sorry, but Monarchy != Dictatorship. But yes, we did support the Royal Family and eventually other leaders. I'm not proud of it, but we did.
Delfos, I would love to see a level-headed American who doesn't think that Iraq was a mistake. Only die-hard idiots think it was perfectly sounds and logical.QuoteSomeone said about Bush doing illegal things, he invaded Iraq without UN's permission. That's enough illegal for me. Plus you want the UN atomic inspectors to go to other countries to say if they are creating nukes, why don't USA let the same inspectors inspect your own nuclear centrals? WMD when there was no confirmation of any, UN said there wasn't any, and they haven't even finished the search when US army invaded.
Huh? Since when does disobeying the UN qualify as criminal activity? He can't be impeached for not asking permission.
Yes, we have a shitload of nukes. It's pretty common knowledge, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I think the number is around 10,000 the last time I checked.
QuoteThat assumption is incorrect. Revenge is useless, when all is said and done. It cannot undo the damage done in the past. The greater concern was to prevent him from committing the atrocities in the future that he had in the past.
for that you could just jail him.
WMD when there was no confirmation of any, UN said there wasn't any, and they haven't even finished the search when US army invaded.
thats not the point. Plus it's stupid when you say you support UN and whatever when you defy it's rules. Even if they are obligatory or not. Being different is ok, look at the netherlands. but being different in terms you think you can own the world (oh here's one reason why middle easterns dont like americans), isnt healthy, and would make you apart from UN. Nowadays, not being part of UN is uncivilised, see my point? It's uncivilised to defy UN.
Why being part of EU when even children don't like EU or don't even care for multiculturalism?
so try to understand and just discard the generalization for christ sake, if it's a political issue, when i say USA is the government, when it's military it's both government and military, etc. I dont think that's hard to understand.
hey i said I'm annoyed by the fact you keep pulling the generalization card, ofc i know it 'might' not be the will of the US citizens, but the fact is citizens voted for Bush, either if not all. That's why there's elections, that's the point.
'might' notin that sentence implies doubt. The statement as a whole implies that because Americans elected Bush, we therefore support / are responsible for whatever actions he's taken since then.
London is the capital city of the UK, Delfos. That same London which the UN describes as "the most cosmopolitan city on Earth". Why stay out of the Euro? We have the lowest unemployment, the highest growth and the highest wages in Europe - that's why Britain stayed out of the Euro. It isn't hatred of Europe, it's the fact that joining the Euro zone would make us poorer in the opinion of our top economists. Hey - they haven't been wrong these past seven years, have they?