Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 167

sgtclub · 10-10-2005, 04:27 PM

First female German Chancellor

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/051010/1/3vjhr.html

Chirac is next

Sidd Finch · 10-10-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes. Patton should have gone it because we knew we were getting the bomb. Once we had the bomb and they didn't we should have told Stalin to hold free elections or face annihilation. It would have saved hundreds of millions of lives that were killed by Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot.

Nothing like democracy imposed at the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Should we do that with the entire mideast, too? (Elections today, or nuclear war tomorrow!)

Sidd Finch · 10-10-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It is when you post like this that you are at your most offensive.
[I'd say, any other comments, pro or con?]

Mild con -- at least when the discussion is about Stalin, etc., Spanky doesn't resort to his classic "stories about people I hob-nob with as a substitute for analytical thought" routine.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes. Patton should have gone it because we knew we were getting the bomb. Once we had the bomb and they didn't we should have told Stalin to hold free elections or face annihilation. It would have saved hundreds of millions of lives that were killed by Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot.

2. FDR should have stepped down. He was too sick to govern/lead near the end. Instead he put his interests above those of the country's and took a fourth term, and then promptly sold the eastern bloc and Soviet peoples down the river of oppression and tyranny for the next 40-50 plus years.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
To be fair, this was the reaction of the hard-core neo-socialists here back then as word of the excesses (like, the first eight million were just statistics, but the REST, you know, was excess . . .) filtered out. There was a lot of support voiced for the humanitarian system of socialism, and Stalin was initially framed as the benevolent father of that meritorious movement, and thus a lot of resistance to the idea that he might be . . . ya know . . . icky.

I think the NYT still hangs a Pulitzer devoted to this theme.

Yes, right next to the one that they got for Jayson Blair. Paper of record indeed.

bilmore · 10-10-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Nothing like democracy imposed at the threat of nuclear annihilation.

How do you "impose" democracy? At worst, if you're really "imposing" something, they simply vote for the status quo, and you walk away, right?

Or, are they really just incapable of self-rule?

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Damn. I thought it meant "Pick on Penske day."

Assuming "day" in the perpetual sense, that works too.

Spanky · 10-10-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It is when you post like this that you are at your most offensive.
[I'd say, any other comments, pro or con?]

I just said that I don't think Stalin truly believed that the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few. I am of the opinion that he was (among other things) opportunistic, power-hungry, and quite a bit megalomaniacal. OTOH, as Bilmore argued, he may also (or instead) have been a true believer.

Go fuck yourself.

S_A_M

ETA: I am not and have never been even a socialist, much less a communist, but I have to say this: The Soviet Union was not "the logical extension of the communist philosophy" any more that the U.S.A. is "the logical extension" of the writings of John Locke.

When you combine Scientific materialism and dictatorship of the prolitariate all communist atrocities that followed were forseable. When you have an elite that has full dictatorial power and believes that there are no "natural rights" and they must engineer society to increase the material benefits to all and it is OK to sacrifice individuals for the common good, that is a recipe for mass slaughter.

When you like at human beings as cells of the state body politics there will always be lots of cancerous cells that need to be exterminated.

It is only when each cell has rights that are given by a higher power (as opposed to other cells) that there is no excuse to liquidate cells for the common good.

Lenin, the first communist ruler, instituted mass liquidations, concentration camps and a complete suspension of all civil liberties. This was all perfectly aligned with communist philosophy and every communist ruler since just followed his lead. The result: hundreds of millions of executions. In other words more people intentionally killed by their own government that are alive in the whole United States today.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
First female German Chancellor

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/051010/1/3vjhr.html

Chirac is next

Once again the forces of freedom and democracy have outlasted the power of the soreloserman strategy.

PTL!

Gattigap · 10-10-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You can disagree with him without the personal disparagement and "fuck yous", the latter of which seem to be the comeback of choice here and/or irl from the lefties. Are you guys that bereft of substantive reply that "fuck you" or other like hate-speech is all that there is?

If you could point out where my post included either of those things, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I must continue to conclude that PoPD = "you meanie!" Thanks.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Nothing like democracy imposed at the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Should we do that with the entire mideast, too? (Elections today, or nuclear war tomorrow!)

Yes.

Gattigap · 10-10-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account

"Film of shit"? Gatti, this is not PoPD how?

You mean it's not a general reference to your ouevre? Whoa, my bad.

Spanky · 10-10-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Mild con -- at least when the discussion is about Stalin, etc., Spanky doesn't resort to his classic "stories about people I hob-nob with as a substitute for analytical thought" routine.

Each nulcear bomb that we dropped on Russia would have killed maybe - 150,000. I think Hiroshima was about 100,000 and Nagasaki was 80,000. I will be generous and say 500,000 if we really targeted them well. Stalin killed that many people for breakfast.

He killed over two million returning prisoners of war. Then he started deporting everyone that "helped" the Germans. That was pretty much every minority. He deported, I think four million Crimean Tatars, over half of who died. Between 45 and 48 Stalin moved millions of people around the European map like they were chess pieces (a large percentage of whom died in the process). And then he got down to extermination. Even twenty atom bombs would have seemed like a tea party compared to what was about to happen.

The Byelorussians, the Ukrainians and the baltic people all welcomes the Nazis as liberators. We could have at least told Stalin to get the hell out of those countries. We had the bomb. He didn't. We were definitely in a position to dictate terms.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
If you could point out where my post included either of those things, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I must continue to conclude that PoPD = "you meanie!" Thanks.

It was personal disparagement of Spanky's writing style, where he uses the phrase "Pay Attention", which he would not have to use if the libs would actually pay attention to what he writes. It was a form criticism bereft of substance. What part of that do you have trouble understanding?

bilmore · 10-10-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
You are talking like a member of the indoctrinated right that first believed Stalin was the embodiment of Capital C Communism that had to be defeated as an all-encompassing ideology and to be justified required subservience by the masses to the works of Karl Marx but also ignores the possibility that much of the people's subservience was possibly obtained not so much by ideology as by the crushing rule of a totalitarian regime focused on preserving its existence, which may be analogous in some ways to Baathist rule, which we'll leave aside for the moment because of potentially uncomfortable parallells to finding yourself arguing that some Iraqis actually bought in to Baathist ideology, such as it was, and didn't actually starve from the thirst for freedom that they would've seized years ago but for the iron hand of the Evil Fucker Saddam.

Did you do all that in one breath?

Actually, the Revolution was a completely popular one, brought about by the crushing brutality of life under the Tzars. Once the Whites were on their way out, there was to be a haggis in every pot, free land for all, and the opportunity to take whatever you wanted from anyone who had more then you. Pretty compelling for a populace that was slowly starving to death.

Point is, Stalin had loads of popular suppport. He was just good at figuring out what sections he could do without. And then, of course, acting on that knowledge.