Announcement

**bogi** · October 10, 2001, 15:15

http://www.kolpack.com/packnet/prussia.html

"The area known as Prussia was inhabited in early times by West Slavic tribes, ancestors of the modern Poles, in the West, and Baltic tribes, closely related to Lithuanians, in the East. Sometime after the seventh century, the area was invaded and settled by pagan German tribes, later known as Prussians"

Yes Saras your ancestors were there too. And in my Opinion Kalingrad should go to Lithuania.

**Saras** · October 10, 2001, 15:24

Who needs that pile of crap anyway? They would vote us back into Russia

If you saw the way they assemble BMW 5-ers in kaliningrad, you'd never buy one.

BTW, the russian army slaughtered 50 000 innocent Prussian Lithuanians on their way to Berlin in 1945. Some for food for thought for LaRusso. If he's capable of the actual thinking thing, that is.

Wait a sec... Prussians are not pagan German tribes... they were Baltic tribes invaded by Christian Germans/Teutons.

**DanS** · October 10, 2001, 15:46

To Be Fair, The Soviet Union Was Shelling Everybody In 1945...

...and what constituted a "non-combatant" had lost much of its meaning.

**Roman** · November 21, 2001, 22:34

Sorry to revive an old thread guys and girlz, but I have to prove my 'socialist credentials' to Wiglaf.

**TCO** · November 21, 2001, 23:40

Re: Fellow Viet Namese-let's show our gratitude to the west by posting "F*** You"

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Cambodians, Laotians, Malayans, Timorese, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, Cubans, Grenadans, Arabs, Jews, Maoris and Zulus are welcome too.

Most of the Vietnamese that I've met appreciate the US immensely.

**TCO** · November 21, 2001, 23:45

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Oh Lord...

Lordy Lordy Lord.

Western interventions in the regions alluded to had precious little to do with ideology and a great deal to do with geopolitics. In some of the places named, >30% of the population died as a result of said interventions. But hey, what do I know; American support for the Khmer Rouge, despite its self-styled Communist basis and proven murderousness was for the greater good.

The Killing Fields were produced by Communists, KH. Gangs of teenaged communist thugs...

**KrazyHorse** · November 22, 2001, 02:01

It's surprising they were supported by the US then, isn't it? Reagan administration gave 'em weapons to aid their fight to regain power. The Khmer was mainly a nationalist reaction to the repeated violations of its territories by both sides in the Viet Nam war.

**KrazyHorse** · November 22, 2001, 02:05

Re: Re: Fellow Viet Namese-let's show our gratitude to the west by posting "F*** You&qu

Originally posted by GP

Most of the Vietnamese that I've met appreciate the US immensely.

Most of the Vietnamese you've met are expatriates. Your sampling methods are flawed.

**TCO** · November 22, 2001, 02:45

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's surprising they were supported by the US then, isn't it? Reagan administration gave 'em weapons to aid their fight to regain power. The Khmer was mainly a nationalist reaction to the repeated violations of its territories by both sides in the Viet Nam war.

-How did Reagan's support (the extent of which I'm not familiar with) cause the Killing Fields of the 70's? Some particles tunneling backwards?

-KrazyHorse, they pushed everybody out of the towns into the fields. It was Maoist Cultural Revolution doctrine. Why would you call that "nationalism" rather than communism? They referred to themselves as communists.

-Reaction to incursions by both sides? That puts a picture of the Khmer just sitting there waiting for wrongs to avenge. I would clarify it more as they exploited an opportunity (instability). And BTW, which country went in there first and more heavily?

**Berzerker** · November 22, 2001, 02:47

Dinodoc -

Ayn Rand doesn't have much of any signifigance to say in the way of ethics, connor

I'm not qualified to judge how ethical something is but that still doesn't change my opinion that the "selfishness as a virtue" principle is flawed

In other words, your opinion is based on ignorance? You "judged" Ayn Rand and/or her philosophy to be lacking in ethics then claimed to be unqualified to make such a judgement. So what is the flaw?

Orange -

Capitalism has brought America to where it is, but it'll take Socialism to maintain it, IMHO.

Capitalism lends itself to the creation of economic powerhouses and socialism stagnates and eventually ruins economies.

Roman -

In fact some capitalists (including me) would argue that welfare should rely exclusively on charity ie. selflessness, rather than socialist coercive system of income redistribution through taxes.

But then how would the liberals show their "compassion" if they could not use the threat of violence to coerce people to hand over their money to pay for what they want?

While I can't take credit for the end of communism over there, on behalf of my father who did his share, your welcome.

Larusso -

I guess communists exterminated Native Indians.

Care to list the peoples they did exterminate?

Nice religious people all over Europe decimated each other for centuries under 'capitalism'.

Don't you mean under monarchies? Capitalism did not arise until about 2 and a half centuries ago in the USA.

Wa-hey, South Africa was also capitalist during apartheid

So what? Do you understand what cause and effect are?

and so was America during slavery and later segregation.

Slavery and Jim Crow laws are examples of capitalism? Capitalism is the marketplace, how were slaves and the victims of Jim Crow allowed to participate in the marketplace when the laws excluded them? It is illogical (and downright stupid) to try and equate capitalism with slavery and apartheid.

To equate capitalism with civil liberties is wrong. It can exist without them.

The greatest "civil liberty" is called freedom, and ONLY capitalism recognises our freedom to use our time as we see fit.

please take some time to count the number of capitalist countries in which people live only slightly better than animals. enjoy!

Where are these capitalist countries? Virtually every country in the world has either a dictatorship of some kind, a communist command and control economy, or a mixture of capitalism and socialism that is neither capitalism or socialism. The northern USA prior to the Civil War was a capitalist system and did quite fine.

why dont you stop saving us constantly from someone. mind your own business

You'd rather be living in a Nazi satellite? You might not even be here if not for the west removing the Nazis. I'm tired of European ingrates, my ancestors risked their live's to help you scum and you spit on them

Roman, you must have suffered those 7 years of your life under communism

He has parents/family who lived longer under that evil.

for whom? germans vs. soviets? lets recapitulate
hitler takes power in 1933. in 12 years his country is pulverized

stalin takes over circa 1931 (we can argue about this one). in 22 years he beats the mightiest army in the world, grabs half of europe, prepares russian space domination and acquires atomic bomb. russia jumps from 1% share of world economy to second place. human toll is enormous but it became a superpower, a nation full of literate people, strong science and really strong welfare.

And you really think the Russians could have done all that if the west wasn't helping with weapons, money, and by attacking the Nazis AND the Japanese? The Nazis were largely isolated and surrounded, not the Russians. Naturally, if the Germans were defeated, "half of Europe" was there for the taking. Space domination? They got a guy into orbit, big deal. And Russia survived the war with vast resources and production at a very high level. Most of their economic competitors were ruined by the war.

They are ALL capitalist countries. YOu take your greens there and you can freely appropriate the fruits of someone else's labour.

Freely? Not without plenty of government interventions - that isn't capitalism.

okay. russians were arguably a capitalist society before revolution. literacy was EXTREMELY low.

they starved under capitalism too.

Czarist Russia was a capitalist country? Only if you were some tribal peasant living way off in Siberia where the Czar's bureaucrats didn't bother going. Why do so many of the critics of capitalism have such an abysmal "understanding" of something so simple? Capitalism is nothing more than the marketplace and the freedom of people to trade their wares. It is not murdering Indians, desegrating blacks, or command economies by Czar's et al...

here comes a cowboy with his laso. go away. write about new york and threaten OBL.

we lived under communism. i lived for 18 years, roman for whopping 7. you did not. you live in the greatest country ever, populated by the bravest people ever. leave us to roll in our stinky european mud, poor and uneducated like we are...

Why did you enter a thread by someone else thanking the west (which certainly includes New Yorkers) only to tell a New Yorker to "go away"?

knowhow2 -

Oh please you americans out there, please spare our lifes! I really hope that we Swedes hasn't done anything that pissed you guys of the last 100 years or so, we really don't want you to come here and "liberate" us. I, and many swedes with me, actually thinks that we have it rather well so please don't stop by to "help" us out

Don't worry, you guys have a nice way of staying "neutral" whenever Europe is going up in flames.

Rogan -

You're kidding right? Unbridled capitalism is just as bad as unbridled communism. Just look at South America, and the deplorable inequalities of wealth and poverty. Or perhaps one should look at what a 'capitalist' country did to Cambodia and Laos. And I wouldn't even call the US a capitalist country - it has a mixed economy too, although more to the capitalist side. Even the libertarians aren't true capitalists (although they are close enough to be dangerous!).

Aside from contradicting yourself in back to back sentences, just how does South America qualify as "unbridled capitalism"?
And it was Nixon who helped cause the tragedy in Cambodia, and he was no capitalist (his wage and price controls were one of the factors that led to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the early 70's). As for libertarians not being "true capitalists", if this is true, why are you blaming capitalism for the crimes of a bunch of people who are even further from "true capitalism"?

This is the heart of my complaint. One should not sully the label 'communism' with the regime in the old USSR - they were not true communists.

You reek of hypocrisy! You hold capitalism responsible for a variety of "sullied" actions taken by people who had little or nothing to do with capitalism, but don't want others associating communism with the actions of people who claimed to be communists.

For the record, I do not believe that a command economy (or communism) is appropriate at our stage of development.

The USSR wasn't a command economy?

State moderated capitalism works much better (because people are well motivated by greed).

"Greedy" is what the thief called his victim for not enjoying the experience of being ripped off at gunpoint.

Communism is a great idea, and I, for one, hope that mankind will one day reach a level of development where a democratic communist society will work.

Hmm...democratic communism. Is that where the majority rules as long as they only vote for communists and the communist ideology? Communism is an evil idea because it's foundational premise that the state - ostensibly the majority - owns everyone is evil.

Unfortunately it seems that some people are so close minded as to object to an economic system because of its past associations, rather than develop a balanced view based on its advantages and disadvantages.

That's funny coming from someone who indicted capitalism based on a variety of past associations with non-capitalists.

They are not even serious books on economics, or utopia - they are sci-fi books set in the future where mankind has become so good at making things that everyone has everything they ever want, and in consequence capitalism is dead, and money has no use.

So we are to read non-serious fiction to understand communism? Since when will having what I want negate capitalism? How will I acquire these things? Will other people - the people who actually make them - just give them to me?

Gozer -

People react mostly to names: Communism, Capitalism, Nazism. Ideals are universal. Most Americans, for instance, will say they are against "socialized medicine" but ask them instead if they are for "universal health care" and you will likely get a different answer

Socialized medicine is not synomynous with universal health care.

Capitalism is based on the assumption that man always wants more

No, capitalism is based on the "assumption" that you own yourself and by virtue of this ownership, you own your time and the property you acquire by exercising your freedom. And the marketplace - the vehicle of capitalism - is where you can freely exchange your "time" with others.

Lefty -

You would prefer that the person judging it pull unsupported fantasy out their ass as you do

He did recommend sci-fi books for a better understanding of "communism", didn't he...

JohnT -

Anyway, "it'll work because it does so in a sci-fi book I read" does not the most compelling argument make

**TCO** · November 22, 2001, 02:53

Re: Re: Re: Fellow Viet Namese-let's show our gratitude to the west by posting "F*** You&am

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Most of the Vietnamese you've met are expatriates. Your sampling methods are flawed.

Fine. Doesn't change that millions "voted with their feet" to brave death to escape from the hell of VietNam after the NVA took over.

One of my classmates was on a ship for his summer cruise that rescued some boat people. There were over 100 people in a tiny craft. They were close to dying. They had been repeatedly boarded by pirates who raped the women over and over. That's what these people went through to get out of that place.

And super-wamperdyne mathematical physical sampling of the flux of people in that ocean area will show the flow was all out/none in. Why did people brave death to leave? Why did no-one risk their life to get in?

**Saras** · November 22, 2001, 03:01

Berz, no point in attempting rational discourse with LaRusso. Save you breath.

**KrazyHorse** · November 22, 2001, 03:05

Originally posted by GP

-How did Reagan's support (the extent of which I'm not familiar with) cause the Killing Fields of the 70's? Some particles tunneling backwards?

Umm...I didn't say they caused the Killing Fields (at least I hope I didn't; this thread is from a while ago). However, I'd call support of an organization (including most of the actual key individuals) which was resposnible for millions of deaths a mere 10 years before sort of wacko. Also deadly. Loads of Cambodians killed in resulting guerrilla uprising

-KrazyHorse, they pushed everybody out of the towns into the fields. It was Maoist Cultural Revolution doctrine. Why would you call that "nationalism" rather than communism? They referred to themselves as communists

I'd call the Cultural Revolution nationalist and Luddite, not communist. The Khmer killed most particularly anybody who had any connection with foreign influences. They tried to reorganise society on traditional lines, not as an industrialised national bureaucracy. They were authoritarian, no doubt, and shared that attribute with most Communist nations, but calling them Communist is a joke. It's like calling Neo-Nazis Democratic cuz they got Jefferson through Robespierre and Hitler.

Reaction to incursions by both sides? That puts a picture of the Khmer just sitting there waiting for wrongs to avenge. I would clarify it more as they exploited an opportunity (instability)

So would I.

And BTW, which country went in there first and more heavily?

First: NVA. Most heavily: USAF. The 52s killed off at least tens, probably hundreds of thousands.

**KrazyHorse** · November 22, 2001, 03:09

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fellow Viet Namese-let's show our gratitude to the west by posting "F*** Yo

Originally posted by GP

Fine. Doesn't change that millions "voted with their feet" to brave death to escape from the hell of VietNam after the NVA took over.

One of my classmates was on a ship for his summer cruise that rescued some boat people. There were over 100 people in a tiny craft. They were close to dying. They had been repeatedly boarded by pirates who raped the women over and over. That's what these people went through to get out of that place.

And super-wamperdyne mathematical physical sampling of the flux of people in that ocean area will show the flow was all out/none in. Why did people brave death to leave? Why did no-one risk their life to get in?

Why none in? Because:

a) It was a war zone
b) Given the choice between gov't of Viet Nam and gov't of US, I'll take US too

(EDIT: not by too much, assuming you're willing to account for the fact that the Viet Namese aren't living in an industrialised nation. I'll also take resulting V. gov't over previous SV gov't)

However: Go take total sampling of all residents of North&South Viet Nam in 1975. Ask them who they like more: US/SV or NV. I'll bet mybottom dollar I know what answer you'll get.

**TCO** · November 22, 2001, 03:26

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Umm...I didn't say they caused the Killing Fields (at least I hope I didn't; this thread is from a while ago). However, I'd call support of an organization (including most of the actual key individuals) which was resposnible for millions of deaths a mere 10 years before sort of wacko. Also deadly. Loads of Cambodians killed in resulting guerrilla uprising

I'm not familiar with all the details of our "support". I love the vagueness of that term. Heck, you could be right. Or you could be wrong. We made common cause with USSR during WWII after all.

I'd call the Cultural Revolution nationalist and Luddite, not communist. The Khmer killed most particularly anybody who had any connection with foreign influences. They tried to reorganise society on traditional lines, not as an industrialised national bureaucracy. They were authoritarian, no doubt, and shared that attribute with most Communist nations, but calling them Communist is a joke. It's like calling Neo-Nazis Democratic cuz they got Jefferson through Robespierre and Hitler.

Let's not get into the semantic arguement of what is communism. They called themselves communists as did Mao and they identified themselves with the communist movement/ideology. Consider them Communists with a capital C if you want.

And BTW, which country went in there first and more heavily?

First: NVA. Most heavily: USAF. The 52s killed off at least tens, probably hundreds of thousands. [/QUOTE]

I'm not up on all the details here. Why do you claim hundreds of thousands? Also, don't you think that the Ho Chi Minh trail (people on the ground) was more destabilizing?

Announcement

Fellow E. Europeans - let's show our gratitude to the west by posting "thanks" here!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment