Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This is your opinion.

Its a very educated hypothesis, and well supported.

And my information, taken from a site which has an American bias, refutes this.

Are you not reading what I'm writing? Or can't you?

I'm reading it, but your biased poorly informed view of history is hardly worth considering.

Hah. Ket calling the pottle.

It is irrelevant why you did it. You did it. You killed innocent civilans.

I'm telling you the N. Vietnamese share responsibility because they put their civilians in harms way.

Yeah, I mean if the N. Vietnamese don't want their civs killed then they shouldn't allow them to live in villages!

Secondly the reason is important. It was a war, people die in wars(lifes a bitch deal with it.).

And what was the war about again? Hmmm?

Also I might point out that your wonderful communist regimes have killed tens of millions (20 miilion in the U.S.S.R., 3 million or so in China, a couple hunderd thousand in N. Korea ,maybe a million in Vietnam, and a full 80 million in Cambodia. Total=about 105 million.)of innocent civilians the U.S. has killed maybe 1 million tops in its entire history.

That's a guess, I had the figures somewhere. Plus, all the "communist countries" were and aren't Communist!

What the Fuck are you talking about? I was talking about how the North Vietnamese strategy was effective.

What the fuck are you talking about?! This is meant to be a response about the American tactics, ie naplaming.

At 5/13/02 11:20 AM, Slizor wrote:

And my information, taken from a site which has an American bias, refutes this.

American Special forces conducted an attack on the Nazi's main nuclear research facility where they were conducting experiments with heavy water. This attack set the Nazis Atom bomb development back a year or two. In addition you can't possibly refute the fact that it would have taken the Russians longer to beat the Germans without America. I keep telling you the Nazis were 2 years at most away from develpoing an A bomb when Berlin fell. It took the Russians 7 years after the U.S. did to develop a nuke and they developed it by stealing the technology from us.

Hah. Ket calling the pottle.

Ket? Pottle?

Yeah, I mean if the N. Vietnamese don't want their civs killed then they shouldn't allow them to live in villages!

No if they didn't want their civs killed they shouldn't have put their damn troops in the villages.

And what was the war about again? Hmmm?

I didn't say we weren't stupid for fighting a war like that, I'm just trying to counter your opinion that all American soldiers were baby killing monsters.

Also I might point out that your wonderful communist regimes have killed tens of millions (20 miilion in the U.S.S.R., 3 million or so in China, a couple hunderd thousand in N. Korea ,maybe a million in Vietnam, and a full 80 million in Cambodia. Total=about 105 million.)of innocent civilians the U.S. has killed maybe 1 million tops in its entire history.

That's a guess, I had the figures somewhere. Plus, all the "communist countries" were and aren't Communist!

I estimated on Nam, North Korea and China(rather consevatively I might add) my figures for Cambodia are dead on, and for the Russians I only included the murders under the Stalin regime. If anything my estimate was low.

Also as for your "they weren't communist" argument its getting really old. You say that there has never been a true communist nation, that only makes me feel that it is an unobtainable theory.

What the fuck are you talking about?! This is meant to be a response about the American tactics, ie naplaming.

There are two sides in a war. You obviosly are only capable of seeing the faults on one side.

In addition you can't possibly refute the fact that it would have taken the Russians longer to beat the Germans without America.

I don't, and won't. Mainly because it is what happened. The Russians beat the Germans and America helped.

Hah. Ket calling the pottle.

Ket? Pottle?

Swap the first two letters on the words.

Yeah, I mean if the N. Vietnamese don't want their civs killed then they shouldn't allow them to live in villages!

No if they didn't want their civs killed they shouldn't have put their damn troops in the villages.

....I've said this before, it was a grass roots army(mainly), they had no where to go.

And what was the war about again? Hmmm?

I didn't say we weren't stupid for fighting a war like that, I'm just trying to counter your opinion that all American soldiers were baby killing monsters.

I'm not saying they are. I'm just pointing out that America has been brutal and undemocratic.

Also as for your "they weren't communist" argument its getting really old. You say that there has never been a true communist nation, that only makes me feel that it is an unobtainable theory.

Good for you.

There are two sides in a war. You obviosly are only capable of seeing the faults on one side.

I was about to say the same thing to you.

At 5/14/02 10:14 AM, Slizor wrote:
I don't, and won't. Mainly because it is what happened. The Russians beat the Germans and America helped.

I still think that they couldn't have won alone. You obviosly think that they would. We are both entitked to our opinion and look at the last couple posts I realize that both of us are repeating ourselves. So I'm not gonna argue about it anymore.

Swap the first two letters on the words.

I realized that. I'm not a complete idiot you know. I just couldn't think of anything else to say in response.

....I've said this before, it was a grass roots army(mainly), they had no where to go.

They had those tunnels in the Jungle. they should have stayed in those.

I didn't say we weren't stupid for fighting a war like that, I'm just trying to counter your opinion that all American soldiers were baby killing monsters.

I'm not saying they are. I'm just pointing out that America has been brutal and undemocratic.

True, but the Vietnam war wasn't an attempt to be brutal It was just so poorly orchestrated that it ended up that way (In my opinion the last time we were brutal was when we were still fighting the American Indians and the last time we were really undemocratic was when we had the Japanese American detention centers in WWII, Although I think some of the socialist acts passed under the "Great Society" were pretty damn undemocratic.)

I was about to say the same thing to you.

Honestly I think that America shouldn't have been in that war. I'm for protecting democracy in the third world but the poor orchestration on our part made the war unwinable(I know thats not a word). If we had gone in there full out like we did in the Gulf War then we probably could have won rather quickly, but all the peacemeal little attacks that we executed were a waste of lives. While I agreed with (some of) the ambitions behind the Vietnam war Its poor execution quickly made it a pointless war.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with implodinggoat on this one... The Soviet Union was crap...

At 5/17/02 02:06 PM, timaaa wrote: Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with implodinggoat on this one... The Soviet Union was crap...

True

Two things...

your wonderful communist regimes have killed tens of millions (20 miilion in the U.S.S.R., 3 million or so in China, a couple hunderd thousand in N. Korea ,maybe a million in Vietnam, and a full 80 million in Cambodia.

WHAT!!!!! 80 million!!! That is some serious bullshit, matey! Around 1 million people were killed by Pol Pot's regime and another half million were exiled. The figures you give are ludicrous, considering the fact that Cambodia is a sparsely populated country and only has a population of 10.3 million now. These figures come from the Dorling Kindersley World Reference Atlas. Where did you get your's from?

One other thing. I noticed the mention of the Nazis purging their Socialist agenda with the murder of Greggor Strasser. Yes, he was killed in the night of the long knives, but nazi ideology was not totally hollow in its use of "Socialist". The idea was that it was an alternative kind of Socialism, where the old bourgeoisie were thrown out of power and the hierarchy of society was reorganised by race and ability rather than class. This was the essential appeal of facism: it was modern, robust and promised equality for all of Germanic blood as "National Comrades". You're gonna love A level history, Slizor! :)

One other thing. I noticed the mention of the Nazis purging their Socialist agenda with the murder of Greggor Strasser. Yes, he was killed in the night of the long knives, but nazi ideology was not totally hollow in its use of "Socialist". The idea was that it was an alternative kind of Socialism, where the old bourgeoisie were thrown out of power and the hierarchy of society was reorganised by race and ability rather than class. This was the essential appeal of facism: it was modern, robust and promised equality for all of Germanic blood as "National Comrades".

Facism is different to National Socialism :D. It is true that originally Hitler had a lot of socialist ideas. However, during his "dark years" he cosyed up to a lot of big buisnessmen(including Bush's grandfather...or great-grandfather, I forget). They gave him money to stop Communism, now, what do oyu think they would do if they found out that Hitler wanted to(possily) take their money away as well? So, he changed his ideas. He may have intended to change back after the war, though we can not say.

You're gonna love A level history, Slizor! :)

I know! I'm gonna do American foriegn policy fron 1945! Woo hoo! Here comes college!

At 5/19/02 06:19 PM, dagger_happy wrote:
WHAT!!!!! 80 million!!! That is some serious bullshit, matey! Around 1 million people were killed by Pol Pot's regime and another half million were exiled. The figures you give are ludicrous, considering the fact that Cambodia is a sparsely populated country and only has a population of 10.3 million now. These figures come from the Dorling Kindersley World Reference Atlas. Where did you get your's from?

The History Channel but I think I put the wrong number down (Although I think Cambodia has more than 10 million people living there).

While I've already made an ass of myself by putting down the wrong number I do remember from the History channel that Pol Pot murdered 2/3rds of the entire population of Cambodia (although the number that starved due to his regime may be included in this figure).

Never mind, Implodinggoat, I forgive you.

Facism is different to National Socialism :D. It is true that originally Hitler had a lot of socialist ideas. However, during his "dark years" he cosyed up to a lot of big buisnessmen(including Bush's grandfather...or great-grandfather, I forget). They gave him money to stop Communism, now, what do oyu think they would do if they found out that Hitler wanted to(possily) take their money away as well? So, he changed his ideas. He may have intended to change back after the war, though we can not say.

Hitler did use big corporations to build the Third Reich, and in some ways the regime could be called Ultra-Capitalist. Even government was fragmented and different organisations fought each other for power as Hitler refused to define who controlled what. At the beginning of the war there were three different government bodies all claiming to be responsible for army resources! Makes you wonder how they managed to fight a war at all. Anyway, economically Germany was not Socialist, but the Nazis still encouraged the Socialist idea that position should be dictated by ability (and race) rather than class. That's why all Uni students had to participate in the Reich Labour Service. Hitler wanted admiration for the average worker, and he hardly dressed like a king, did he? He was the "prototype of the little man", embodying the will of the average German - which justified his dictatorship and breaking of the constitutional law.

At 5/21/02 02:31 PM, dagger_happy wrote: Never mind, Implodinggoat, I forgive you.

I just looked it up and I don't know where the fuck I got 80 million from. I've seen 2 million and I've seen 8 million maybe my subconcious added a 0 to the second number because I wanted to refute Slizor.

I just looked it up and I don't know where the fuck I got 80 million from. I've seen 2 million and I've seen 8 million maybe my subconcious added a 0 to the second number because I wanted to refute Slizor.

I did wonder. But I don't know much about Cambodia.

p.s. It wasn't refuting, it was an attempted attack on my beliefs.

At 5/24/02 07:19 AM, Slizor wrote:
p.s. It wasn't refuting, it was an attempted attack on my beliefs.

Damn, you don't have very thick skin do you man?

Have you ever considered the fact that you might have an agression disorder?

I have an agression disorde which is convinient because whenever I brutally attack someone on the street or knock over a liqour store I can use temporary insanity as an excuse in court.

I couldn't think of what to call it.

At 5/24/02 02:36 PM, Slizor wrote: I couldn't think of what to call it.

I would say an "aggressive rebuttle".

(that turned out to be incorrect)

Oh yes conservatives,yeah republicans have helped us so much these last 8 years NOT

At 4/28/02 06:16 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Charles Darwin came up with a little something called natural selection which results in evolution.

Yep.

Now for evolution to take place there must be diversity. In Socialism and Communism there is no diversity because everyone is equal.

Eh, they are still humans, and different from each other.

Lets set up a hypothetical situation. Person A is a genuis and lives in a communist nation. Now person A could try to suceed and be a doctor or a scientist or not go to the trouble of rigorous schooling and sleepless nights and become a common laborer. Either way he will live in the same house and be paid the same amount. Now why should he try to suceed?

Because he loves science; scientists never do it for the money; that's why investigators all around the world have rather low salaries, that's why professor also have low wages.

Your whole argument is flawed from the very beginning; all you have said is a complete nonsense, and it implies a huge ignorance of psychology and sociology (which is clear since you started by Darwin, a biologist).

THIS was the best I heard in a long time:

Lemme give you a science lesson Slizor.

Science? LOL

the article seems to assume that all socialist movements are a single entity with identicle beliefs. with this tactic it attempts to smear largely moderate reformist socialist movements, more libertarian left movements (in the true sense of the word, not the modern american hi-jacked mutation) and other democratic socialists with the atrocities of extremist elements; marxist-leninism/stalinism and nationalist socialism.

it repeatedly uses the USSR as an example of communism, and thus socialism. the USSR was in the opinion of myself and many others NOT a true communist or socialist system as is assumed but a despotic beurocratic oligarchy. the original idea was for power to be largely in the hands of the direct-democracy of the soviets and trade unions. factories and buisnesses would be in the hands of the workers and ran through elected committees. they then would have worked hand in hand with the democraticly elected general assembly of various socialist parties- from the moderate mensheviks, the left-SR's, Right-SR's and extremist bolsheviks. fair enough it wouldnt have been truly democratic- the right wing parties were abolished. note however that they counted for less than 20% of the overall vote going by the results of the 1917 general assembly. unfortunately for russia, to put it bluntly, lenin was a cunt. he abolished the other parties and took away the power of the soviets and trade unions- going back on pretty much all the promises he made. thus true socialism was betrayed.

then theres the nazi afilliation. yes, hitler used several socialist schemes. but the thing is they were pretty much the only things within the nazi party ideology that worked and werent, well, evil. hitlers socialist programmes drastically reduced unemployment and helped give balance to the german economy.
i probably dont even need to explain this but it was mainly the right-wing elements of nazism (ie the 'nationalist' bit) that were bad- extreme militarism, rascism, destroying the trade unions so the working class had no power. also note that most of the right wing middle and upper class at the time supported and even funded the nazis, hoping that they could destroy the power of the immensely popular KDP and SD parties.

in conclusion, im not saying the article is entirely wrong, im not saying socialism is always good. im just saying that in trying to pick out the fallacies of socialism it uses itself the often used 'fallacy of accident' (to put it short- hitler and lenin were socialist therefore all socialists are statist authoritarian maniacs.)