|
Escrito por Nitmaros, 08.05.2014 at 07:48
Note that Nazism has nothing to do with nationalism and/or facism. Both Communism and Nazism are bad and if you're such butthurt to complain for Communism or Nazism not being allowed in a game then you shouldn't be on the internet.
On the other hand, people go crazy when they see Nazist (or even nationalist) comments but not when they see Communist comments, that happens for a reason; most of the members of this community are kids who don't know shit about history, as proven in this topic.
Please explain how 'Nazisim' has nothing to do with nationalsim and/or fascism.
---
Regarding nationalist comments, there is a chance that anyone from any nation may have some sympathetic views on Communism, but there is almost no chance that anyone from a nation other than that of the Nationalist will likely be positively oriented by the comment, and at least a 50% chance that even people of the same country will be offended.
Now, take the reasonable consideration of nationalist comments I just made, multiply it by genocide and raise it to the power of Volksanity and then you might understand why people go crazy over 'Nazism' vs 'Communism'.
They're not even in the same league.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Well...the bad thing about debates is...there always are 2 winners, you need people who just watch to find one winner
----
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
"1 MAO ZEDONG
China (1949-76) Regime Communist Victims 60 million
China's so-called 'Great Helmsman' was in fact the greatest mass murderer in history. Most of his victims were his fellow Chinese, murdered as 'landlords' after the communist takeover, starved in his misnamed 'Great Leap Forward' of 1958-61, or killed and tortured in labour camps in the Cultural Revolution of the Sixties. Mao's rule, with its economic mismanagement and continual political upheavals, also spelled poverty for most of China's untold millions. The country embraced capitalism long after his death.
2 JOSEPH STALIN
Soviet Union (1929-53) Regime Communist Victims 40 million
Lenin's paranoid successor was the runner-up to Mao in the mass-murder stakes. Stalin imposed a deliberate famine on Ukraine, killed millions of the wealthier peasants - or 'kulaks' - as he forced them off their land, and purged his own party, shooting thousands and sending millions more to work as slaves and perish in the Gulag.
3 ADOLF HITLER
Germany (1933-45) Regime Nazi dictatorship Victims 30 million
The horror of Adolf Hitler's dictatorship lies in the uniqueness of his most notorious crime, the Holocaust, which stands alone in the annals of inhuman cruelty. It was carried out under the cover of World War II, a conflict Hitler pursued with the goal of obtaining 'Lebensraum'. The war ended up costing millions of lives, leaving Europe devastated and his Third Reich in ruins"
I mean, sure, Hitler did start the war (well, a lot of events happened prior to the beginning of the war, so I can't just say that it is all his fault) but Stalin and Mao Zedong killed more (both communists).
Nazism was based on nationalism and fasicm true, but that does not mean all facist countries were nazist or that all facist countries helped Germany, nor does that mean that anyone who is nationalist is nazist. Even communists can be nationalist and back then, most of the communists were. And yeah, patriot and nationalist is pretty much the same, no difference at all. Don't tell a book by its cover. I'm done posting here anyway, argueing here is... well, I'm out.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Wrong, communism in Stalin's way was equal if not worse to Nazism. Both ideas are bad, communism in a democratic way is good, so is nationalism (not nazism). I never said Nazism was good, or that communism was good. You can support whatever ideology you want, but when you directly support Stalin's communism or Nazism or when you support an ideology as much as Hitler and Stalin did, then whatever you're supporting is bad.
I never said I support Nazism, I love my country, I'm kinda nationalist. I am not racist, but I do hate criminals and immigrants who enter my country illegally, I'm a logical person and I accept the fact that my ideology won't always be the right one. My post wasn't meant to show that Hitler was a good person and Nazism is good, I wanted to show that both Stalin and Hitler were terrible people.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Escrito por Nitmaros, 09.05.2014 at 07:17
My post wasn't meant to show that Hitler was a good person and Nazism is good, I wanted to show that both Stalin and Hitler were terrible people.
Both Stalin and Hitler had one thing in common : extremely traumatic childhoods.
Untill you begin to look at the cause, you will never fix the symptoms. Don't for a second think these kind of people don't exist anymore. Ignorance keeps creating them. They are there behind the shadows, and once chaos breaks out (and it will), they will rise.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Does anyone else ever wonder why genocide is The Greatest Evil in International Law, and why, therefore, Stalin, Mao, and all of the other also-rans are never anywhere Hitler's evil and Nazi evil?
The wrongs done by most other people are banal/ordinary.
Even the genocides practiced by others (United States, Turkey, Cambodia, Rwanda) pale in comparison to the Nazi atrocities - which were undeniable, intentional, contemporary (people knew better), systematic, sought the *extinction* of the enemy, and the desired outcome was the complete elimination of the enemy everywhere. No other genocide in history meets all of these criteria. The Nazis took something manifestly evil and made it distilled evil.
---
It is sad that this is still a matter up for discussion.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Escrito por Nitmaros, 09.05.2014 at 07:17
My post wasn't meant to show that Hitler was a good person and Nazism is good, I wanted to show that both Stalin and Hitler were terrible people.
Both Stalin and Hitler had one thing in common : extremely traumatic childhoods.
Untill you begin to look at the cause, you will never fix the symptoms. Don't for a second think these kind of people don't exist anymore. Ignorance keeps creating them. They are there behind the shadows, and once chaos breaks out (and it will), they will rise.
Your point being?
Kill all people who had traumatic childhoods?
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Escrito por Nitmaros, 09.05.2014 at 07:17
My post wasn't meant to show that Hitler was a good person and Nazism is good, I wanted to show that both Stalin and Hitler were terrible people.
Both Stalin and Hitler had one thing in common : extremely traumatic childhoods.
Untill you begin to look at the cause, you will never fix the symptoms. Don't for a second think these kind of people don't exist anymore. Ignorance keeps creating them. They are there behind the shadows, and once chaos breaks out (and it will), they will rise.
Your point being?
Kill all people who had traumatic childhoods?
No. Killing will only keep the cycle going.
The point being, become aware of what is causing this, and stop it from the root. Preventing a problem is easier than solving it. As childhood trauma diminishes, crimes diminish. This is not common knowledge.The state will never try to fix this. It needs broken people who grew up in violent environments who are eager to sign up for the army and kill.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Escrito por Nitmaros, 09.05.2014 at 07:17
My post wasn't meant to show that Hitler was a good person and Nazism is good, I wanted to show that both Stalin and Hitler were terrible people.
Both Stalin and Hitler had one thing in common : extremely traumatic childhoods.
Untill you begin to look at the cause, you will never fix the symptoms. Don't for a second think these kind of people don't exist anymore. Ignorance keeps creating them. They are there behind the shadows, and once chaos breaks out (and it will), they will rise.
Your point being?
Kill all people who had traumatic childhoods?
No. Killing will only keep the cycle going.
The point being, become aware of what is causing this, and stop it from the root. Preventing a problem is easier than solving it. As childhood trauma diminishes, crimes diminish. This is not common knowledge.The state will never try to fix this. It needs broken people who grew up in violent environments who are eager to sign up for the army and kill.
Sounds more like an anti-government attack than a claim of the defense of children.
Do Japan and Switzerland, with their purely defensive forces and the 21 nations listed in the wiki article below (with no significant military) need broken people who grow up in violent environments? What social benefit does child abuse serve in these societies?
Here are the 'interests' of at least 3 groups.
1. The right of parents to raise their children in the manner they see fit (if and until they are discovered to have broken the law).
2. The right of children to be free from abuse.
3. The right of society to be free from violent crime.
4. The right of children raised in violence NOT to be denied full franchise as adults merely because, *as a population* they may have a higher propensity for violence
5. The right of children to be raised by their parents.
I would claim that a lack of state action isn't based on the state's desire to raise violent children, but instead because the balance of the rights of the parties involved means that the state is doing about all it can, or should.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the state raise all children? Serving 2 and 3 to the detriment of 1, 4 and 5?
Parental rights are so fundamental that very few regimes have attempted to tamper with them: Spartans, and USA/Canada/Australia, with some aboriginal children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
EDIT: Apologies, but I didn't steer the conversation in this direction.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Escrito por Nitmaros, 09.05.2014 at 07:17
My post wasn't meant to show that Hitler was a good person and Nazism is good, I wanted to show that both Stalin and Hitler were terrible people.
Both Stalin and Hitler had one thing in common : extremely traumatic childhoods.
Untill you begin to look at the cause, you will never fix the symptoms. Don't for a second think these kind of people don't exist anymore. Ignorance keeps creating them. They are there behind the shadows, and once chaos breaks out (and it will), they will rise.
Your point being?
Kill all people who had traumatic childhoods?
No. Killing will only keep the cycle going.
The point being, become aware of what is causing this, and stop it from the root. Preventing a problem is easier than solving it. As childhood trauma diminishes, crimes diminish. This is not common knowledge.The state will never try to fix this. It needs broken people who grew up in violent environments who are eager to sign up for the army and kill.
Sounds more like an anti-government attack than a claim of the defense of children.
Do Japan and Switzerland, with their purely defensive forces and the 21 nations listed in the wiki article below (with no significant military) need broken people who grow up in violent environments? What social benefit does child abuse serve in these societies?
Here are the 'interests' of at least 3 groups.
1. The right of parents to raise their children in the manner they see fit (if and until they are discovered to have broken the law).
It doesn't serve any benefit to society. It creates monsters. As a child, Hitler was beaten untill he went unconcious in a coma. I don't want to steer this into the anti-government direction, that was just an afterthought. Point 1 is what is causing 95% of your problems. The problem lies in "as they see fit". Like that father who caught his daughter eating some sweets he hid somewhere, then dragged her by the hair in the bathroom, layed her on the floor, took a few matches, put them between her toes, then light them on fire. I am not making this up. This is what he "saw fit".
It's amazing how you will go to jail for hitting a dog, but everyone will ignore you or even encourage you to beat your children.
EDIT: Apologies, but I didn't steer the conversation in this direction.
Pfft. This is not off-topic. What I am talking about is at the core of all these evil crimes and ideologies you hate and want to prevent from ever happening again. Of course, this only proves once again how little you know about this, yet you talk as if you are all-knowing. Don't look at the symptoms, but at the cause.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/freedomain_radio_psychohistory.xml
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
The bad thing about debates between two people is, that there always are 2 winners
----
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Escrito por Goblin, 09.05.2014 at 12:31
USSSR
- Estonia annexed by Soviet union ...more then 300, 000 estonians deported, arrested, executed
- Lithuania annexed ...same with Estonia, soviet terror, deportations, killings, people sent to gulags
- Invasion of Poland ...same fuckin thing, terror, killings, deportations
- Poland during 1944.-1945. ...soviet armies raping, pilaging, killing
- Invasion of Finland ...do i need to say again ...attacks on villages, slaughters etc.
- almost 500,000 german POW died in soviet captivity
- up to 2, 000 000 women from ages of 8 to whatever where gang raped, tortured by the soviet troops with Stalin saying something like "well troops need to blow some steam"
- etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
SENTENCE: saviors of europe, communistic saints, who according to you have love for life and other crap you said
Alas History is propaganda of the victor ...i suggest you study a bit more about history, besides yahoo answers and school coloring books to try to grasp a bit of real truth about it, so you wont continue to see the world trough your childlish eyes where there are good guys and bad guys ...there was no innocent side in that story, stop reading and repeating fairy tales here.
USA general Patton after the fall of german reich said ..."we were fighting the wrong enemy"
Churchill brought up Operation Unthinkable as a plan to invade soviet union
If there was no Hitler and german reich ...WW2 would be fought against Stalin and Soviet Union.
I replied to your nightmare. He said communism kills its own people. Estonians and lithuanians arent Russians.
Do i really need to answer on that question? I mean really, ok i will: After 4 years of fighting, no sleep more than 2h, always tired, sometimes hungry, combat can last for days, no women around. And after 4 years you see a girl, you think you wont get a boner? I doubt there are many people who will be able to resist that animal behavior in situation like that, in that chaos and hell called war. I think only extreme tiredness can stop you. Even americans raped french, belgian and german women in 1944-45, so as i said, do not blame only one side. Only russians depicted as rapists is a myth by UK/USA to install fear into population so they dont support Russia and Communism and to fight fiercely if USSR invade so they ''dont get raped''.
Every nation which conquer other nation will comit attrocities, rape and massacre, there are no exceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II#Rape_during_occupation
Patton was a fool, he got butthurt for not conquering Berlin before soviets. If he attacked Red Army(he was tank commander, tanks always goes first) he would get killed and all his armor destroyed. Thank to God generals stopped Churchill stupid plan of invading Russia, otherwise you would all speak russian and Socialist England would be ruled by Scottish commissars.
Thats by far, one of the most stupid comments i have read.
With your logic, one can justify rape by people that just got out of prision.
Againts popular belief, the ussr would have collapsed without american trade
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Escrito por Goblin, 09.05.2014 at 13:25
Do i really need to answer on that question? I mean really, ok i will: After 4 years of fighting, no sleep more than 2h, always tired, sometimes hungry, combat can last for days, no women around. And after 4 years you see a girl, you think you wont get a boner? I doubt there are many people who will be able to resist that animal
I wouldnt get a boner on a 8 year old child!!!!! ...and i would never rape a women, for me thats worst then killing someone. You call yourself a christian? pffft
And boo fuckin hoo for your poor russian troops ...barbarian rapist hords.
Im amazed by your hypocrisy in your every post about USSR and Russia ...defending one shit all the time while spiting on the other.
Btw. we would all speak russian ...motherfucker what do you think ...russians as some superhuman power. Give me a fuckin break.
oh, someone is pissed, but i totaly agree with you.
and raping women really is inhuman and something that belongs to animals...
----
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Patton was a fool, he got butthurt for not conquering Berlin before soviets. If he attacked Red Army(he was tank commander, tanks always goes first) he would get killed and all his armor destroyed. Thank to God generals stopped Churchill stupid plan of invading Russia, otherwise you would all speak russian and Socialist England would be ruled by Scottish commissars.
So who stopped it, the generals or god? The generals stopped it, so then, why thank god? Retard.
If Operation Unthinkable really happened, russia would be a wasteland right now. USA had the bomb, russia didn't. So a victory in Europe, where they outnumbered the Western Allies would mean nothing with a moscow turned to dust by american nuclear bombs.
What a stupid clown.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
You idiotic clowns, i didnt support rape i just said it happens in war like world war 2, go try to stop it, i dare you. If US and USSR officers could stop it they would interfere.
And Russia would be a wasteland  America didnt had rocket to mount nuclear warhead and send on Russia, they would need large bomber, and soviet air force had 20,000 fighters, and started constructing first jet planes, US bombers wouldnt have a chance to fly off US soil and would be shot down in the ocean by SU jet fighters. Then soviet infantry would overrun every single state in europe until they hit the ocean as natural obstacle(atlantic).
USSR had 20,000,000 strong experienced soldiers in eastern europe 1945 and Churchill wanted to attack that with 200,000 english contractors, lmao.
Soviet Union had lack in large navy, but if americans really wanted war USSR would build shittonne of transport and combat vessels in Murmansk and Archangelks and french coast, then KGB with its spies in US would get plans to make aircraft carriers and guess what - Soviet Union doesnt lack in knowledge and resources to build 100 of them. While Red Air Force protect the sky over Europe and North Asia and protect army and workers to finish ships US can just watch and wait for an invasion. And when invasion start, russians will need only to land, just to grab some beach, when that happen infantry and cossacks would do all the work, just unleash them. City after city will fall into russian hands and war will last for years, americans will regroup and fight in midUSA until get crushed by Red Army. War would make many casulties, but UK/USA called for war, invited Russia 
Dont fool yourself, Russia cannot be beaten militarily, especially in that time when it had collectivized economy where foreign countries didnt had influence like today in capitalistic world where cold wind blows in Shanghai and people sneeze in London.
What a crazy fuck.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Your comments are invalid, sorry you are banned. Go find another game to troll.
Cause the crazy old man living with his parents says so?
He gets called a clown and then in return calls everyone else a clown too. So original. Too bad you will soon die of old age and you will never see USSR rising again. It never will anyway.
I'm only prohibited from posting on forum right now. So don't feel too happy, old fart 
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Escrito por Nitmaros, 09.05.2014 at 07:17
My post wasn't meant to show that Hitler was a good person and Nazism is good, I wanted to show that both Stalin and Hitler were terrible people.
Both Stalin and Hitler had one thing in common : extremely traumatic childhoods.
Untill you begin to look at the cause, you will never fix the symptoms. Don't for a second think these kind of people don't exist anymore. Ignorance keeps creating them. They are there behind the shadows, and once chaos breaks out (and it will), they will rise.
Your point being?
Kill all people who had traumatic childhoods?
No. Killing will only keep the cycle going.
The point being, become aware of what is causing this, and stop it from the root. Preventing a problem is easier than solving it. As childhood trauma diminishes, crimes diminish. This is not common knowledge.The state will never try to fix this. It needs broken people who grew up in violent environments who are eager to sign up for the army and kill.
Sounds more like an anti-government attack than a claim of the defense of children.
Do Japan and Switzerland, with their purely defensive forces and the 21 nations listed in the wiki article below (with no significant military) need broken people who grow up in violent environments? What social benefit does child abuse serve in these societies?
Here are the 'interests' of at least 3 groups.
1. The right of parents to raise their children in the manner they see fit (if and until they are discovered to have broken the law).
It doesn't serve any benefit to society. It creates monsters. As a child, Hitler was beaten untill he went unconcious in a coma. I don't want to steer this into the anti-government direction, that was just an afterthought. Point 1 is what is causing 95% of your problems. The problem lies in "as they see fit". Like that father who caught his daughter eating some sweets he hid somewhere, then dragged her by the hair in the bathroom, layed her on the floor, took a few matches, put them between her toes, then light them on fire. I am not making this up. This is what he "saw fit".
It's amazing how you will go to jail for hitting a dog, but everyone will ignore you or even encourage you to beat your children.
EDIT: Apologies, but I didn't steer the conversation in this direction.
Pfft. This is not off-topic. What I am talking about is at the core of all these evil crimes and ideologies you hate and want to prevent from ever happening again. Of course, this only proves once again how little you know about this, yet you talk as if you are all-knowing. Don't look at the symptoms, but at the cause.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/freedomain_radio_psychohistory.xml
You are insane if you claim the "right of parents to raise their children in the manner they see fit (if and until they are discovered to have broken the law)" serves no societal benefit and creates monsters.
What is the alternate to parents raising children?
Any reasonable person can follow the rest of the critique of your reasoning without having me waste anyone's time.
1. If abuse caused hitler and stalin, shouldn't we imprison or execute all abused to prevent harm to society?
2. If young hitler and stalin (drank milk, were Austrian and Georgian) should we just eliminate (milk drinking people, Austrians and Georgians) to prevent harm to society?
3. If parental abuse causes 'totalitarianism' shouldn't we eliminate parents from the equation to prevent harm to society?
etc.
Please provide your source that parental abuse is responsible for 95% of societies problems.
===
This topic is not about abuse or the cause of hitler and/or stalin's behavior. I'm not the topic police, just pointing this out.
Note: I did not watch the video. Of the three videos I have watched from the same domain (freedomradio), the logically invalid reasoning, outright lies and/or ignorance of elementary historical knowledge (in other words, uselessness) displayed by the author have given me no cause to continue to invest my time. If this is the source of your argument, I see no reason why this time should be different as your argument ignores counterargument and logic.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Escrito por Goblin, 09.05.2014 at 12:31
USSSR
- Estonia annexed by Soviet union ...more then 300, 000 estonians deported, arrested, executed
- Lithuania annexed ...same with Estonia, soviet terror, deportations, killings, people sent to gulags
- Invasion of Poland ...same fuckin thing, terror, killings, deportations
- Poland during 1944.-1945. ...soviet armies raping, pilaging, killing
- Invasion of Finland ...do i need to say again ...attacks on villages, slaughters etc.
- almost 500,000 german POW died in soviet captivity
- up to 2, 000 000 women from ages of 8 to whatever where gang raped, tortured by the soviet troops with Stalin saying something like "well troops need to blow some steam"
- etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
SENTENCE: saviors of europe, communistic saints, who according to you have love for life and other crap you said
Alas History is propaganda of the victor ...i suggest you study a bit more about history, besides yahoo answers and school coloring books to try to grasp a bit of real truth about it, so you wont continue to see the world trough your childlish eyes where there are good guys and bad guys ...there was no innocent side in that story, stop reading and repeating fairy tales here.
USA general Patton after the fall of german reich said ..."we were fighting the wrong enemy"
Churchill brought up Operation Unthinkable as a plan to invade soviet union
If there was no Hitler and german reich ...WW2 would be fought against Stalin and Soviet Union.
Mostly agreed, except there may not have even been WW2.
Just remove Hitler and racism from the picture, keep everything the same and you have a very different environment.
From 1933 forward maybe Germany doesn't conqueror its neighbors militarily (immediately) and can focus on rational economic development. The West is then united against the Red Menace, and the dollars would still flow from the USA to Germany and likely in larger amounts.
With no *genocidal* antisemitism, three of the four key scientists responsible for the construction of the atom bomb would have remained in the German sphere (Fermi, Szilard, Einstein). This did not guarantee Germany the atom bomb (by any means - because of the large industrial base required) but the USA is denied the bomb, because Einstein and Fermi never write the letter to Roosevelt in 1939.
Japan might be forced to act more rationally without a possible European war distracting America and Britain - conceivably it negotiates to keep Korea and China - suppressing Communism in both areas.
By 1942 The German Empire may or may not be preparing to invade the rest of Europe, and the Japanese Empire may or may not be preparing to attack the USA, the USSR may or may not be prepared to attack Europe, but in any case, all of the powers are governed by rational actors.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Escrito por Goblin, 09.05.2014 at 12:31
USSSR
- Estonia annexed by Soviet union ...more then 300, 000 estonians deported, arrested, executed
- Lithuania annexed ...same with Estonia, soviet terror, deportations, killings, people sent to gulags
- Invasion of Poland ...same fuckin thing, terror, killings, deportations
- Poland during 1944.-1945. ...soviet armies raping, pilaging, killing
- Invasion of Finland ...do i need to say again ...attacks on villages, slaughters etc.
- almost 500,000 german POW died in soviet captivity
- up to 2, 000 000 women from ages of 8 to whatever where gang raped, tortured by the soviet troops with Stalin saying something like "well troops need to blow some steam"
- etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
SENTENCE: saviors of europe, communistic saints, who according to you have love for life and other crap you said
Alas History is propaganda of the victor ...i suggest you study a bit more about history, besides yahoo answers and school coloring books to try to grasp a bit of real truth about it, so you wont continue to see the world trough your childlish eyes where there are good guys and bad guys ...there was no innocent side in that story, stop reading and repeating fairy tales here.
USA general Patton after the fall of german reich said ..."we were fighting the wrong enemy"
Churchill brought up Operation Unthinkable as a plan to invade soviet union
If there was no Hitler and german reich ...WW2 would be fought against Stalin and Soviet Union.
I replied to your nightmare. He said communism kills its own people. Estonians and lithuanians arent Russians.
Do i really need to answer on that question? I mean really, ok i will: After 4 years of fighting, no sleep more than 2h, always tired, sometimes hungry, combat can last for days, no women around. And after 4 years you see a girl, you think you wont get a boner? I doubt there are many people who will be able to resist that animal behavior in situation like that, in that chaos and hell called war. I think only extreme tiredness can stop you. Even americans raped french, belgian and german women in 1944-45, so as i said, do not blame only one side. Only russians depicted as rapists is a myth by UK/USA to install fear into population so they dont support Russia and Communism and to fight fiercely if USSR invade so they ''dont get raped''.
Every nation which conquer other nation will comit attrocities, rape and massacre, there are no exceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II#Rape_during_occupation
Patton was a fool, he got butthurt for not conquering Berlin before soviets. If he attacked Red Army(he was tank commander, tanks always goes first) he would get killed and all his armor destroyed. Thank to God generals stopped Churchill stupid plan of invading Russia, otherwise you would all speak russian and Socialist England would be ruled by Scottish commissars.
Also largely agreed - the USA and UK were not in a position to defeat the USSR in an attack on VE day.
The USA had only one remaining atomic bomb in September 1945 and ended the year with 6. It didn't have even 30 deployable weapons until 1947. There was no route or delivery system that would have permitted an attack to be launched, attack Moscow with bombs, and return, until 1946 (and arguably later).
The very limited size of the American nuclear arsenal was a closely guarded secret - the USSR (and the Japanese empire) assumed the USA had hundreds of weapons. Japan would not have surrendered knowing that there was only one more bomb, and the USSR *might* have pushed the matter in 1946-47 had they known they did not face extinction.
===
The larger question isn't why didn't the UK and USA attack East, but why didn't Stalin attack West? The answer would be the same:
The risk of rebellion on the eve of victory would be too great - the 'defender' would rally, but the 'attacker' would find his troops in rebellion.
EDIT: Most definitely later - 1948 would have been the earliest year the USA could have mounted a practical attack on Moscow - suicide missions would have been possible - but considering the cost of the bombs and the risk of an *intact bomb* being captured in a failed attack it would be unlikely this would have been attempted. The USSR surprised the USA by developing its first bomb in 1949.
For all of these reasons, the only reasonable attack route was from the Arctic to Moscow.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Patton was a fool, he got butthurt for not conquering Berlin before soviets. If he attacked Red Army(he was tank commander, tanks always goes first) he would get killed and all his armor destroyed. Thank to God generals stopped Churchill stupid plan of invading Russia, otherwise you would all speak russian and Socialist England would be ruled by Scottish commissars.
So who stopped it, the generals or god? The generals stopped it, so then, why thank god? Retard.
If Operation Unthinkable really happened, russia would be a wasteland right now. USA had the bomb, russia didn't. So a victory in Europe, where they outnumbered the Western Allies would mean nothing with a moscow turned to dust by american nuclear bombs.
What a stupid clown.
The USA didn't have the bombs or the capability to destroy Russian political targets until at least 1946 1948
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate
By 1947 there were enough weapons, but no delivery system.
The bluff tactics that worked with the all-but-defeated Japanese wouldn't work with the USSR.
Before the Hiroshima attacks, the Japanese were 'trained' to ignore small flights of 3 B29s - these would be sent to a target, fly around, and return - never attacking.
The Japanese didn't have the resources to deal with anything but imminent threats, and these small 'squadrons' only attacked twice.
The USSR had the resources to deal with any small or large threat - and had fighter defense-in-depth from 1945 forward - Western Europe was covered, and only the arctic route was practical.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
What is the alternate to parents raising children?
There is no alternate. They really really really REALLY need them. But without all the bullshit and abuse that comes with it.
Any reasonable person can follow the rest of the critique of your reasoning without having me waste anyone's time.
You are not a reasonable person.
1. If abuse caused hitler and stalin, shouldn't we imprison or execute all abused to prevent harm to society?
I just answered that in my second reply to you in this thread. If you didn't get it the first time (because you are stupid), I will not waste my time writing the same thing again.
2. If young hitler and stalin (drank milk, were Austrian and Georgian) should we just eliminate (milk drinking people, Austrians and Georgians) to prevent harm to society?
You are a retard.
3. If parental abuse causes 'totalitarianism' shouldn't we eliminate parents from the equation to prevent harm to society?
etc.
It doesn't "cause". But it sure as hell makes one much more susceptible to violence and crime.
Please provide your source that parental abuse is responsible for 95% of societies problems.
You are ignorant about the thing which nearly caused you to be wiped off the planet. Good job.
It's not exactly that number, but somewhere around there. Just like your concious mind only accounts for ~5% of your actions. The ~95% is automatic, deeply embedded below that level. I provided one source just as an introduction, and you didn't even bother to click on it to see that it was NOT a video. It was an audiobook, and the book wasn't written by Stefan Molyneux. So why should I provide more, to an ignorant idiot such as yourself?
I will not.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
You are insane if you claim the "right of parents to raise their children in the manner they see fit (if and until they are discovered to have broken the law)" serves no societal benefit and creates monsters.
Please provide your source that parental abuse is responsible for 95% of societies problems.
I can safely make that claim and at the same time i am sure i am not insane.What unleashed is saying, is that enviroment plays a huge role in an individuals character,behaviour,decision making and even intelligence (genetisists agree).This is a statement where psychologists,scientists and philosophers agree.This debate is so old, nature versus nurture, that even Aristotle and Plato had diferent views, one supporting empirisism and the other nativism.But after so much research and testing (ongoing), everyone seem to agree that both genes and enviroment playes almost an equal role.
That being said, if we take into consideration that as humans, when we are born, we cannot "change" our dna and our genetic makeup, thus we inherit our physical appearance and some behavioural and intellectual predispositions from genes, what we CAN change is the "nurture" factor.Meaning the influence we get from family, social enviroment, societital norms, education, governmental influences and laws (and "laws") and bla bla bla.[ by "laws" i mean when the government as an institution provides a set of morals and laws that contradict eachother, like for example the proffesions of lawyers and stockbrokers.We learn that it is bad and against the law to murder, but it is very respected and accepted, that a lawyer can defend a murderer and can work by finding loopholes in the law and convincing the court through other means,all to help this murderer be set free into society again]
So anyway, if we take genetics out of the equation simply because we cant change it, what we are left is what unleashed said as "parental abuse" and im gona rename it to the more general "enviromental influences" and safely state that they are realistically responsible for not 95% but 100% of societies problems, (that we have control upon)
Sounds more like an anti-government attack than a claim of the defense of children.
Do you really care about his motives or are you trying to attack him instead of his argument?But even so, yes, why shouldnt it be anti-government.I blame everything on the government yes.And this is not offtopic as ultimately, Hitler AND Stalin, both WERE the government.So if in a democratic system, government has the power, to commit such monstrocities, then theres something wrong with the whole institution.And i will explain, as quickly as i can, because i havent got the time, how government has the power to change everything, but they just wont, thus making them responsible for everything.
I would claim that a lack of state action isn't based on the state's desire to raise violent children, but instead because the balance of the rights of the parties involved means that the state is doing about all it can, or should.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the state raise all children?
So we established that an individuals development, is influenced by what we can simplisticly call "enviroment".The three major factors, as i think, we can all agree, are parenthood,education and media, in order of importance.The state can actually control (to a degree) all of these 3 major factors, except maybe the media, which im not really sure if it "should", because we have freedom of speech and expression, so all the more weight falls into the parents and schools.
Now, the influence parents have to their child, begins even before giving birth, at the prenatal stage.Drug abuse,eating habits, environmental exposure and even behavioural habits, have all been linked to changes in gene expression.
That being said, since parents are doing an awfull job of controlling themselfs during the pregnancy stages, the state can and should, step in.The easiest way, even a 5 year old can come up with, is simply EDUCATE the parents, at least.Meaning, OBLIGATORY courses, educating all new parents on the subject.And since humans cannot be trusted,especially any form of junkies,people on medication, people with psychological problems, people with questionable values and morals, basically the vast majority of human population, government should do even more.Ban availability of pregnancy tests.All females could, free of charge, get tested in every hospital.All the positive results, would be imediately shared with a specific government agency, and a process will start, of obligatory courses on parenthood in natal and prenatal stage, weekly drug and alchohol abuse tests and social workers visting the couple weekly or at least monthly, to check on the mothers enviroment and lifestyle.This is our future we are talking about and we are doing nothing to secure it.If it was up to me, the mothers would have to spend their whole 9 months in a confortable government facility, living healthy and get taught how to be good parents and instill the right values and morals on their children.Just like men have obligatory military service (in some countries) Why do we care more about training men to kill each other and we care less about training mothers to raise good,healthy,happy,stable children?
Mooving on to schools.Do you think schools today are the best we can do?In 2014?So many useless clasess, so many lies and misinformation in our school books, so many unqualified and "dangerous" teachers and so on.Even the structure of the system is wrong.The final exams should disapear (note*Harvard agrees), more weight should be on cooperation instead of competition, recess should be bigger and the whole process of learning more "fun",courses should include, from an early stage, an introduction to psychology and communication and social interaction,nutrition and general health courses and so on.Also how are schools today instilling the right values and set of morals to our children?Kids finish school with the mentality that all that matters is to get a good university education to get a good job and make lots of money, even if that means stepping on anyone.Where are kids supposed to learn about all the other things, the things that really matter, like being happy, being healthy, help eachother, be a good person, be creative and express yourself and so on.These kids are doomed, most of them have developed psychological problems by the time they finish school.So once a kid reaches adulthood, the equation of its character traits look like this.
"uncontrolled" parenthood + "wrong" education + ongoing horific "media exposure" = recipy for destruction.
So yeah i would think government CAN and SHOULD do, more.If a simple, unqualified person like me, can make these observations in a jiffy, im sure that goverments, with an abundancy of experts in all fields can do wonders, IF they really want to.But i guess they DONT want to.Why?I honestly do not know.But one is free to speculate.
Thus i blame the government/state.For everything.For every misfortune and misjustice happening in the world, for every "bad" humans and "bad" things, i blame the government and i have strong reasons to.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
baby_bullet86
Cuenta eliminada |
baby_bullet86
Cuenta eliminada
You are insane if you claim the "right of parents to raise their children in the manner they see fit (if and until they are discovered to have broken the law)" serves no societal benefit and creates monsters.
Please provide your source that parental abuse is responsible for 95% of societies problems.
I can safely make that claim and at the same time i am sure i am not insane.What unleashed is saying, is that enviroment plays a huge role in an individuals character,behaviour,decision making and even intelligence (genetisists agree).This is a statement where psychologists,scientists and philosophers agree.This debate is so old, nature versus nurture, that even Aristotle and Plato had diferent views, one supporting empirisism and the other nativism.But after so much research and testing (ongoing), everyone seem to agree that both genes and enviroment playes almost an equal role.
That being said, if we take into consideration that as humans, when we are born, we cannot "change" our dna and our genetic makeup, thus we inherit our physical appearance and some behavioural and intellectual predispositions from genes, what we CAN change is the "nurture" factor.Meaning the influence we get from family, social enviroment, societital norms, education, governmental influences and laws (and "laws") and bla bla bla.[ by "laws" i mean when the government as an institution provides a set of morals and laws that contradict eachother, like for example the proffesions of lawyers and stockbrokers.We learn that it is bad and against the law to murder, but it is very respected and accepted, that a lawyer can defend a murderer and can work by finding loopholes in the law and convincing the court through other means,all to help this murderer be set free into society again]
So anyway, if we take genetics out of the equation simply because we cant change it, what we are left is what unleashed said as "parental abuse" and im gona rename it to the more general "enviromental influences" and safely state that they are realistically responsible for not 95% but 100% of societies problems, (that we have control upon)
Sounds more like an anti-government attack than a claim of the defense of children.
Do you really care about his motives or are you trying to attack him instead of his argument?But even so, yes, why shouldnt it be anti-government.I blame everything on the government yes.And this is not offtopic as ultimately, Hitler AND Stalin, both WERE the government.So if in a democratic system, government has the power, to commit such monstrocities, then theres something wrong with the whole institution.And i will explain, as quickly as i can, because i havent got the time, how government has the power to change everything, but they just wont, thus making them responsible for everything.
I would claim that a lack of state action isn't based on the state's desire to raise violent children, but instead because the balance of the rights of the parties involved means that the state is doing about all it can, or should.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the state raise all children?
So we established that an individuals development, is influenced by what we can simplisticly call "enviroment".The three major factors, as i think, we can all agree, are parenthood,education and media, in order of importance.The state can actually control (to a degree) all of these 3 major factors, except maybe the media, which im not really sure if it "should", because we have freedom of speech and expression, so all the more weight falls into the parents and schools.
Now, the influence parents have to their child, begins even before giving birth, at the prenatal stage.Drug abuse,eating habits, environmental exposure and even behavioural habits, have all been linked to changes in gene expression.
That being said, since parents are doing an awfull job of controlling themselfs during the pregnancy stages, the state can and should, step in.The easiest way, even a 5 year old can come up with, is simply EDUCATE the parents, at least.Meaning, OBLIGATORY courses, educating all new parents on the subject.And since humans cannot be trusted,especially any form of junkies,people on medication, people with psychological problems, people with questionable values and morals, basically the vast majority of human population, government should do even more.Ban availability of pregnancy tests.All females could, free of charge, get tested in every hospital.All the positive results, would be imediately shared with a specific government agency, and a process will start, of obligatory courses on parenthood in natal and prenatal stage, weekly drug and alchohol abuse tests and social workers visting the couple weekly or at least monthly, to check on the mothers enviroment and lifestyle.This is our future we are talking about and we are doing nothing to secure it.If it was up to me, the mothers would have to spend their whole 9 months in a confortable government facility, living healthy and get taught how to be good parents and instill the right values and morals on their children.Just like men have obligatory military service (in some countries) Why do we care more about training men to kill each other and we care less about training mothers to raise good,healthy,happy,stable children?
Mooving on to schools.Do you think schools today are the best we can do?In 2014?So many useless clasess, so many lies and misinformation in our school books, so many unqualified and "dangerous" teachers and so on.Even the structure of the system is wrong.The final exams should disapear (note*Harvard agrees), more weight should be on cooperation instead of competition, recess should be bigger and the whole process of learning more "fun",courses should include, from an early stage, an introduction to psychology and communication and social interaction,nutrition and general health courses and so on.Also how are schools today instilling the right values and set of morals to our children?Kids finish school with the mentality that all that matters is to get a good university education to get a good job and make lots of money, even if that means stepping on anyone.Where are kids supposed to learn about all the other things, the things that really matter, like being happy, being healthy, help eachother, be a good person, be creative and express yourself and so on.These kids are doomed, most of them have developed psychological problems by the time they finish school.So once a kid reaches adulthood, the equation of its character traits look like this.
"uncontrolled" parenthood + "wrong" education + ongoing horific "media exposure" = recipy for destruction.
So yeah i would think government CAN and SHOULD do, more.If a simple, unqualified person like me, can make these observations in a jiffy, im sure that goverments, with an abundancy of experts in all fields can do wonders, IF they really want to.But i guess they DONT want to.Why?I honestly do not know.But one is free to speculate.
Thus i blame the government/state.For everything.For every misfortune and misjustice happening in the world, for every "bad" humans and "bad" things, i blame the government and i have strong reasons to.
please chill babe
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Nah man, it can't be upbringing. These things happen because... I don't know, it just isn't what you said. You have to be insane to say that.
Said a retarded kike once.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
Cant believe you two were the fastest spermatozoids. There is no logical explanation for your conception and birth. Could be mistake of the nature, shit happens.
You still here? Thought you died of old age already.
But one can dream.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
The world has to get rid of those things <3 Love for everyone. Fuck nazi/communism/RUSSIANS.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
What is the alternate to parents raising children?
There is no alternate. They really really really REALLY need them. But without all the bullshit and abuse that comes with it.
Any reasonable person can follow the rest of the critique of your reasoning without having me waste anyone's time.
You are not a reasonable person.
1. If abuse caused hitler and stalin, shouldn't we imprison or execute all abused to prevent harm to society?
I just answered that in my second reply to you in this thread. If you didn't get it the first time (because you are stupid), I will not waste my time writing the same thing again.
2. If young hitler and stalin (drank milk, were Austrian and Georgian) should we just eliminate (milk drinking people, Austrians and Georgians) to prevent harm to society?
You are a retard.
3. If parental abuse causes 'totalitarianism' shouldn't we eliminate parents from the equation to prevent harm to society?
etc.
It doesn't "cause". But it sure as hell makes one much more susceptible to violence and crime.
Please provide your source that parental abuse is responsible for 95% of societies problems.
You are ignorant about the thing which nearly caused you to be wiped off the planet. Good job.
It's not exactly that number, but somewhere around there. Just like your concious mind only accounts for ~5% of your actions. The ~95% is automatic, deeply embedded below that level. I provided one source just as an introduction, and you didn't even bother to click on it to see that it was NOT a video. It was an audiobook, and the book wasn't written by Stefan Molyneux. So why should I provide more, to an ignorant idiot such as yourself?
I will not.
No, I did not bother to check, for the reasons I previously outlined.
He's an idiot and/or a liar. He doesn't even have a reasonable grasp of history, or doesn't expect his viewers to. Why would *anyone* expect the 4th or subsequent times to be different?
In other words, he's like you (or Unleashed), assuming you're two different people.
I have no idea about what nearly caused me to be wiped off the planet, and I would ask you to cite your source about my conscious mind accounting for only 5% of my actions - but it's probably more mystical horseshit, anyway.
Now keep in mind that I'm categorically rejecting you because you've demonstrated continued racism, inability to reason and more vapid claims - you may or may not be Unleashed - but U ~ bU.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
No, I did not bother to check, for the reasons I previously outlined.
He's an idiot and/or a liar.
I provided something else, created by a different author.
He doesn't even have a reasonable grasp of history, or doesn't expect his viewers to. Why would *anyone* expect the 4th or subsequent times to be different?
You don't have a reasonable grasp of anything, as you have proven countless times.
In other words, he's like you (or Unleashed), assuming you're two different people.
You're really dumb aren't you.
I have no idea about what nearly caused me to be wiped off the planet
I do, and it's pretty horrific. But since you don't care, I would assume that if it ever happened again, you'd deserve your fate.
Now keep in mind that I'm categorically rejecting you because you've demonstrated continued racism, inability to reason and more vapid claims - you may or may not be Unleashed - but U ~ bU.
OMG. PLEASE NO. DON'T REJECT Me hahahahahahah. You fool. Do you really think it matters.
and I would ask you to cite your source about my conscious mind accounting for only 5% of my actions - but it's probably more mystical horseshit, anyway.
In your case it's even less than that perhaps 0.1% at best. Your name fits you well. You truly are a retarded unconcious zombie, blabbering and running in circles, not knowing what kind of universe he lives in.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
No, I did not bother to check, for the reasons I previously outlined.
He's an idiot and/or a liar.
I provided something else, created by a different author.
He doesn't even have a reasonable grasp of history, or doesn't expect his viewers to. Why would *anyone* expect the 4th or subsequent times to be different?
You don't have a reasonable grasp of anything, as you have proven countless times.
In other words, he's like you (or Unleashed), assuming you're two different people.
You're really dumb aren't you.
I have no idea about what nearly caused me to be wiped off the planet
I do, and it's pretty horrific. But since you don't care, I would assume that if it ever happened again, you'd deserve your fate.
Now keep in mind that I'm categorically rejecting you because you've demonstrated continued racism, inability to reason and more vapid claims - you may or may not be Unleashed - but U ~ bU.
OMG. PLEASE NO. DON'T REJECT Me hahahahahahah. You fool. Do you really think it matters.
and I would ask you to cite your source about my conscious mind accounting for only 5% of my actions - but it's probably more mystical horseshit, anyway.
In your case it's even less than that perhaps 0.1% at best. Your name fits you well. You truly are a retarded unconcious zombie, blabbering and running in circles, not knowing what kind of universe he lives in.
And there you go again. You don't *deny* what I said, or think it to be untrue - as if personal attacks discredit my arguments or reasoning.
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
|
And there you go again. You don't *deny* what I said, or think it to be untrue - as if personal attacks discredit my arguments or reasoning.
Hahah. Is that all you can come up with. Talk about personal attacks when you did that yourself countless times.
Boy, I knew you were bad, but you're actually worse than I thought.
What are you even talking about?
Cargando...
Cargando...
|
