Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The US's fall back strategy, if Germany and France had fallen to the Soviet Union, was to close the passes in the Pyrenees with tactical nukes to continue resistance from the Iberian peninsula.  

When one is fighting a power that planned and operated chains of extermination camps, that made the Germans look like amateurs, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply.

 

In case, you forgot, Israel eliminated Iraq's nuclear program neatly. 

 

The reference to killing like ants refers to operations against Iran's plan to attack the US Navy with hundreds of small craft/   The US Navy has planned against this for years. 

 

Of course, we prefer to fight against a non-nuclear power.  That eliminates the possibility of the US using nukes, as well, especially when the opponents are crazed into religious fervor resembling the kamikaze, also religious fanatics.  The left is always morally outraged when the US fights from military superiority.  How dare we suffer casualties only 10 percent of our enemies.  I still remember European leftists stating it was a shame the US did not have millions of soldiers dead in WWI and WWIi like their European,  Well,, excuse me!  

 

 

Invoking the past does not 'splain away the present stupid deal with the "death-to-America" mullahs; we live in the present. As a side bit of trivia, the switching engines used at TVA's Muscle Shoals reservation came from the railroad the allies ran through Iran to supply the Soviet Union. FDR gave his blessing to the Anglo-Soviet takeover of the Persians in 1941.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...iet_invasion_of_Iran

Originally Posted by direstraits:

The US's fall back strategy, if Germany and France had fallen to the Soviet Union, was to close the passes in the Pyrenees with tactical nukes to continue resistance from the Iberian peninsula.  

When one is fighting a power that planned and operated chains of extermination camps, that made the Germans look like amateurs, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply.

Boxing and war are different things and Auschwitz and Buchenwald did not justify unleashing nuclear power in Europe.

 

In case, you forgot, Israel eliminated Iraq's nuclear program neatly. I forgot nothing; you have gone glaringly off topic.

 

The reference to killing like ants refers to operations against Iran's plan to attack the US Navy with hundreds of small craft/   The US Navy has planned against this for years. 

 

Of course, we prefer to fight against a non-nuclear power.  That eliminates the possibility of the US using nukes, as well, especially when the opponents are crazed into religious fervor resembling the kamikaze, also religious fanatics.  The left is always morally outraged when the US fights from military superiority.  How dare we suffer casualties only 10 percent of our enemies.  I still remember European leftists stating it was a shame the US did not have millions of soldiers dead in WWI and WWIi like their European,  Well,, excuse me!  The extremist statement of extremist parties in post-war Europe have noting to do with my contention, which you have again avoided, namely, "

 

"Our track record with Iran could be better if we and our friends had not gotten involved in these things:"

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

Well Ocon, how do you bring yourself to suffer your one life in this hell hole

of America..?? If we were as moral, peaceful, forgiving, generous and kind

as your head choppers, would you not be as embarrassed to show your son

of god face, especially in this - your hated southern state - spittoon.

___

Congratulations!  Against all odds, you have achieved a new extreme in irrelevance!

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

The US's fall back strategy, if Germany and France had fallen to the Soviet Union, was to close the passes in the Pyrenees with tactical nukes to continue resistance from the Iberian peninsula.  

When one is fighting a power that planned and operated chains of extermination camps, that made the Germans look like amateurs, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply.

Boxing and war are different things and Auschwitz and Buchenwald did not justify unleashing nuclear power in Europe.

 

I was not invoking the German camps,  I was referencing the gulags, which existed before those of the Germans and continued to exist until the demise of the Soviet Union.. The USSR practiced wholesale industrial slaughter of ten of millions of people weil beyond that of Germany -- the Germans learned from the Soviets Yes, using a few low yield nuclear mines to counter the Soviets would be worth it.

 

In case, you forgot, Israel eliminated Iraq's nuclear program neatly. I forgot nothing; you have gone glaringly off topic.

 

Not off topic, but the method that Iraq's nuclear program was ended,  Do you really doubt the US wasn't apprised of the program!!

 

The reference to killing like ants refers to operations against Iran's plan to attack the US Navy with hundreds of small craft/   The US Navy has planned against this for years. 

 

Of course, we prefer to fight against a non-nuclear power.  That eliminates the possibility of the US using nukes, as well, especially when the opponents are crazed into religious fervor resembling the kamikaze, also religious fanatics.  The left is always morally outraged when the US fights from military superiority.  How dare we suffer casualties only 10 percent of our enemies.  I still remember European leftists stating it was a shame the US did not have millions of soldiers dead in WWI and WWIi like their European,  Well,, excuse me!  

 

The extremist statement of extremist parties in post-war Europe have noting to do with my contention, which you have again avoided, namely, "

 

Not the extremist views but those of the main stream left wing parties in France and Germany. 

 

"Our track record with Iran could be better if we and our friends had not gotten involved in these things:"

 

And, if France hadn't let the ayatollah loose on Iran things would be much better, now. 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

The US's fall back strategy, if Germany and France had fallen to the Soviet Union, was to close the passes in the Pyrenees with tactical nukes to continue resistance from the Iberian peninsula.  

When one is fighting a power that planned and operated chains of extermination camps, that made the Germans look like amateurs, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply.

Boxing and war are different things and Auschwitz and Buchenwald did not justify unleashing nuclear power in Europe.

 

I was not invoking the German camps,  I was referencing the gulags, which existed before those of the Germans and continued to exist until the demise of the Soviet Union.. The USSR practiced wholesale industrial slaughter of ten of millions of people weil beyond that of Germany -- the Germans learned from the Soviets Yes, using a few low yield nuclear mines to counter the Soviets would be worth it.

 

You vastly overstate the deaths in the Gulag:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

 

In case, you forgot, Israel eliminated Iraq's nuclear program neatly. I forgot nothing; you have gone glaringly off topic.

 

Not off topic, but the method that Iraq's nuclear program was ended,  Do you really doubt the US wasn't apprised of the program!!

 

Off topic.  Very likely the U.S. was so advised, but that has nothing to do with my original premise, which listed specific items offensive to Iran other than Israel's bombing of Iran's nukeworks. Make your own list if you wish, but don't fault mine for not including what you might pick.

 

The reference to killing like ants refers to operations against Iran's plan to attack the US Navy with hundreds of small craft/   The US Navy has planned against this for years. 

 

Of course, we prefer to fight against a non-nuclear power.  That eliminates the possibility of the US using nukes, as well, especially when the opponents are crazed into religious fervor resembling the kamikaze, also religious fanatics.  The left is always morally outraged when the US fights from military superiority.  How dare we suffer casualties only 10 percent of our enemies.  I still remember European leftists stating it was a shame the US did not have millions of soldiers dead in WWI and WWIi like their European,  Well,, excuse me!

 

Fighting "from military superiority" is not automatically justifiable. If it were, then the biggest and baddest could justify all kinds of plundering, killing, or looting of weaker opponents, whatever the motive, as in this nation's heinous, murderous invasion of the Philippines.

 

The extremist statement of extremist parties in post-war Europe have nothing to do with my contention, which you have again avoided, namely, "

 

Not the extremist views but those of the main stream left wing parties in France and Germany.

 

So-o--those "European leftists" you cite included ALL the French and German "mainstream leftists"   in Europe?  And you can prove that?

 

"Our track record with Iran could be better if we and our friends had not gotten involved in these things:"

 

And, if France hadn't let the ayatollah loose on Iran things would be much better, now. 

 

The ayatollah entered France on a tourist visa.  He stayed there for a short time and departed legally. France had no legal right to detain him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

The US's fall back strategy, if Germany and France had fallen to the Soviet Union, was to close the passes in the Pyrenees with tactical nukes to continue resistance from the Iberian peninsula.  

When one is fighting a power that planned and operated chains of extermination camps, that made the Germans look like amateurs, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply.

Boxing and war are different things and Auschwitz and Buchenwald did not justify unleashing nuclear power in Europe.

 

I was not invoking the German camps,  I was referencing the gulags, which existed before those of the Germans and continued to exist until the demise of the Soviet Union.. The USSR practiced wholesale industrial slaughter of ten of millions of people weil beyond that of Germany -- the Germans learned from the Soviets Yes, using a few low yield nuclear mines to counter the Soviets would be worth it.

 

You vastly overstate the deaths in the Gulag:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

 

Wiki states about 14 million in the gulags, which started in 1920, well before the German camps.  Besides the gulags, the Soviets used managed famine and relocation of entire national groups to eliminate millions.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest, the two foremost experts on the Soviet horrors estimated about 60 million. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-man...-stalin-kill-1111789

 

 

In case, you forgot, Israel eliminated Iraq's nuclear program neatly. I forgot nothing; you have gone glaringly off topic.

 

Not off topic, but the method that Iraq's nuclear program was ended,  Do you really doubt the US wasn't apprised of the program!!

 

Off topic.  Very likely the U.S. was so advised, but that has nothing to do with my original premise, which listed specific items offensive to Iran other than Israel's bombing of Iran's nukeworks. Make your own list if you wish, but don't fault mine for not including what you might pick.

 

I will fault yours, if I find it faulty.  Iran’s rulers call Israel The Little Satan.  For saving their crazed selves from possible nukes, Israel ought to be call The Little Savior

 

The reference to killing like ants refers to operations against Iran's plan to attack the US Navy with hundreds of small craft/   The US Navy has planned against this for years. 

 

Of course, we prefer to fight against a non-nuclear power.  That eliminates the possibility of the US using nukes, as well, especially when the opponents are crazed into religious fervor resembling the kamikaze, also religious fanatics.  The left is always morally outraged when the US fights from military superiority.  How dare we suffer casualties only 10 percent of our enemies.  I still remember European leftists stating it was a shame the US did not have millions of soldiers dead in WWI and WWIi like their European,  Well,, excuse me!

 

Fighting "from military superiority" is not automatically justifiable. If it were, then the biggest and baddest could justify all kinds of plundering, killing, or looting of weaker opponents, whatever the motive, as in this nation's heinous, murderous invasion of the Philippines.

 

 

I guess it escaped your notice. In the last two world wars, the US emerged mostly unscathed and the former great powers prostrate. We fed much of starving Europe after both wars. Whatever one may think of Herbert Hoover, his program, fed more people than any in history. Plus, the Marshall plan, which escaped you notice, I suppose.  Your comment is pretty much off subject as Iran, not the Philippines is being discussed. As to the shortcoming of Teddy Roosevelt, that’s a progressive for you, I guess.

 

 

 

 

The extremist statement of extremist parties in post-war Europe have nothing to do with my contention, which you have again avoided, namely, "

 

Not the extremist views but those of the main stream left wing parties in France and Germany.

 

So-o--those "European leftists" you cite included ALL the French and German "mainstream leftists"   in Europe?  And you can prove that?

 

 

Certainly, just read the IHT, plus English translations of the mainstream left wing papers in Germany and France, for a few decades, as I’ve done.  

 

 

"Our track record with Iran could be better if we and our friends had not gotten involved in these things:"

 

And, if France hadn't let the ayatollah loose on Iran things would be much better, now. 

 

 

The ayatollah entered France on a tourist visa.  He stayed there for a short time and departed legally. France had no legal right to detain him.

 

 

 

When wishing to detain someone, the French have never let legal niceties get in the way.  Of course, Carter is the true incompetent in the mix.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last edited by direstraits

I don't think the Gulag was Stalin's favorite extermination method. I think good old-fashioned  starvation, disease, and exposure to the cold Russian climate ranked higher. Also when speed was important, nothing much beats a bullet.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-man...-stalin-kill-1111789

 

Stalin’s extremely brutal 30-year rule as absolute ruler of the Soviet Union featured so many atrocities, including purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture and good old-fashioned acts of mass murder and massacres (not to mention World War II) that the complete toll of bloodshed will likely never be known.

 

An amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster’s mentality, Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power – including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life.

 

But how many people is he responsible for killing?

 

In February 1989, two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.

 

''It's important that they published it, although the numbers themselves are horrible,'' Medvedev told the New York Times at the time.

 

''Those numbers include my father.''

 

Medevedev's grim bookkeeping included the following tragic episodes: 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various “political crimes” from 1946 to 1953.

 

Although not everyone who was swept up in the aforementioned events died from unnatural causes, Medvedev’s 20 million non-combatant deaths estimate is likely a conservative guess.

 

Indeed, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the literary giant who wrote harrowingly about the Soviet gulag system, claimed the true number of Stalin’s victims might have been as high as 60 million.

Originally Posted by Stanky:

I don't think the Gulag was Stalin's favorite extermination method. I think good old-fashioned  starvation, disease, and exposure to the cold Russian climate ranked higher. Also when speed was important, nothing much beats a bullet.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-man...-stalin-kill-1111789

 

Stalin’s extremely brutal 30-year rule as absolute ruler of the Soviet Union featured so many atrocities, including purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture and good old-fashioned acts of mass murder and massacres (not to mention World War II) that the complete toll of bloodshed will likely never be known.

 

An amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster’s mentality, Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power – including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life.

 

But how many people is he responsible for killing?

 

In February 1989, two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.

 

''It's important that they published it, although the numbers themselves are horrible,'' Medvedev told the New York Times at the time.

 

''Those numbers include my father.''

 

Medevedev's grim bookkeeping included the following tragic episodes: 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various “political crimes” from 1946 to 1953.

 

Although not everyone who was swept up in the aforementioned events died from unnatural causes, Medvedev’s 20 million non-combatant deaths estimate is likely a conservative guess.

 

Indeed, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the literary giant who wrote harrowingly about the Soviet gulag system, claimed the true number of Stalin’s victims might have been as high as 60 million.

____

Sad and interesting stuff there, and I don't dispute it,but Dire was not referring to anything except the death toll in the gulags, and I showed him that his estimate was way off.

Last edited by Contendahh
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

The US's fall back strategy, if Germany and France had fallen to the Soviet Union, was to close the passes in the Pyrenees with tactical nukes to continue resistance from the Iberian peninsula.  

When one is fighting a power that planned and operated chains of extermination camps, that made the Germans look like amateurs, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply.

Boxing and war are different things and Auschwitz and Buchenwald did not justify unleashing nuclear power in Europe.

 

I was not invoking the German camps,  I was referencing the gulags, which existed before those of the Germans and continued to exist until the demise of the Soviet Union.. The USSR practiced wholesale industrial slaughter of ten of millions of people weil beyond that of Germany -- the Germans learned from the Soviets Yes, using a few low yield nuclear mines to counter the Soviets would be worth it.

 

You vastly overstate the deaths in the Gulag:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

 

Wiki states about 14 million in the gulags, which started in 1920, well before the German camps.  Besides the gulags, the Soviets used managed famine and relocation of entire national groups to eliminate millions.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest, the two foremost experts on the Soviet horrors estimated about 60 million. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-man...-stalin-kill-1111789

 

 

In case, you forgot, Israel eliminated Iraq's nuclear program neatly. I forgot nothing; you have gone glaringly off topic.

 

Not off topic, but the method that Iraq's nuclear program was ended,  Do you really doubt the US wasn't apprised of the program!!

 

Off topic.  Very likely the U.S. was so advised, but that has nothing to do with my original premise, which listed specific items offensive to Iran other than Israel's bombing of Iran's nukeworks. Make your own list if you wish, but don't fault mine for not including what you might pick.

 

I will fault yours, if I find it faulty.  Iran’s rulers call Israel The Little Satan.  For saving their crazed selves from possible nukes, Israel ought to be call The Little Savior

 

Play around all you want with high or low sounding nicknames; my original comment still holds.  We and our allies DID carry out activities that unnecessarily offended Iran.  Our CIA's machinations in removing Mossadegh from office and installing the Shah are still justly resented by Iranians.

 

The reference to killing like ants refers to operations against Iran's plan to attack the US Navy with hundreds of small craft/   The US Navy has planned against this for years. 

 

Of course, we prefer to fight against a non-nuclear power.  That eliminates the possibility of the US using nukes, as well, especially when the opponents are crazed into religious fervor resembling the kamikaze, also religious fanatics.  The left is always morally outraged when the US fights from military superiority.  How dare we suffer casualties only 10 percent of our enemies.  I still remember European leftists stating it was a shame the US did not have millions of soldiers dead in WWI and WWIi like their European,  Well,, excuse me!

 

Fighting "from military superiority" is not automatically justifiable. If it were, then the biggest and baddest could justify all kinds of plundering, killing, or looting of weaker opponents, whatever the motive, as in this nation's heinous, murderous invasion of the Philippines.

  

I guess it escaped your notice. In the last two world wars, the US emerged mostly unscathed and the former great powers prostrate. We fed much of starving Europe after both wars. Whatever one may think of Herbert Hoover, his program, fed more people than any in history. Plus, the Marshall plan, which escaped you notice, I suppose.  Your comment is pretty much off subject as Iran, not the Philippines is being discussed. As to the shortcoming of Teddy Roosevelt, that’s a progressive for you, I guess.

 

Talk about off topic! Hoover? Marshall Plan?  And indeed it IS Iran, and not the old Soviet Union that was my subject. And tell the hundreds of thousands of Americans  who lost loved ones in  WWI that we got out of that one "unscathed."

 

 

 

 

The extremist statement of extremist parties in post-war Europe have nothing to do with my contention, which you have again avoided, namely, "

 

Not the extremist views but those of the main stream left wing parties in France and Germany.

 

So-o--those "European leftists" you cite included ALL the French and German "mainstream leftists"   in Europe?  And you can prove that?

 

 

Certainly, just read the IHT, plus English translations of the mainstream left wing papers in Germany and France, for a few decades, as I’ve done.  

 

 

"Our track record with Iran could be better if we and our friends had not gotten involved in these things:"

 

And, if France hadn't let the ayatollah loose on Iran things would be much better, now. 

 

 

The ayatollah entered France on a tourist visa.  He stayed there for a short time and departed legally. France had no legal right to detain him.

 

 

 

When wishing to detain someone, the French have never let legal niceties get in the way.  Of course, Carter is the true incompetent in the mix.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

The US's fall back strategy, if Germany and France had fallen to the Soviet Union, was to close the passes in the Pyrenees with tactical nukes to continue resistance from the Iberian peninsula.  

When one is fighting a power that planned and operated chains of extermination camps, that made the Germans look like amateurs, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply.

Boxing and war are different things and Auschwitz and Buchenwald did not justify unleashing nuclear power in Europe.

 

I was not invoking the German camps,  I was referencing the gulags, which existed before those of the Germans and continued to exist until the demise of the Soviet Union.. The USSR practiced wholesale industrial slaughter of ten of millions of people weil beyond that of Germany -- the Germans learned from the Soviets Yes, using a few low yield nuclear mines to counter the Soviets would be worth it.

 

You vastly overstate the deaths in the Gulag:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

 

Wiki states about 14 million in the gulags, which started in 1920, well before the German camps.  Besides the gulags, the Soviets used managed famine and relocation of entire national groups to eliminate millions.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest, the two foremost experts on the Soviet horrors estimated about 60 million. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-man...-stalin-kill-1111789

 

Wiki says "About 14 million people were in the Gulag labor camps from 1929 to 1953 (the estimates for the period 1918-1929 are even more difficult to calculate). 14 million "in the Gulag labor camps" is not 14 million deaths in the Gulags.  

 

 

In case, you forgot, Israel eliminated Iraq's nuclear program neatly. I forgot nothing; you have gone glaringly off topic.

 

Not off topic, but the method that Iraq's nuclear program was ended,  Do you really doubt the US wasn't apprised of the program!!

 

Off topic.  Very likely the U.S. was so advised, but that has nothing to do with my original premise, which listed specific items offensive to Iran other than Israel's bombing of Iran's nukeworks. Make your own list if you wish, but don't fault mine for not including what you might pick.

 

I will fault yours, if I find it faulty.  Iran’s rulers call Israel The Little Satan.  For saving their crazed selves from possible nukes, Israel ought to be call The Little Savior

 

Play around all you want with high or low sounding nicknames; my original comment still holds.  We and our allies DID carry out activities that unnecessarily offended Iran.  Probably the worst offense in U.S. aggression against Iran was our CIA's machinations in removing Mossadegh from office and installing the Shah, still  justly resented by Iranians.

 

The reference to killing like ants refers to operations against Iran's plan to attack the US Navy with hundreds of small craft/   The US Navy has planned against this for years. 

 

Of course, we prefer to fight against a non-nuclear power.  That eliminates the possibility of the US using nukes, as well, especially when the opponents are crazed into religious fervor resembling the kamikaze, also religious fanatics.  The left is always morally outraged when the US fights from military superiority.  How dare we suffer casualties only 10 percent of our enemies.  I still remember European leftists stating it was a shame the US did not have millions of soldiers dead in WWI and WWIi like their European,  Well,, excuse me!

 

Fighting "from military superiority" is not automatically justifiable. If it were, then the biggest and baddest could justify all kinds of plundering, killing, or looting of weaker opponents, whatever the motive, as in this nation's heinous, murderous invasion of the Philippines.

  

I guess it escaped your notice. In the last two world wars, the US emerged mostly unscathed and the former great powers prostrate. We fed much of starving Europe after both wars. Whatever one may think of Herbert Hoover, his program, fed more people than any in history. Plus, the Marshall plan, which escaped you notice, I suppose.  Your comment is pretty much off subject as Iran, not the Philippines is being discussed. As to the shortcoming of Teddy Roosevelt, that’s a progressive for you, I guess.

 

Talk about off topic! Hoover? Marshall Plan?  And indeed it IS Iran, and not the old Soviet Union that was my subject. And tell the hundreds of thousands of Americans  who lost loved ones in  WWI that we got out of that one "unscathed."

  

 

The extremist statement of extremist parties in post-war Europe have nothing to do with my contention, which you have again avoided, namely, "

 

Not the extremist views but those of the main stream left wing parties in France and Germany.

 

So-o--those "European leftists" you cite included ALL the French and German "mainstream leftists"   in Europe?  And you can prove that?

 

 

Certainly, just read the IHT, plus English translations of the mainstream left wing papers in Germany and France, for a few decades, as I’ve done.  

 

Generalized references to one's alleged reading history do not amount to any certainty of PROOF. 

 

"Our track record with Iran could be better if we and our friends had not gotten involved in these things:"

 

And, if France hadn't let the ayatollah loose on Iran things would be much better, now. 

 

 

The ayatollah entered France on a tourist visa.  He stayed there for a short time and departed legally. France had no legal right to detain him.

 

 

When wishing to detain someone, the French have never let legal niceties get in the way.  Of course, Carter is the true incompetent in the mix.

 

The "legal niceties" that you grudgingly acknowledge were more than "niceties".  They were matters of law, and your vague and all-subsuming ("never") condemnation does nothing to change that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I don't think the Gulag was Stalin's favorite extermination method. I think good old-fashioned  starvation, disease, and exposure to the cold Russian climate ranked higher. Also when speed was important, nothing much beats a bullet.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-man...-stalin-kill-1111789

 

Stalin’s extremely brutal 30-year rule as absolute ruler of the Soviet Union featured so many atrocities, including purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture and good old-fashioned acts of mass murder and massacres (not to mention World War II) that the complete toll of bloodshed will likely never be known.

 

An amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster’s mentality, Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power – including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life.

 

But how many people is he responsible for killing?

 

In February 1989, two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.

 

''It's important that they published it, although the numbers themselves are horrible,'' Medvedev told the New York Times at the time.

 

''Those numbers include my father.''

 

Medevedev's grim bookkeeping included the following tragic episodes: 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various “political crimes” from 1946 to 1953.

 

Although not everyone who was swept up in the aforementioned events died from unnatural causes, Medvedev’s 20 million non-combatant deaths estimate is likely a conservative guess.

 

Indeed, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the literary giant who wrote harrowingly about the Soviet gulag system, claimed the true number of Stalin’s victims might have been as high as 60 million.

____

Sad and interesting stuff there, and I don't dispute it,but Dire was not referring to anything except the death toll in the gulags, and I showed him that his estimate was way off.

_______________________________________________________

No, you showed a low ball estimate.  Sources I quoted agreed the gulag deaths exceeded the deaths in the German camps.  True, the gulags were in existence longer. A terrible proof of German efficiency over Slavic brutality. 

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

The US's fall back strategy, if Germany and France had fallen to the Soviet Union, was to close the passes in the Pyrenees with tactical nukes to continue resistance from the Iberian peninsula.  

When one is fighting a power that planned and operated chains of extermination camps, that made the Germans look like amateurs, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply.

Boxing and war are different things and Auschwitz and Buchenwald did not justify unleashing nuclear power in Europe.

 

I was not invoking the German camps,  I was referencing the gulags, which existed before those of the Germans and continued to exist until the demise of the Soviet Union.. The USSR practiced wholesale industrial slaughter of ten of millions of people weil beyond that of Germany -- the Germans learned from the Soviets Yes, using a few low yield nuclear mines to counter the Soviets would be worth it.

 

You vastly overstate the deaths in the Gulag:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

 

Wiki states about 14 million in the gulags, which started in 1920, well before the German camps.  Besides the gulags, the Soviets used managed famine and relocation of entire national groups to eliminate millions.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest, the two foremost experts on the Soviet horrors estimated about 60 million. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-man...-stalin-kill-1111789

 

Wiki says "About 14 million people were in the Gulag labor camps from 1929 to 1953 (the estimates for the period 1918-1929 are even more difficult to calculate). 14 million "in the Gulag labor camps" is not 14 million deaths in the Gulags.  

 

 No matter, the deaths in the gulags exceeded those in the German camps. Over all, the deaths were as cited.  You're in the arguing angels on a pin head mode.

 

In case, you forgot, Israel eliminated Iraq's nuclear program neatly. I forgot nothing; you have gone glaringly off topic.

 

Not off topic, but the method that Iraq's nuclear program was ended,  Do you really doubt the US wasn't apprised of the program!!

 

Off topic.  Very likely the U.S. was so advised, but that has nothing to do with my original premise, which listed specific items offensive to Iran other than Israel's bombing of Iran's nukeworks. Make your own list if you wish, but don't fault mine for not including what you might pick.

 

I will fault yours, if I find it faulty.  Iran’s rulers call Israel The Little Satan.  For saving their crazed selves from possible nukes, Israel ought to be call The Little Savior

 

Play around all you want with high or low sounding nicknames; my original comment still holds.  We and our allies DID carry out activities that unnecessarily offended Iran.  Probably the worst offense in U.S. aggression against Iran was our CIA's machinations in removing Mossadegh from office and installing the Shah, still  justly resented by Iranians.

 

Mossadegh was a full on nut ball. At worst, the Iranians experienced decades of a much less brutal regime than what they now have. 

 

The reference to killing like ants refers to operations against Iran's plan to attack the US Navy with hundreds of small craft/   The US Navy has planned against this for years. 

 

Of course, we prefer to fight against a non-nuclear power.  That eliminates the possibility of the US using nukes, as well, especially when the opponents are crazed into religious fervor resembling the kamikaze, also religious fanatics.  The left is always morally outraged when the US fights from military superiority.  How dare we suffer casualties only 10 percent of our enemies.  I still remember European leftists stating it was a shame the US did not have millions of soldiers dead in WWI and WWIi like their European,  Well,, excuse me!

 

Fighting "from military superiority" is not automatically justifiable. If it were, then the biggest and baddest could justify all kinds of plundering, killing, or looting of weaker opponents, whatever the motive, as in this nation's heinous, murderous invasion of the Philippines.

  

I guess it escaped your notice. In the last two world wars, the US emerged mostly unscathed and the former great powers prostrate. We fed much of starving Europe after both wars. Whatever one may think of Herbert Hoover, his program, fed more people than any in history. Plus, the Marshall plan, which escaped you notice, I suppose.  Your comment is pretty much off subject as Iran, not the Philippines is being discussed. As to the shortcoming of Teddy Roosevelt, that’s a progressive for you, I guess.

 

Talk about off topic! Hoover? Marshall Plan?  And indeed it IS Iran, and not the old Soviet Union that was my subject. And tell the hundreds of thousands of Americans  who lost loved ones in  WWI that we got out of that one "unscathed."

  

 Your original statement used out of context statements to make the statements appear racists and not a reference to Iranian swarm tactics.  Here, I could accept an ignorance excuse from you, as ou may have not been aware of the context. 

 

The extremist statement of extremist parties in post-war Europe have nothing to do with my contention, which you have again avoided, namely, "

 

Not the extremist views but those of the main stream left wing parties in France and Germany.

 

So-o--those "European leftists" you cite included ALL the French and German "mainstream leftists"   in Europe?  And you can prove that?

 

 

Certainly, just read the IHT, plus English translations of the mainstream left wing papers in Germany and France, for a few decades, as I’ve done.  

 

Generalized references to one's alleged reading history do not amount to any certainty of PROOF. 

 

Sorry, but I'm not going to do the research for you. It took me years to arrive at my views based upon reading the above referenced material.  Unfortunately, some knowledge comes from years of study and experience, 

 

"Our track record with Iran could be better if we and our friends had not gotten involved in these things:"

 

And, if France hadn't let the ayatollah loose on Iran things would be much better, now. 

 

 

The ayatollah entered France on a tourist visa.  He stayed there for a short time and departed legally. France had no legal right to detain him.

 

 

When wishing to detain someone, the French have never let legal niceties get in the way.  Of course, Carter is the true incompetent in the mix.

 

The "legal niceties" that you grudgingly acknowledge were more than "niceties".  They were matters of law, and your vague and all-subsuming ("never") condemnation does nothing to change that.

 

 As soon as the French national terrorists were transported from Gitmo to France, they were incarcerated in the dungeons under the Palace of Justice in Paris. Last I read, they pleaded to be sent back to Gitmo.  As to never, you are falling back on Granny Grammar mode.  Never, as can be clearly discerned, means that the French, when they wish, ignore the legal and do as they will.  Part of their system, not ours.    

 

You presented an old left wing argument and got called on it.  Enough!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

The US's fall back strategy, if Germany and France had fallen to the Soviet Union, was to close the passes in the Pyrenees with tactical nukes to continue resistance from the Iberian peninsula.  

When one is fighting a power that planned and operated chains of extermination camps, that made the Germans look like amateurs, the Marquis of Queensberry rules do not apply.

Boxing and war are different things and Auschwitz and Buchenwald did not justify unleashing nuclear power in Europe.

 

I was not invoking the German camps,  I was referencing the gulags, which existed before those of the Germans and continued to exist until the demise of the Soviet Union.. The USSR practiced wholesale industrial slaughter of ten of millions of people weil beyond that of Germany -- the Germans learned from the Soviets Yes, using a few low yield nuclear mines to counter the Soviets would be worth it.

 

You vastly overstate the deaths in the Gulag:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

 

Wiki states about 14 million in the gulags, which started in 1920, well before the German camps.  Besides the gulags, the Soviets used managed famine and relocation of entire national groups to eliminate millions.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest, the two foremost experts on the Soviet horrors estimated about 60 million. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-man...-stalin-kill-1111789

 

Wiki says "About 14 million people were in the Gulag labor camps from 1929 to 1953 (the estimates for the period 1918-1929 are even more difficult to calculate). 14 million "in the Gulag labor camps" is not 14 million deaths in the Gulags.  

 

 No matter, the deaths in the gulags exceeded those in the German camps. Over all, the deaths were as cited.  You're in the arguing angels on a pin head mode.

 

Maybe and maybe not.  The article gave a range of estimated deaths. You chose the extreme high.

 

In case, you forgot, Israel eliminated Iraq's nuclear program neatly. I forgot nothing; you have gone glaringly off topic.

 

Not off topic, but the method that Iraq's nuclear program was ended,  Do you really doubt the US wasn't apprised of the program!!

 

Off topic.  Very likely the U.S. was so advised, but that has nothing to do with my original premise, which listed specific items offensive to Iran other than Israel's bombing of Iran's nukeworks. Make your own list if you wish, but don't fault mine for not including what you might pick.

 

I will fault yours, if I find it faulty.  Iran’s rulers call Israel The Little Satan.  For saving their crazed selves from possible nukes, Israel ought to be call The Little Savior

 

Play around all you want with high or low sounding nicknames; my original comment still holds.  We and our allies DID carry out activities that unnecessarily offended Iran.  Probably the worst offense in U.S. aggression against Iran was our CIA's machinations in removing Mossadegh from office and installing the Shah, still  justly resented by Iranians.

 

Mossadegh was a full on nut ball. At worst, the Iranians experienced decades of a much less brutal regime than what they now have. 

 

And those decades of abuse under the Shah were made possible by our assistance in the overthrow of the prior regime. 

 

The reference to killing like ants refers to operations against Iran's plan to attack the US Navy with hundreds of small craft/   The US Navy has planned against this for years. 

 

Of course, we prefer to fight against a non-nuclear power.  That eliminates the possibility of the US using nukes, as well, especially when the opponents are crazed into religious fervor resembling the kamikaze, also religious fanatics.  The left is always morally outraged when the US fights from military superiority.  How dare we suffer casualties only 10 percent of our enemies.  I still remember European leftists stating it was a shame the US did not have millions of soldiers dead in WWI and WWIi like their European,  Well,, excuse me!

 

Fighting "from military superiority" is not automatically justifiable. If it were, then the biggest and baddest could justify all kinds of plundering, killing, or looting of weaker opponents, whatever the motive, as in this nation's heinous, murderous invasion of the Philippines.

  

I guess it escaped your notice. In the last two world wars, the US emerged mostly unscathed and the former great powers prostrate. We fed much of starving Europe after both wars. Whatever one may think of Herbert Hoover, his program, fed more people than any in history. Plus, the Marshall plan, which escaped you notice, I suppose.  Your comment is pretty much off subject as Iran, not the Philippines is being discussed. As to the shortcoming of Teddy Roosevelt, that’s a progressive for you, I guess.

 

Talk about off topic! Hoover? Marshall Plan?  And indeed it IS Iran, and not the old Soviet Union that was my subject. And tell the hundreds of thousands of Americans  who lost loved ones in  WWI that we got out of that one "unscathed."

  

 Your original statement used out of context statements to make the statements appear racists and not a reference to Iranian swarm tactics.  Here, I could accept an ignorance excuse from you, as ou may have not been aware of the context. 

 

And just where is there anything racist in any "original statement" I made?

 

The extremist statement of extremist parties in post-war Europe have nothing to do with my contention, which you have again avoided, namely, "

 

Not the extremist views but those of the main stream left wing parties in France and Germany.

 

So-o--those "European leftists" you cite included ALL the French and German "mainstream leftists"   in Europe?  And you can prove that?

 

 

Certainly, just read the IHT, plus English translations of the mainstream left wing papers in Germany and France, for a few decades, as I’ve done.  

 

Generalized references to one's alleged reading history do not amount to any certainty of PROOF. 

 

Sorry, but I'm not going to do the research for you. It took me years to arrive at my views based upon reading the above referenced material.  Unfortunately, some knowledge comes from years of study and experience, 

 

"Our track record with Iran could be better if we and our friends had not gotten involved in these things:"

 

And, if France hadn't let the ayatollah loose on Iran things would be much better, now. 

 

 

The ayatollah entered France on a tourist visa.  He stayed there for a short time and departed legally. France had no legal right to detain him.

 

 

When wishing to detain someone, the French have never let legal niceties get in the way.  Of course, Carter is the true incompetent in the mix.

 

The "legal niceties" that you grudgingly acknowledge were more than "niceties".  They were matters of law, and your vague and all-subsuming ("never") condemnation does nothing to change that.

 

 As soon as the French national terrorists were transported from Gitmo to France, they were incarcerated in the dungeons under the Palace of Justice in Paris. Last I read, they pleaded to be sent back to Gitmo.  As to never, you are falling back on Granny Grammar mode.  Never, as can be clearly discerned, means that the French, when they wish, ignore the legal and do as they will.  Part of their system, not ours.

 

No. "Never" means NEVER.  It is an absolute descriptor, no matter how much you try to torque it.   And we are not dealing here with "grammar." We are dealing with lexicography--the DEFINITION/MEANING of words, not the structural uses of them.

 

You presented an old left wing argument and got called on it.  Enough!

 

I presented a number of instances in which this nation's actions and/or the activities of our allies made it more difficult to deal with Iran.  What I presented was factual, and you have not shown that any of the actions described were anything other than hindrances to good relations with Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And just where is there anything racist in any "original statement" I made?

 

“It’s not just John McCain singing “bomb bomb bomb Iran.” Admiral William Fallon, who retired as head of CENTCOM in 2008, said about Iran: “These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them.” Admiral James Lyons Jr., commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in the 1980s, has said we were prepared to “drill them back to the fourth century.’ “

 

Clearly, the above was quoted out of context to make their statements appear racists. When, the reference was to countering the Iranian swarm attack tactics.  Similar to the reference to nuclear mines, to seal off mountain passes, not as weapons of attack.

 

I presented a number of instances in which this nation's actions and/or the activities of our allies made it more difficult to deal with Iran.  What I presented was factual, and you have not shown that any of the actions described were anything other than hindrances to good relations with Iran.

 

 No, the article took incidents from over a century ago to the present to justify the reactions of the Persians.  Similarly, one could take actions from most of those nations near past to present to justify many an action.

 

The present US administration caused actions that will haunt the West and the US for decades.  The destruction of the old Libyan government caused anarchy not just in that patch in the desert, but spread their arsenal to Boko Haram in central Africa and ISIS in Syria. 

For the last two days, the TD has carried articles about the ineffectual actions the US took against Syria, which added to the chaos there.

 

When actions were taken against ISIS, the administration promised an air war like Clinton against Serbia.  The US flew 100 to 12o actions daily against th4 Serbs,  So far, against ISIS, its about 12 to 20 actions and about half are aborted. Obama in the ME is considered incompetent and impotent. 

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×