• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

All Communists are dead-beats

Thunder said:
I like how every post Wildcat has made in this thread is NOT about the thread, but about me.

Kinda flattering actually.
Click to expand...
I like to think of you as our own version of Glenn Beck. Different flavor, but the same treat.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You are Hungarian I'm guessing, since your name is Magyar? That would mean you lived in the USSR.
Click to expand...

He could have lived in the USSR, but I believe Hungary was actually not in the USSR. Warsaw pact for sure tho.

When I was a kid I thought Warsaw Pact sounded so cool. I had heard of war hammers and battle axes, but I had never seen a war saw in any of my books about knights.
 
p.s. Parky's getting a hard time in here.

Don't worry bud, you're not as bad as some of these guys say. I like some of your threads and posts.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
p.s. Parky's getting a hard time in here.

Don't worry bud, you're not as bad as some of these guys say. I like some of your threads and posts.
Click to expand...

thanks dude, I appreciate your support.

call me a "suffering servent", but I sorta feel like I get attacked the more I make sense.

:)

boy, they REALLY hated me at the Loose Change and Pfor911T forums. I considered that a great honor. I also seem to be hated by our local right-wing Neo-Zionists. I consider that too, to be an honor and a compliment.

derail complete. issue will not be addressed again.

I will write my personal understanding of Communism either tonight or tomorrow AM. This is a promise.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
I know them as "Larry", "Moe", and "Curly". The Three Stooges of Neo-Zionism.
Click to expand...
No balls to actually state who you claim these people to be huh? It must meet your similar criteria for those you claim to be "communist". Whatever, carry on.
 
I'm trying to decide if it would be worth it to post in this thread.






Nope. Still not ready.
 
ok, I'll start.

Communists believe the collective good outweighs any concepts of individual success or prosperity.

they believe in the nationalization and seizure of all privately and corporately owned industries, especially natural resources and major employers.

they believe in the right of ALL people to a home and a job.

they believe in the seizure of all private and corporate farms. these lands should be used communally to provide for the needs of all.

Lenin and others till today, believe in the breaking down of all national, cultural, and language borders. They are pure internationalists, and find ethnic independence movements to be chauvinist and counter to the greater good of all mankind.
 
Thunder said:
ok, I'll start.

Communists believe the collective good outweighs any concepts of individual success or prosperity.

they believe in the nationalization and seizure of all privately and corporately owned industries, especially natural resources and major employers.

they believe in the right of ALL people to a home and a job.

they believe in the seizure of all private and corporate farms. these lands should be used communally to provide for the needs of all.

Lenin and others till today, believe in the breaking down of all national, cultural, and language borders. They are pure internationalists, and find ethnic independence movements to be chauvinist and counter to the greater good of all mankind.
Click to expand...


This last part would pretty much eliminate Ho Chi Minh and his Vietnam, since their goals were and had always been nationalism and independence.

Not that I have a problem with that, since I have always believed that the "communist threat" represented by Vietnam was nothing more than McCarthyist hysteria rhetoric, lacking any substance and intended solely to drum up domestic political support for an otherwise indefensible war.

So. Having eliminated Vietnam from the pantheon of Communism, who else does this definition exclude?
 
quadraginta said:
Not that I have a problem with that, since I have always believed that the "communist threat" represented by Vietnam was nothing more than McCarthyist hysteria rhetoric, lacking any substance and intended solely to drum up domestic political support for an otherwise indefensible war.
Click to expand...

You kidding? The Vietnamese communists killed half a million people then killed another half-million in Cambodia. Some murdered some worked to death in slave camps.
 
Virus said:
You kidding? The Vietnamese communists killed half a million people then killed another half-million in Cambodia. Some murdered some worked to death in slave camps.
Click to expand...


Setting aside for now the question of who actually is responsible for those deaths, or even analyzing the numbers, lets just take a look at when.

We started sending military advisers to help the blameless French against those dirty commies as far back as 1950. How many Vietnamese had been killed by the commies by then? How many had been killed by the French and their Vietnamese collaborators?

How many Cambodians had been killed by the commies?

We started massively increasing the number of our "advisers" in 1960. How many Vietnamese had been killed by the commies by then? How many by the remains of the French occupation government?

How many Cambodians had been killed by the commies?

If the head count was our justification for entering into the war then these questions are important, at least by your logic. If the deaths you seem so concerned about had not happened yet, or did not result solely at the hands of the communists then your objection lacks substance.

How many Vietnamese would not have been killed if we had not taken part in that conflict? How many were killed by us or because of our interference?

How many Cambodians?

Apologists for our misguided adventurism in Vietnam find any discussion of the history of the region to be inconvenient. This is because the root cause of the conflict was the century of brutal conquest and occupation of the country by the French, and the vigorous resistance to that occupation. When the Vichy French occupiers capitulated to the Japanese during WWII without so much as a whimper, and eagerly collaborated with them for the duration of that war it was the Vietnamese resistance which we were allied with. Not merely an alliance of convenience, but one of ideological alignment as well, at least insofar as their independence was concerned. It was at this stage that we led them to believe we would support their efforts toward freedom from French domination. These assurances were made in full knowledge of their sociopolitical philosophies. This later became inconvenient for reasons which were largely unrelated to those philosophies in anything but name.

Almost on the heels of WWII the French set out on a purely military campaign to try and regain their lost colonial holdings. They didn't fare much better than we did less than two decades later, in spite of the fact that their effort was largely funded by U.S. dollars. The objections of the French public to the war were eerily similar to our own in a later decade. With good reason.

It is important to note that it was the remnants of those same collaborators that we were propping up in the south after the French were so humiliatingly defeated by the nationalists.

If death tolls are the gold standard by which you judge the merit of our interference in foreign disputes then you need to begin by considering the deaths of Vietnamese during a century of French repression, and the deaths incurred during the failed attempt by the French to re-occupy a hostile country.

Then start looking into who is really responsible for the deaths you chose to cite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom