xxxtotalwhorexxx
New Member
from napalming korean and vietnam civilians to funding the muja hidean and breaking their promise causing 9/11 and plotting to bomb miami and blame castro
where these acts justified
where these acts justified
why was the american gov so "evil" during the cold war
- Thread starter xxxtotalwhorexxx
- Start date
I don't believe the U.S government ever bombed Miami. And I'm not sure napalm was used during the Korean war. But the U.S did do questionable and sometimes outright wrong things. But so did the Axis powers so if you are going to call out one you should call out the other. The cold war was a messy but necessary thing at the time. It was much better than actual war between the U.S and NATO vs the Axis. As far as justification that isn't a black or white question really. So I can't give a definitive answer. Best I can say is some cases yes some cases no.
Ikonoclast
New Member
I think these are really important questions to ask and consequently, it's very important to look for quality information in the quest for anwers. Filtering out bad information, disinformation, conspiracy theories and outright lies. I think a great deal of the issues surrounding the Cold War had to do with limiting the spread of communism/socialism. Please don't take my next statement as an expression of racism or bigotry. I've just studied enough history to have a perspective that's both uncomfortable and not particularly politically correct in this day and age. Here goes: Outside of Islam, there has been no greater vehicle for misery and death than socialism. It's very popular to compare various political figures to Poppycock. Poppycock was a monster. However, he was a fair amateur compared to the likes of Stalin or Mao and the atrocities they committed in the name of socialism/communism. There's a book titled 'The Black Book of Communism' which documents the death tolls associated with the implementation of various communist regimes. Stalin himself is quoted as saying, "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic." The death tolls in China and Russia total 85 million alone in the 20th century. Globally, the toll probably reaches 100 million. This is well in excess of the death tolls of WW1 and WW2 combined.
With regard to the killing of Vietnamese civillians... that's a very complex issue. One of the things which made the Vietnam War incredibly difficult to prosecute and win on the part of South Vietnam and the US was the fact that the North Vietnamese - supported by both Russian and China - were incredibly skilled at recruiting civilians to fight using asymmetrical warfare. In fact, many North Vietnamese 'irregulars' were basically conscripted under threat of death - either to themselves or their families/villages, etc. Beyond that, I believe that, statistically, the North Vietnamese were among the most prolific violators of the Geneva Conventions and laws of war outside of Islamist terrorism.
Finally, I'd reiterate Nietzsche who pointed out that, when fighting monsters one should take care that one does not become a monster himself. America has never walked that line perfectly, but I'd take the Cold War and America at its worst over communism, socialism, or living in Russia, Communist China, or the now-socialist Venezuela where socialism turned a remarkably prosperous country by Latin American standards into a den of misery and poverty, with lines of people waiting for food, toilet paper and the like and with runaway inflation.
With regard to the killing of Vietnamese civillians... that's a very complex issue. One of the things which made the Vietnam War incredibly difficult to prosecute and win on the part of South Vietnam and the US was the fact that the North Vietnamese - supported by both Russian and China - were incredibly skilled at recruiting civilians to fight using asymmetrical warfare. In fact, many North Vietnamese 'irregulars' were basically conscripted under threat of death - either to themselves or their families/villages, etc. Beyond that, I believe that, statistically, the North Vietnamese were among the most prolific violators of the Geneva Conventions and laws of war outside of Islamist terrorism.
Finally, I'd reiterate Nietzsche who pointed out that, when fighting monsters one should take care that one does not become a monster himself. America has never walked that line perfectly, but I'd take the Cold War and America at its worst over communism, socialism, or living in Russia, Communist China, or the now-socialist Venezuela where socialism turned a remarkably prosperous country by Latin American standards into a den of misery and poverty, with lines of people waiting for food, toilet paper and the like and with runaway inflation.
And what would you propose to replace capitalism? I'm not attacking your statement. Just curious as to what you think is better.
C
CowboyDFW
Guest
There hasn't been a philosophy besides capitalism that survives time better creating more wealth and liberty for the poor and middle class.
What we call left wing politics today typically fails after about 80 years afterwards being replaced by a tyrannical regime that was worse than the government that the left wing ideals replaced.
If left wing political ideals worked, the Soviet union, Venezuela, and north Korea work be the economic and social power houses of the world.
What we call left wing politics today typically fails after about 80 years afterwards being replaced by a tyrannical regime that was worse than the government that the left wing ideals replaced.
If left wing political ideals worked, the Soviet union, Venezuela, and north Korea work be the economic and social power houses of the world.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Left wing ideas are not the same as Communism. Nor are they socialist like Venezuela is , and no one on the left is proposing that type of government . But guess what is socialist? Social security. Unemployment benefits. Free food programs. And you are full of shit if you say you won't collect social security when it's time . Or draw unemployment if you need it . Or take advantage of free food if you were hungry.
I've read recently in Monthly Review at least in Mao's case that - big surprise- the CIA funded anti-communist, anti-China academics that stated massive death tolls during the great leap forward, but these death tolls are now seen as unsubstantiated. Nobody is disputing there was a famine in that article, I didn't finish it yet, but point is China was beseiged on all sides- Japan, U.S. backed Chiang Kai Shek and US backed South Korea and South Vietnam, and USSR which had strings attached to their aid (unlike the socialist ideal of internationalism). China ended up saying no to USSR's conditions. China suffered a famine, but got on its feet and became a world power. Is it communist a la Marx? I don't think so. Workers should have control of the means of production. They don't in China. China practices state capitalism. Life is complicated.
C
CowboyDFW
Guest
DC Devon.... communism and socialism are both "left wing" and if you look at who's pulling Biden's string today you well find it's the hard left wing of the Democrat party. Bernie, AOC, Harris, and such.
The other day both Harris and Biden both called it the Harris/Biden campaign. And AOC said Biden could easily be pushed to a more "progressive" platform.
Social security is broken and has been since 2010 when it stopped bringing in enough revenue to cover promised costs. that will only get worse as tome goes on. I personally would opt out today, and SS could keep what ib paid in, provided I didn't pay any more in.
Go read article 1 section 8 then the 9thn and 10th amendments. If the supreme court had the balls and would hear a case against any if the social engineering laws and rules accordingly everything including SS would have to be v turned over to the states or dismantled.
The other day both Harris and Biden both called it the Harris/Biden campaign. And AOC said Biden could easily be pushed to a more "progressive" platform.
Social security is broken and has been since 2010 when it stopped bringing in enough revenue to cover promised costs. that will only get worse as tome goes on. I personally would opt out today, and SS could keep what ib paid in, provided I didn't pay any more in.
Go read article 1 section 8 then the 9thn and 10th amendments. If the supreme court had the balls and would hear a case against any if the social engineering laws and rules accordingly everything including SS would have to be v turned over to the states or dismantled.
And your evidence of what you say is where?
Social security provides financial stability to many in retirement who would otherwise lack it. Whether the program pays for itself is besides the point to me. It serves a vital function and must continue. If the government is thinking about saving money, maybe they could raise taxes on monopolistic, ravenous mega corporations and on financial transactions. Wealthy people will still exist, don't worry. Keep your outdated amendments to yourself. I'd rather the US split than have my thought constrained by this constitution worship. I would support a constitutional convention for a grand rethink. I say that, but I can't be sure the outcome would be better. Anyhow, I've had a couple beers. Good night.
C
CowboyDFW
Guest
Social security wad never intended for the masses to collect.
In 1935 the average man lived to be 54 the average woman 56. Less than 10% lived past 67 and you couldn't collect anything till 65.
Also in 1970 we had 14 workers per retiree (pre government promising so much under the umbrella of SS) today it's something lime 2.1 workers per retiree.
FDR raided "surpluss" of SS in 1939 saying "no one will ever miss it"
In 1935 the average man lived to be 54 the average woman 56. Less than 10% lived past 67 and you couldn't collect anything till 65.
Also in 1970 we had 14 workers per retiree (pre government promising so much under the umbrella of SS) today it's something lime 2.1 workers per retiree.
FDR raided "surpluss" of SS in 1939 saying "no one will ever miss it"
Were is your evidence that communism and socialism are left wing ? Were is your evidence to back what you say about Biden ?
Average life expectancy in 1935 was 59. 9 for men and 63.9 for women
https://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html
Under the Townsend plan, every American over age 60 was to get a monthly pension, provided he or she did not work and promised to spend the entire payment during the month. Under Long's plan, large personal fortunes would be liquidated to finance (1) pensions for the aged and (2) cash payments to every family sufficient to buy a home, a car, and radio.
The Social Security Act, enacted on August 14, 1935, provided a new federally administered system of social insurance for the aged financed through payroll taxes paid by employees and their employers. Under the system, which applied only to workers in commerce and industry, people would earn retirement benefit eligibility as they worked. With some exceptions, benefits would be related to workers' average covered earnings, and workers could not have earnings and still be eligible for benefits. No benefits were provided for spouses or children, and lump-sum refunds were provided to the estates of workers who died before age 65 or before receiving at least the equivalent in benefits of their taxes plus interest. Collection of payroll taxes began in 1937, and benefit payments were scheduled to begin in 1942.
Social Security grew in importance both to the aged and to the economy. The number of beneficiaries grew from about 222,000 at the end of 1940 to over 3 million in 1949
According to that same website in 1970 the ratio of workers to retirees was 3:7. With 100,200 working population and 31,123 retired getting money. The last year the website shows is 2013 with a ratio of 2:8.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/50mm2.html
https://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html
Under the Townsend plan, every American over age 60 was to get a monthly pension, provided he or she did not work and promised to spend the entire payment during the month. Under Long's plan, large personal fortunes would be liquidated to finance (1) pensions for the aged and (2) cash payments to every family sufficient to buy a home, a car, and radio.
The Social Security Act, enacted on August 14, 1935, provided a new federally administered system of social insurance for the aged financed through payroll taxes paid by employees and their employers. Under the system, which applied only to workers in commerce and industry, people would earn retirement benefit eligibility as they worked. With some exceptions, benefits would be related to workers' average covered earnings, and workers could not have earnings and still be eligible for benefits. No benefits were provided for spouses or children, and lump-sum refunds were provided to the estates of workers who died before age 65 or before receiving at least the equivalent in benefits of their taxes plus interest. Collection of payroll taxes began in 1937, and benefit payments were scheduled to begin in 1942.
Social Security grew in importance both to the aged and to the economy. The number of beneficiaries grew from about 222,000 at the end of 1940 to over 3 million in 1949
According to that same website in 1970 the ratio of workers to retirees was 3:7. With 100,200 working population and 31,123 retired getting money. The last year the website shows is 2013 with a ratio of 2:8.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/50mm2.html
Last edited:
C
CowboyDFW
Guest
You completely ignored the behind the scenes facts about SS
And you haven't presented your evidence about how the left and communism/ socialism are the same . Or proof of what you said about Biden. Because you have none . You are just another right wing sheep. Spouting whatever nonsense Fox and Brietbart tell you is true .
C
CowboyDFW
Guest
If you don't understand that liberalism is the first step to socialism which is the bus stop to communism you aren't paying attention or youre deliberately being obtuse to save your ego.
Go read some history history.
Go read some history history.
Dare I say you speak in sweeping generalities. Good luck in your debate.
You made the statement. You back it up . See how a debate works is you say something then you present evidence of what you say . What you are doing is just making statements. That you can't support, because it's not true . Just something you think . But that doesn't make it real . Just a opinion.
