General Patton!

[M14 Shooter]

Nah...I'm thinking topside...If Europe would be willing to SHOW a big front on the western side of Russia, we'd pretty much own the Siberian region....

From there we'd turn it into a long war...inch closer & closer to Moscow until they are squeezed...any sign of reinforments from the west and Europe starts movin' in and keep them "occupied"...

I'm still not saying it would be RIGHT...I'm just saying that if my CiC told me to do it, that's probably how I'd plan it...

I guess I'm not sure how you plan on getting to Siberia.

 

[128shot]

Wouldn't we have just dropped some atomic weapons on the USSR instead of using only ground forces?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wouldn't we have just dropped some atomic weapons on the USSR instead of using only ground forces?

Assume we went after them 1 JUN 1945.

-We dont have The Bomb for 6 more weeks.
-We dont have any way to deliver The Bomb for a fair bit longer than that.
-Delivery of the The Bomb is VERY subject to interception.

 

[128shot]

We couldn't use air bases in west Germany?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We couldn't use air bases in west Germany?

Not after the Russiand overrun them.

Besides - its not really the location of the bases, its the fact that you cant operate B29s from strips designed for B17s/B24s.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

What is the saying; that there is often a fine line between genius and madness?.

I think that Patton was a millitary genius, but at the same time his comments in regard to the Soviet Union show his little hint of madness.

Non-intervention in the Soviet Union was the best policy to deal with the communist threat. Communism was always going to fail, because it could not generate capital needed to fund the big amries that the Marxist leaders wanted to take over the world. Reagan understood this, just that he went to some very extreme spending methods to proove a point.

To think that people would advocate invasion of the USSR, so that we could create a capitalist society, to eventually trade with is abhorent. I am a capitalist, but I do not believe that the world would have benefited from Patton's planed invasion of the USSR.

Let me say this. It brings me great joy that the USSR collapsed under it own weight. It proved that COMMUNISM DOES NOT WORK, and will always ultimately fail. Because Marx never appreciated the power of people's ASPIRATIONS.

 

[George_Washington]

To think that people would advocate invasion of the USSR, so that we could create a capitalist society, to eventually trade with is abhorent. I am a capitalist, but I do not believe that the world would have benefited from Patton's planed invasion of the USSR.

But why not? Think about it. Suppose we were successful in taking Russia. If we turned Europe into an entire region of capitalism, think how much better the people of Eastern Europe would be nowadays. And think about how much more trade revenue it would have brought the US all those years and other nations as well. Russia might well be a mecca for mathematics and engineering. Also, the accident at Chernoble might never have happened. If Germany had been a united country from 1945 to present day, God only knows the great things they could have accomplished.

 

[JOHNYJ]

NotGood in Iraq ! Patton believed in fighting over the same ground,once !
How many times have we fought over the same Iraqi dirt, like Falluja. None of the gnerals in Iraq impress anyone.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Which is why I said Patton would be no good in Iraq. The insurgents have taken a very unorthodox way to fighting us, which is neccesary for all types of occupational resistances since they occupation force heavily outnumbers the insurgents.

 

[JOHNYJ]

RE ; FinnMacCool
If we outnumber the terrorists so mch why can't we secure either of Iraqs borders ? I know President Bush can't secure our Mexican border,but .Thats a political decision he's made.
The Generals commanding Iraq can't even secure Baghdad,thats pityfu.l

 

[FinnMacCool]

I'm no expert but I would think its because they cannot tell the insurgents from other citizens. Anti War Politicians will say that Iraq is beginning to be like vietnam and everyone will go "hell no" but really there is some truth in what they say because soldiers in Iraq are having the same problems there as they did in Vietnam which was telling the enemy from the civillian. I mean the thing is people who were waving at them before or who the soldiers gave candy to could be shooting at them the next day. Its not like they all wear big signs that say "I'm an insurgent, shoot me!"

And this all falls back into the thing about how Bush screwed up in Iraq but that is a totally different issue.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Let me say this. It brings me great joy that the USSR collapsed under it own weight. It proved that COMMUNISM DOES NOT WORK, and will always ultimately fail. Because Marx never appreciated the power of people's ASPIRATIONS.

The USSR didn't collapse completely over its own weight, there were many factors involved.

It didn't prove that communism doesn't work, it wasn't communist. It wasn't even really socialist. It was stalinist, stalinism closely resembles fascism, except with a different name. Stalinists are the big elite, party-does-no-wrong people, and I personally can't stand them. Stalinists tend to think life is about loyalty to the party/state and is an extreme perversion of marxism.

And when people say communism will/won't work, its more of an opinion than a fact.

 

[TurtleDude]

The USSR didn't collapse completely over its own weight, there were many factors involved.

It didn't prove that communism doesn't work, it wasn't communist. It wasn't even really socialist. It was stalinist, stalinism closely resembles fascism, except with a different name. Stalinists are the big elite, party-does-no-wrong people, and I personally can't stand them. Stalinists tend to think life is about loyalty to the party/state and is an extreme perversion of marxism.

And when people say communism will/won't work, its more of an opinion than a fact.

communism won't work because it runs counter to human nature. LIke I am going to work harder to feed someone who doesn't care about me. Communism is a disease that needs to be eradicated

 

[George_Washington]

The USSR didn't collapse completely over its own weight, there were many factors involved.

It didn't prove that communism doesn't work, it wasn't communist. It wasn't even really socialist. It was stalinist, stalinism closely resembles fascism, except with a different name. Stalinists are the big elite, party-does-no-wrong people, and I personally can't stand them. Stalinists tend to think life is about loyalty to the party/state and is an extreme perversion of marxism.

And when people say communism will/won't work, its more of an opinion than a fact.

Every source I've ever read about the USSR has used the term communist.

Sorry dude but Marxism is one of the dumbest forms of government ever invented.

 

[TurtleDude]

Every source I've ever read about the USSR has used the term communist.

Sorry dude but Marxism is one of the dumbest forms of government ever invented.

also the most lethal. 30 million plus slain by communist dictatorships

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

RE ; FinnMacCool
If we outnumber the terrorists so mch why can't we secure either of Iraqs borders ? I know President Bush can't secure our Mexican border,but .Thats a political decision he's made.
The Generals commanding Iraq can't even secure Baghdad,thats pityfu.l

For the same reason we can't control the Mexican border. Stupid broads like the former Princess Di don't like land mines. Guaranteed if we could properly mine the borders with Syria and Iran, we'd be able to establish meaningful checkpoints.

Can you imagine the noise the Surrender Monkeys would make if we did anything the efficacious?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

also the most lethal. 30 million plus slain by communist dictatorships

30,000,000 was just Mao's contribution to the cause.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Every source I've ever read about the USSR has used the term communist.

Sorry dude but Marxism is one of the dumbest forms of government ever invented.

The reason its termed "Communist" is because a politcal party claiming to be communist, ruled the country.

But the way it was ruled for most of the time was ironically not even close to what the foundations were.

And also it was sort of propagandic too, calling these countries communist was making it so people believed these countries were something they weren't.

And anyways the odd thing about communism is that its quite the opposite of what its generally portrayed as. For example communism is an anarchaic society, a classless one, where private property is owned publicly, and in addition, there ain't no money either, as because money would be deemed useless.

Also Marxism isn't really a form of governement, its more of a theory and philosophy. The no government part wasn't theorized by marx,but by lenin.At least I'm pretty sure about that.

 

[Comrade Brian]

also the most lethal. 30 million plus slain by communist dictatorships

Well, these "communist dictatorships" weren't as communist as you think. Any dictator can claim to be communist, but many times they aren't in line of what communism is.

And really, if you think communism is directly responsible for so many deaths, how many have been killed in capitalist nations or by them. Vietnem war had over 3 mil. and the vietnemese were just trying to rid themselves of French domination. And how many have died from poverty or lack of any wealth. And if only 30mil. means the most lethal what would you say about Hitler?

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, these "communist dictatorships" weren't as communist as you think. Any dictator can claim to be communist, but many times they aren't in line of what communism is.

And really, if you think communism is directly responsible for so many deaths, how many have been killed in capitalist nations or by them. Vietnem war had over 3 mil. and the vietnemese were just trying to rid themselves of French domination. And how many have died from poverty or lack of any wealth. And if only 30mil. means the most lethal what would you say about Hitler?

Stalin killed 3-4X as many collectivizing the farms of the Soviet Communist Dictatorship. Hitler was the epitome of evil but he pales in comparison to Stalin and Mao in terms of bodies. Communism is a disease. Any government that gets the power to create your communist paradise has TOO MUCH power and will and has always abused it.

 

[George_Washington]

The reason its termed "Communist" is because a politcal party claiming to be communist, ruled the country.

But the way it was ruled for most of the time was ironically not even close to what the foundations were.

And also it was sort of propagandic too, calling these countries communist was making it so people believed these countries were something they weren't.

And anyways the odd thing about communism is that its quite the opposite of what its generally portrayed as. For example communism is an anarchaic society, a classless one, where private property is owned publicly, and in addition, there ain't no money either, as because money would be deemed useless.

Also Marxism isn't really a form of governement, its more of a theory and philosophy. The no government part wasn't theorized by marx,but by lenin.At least I'm pretty sure about that.

True but anarchy is just as dumb as marxism itself in my opinion. If we truly had an anarchial society, we'd kill each other within a week. I think evidence has shown this. I have read about Marxism and I simply cannot see any rational or logical meaning to it. I think Karl Marx was very confused about human nature and was, shall we say, living in a fantasy world.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Karl Marx was right in some ways. I may not completely agree with him but it was obvious that eventually those who are repressed would revolt and try to make a society where everyone is equal. Thats kinda what happened in the United States actually.

I'm actually starting to get really into the idea of Democratic Socialism, which is a less extreme form of socialism where people still own private property. I don't think its achievable at the moment though because people are still under this impression that all socialists are evil beings etc.

BTW the USSR wasn't a socialist government. It was more like a totalitarian state masquerading as a socialist state ala George Orwell's 1984.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The only time any form of socialism, communism, or any other hippy religion can work is when the community size is small enough that the concept of "stranger" is absent from the socieyt.

No industrialized country can successfully emulate the pastoral dreaminess the founders of Marxism and communism envision. There's a couple of reasons for this.

There are people with skills to be engineers and doctors, and there's the Norton's who're cleaning the sewers. There's no reason why an engineer or a doctor should have to consider themselves the equal of Norton. They're not equal. That's human nature, and no amount of wishing and no amount of legislation and no amount of brute force is going to change that.

And there's the "stranger" concept. When you don't know the names of all your co-workers, when you can't identify the people passing you on the street, how do you know which ones are the slackers? You don't, but in socialist la-la lands, you don't get paid more than they do. So why should you work hard when you know the other guy is riding on your work?

So socialism always bears with it the seeds of it's own demise. It rejects human nature, so it must fail. And it does.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Your idea of "socialism" doesn't neccesarily fit the idea of others.

And your right. The way socialism works now can never work. However, I think that its worth keeping an open mind about and experimenting with particularily the less extreme forms.

Take a look at this. http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Research/far-right/dem_soc.htm

Also note that I don't neccesarily classify myself as a socialist or at least not yet. But at the most, I have recognized that socialism isn't neccesarily what people make it up to be.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Your idea of "socialism" doesn't neccesarily fit the idea of others.

And your right. The way socialism works now can never work. However, I think that its worth keeping an open mind about and experimenting with particularily the less extreme forms.

Take a look at this. http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Research/far-right/dem_soc.htm

Also note that I don't neccesarily classify myself as a socialist or at least not yet. But at the most, I have recognized that socialism isn't neccesarily what people make it up to be.

Ah, the old Maxwell School of Goverment, at my alma mater. I must say, Maxwell had one of the nicest old buildings on the campus. But they're clearly warped, look at this:

Democratic Socialists believe that the economy and society should be run democratically - to meet the needs of the whole community, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be trasnsformed to through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the decisions that affect our lives.

Democratic socialists have their heads stuck up their asses. Who gets to define what the "needs" of the "whole community" are?

If there's no profit, what's going to motiviate someone to take risks, to innovate, to grow?

What is a "more just" society? Is that a society where what a man earns doesn't belong to him, but to everyone else?

What is "economic democracy"? What is "social democracy"?

What's an "ordinary American"? What is stopping this "ordinary American" from participating in the decisions now? This second question cannot be answered until the first one is.

And I'm not one to criticize typographical errors, most of the time the intent is plain enough, but someone needs to tell me what

"many structures of our government and economy must be trasnsformed to through greater economic and social democracy"

means. I think the "to" before the "through" is superfluous, but maybe they just missed some words in-between?

The one thing socialism cannot accomplish is what is never referred to in that opening paragraph, and what this country was founded on.

Freedom.

Socialism is means whereby man is enslaved by his neighbor. The United States was founded on a notion defined with one simple word:

"Independence".

And only in America do you find a nation founded on the presumption that men should be free to rise to their own level by their own efforts.

No nation in the world, no political/economic philosophy in the world, can prevent a man from sinking to his level, if that's what he wants to do, but socialism forces all men to their lowest levels, because socialism demands a lowest common denominator.