There have obviously been mistakes made by people who held ideas similar to mine. Ultimately our ideology is imbued with the espirit du temps and certain cultural traditions. For example, Stalin himself often hearkened back to Russian (despite his being Georgian) leaders to justify his policies, from Ivan Grozny to Peter the Great and Alexander Nevsky - partly why Stalin himself is such a problem for modern Russia (as in how to deal with him in a consistent way). But no such violence is inherent within Marxist thought itself - Marx himself never strictly advocated violence. Ultimately when one resorts to using violence it is because one is too afraid to make small - though meaningful changes. For example, with Stalin, contrary to the Western polemic against him that society was some sort of totalitarian morass where the population lived under their beds in fear of government reprisals, Soviet society was actually quite the opposite - some have even argued that it was the most egoist and individualistic society to have ever exist. Why? Because absolutely nothing worked the way it was supposed to, so if you wanted something done you had to do it on your own, sometimes incurring personal risk. They even made movies to this effect such as The Communist where the star of the film is tasked with overseeing the construction of a granary, only to find that the construction project is completely halted because, for some reason, there are no nails. So, he travels *all* the way to Moscow on foot, fights against rebel white army bands, and eventually makes his way to Moscow, where he ultimately has to beseech Lenin himself for the nails. So ultimately, in many cases (this doesn't just apply to 20th Century Communists) rather than actually fix the problem, it's easier just to kill people and blame them for the problem.
The best course of action would be to stop sending arms into the region, and come up with a plan whereby order would be re-established. Ideally, that would only entail the use of local ground forces with perhaps aid from air support. The problem with ground forces is that they tend not to have the desired effect, rather than be seen as liberators, they're seen strictly as invaders and oppressors, so it's ideal if they're local people who are more likely to be seen as liberators properly. Once order is re-established you work out what is going to be done with the Ba'ath government in Syria, and with the divisions in Iraq.
The reason this has gone on so long as that the West has chosen to fight a 4 way war, while relying on brave, but under-equipped, Kurdish forces to do most of the leg-work.
As far as refugees and terror attacks go *within* Western nations themselves - yes. Laissez-faire *is* the only way to go forward unless entry policies were just stupendously lax, which I highly doubt. If anything the Greeks, Turks, Italians, and Russians handling the vast majority of refugees crossing into Europe from abroad should be given more serious support. But to radically alter our societies while doing nothing to actually address the problem of extremism, all the while not providing support to people who desperately need it is an outright betrayal of core Western values.
That's why outright racist attacks on Muslims and Arabs generally are so distressing - because it belies a tendency to throw ones hands up and suggest doing nothing truly effectual as the best alternative to addressing the very real problem of extremism.
There have obviously been mistakes made by people who held ideas similar to mine. Ultimately our ideology is imbued with the [i]espirit du temps[/i] and certain cultural traditions. For example, Stalin himself often hearkened back to Russian (despite his being Georgian) leaders to justify his policies, from Ivan [i]Grozny[/i] to Peter the Great and Alexander Nevsky - partly why Stalin himself is such a problem for modern Russia (as in how to deal with him in a consistent way). But no such violence is inherent within Marxist thought itself - Marx himself never strictly advocated violence. Ultimately when one resorts to using violence it is because one is too afraid to make small - though meaningful changes. For example, with Stalin, contrary to the Western polemic against him that society was some sort of totalitarian morass where the population lived under their beds in fear of government reprisals, Soviet society was actually quite the opposite - some have even argued that it was the most [i]egoist[/i] and individualistic society to have ever exist. Why? Because absolutely nothing worked the way it was supposed to, so if you wanted something done you had to do it on your own, sometimes incurring personal risk. They even made movies to this effect such as [i]The Communist[/i] where the star of the film is tasked with overseeing the construction of a granary, only to find that the construction project is completely halted because, for some reason, there are no nails. So, he travels *all* the way to Moscow on foot, fights against rebel white army bands, and eventually makes his way to Moscow, where he ultimately has to beseech Lenin himself for the nails. So ultimately, in many cases (this doesn't just apply to 20th Century Communists) rather than actually fix the problem, it's easier just to kill people and blame them for the problem.
The best course of action would be to stop sending arms into the region, and come up with a plan whereby order would be re-established. Ideally, that would only entail the use of local ground forces with perhaps aid from air support. The [i]problem[/i] with ground forces is that they tend not to have the desired effect, rather than be seen as liberators, they're seen strictly as invaders and oppressors, so it's ideal if they're local people who are more likely to be seen as liberators properly. Once order is re-established you work out what is going to be done with the Ba'ath government in Syria, and with the divisions in Iraq.
The reason this has gone on so long as that the West has chosen to fight a 4 way war, while relying on brave, but under-equipped, Kurdish forces to do most of the leg-work.
As far as refugees and terror attacks go *within* Western nations themselves - yes. Laissez-faire *is* the only way to go forward [i]unless [/i] entry policies were just stupendously lax, which I highly doubt. If anything the Greeks, Turks, Italians, and Russians handling the vast majority of refugees crossing into Europe from abroad should be given more serious support. But to radically alter our societies while doing nothing to [i]actually[/i] address the problem of extremism, all the while not providing support to people who desperately need it is an outright betrayal of core Western values.
That's why outright racist attacks on Muslims and Arabs generally are so distressing - because it belies a tendency to throw ones hands up and suggest doing [i]nothing[/i] truly effectual as the best alternative to addressing the very real problem of extremism.
Discussion shouldn't be limited after a tragedy like this... Denying discussion and the political issues regarding the tragedy is denying it happened.
MarxistAs far as refugees and terror attacks go *within* Western nations themselves - yes. Laissez-faire *is* the only way to go forward unless entry policies were just stupendously lax, which I highly doubt.
Nice dude you should run for major of Molenbeek because it's exactly this kind of thinking that let it become the shithole that it is today and why the whole world suddenly knows it
♫ Laissez-faire, let the terrorists and radicals be, let the terrorists and radicals be ♫
Discussion shouldn't be limited after a tragedy like this... Denying discussion and the political issues regarding the tragedy is denying it happened.
[quote=Marxist]
As far as refugees and terror attacks go *within* Western nations themselves - yes. Laissez-faire *is* the only way to go forward [i]unless [/i] entry policies were just stupendously lax, which I highly doubt.[/quote]
Nice dude you should run for major of Molenbeek because it's exactly this kind of thinking that let it become the shithole that it is today and why the whole world suddenly knows it
♫ Laissez-faire, let the terrorists and radicals be, let the terrorists and radicals be ♫
BonafideCan this discussion stop? You're all making some terrible points. And you don't finish a single argument, all you do is attack eachothers arguments for 2 post and then suddenly bring up something somewhat half related to what you were talking about and repeat.
Why do you want the discussion to stop. I don't get how it affects you personally so much that you want people to stop posting on a forum that you can ignore and have no reason to read or pay any attention to whatsoever. If you are getting annoyed by someones stupid posts then its best to just not bother reading what the person is posting. Like now when I see a post submitted by mustardoverlord I just won't even glance at it.
[quote=Bonafide]Can this discussion stop? You're all making some terrible points. And you don't finish a single argument, all you do is attack eachothers arguments for 2 post and then suddenly bring up something somewhat half related to what you were talking about and repeat.[/quote]
Why do you want the discussion to stop. I don't get how it affects you personally so much that you want people to stop posting on a forum that you can ignore and have no reason to read or pay any attention to whatsoever. If you are getting annoyed by someones stupid posts then its best to just not bother reading what the person is posting. Like now when I see a post submitted by mustardoverlord I just won't even glance at it.
MarxistThere have obviously been mistakes made by people who held ideas similar to mine. Ultimately our ideology is imbued with the espirit d temps and certain cultural traditions. For example, Stalin himself often hearkened back to Russian (despite his being Georgian) leaders to justify his policies, from Ivan Grozny to Peter the Great and Alexander Nevsky - partly why Stalin himself is such a problem for modern Russia (as in how to deal with him in a consistent way). But no such violence is inherent within Marxist thought itself - Marx himself never strictly advocated violence.
“Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?”
“No great movement,” Karl answered, “has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed.
“The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination,” he went on to say, “it is not a new thing, I need scarcely say. Orsini tried to kill Napoleon; kings have killed more than anybody else; the Jesuits have killed; the Puritans killed at the time of Cromwell. These deeds were all done or attempted before socialism was born. Every attempt, however, now made upon a royal or state individual is attributed to socialism. The socialists would regret very much the death of the German Emperor at the present time. He is very useful where he is; and Bismarck has done more for the cause than any other statesman, by driving things to extremes.”
Don't forget, when the communists took over power, it wasnt from the Czar, but from a young social democratic russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Provisional_Government
and then plunge the country into civil war, as well in Germany, and then you had the struggle between bolscheviks and menscheviks, with more death and murder, and then the Holodomor, and then the cruelty and destruction of the great patriotic war. Imagine, if after WWII, social democratic Russia was still a thing, there would be no cold war, and the world would be less voilent and gripped in terror. But for a marxist as yourself, that must be hard to swallow.
I support Assad, except when I don't support AssadThe best course of action would be to stop sending arms into the region, and come up with a plan whereby order would be re-established. Ideally, that would only entail the use of local ground forces with perhaps aid from air support. The problem with ground forces is that they tend not to have the desired effect, rather than be seen as liberators, they're seen strictly as invaders and oppressors, so it's ideal if they're local people who are more likely to be seen as liberators properly. Once order is re-established you work out what is going to be done with the Ba'ath government in Syria, and with the divisions in Iraq.
So you agree with me, the bassad regime should be in power, and seen as the only legitimate state atm, until transistions and elections.
WHAT IS PKK FOR 500€The reason this has gone on so long as that the West has chosen to fight a 4 way war, while relying on brave, but under-equipped, Kurdish forces to do most of the leg-work.
because they are marxist terorrists, who did bombing campaigns in Turkey for years?
he never read when greece said they couldnt stop the flowAs far as refugees and terror attacks go *within* Western nations themselves - yes. Laissez-faire *is* the only way to go forward unless entry policies were just stupendously lax, which I highly doubt.
good joke, tovarisch!
MarxistThat's why outright racist attacks on Muslims and Arabs generally are so distressing - because it belies a tendency to throw ones hands up and suggest doing nothing truly effectual as the best alternative to addressing the very real problem of extremism.
are you saying the bombing campaign on Raqqa is racism in effect? So what do you think of the Saudian invasion of Yemen? Where is the outcry in the media over this war?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
[quote=Marxist]There have obviously been mistakes made by people who held ideas similar to mine. Ultimately our ideology is imbued with the [i]espirit d temps[/i] and certain cultural traditions. For example, Stalin himself often hearkened back to Russian (despite his being Georgian) leaders to justify his policies, from Ivan [i]Grozny[/i] to Peter the Great and Alexander Nevsky - partly why Stalin himself is such a problem for modern Russia (as in how to deal with him in a consistent way). But no such violence is inherent within Marxist thought itself - Marx himself never strictly advocated violence. [/quote]
“Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?”
“No great movement,” Karl answered, “has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed.
“The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination,” he went on to say, “it is not a new thing, I need scarcely say. Orsini tried to kill Napoleon; kings have killed more than anybody else; the Jesuits have killed; the Puritans killed at the time of Cromwell. These deeds were all done or attempted before socialism was born. Every attempt, however, now made upon a royal or state individual is attributed to socialism. The socialists would regret very much the death of the German Emperor at the present time. He is very useful where he is; and Bismarck has done more for the cause than any other statesman, by driving things to extremes.”
Don't forget, when the communists took over power, it wasnt from the Czar, but from a young social democratic russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Provisional_Government
and then plunge the country into civil war, as well in Germany, and then you had the struggle between bolscheviks and menscheviks, with more death and murder, and then the Holodomor, and then the cruelty and destruction of the great patriotic war. Imagine, if after WWII, social democratic Russia was still a thing, there would be no cold war, and the world would be less voilent and gripped in terror. But for a marxist as yourself, that must be hard to swallow.
[quote=I support Assad, except when I don't support Assad]The best course of action would be to stop sending arms into the region, and come up with a plan whereby order would be re-established. Ideally, that would only entail the use of local ground forces with perhaps aid from air support. The problem with ground forces is that they tend not to have the desired effect, rather than be seen as liberators, they're seen strictly as invaders and oppressors, so it's ideal if they're local people who are more likely to be seen as liberators properly. Once order is re-established you work out what is going to be done with the Ba'ath government in Syria, and with the divisions in Iraq.[/quote]
So you agree with me, the bassad regime should be in power, and seen as the only legitimate state atm, until transistions and elections.
[quote=WHAT IS PKK FOR 500€]The reason this has gone on so long as that the West has chosen to fight a 4 way war, while relying on brave, but under-equipped, Kurdish forces to do most of the leg-work.[/quote]
because they are marxist terorrists, who did bombing campaigns in Turkey for years?
[quote=he never read when greece said they couldnt stop the flow]As far as refugees and terror attacks go *within* Western nations themselves - yes. Laissez-faire *is* the only way to go forward unless entry policies were just stupendously lax, which I highly doubt.[/quote] good joke, tovarisch!
[quote=Marxist]
That's why outright racist attacks on Muslims and Arabs generally are so distressing - because it belies a tendency to throw ones hands up and suggest doing nothing truly effectual as the best alternative to addressing the very real problem of extremism.[/quote]
are you saying the bombing campaign on Raqqa is racism in effect? So what do you think of the Saudian invasion of Yemen? Where is the outcry in the media over this war?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
Oh hey people, turns out the signals were there!
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/binnenland/1.2497750
"After he fought in Syria he returned to Belgium and managed to slip under the rader of Belgian intelligence forces."
She reported all of it and was ignored.
Marxist♪ Laissez-faire ♫ *is* the only way to go forward ♪
Oh hey people, turns out the signals were there!
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/binnenland/1.2497750
[quote]"After he fought in Syria he returned to Belgium and managed to slip under the rader of Belgian intelligence forces."[/quote]
She reported all of it and was ignored.
[quote=Marxist]
♪ Laissez-faire ♫ *is* the only way to go forward ♪ [/quote]
Well I'm convinced. It's time to wipe out these murderous fanatics and perverts. It's time to invade Belgium.
If we can get Davidthewin to visit Bruges then we can finally defeat communism too.
Well I'm convinced. It's time to wipe out these murderous fanatics and perverts. It's time to invade Belgium.
If we can get Davidthewin to visit Bruges then we can finally defeat communism too.
this is a horrible thing that's happened and my condolences goes out to anyone and everyone who was affected by the attacks and to everyone in france and paris
that also includes the really cool innocent people in islam. im sorry that ur entire religion is being generalized because of something that u literally had no direct involvement with and that theres a difference between having a belief in ur religion and being a cool person to being an extremist and a terrorist and attacking and killing people.
ive met really cool people in all races, religions and orientations.
how about we stop being ignorant and generalizing the innocent bystanding Islamic people who literally do not support anything isis is doing.
its rly not that hard no long debate or discussion needs to be done, just dont be a shitty person and use ur head
thanks guys love u guys stay safe xoxoxoxo !!!!
this is a horrible thing that's happened and my condolences goes out to anyone and everyone who was affected by the attacks and to everyone in france and paris
that also includes the really cool innocent people in islam. im sorry that ur entire religion is being generalized because of something that u literally had no direct involvement with and that theres a difference between having a belief in ur religion and being a cool person to being an extremist and a terrorist and attacking and killing people.
ive met really cool people in all races, religions and orientations.
how about we stop being ignorant and generalizing the innocent bystanding Islamic people who literally do not support anything isis is doing.
its rly not that hard no long debate or discussion needs to be done, just dont be a shitty person and use ur head
thanks guys love u guys stay safe xoxoxoxo !!!!
Poor old sac.
Yes, bloodshed plays a fairly prominent part in human history. There's certainly no denying that. Should it be the first recourse? No. Even the most simple and basic tracts demonstrate this even as early as 1847 (which was when Marx's thought was still in its infancy more or less). (peaceful revolution?) "It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it." - Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism, 1847. That commitment never changed.
To refer to the February revolution as a social-democratic one is only sufficient for the most comic book-esq reading of history. The reason the Kadets were unable to hold themselves together is because they failed absolutely to address the land question, were wholly unable to amend the supply situation on the home front, and embroiled Russia further into World War 1. You don't get a revolution that can survive a civil war unless the official government is completely bankrupt politically speaking. As for the rest, I should point out that the revolution of October (November) 1917 was actually fairly bloodless, but then of course Russia was invaded by no fewer than 7 nations (more if you get picky) (Germany of course was already invading, Japan, The USA, UK, France, Austro-Hungaria, Czechoslovakia (if you count the Czech legion since they were intermittently hostile to the Reds) and then the conflict did become quite bloody.
It could just as easily be argued that the cold war was a force for stability in the world, and that the uni-polar geopolitical foundation we have today is less stable. For the rest I don't generally deal in alternative fantasy history because you can manipulate the fantasy in any number of ways to attempt to prove your points.
I agree with you on the Ba'ath government. The Russian take on this is best - leave Assad, get things calmed down then transition to some other formation possibly with or without the involvement of the aforementioned optometrist.
I don't really understand where you're going with your commentary on the Kurds - they are the ones being relied upon. The central concern for the US has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with the fact that if the Kurds are made too powerful they'll declare independence unilaterally and disrupt the borders of several states in a very sudden way (Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq). The Kurds ought to definitely have their own state, but it would be better (less disruptive) for that to be done in a non-unilateral way.
No, bombing Raqqa isn't racism in and of itself. At this point there's virtually no way to justify not assisting those forces on the ground. However, the racist part comes in when you say for example, that this situation is the fault of something within Arab peoples themselves, or Islam generally, because this whole situation stems from US actions in Iraq over the last decade+ (arming different groups willy-nilly, paying different groups to fight will-nilly etc) and it's (and other's) imperialist designs against Assad which predate the Arab Spring uprisings.
Saudi Arabia's campaign in Yemen is abhorrent. Why isn't it being covered? I would argue because it's disruptive to the narrative that "we" as in the West only support good, nice, pro-democracy types. So it's best just to exclude that story from the press because it's embarrassing.
A hands-off approach (that is doing what is already being done, perhaps with more vigilance and hopefully resources) is the way to go. You can't institute some sort of crack down or build a huge/gigantic wall at the border with Turkey and around the whole Mediterranean coast without it being a tragicomic failure. Terrorism from Western Asia is going to happen until its cause is addressed. Any number of states can defeat ISIS and drive it from its territories, but there will still be any number of individuals absolutely committed to doing violence to civilians until you can convince them that they do have a future - the same is true for our own indigenous terrorists.
Poor old sac.
Yes, bloodshed plays a fairly prominent part in human history. There's certainly no denying that. Should it be [i]the first [/i] recourse? No. Even the most simple and basic tracts demonstrate this even as early as 1847 (which was when Marx's thought was still in its infancy more or less). (peaceful revolution?) "It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it." - Friedrich Engels, [i]Principles of Communism[/i], 1847. That commitment never changed.
To refer to the February revolution as a social-democratic one is only sufficient for the most comic book-esq reading of history. The reason the Kadets were unable to hold themselves together is because they failed absolutely to address the land question, were wholly unable to amend the supply situation on the home front, and embroiled Russia [i]further [/i]into World War 1. You don't get a revolution that can survive a civil war unless the official government is completely bankrupt politically speaking. As for the rest, I should point out that the revolution of October (November) 1917 was actually fairly bloodless, but then of course Russia was invaded by no fewer than 7 nations (more if you get picky) (Germany of course was already invading, Japan, The USA, UK, France, Austro-Hungaria, Czechoslovakia (if you count the Czech legion since they were intermittently hostile to the Reds) and then the conflict did become quite bloody.
It could just as easily be argued that the cold war was a force for stability in the world, and that the uni-polar geopolitical foundation we have today is less stable. For the rest I don't generally deal in alternative fantasy history because you can manipulate the fantasy in any number of ways to attempt to prove your points.
I agree with you on the Ba'ath government. The Russian take on this is best - leave Assad, get things calmed down then [i]transition[/i] to some other formation possibly with or without the involvement of the aforementioned optometrist.
I don't really understand where you're going with your commentary on the Kurds - they are the ones being relied upon. The central concern for the US has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with the fact that if the Kurds are made too powerful they'll declare independence unilaterally and disrupt the borders of several states in a very sudden way (Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq). The Kurds ought to definitely have their own state, but it would be better (less disruptive) for that to be done in a non-unilateral way.
No, bombing Raqqa isn't racism in and of itself. At this point there's virtually no way to justify not assisting those forces on the ground. However, the racist part comes in when you say for example, that this situation is the fault of something within Arab peoples themselves, or Islam generally, because this whole situation stems from US actions in Iraq over the last decade+ (arming different groups willy-nilly, paying different groups to fight will-nilly etc) and it's (and other's) imperialist designs against Assad which predate the Arab Spring uprisings.
Saudi Arabia's campaign in Yemen is abhorrent. Why isn't it being covered? I would argue because it's disruptive to the narrative that "we" as in the West only support good, nice, pro-democracy types. So it's best just to exclude that story from the press because it's [i]embarrassing[/i].
A hands-off approach (that is doing what is already being done, perhaps with more vigilance and hopefully resources) is the way to go. You can't institute some sort of crack down or build a huge/gigantic wall at the border with Turkey and around the whole Mediterranean coast without it being a tragicomic [i]failure[/i]. Terrorism from Western Asia is going to happen until its cause is addressed. Any number of states can defeat ISIS and drive it from its territories, but there will still be any number of individuals absolutely committed to doing violence to civilians until you can convince them that they [i]do[/i] have a future - the same is true for our own indigenous terrorists.
MarxistPoor old sac.
I might be poor and old, but I have my wits, and I usually write my retorts in a flash, but since you're actually willing to reply in full, instead of nitpicking on a detail, I'll credit you, with a matching reply.
Yes, bloodshed plays a fairly prominent part in human history. There's certainly no denying that. Should it be the first recourse? No. Even the most simple and basic tracts demonstrate this even as early as 1847 (which was when Marx's thought was still in its infancy more or less). (peaceful revolution?) "It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it." - Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism, 1847. That commitment never changed.
Ah Friedrich Engels, the ying to the Marx's yang, reminds me of the internationalists, that thought, that workers across the trenches, would lay down arms and unite as the proletariat. The glimmer of that dream, quickly faded away, when the first shots are fired. His view that the state has a monopoly on violence, is eerily obsolete, with the arise of modern day terrorism Marx certainly would agree on violence not being the first step, but he does say it is needed as he calls it "the midwife of history" in the communistic manifesto.
Marx"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."
MarxistTo refer to the February revolution as a social-democratic one is only sufficient for the most comic book-esq reading of history. The reason the Kadets were unable to hold themselves together is because they failed absolutely to address the land question, were wholly unable to amend the supply situation on the home front, and embroiled Russia further into World War 1. You don't get a revolution that can survive a civil war unless the official government is completely bankrupt politically speaking. As for the rest, I should point out that the revolution of October (November) 1917 was actually fairly bloodless, but then of course Russia was invaded by no fewer than 7 nations (more if you get picky) (Germany of course was already invading, Japan, The USA, UK, France, Austro-Hungaria, Czechoslovakia (if you count the Czech legion since they were intermittently hostile to the Reds) and then the conflict did become quite bloody.
you don't get a government that can survive a civil war of every dissenter or bandit gets send back the the enemy (as the germans shipped Lenin to Russia) The provisional government failure, is mostly due to war fatigue, and lack of supplies indeed, while the communists, preached, bread,land and peace,How unfortunate that people in the USSR would get none of those in it's brutal existence. The western powers, intervened, to try and stabilize, a war torn country, but just like they failed in the ottoman empire, they couldn't support the regime in Russia, it's interesting to read how much "the young turks" got off support from Lenin. Was Russia, a war torn country, plagued with famine and low morale and several social issues? Yes of course, and any improvement would have been better, but dragging your country into a civil war, to later only cause more suffering, is a sad prequel. the treaty of Brest-Litovsk
wikiIn the treaty, Bolshevik Russia ceded the Baltic States to Germany, and its province of Kars Oblast in the south Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire. It also recognized the independence of Ukraine. Russia also agreed to pay six billion German gold mark in reparations. Historian Spencer Tucker says, "The German General Staff had formulated extraordinarily harsh terms that shocked even the German negotiator."[2] Congress Poland was not mentioned in the treaty, as Germans refused to recognize the existence of any Polish representatives, which in turn led to Polish protests.[3] When Germans later complained that the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 was too harsh on them, the Allies (and historians favorable to the Allies) responded that it was more benign than Brest-Litovsk.[4] Under the treaty, the Baltic states were meant to become German vassal states under German princelings.[5]
so, if the western powers wouldn't have won vs Germany, Soviet Russia would have been subject to even harsher terms. Instead, after the collapse of Germany, the USSR went to restore the former imperial Russian borders, leading to more wars like the one vs Poland, and the miracle of Warschau(which costed a lot of soviet lives) and the mass starvation in Ukraine, caused more deaths than the Holocaust, but somehow people don't equate commie with Nazi. even though, in both systems there is utter disregard for human life.
MarxismIt could just as easily be argued that the cold war was a force for stability in the world, and that the uni-polar geopolitical foundation we have today is less stable. For the rest I don't generally deal in alternative fantasy history because you can manipulate the fantasy in any number of ways to attempt to prove your points.
the cold war devastated continents, you could claim with your logic, that Genghis Khans empire was a force of stability, because at least, traders wouldn't be robbed so often, in the regions where hundreds thousands perished. The cold war directly or indirectly crushed a whole lot of visionaries and able political leaders, like Lumumba.
marxistI agree with you on the Ba'ath government. The Russian take on this is best - leave Assad, get things calmed down then transition to some other formation possibly with or without the involvement of the aforementioned optometrist.
the Ba'ath movement was a stabilizing factor as well, just like pan-Arab-ism. The removal of Saddam and Qaddafi were some really bad moves by the west.
[quote=Marxist]Poor old sac.[/quote]
I might be poor and old, but I have my wits, and I usually write my retorts in a flash, but since you're actually willing to reply in full, instead of nitpicking on a detail, I'll credit you, with a matching reply.
[quote]Yes, bloodshed plays a fairly prominent part in human history. There's certainly no denying that. Should it be [i]the first [/i] recourse? No. Even the most simple and basic tracts demonstrate this even as early as 1847 (which was when Marx's thought was still in its infancy more or less). (peaceful revolution?) "It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it." - Friedrich Engels, [i]Principles of Communism[/i], 1847. That commitment never changed. [/quote]
Ah Friedrich Engels, the ying to the Marx's yang, reminds me of the internationalists, that thought, that workers across the trenches, would lay down arms and unite as the proletariat. The glimmer of that dream, quickly faded away, when the first shots are fired. His view that the state has a monopoly on violence, is eerily obsolete, with the arise of modern day terrorism Marx certainly would agree on violence not being the first step, but he does say it is needed as he calls it "the midwife of history" in the communistic manifesto. [quote=Marx]"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."
[/quote]
[quote=Marxist]To refer to the February revolution as a social-democratic one is only sufficient for the most comic book-esq reading of history. The reason the Kadets were unable to hold themselves together is because they failed absolutely to address the land question, were wholly unable to amend the supply situation on the home front, and embroiled Russia [i]further [/i]into World War 1. You don't get a revolution that can survive a civil war unless the official government is completely bankrupt politically speaking. As for the rest, I should point out that the revolution of October (November) 1917 was actually fairly bloodless, but then of course Russia was invaded by no fewer than 7 nations (more if you get picky) (Germany of course was already invading, Japan, The USA, UK, France, Austro-Hungaria, Czechoslovakia (if you count the Czech legion since they were intermittently hostile to the Reds) and then the conflict did become quite bloody.
[/quote]
you don't get a government that can survive a civil war of every dissenter or bandit gets send back the the enemy (as the germans shipped Lenin to Russia) The provisional government failure, is mostly due to war fatigue, and lack of supplies indeed, while the communists, preached, bread,land and peace,How unfortunate that people in the USSR would get none of those in it's brutal existence. The western powers, intervened, to try and stabilize, a war torn country, but just like they failed in the ottoman empire, they couldn't support the regime in Russia, it's interesting to read how much "the young turks" got off support from Lenin. Was Russia, a war torn country, plagued with famine and low morale and several social issues? Yes of course, and any improvement would have been better, but dragging your country into a civil war, to later only cause more suffering, is a sad prequel. the treaty of Brest-Litovsk [quote=wiki]In the treaty, Bolshevik Russia ceded the Baltic States to Germany, and its province of Kars Oblast in the south Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire. It also recognized the independence of Ukraine. Russia also agreed to pay six billion German gold mark in reparations. Historian Spencer Tucker says, "The German General Staff had formulated extraordinarily harsh terms that shocked even the German negotiator."[2] Congress Poland was not mentioned in the treaty, as Germans refused to recognize the existence of any Polish representatives, which in turn led to Polish protests.[3] When Germans later complained that the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 was too harsh on them, the Allies (and historians favorable to the Allies) responded that it was more benign than Brest-Litovsk.[4] Under the treaty, the Baltic states were meant to become German vassal states under German princelings.[5][/quote]
so, if the western powers wouldn't have won vs Germany, Soviet Russia would have been subject to even harsher terms. Instead, after the collapse of Germany, the USSR went to restore the former imperial Russian borders, leading to more wars like the one vs Poland, and the miracle of Warschau(which costed a lot of soviet lives) and the mass starvation in Ukraine, caused more deaths than the Holocaust, but somehow people don't equate commie with Nazi. even though, in both systems there is utter disregard for human life.
[quote=Marxism]It could just as easily be argued that the cold war was a force for stability in the world, and that the uni-polar geopolitical foundation we have today is less stable. For the rest I don't generally deal in alternative fantasy history because you can manipulate the fantasy in any number of ways to attempt to prove your points.
[/quote]the cold war devastated continents, you could claim with your logic, that Genghis Khans empire was a force of stability, because at least, traders wouldn't be robbed so often, in the regions where hundreds thousands perished. The cold war directly or indirectly crushed a whole lot of visionaries and able political leaders, like Lumumba.
[quote=marxist]I agree with you on the Ba'ath government. The Russian take on this is best - leave Assad, get things calmed down then [i]transition[/i] to some other formation possibly with or without the involvement of the aforementioned optometrist.[/quote] the Ba'ath movement was a stabilizing factor as well, just like pan-Arab-ism. The removal of Saddam and Qaddafi were some really bad moves by the west.
Part 2
MarxistI don't really understand where you're going with your commentary on the Kurds - they are the ones being relied upon. The central concern for the US has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with the fact that if the Kurds are made too powerful they'll declare independence unilaterally and disrupt the borders of several states in a very sudden way (Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq). The Kurds ought to definitely have their own state, but it would be better (less disruptive) for that to be done in a non-unilateral way.
YOG-PKK is internationally known as a terrorist group who's been going at it in Turkey for decades (a NATO ally) who's leader is atm in a Turkish jail, is one of the big factions, in the Kurdish regions. and like many other regions, they would benefit with their own state, and some of these nations borders redrawn to fit more ethnically.
MarxistNo, bombing Raqqa isn't racism in and of itself. At this point there's virtually no way to justify not assisting those forces on the ground. However, the racist part comes in when you say for example, that this situation is the fault of something within Arab peoples themselves, or Islam generally, because this whole situation stems from US actions in Iraq over the last decade+ (arming different groups willy-nilly, paying different groups to fight will-nilly etc) and it's (and other's) imperialist designs against Assad which predate the Arab Spring uprisings.
Saudi Arabia is the vilest country atm on the world, and they are one of the big factors into this conflict as well, the unholy alliance of them with the USA is what drags the entire region into this mess, moderate imams are having trouble competing in Europe, vs the billions the salafist sheikhs pump in. something that western people not really notice is going on, and they are not lap dogs, this is what they want to do and keep doing, until their oil runs out and they revert to a backward tribal state. I can't wait until that regime collapses.
matrixSaudi Arabia's campaign in Yemen is abhorrent. Why isn't it being covered? I would argue because it's disruptive to the narrative that "we" as in the West only support good, nice, pro-democracy types. So it's best just to exclude that story from the press because it's embarrassing.
outrage is all about the $$$ I'm disgusted that Saudi officials are treated like dignified people, while they represent the shit on the sole of the feet of Islam.
matrixA hands-off approach (that is doing what is already being done, perhaps with more vigilance and hopefully resources) is the way to go. You can't institute some sort of crack down or build a huge/gigantic wall at the border with Turkey and around the whole Mediterranean coast without it being a tragicomic failure. Terrorism from Western Asia is going to happen until its cause is addressed. Any number of states can defeat ISIS and drive it from its territories, but there will still be any number of individuals absolutely committed to doing violence to civilians until you can convince them that they do have a future - the same is true for our own indigenous terrorists.
Very idealistic, you must be like a plumber, when you are there to unclog a toilet, not just dream of a toilet who wouldn't have that problem, but sometimes go arm deep into the shit, and work, you will smell and feel horrible, but it has to be done. So instead of nothing, i want our state, to more effectively, hunt down any potential threat, restore our reputation, restore the Eu's border, (the system in place was running fine until 2008) and bring stability to the conflict regions where all the refugees come from.
Destroy the salafist threat, destroy the irrational academic hatred vs Israel, and confront Arab nations with their skeletons in the closet, how come Saudi Arabia takes in 0 refugees despite 1 million lodging spaces for the hajj? how many Palestinians are still in camps in Jordan? does turkey want to be western or not? Can Iran become an ally? What now, for the Arab spring nations? can a modern "enlightened" form of Islam combined with a secular state finally come into motion in the whole Islamic regions of the world?
Part 2
[quote=Marxist]I don't really understand where you're going with your commentary on the Kurds - they are the ones being relied upon. The central concern for the US has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with the fact that if the Kurds are made too powerful they'll declare independence unilaterally and disrupt the borders of several states in a very sudden way (Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq). The Kurds ought to definitely have their own state, but it would be better (less disruptive) for that to be done in a non-unilateral way. [/quote]
YOG-PKK is internationally known as a terrorist group who's been going at it in Turkey for decades (a NATO ally) who's leader is atm in a Turkish jail, is one of the big factions, in the Kurdish regions. and like many other regions, they would benefit with their own state, and some of these nations borders redrawn to fit more ethnically.
[quote=Marxist]
No, bombing Raqqa isn't racism in and of itself. At this point there's virtually no way to justify not assisting those forces on the ground. However, the racist part comes in when you say for example, that this situation is the fault of something within Arab peoples themselves, or Islam generally, because this whole situation stems from US actions in Iraq over the last decade+ (arming different groups willy-nilly, paying different groups to fight will-nilly etc) and it's (and other's) imperialist designs against Assad which predate the Arab Spring uprisings. [/quote]
Saudi Arabia is the vilest country atm on the world, and they are one of the big factors into this conflict as well, the unholy alliance of them with the USA is what drags the entire region into this mess, moderate imams are having trouble competing in Europe, vs the billions the salafist sheikhs pump in. something that western people not really notice is going on, and they are not lap dogs, this is what they want to do and keep doing, until their oil runs out and they revert to a backward tribal state. I can't wait until that regime collapses.
[quote=matrix]Saudi Arabia's campaign in Yemen is abhorrent. Why isn't it being covered? I would argue because it's disruptive to the narrative that "we" as in the West only support good, nice, pro-democracy types. So it's best just to exclude that story from the press because it's [i]embarrassing[/i]. [/quote]
outrage is all about the $$$ I'm disgusted that Saudi officials are treated like dignified people, while they represent the shit on the sole of the feet of Islam.
[quote=matrix]A hands-off approach (that is doing what is already being done, perhaps with more vigilance and hopefully resources) is the way to go. You can't institute some sort of crack down or build a huge/gigantic wall at the border with Turkey and around the whole Mediterranean coast without it being a tragicomic [i]failure[/i]. Terrorism from Western Asia is going to happen until its cause is addressed. Any number of states can defeat ISIS and drive it from its territories, but there will still be any number of individuals absolutely committed to doing violence to civilians until you can convince them that they [i]do[/i] have a future - the same is true for our own indigenous terrorists.[/quote] Very idealistic, you must be like a plumber, when you are there to unclog a toilet, not just dream of a toilet who wouldn't have that problem, but sometimes go arm deep into the shit, and work, you will smell and feel horrible, but it has to be done. So instead of nothing, i want our state, to more effectively, hunt down any potential threat, restore our reputation, restore the Eu's border, (the system in place was running fine until 2008) and bring stability to the conflict regions where all the refugees come from.
Destroy the salafist threat, destroy the irrational academic hatred vs Israel, and confront Arab nations with their skeletons in the closet, how come Saudi Arabia takes in 0 refugees despite 1 million lodging spaces for the hajj? how many Palestinians are still in camps in Jordan? does turkey want to be western or not? Can Iran become an ally? What now, for the Arab spring nations? can a modern "enlightened" form of Islam combined with a secular state finally come into motion in the whole Islamic regions of the world?
what's different now to when the united states went arms deep into the shit in the middle east and caused all the issues that we're facing today? what are you suggesting be done differently this time?
what's different now to when the united states went arms deep into the shit in the middle east and caused all the issues that we're facing today? what are you suggesting be done differently this time?
Hallowwhat's different now to when the united states went arms deep into the shit in the middle east and caused all the issues that we're facing today? what are you suggesting be done differently this time?
Destroy the Wahhabi money line, deport radical imams, stop the brainwashing of european islamic youth, by foreign radical elements.
[quote=Hallow]what's different now to when the united states went arms deep into the shit in the middle east and caused all the issues that we're facing today? what are you suggesting be done differently this time?[/quote]
Destroy the Wahhabi money line, deport radical imams, stop the brainwashing of european islamic youth, by foreign radical elements.
Is that actually contrary to what Marxist is suggesting though? Sure, I don't know much about all this, but from what I could gather you seem to agree there. But I'm assuming you're also suggesting additional western efforts on-ground in the area, no?
Is that actually contrary to what Marxist is suggesting though? Sure, I don't know much about all this, but from what I could gather you seem to agree there. But I'm assuming you're also suggesting additional western efforts on-ground in the area, no?
can someone lock this fucking legendary tier of a derail. people are writing essays and shit at this point
can someone lock this fucking legendary tier of a derail. people are writing essays and shit at this point
HallowIs that actually contrary to what Marxist is suggesting though? Sure, I don't know much about all this, but from what I could gather you seem to agree there. But I'm assuming you're also suggesting additional western efforts on-ground in the area, no?
#250 is a TL;DR of my sentiments, written the day after, you can read for yourself if it's the same as Marxist is suggesting.
Justinisokaycan someone lock this fucking legendary tier of a derail. people are writing essays and shit at this point
yeah, dawg, reading is for FAGGOTS, lemme hit up this blunt, while I flip a coin on what my beliefs are, cuz I ain't reading that SHIT yo
[quote=Hallow]Is that actually contrary to what Marxist is suggesting though? Sure, I don't know much about all this, but from what I could gather you seem to agree there. But I'm assuming you're also suggesting additional western efforts on-ground in the area, no?[/quote]
#250 is a TL;DR of my sentiments, written the day after, you can read for yourself if it's the same as Marxist is suggesting.
[quote=Justinisokay]can someone lock this fucking legendary tier of a derail. people are writing essays and shit at this point[/quote]
yeah, dawg, reading is for FAGGOTS, lemme hit up this blunt, while I flip a coin on what my beliefs are, cuz I ain't reading that SHIT yo
sacHallowIs that actually contrary to what Marxist is suggesting though? Sure, I don't know much about all this, but from what I could gather you seem to agree there. But I'm assuming you're also suggesting additional western efforts on-ground in the area, no?
#250 is a TL;DR of my sentiments, written the day after, you can read for yourself if it's the same as Marxist is suggesting.
Reading that I realise I misunderstood, sorry.
[quote=sac][quote=Hallow]Is that actually contrary to what Marxist is suggesting though? Sure, I don't know much about all this, but from what I could gather you seem to agree there. But I'm assuming you're also suggesting additional western efforts on-ground in the area, no?[/quote]
#250 is a TL;DR of my sentiments, written the day after, you can read for yourself if it's the same as Marxist is suggesting.[/quote]
Reading that I realise I misunderstood, sorry.
sacDestroy the Wahhabi money line
Go on...
[quote=sac]Destroy the Wahhabi money line[/quote]
Go on...
Justinisokaycan someone lock this fucking legendary tier of a derail. people are writing essays and shit at this point
Aporia hasn't even arrived yet smh
[quote=Justinisokay]can someone lock this fucking legendary tier of a derail. people are writing essays and shit at this point[/quote]
Aporia hasn't even arrived yet smh
Justinisokaycan someone lock this fucking legendary tier of a derail. people are writing essays and shit at this point
just because you aren't willing to read long posts doesn't mean theyre not good discussion. Marxist and sac are actually having a super good debate here, and while I'm old and firmly biased to one side, it'd do a lot of people well to read these ideas and do a little research
[quote=Justinisokay]can someone lock this fucking legendary tier of a derail. people are writing essays and shit at this point[/quote]
just because you aren't willing to read long posts doesn't mean theyre not good discussion. Marxist and sac are actually having a super good debate here, and while I'm old and firmly biased to one side, it'd do a lot of people well to read these ideas and do a little research
For those that claim that racism is an answer:
http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/article/1066201-long-history-forgotten-massacre
http://www.voxeurop.eu/fr/content/article/1065771-la-longue-histoire-d-un-massacre-oublie
VoxeuropDuring the 1970s and 1980s, the memory of 17 October 1961 was enveloped in a thick shroud. At the time, it seemed that there were no traces of that autumn day when unarmed men, women and children, who had turned out to protest with their families in the streets of Paris, were bludgeoned to death by policemen wielding rifle butts, thrown into the Seine, or hanged and left to die in the woods.
VoxeuropOn that day, the "French Muslims of Algeria" had turned out in response to a call from the French wing of the FLN to protest against a curfew imposed by the head of Parisian police and former Vichy official, Maurice Papon. Approximately, 20,000 men, women and children from a population that was usually confined to shantytowns in the city’s suburbs joined peaceful marches in the Latin Quarter, on the Grands Boulevards, and close to the Champs-Elysées in central Paris.
The violence in response to these protests was unprecedented: large numbers of police waited for demonstrators at Metro exits and in the streets, where they were beaten and insulted. "With my own eyes, I saw them continue to beat the weakest ones who were already bleeding until they were dead," recounted Saad Ouazen in 1997. In spite of the fact that they offered no resistance, dozens of demonstrators were shot, while others were drowned in the Seine. A total of more than 11,000 Algerians were arrested and transferred to the Palais des sports and the Stade Pierre-de-Coubertin.
Do we really want to be this society?
For those that claim that racism is an answer:
http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/article/1066201-long-history-forgotten-massacre
http://www.voxeurop.eu/fr/content/article/1065771-la-longue-histoire-d-un-massacre-oublie
[quote=Voxeurop]During the 1970s and 1980s, the memory of 17 October 1961 was enveloped in a thick shroud. At the time, it seemed that there were no traces of that autumn day when unarmed men, women and children, who had turned out to protest with their families in the streets of Paris, were bludgeoned to death by policemen wielding rifle butts, thrown into the Seine, or hanged and left to die in the woods.[/quote]
[quote=Voxeurop]On that day, the "French Muslims of Algeria" had turned out in response to a call from the French wing of the FLN to protest against a curfew imposed by the head of Parisian police and former Vichy official, Maurice Papon. Approximately, 20,000 men, women and children from a population that was usually confined to shantytowns in the city’s suburbs joined peaceful marches in the Latin Quarter, on the Grands Boulevards, and close to the Champs-Elysées in central Paris.
The violence in response to these protests was unprecedented: large numbers of police waited for demonstrators at Metro exits and in the streets, where they were beaten and insulted. "With my own eyes, I saw them continue to beat the weakest ones who were already bleeding until they were dead," recounted Saad Ouazen in 1997. In spite of the fact that they offered no resistance, dozens of demonstrators were shot, while others were drowned in the Seine. A total of more than 11,000 Algerians were arrested and transferred to the Palais des sports and the Stade Pierre-de-Coubertin.[/quote]
Do we really want to be this society?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/q4CPL3r.jpg[/img]
Apparently they've cornered the organizer of the attacks and have arrested those who didn't blow themselves up in a raid.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/18/paris-attacks-police-hunt-ninth-suspect-as-germany-on-alert-after-hanover-bomb-threat-live
I hope some justice can be done at least.
Apparently they've cornered the organizer of the attacks and have arrested those who didn't blow themselves up in a raid.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/18/paris-attacks-police-hunt-ninth-suspect-as-germany-on-alert-after-hanover-bomb-threat-live
I hope some justice can be done at least.
For those who never liked studying History (like me): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJtUQjJC4a0
It's probably not the best way to get out of ignorance, but prolly better than trying to understand a little bit of this mess watching cnn.
For those who never liked studying History (like me): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJtUQjJC4a0
It's probably not the best way to get out of ignorance, but prolly better than trying to understand a little bit of this mess watching cnn.