Rio starts ID checks on US flyers

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You don't touch many things, do you?

I don't touch many things the police can identify as being touched be me.

[Dr. Nick]

But instead of that they helped bringing democratic regimes to Japan and Germany and boosting their economy.

It was self service. Leaving Germany would have made it ripe for a Soviet takeover.

Japan is by no doubts among the best economies in the world and Germany is not doing bad either despite the problems they are having lately

Isn't the Japanese economy completed screwed up, with no real growth in the last decade or so?

Definitely that's what a nazi country would do, help their enemies after defeating them.

I don't think it does you much credit to compare the US of 1945 to the US of 2004.

I know a couple of Russians who would not agree with you about it. They even say that don't want to put a star in the Christmas tree because that remind them of soviet times. And they also put a lot of effort to remind everyone who wants to hear that fortunately the USSR doesn't exist and that Russia had more than 1000 years of history before 1917.

Russian history prior to 1917 doesn't do them much credit either.

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

They did however intentially blow up a public building in Kansas city killing more than a hundred people (all intentionally), and IIUC, your own people did start the anthrax panic.

They have done more harm to your fellows Americans than, say, the Brazilians.

First, that was 2 people angry with the Feds for Waco, not an organisation with a desire to murder as many Americans as possible working in mutilple countries who had a huge chunk of Afghanistan as their base of operations. And it's not about what Brazilians have done to the US, it's obviously about countries with lax security wrt who comes and leaves via airliners. These countries appear to be of concern since terrorists will probably try to bypass stricter security measures in target countries and Brazil may be a country they use as an intermediary stop.

Sava -

social DEMOCRACIES... man your uninformed ramblings are getting tiresome

Big whoop, the socialists call themselves "social democrats" now. The only relevant difference between "social democrats" in Europe and dictators in Kuwait is the number of people playing God with other people's lives. As Mel Gibson asked in "The Patriot", why would I want to trade one dictator 3,000 miles away for 3,000 dictators 1 mile away"? I see you dodged all my questions again... I understand why, they just show how ridiculous you're being.

I suppose the defense of Britain helped keep a Stalinist regime in power, right?

Stalin was a "communist", paraphrasing Bastiat, socialism and communism are plants at different stages of growth. They are related, but not the same... I thought you socialists hated it when people try to refute your ideology by pointing to Stalin, but now you equate Stalin with socialism?

OBoris -

And about the 'liberated' countries in East Asia, I wonder what you're talking about. Are you mentioning Kissinger's actions that lead to Pol Pot? Or the Vietnam war, which was not about destroying the country to gain a political edge. Oh! I get it! You're talking about Suharto, the human rights advocate!

I specifically mentioned countries conquered by the Axis...Germany, Japan and Italy. Unfortunately the commies rose to power when we left and slaughtered millions in E Asia...

True, the Cold War was waged everywhere and it was disgusting, both by what the commies and the US did. Neither was any better and that's my point. (In fact, since the communists were defeated at many places even though they had popular support, I suspect the US has been more efficient in funding the right groups at the right time).

It appears you and Sava are suffering from the delusion that I claimed the US has never done anything bad anywhere. But for you to suggest the US and USSR/China treated people during the Cold War ~equally ignores what actually happened. The commies slaughtered 10's of millions, the USA liberated 10's of millions... While I'm not a fan of Reagan, he's quite popular among E Europeans even if many W Europeans don't like him.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


If America didn't think the Marshall plan was in their interest, they wouldn't have done it. Say, for example, that communist resisters are so strong in France that they take power after the war with popular support. Is there a Marshall plan in France? (Not considering the ties the new France would have with USSR).

The Marshall Plan was offered to all European Nations including the USSR and all the Soviet Bloc nations. The USSR and its satellites refused the aid.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/teacher/marshall.htm

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't touch many things the police can identify as being touched be me.

Now you're just being unrealistic. sorry

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The only relevant difference between "social democrats" in Europe and dictators in Kuwait is the number of people playing God with other people's lives.

You realize you have just written something as stupid as the comparison between the US and nazi Germany, don't you?

[Spiffor]

Ted:
The countries recieving Plan Marshall aid had quite a few concessions to make in return, wrt to buying American products, and notably wrt broadcasting American movies and propaganda.

To accept the Marshall aid would place your country immediately in a relationship of depedency towards the US, which was a no-no for the soviet bloc in this period of buildup.

Some eastern European countries had accepted the help before being vetoed by the USSR. But don't believe the offer of aid to eastern European countries was any altruistic (the motives sure weren't): it was about conolidating the western side for the incoming show.

[DanS]

Don't you think y'all are getting a little off track?

Btw, as I understand it, those who are not required to have visas will be required to give their fingerprint and get a picture later this year. So it's non-discriminatory.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Some eastern European countries had accepted the help before being vetoed by the USSR. But don't believe the offer of aid to eastern European countries was any altruistic (the motives sure weren't): it was about conolidating the western side for the incoming show.

That's it, Ted. The USSR would not have allowed such concessions in their empire. And would the US have been destroyed, I don't think they'd have liked Battleship Potemkine supplanting Rita Hayworth's legs.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Now we have someone invoking the spirit of Godwin in the thread. I suggest the mods close the thread ASAP. It will only go downhill.

MtG's law is that all threads go downhill from the first post.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker

It appears you and Sava are suffering from the delusion that I claimed the US has never done anything bad anywhere. But for you to suggest the US and USSR/China treated people during the Cold War ~equally ignores what actually happened. The commies slaughtered 10's of millions, the USA liberated 10's of millions... While I'm not a fan of Reagan, he's quite popular among E Europeans even if many W Europeans don't like him.

Now, to what I don't understand. Why is it that crimes commited by America are, well... crimes, while crimes commited by China or USSR are communist crimes that could have been avoided? These countries were poor and retarded. Nothing would have helped them, and it's unfair to judge communism (even though I don't support it) on these experiences. Russia's history in the 20th century would not have been any brighter with the czars in place.

If we did a list of the worst criminals of the 20th century, we would have, in the top ten, something like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and probably 3 or 4 American presidents. This is not a good performance at all. I won't be defending any of those criminals on the assumption that they murdered millions instead of tens of millions. So get over it. The Cold War ruined a good chunk of the world and the US had more than its fair share in it.

[Ted Striker]

who is YOUR country

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

You realize you have just written something as stupid as the comparison between the US and nazi Germany, don't you?

Saying it's stupid and proving it are two different things, I see you took the easy way. Has Kuwait slaughtered millions of people? Hmm...not quite as stupid now? Well, you've just said something quite silly. For your "analysis" to be valid, Kuwait must have done some really awful things, and I mean awful...

USA != Nazi Germany
Kuwait != France...therefore
France = USA?
Kuwait = Nazi Germany?

That's what "as stupid" implies...

O Boris -

Now, to what I don't understand. Why is it that crimes commited by America are, well... crimes, while crimes commited by China or USSR are communist crimes that could have been avoided?

Because the culprits were commies, that's how they identified themselves. As for whether or not those crimes could have been prevented, maybe if they listened to Patton, some of the slaughter could have been prevented.

These countries were poor and retarded. Nothing would have helped them, and it's unfair to judge communism (even though I don't support it) on these experiences. Russia's history in the 20th century would not have been any brighter with the czars in place.

I judge communism by the actions of communists. When a pattern appears in different places, a flaw becomes apparent. But that was quite an indictment of communism, it takes hold only in poor retarded countries. As for the Czar, so what?

If we did a list of the worse criminals of the 20th century, we would have, in the top ten, something like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and probably 3 or 4 American presidents. This is not a good performance at all. I won't be defending any of those criminals on the assumption that they murdered millions instead of tens of millions. So get over it. The Cold War ruined a good chunk of the world and the US had more than its fair share in it.

Get over it? I'm not the one who started a debate about US crimes during the Cold War, that was you and Sava, Try to pay attention to the thread. And if the US had more than it's fair share, does that mean the USSR and China had less than their fair shares?

But go ahead and name those Presidents. We had a thread on the 10 worst crimes of the last 500 years and not even Lincoln made the list much less any other President. How about this list?

1) Stalin
2) Hitler
3) Mao
3) Japan
4) WWI - European colonialists
6) Pol Pot
7) N Vietnamese invasion of S Vietnam
8) N Korean invasion of S Korea
9) Armenian genocide
10) European colonialism
10) China's invasion of Tibet

Well, that's 11 but we can see commies behind 6 of those.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
who is YOUR country

I like Guynemer's quote best... "My country is humanity" --Thomas Paine

[Sava]

Berz... you are using the old "THESE GUYS WERE MORE EVIL SO WHAT WE DID IS OKAY"... it's wrong...

I wonder... if I go to traffic court, can I say "BUT JEFFREY DAHMER KILLED AND ATE PEOPLE, SO I AM INNOCENT."

of course not...

and by no means did I say "Nazi Germay = USA". In fact, the two are quite different. I was simply pointing out that they are similar in some aspects, and that we should strive to not be like them.

This is quite an extraordinary threadjack... sorry I shall not participate in it any more. I've said all I'm going to say. Feel free to ramble some more tho Berz... it's entertaining.

[Berzerker]

Methinks the point Ted is getting at...perhaps...is it's easy for y'all to point a finger at the USA while your country stays off the radar screen... Another dodge there, Sava, What country were you born and/or raised in... If it's Luxembourg you'll get a pass...

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by Sava
Berz... you are using the old "THESE GUYS WERE MORE EVIL SO WHAT WE DID IS OKAY"... it's wrong...

I wonder... if I go to traffic court, can I say "BUT JEFFREY DAHMER KILLED AND ATE PEOPLE, SO I AM INNOCENT."

Where did I say that? First you declared there was a "very small difference" between the USA and Nazi Germany, and now it's a debate over the USA and the USSR. I merely pointed out how many people were slaughtered by the commies and how many were liberated by the USA. Seems quite obvious...

and by no means did I say "Nazi Germay = USA". In fact, the two are quite different. I was simply pointing out that they are similar in some aspects, and that we should strive to not be like them.

You're backtracking, you said there was a "very small difference" between the USA and the Nazis.

This is quite an extraordinary threadjack... sorry I shall not participate in it any more. I've said all I'm going to say. Feel free to ramble some more tho Berz... it's entertaining.

You jacked the thread with all that nonsense about what the Brazilian judge was really saying about the USA and not what he actually did say. He decried the security measure and you announce how he was complaining about the deportation of 83,000 Muslims, etc... At least you have the sense to run from this thread after your performance, don't trip on your tail...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Spiffor -

Saying it's stupid and proving it are two different things, I see you took the easy way. Has Kuwait slaughtered millions of people? Hmm...not quite as stupid now? Well, you've just said something quite silly. For your "analysis" to be valid, Kuwait must have done some really awful things, and I mean awful...

USA != Nazi Germany
Kuwait != France...therefore
France = USA?
Kuwait = Nazi Germany?

That's what "as stupid" implies...

No.
"as stupid" implies you used the same flawed logic than Tripledoc (or was it Oncle Boris?) when he said the difference between the US deporting 80,000 Muslims and nazi Germany was only a difference of scale. The quote may be in today's other godwinized thread, you should check it out

I don't care if the difference between the horrors of nazi Germany and the horrors of the US is much smaller than the difference between Kuwait's and France's (or whatever other social-democratic country) ones. Basically, your stupidity is qualitatively the same as Tripledoc's / Uncle Boris, but you may argue it's not "quantitatively" the same.

There is a fundamental difference between a social-democratic country and Kuwait, and that's the "democratic" part. Social-democratic countries had their welfare systems set up at the request of the population, and some of them had them destroyed (like the UK) at the request of their population as well.
To compare social-democratic countries to dictatorships is blind ideological bull.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Where did I say that? First you declared there was a "very small difference" between the USA and Nazi Germany, and now it's a debate over the USA and the USSR. I merely pointed out how many people were slaughtered by the commies and how many were liberated by the USA. Seems quite obvious...

I never even said anything about the USSR, so I don't know wtf u are talking about.

You're backtracking, you said there was a "very small difference" between the USA and the Nazis.

I'm CLARIFYING because you obviously misunderstood what I said

You jacked the thread with all that nonsense about what the Brazilian judge was really saying about the USA and not what he actually did say. He decried the security measure and you announce how he was complaining about the deportation of 83,000 Muslims, etc... At least you have the sense to run from this thread after your performance, don't trip on your tail...

yes I did jack the thread, sort of... the Brazilian judge, while not specifying his positions, obviously was dismayed at the US's treatment of people in reference to security procedures... and I SUGGESTED that perhaps he might know about the deportations...

I wasn't running, I was shooting a dying horse... if you aren't ever going to understand or get my points, why should I continue to waste my time?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OliverFA
If I remember correctly, we are talking about a country who stayed in Germany and Japan after defeating their governments in WW2. They didn't have any obligation to stay. They could just have said "ok, they were the ones who provoked the problem, they have to get out of it themselves". But instead of that they helped bringing democratic regimes to Japan and Germany and boosting their economy.

I am not so sure the US did it for the good of the people. They did it to contain the USSR.

Originally posted by OliverFA
Japan is by no doubts among the best economies in the world and Germany is not doing bad either despite the problems they are having lately.

Japan is having a lot of economic problems now.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
1) Stalin
2) Hitler
3) Mao
3) Japan
4) WWI - European colonialists
6) Pol Pot
7) N Vietnamese invasion of S Vietnam
8) N Korean invasion of S Korea
9) Armenian genocide
10) European colonialism
10) China's invasion of Tibet

Hm, how is Stalin a war criminal? How is Mao a war criminal? Why do you call North Vietnam's military operations against a bloody puppet state propped up by the US criminal acts? Why is US colonialism not on the list?

These are just starters...

[Berzerker]

Sava -

I never even said anything about the USSR, so I don't know wtf u are talking about.

I didn't say you started a debate about the USSR, only that the debate has moved (I am debating at least 2 people) from your attempt to indict the USA along with the Nazis to the Cold War and communism. But here you go:

yeah I guess you are right... we're the only nation to ever possess the power to nuke the world...

To which I pointed out that the USSR has and had that power. Of course, you ignored that as well... But you did offer this...

I suppose the defense of Britain helped keep a Stalinist regime in power, right?

I'm CLARIFYING because you obviously misunderstood what I said

Can you quote yourself? I've been quoting you all along. You said there was a "very small difference" between the USA and Nazi Germany. Don't blame me for your blunder. Btw, what is your clarification? Are you now saying there is a big difference between the USA and Nazi Germany?

yes I did jack the thread, sort of... the Brazilian judge, while not specifying his positions, obviously was dismayed at the US's treatment of people in reference to security procedures... and I SUGGESTED that perhaps he might know about the deportations...

Ah, you "suggested" what he really meant and ignored what he really said. That "clarifies" it a bit.

I wasn't running, I was shooting a dying horse... if you aren't ever going to understand or get my points, why should I continue to waste my time?

What was your point? Oh yeah, there's a "very small difference" between the USA and Nazi Germany. Oh, wait a minute...a "clarification" is coming in over the wire... What's that? The USA is worse that the Roman Empire now?

[Zylka]

"How is Stalin a war criminal?"

That's sig material

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Hm, how is Stalin a war criminal? How is Mao a war criminal?

You're kidding right?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Hm, how is Stalin a war criminal?

Do they not teach history in China?

[Spiffor]

Stalin has kept war prisoners in terrible conditions and for an outrageous time after peace had been signed. German civilians suffered from brutalities as they were being conquered. And needless to say, Stalin's absurd decisions as megalomaniac paranoid murderer lead to the useless death of millions sviet soldiers.

As for Mao being a war criminal, I indeed fail to see in which war he was directly involved, except WW2 against the Japanese. I don't think Mao standed out as being particularly evil at that time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Stalin has kept war prisoners in terrible conditions and for an outrageous time after peace had been signed.

Not complying with the Geneva Convention is bad, but that doesn't automatically make him a war criminal.

Originally posted by Spiffor
German civilians suffered from brutalities as they were being conquered.

I am afraid that would almost always happen when the oppressed turn the table on the oppressors. The thing is whether the brutalities were spontaneous acts by random soldiers or a systemetic thing conducted by the military machine a la the Nanjing Massacre.

Originally posted by Spiffor
And needless to say, Stalin's absurd decisions as megalomaniac paranoid murderer lead to the useless death of millions sviet soldiers.

Do you mean the purges? Yeah, those are bad, but only indirectly related to later deaths.

Originally posted by Spiffor
As for Mao being a war criminal, I indeed fail to see in which war he was directly involved, except WW2 against the Japanese. I don't think Mao standed out as being particularly evil at that time.

Mao had never intended to be evil, but sometimes very nasty effects occurred as a consequences of his actions, such as the Cultural Revolution.

[Sava]

I think Mao did some pretty nasty things to Buddhists and stuff... sorry UR



sigh berz, you won't ever get it, I'm not going to waste any more of my time

[Berzerker]

UR -

Hm, how is Stalin a war criminal? How is Mao a war criminal? Why do you call North Vietnam's military operations against a bloody puppet state propped up by the US criminal acts? Why is US colonialism not on the list?

These are just starters...

How's this for an end? If you need me to inform you about the crimes of Stalin and Mao, type their names into google and hit enter (maybe add the words mass starvation and murder). As for N Vietnam, US involvement in S Vietnam cannot justify an invasion by the north. Will you argue the N Korean invasion of the south was also justified because the US was there as well? That was the catalyst for that war... And US colonialism was effectively over by the 20th century which puts it outside the scope of the matter at hand.

Spiffor -

No. "as stupid" implies you used the same flawed logic than Tripledoc (or was it Oncle Boris?) when he said the difference between the US deporting 80,000 Muslims and nazi Germany was only a difference of scale.

That was Sava, and that is not what we were debating. He said there was a "very small difference" between the USA and Nazi Germany and I responded by asking why he thinks the slaughter of millions constitutes a "very small difference".

I don't care if the difference between the horrors of nazi Germany and the horrors of the US is much smaller than the difference between Kuwait's and France's (or whatever other social-democratic country) ones.

But those differences matter if you're going to argue that a comparison between Kuwait and France is as stupid as a comparison between the USA and Nazi Germany. Sava (or was it O Boris) declared that the liberation of Kuwait was invalid because the US re-installed a dictator and I pointed out that if "liberation" depended solely on who regained power, then re-installing socialists in France would not qualify as a liberation either. Naturally he ignored my question as to whether or not the Kuwaiti people would have been better off under Saddam, and if not, then they were indeed liberated. Yes, dictatorships are not preferable to freedom, but socialism ain't freedom and the Emirs are not brutal thugs so I don't see much of a difference between the two countries wrt what matters.

Basically, your stupidity is qualitatively the same as Tripledoc's / Uncle Boris, but you may argue it's not "quantitatively" the same.

You didn't answer my question: what have the Kuwaiti dictators done to be so undeserving of restoration while the French leaders deserved that "favor"? For you to say my comparison is "as stupid" as comparing the USA with the Nazis requires that the Kuwaitis are ~equally evil when compared to the French. All you're doing is repeating your assertion that my statement is stupid and throwing in a few nice sounding words, "qualitative, quantitative". Just prove Kuwait is to France as the Nazis were to the USA, that's what your assertion requires.

There is a fundamental difference between a social-democratic country and Kuwait, and that's the "democratic" part. Social-democratic countries had their welfare systems set up at the request of the population, and some of them had them destroyed (like the UK) at the request of their population as well.

I don't care what label dictators use to hide behind, "Emirs", "socialists", they're all dictators. The fact one group of dictators got elected and another inherited their position is meaningless to me.

To compare social-democratic countries to dictatorships is blind ideological bull.

I'm neither a social democrat or a monarchist, so it has nothing to do with my ideology. But I can still look at the results from both Kuwait and France and compare the two. I'm waiting for you to identify the evils of Kuwait's monarchs. Hell, if anything the comparison favors Kuwait. It was the French who played lap dog to Hitler and it was French colonialism in E Asia that led to Vietnam...

[notyoueither]

Spiffor is going to say that any liberal democracy is preferable to any potentate, and many people would agree.