AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: CIA protected ex-Nazis
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
None of them are morally superior, but just because they are morally inferoir does not give us the right to take part in morally wrong actions.

In this case, I think the action was more dumb than moraly wrong. You don't know that it saved lives - all we are given is a vague 'helped fight communism'. Perhaps like the Vietnam war helped fight communism?
Who said the CIA was passive and did nothing? Not every action is included in every document. We had Morris Childs in the Kremlin and the Mossad had Rannan Lurie getting secrets. Much of their work is still classified, and I find it too egotistical to think we are aware of all the plans and counter plans and unintended consequences that happened. It could be not knowing where to look, too. There could be an unclassified document somewhere that documents us giving info to the Mossad about Eichman, with a scratch my back I'll scratch yours request for anonymity.
Anon,

Generally,it is reasonable to suspect that the conduct of our intell and military arms helped us prevent Soviet victory.

In this case,the Germans had excellent spies with contacts inside the USSR,so yea,they were moral roaches,but they helped the uSA whip the Stalinist USSR and Stalin tried hard to recruit many of the Germans himself anyway.
Anonymous24 Wrote:None of them are morally superior, but just because they are morally inferoir does not give us the right to take part in morally wrong actions.
It is not a contest and the opinion that it was wrong is all yours. Your opinion carries weight out to the end of your nose and no further.
Quote:In this case, I think the action was more dumb than moraly wrong.
Were you present when it was made? Do you know all the surrounding circumstances when it occured? Do you use hindight as your guide? What level of moral superiority does that give you? Judging people and their actions many decades after they occured is simplistic, and easy. All you have to do is point a finger and say BAD. Thats it, all done.
Rather judgemental thought, don''t you think?
Quote: You don't know that it saved lives - all we are given is a vague 'helped fight communism'. Perhaps like the Vietnam war helped fight communism?

You are the one that does not KNOW. Produce your facts and figures that indicate you know no lives were saved. provied a basis and a foundation for drawing that conclusion.
I know lives were saved. I know the Communist threat was not exagerrated. I saw the mass graves of South Vietnamese in Hue in 68 and the massacred bodies of Montagards in the hills and mountians of what was formerly South VietNam. Many lives were saved by stopping the Communist. The threat was real. You dismiss it based on what? Hindsight? Still judgemental and not using reason.
In China even now there are hundreds killed with little or no publicity. Without the publicity they do get it would be thousands. Same in Cambodia for a long time. Peru and the Shining path, and Che and his group of Communistas all killed thousands. So where do you get off saying they were, or are, no threat, and that no lives were saved?
Communism did not cause the violence in all those countries. It was caused by other things. China, for example, would historically erupt in horrific violence its entire history, long before it adopted communism. One example is the Taiping rebellion.

Communism was a symptom of other things, not some kind of force that caused the violence and conflict.
Anon,

Read of the cultural revolution in China if you don't think delusional fanatics of Marxism didn't cause violence. Read of the 1870 Paris commune.
As I said, China's history is full of similar eruptions of violence. It stands to reason that the Cultural revolution had more to do with the unique characteristics of China, than with communism. Even now, China is still a violent place, with period riots and such. These have more to do with the social forces unique to China than with any communist ideology, since China is no longer a real Communist nation(a free market has existed there since the late 70s).
Anonymous24 Wrote:Communism did not cause the violence in all those countries. It was caused by other things. China, for example, would historically erupt in horrific violence its entire history, long before it adopted communism. One example is the Taiping rebellion.

Communism was a symptom of other things, not some kind of force that caused the violence and conflict.

Provide your definitive proof for that. Communism was not a symptom of anyhing it was the result of a bloodthirsty revolution that got out of hand.
The origianl Marxist thoughts were lost in the ensuing shuffle and infighting. The Communist manifesto grew full bloom with Mao. It was, and still is, followed in many place especially Cuba and some of the South American Countries as well as in present day VietNam.
All countries, ours included, go through those types of periods. It was not called medieval Europe for no reason. Napoleon massacred thousands of Frenchman while seizing power. The French 'Marist' while proclaiming a desire for la Liberte killed thousand in the process of getting it. Dracula is based on Vlad the Conquer who killed in the thousands for the pleasure of it. The only ones more systematic, and more bloodthirsty, were the Communist. Stalin is credited with Millions as is Mao (Especially during the RED BOOK days) and Ho Chi Minh both before, and after, he seized power. They died in the thousands for the crime of opposing, or just for knowing someone that did. You have proved nothing. All you are doing is ducking the issue.
You make an assertion now back it up. Prove that no lives were saved.
You contradict yourself when you say that Communism is a historical inevitability having to do with forces unrelated to ideology, "all countries go through that". Thats essentially what I'm saying - that what happened in Communist countries had more to do with social and economic forces in those countries than it did Communist ideology. Communism was a symptom because it was more successful in some places - more primitive places - than others.

As you say, Communism was an effect of a revolution which had little to do with Communist ideology, and everything to do with a variety of other things, for instance resentment of the West, economic inequality between China's inland region and the coastal areas, decades of political chaos, etc. Communist ideology had little to do with it.
Anonymous24 Wrote:You contradict yourself when you say that Communism is a historical inevitability having to do with forces unrelated to ideology, "all countries go through that".
I did not say that. you read into it. Communism was not an inevtibility. You read into that and came to an erroneous conclusion. I was referring to the violence part. Not all countries that suffered violence became Communist. You said Communism could not be blamed. Wrong it can, and is, justifiably. The need to keep it going, and supress the masses, made the deaths of millions inevitable.

Quote:Thats essentially what I'm saying - that what happened in Communist countries had more to do with social and economic forces in those countries than it did Communist ideology. Communism was a symptom because it was more successful in some places - more primitive places - than others.

You show no foundation for using that word symptom.

Quote:As you say, Communism was an effect of a revolution which had little to do with Communist ideology, and everything to do with a variety of other things, for instance resentment of the West, economic inequality between China's inland region and the coastal areas, decades of political chaos, etc. Communist ideology had little to do with it.

That's all whining and placing the blame elsewhere.

Where is your proof that lives were not saved?
Where is your proof for the things you're saying????

All countries go through periods of violence but not all countries became Communist. Why is that? Perhaps because some countries were by their nature already more totalitarian and indifferent to life than others?
Also, FYI, the reason the Communists beat the Nationalists in China had almost nothing to do with Communist ideology. The biggest reason was that the Communists actually fought the Japanese, whereas Chiang Kai Shek and his men hid in the mountains. The Communists also reached out to the peasants(something that Marxism prohibits) and were not seen as being puppets of the West, as the Nationalists were.
Traiectum abs moti. (The trail moves)

Quote:Where is your proof for the things you're saying????
I told you I saw it. You want pictures? The rest is in the History books. Read them.
turn about is still ducking the issue.

Quote:All countries go through periods of violence but not all countries became Communist. Why is that? Perhaps because some countries were by their nature already more totalitarian and indifferent to life than others?
Which has what to do with what you were asked to prove?
That no lives were saved.
You have sidestepped, and ducked, this each time. It becomes evident that you are not going to directly address this head on.
Concisis finis.
No, because I'm saying that Communism wasn't some big, bad boogeyman who was gonna kill everybody.

Now, were lives saved from the Soviets? Perhaps, but neither of us knows either way and I think the Soviet threat was inflated just as much as Communism.

Also, because you saw some Communist governments do bad things isn't proof that Communism was Satan incarnate. Every government in every Third World country has done very bad things, and Communism doesn't make much of a difference. The Nazis weren't Communist, the Turks weren't, the Cambodians weren't, the Rwandans weren't, Idi Amin wasn't a Communist, neither was Pinochet.

And we didn't save lives from the non-Communists, did we?
Anon, the problem with you and all the other lefties why believe that Collectivism is the answer to the world's woes, is that you cannot allow yourself to believe that accumulation of power in the hands of the few can ultimately lead to the abuse of and loss of liberty amongs the many.

Any time the State is allowed to take control of the running of the State, it also assumes the right to determine how that State will be handled. And since there is no curb on individual liberties, it is an easy next step to tyranny. Under Collectivism, and it does no matter which(Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, etc), the State is more important than the individual. Rights are assigned to "group rights", not "individual rights". And when this happens, the individual is a sitting target for the tyranny of the few leading the State.

You guys are just unable to understand how this can happen, so you willingly stick your neck under the blade and blissfully expect your sevety AND liberty to be guaranteed. It is pure folly. And unfortunately, you not only place yourselves in danger, but the rest of those who do not believer such manure that Statism threatens.

Tell me Anon, how long will it take you to finally get your head placed between your clavicals? How long before you gain enough wisdom to see what your love of central power can do to Liberty? Will it take the imposition of tyranny to change your opinion?

I am simply amazed at the total ignorance and Bliss with which your kind can fool yourself into believing. Simply amazing!
But you *still* don't understand that this isn't about Communism! Any society, power ends up in the hands of a few. Communist ideology makes zero impact.
The free market doesn't put power into anyone's hands. The free market allows the fittest to survive. The free market allows for the fittest to gain power while at the same time leaving plently of opportunity for others to become fit and gain power.

Many believe oil companies are powerful. Under our free market entreprenuers have began to find alternatives to petrol. Some people are now using cooking oil of all things to drive cars. These are the big wigs of tomorrow.

Your liberal system hands over power to the weak. The free market allows anyone to gain power. Now if some people are lazy, stupid, and incompotent and can't take advantage of the free market. Thats they're own fault.
But the free market is able to exist because of the protection of the government. Companies, or small business owners for that matter are not about to sponsor any citizen revolution that could potentially take that protection away, regardless of how corrupt the government is.
No. You learned bad history. What you claim as common sense is basic untruth.

The history of the world shows that a strong centralized government is only permissable when restricted to those few things that need apolitical and nonprofit unanimity to accomplish. The coming of Karl Marx introduced a false viewpoint to be created from nothing. Before, government was seen for what it was, and appreciated on a causal relationship basis. What works is okay, what doesn't work is a failed experiment and should be stopped.

The Communists and other central government-o-philes believe that Free enterprise only exists to benefit those at the top, and it is the government that forces the elite to redistribute their excessive wealth to those who earned it. Lies. The Free enterprise system, itself, spreads the money around the fairest.

For example, in the U.S., political programs were set up to intialize good things to deserving people - like getting electricity to the rural moountain areas. Years after the electrical system was finished, the ruralfication program still exists and syphons off money better used for contemporaneous needs. Who knows what the ruralfication money goes for, or in whose pockets it ends up... all we know is that it is big government stealing the money.
It just amazes me to no end that people, such as Anon, actually think that State=Good, and business=Bad. Simply amazing. I have no idea where they get such hairbrained ideas, or how they were taught such manure. You would think that eventually common sense would take over and it would finally start to dawn on them that the REAL culprit is the State, and it alone.

Simply amazing!
Pages: 1 2 3