Why is nazism popular today?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dachshund
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Dachshund » Wed May 22, 2019 11:09 pm

Kayla wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 7:00 pm
Justintruth wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 6:20 pm
Dachshund wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 1:50 pm
...= socialism has ALWAYS, IN EVERY CASE failed.
Where did you get that idea? It worked very well in Sweden. Remember that market economies can co-exist with governments owning productive capital.
i had a math teacher in high school who was from Russia

he did not limit himself to math - in particular he wanted to make sure that we understood the difference between socialism and social democracy

socialism was the political / economic system of the USSR and its friends - in it, the state owned means of production - in theory they were owned by
"the people"

in a social democracy, capitalism coexists with redistribution of wealth

even the usa is somewhat social democratic in this sense - and Sweden a lot more so

so socialism has always failed

social democracy, on the other hand, produced some very good results e.g. Sweden, Canada
Sweden is propped up by Capitalist industry; If it wasn't the "World's First Feminist Government" would be looking a lot like Venezuela right now. It's also the rape capital of Europe, due o a policy Of diversity and inclusivity that the ruling "social democrats" there adopted in the form of opening their borders to Muslim immigration.

Canada is falling apart, as we speak, due to socialist mass-immigration policies. (just for a start)

Regards

Dachshund

gaffo
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Thu May 23, 2019 12:07 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:08 am


Do you even know what caused the Cuban missile crisis? You are such a dipshit know nothing waste of resources.
I do, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.......when the assault looked like actual fighting (and they were doing well enough at the beach-head) - when for success (or maybe success), those men needed air support from the US Air Force, they did not get it - Kennedy rejected to request - and so the Bay of Pigs failed.

- and since USSR's leaders understand only Force - they saw a "weak" president during the Bay of Pigs, and so saw a "chump" and a year later started to install tactical nuclear short range missiles in Cuba.

- so yes i know what caused the Cuban Missile crisis. The failed invasion of Cuba via the Bay of Pigs, and the weak leadership of the American president presiding over that invasion (i.e refusal to call in American air support - which most likely would have turned the failure into victory - 60/40 - imo).

gaffo
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Thu May 23, 2019 12:17 am

Dachshund wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:27 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:08 am


Do you even know what caused the Cuban missile crisis? You are such a dipshit know nothing waste of resources.
Yeah, I do Vegetable,

Nikita Khrushchev, who was a pig - ignorant, Russian peasant and lying, Kommunist Kunt (bit like ewe in a way) said to his buddy, Fidel Castro, in 1962, who was a Kuban, Komminist Kunt, "Fidel, I'm sending you some Soviet nuclear missiles on a ship and when they arrive at Kuba, I want you set set them up so that they're pointed at America and ready to be fired if we give the word to let them go, bro."

The Soviet missiles on Kuba were supposed to be a secret, but the Americans didn't trust the Soviets and they used air surveillance to sus out what was actually going on.

JFK was really pissed off when he saw aerial photo evidence of the Soviet missiles prepped for launch at sites on Kuba because Kuba was only about 90 miles from the US coast (Florida) and if the Soviets launched the Kuban ICBM missiles that Kastro had set up for them, it could mean that lots of major cities in America would be fucked (completely).

So, to cut a long story short, there was a Mexican stand-off at sea in October 1962, afterJFK said to Khrushchev, "We know you've got nukes on Kuba aimed at us, you lying piece of shit, and you'd better get those nukes off Kuba asap, and don't fuck with me, coz if you don't, I'll glassify the whole USSR." Khruschev backed down and removed the Russian ICBMs from Kuba, and that's the end of the storey ,Veggie.



Aroha xx

Dachshund
you left 2 things out.

1. Khrushchev was actually a reasonable thug - and so not Stalin, - much better and one one can reason with if you carry a big stick while talking to.

2. Kennedy is to blame for the Cuban missile crisis.

a. he affirmed the Bay of Pigs invasion which was unwise in itself

b. he refused to allow for air support! after the invasion was underway - thus a turncoat to the guy on the beach (i think it would have suceeded if Kennedy had the BALLS to call in air support - but he did not and it failed.

................

result, Khrushchev saw the American President as WEAK (which he showed himself to be!) - took advantage, and thus we almost had ww3.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8128
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu May 23, 2019 12:29 am

gaffo wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 12:07 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:08 am


Do you even know what caused the Cuban missile crisis? You are such a dipshit know nothing waste of resources.
I do, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.......when the assault looked like actual fighting (and they were doing well enough at the beach-head) - when for success (or maybe success), those men needed air support from the US Air Force, they did not get it - Kennedy rejected to request - and so the Bay of Pigs failed.

- and since USSR's leaders understand only Force - they saw a "weak" president during the Bay of Pigs, and so saw a "chump" and a year later started to install tactical nuclear short range missiles in Cuba.

- so yes i know what caused the Cuban Missile crisis. The failed invasion of Cuba via the Bay of Pigs, and the weak leadership of the American president presiding over that invasion (i.e refusal to call in American air support - which most likely would have turned the failure into victory - 60/40 - imo).

''To the American public, Castro’s acceptance of Russian missiles looked unprovoked, mysteriously aggressive, and threatening. There was no way for Americans to know—and, at that point, no Kennedy could bring himself to inform them—that Cuban protestations of a purely defensive purpose for the missiles were genuine. We did not know what Castro knew—that thousands of CIA agents were plotting his death, the destruction of his government’s economy, the sabotaging of his mines and mills, the crippling of his sugar and copper industries. We had invaded Cuba once; officials high in Congress and the executive department thought we should have followed up with overwhelming support for that invasion; by our timetable of a year to bring Castro down, the pressure to supply that kind of support in a new “rebellion” was growing. All these realities were cloaked from the American people, though evident to the Russians and the Cubans. In this game of power played apart from popular support, the Kennedys looked like brave resisters of aggression, though they had actually been the causes of it. In The Making of a Missile Crisis: October 1962, Herbert Dinerstein has established, from study of Russian materials, that the Soviet Union did not consider Latin America ripe for Communist influence until the Bay of Pigs failure. That gave them an opportunity, as continued American activity against Castro gave them an excuse, for large-scale intervention in this hemisphere.

The Russians were aiming at influence by supporting the Cuban David against a Goliath too cowardly to strike in the daylight. Americans, unaware of all this, did not bother to ask themselves hard questions about the real purpose of the missiles in Cuba. The president said the missiles being placed could strike at any city in the United States (which was not true), and implied that this was their purpose. But why would Castro launch missiles against even one of our cities, knowing it would be a suicidal act? Just one of our nuclear bombs on Havana would have destroyed his nation.

Why then, if Castro did not have the missiles to conquer us, was he making himself a willing hostage to Russia’s designs? Would he launch his missiles in conjunction with a larger Russian attack, knowing that we could incinerate his island as a side blow to our response to Russia? Even if Castro had wanted to immolate his nation that way, his missiles would not have helped the Russians—might, rather, have been a hindrance, because of the “ragged attack” problem. If missiles were launched simultaneously from Russia and Cuba, the Cuban ones, arriving first, would confirm the warnings of Russian attack. Or, if Cuba’s missiles were launched later, radar warning of the Russian ones’ firing would let us destroy the Cuban rockets in their silos.

Then why were the missiles there? For defensive purposes, just as the Cubans said. We refused to accept this explanation, because President Kennedy had arbitrarily defined ground-to-ground missiles as “offensive,” after saying that offensive weapons would not be tolerated. Yet we called our ground-to-ground missiles on the Soviets’ Turkish border defensive. Deterrence—the threat of overwhelming response if attacked—is a category of defense when we apply it to our own weapons; but we denied the same definition to our opponents. Which meant that we blinded ourselves to the only reason Castro accepted (with some reluctance) the Russian missiles. He wanted to force the Kennedys to stop plotting his overthrow by threatening that if worse came to worst and we were ready to crush him, he would take some of our cities down with him.

Americans watched this drama, as it were, through a glass pane, unable to hear the dialogue …




President Kennedy had two dangerous situations to deal with simultaneously—the missile emplacements and American panic over them. Robert Kennedy … told the president he had to remove the missiles or be impeached. In other words, the president was a captive of his own people’s panicky emotions. Options were denied him by the American people—he could not even think of leaving the missiles in place.

Yet Kennedy had himself stirred up the feelings that limited his freedom. He had called the missiles offensive and exaggerated their range. It is understandable that he would not reveal all the American provocation that explained the presence of the missiles. But why did he have to emphasize the notion that their placement was unprovoked? He told the nation that the Russians had lied to him in promising not to send offensive weapons to Cuba. He said in his address on the crisis: “The greatest danger of all would be to do nothing.” If he was chained to a necessity for acting, he forged the chains himself.''

So saint JFK was actually the villain in the piece--not the hero.

gaffo
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Thu May 23, 2019 12:47 am

Dachshund wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:27 pm


Nikita Khrushchev, who was a pig - ignorant, Russian peasant
you "blood a soil" is showing Nazi.

yes Khrushchev was born poor and a slav (undermuchin(sp))

while the WASP Arian Shrub JR, was born with silver spoon in mouth.

former had no advantages, and yet obtained power and governed the USSR well enough.

the latter.

one of superior Nordic Stock, born in privalege, offered the world, handed power of the US presidency.......................and took a big fat dump on America - illegally invade Iraq, ruined the middle class. etc................

the former - though less than a man - being just a Slav animal - governed his empire, the latter - a superman nord arian drove America into the ground.

so ya, you are full of shit Sir! - you are just a hopeless nazi. - and lack a mind to think with.

gaffo
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Thu May 23, 2019 1:02 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 12:29 am
gaffo wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 12:07 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:08 am


Do you even know what caused the Cuban missile crisis? You are such a dipshit know nothing waste of resources.
I do, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.......when the assault looked like actual fighting (and they were doing well enough at the beach-head) - when for success (or maybe success), those men needed air support from the US Air Force, they did not get it - Kennedy rejected to request - and so the Bay of Pigs failed.

- and since USSR's leaders understand only Force - they saw a "weak" president during the Bay of Pigs, and so saw a "chump" and a year later started to install tactical nuclear short range missiles in Cuba.

- so yes i know what caused the Cuban Missile crisis. The failed invasion of Cuba via the Bay of Pigs, and the weak leadership of the American president presiding over that invasion (i.e refusal to call in American air support - which most likely would have turned the failure into victory - 60/40 - imo).

''To the American public, Castro’s acceptance of Russian missiles looked unprovoked, mysteriously aggressive, and threatening. There was no way for Americans to know—and, at that point, no Kennedy could bring himself to inform them—that Cuban protestations of a purely defensive purpose for the missiles were genuine. We did not know what Castro knew—that thousands of CIA agents were plotting his death, the destruction of his government’s economy, the sabotaging of his mines and mills, the crippling of his sugar and copper industries. We had invaded Cuba once; officials high in Congress and the executive department thought we should have followed up with overwhelming support for that invasion; by our timetable of a year to bring Castro down, the pressure to supply that kind of support in a new “rebellion” was growing. All these realities were cloaked from the American people, though evident to the Russians and the Cubans. In this game of power played apart from popular support, the Kennedys looked like brave resisters of aggression, though they had actually been the causes of it. In The Making of a Missile Crisis: October 1962, Herbert Dinerstein has established, from study of Russian materials, that the Soviet Union did not consider Latin America ripe for Communist influence until the Bay of Pigs failure. That gave them an opportunity, as continued American activity against Castro gave them an excuse, for large-scale intervention in this hemisphere.

The Russians were aiming at influence by supporting the Cuban David against a Goliath too cowardly to strike in the daylight. Americans, unaware of all this, did not bother to ask themselves hard questions about the real purpose of the missiles in Cuba. The president said the missiles being placed could strike at any city in the United States (which was not true), and implied that this was their purpose. But why would Castro launch missiles against even one of our cities, knowing it would be a suicidal act? Just one of our nuclear bombs on Havana would have destroyed his nation.

Why then, if Castro did not have the missiles to conquer us, was he making himself a willing hostage to Russia’s designs? Would he launch his missiles in conjunction with a larger Russian attack, knowing that we could incinerate his island as a side blow to our response to Russia? Even if Castro had wanted to immolate his nation that way, his missiles would not have helped the Russians—might, rather, have been a hindrance, because of the “ragged attack” problem. If missiles were launched simultaneously from Russia and Cuba, the Cuban ones, arriving first, would confirm the warnings of Russian attack. Or, if Cuba’s missiles were launched later, radar warning of the Russian ones’ firing would let us destroy the Cuban rockets in their silos.

Then why were the missiles there? For defensive purposes, just as the Cubans said. We refused to accept this explanation, because President Kennedy had arbitrarily defined ground-to-ground missiles as “offensive,” after saying that offensive weapons would not be tolerated. Yet we called our ground-to-ground missiles on the Soviets’ Turkish border defensive. Deterrence—the threat of overwhelming response if attacked—is a category of defense when we apply it to our own weapons; but we denied the same definition to our opponents. Which meant that we blinded ourselves to the only reason Castro accepted (with some reluctance) the Russian missiles. He wanted to force the Kennedys to stop plotting his overthrow by threatening that if worse came to worst and we were ready to crush him, he would take some of our cities down with him.

Americans watched this drama, as it were, through a glass pane, unable to hear the dialogue …




President Kennedy had two dangerous situations to deal with simultaneously—the missile emplacements and American panic over them. Robert Kennedy … told the president he had to remove the missiles or be impeached. In other words, the president was a captive of his own people’s panicky emotions. Options were denied him by the American people—he could not even think of leaving the missiles in place.

Yet Kennedy had himself stirred up the feelings that limited his freedom. He had called the missiles offensive and exaggerated their range. It is understandable that he would not reveal all the American provocation that explained the presence of the missiles. But why did he have to emphasize the notion that their placement was unprovoked? He told the nation that the Russians had lied to him in promising not to send offensive weapons to Cuba. He said in his address on the crisis: “The greatest danger of all would be to do nothing.” If he was chained to a necessity for acting, he forged the chains himself.''

So saint JFK was actually the villain in the piece--not the hero.
yes, and thats why NK is off the table,and now Iran is front and center (the former has nucs since 2003 - the latter (ya i know "nuclear enery for peace blah blah - i'm not naive, i understand the need for National Security - and so the bomb to prevent Iragnam (lets say in Iran or instance) - they are still 2-4 yrs away from "having the bomb" though - i wish them well in getting it, to prevent anothor idiotic Iraqnam from my dying empire)

the more the merrier, in another century we will have 30 nations with nucs and 30 regional MADs - MADs ain't purdy, but it works - 75 yrs since ww2.

so amen!

I'm fine with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc getting the bomb. - after they get it they will have the weight upon thier shoulders - and understand the responsibility that comes with not ending the world as we know it.

welcome the club Iran/SA/etc.............

gaffo
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Thu May 23, 2019 1:20 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 10:31 pm
Do Americans still think they won the war in Vietnam?
only american fools do. we lost it before we got involved - primarily due to logictics (china is closer to Vietnam than America)

secondarily because we did not insist upon reform - remove corruption - from SV government.

and finally because we did not count a Vietnamese dead as equal to an American dead. viewed Burn's excellent doc on the war last year, rem the part where there was an early mid-60's war in SV, and the American Marines would go out of their way to bring back American dead................and let their Brethren SV dead on the field. that in and of itself showed our (my Nations' character - i know you are not American (of course i'm sure you have similar wars - in far off lands - where your amry shit on the dead of their compatriots - not being brits and all).

that showed our true colors.

sad for the SV that lost that war and had to be interned in "re-education camps" - but to be fair the NV were just and unlike Pol Pot - those in those camps were allowed out and to live as one being alive.

gaffo
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Thu May 23, 2019 1:26 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 10:31 pm
But the Enlightenment was white, conservative males?
was, 2 centuries ago, now it includes all that affirm that philosophy.

which include me - who just was born white and male - not relivent to my support of such ideal. there are millions of black females that today support the same ideal.

gaffo
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Thu May 23, 2019 1:27 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 10:31 pm
Given she lives in New Zealand I think she and any descendents will be doing just fine for a quite a while but don't trust me just look at all the super-rich white males who are buying citizenship there at present.
and oriental.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8128
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu May 23, 2019 2:21 am

gaffo wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 1:27 am
Arising_uk wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 10:31 pm
Given she lives in New Zealand I think she and any descendents will be doing just fine for a quite a while but don't trust me just look at all the super-rich white males who are buying citizenship there at present.
and oriental.
Of course, because money is everything, especially when it's in the hands of a few, and rich people are known for their generosity and altruistic qualities and high regard for the environment. :lol:
AUK is a fuckwit.

gaffo
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by gaffo » Thu May 23, 2019 2:27 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 2:21 am
gaffo wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 1:27 am
Arising_uk wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 10:31 pm
Given she lives in New Zealand I think she and any descendents will be doing just fine for a quite a while but don't trust me just look at all the super-rich white males who are buying citizenship there at present.
and oriental.
Of course, because money is everything, especially when it's in the hands of a few, and rich people are known for their generosity and altruistic qualities and high regard for the environment. :lol:
AUK is a fuckwit.
yes, i love trickdown - i know i can be rich and a 1-percenter if i work as hard as they did! afterall that is the modern American Dream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUH3aAY8P-Q

to clearify, i'm ok with the concept of the old American Dream - not of not being a 1-percenter - but doing better than our parents.

i don't strive for that myself because:

1. i don't have my dad's work ethic - he worked 7 days a week 10 hrs+, lost he wife (my mom) and me and my sister. i'm at peace with this - not blaiming here just stating. he was rich, he died last year, he had no will and so i got his "hat" (literally) - he 3rd wife got all. i think my dad thought he would live forever. well that did not end up so. oh well. ya mad about that. not getting a million or so - each for me and my sis - and instead his hat. ya.

I've ranted, to continue, on point, i'm ok with not be rich and not having the success of my dad. but know that others in general view the idea of their parents making less then them is a give.

2. the "System" is rigged now. standards of living in the 1st world continue to fall, and so the expactation of the next gen having a higher standard of living in these lands is folly (not so in poorer lands though) - Bangladash has a more valid reason to have the "old american dream".

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Kayla » Thu May 23, 2019 3:31 am

Dachshund wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 11:09 pm
Sweden is propped up by Capitalist industry; If it wasn't the "World's First Feminist Government" would be looking a lot like Venezuela right now. It's also the rape capital of Europe, due o a policy Of diversity and inclusivity that the ruling "social democrats" there adopted in the form of opening their borders to Muslim immigration.
dont know much about sweden but a swedish girl i met in montreal told me that the whole muslim rape thing is horseshit
Canada is falling apart, as we speak, due to socialist mass-immigration policies. (just for a start)
i know more about canada - and quite a few canadians, but have no idea what you are talking about here.

Justintruth
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Justintruth » Thu May 23, 2019 11:44 am

Dachshund wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:27 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:08 am


Do you even know what caused the Cuban missile crisis? You are such a dipshit know nothing waste of resources.
Yeah, I do Vegetable,

Nikita Khrushchev, who was a pig - ignorant, Russian peasant and lying, Kommunist Kunt (bit like ewe in a way) said to his buddy, Fidel Castro, in 1962, who was a Kuban, Komminist Kunt, "Fidel, I'm sending you some Soviet nuclear missiles on a ship and when they arrive at Kuba, I want you set set them up so that they're pointed at America and ready to be fired if we give the word to let them go, bro."

The Soviet missiles on Kuba were supposed to be a secret, but the Americans didn't trust the Soviets and they used air surveillance to sus out what was actually going on.

JFK was really pissed off when he saw aerial photo evidence of the Soviet missiles prepped for launch at sites on Kuba because Kuba was only about 90 miles from the US coast (Florida) and if the Soviets launched the Kuban ICBM missiles that Kastro had set up for them, it could mean that lots of major cities in America would be fucked (completely).

So, to cut a long story short, there was a Mexican stand-off at sea in October 1962, afterJFK said to Khrushchev, "We know you've got nukes on Kuba aimed at us, you lying piece of shit, and you'd better get those nukes off Kuba asap, and don't fuck with me, coz if you don't, I'll glassify the whole USSR." Khruschev backed down and removed the Russian ICBMs from Kuba, and that's the end of the storey ,Veggie.



Aroha xx

Dachshund
I am pretty sure the strategic missiles that were to be installed in Cuba never got the nukes mounted on them and never became operational.

HOWEVER,... what I didn't read until recently was that there were tactical nukes in Cuba at the time of the crisis. Further, Khrushchev had pre-authorized their use in case of a US invasion. That means no authorization would have been required by Khrushchev to use them!!!

No intelligence was available in the USA on these nukes. If we had invaded we would have been faced tactical nukes that we did not know were there. Anyone who understands the Art of War will see the significance of these two facts. It's worst case.

Further, the military was recommending invasion and, unaware of what they faced, were predicting a quick victory. Kennedy was so concerned that the military would cause a war without his authorization, that he sent McNamara down to their command center to make sure it didn't happen.

Kennedy basically traded Castro and Cuba and the removal of some obsolete missiles aimed at Russia for an end to the crisis. Great trade as what he gave was largely hidden at the time, whereas what the Russians gave was made public. Genius because Kennedy needed to worry about the press but Khrushchev had his press under his thumb. Those two men therefore found the way out by exploiting the difference in what they needed and found common ground on which they came to a win/win in a situation that everyone thought was lost! The international press was that Kennedy had "stared down" Khrushchev. That was a great outcome for the USA from a propaganda point of view - well worth the trade - and given how much data we had on Russian targets it was great for Russia too. It was good for Castro but not necessarily for the Cuban people.

I am so glad of the life that I have had. The whole thing could very easily have been cut short at that time had the military invasion option been selected. It is a tribute to both Kennedy and Khrushchev that this did not happen.

What is most interesting is that the real standoff seems to have been between Kennedy and his military and Khrushchev and his military. Both men were as concerned about loosing control over their own country's forces. In case there had been a nuke of the US invasion forces it is possible that neither man could have prevented a strategic war being initialed by their own forces.

Now it takes a little imagination to understand what that means. Until I was in the military I thought "Nuking...good way to die...you just vaporize." After studying blast radii, and realizing that there is everything from a sunburn all the way in to those lucky ones that get incinerated, and realizing that the supply of pain killing medication would be completely overwhelmed by the demand...well...I am just so glad they successfully stopped it and I didn't have to walk around with the flesh all burnt up waiting as I died in agony of infection or radiation poisoning without medical attention. Not so bad for me but having to look around at all those other burn victims in the streets would have been disgusting!

The environmental consequences of nuclear war were not even known then. There would have been a lot of suffering all over the world - major starvation.

Until we organize a properly restrained global government with civil institutions to resolve conflict and we make these nukes obsolete we will never be safe. We have got to deal with two threats: the nukes, and the environment. And we need the resources now enslaved to create institutes on human biology so we can fix the real threat - aging and its inevitable consequences. If we fail to do this we may not be so lucky next time.

And "we"? Well that means the population of the earth.

Dachshund
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Dachshund » Thu May 23, 2019 12:23 pm

Justintruth wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:44 am
Dachshund wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:27 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:08 am


Do you even know what caused the Cuban missile crisis? You are such a dipshit know nothing waste of resources.
Yeah, I do Vegetable,

Nikita Khrushchev, who was a pig - ignorant, Russian peasant and lying, Kommunist Kunt (bit like ewe in a way) said to his buddy, Fidel Castro, in 1962, who was a Kuban, Komminist Kunt, "Fidel, I'm sending you some Soviet nuclear missiles on a ship and when they arrive at Kuba, I want you set set them up so that they're pointed at America and ready to be fired if we give the word to let them go, bro."

The Soviet missiles on Kuba were supposed to be a secret, but the Americans didn't trust the Soviets and they used air surveillance to sus out what was actually going on.

JFK was really pissed off when he saw aerial photo evidence of the Soviet missiles prepped for launch at sites on Kuba because Kuba was only about 90 miles from the US coast (Florida) and if the Soviets launched the Kuban ICBM missiles that Kastro had set up for them, it could mean that lots of major cities in America would be fucked (completely).

So, to cut a long story short, there was a Mexican stand-off at sea in October 1962, afterJFK said to Khrushchev, "We know you've got nukes on Kuba aimed at us, you lying piece of shit, and you'd better get those nukes off Kuba asap, and don't fuck with me, coz if you don't, I'll glassify the whole USSR." Khruschev backed down and removed the Russian ICBMs from Kuba, and that's the end of the storey ,Veggie.



Aroha xx

Dachshund
I am pretty sure the strategic missiles that were to be installed in Cuba never got the nukes mounted on them and never became operational.

HOWEVER,... what I didn't read until recently was that there were tactical nukes in Cuba at the time of the crisis. Further, Khrushchev had pre-authorized their use in case of a US invasion. That means no authorization would have been required by Khrushchev to use them!!!

No intelligence was available in the USA on these nukes. If we had invaded we would have been faced tactical nukes that we did not know were there. Anyone who understands the Art of War will see the significance of these two facts. It's worst case.

Further, the military was recommending invasion and, unaware of what they faced, were predicting a quick victory. Kennedy was so concerned that the military would cause a war without his authorization, that he sent McNamara down to their command center to make sure it didn't happen.

Kennedy basically traded Castro and Cuba and the removal of some obsolete missiles aimed at Russia for an end to the crisis. Great trade as what he gave was largely hidden at the time, whereas what the Russians gave was made public. Genius because Kennedy needed to worry about the press but Khrushchev had his press under his thumb. Those two men therefore found the way out by exploiting the difference in what they needed and found common ground on which they came to a win/win in a situation that everyone thought was lost! The international press was that Kennedy had "stared down" Khrushchev. That was a great outcome for the USA from a propaganda point of view - well worth the trade - and given how much data we had on Russian targets it was great for Russia too. It was good for Castro but not necessarily for the Cuban people.

I am so glad of the life that I have had. The whole thing could very easily have been cut short at that time had the military invasion option been selected. It is a tribute to both Kennedy and Khrushchev that this did not happen.

What is most interesting is that the real standoff seems to have been between Kennedy and his military and Khrushchev and his military. Both men were as concerned about loosing control over their own country's forces. In case there had been a nuke of the US invasion forces it is possible that neither man could have prevented a strategic war being initialed by their own forces.

Now it takes a little imagination to understand what that means. Until I was in the military I thought "Nuking...good way to die...you just vaporize." After studying blast radii, and realizing that there is everything from a sunburn all the way in to those lucky ones that get incinerated, and realizing that the supply of pain killing medication would be completely overwhelmed by the demand...well...I am just so glad they successfully stopped it and I didn't have to walk around with the flesh all burnt up waiting as I died in agony of infection or radiation poisoning without medical attention. Not so bad for me but having to look around at all those other burn victims in the streets would have been disgusting!

The environmental consequences of nuclear war were not even known then. There would have been a lot of suffering all over the world - major starvation.

Until we organize a properly restrained global government with civil institutions to resolve conflict and we make these nukes obsolete we will never be safe. We have got to deal with two threats: the nukes, and the environment. And we need the resources now enslaved to create institutes on human biology so we can fix the real threat - aging and its inevitable consequences. If we fail to do this we may not be so lucky next time.

And "we"? Well that means the population of the earth.


Justintrith,

My understanding is that the Soviet ICBMs on CUBA either were operational , or if not at the rime of the crisis very, very close to being fully primed and ready for launch.

Yes,that's right, the tactical Soviet nukes on Cuba were called "LUNAR "missiles. The US didn't know they existed at the time of the CMC.

The Cuban Missile Crisis what a Kenedy-Khrushchev affair, your wrong about the a standoff being between JFK AND HIS MILITARY and KHRUSHCHEV AND HIS MILITARY. There was also a Soviet B - 52 submarine" in the picture, the Americans were unaware of at the time, that almost launched a nuclear torpedo at the height of the crisis, and in addition a US U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Reds, two incidents that were serious Soviet slip-ups and demonstrate that the Russian's ground command was dangerously dislocated from the leadership in the Moscow.

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Post by Arising_uk » Thu May 23, 2019 3:59 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Of course, because money is everything, especially when it's in the hands of a few, and rich people are known for their generosity and altruistic qualities and high regard for the environment. :lol:
No idea what you read into what I said but it was just to point out to the sausage dog that his rich white males who fear near environmental and social collapse have done their analysis and picked NZ as the place to be to hold out the longest.
AUK is a fuckwit.
And you're a bitter colonial troll who would be more suited to Twitter.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests