Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:28 pm
And the right doesn't? How about Genghis Khan?ravingdave wrote:If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
And the right doesn't? How about Genghis Khan?ravingdave wrote:If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.
Dave, I think that is a great quote. He wasn't casting equal blame; The actions of Russia speak for itself. The quote even has a very understated comedic nuance.ravingdave wrote: Your statement reminds me of what obama said about the Russian invasion of Georgia. " Both sides need to excersize equal restraint. "
David
Genghis Khan is right wing ? Hmmm... there might be a basis to putting Genghis into the right wing, though he predates the right wing\left wing concept. Of course the people he killed were his enemy's, and not his own population the way leftests usually do it.alexjrgreen wrote:And the right doesn't? How about Genghis Khan?ravingdave wrote:If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.
Between the Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Cuban and German National Socialist parties, in the 20th century, are responsible for over 100 million deaths, far more than lived on Earth when Khan was alive.alexjrgreen wrote:And the right doesn't? How about Genghis Khan?ravingdave wrote:If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.
And the guys dressed in Polish uniforms in 1939 who attacked Germany should have restrained themselves too.Helius wrote:Dave, I think that is a great quote. He wasn't casting equal blame; The actions of Russia speak for itself. The quote even has a very understated comedic nuance.ravingdave wrote: Your statement reminds me of what obama said about the Russian invasion of Georgia. " Both sides need to excersize equal restraint. "
David
I voted for the other guy, but, I'm becoming ever more impressed with this dude.
That is just the end - you have to read the whole thing to get the timeline and the historical background.Russian rules of engagement, so to speak, go down harder than communism. And the Soviet era habits of disinformation are alive and well.
“You also have to remember the propaganda campaign that came out,” he said. “Human Rights Watch is accusing the Russian authorities of being indirectly responsible for the massive ethnic cleansing of Georgians that happened in South Ossetia. The Ossetians are claiming that the Georgians killed 2,000 people in Tskhinvali, but when Human Rights Watch got in there a few days ago and talked to the hospital director, he had received 44 bodies. There was nobody left in that town. Plus it's the oldest law of warfare: have your guns in populated areas, and when the enemy responds, show the world your dead women and children.
“Right,” I said. “That goes on a lot where I usually work, in the Middle East.”
“Yes,” he said. “That's exactly what the Russians were doing.”
Helius wrote:Dave, I think that is a great quote. He wasn't casting equal blame; The actions of Russia speak for itself. The quote even has a very understated comedic nuance.ravingdave wrote: Your statement reminds me of what obama said about the Russian invasion of Georgia. " Both sides need to excersize equal restraint. "
David
Helius wrote: I voted for the other guy, but, I'm becoming ever more impressed with this dude.
Well yes, thats how the bleeding hearts are used to dealing with bullies. When a kidnapper shoots a hostage, the first thing he says to the authorities or the person they are trying to get ransom from is, "See what you made me do?" As if it isnt the criminals fault.ravingdave wrote:
George Will's point is that it is unreasonable to expect a country which has been invaded to show restraint. An analogy would be telling a woman who is being forcibly penetrated to quit hitting the attacker. The correct response is that the "Attacker should pull out!" The whole statement smacks of Rodney King's famous "Can't we all just get along ? " And demonstrates an incredible naivety.
Estimates of world population through history can be found here http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history ... growth.htm. The population of China before Genghis Khan is estimated at 120 million (for example here http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=37 and his campaign halved the population to 60 million.IntLibber wrote:Between the Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Cuban and German National Socialist parties, in the 20th century, are responsible for over 100 million deaths, far more than lived on Earth when Khan was alive.
The Mongols weren't part of the Chinese empire. Genghis Khan created the Mongol Empire first and then expanded it into China.IntLibber wrote:Besides, what makes you think Ghengis Khan was right-wing? He was a peasant revolting against Chinese Imperialism. He is obviously the Che Guevera of his century.
alexjrgreen wrote:
Estimates of world population through history can be found here http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history ... growth.htm. The population of China before Genghis Khan is estimated at 120 million (for example here http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=37 and his campaign halved the population to 60 million..
Yes, I am in a minority, but it's not because the broader population understands better than I do, it is for the converse reason. The Nazi's have been labeled "Right Wing" for decades, though their policies are completely leftist.alexjrgreen wrote: The terms "left wing" and "right wing" have evolved since their first use in France in 1789, and there is a strong tendency for people to have personal definitions. In considering the Nazis to be left wing you are definitely in a minority. The most common meaning of "right wing" in current use describes political groups who stress the importance of nationalism, tradition and religion..
You leave out the most important characteristics of "Right Wing."alexjrgreen wrote:The Mongols weren't part of the Chinese empire. Genghis Khan created the Mongol Empire first and then expanded it into China.IntLibber wrote:Besides, what makes you think Ghengis Khan was right-wing? He was a peasant revolting against Chinese Imperialism. He is obviously the Che Guevera of his century.
He gave strong importance to Mongol nationalism and Mongol tradition, practised his own religion and respected other people's. By the definition above, that makes him right wing.
Check here http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Mongolia/section4b.shtml for modern Mongolian perceptions of Genghis Khan and see what you think...ravingdave wrote:You leave out the most important characteristics of "Right Wing."alexjrgreen wrote:He gave strong importance to Mongol nationalism and Mongol tradition, practised his own religion and respected other people's. By the definition above, that makes him right wing.
Freedom and Free markets. Inalienable rights of man. Rule of Law. Enterprise and exceptionalism. The concept of Private ownership.
And others not enumerated.
Not insulting at all. Let me help you understand my point of view: I find talk of "Right" Vs the "Left" to be far too similiar to talk of Protestants Vs Catholics. Yes, there are significant differences between the two, despite being cut from the same bread. Being an atheist, however, I see both as equally stupid. And honestly, you're pretty far off if you think that someone from the "Left" can't find as many stats and data to support their side as you can.I am not trying to be insulting, but do you know the difference ?
Your statement reminds me of what obama said about the Russian invasion of Georgia. " Both sides need to excersize equal restraint. "
George Will pointed out that one side is the INVADER, and the other side is being INVADED. The two are not morally equivilant.
How can the two sides be equal when 80%-90% of Journalists vote Democrat ? It's like asking NAZI's to report on Israel. (That's closer to the truth than most people would admit. )
If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.
FYI, I've spent some time in Mongolia, both in UB and in the countryside. I think it's poor journalism and investigation to say the Khan was responsible for political culture in Mongolia.Check here http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Mongolia/section4b.shtml for modern Mongolian perceptions of Genghis Khan and see what you think...
I imagine you're referring to "The Road to Serfdom".MSimon wrote:The Nazis were right wing only in comparison to the Communists.
Reread your Hayek.
Not wholly responsible, but he set the tone. As did Alexander the Great, further South, one and a half millennia before.joedead wrote:FYI, I've spent some time in Mongolia, both in UB and in the countryside. I think it's poor journalism and investigation to say the Khan was responsible for political culture in Mongolia.Check here http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Mongolia/section4b.shtml for modern Mongolian perceptions of Genghis Khan and see what you think...
I don't disagree. However, it is worth a read because Hayek was close to the events and gives a lot of detail that is missing from current assessments."that the volume is labored, is over-written and that he can say all that he has to say in about half the space"