Hoover planned mass jailings in the 1950's

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2007-12-25 02:42pm

This is Hoover we're talking about, folks. He probably wanted to lock up a bunch of people so he could steal their lipstick and heels.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2007-12-25 03:18pm

Stas Bush wrote:Like Tito?

The exception that proved the rule? Are you going to put forth Austria as well in that long list?

Stas Bush wrote:Which never used it

Great! A-Bombs to everyone! The Fact that the US had the ability to wipe Russia off the map well into the 1960'ies might have had something to do with it...

Stas Bush wrote:Perhaps some people just don't understand that unilateral atomic bomb use and one-country delivery capability is bad

I pick unilateralism over MAD with bloodthirsty savages any day.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-25 05:50pm

Elfdart wrote:This is Hoover we're talking about, folks. He probably wanted to lock up a bunch of people so he could steal their lipstick and heels.

I was 100% positive that I'd see a crossdressing joke on the first page. I'm disappointed in you sir!

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-12-25 06:13pm

CJvR wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:Perhaps some people just don't understand that unilateral atomic bomb use and one-country delivery capability is bad
I pick unilateralism over MAD with bloodthirsty savages any day.

Looks to me like you're falling for your own country's propaganda. The Soviets were not bloodthirsty savages. They were a represive regime, no doubt about that, but at no point in time were the Soviets eager for war against the United States or Europe. The USSR was a nation that viewed war as a last resort, Russia had seen too much war, too much death and destruction, in the first half of the 20th Century. If anything the USA has been more into warmongering than their Eurasian rivals.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-12-25 06:20pm

American jingoists make the most amusing historical commentators.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-12-25 06:36pm

CJvR wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:Perhaps some people just don't understand that unilateral atomic bomb use and one-country delivery capability is bad
I pick unilateralism over MAD with bloodthirsty savages any day.

Are you being sarcastic? "Bloodthirsty savages"?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-12-25 08:13pm

Surlethe wrote:
CJvR wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:Perhaps some people just don't understand that unilateral atomic bomb use and one-country delivery capability is bad
I pick unilateralism over MAD with bloodthirsty savages any day.
Are you being sarcastic? "Bloodthirsty savages"?

I somehow doubt it. He's living up to his avatar.

And kudos again to Gospodin Stas for explaining in simple terms just why the Russians didn't attack America in the Cold War.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2007-12-25 08:50pm

Surlethe wrote:Are you being sarcastic? "Bloodthirsty savages"?

Slightly, Stalin & co was a bit to well organized and methodical to be savages in traditional sence.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-12-25 08:54pm

CJvR wrote:
Surlethe wrote:Are you being sarcastic? "Bloodthirsty savages"?
Slightly, Stalin & co was a bit to well organized and methodical to be savages in traditional sence.

Backpeddle harder! Face it, even if Stalin was a dick to his people you've failed to substantiate its relationships to your smartass dumbshit rhetoric.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-12-25 10:15pm

Stark wrote:American jingoists make the most amusing historical commentators.

If you're referring to CJvR, I don't believe he's an American.
IIRC, he's Danish.

And kudos again to Gospodin Stas for explaining in simple terms just why the Russians didn't attack America in the Cold War.

In simple terms, the Sovs didn't have the capability to credibly do so until the mid to late 50's and by then a Soviet attack on the US by then would have been national suicide given the force disparity.
Stalin was a paranoiac who murdered on a Hitlerian scale, but he wasn't delusional like Hitler and knew very well what'd happen if he started a war when the west had overwhelming nuclear superiority.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-12-25 10:18pm

Glocksman wrote:If you're referring to CJvR, I don't believe he's an American.
IIRC, he's Danish.

Don't have to be American to be an American jingoist. Or... so I now declare.

In simple terms, the Sovs didn't have the capability to credibly do so until the mid to late 50's and by then a Soviet attack on the US by then would have been national suicide given the force disparity.
Stalin was a paranoiac who murdered on a Hitlerian scale, but he wasn't delusional like Hitler and knew very well what'd happen if he started a war when the west had overwhelming nuclear superiority.

This is no secret. People are simply responding to the cartoon version of history. Frankly, that Americans think Russians should play nice after 50 years of being threatened with total annihilation has always amused me. What are they afraid of, indeed.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-12-25 10:26pm

CJvR wrote:I pick unilateralism over MAD with bloodthirsty savages any day.

Russians are "bloodthirsty savages"?

Say hello to Herr Goebbels for me, dickhead. I'm sure he'd agree with your sincere statement.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-12-25 10:34pm

Stas Bush wrote:
CJvR wrote:I pick unilateralism over MAD with bloodthirsty savages any day.
Russians are "bloodthirsty savages"? Say hello to Herr Goebbels for me, dickhead. I'm sure he'd agree with your sincere statement.

I thought most Russians preferred Vodka to blood?

Seriously though, when referring to Stalin the term isn't very far off the mark given his past history of purges, arrests, and deaths resulting from his direct orders.
If he's referring to Russians in general (wasn't Stalin a Georgian?), then it's not remotely applicable.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-12-25 11:32pm

"Stalin" isn't plural. Besides, Stalin died shortly after the USSR aquired atomic weapons, and the 60-80s USSR wasn't even remotely as repressive as Stalin's times. So I guess "mutually assured destruction" with "savages" referred to the Russians in the USSR in the 60-80s, which is frankly absolutely unacceptable racism. The 60-80s Soviet Union was better than most of the world countries at the time to live in, minus the First World.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2007-12-26 05:59am

Stas Bush wrote:Russians are "bloodthirsty savages"?

The Reds certainly was, and they produced a casualty list to prove it, and they were the ones in charge.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2007-12-26 06:05am

CJvR wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:Russians are "bloodthirsty savages"?
The Reds certainly was, and they produced a casualty list to prove it, and they were the ones in charge.

Precisely who are these "Reds".

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2007-12-26 06:56am

Stas Bush wrote:Stalin died shortly after the USSR aquired atomic weapons...

... and there was much rejoycement.

Stas Bush wrote:and the 60-80s USSR wasn't even remotely as repressive as Stalin's times.

So what? It wasn't in the 60-80 that confused morons handed over nuklear secrets, it was during the Stalin era. I would say that handing over secrets of nukes to that regime (which you claim was a good thing) was probably about as stupid as it is humanly possible to get.

Stas Bush wrote:So I guess "mutually assured destruction" with "savages" referred to the Russians in the USSR in the 60-80s, which is frankly absolutely unacceptable racism.

Ah racism, the standard PC allegation when defending a fundamentaly bad idea.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-12-26 07:12am

CJvR wrote:Ah racism, the standard PC allegation when defending a fundamentaly bad idea.

Except you've done nothing to demonstrate that MAD with Soviet Russia was a fundamentally bad idea. Oh, it certainly might have been, but I would never gather that from your worthless posts in this thread so far.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-12-26 07:47am

Adrian Laguna wrote:The Constitution does not give the President the right suspend Habeas Corpus under any circumstances. That power is given to Congress, and limited to cases of rebellion and invasion. Did Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War on his own authority, or did he have Congress do it? If it's the former, he overstepped his bounds and acted unconstutionally, if the latter, then it was quite justified.

The Constitution does not specify who may or may not suspend Habeas. It is listed in the legislative powers section yet at the same time anyone could point out the same seciton also deals with the powers of the states and general limitations on the powers of the government so there is no clear indication of whom the suspension falls to. Congress had held up to that point that it was their duty alone but Lincoln took it as an executive duty and nobody successfully challenge it which would make the case that it is constitutionally permissible under such circumstances for the President to so suspend Habeas.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-12-26 08:44am

CJvR wrote:It wasn't in the 60-80 that confused morons handed over nuklear secrets, it was during the Stalin era

The USSR never achieved nuclear parity during the Stalin era; neither did it do so until late-60s. And don't even try to imply you meant something else - there never was any "mutually assured destruction" in the 40s or 50s and you bloody know it.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-12-26 08:57am

Oh, and please explain to me how the Soviet spies who passed atomic bomb materials would have been caught by Hoover's rounding-up of 12,000 "communists" - neither of them were communist, and Fuchs and Hall were identified as Soviet spies in the early 1950s, the first one getting a prison sentence - by that time the USSR has already aquired it's own atomic weapon (and it would do so even without them, maybe in a little more time).

So atomic bomb espionage is irrelevant to Hoover's actions. Try something else.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-12-26 03:57pm

CJvR wrote:Ah racism, the standard PC allegation when defending a fundamentaly bad idea.

"Waaah! Don't make me substantiate my claims! Waaahhh!" Don't malign an enormous ethnic group as "bloodthirsty savages" and then don't substantiate it. If you can't, retract it. You're lucky your ass is not on the cutting block for being a racist and for being a dishonest shit about it, when we can all read what you said.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-26 04:11pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
CJvR wrote:Ah racism, the standard PC allegation when defending a fundamentaly bad idea.
"Waaah! Don't make me substantiate my claims! Waaahhh!" Don't malign an enormous ethnic group as "bloodthirsty savages" and then don't substantiate it. If you can't, retract it. You're lucky your ass is not on the cutting block for being a racist and for being a dishonest shit about it, when we can all read what you said.

Must be a Christmas miracle.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-12-26 04:22pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
CJvR wrote:Ah racism, the standard PC allegation when defending a fundamentaly bad idea.
"Waaah! Don't make me substantiate my claims! Waaahhh!" Don't malign an enormous ethnic group as "bloodthirsty savages" and then don't substantiate it. If you can't, retract it. You're lucky your ass is not on the cutting block for being a racist and for being a dishonest shit about it, when we can all read what you said.

Maybe he should be, IP. Any takers?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-12-26 05:28pm

Stas Bush wrote:Oh, and please explain to me how the Soviet spies who passed atomic bomb materials would have been caught by Hoover's rounding-up of 12,000 "communists" - neither of them were communist, and Fuchs and Hall were identified as Soviet spies in the early 1950s, the first one getting a prison sentence - by that time the USSR has already aquired it's own atomic weapon (and it would do so even without them, maybe in a little more time).

So atomic bomb espionage is irrelevant to Hoover's actions. Try something else.

Hoover's horseshit roundup would have indeed been useless WRT the atomic espionage that took place over 5 years earlier.

But it's not irrelevant because the exposure of the espionage could have led to hotter heads (Thank God a GWB type wasn't President at the time

) to approve just what Hoover wanted to do in order to avoid a repeat performance.