During the Cuban Crisis... Khrushchev said this

[Stan]

Khrushchev said this: "We and you ought not to pull on the ends of a rope which you have tied the knots of war. Because the more the two of us pull, the tighter the knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom, they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence.” 

[phkrause]

What I remember most is his "We will bury you" speech!

[joeb]

Kruschev also said the following: 

Quote

“We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism.

“We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.”

I am always amazed when men like Kruschev are made to appear as harmless nice guys.  He actually told the truth in this.  We see the results of the USSR's attacks on us every day now. 

And, since I've already shown here that Marxism is not communism but socialism from the words of Marx and Engles themselves Kruschev was wrong in only one respect.  They would attack us with socialism on a daily basis until we became a socialist as they are....  We are already seeing the results of that in our government and politicians, but also in our elections this year as the radical socialist groups work to shut down all political speech they disagree with.  If Cruz or Rubio were the leading Republican candidate they would be doing the same thing to them that they are doing to Trump now.   Socialism is never for free speech.  The only speech they like is that which agrees with their ideology. 

[CoAspen]

Last I checked it was Trump having free speech thrown out.....get the facts straight!!

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote

Last I checked it was Trump having free speech thrown out.....get the facts straight!!

How is that?

 

[CoAspen]

He has protesters removed and claims they are denying his free speech, just one of his ways.

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote

He has protesters removed and claims they are denying his free speech...

But it's true that the protestors are denying his right of free speech. He has the right to organize a meeting and to be able to speak uninterrupted by party-crashers shouting obscenities. That's his right. The protesters also have the right to organize their own meetings where they, too, can expect to speak uninterrupted by foul-mouthed opponents. 

Now, if atheists and satanists crash Sunday and Sabbath services and chant hate speech and bully the members in the church that you happen to attend, they are violating the free speech rights of those who organize and support the church services, including yours.

If there are some who cannot respect the rights of public figures to speak their piece in their own meetings, they should be forcibly removed because they are urinating on the constitutional rights of others. 

Years ago, we actually did have a man and his wife interrupt the Sabbath church service by going up front and loudly reciting a list of grievances against the church members. Needless to say, some members were quite upset, calling out for the couple to stop and leave. 

If protesters want to protest, they should have their own meetings where they can speak about their grievances to the cameras. Too bad some are so important to themselves that they can't respect the rights of others. They're babies, big, crying, howling babies who are mad because they have soiled their diapers and want others to suffer from the foul stench they are creating. Just like the man and woman above who interrupted a church service by flinging poo at others in order to show that they were "victims" of the "evil" congregation.

Trump has a steep learning curve to travel if he actually wants to become president and leader of a country. He still has a right to speak his piece, just like the rest of us, as long as others are not discriminated against as a result because of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, etc. 

[Tom Wetmore]

I have a dilemma.  Stan posted this topic in the World Affairs forum.  Clearly not intended as a political topic...  But as so often happens some single minded folk just cannot help themselves and turn anything and everything into an opportunity for a partisan food fight and derails the topic.  You know who you are.  SO my dilemma is do I ironically stifle what some think is their right to free speech to say anything, anytime and anywhere they please by editing out the political  poo to try to salvage the original topic of the OP?  Or do I just concede that it is irretrievably turned into a political  food fight and move the whole topic over to the Political forum?  

Let me think about that a minute...  I haven't the time to mess with it...  Obviously nobody quite got it to begin with, Stan... Sorry.

I apologize to Stan because I am going to move it, but some of you also owe him an apology for messing up his topic.

[joeb]

The point, Tom, although I know you'll deny it, is that Kruschev lamenting war is a very hypocritical position for him to take.  He is the one that both instigated and escalated the Cuban missle crisis.  Then he uses Alinsky's rules for radicals, which socialists have used since before Alinsky came along, to blame everyone else while denying his own responsibility for the situation.   Thus the pointing out of his other stated positions on destroying the US....   The Soviet Union was a master at using propoganda and blaming everyone else for what they themselves were responsible for.  It's like Stalin denying he was starving millions of people to death while he was doing it and then blaming the stories on western propoganda.  No difference.  Just the same old story.

[Tom Wetmore]

But that wasn't your  response above.  You just couldn't hold to the topic of the quote and actually respond to it.  You had to pivot away from it  to  launch your own rant on current politics on quite a different point.  

[joeb]

20 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

But that wasn't your  response above.  You just couldn't hold to the topic of the quote and actually respond to it.  You had to pivot away from it  to  launch your own rant on current politics on quite a different point.  

You must have a problem following a line of thought.  My comment on current politics was to show that what Kruschev said the socialists would do has come true.  They have fed socialism a bit at a time to the public and politicians until it has become mainstream.  It has been done so subtly that most people don't really understand what they are supporting.  As a result we are well on our way to becoming the USSR.

[Tom Wetmore]

You really don't get it.  Or else you are just stubbornly and knowingly determined to insert your political views where they are not wanted, derailing a non political conversation, ruining things for others.  It just seems to me you really don't care that you do.

How many times and in how many ways do we have to tell you to keep political stuff in the political forum and keep politics out of everything else?

[Aliensanctuary]

When most people talk, they generally don't restrict themselves to specific topics. One thought leads to another until the original subject has been left far behind. That's exactly what happens in these forums, a meandering, free-flow of ideas. Trying to police the flow of ideas is likely futile.

[Tom Wetmore]

I am sensing you are also missing the point of this continued diversion from the original topic and its derailment.  The point of having separate special topic forums and an oft repeated directive to restrict that topic to that forum is to avoid that very thing of which you speak.  The reason for it when it comes to politics is that the topic of politics, US politics in particular is that it is inherently polarizing,  divisive and inflammatory.  Seldom do those discussions go like a normal pleasant conversation.  The most often just turn ugly.  By the clear expression of many here, they would much prefer to not be exposed to such a rancorous topic of interest to only a few. 

What some here seem unable to do is contain their myopic political zeal to the one place where there can let loose and be the political ugliness they so much seem to relish.  They seem to care less that others really do not like to have their topics turned it o a political food fight, much less be exposed to any of it.

 

[joeb]

3 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I am sensing you are also missing the point of this continued diversion from the original topic and its derailment.  The point of having separate special topic forums and an oft repeated directive to restrict that topic to that forum is to avoid that very thing of which you speak.  The reason for it when it comes to politics is that the topic of politics, US politics in particular is that it is inherently polarizing,  divisive and inflammatory.  Seldom do those discussions go like a normal pleasant conversation.  The most often just turn ugly.  By the clear expression of many here, they would much prefer to not be exposed to such a rancorous topic of interest to only a few. 

What some here seem unable to do is contain their myopic political zeal to the one place where there can let loose and be the political ugliness they so much seem to relish.  They seem to care less that others really do not like to have their topics turned it o a political food fight, much less be exposed to any of it.

 

LOL.  Tom, you're a wonder.  This topic is in the political forum.  I found it here originally and there is nothing  in World Affairs pointing to this topic being moved from there to here as always happens when a thread is moved from one forum to another.   So, you're complaining about political discussion now in the political forum....  Your biggest complaint is that I find socialism a serious threat to the country I love and thus confront the ideology whenever I see it. 

I also fail to see how pointing out that Kruschev was using sophistry in poltical speeches is outside the bounds of political discussion.  It was one of the favorite weapons of the USSR.  How is that off topic?  Do you deny the USSR often used deceit as a political weapon? 

The context of anything ever said is relevant to WHAT is said.  I don't see how you find context for any quote unacceptable. 

[Tom Wetmore]

Oh please!   Just pay attention and read before you post...

Read my first post in this thread posted on the 23rd, a week after your response on the 16th to Stan's OP on Feb 7.  What did I say?  You obviously didn't find it here where I moved it.  You followed it here rather quickly without a marker being left from where it came from.  (I seldom leave such a marker.  It is optional to put the marker.

Quote

Your biggest complaint is that I find socialism a serious threat to the country I love and thus confront the ideology whenever I see it. 

  Really?!?! Where do you find that anywhere in anything I have said in this thread?  I haven't even addressed the substance of what Stan originally posted or the substance of any of the political comments that got it moved here.  I am not engaging in this discussion but acting to moderate/administer the forums. My comments have only been about the dilemma of having to move it and why, for those who seem unable to get the point of that.  My only complaint here is that you can't seem to keep your political commentary where it belongs.  And you just keep arguing as if I really care about the topic as it has now gone.  It is in the politics forum, because I moved it here so the politics it had already turned to can continue unabated.  I have no dog in this fight.  And for the record, I really could care less about the political substance of where it has now gone.  

However I would have been interested in a thoughtful reaction and discussion about the substance of what Khrushchev said in the quote in the OP in context of the historical times in which it was said.  Like maybe there is some serious truth to it, notwithstanding who said it.  Truth having nothing to do with any particular ideology, really.  Like refusing to back down and admit to, or apologize for a mistake, preferring an ever tightening knot of rhetoric of conflict...  

Carry on...

[Aliensanctuary]

Seems like when wars are over and done, the victors stand on piles of rubble and bones. Too bad mutual annihilation is the goal of misguided men and women poisoned by their murderous religion. Thinking that they will enter paradise as a reward for blowing up unsuspecting people going about their daily lives, more likely, they will awaken in the fiery torments of hell.

Wars can only bring death and sorrow. It's the demons in men that drive them crazy. A one-world government might be able to stop nations warring against nations, but that doesn't end well, either, at least if controlled by men.

The Kingdom of God offers the only solution to war: the destruction of evil and the selfishness that drives men mad.

[joeb]

Tom,

I don't have the time to post my analysis of the Cuban missle crisis today as I am having to type by the hunt-and-peck method due to my hands shaking so badly today, but I have a question for you as you have repeatedly called me myopic because I completely reject socialistic ideas.  How many books have you read in the last 18 months, and how many of them were writtten by libertarians and conservatives?  How many books have you read that criticise socialism, and are critcal of politicans of your political persuasion?  You know, pick them apart, show the weaknesses and problems of both the ideology and the politicians?

When I can type more efficiently I'll give you partial list of authors I've read over the same time and a close approximation of the total number of books I've read.   We'll see who is myopic by that metric.

[joeb]

Nice post, AlienS.  I disagree with a lot of your theology, but I do find that you are even-handed and thoughtful in your politics.  You actually think rather than react, and that is rare.  By that I'm not criticising your theological analysis ability but praising your political analysis because you're looking at both sides evenhandedly. 

[joeb]

On 3/29/2016 at 3:58 PM, joeb said:

Tom,

When I can type more efficiently I'll give you partial list of authors I've read over the same time and a close approximation of the total number of books I've read.   We'll see who is myopic by that metric.

OK, Tom.  Here is a list of socialist authors I've read during the last 18 months.

oscar wilde
hg wells
william walling
alfred wallace
leon trotsky
john spargo
bernard shaw
margret sanger
bertrand russel
john rae
samuel orth
karl marx
vladimir lenin
edmund kelly
friedrich engels
gabriel deville

Your first criticism of the list will most likely be that none of these are "current" authors.  To that my reply is, So?  Have the principles of socialism changed?  The answer to that is a resounding no.  BTW, I've read 25 books by the above authors.

I have also read at least 25 books by libertarian authors: Hayek, von Mises, Kahn, Raico, Rand, Read, Riggenbach, Rothbard, Shaffer, and diLorenzo.  On top of that I've read a few conservative authors with Sowell and Williams at the top of hat list if I don't count former presidents and the like.  Among the approximately 800 total books I've read during this time frame are ones by Churchill, the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson Davis, and Frederick Douglass, James Fenimore Cooper, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Alexandre Dumas, de Toqueville, Dickens, Disraeli, Hume, London, Luther, Moody, Paine, T. Roosevelt, Sherman, Stowe, and too many more to list.  Most are by out of print authors because reading what was written for public consumption in the late 1890s to early 1900s gives a good idea of what the culture of the US was a hundred years ago, and because I can get them for free from the Gutenberg Project as there is no way I can afford to buy books. 

So, where is your list, Tom? 

Don't believe I have read 800+ books in the last 18 months?  I have an even 1000 ebooks on my laptop and it is hard to find one I haven't read.  Plus, I've averaged reading 6-8 books a month that I've checked out of the local library....  The number of books I've read could easily be 900+ but I'll be conservative and say  800+.  

Are you still going to insist I'm "myopic", Tom?

[joeb]

Now, about the Cuban Missle crisis. 

How did it start and why?  Because Kruschev made a major error in political judgment.  He didn't think Kennedy, Congress, or the American public had the political will to stand up to him.  He was losing the political side of the cold war and was looking for a way to embarrass the US and Kennedy while build his own prestige world wide and seizing a major tactical military advantage.  So, he lit on the idea of nuclear weapons in Cuba because if he could get them in there he could basically blackmail the US into doing anything he wanted by threatening us with nuclear destruction as he could, quite literally, wipe out the US government before we knew what was happening. 

So, when Kennedy stood up to him and refused to back down he had to find some other way of putting political pressure on Kennedy and making himself look like the victim.  So, what does he do?  He comes up with the speech in which he lectures Kennedy on the evils of war and how innocent people die in war if Kennedy doesn't back off.  He hopes, and his hopes are still being fulfilled, that people will look at his speech and think he's very much against war and is very concerned about innocent people dying in a war.  My answer to that is, If he was so concerned about the evils of war what is he doing pushing the world to the very brink of nuclear warfare?  That question alone shows how hypocritical his lamenting the evils of war was and how little he really cared about innocent civilians, both in the US and his own country,  and world wide. 

That anyone could look at his speech 50 years after the event and think his speech was an honest representation of who he was and what he really thought is something that just makes my head spin.  I didn't think such naivete existed in any thinking adult.  I mean, this is so obvious that I didn't think anyone could look at his speech and seriously think it was for real. 

As to the speech itself, is it so profound that no one really understands that bad things happen in war?  I can't think of anyone I've ever known, or known of, who ever thought war is a good thing.  Nobody does.  But, is war sometimes a necessary evil?  Yes, because even worse things than war could come about if evil was left to advance unopposed.  Can you  imagine what our world would be like today if the Allies hadn't opposed the Nazis?  The horror that would be our world and the suffering and dying that would have come from that would have been far worse than the war itself.

[LifeHiscost]

   Can you  imagine what our world would be like today if the Allies hadn't opposed the Nazis?  The horror that would be our world and the suffering and dying that would have come from that would have been far worse than the war itself.

Remember war started in Heaven. I heard someone say that no weapon of war has ever been devised that hasn't eventually been used. If God hadn't wanted some, who if given time, would eventually give their lives to Him, He would have ended this charade down here long before this.

⁶ and said: “O Lord God of our fathers, are You not God in heaven, and do You not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations, and in Your hand is there not power and might, so that no one is able to withstand You? ......2 Chronicles 20

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

[joeb]

On 3/31/2016 at 1:02 PM, LifeHiscost said:

 

 

Remember war started in Heaven. I heard someone say that no weapon of war has ever been devised that hasn't eventually been used. If God hadn't wanted some, who if given time, would eventually give their lives to Him, He would have ended this charade down here long before this.

⁶ and said: “O Lord God of our fathers, are You not God in heaven, and do You not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations, and in Your hand is there not power and might, so that no one is able to withstand You? ......2 Chronicles 20

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

I agree with your post, but there is more to it than just that.  God is allowing sin to progress to its logical conclusion so that there can never be anyone in the universe who will ever think sin was a good idea.  He wants us, and the unfallen worlds, very impressed as to just how evil and destructive sin is.  To do anything less is to leave a slight, although even now it's probably miniscule, possibility that sin might rise again.  Sin must be over and done with for eternity and God is going to leave no stone unturned in making sure that happens.   

[LifeHiscost]

6 hours ago, joeb said:

I agree with your post, but there is more to it than just that.  God is allowing sin to progress to its logical conclusion so that there can never be anyone in the universe who will ever think sin was a good idea.  He wants us, and the unfallen worlds, very impressed as to just how evil and destructive sin is.  To do anything less is to leave a slight, although even now it's probably miniscule, possibility that sin might rise again.  Sin must be over and done with for eternity and God is going to leave no stone unturned in making sure that happens.   

I agree with you heartily.

…47Save us, O LORD our God, And gather us from among the nations, To give thanks to Your holy name And glory in Your praise. 48Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, From everlasting even to everlasting. And let all the people say, "Amen." Praise the LORD!.......Psalms 106

How welcome to those who see their misery and danger by sin! And the promise they made in the day of trouble must be made good. Let us be thankful for God's ordinances, and gladly attend them. Let us look forward with cheerful hope to a world where the wicked never can enter, and sin and temptation will no more be known....Matthew Henrys' Concise Commentary

…14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"...Romans 10

God is Love!~Jesus saves!