Free Republic

Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism,

He "wasn't a socialist", he just acted like one. Got it.

The problem is that all totalitarian oligarchies use these methods to some degree. Totalitarinism and statism obviously go together, when a government has a war to prepare for then collectivism will surely follow. This allows the government to spend more on the military. Just because NAZI Germany used these methods too doesn't mean that their underlying politics was the same as the USSR's or China's.

Agreed! Whereas, similarly, the Bolsheviks in USSR used their own (also perverted) form of socialism, one that only benefitted... well... them, really.

That's precisely the point, Socialism is supposed to benefit the whole population, not just one group.

Is that the same thing as the utopian imaginary socialism of the other guy arguing with me?

No, actually I am a libertarian Republican! I don't like the way Socialism relies entirely on the government, its fundamentally flawed.

If a guy says he is socialist, advocates socialist things, has socialist supporters, and rises to power, we're allowed to call him a socialist...

Hitler also had powerful capitalist supporters like Henry Ford and he was supported by other large corporations. If he were really a Socialist would these people have backed him? They certainly didn't back the USSR.

Right - you're admitting my above point that your entire argument rests on defining "socialist" so narrowly that it will never actually be found in the real world.

The brand of Socialism I am describing was that which was sought in Britain since the end of WW II. George Orwell was its main advocate. He also wanted it to go hand in hand with a democratic political system.

Whatever kind of "ist" Hitler was, it not much different an "ism" than whatever kind of "ism" you will allow us to say that USSR, China, and Cuba is or was.

Yes, the thing they had in common was totalitarianism, not Socialism. Hitler certainly didn't have leftism in common with the others, as many Republicans want to believe.

I don't believe that using Stalin as an example of a good Socialist is very accurate or fair. The man was a racist psychopath. He was transporting the USSR's Jews to the Gulags when he died. Lenin and Trotsky didn't have his pathological hatred for Jews, or for the other ethnic groups he persecuted.

Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism, in order to advance his nationalistic schemes. Hitler's ambition was for the Aryan race to become all powerful and for other races, like the Jews, Slavs etc to be enslaved. That's why the NAZI party described itself as 'National Socialist'. It used a perverted form of Socialism, one that only benefited the Aryan Germans (the untermenschen were just the slave labour and fertiliser), for the benefit of German nationalism. Don't confuse the NAZI party's slippery use of the term Socialism, with real Socialism.

To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist, unfortunately, it also requires collectivism and statism. Hitler accepted the last two, but rejected the first two, in favour of racism and nationalism. The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society.

I would like to know why the US government continues to demonise cannabis and anabolic steroids?

I mean the "war on drugs" in America has only caused them to have one of the largest prison populations in the world and one of the highest murder rates.

Surely rationalizing their drug policies, so that otherwise law abiding people using the less dangerous drugs don't have to consort with gangsters is an improvement.

In the USA, aren't anabolic steroids in the same legal category as heroin and cocaine, even though they are not addictive or anything like as toxic?

...suggestions by unnamed officials that Simon Veness, 35, a British banker, was blown up on Thursday as part of what the Saudis insist is an alcohol turf war.

Oh, I suppose the fact that the Saudis always accuse foreigners for the murders of other foreigners, no matter how ridiculous their motive, is just a coincidence.

Here is a quote regarding aftercare for successful Smallpox vaccination from: 'Jawetz, Melnick & Adelberg's Medical Microbiology' 20th Edition. Editors: G. F. Brooks, J. S. Butel and L. N. Ornston. Published in 1995.

'1. Primary take - In the fully susceptible person, a papule surrounded by hyperemia appears on the third or fourth day. The papule increases in size until vesiculation appears (on the fifth or sixth day). The vesicle reaches its maximum size by the ninth day and then becomes pustular, usually with some tenderness of the axillary nodes. Dessication follows and is complete in about 2 weeks, leaving a depressed pink scar that ultimately turns white. The reading of the result is usually done on the seventh day. If this reaction is not observed, vaccination chould be repeated.

2. Revaccination - A successful revaccination shows in 6-8 days a vesicular or pustular lesion or an area of palpable induration surrounding a central lesion, which may be a scab or an ulcer. Only this reaction indicates with certainty that viral multiplication has taken place. Equivocal reactions may represent immunity but may also represent merely allergic reactions to a vaccine that has become inactivated. When an equivocal reaction occurs, the revaccination should be repeated using a new lot of vaccine known to give "takes" in other persons.'

This quote was from an American medical textbook, so it should be referring to reactions commonly seen in American vaccinees using American Smallpox vaccine.

Best regards

David

Here's something to consider about vaccinating the whole population of the USA against Smallpox. The population was determined in 2001 to be 284,796,887. Because Smallpox vaccination only guarantees immunity for five years and ten at the most, then the vast majority of the population would have to be vaccinated.

There is a definite measurable risk from Smallpox vaccination. The risk of death is currently 1 per million for primary vaccinees and 0.1 per million for re-vaccinees. For children under 1 year of age the risk of death is 5 per million.

Among primary vaccinees, the combined incidence of postvaccinal encephalitis and vaccinia necrosum is 3.8 per million in persons of all ages. In re-vaccinees these two complications occur at a rate of 0.7 per million. Severe complications of vaccination occur in people who are immunodeficient, immunosuppressed, haematological, suffering other malignancies or pregnant. Source of my information: 'Jawetz, Melnick & Adelberg's Medical Microbiology' 20th Edition. Editors: G. F. Brooks, J. S. Butel and L. N. Ornston. Published in 1995.

Therefore, I estimate around 750 serious illnesses (some will cause permanent disabilities or brain damage) and about 170 deaths due to Smallpox vaccination of the applicable portion of the entire population. Now, obviously, that is a much lower number of deaths than might occur if Smallpox was actually used in an attack. However, we would look like idiots if we vaccinated everyone and lost that number of people, and then all the worries about Smallpox being possessed by al-Qaeda turned out to be media hype.

You are right that impressive quarantine methods would be needed to control the spread of a smallpox epidemic after an attack. It would be a very difficult and desperate situation to seal off a major city like New York, or more than one city, and confine people to their homes until they are vaccinated. However, if we vaccinated everyone just in case there is a Smallpox attack, which never materialised, then the hundreds of serious illnesses and deaths that would result would be a further victory for the terrorists. The decision whether or not to perform mass vaccination in the current climate is a dilemma.

I think that Smallpox vaccination should be available to those who want it and that if evidence of a biological attack in preparation comes to light then a mass vaccination program should be begun. However, you can protect yourself from the Smallpox epidemic subsequent to a biological attack by laying up supplies of food and other essentials and getting an appropriate gas mask and coveralls to use when you have to leave your home. Also turn off shared air conditioning systems if you live in an apartment building. These precautions would protect you from exposure to the virus until you are vaccinated and have developed immunity.

...each countries armies mutanied after casualties kept growing and the war's end was not in sight

Yes, but it didn't do them much good did it? Because the mutineers got executed and the British senior military figures had no sympathy for their own men, actually they labelled them 'bolshies'.

You claim to worry about the people but give them absolutely no credit. Revolt is something that happens quite often in those types of societies.

Sir, my ancestors fought in that war, so of course I "worry about the people". You should try doing it too, before you jump to defend the military/industrial complex. WW I was the most pointless conflict in history and one of the most bloody. Arms dealers were the main beneficiaries and the British ruling classes were seriously involved in the arms trade.

Haven't you never heard of the British 'stiff-upper lip'? Deference to the King or Queen was a common attitude in Britain prior to 1960. The suffering of the lower classes was always ignored by the monarchy and the government. But you probably know more about British society than I do. Hell, I am English and I can trace my family here in England back to the 1600s.

That is why only veterans and contract soldiers and not conscripts were sent into Chechnya in '99 during the first, most bloody phase. That is also why artillery was given precidence...

I was not talking specifically about the second Chechen war. Although, the reason they did those things was because of the large number of conscripts who died during the 1994-96 war. Also now you come to mention it the Russian army is sending inexperienced and untrained conscripts straight to Chechnya, because according to Putin there is no war there anymore. Besides life in the Russian army is dangerous enough for conscripts even when there isn't a war going on.

You draw your conclusions about society from a few people and make generalizations.

Not only from people I've met, but also from literature, the media and politicians. Society is basically selfish, it doesn't value the individual at all. The only time it protects individuals is when it needs to make a moral stand for propaganda purposes. Russian society is a perfect example of this.

I'd rank you below the French I've known personally, and definitly below the Germans....should that stand from my limited contact with British?

When did I say that Britain was a compassionate society? Its better than many countries, but its certainly not perfect. Although, I am certainly glad that I am English and not Russian, thank you very much.

The key is figuring out at what level casualties are no longer tolerable by the enemy and his will to fight starts to fade.

WW1, especially on the W. Front was not brutal enough...regardless of the casualties...why? Because the armies continued to fight and the societies continued to sacrifice. Verdun was brutal enough, to the point that the French army mutanied...that was a breaking point.

Yes, usually if a war is extremely bloody, people will look for a political settlement. However, your analysis fails to take into account the different values that are put on the lives of different groups of people. The British forces on the Western front of WWI is a good example of this phenomenon. The West Yorkshire regiment had working class men who had volunteered together from whole towns in its ranks. They and regiments like them saw some of the heaviest fighting.

The people who were profiting off the war (the arms manufacturers) and those who directed it (Field Marshal Haig etc) were aristocrats. The point is that the people suffering were working class and were perceived as "expendable" and those making the decisions and profiting from the war saw themselves as better than them and so had no sympathy for them.

Britain would never have pulled out of WW I no matter how large the losses got. Why? Because the aristocrats who directed the British Empire couldn't care less about the people doing the actual fighting and they were obessessed by the reputation of the Empire. If they had run out of young working class men then they would have sourced more men from the Empire to fill the gaps.

Russia was just as bad during WW I. Sadly this attitude seems to persist in Russia. I mean if the 5,000+ conscripts dying each year in your armed forces were from affluent families, or if they were women, then don't you think the Russian government would be bending over backwards to help them?

Do you remember the Russian woman I told you about who was glad that conscription didn't apply to her, but thought it was good that men are military trained? Well, she's back, she told me that her family were scraping together money to get one of their sons out of the draft. But when I asked her if she wanted conscription to end, she told me no, because it was good for the country.

The point here is some people just look after their own and couldn't care less about the plight of strangers. I have rarely come across this sort of hypocrisy among Britons, but two Russians out of three have shown it to me so far. I also read about a Russian mother who told a human rights researcher that conscription would 'make a man' out of her 18 year old son. I wonder how she will feel if he comes home in a zinc coffin, probably she will just be proud of her sacrifice.

This attitude is similar to that of the Palestinian mothers who are happy for their sons to die killing Israelis. Many "civilized" societies also seem to put a low value on the lives of their sons. Thus wars which mainly kill young men, no matter how brutally, or efficiently, are usually tolerated. However, when they target civilians and so kill people from more precious social groups: women, the affluent, middle-aged men, the elderly, etc then the war becomes far more politically dangerous to continue.

If the world was to end tomorrow I can imagine some newspaper producing a headline like: "World ends tomorrow, experts say: women and children hardest hit" Why do I say that? Because I've often heard politically correct politicians, pundits and psychologists in Britain, say things like women and children suffer most in war blah blah blah. When actually their group is the most protected from the brutal realities of war. You, of all people, should know it doesn't go without saying that every soldier has a girlfriend, or a wife waiting for him at home.

The aerosolized smallpox virus which caused the 1971 outbreak in the Soviet Union (go here for background info) was vaccine-resistant and highly virulent.

Actually, the Soviet India 1 strain was not successfully engineered to have an equal mortality rate against non-vaccinees as against vaccinees. It can infect and sicken people who were vaccinated, but usually ones who were vaccinated more than 10 years earlier, or who had weakened immune systems.

If Saddam or al Qaeda hit us with smallpox, the strain they use may be similar to the Soviet strain.

Its highly likely that it will be identical to the Soviet strain. The Soviets produced 20 tons of this stuff and goodness knows whether or not it was all destroyed. Any impoverished Russian scientist could have pocketed a vial and flogged it to the Iraqis or the Iranians.

Hemorrhagic Smallpox has a 94% mortality rate in vaccinated patients.

That is a manifestation of the disease which occurs in genetically predisposed individuals and pregnant women etc, with the common Variola major strains. I haven't heard of any distinct strain of Smallpox with such a high mortality rate against vaccinees. But I have heard of vaccinated people who were infected with India 1 becoming very ill.

The Soviets were testing smallpox aerosols at their main bioweapons testing range, Vozrozhdeniye Island in the Aral Sea in 1971. Apparently, a young female biologist working on deck aboard a research ship which was passing by, was infected. She came down with smallpox later in the port town of Aralsk. A total of twelve people there became ill, the town was quarantined and 50,000 people were re-vaccinated.

The three who died, a woman and two small children, had never been vaccinated. The rest had been, and although they fell ill, they survived.

Apparently, the Soviet Smallpox strain was isolated in 1967 in India during a vaccination program by Soviet medics. The strain was so deadly to non-vaccinees the Soviets decided to use it for their bioweapons program. They also tried to genetically engineer it, so that standard Vaccinia virus would not be an effective vaccine - but failed. Hopefully, no budding al-Qaeda Molecular Biologist has succeeded where the Soviets failed!

Do you have a source for that information?

She didn't ask anything about a scar, but was glad that I got the vaccination, and equally glad that I didn't get the anthrax.

The SOP in British Smallpox vaccination was to re-vaccinate if no scar appeared after a couple of weeks. The Microbiologists at the hospital I used to work at in Cambridge used to say the best indicator of Smallpox vaccination effectiveness was a scar.

This is because the Vaccinia virus used is live and should elicit a local immune response. If there is a scar you can be confident the vaccination worked. If there isn't, it may still have worked, but you can't be sure without a confirmatory test. It could be your immune system doesn't create a powerful enough response to the specific surface antigens on the virus to leave a scar. However, everyone I know who was vaccinated against Smallpox has a scar.

Its worth asking your doctor about it, perhaps the data the old British SOP was based on has now been disproved.

There was no doctor involved. It was an enlisted navy guy.

John, this is quite worrying, effective Smallpox vaccination doesn't just require the shot/scratch to be given correctly it also needs a checkup a few days later.

I wonder if the Smallpox vaccine they used on you had been diluted? The government was debating this a few months ago.

I got mine in March, and I don't have a scar of any kind, much less hideous. The only possible side effect I had was that a skin tag near the injection site turned colors and fell off. That may or may not be related to the vaccination.

Did your doctor examine the vaccination area and confirm that you are now resistant? Because usually no scarring from a Smallpox vaccination indicates it failed to work.

Mortality rates from smallpox (roughly 30%) were estimated in the period prior to widespread antibiotic availability for the common secondary infections.

The India 1 strain of Smallpox which the Soviets weaponised causes the haemorraghic form of the disease. Its mortality rate is more like 70%. If al-Qaeda have a stock of Smallpox they are most likely to have this strain.

I bet you think those people celebrating in the streets in Ramahala after a homocider zipper head takes out school children, are just miss understood and really aren't supporting murder. Well, same in Russia.

No, I think they are their own worst enemies, who are prepared to send off family members to die needlessly and incur the legitimate wrath or the Isrealis. They have been hard done by in the past, but by resorting to a suicide bombing campaign they are doing nothing but damage to themselves.

You don't seem to be able to admit that many civilians in Chechnya are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They are being victimised by the Islamic fundamentalist rebels and also by the Russian army.

Yes, David, Mr. Scientist, I do have a limited experience with Higher Education: Limited to a business/economics degree and an engineering degree and work on my masters....you are soooooo right.

Then why are you so ready to pour scorn on someone who is "still at college"? I was not insulting your intelligence by making that comment. You are obviously a very intelligent man. Its just that military types tend to scorn anyone who is in University because they immediately think of hippies and peaceniks. I say that from bitter personal experience.

So, Russia is not the next to worst and South Africa is not the worst. Besides, every educated person (on the subject) knows that Columbia has the highest murder rate and that Jamaica is close behind.

The source I checked recently had South Africa down as the worst and Russia second. Although, it may not have been the most up to date data available.

Oh, but I bet you don't have to worry about such things in comfy urbantopia....well some of us do. And because of brutish people like myself, people like you are able to enjoy what you enjoy while down grading what we do or simply insulting it straight out.

As I said to you before my uncle and father were soldiers in the British army and my uncle served in Cyprus during the troubles. His best friend was shot dead there actually. Also they had friends who served in Northern Ireland and had to run the gauntlet of the IRA. I am well aware of the dangers that armies run fighting terrorists and guerillas. I simply maintain that when you use torture, false imprisonment etc against civilians to catch the terrorists, you risk encouraging sympathy for the terrorists.

...the British are the WORST football fanatics in the world and the biggest hooligans. Clean up your own back yard before lecturing others.

I was making the point that the Russian government's fostering of nationalism and disciplinarianism seems to create unexpected problems. Also being English doesn't mean I am involved in, or support, football hooliganism. Just like your attitude towards Chechens is dictated by the existence of Chechen terrorists, you assume I have certain characteristics because of my nationality, what sloppy thinking.

As for David Hunter's bs about torture, it is a proven fact that the Brits use torture in N. Ireland....all those little details, like the violence of british disarmed society, like a good socialist, he ignores

First of all, I am not a Socialist, no doubt you think labelling me as one will cause other people to support your arguements. Second the British government specifically swore in the mid 1970s not to use torture in any circumstances. Unfortunately, individuals sometimes break the rules. But the idea that the British army use torture even a hundredth as much as the Russian army, is just ludicrous. As for the violence of British disarmed society, the murder rate in Russia is the second highest in the World after South Africa.

BS, you conviniently ignore, again, the fact that 1. Most Chechins don't live in Chechnya and don't want to. 2. That they had 3 years of independence and in that time kidnapped 1,500 people...

I've got one word for you - Wahabis. These people kill their own for ridiculous reasons like having the misfortune to be raped or not wearing their burkhas etc. Their expansionist ambitions meant that Chechnya under them was either preparing for war, or fighting a war.

The fact that these psychos exist is not an excuse for Russia to pick on innocent civilians because they have the same nationality.

Well, if they don't like being part of the terrorists, then they'd turn them in not give them comfort. At that point they become part of the combatent support infrastructure.

What usually happens to people who collaborate with the Russians? They get assassinated by the Chechen rebels. Its all very well us saying that locals should turn in terrorists, but we don't know the details of the situation they are actually in. You've often say how brutal these Shariah muslim led rebels are, don't you think they might threaten the families of people they need help from?

D.Hunter is a socialist/liberatarian (leans both ways) idealist, still in college. From previous conversations, I've gathered he has not been out in the real world much.

Again you label me a Socialist because I'm not prepared to give Russia a free hand to torture and murder Chechen civilians with impunity.

Your using a common political method, if you can't defeat someone's arguements, then launch a personal attack upon them. For your information I am not "still in college". I am a research scientist with a PhD who works in a University. I realise that when I mention being in a University you immediately assume I must be in my early 20s and studying for a first degree, due to your limited experience of higher education.

Perhaps someone should show this man the video of the Chechnyans cutting the head off the Russian soldier before he goes defending them.

I'm not "defending" Chechen terrorists. I'm defending civilians whose nationality happens to be Chechen. The Russia 'zachistka' operations detain and often torture all men in an area of 'rebel activity' above the age of 10. Probably some of them are involved with Chechen rebels. But not all of them are, and those of them who are tortured are likely to resent the Russians and sympathise with the rebels.

Ignoring atrocities against civilians because they are committed by the side you sympathise with is wrong. I am aware of the sick cruelty of certain Chechen rebels/terrorists like Khattab, Shamil Basayev and Arbi Barayev. However, the fact that atrocities were committed by Chechens does not mean that the whole Chechen population support those incidents, nor does it mean that we should ignore atrocities committed against Chechen civilians.

Look- I have no doubt that our half westernized brothers in Russia are brutal. But look what they have to deal with!

The problem is that by exercising collective punishment against the Chechen civilian population, the Russians are actually facilitating support for these sadistic maniacs. Look at how much support and how many more recruits the IRA got after the 'Bloody Sunday' massacre. The oppressive methods used by the Soviets in Afghanistan didn't make them popular with the Afghans either.

Even if the rebel Chechen government are psychopathic fanatics, torturing and killing civilians will just be counter-productive for the Russians in the long run.

Oh, please, your nation built public torture....drawing and quartering was a favorite as was public disembowlment...tarring and feathering too.

Yes, hundreds of years ago, but we've moved on, whereas Russia still uses torture on a routine basis - as you're well aware. One of the Russians I know has a relative in the Militia and he admits that the Militia often torture suspects. The methods the Russian army uses against Chechen detainees are pretty unpleasant too. Again you're well aware of this, but like most Russians you couldn't care less.