God I hate communists. If there's one thing you can say for capitalism, it's that it never ends up necessitating people dying for not believing in it.
That's not entirely accurate. What about all the socialist and nationalist movements that have been put down by western supported violence?The coup that overthrew Mossadegh in 1953 was because he nationalised the oil industry and didn't play by the capitalist rules.
And as Che mentioned, the CIA has made numerous attempts to kill Castro.
Like I said, these people's deaths aren't mediated by a lack of belief in capitalism. This is the exact justification communists use though. They are going to kill people, because they don't agree with capitalism.
Castro is viewed as a dangerous military dictator, and I don't know enough about Mossadegh.
God I hate communists. If there's one thing you can say for capitalism, it's that it never ends up necessitating people dying for not believing in it.
That's not entirely accurate. What about all the socialist and nationalist movements that have been put down by western supported violence?The coup that overthrew Mossadegh in 1953 was because he nationalised the oil industry and didn't play by the capitalist rules.
And as Che mentioned, the CIA has made numerous attempts to kill Castro.
Like I said, these people's deaths aren't mediated by a lack of belief in capitalism. This is the exact justification communists use though. They are going to kill people, because they don't agree with capitalism.
Their deaths may not be the result of stating, "I do not believe in capitalism," but when their death is a result of saying "I believe X," and X happens to be in conflict with capitalism it's a bit pedantic to be arguing that it wasn't a lack of belief in capitalism. Communist movements are attacked simply for being communists and that conflicts with capitalism.
It's like saying "Oh, we're not lynching him for being black, we're doing it because he's not white."
Castro is viewed as a dangerous military dictator, and I don't know enough about Mossadegh
Mossadegh was the democratically elected, secular prime minister of Iran. He drove communist forces out of the north of the country and was generally pretty friendly with the west. Unfortunately he started to believe that the oil should belong to the country and that the Anglo-Iranian oil company (now BP) should not be extracting as much wealth from his country as it was. He decided to nationalise it.
The US and UK then whipped up a lot of religious fundamentalism by telling everyone that Mossadegh was pro-communist and anti-islam. They broke out a Nazi collaborator to run the military arm of the coup, installed the Shah as ruler and trained the brutal Savak security forces.
This is why Iran does not trust the west.
Bottom line: Regardless of the economic system, people will kill to obtain power and kill to retain it. When communism kills it is because communism naturally leads to murder. When capitalism kills there are always extenuating circumstances because capitalism is our system.
No, communists execute people for not being communist. Capitalism doesn't do shit. It means certain paths which lead to killing people work but oh hey, since it doesn't actually intend to act as a moral system codified pinning the blame on "capitalism" doesn't really hold the same weight.
EDIT: And yes you idiot, executing people for not being white is rather the point I was making. It's why racism is fucking terrible.
No, communists execute people for not being communist. Capitalism doesn't do shit. It means certain paths which lead to killing people work but oh hey, since it doesn't actually intend to act as a moral system codified pinning the blame on "capitalism" doesn't really hold the same weight.
Communism doesn't do shit either. How about comparing communists with capitalists instead of capitalism
EDIT: And yes you idiot, executing people for not being white is rather the point I was making. It's why racism is fucking terrible
Yes my metaphor was rather hamfisted (it's early) but my point is that capitalists killing people for believing in something that is contrary to capitalism is equivalent to capitalists killing someone for failing to believe in capitalism.
The metaphor should have been:
"Oh, we're not lynching him for not being white, we're doing it because he's black."
Fabian Escalante, who was long tasked with protecting the life of Castro has calculated the exact number of assassination schemes and/or attempts by the CIA to be 638. Some such attempts have included an exploding cigar, a fungal-infected scuba-diving suit, and a mafia-style shooting. Some of these plots are depicted in a documentary entitled 638 Ways to Kill Castro.[53] One of these attempts was by his ex-lover Marita Lorenz whom he met in 1959. She subsequently agreed to aid the CIA and attempted to smuggle a jar of cold cream containing poison pills into his room. When Castro realised, he reportedly gave her a gun and told her to kill him but her nerve failed.[54] Castro once said in regards to the numerous attempts on his life, "If surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal."
As for communism necessitating murder, I don't believe that for a moment. The ideology does not condone murder, the governments do. If you wish to examine the actions of a totalitarian communist government, you must also look at their counterparts.
The 2000 election was most likely fixed. The deciding votes were cast in Florida, and G.W.'s brother runs the state. Besides that, although Gore took the popular vote in the election, the Electoral College put G.W. in power.
Since coming into power, his foreign policies have led to two wars and a massive loss of life. The terror attacks of September 11th which precipitated the first war against Afganistan left quite a few questions in the public's eye, considering the majority of the attackers were actually from Saudi Arabia. However, the Saudi's have over a trillion dollars invested in the American economy in oil, which means the odds of America ever even blinking their eyes at the country in a funny fashion is astronomical.
Again... which is worse? I personally believe killing for money is a much worse crime.
"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon" Matthew 6:24
As for communism necessitating murder, I don't believe that for a moment. The ideology does not condone murder, the governments do. If you wish to examine the actions of a totalitarian communist government, you must also look at their counterparts.
And again, communism requires an authoritarian (totalitarian actually, if I remember my reading) socialist state to get off the ground. There is a strong correlation between that kind of state, and fairly large-scale loss of human life.
The 2000 election was most likely fixed. The deciding votes were cast in Florida, and G.W.'s brother runs the state. Besides that, although Gore took the popular vote in the election, the Electoral College put G.W. in power.
Since coming into power, his foreign policies have led to two wars and a massive loss of life. The terror attacks of September 11th which precipitated the first war against Afganistan left quite a few questions in the public's eye, considering the majority of the attackers were actually from Saudi Arabia. However, the Saudi's have over a trillion dollars invested in the American economy in oil, which means the odds of America ever even blinking their eyes at the country in a funny fashion is astronomical.
Again... which is worse? I personally believe killing for money is a much worse crime.
First, the president isn't popularly elected. It's a retarded misconception that some injustice has been done because a president hasn't been popularly elected. It's like complaining that I, from Michigan, didn't get a chance to vote against Joe Lieberman in the last election. The president does not need to be popularly elected. It's part of the rules. Maybe you could make the argument that the rules should be changed, but it doesn't seem like that's what you're saying.
Second, I'm not sure what your argument is against the war in Afghanistan. That's where Osama bin Ladin supposedly was. You could argue that Bush dropped the ball on that one by his expanding the "war on terror" to include undemocratic and/or authoritarian states (I would agree with this assessment), but even still, even the worst, most dishonest and duplicitous presidents haven't led to anything near the atrocities committed by communists, again, by necessity.
We're aware that Guevara personally ordered the execution of several hundred political dissidents to consolidate communist control over Cuba after the revolution, correct?
Can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
You equate the execution of dissidents with eggs? There's a difference between collateral damage that was not intended to hit/harm civilians and murdering your opposition outside of the constraits of battle and wartime.
Fabian Escalante, who was long tasked with protecting the life of Castro has calculated the exact number of assassination schemes and/or attempts by the CIA to be 638. Some such attempts have included an exploding cigar, a fungal-infected scuba-diving suit, and a mafia-style shooting. Some of these plots are depicted in a documentary entitled 638 Ways to Kill Castro.[53] One of these attempts was by his ex-lover Marita Lorenz whom he met in 1959. She subsequently agreed to aid the CIA and attempted to smuggle a jar of cold cream containing poison pills into his room. When Castro realised, he reportedly gave her a gun and told her to kill him but her nerve failed.[54] Castro once said in regards to the numerous attempts on his life, "If surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal."
As for communism necessitating murder, I don't believe that for a moment. The ideology does not condone murder, the governments do. If you wish to examine the actions of a totalitarian communist government, you must also look at their counterparts.
The 2000 election was most likely fixed. The deciding votes were cast in Florida, and G.W.'s brother runs the state. Besides that, although Gore took the popular vote in the election, the Electoral College put G.W. in power.
Since coming into power, his foreign policies have led to two wars and a massive loss of life. The terror attacks of September 11th which precipitated the first war against Afganistan left quite a few questions in the public's eye, considering the majority of the attackers were actually from Saudi Arabia. However, the Saudi's have over a trillion dollars invested in the American economy in oil, which means the odds of America ever even blinking their eyes at the country in a funny fashion is astronomical.
Again... which is worse? I personally believe killing for money is a much worse crime.
And herein lies an additional issue, and my original point: moral equivalence. Some moral crimes, such as though Che is guilty of, are significantly worse than other so-called "crimes", especially those you are trying to compare them to.
Argue all you want about the necessity of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello are completely different from what you are professing support for. Murdering someone yourself is not a basis for additional respect. Murder is abhorrent, and to carry the argument further and debate methods just obscures the core moral failure of murder.
Che helped create a government by murdering his opponents, then enslaving the population he was trying to "help". He's part of a long line of sub-humans guilty of exploitation and murder on a colossal scale.
...even the worst, most dishonest and duplicitous presidents haven't led to anything near the atrocities committed by communists, again, by necessity.
This is absolutely factually true, but it's a little disturbing: just because Richard Nixon didn't directly order the disappearances in Chile means his administration is off the hook for the CIA's assistance in overthrowing Salvador Allende? Just because only thousands of Chileans were "disappeared" under Pinochet it means that the USA's role in somehow less atrocious?
Sure, most people will agree that America's evil acts don't match the evil of the Soviet Union's evil acts in a head-to-head comparison of body counts. Nevertheless, the motivations and natures of the evil acts are morally equivalent.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's absolutely pointless to try to claim that any one group is absolutely equally evil or absolutely not as evil as another group; it's far better to say, for example, "We admit that the USA did some horribly evil things. Here's why, and here's what we've done since then."
...even the worst, most dishonest and duplicitous presidents haven't led to anything near the atrocities committed by communists, again, by necessity.
This is absolutely factually true, but it's a little disturbing: just because Richard Nixon didn't directly order the disappearances in Chile means his administration is off the hook for the CIA's assistance in overthrowing Salvador Allende? Just because only thousands of Chileans were "disappeared" under Pinochet it means that the USA's role in somehow less atrocious?
Sure, most people will agree that America's evil acts don't match the evil of the Soviet Union's evil acts in a head-to-head comparison of body counts. Nevertheless, the motivations and natures of the evil acts are morally equivalent.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's absolutely pointless to try to claim that any one group is absolutely equally evil or absolutely not as evil as another group; it's far better to say, for example, "We admit that the USA did some horribly evil things. Here's why, and here's what we've done since then."
Note what I bolded in my own quote.
Democratic societies have certainly had their share of assholes and sycophants. By necessity though, in order to get to a communist utopia, you have to eliminate a chunk of one's population and give up prettymuch all your rights. This isn't about the individuals, it's about what the system creates. Communism requires a place to turn into an authoritarian, hyper-socialist shithole.
As for communism necessitating murder, I don't believe that for a moment. The ideology does not condone murder, the governments do. If you wish to examine the actions of a totalitarian communist government, you must also look at their counterparts.
And again, communism requires an authoritarian (totalitarian actually, if I remember my reading) socialist state to get off the ground. There is a strong correlation between that kind of state, and fairly large-scale loss of human life.
I won't debate this issue. There is a definite historical link to any change of government (aside from events like Georgia's Velvet Revolution) and a large scale loss of human life. However, my point was simply that it's oppositition paints with too broad a stroke. How about Chavez? A popularly elected pro-socialism President who's recieved more than his share of flack from the United States, including supporting those who've attempted coups and violent military activity.
The coup against the democratically-elected Venezuelan government was approved and supported by Washington, acting through senior officials of the U.S. government, including Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra figure and George W. Bush "democracy "tzar" Elliot Abrams, who have long histories in the U.S. backed "dirty wars" in Central American in the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.
First, the president isn't popularly elected. It's a retarded misconception that some injustice has been done because a president hasn't been popularly elected. It's like complaining that I, from Michigan, didn't get a chance to vote against Joe Lieberman in the last election. The president does not need to be popularly elected. It's part of the rules. Maybe you could make the argument that the rules should be changed, but it doesn't seem like that's what you're saying.
Second, I'm not sure what your argument is against the war in Afghanistan. That's where Osama bin Ladin supposedly was. You could argue that Bush dropped the ball on that one by his expanding the "war on terror" to include undemocratic and/or authoritarian states (I would agree with this assessment), but even still, even the worst, most dishonest and duplicitous presidents haven't led to anything near the atrocities committed by communists, again, by necessity.
My point about Bush was simply that the world might have been a very different place had the voting in Florida turned out differently. I can't remember... was it 3 or 4 recounts ordered? I remember after the issue had been settled that a number of people came forward to complain about the sheer number of ruined ballots that were for Gore. In this situation, money and power won the day and democracy really had nothing to do with the situation.
The world would probably have been pretty boring with Gore in power, but I'm sure there's a large contingency of American's who'd rather a peaceful 8 years than the terror-filled ones that have plagued Bush's presidency.
My argument isn't against the war in Afganhistan. I'm stating that the situation presents some odd conflicts of interest. Afganistan sits a top fields of oil, in the same manner as Iraq. Saudi Arabia has oil reserves as well, although these have already been commited to the American economy. The build up of American forces in the Gulf will serve as a longterm means of protection of these oil interests.
Is it a war against Terror? Or a thinly veiled grab for oil reserves to support a floundering economy?
If it's the former, than it's poorly run and has so far been a war that has increased the level of 'Terror' around the world. If it's the latter, then both American and Arab blood is being spilled, not because of ideological differences, but for money.
And neither side, the US or the Sauds, would be innocent of these travesties.
My point about Bush was simply that the world might have been a very different place had the voting in Florida turned out differently. I can't remember... was it 3 or 4 recounts ordered? I remember after the issue had been settled that a number of people came forward to complain about the sheer number of ruined ballots that were for Gore. In this situation, money and power won the day and democracy really had nothing to do with the situation.
It had as much to do with it as it does with any Presidential election. After the swearing in various newspapers and interest groups and such went back over all the ballots various times. In the end half the time Gore won and the other half Bush won. It all depended on what constituted a CHAD and what constituted a vote and all that other bullshit that would never actually be objective. At least things are more open with the voting process today than it was just half a century ago.
Afghanistan sits a top fields of oil, in the same manner as Iraq.
O_o
Usually people (well, those who are so inclined) whine about the natural gas pipeline proposed to run through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
This is the first time I've seen the claim that Afghanistan's oil reserves - which are less than 1/1000th of those of Iraq - were the reason for the country's invasion.
I won't debate this issue. There is a definite historical link to any change of government (aside from events like Georgia's Velvet Revolution) and a large scale loss of human life. However, my point was simply that it's oppositition paints with too broad a stroke. How about Chavez? A popularly elected pro-socialism President who's recieved more than his share of flack from the United States, including supporting those who've attempted coups and violent military activity.
That's amazingly disingenuous. There's a modern historical link to communist change of power that is equaled only by fascist and dictatorship changes. It's not an anomoly, like it may be in other ideological changes, but it's inherent in the system.
My point about Bush was simply that the world might have been a very different place had the voting in Florida turned out differently. I can't remember... was it 3 or 4 recounts ordered? I remember after the issue had been settled that a number of people came forward to complain about the sheer number of ruined ballots that were for Gore. In this situation, money and power won the day and democracy really had nothing to do with the situation.
The world would probably have been pretty boring with Gore in power, but I'm sure there's a large contingency of American's who'd rather a peaceful 8 years than the terror-filled ones that have plagued Bush's presidency.
Are you saying that Al Qaeda wouldn't have attacked if Gore was pres? Or are you arguing that Gore wouldn't have made a military response?
My argument isn't against the war in Afganhistan. I'm stating that the situation presents some odd conflicts of interest. Afganistan sits a top fields of oil, in the same manner as Iraq. Saudi Arabia has oil reserves as well, although these have already been commited to the American economy. The build up of American forces in the Gulf will serve as a longterm means of protection of these oil interests.
You're point is pretty much taken from left-leaning talking points. Got anything else? Like proof? An original argument? Or should we return to discussing the horrible fuck-up that communism is?
Is it a war against Terror? Or a thinly veiled grab for oil reserves to support a floundering economy?
If it's the former, than it's poorly run and has so far been a war that has increased the level of 'Terror' around the world. If it's the latter, then both American and Arab blood is being spilled, not because of ideological differences, but for money.
And neither side, the US or the Sauds, would be innocent of these travesties.
Democratic societies have certainly had their share of assholes and sycophants. By necessity though, in order to get to a communist utopia, you have to eliminate a chunk of one's population and give up prettymuch all your rights. This isn't about the individuals, it's about what the system creates. Communism requires a place to turn into an authoritarian, hyper-socialist shithole.
I disagree. All of the communist regimes I can think of (USSR, PR China, Cuba, Angola) had preceding regimes that were equally authoritarian and had no history of large-scale democratic governance; I submit that communist autocracy is a result of inherent autocratic biases in the nation's history, and that a democracy could choose democratically to switch to a centrally-driven socialist economy with rigid price controls and redistribution of wealth.
EDIT: I just realized I may be mixing up terms. Quickly, I'm operating under these definitions:
Socialism - limited market, agressively progressive taxation, strong welfare state, universal health coverage, etc. Government acts only to keep people from being (too?) poor. Government owns utilities and other "subsistence" industries, e.g. water and electricity, but possibly/probably not cable TV.
Communism - government owns all industries, stores, and controls all markets.
My point about Bush was simply that the world might have been a very different place had the voting in Florida turned out differently. I can't remember... was it 3 or 4 recounts ordered? I remember after the issue had been settled that a number of people came forward to complain about the sheer number of ruined ballots that were for Gore. In this situation, money and power won the day and democracy really had nothing to do with the situation.
It had as much to do with it as it does with any Presidential election. After the swearing in various newspapers and interest groups and such went back over all the ballots various times. In the end half the time Gore won and the other half Bush won. It all depended on what constituted a CHAD and what constituted a vote and all that other bullshit that would never actually be objective. At least things are more open with the voting process today than it was just half a century ago.
Democratic societies have certainly had their share of assholes and sycophants. By necessity though, in order to get to a communist utopia, you have to eliminate a chunk of one's population and give up prettymuch all your rights. This isn't about the individuals, it's about what the system creates. Communism requires a place to turn into an authoritarian, hyper-socialist shithole.
I disagree. All of the communist regimes I can think of (USSR, PR China, Cuba, Angola) had preceding regimes that were equally authoritarian and had no history of large-scale democratic governance; I submit that communist autocracy is a result of inherent autocratic biases in the nation's history, and that a democracy could choose democratically to switch to a centrally-driven socialist economy with rigid price controls and redistribution of wealth.
I would ask:
1) Has it ever happened that people have democratically elected communism?
2) When it has, have the people been free to leave or vote back their old style of governance?
The world would probably have been pretty boring with Gore in power, but I'm sure there's a large contingency of American's who'd rather a peaceful 8 years than the terror-filled ones that have plagued Bush's presidency.
Are you saying that Al Qaeda wouldn't have attacked if Gore was pres? Or are you arguing that Gore wouldn't have made a military response?
While it's purely hypothetical, we wouldn't be embroiled in a war of choice with Gore as Prez. Just Afghanistan.
1) Has it ever happened that people have democratically elected communism?
2) When it has, have the people been free to leave or vote back their old style of governance?
Honest answers:
1. No.
2. Not answerable based on No to #1.
Please remember that communism/socialism as an in-practice political/economic system of government is only 90 years old, and that even Italy and Germany didn't become stable, progressive, archetypal Western democracies until after the USSR came into being.
So no, democratic communism hasn't really existed yet, but I also submit that has more to do with the palateability of socialism instead.
The world would probably have been pretty boring with Gore in power, but I'm sure there's a large contingency of American's who'd rather a peaceful 8 years than the terror-filled ones that have plagued Bush's presidency.
Are you saying that Al Qaeda wouldn't have attacked if Gore was pres? Or are you arguing that Gore wouldn't have made a military response?
While it's purely hypothetical, we wouldn't be embroiled in a war of choice with Gore as Prez. Just Afghanistan.
I think it's about even odds. Gore stated several times that he believe Saddam had WMDs, and linked Iraq to terrorism is a few speeches while he was VP.
The intellegence community that supplied the evidence used to precipitate action in Iraq is more career employees than political appointees, so the evidence would have been similar.
Finally, Clinton/Gore supported actions against Iraq, and a war in the former Yugoslavia. There is enough information to at least say "it may have been a similar strategy from Gore". At least enough to not be able to say "it would be different" with any authority.
The world would probably have been pretty boring with Gore in power, but I'm sure there's a large contingency of American's who'd rather a peaceful 8 years than the terror-filled ones that have plagued Bush's presidency.
Are you saying that Al Qaeda wouldn't have attacked if Gore was pres? Or are you arguing that Gore wouldn't have made a military response?
While it's purely hypothetical, we wouldn't be embroiled in a war of choice with Gore as Prez. Just Afghanistan.
I think it's about even odds. Gore stated several times that he believe Saddam had WMDs, and linked Iraq to terrorism is a few speeches while he was VP.
I sincerely doubt it. He wouldn't have had the echo chamber of PNAC right outside his Oval Office doors.
Communism in its intended form is a democratic regime where in the government owns all property and the means of the production. A society must therefore be a democratic, most likely socialist, industrial society before it can become a communist society. In a communist society, the goods and services are exchanged on a needs basis and work is not forced because Marxists believe that workers will work out of the necessity and enjoyment of hard work. Citizens are also given full rights and not forced to follow career paths they do not wish to choose. The only society that comes close to this model is Kerala, a province in India, in which the communist party is elected by the people and actively works to improve the lives of its people. Kerala has its flaws though considering it has a stagnant economy and that it is doubtful it could survive under its current system if it was an indepent entity.
Communism in practice and history though usually follows a Marxist-Leninist or a Maoist philosophy. These political idealogies are based on an authoritarian system that crushes the individual, censors the intellectual, and always has a damaging effect on the nation it takes hold of. The belief is, as supposed by Lenin, is that Marx was right but that society can be jump started through forced industrialization and can go from a preindustrial society straight to a communist society through government programs. Maoist thought is very similar but focuses more on an agricultural society than an industrial society. This was the line of thinking that led to 5 Year Plans of Stalin and the social programs of Mao. There is no democracy in these regimes and if there is it is a shame designed to silence dissedence. The "justice" systems of these societies is also harsh and involves "Re-Education Camps" as well as forced labor camps such as the famous Soviet Gulags. Cuba is one of the few societies today that follows a Marxist-Leninist plan.
The Cuban people supported the communists in the overthrow of Batista but can it be said that this justified the revolution and violence that came after it, most certainly not. The fact that the illeteracy rate of Cuba at that time was very high leads me to believe that the majority of the Cuban people had no idea what they were getting into or what exactly the revolutionaries stood for. The fact that a minority of the Cuban people saw it upon themselves to impose their will over the majority of the Cuban people does not make me think fondly of that nation's communist regime because that is tyranny plain and simple. Sure, Batista was a monster but Castro and the revolutionaries have become no better in the end.
There is nothing wrong with Marxist Communism, a fine system in places such as Kerala that allows for a prosperous, healthy, and educated society, but anyone who believes that Marxist-Leninism can liberate the Third World is a fool. All Marxist-Leninism does is exchange the shackles of the former oppressors and replaces them with the shackles of "the people".
JFK is a great example of the kind of string-pulling that goes on in a democracy. Hiring people with the same name as your opponent to befuddle voters is pretty sleazy.
I think it's about even odds. Gore stated several times that he believe Saddam had WMDs, and linked Iraq to terrorism is a few speeches while he was VP.
The intellegence community that supplied the evidence used to precipitate action in Iraq is more career employees than political appointees, so the evidence would have been similar.
Naturally I can't find links at the moment, but everything I've heard about the issue of pre-war intelligence completely contradicts this. While there was a split in opinion among the career people, the Iraq-supports-terrorism group was a very small minority, and the political appointees--with lots of unprecedented pressure from Cheney and his office--latched onto very dubious intelligence and interpretations. Hence the Wilson/Plame affair.
Plus, it just didn't make much sense to begin with: Saddam Hussein came to power largely by undercutting the religious elements in Iraq, who weren't terribly radicalized to begin with since Iraq was one of (if not the most) secular Islamic states in the Middle East.
Finally, Clinton/Gore supported actions against Iraq, and a war in the former Yugoslavia. There is enough information to at least say "it may have been a similar strategy from Gore". At least enough to not be able to say "it would be different" with any authority.
Occasional air strikes to eliminate Iraqi military actions in clear violation of a standing UN mandate absolutely /= full-scale invasion of Iraq based on dubious-at-the-time and, we now know, completely mistaken intelligence.
The one saving grace of the American institution is it's length of term. Even those who gain power through illegitimate means can not maintain it for a period longer than 8 years, unless warranted by "special circumstances."
Power is subject to abuse, no matter what ideology is behind it.
There's also a tendency to recall the sins of the 'enemy', yet ignore the atrocities permitted by our own governments.
How about Chavez? A popularly elected pro-socialism President who's recieved more than his share of flack from the United States, including supporting those who've attempted coups and violent military activity.
Firstly, the Abril 11 coup was not instigated by American forces, and secondly, Chavez used national radio to urge his supporters to shoot at people peacefully demonstrating against him. Corroboration.
I think it's about even odds. Gore stated several times that he believe Saddam had WMDs, and linked Iraq to terrorism is a few speeches while he was VP.
I sincerely doubt it. He wouldn't have had the echo chamber of PNAC right outside his Oval Office doors.
Also, Gore didn't have the highly personal double motivation of a) wanting to finish his Poppy's war and b) getting the guy who tried to have Poppy assassinated.
How about Chavez? A popularly elected pro-socialism President who's recieved more than his share of flack from the United States, including supporting those who've attempted coups and violent military activity.
Firstly, the Abril 11 coup was not instigated by American forces, and secondly, Chavez used national radio to urge his supporters to shoot at people peacefully demonstrating against him. Corroboration.
Hilariously enough, the second link presented on the Google search results page you linked gives the following:
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (a.k.a. Chavez: Inside the Coup) is a 2002 documentary about the April 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt which briefly deposed Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. A television crew from Ireland's Radio TelifÃs Éireann happened to be recording a documentary about Chávez during the events of April 11, 2002. Shifting focus, they followed the events as they occurred. During their filming, the crew recorded images of the events that they say contradict explanations given by Chávez opposition, the private media, the US State Department, and then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. The documentary says that the coup was the result of a conspiracy between various old guard and anti-Chávez factions within Venezuela and the United States.
The one saving grace of the American institution is it's length of term. Even those who gain power through illegitimate means can not maintain it for a period longer than 8 years, unless warranted by "special circumstances."
Power is subject to abuse, no matter what ideology is behind it.
There's also a tendency to recall the sins of the 'enemy', yet ignore the atrocities permitted by our own governments.
Ignore is probably not the right word. Atrocities committed by the US government are routinely debated, discussed, aired for the world to see, and shamed if necessary.
You've made the atrocities of one person into your avatar for pete's sake.
Is anyone on this forum named "Abu Ghraib" or "My Lai"?
I think it's about even odds. Gore stated several times that he believe Saddam had WMDs, and linked Iraq to terrorism is a few speeches while he was VP.
I sincerely doubt it. He wouldn't have had the echo chamber of PNAC right outside his Oval Office doors.
Also, Gore didn't have the highly personal double motivation of a) wanting to finish his Poppy's war and b) getting the guy who tried to have Poppy assassinated.
You believe it was perpetuated as a personal revenge? That's pretty juvenile.
I think it's about even odds. Gore stated several times that he believe Saddam had WMDs, and linked Iraq to terrorism is a few speeches while he was VP.
I sincerely doubt it. He wouldn't have had the echo chamber of PNAC right outside his Oval Office doors.
Also, Gore didn't have the highly personal double motivation of a) wanting to finish his Poppy's war and b) getting the guy who tried to have Poppy assassinated.
You believe it was perpetuated as a personal revenge? That's pretty juvenile.
Yes, it is juvenile. But there can be no doubt that the reasoning behind at the very least the occupation of Iraq was flawed. Very flawed.
The one saving grace of the American institution is it's length of term. Even those who gain power through illegitimate means can not maintain it for a period longer than 8 years, unless warranted by "special circumstances."
Power is subject to abuse, no matter what ideology is behind it.
There's also a tendency to recall the sins of the 'enemy', yet ignore the atrocities permitted by our own governments.
Ignore is probably not the right word. Atrocities committed by the US government are routinely debated, discussed, aired for the world to see, and shamed if necessary.
You've made the atrocities of one person into your avatar for pete's sake.
Is anyone on this forum named "Abu Ghraib" or "My Lai"?
Like it or not, Che was a potent figure in shaping world events, and his actions have had a lasting effect. A small island like Cuba is pretty insignificant next to a superpower like America. The fact that a handful of men had the balls to stand up to a bullying foreign power and bloody their nose in the process set an important precedent on the world stage.
I don't admire the man for what some might call his 'misdeeds'. I admire his strength of conviction.
How about Chavez? A popularly elected pro-socialism President who's recieved more than his share of flack from the United States, including supporting those who've attempted coups and violent military activity.
Firstly, the Abril 11 coup was not instigated by American forces, and secondly, Chavez used national radio to urge his supporters to shoot at people peacefully demonstrating against him. Corroboration.
Hilariously enough, the second link presented on the Google search results page you linked gives the following:
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (a.k.a. Chavez: Inside the Coup) is a 2002 documentary about the April 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt which briefly deposed Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. A television crew from Ireland's Radio TelifÃs Éireann happened to be recording a documentary about Chávez during the events of April 11, 2002. Shifting focus, they followed the events as they occurred. During their filming, the crew recorded images of the events that they say contradict explanations given by Chávez opposition, the private media, the US State Department, and then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. The documentary says that the coup was the result of a conspiracy between various old guard and anti-Chávez factions within Venezuela and the United States.
That's nice. Unfortunately, the documentary straight-up lies, as described in the video I linked. It's well worth the 90 minutes to watch it.
And don't believe ever piece of propaganda thats handed to you.
The same goes for you too, just because you think you are right with all your heart doesnt mean you are.
Your evidence is just as likely to be faulty as the other guys.
Posts
Castro is viewed as a dangerous military dictator, and I don't know enough about Mossadegh.
Their deaths may not be the result of stating, "I do not believe in capitalism," but when their death is a result of saying "I believe X," and X happens to be in conflict with capitalism it's a bit pedantic to be arguing that it wasn't a lack of belief in capitalism. Communist movements are attacked simply for being communists and that conflicts with capitalism.
It's like saying "Oh, we're not lynching him for being black, we're doing it because he's not white."
Mossadegh was the democratically elected, secular prime minister of Iran. He drove communist forces out of the north of the country and was generally pretty friendly with the west. Unfortunately he started to believe that the oil should belong to the country and that the Anglo-Iranian oil company (now BP) should not be extracting as much wealth from his country as it was. He decided to nationalise it.
The US and UK then whipped up a lot of religious fundamentalism by telling everyone that Mossadegh was pro-communist and anti-islam. They broke out a Nazi collaborator to run the military arm of the coup, installed the Shah as ruler and trained the brutal Savak security forces.
This is why Iran does not trust the west.
Bottom line: Regardless of the economic system, people will kill to obtain power and kill to retain it. When communism kills it is because communism naturally leads to murder. When capitalism kills there are always extenuating circumstances because capitalism is our system.
EDIT: And yes you idiot, executing people for not being white is rather the point I was making. It's why racism is fucking terrible.
Communism doesn't do shit either. How about comparing communists with capitalists instead of capitalism
Yes my metaphor was rather hamfisted (it's early) but my point is that capitalists killing people for believing in something that is contrary to capitalism is equivalent to capitalists killing someone for failing to believe in capitalism.
The metaphor should have been:
"Oh, we're not lynching him for not being white, we're doing it because he's black."
Actually, I'm not sure it was much more than a decade. Probably less.
As for communism necessitating murder, I don't believe that for a moment. The ideology does not condone murder, the governments do. If you wish to examine the actions of a totalitarian communist government, you must also look at their counterparts.
The 2000 election was most likely fixed. The deciding votes were cast in Florida, and G.W.'s brother runs the state. Besides that, although Gore took the popular vote in the election, the Electoral College put G.W. in power.
Since coming into power, his foreign policies have led to two wars and a massive loss of life. The terror attacks of September 11th which precipitated the first war against Afganistan left quite a few questions in the public's eye, considering the majority of the attackers were actually from Saudi Arabia. However, the Saudi's have over a trillion dollars invested in the American economy in oil, which means the odds of America ever even blinking their eyes at the country in a funny fashion is astronomical.
Again... which is worse? I personally believe killing for money is a much worse crime.
And again, communism requires an authoritarian (totalitarian actually, if I remember my reading) socialist state to get off the ground. There is a strong correlation between that kind of state, and fairly large-scale loss of human life.
First, the president isn't popularly elected. It's a retarded misconception that some injustice has been done because a president hasn't been popularly elected. It's like complaining that I, from Michigan, didn't get a chance to vote against Joe Lieberman in the last election. The president does not need to be popularly elected. It's part of the rules. Maybe you could make the argument that the rules should be changed, but it doesn't seem like that's what you're saying.
Second, I'm not sure what your argument is against the war in Afghanistan. That's where Osama bin Ladin supposedly was. You could argue that Bush dropped the ball on that one by his expanding the "war on terror" to include undemocratic and/or authoritarian states (I would agree with this assessment), but even still, even the worst, most dishonest and duplicitous presidents haven't led to anything near the atrocities committed by communists, again, by necessity.
You equate the execution of dissidents with eggs? There's a difference between collateral damage that was not intended to hit/harm civilians and murdering your opposition outside of the constraits of battle and wartime.
And herein lies an additional issue, and my original point: moral equivalence. Some moral crimes, such as though Che is guilty of, are significantly worse than other so-called "crimes", especially those you are trying to compare them to.
Argue all you want about the necessity of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello are completely different from what you are professing support for. Murdering someone yourself is not a basis for additional respect. Murder is abhorrent, and to carry the argument further and debate methods just obscures the core moral failure of murder.
Che helped create a government by murdering his opponents, then enslaving the population he was trying to "help". He's part of a long line of sub-humans guilty of exploitation and murder on a colossal scale.
This is absolutely factually true, but it's a little disturbing: just because Richard Nixon didn't directly order the disappearances in Chile means his administration is off the hook for the CIA's assistance in overthrowing Salvador Allende? Just because only thousands of Chileans were "disappeared" under Pinochet it means that the USA's role in somehow less atrocious?
Sure, most people will agree that America's evil acts don't match the evil of the Soviet Union's evil acts in a head-to-head comparison of body counts. Nevertheless, the motivations and natures of the evil acts are morally equivalent.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's absolutely pointless to try to claim that any one group is absolutely equally evil or absolutely not as evil as another group; it's far better to say, for example, "We admit that the USA did some horribly evil things. Here's why, and here's what we've done since then."
Note what I bolded in my own quote.
Democratic societies have certainly had their share of assholes and sycophants. By necessity though, in order to get to a communist utopia, you have to eliminate a chunk of one's population and give up prettymuch all your rights. This isn't about the individuals, it's about what the system creates. Communism requires a place to turn into an authoritarian, hyper-socialist shithole.
I won't debate this issue. There is a definite historical link to any change of government (aside from events like Georgia's Velvet Revolution) and a large scale loss of human life. However, my point was simply that it's oppositition paints with too broad a stroke. How about Chavez? A popularly elected pro-socialism President who's recieved more than his share of flack from the United States, including supporting those who've attempted coups and violent military activity.
My point about Bush was simply that the world might have been a very different place had the voting in Florida turned out differently. I can't remember... was it 3 or 4 recounts ordered? I remember after the issue had been settled that a number of people came forward to complain about the sheer number of ruined ballots that were for Gore. In this situation, money and power won the day and democracy really had nothing to do with the situation.
The world would probably have been pretty boring with Gore in power, but I'm sure there's a large contingency of American's who'd rather a peaceful 8 years than the terror-filled ones that have plagued Bush's presidency.
My argument isn't against the war in Afganhistan. I'm stating that the situation presents some odd conflicts of interest. Afganistan sits a top fields of oil, in the same manner as Iraq. Saudi Arabia has oil reserves as well, although these have already been commited to the American economy. The build up of American forces in the Gulf will serve as a longterm means of protection of these oil interests.
Is it a war against Terror? Or a thinly veiled grab for oil reserves to support a floundering economy?
If it's the former, than it's poorly run and has so far been a war that has increased the level of 'Terror' around the world. If it's the latter, then both American and Arab blood is being spilled, not because of ideological differences, but for money.
And neither side, the US or the Sauds, would be innocent of these travesties.
It had as much to do with it as it does with any Presidential election. After the swearing in various newspapers and interest groups and such went back over all the ballots various times. In the end half the time Gore won and the other half Bush won. It all depended on what constituted a CHAD and what constituted a vote and all that other bullshit that would never actually be objective. At least things are more open with the voting process today than it was just half a century ago.
Usually people (well, those who are so inclined) whine about the natural gas pipeline proposed to run through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
This is the first time I've seen the claim that Afghanistan's oil reserves - which are less than 1/1000th of those of Iraq - were the reason for the country's invasion.
That's amazingly disingenuous. There's a modern historical link to communist change of power that is equaled only by fascist and dictatorship changes. It's not an anomoly, like it may be in other ideological changes, but it's inherent in the system.
Are you saying that Al Qaeda wouldn't have attacked if Gore was pres? Or are you arguing that Gore wouldn't have made a military response?
You're point is pretty much taken from left-leaning talking points. Got anything else? Like proof? An original argument? Or should we return to discussing the horrible fuck-up that communism is?
So how much in oil reserves has America taken?
Shorter Me: hyper-socialist YES, authoritarian NO.
I disagree. All of the communist regimes I can think of (USSR, PR China, Cuba, Angola) had preceding regimes that were equally authoritarian and had no history of large-scale democratic governance; I submit that communist autocracy is a result of inherent autocratic biases in the nation's history, and that a democracy could choose democratically to switch to a centrally-driven socialist economy with rigid price controls and redistribution of wealth.
EDIT: I just realized I may be mixing up terms. Quickly, I'm operating under these definitions:
Socialism - limited market, agressively progressive taxation, strong welfare state, universal health coverage, etc. Government acts only to keep people from being (too?) poor. Government owns utilities and other "subsistence" industries, e.g. water and electricity, but possibly/probably not cable TV.
Communism - government owns all industries, stores, and controls all markets.
*cough* JFK *cough*
I would ask:
1) Has it ever happened that people have democratically elected communism?
2) When it has, have the people been free to leave or vote back their old style of governance?
While it's purely hypothetical, we wouldn't be embroiled in a war of choice with Gore as Prez. Just Afghanistan.
Honest answers:
1. No.
2. Not answerable based on No to #1.
Please remember that communism/socialism as an in-practice political/economic system of government is only 90 years old, and that even Italy and Germany didn't become stable, progressive, archetypal Western democracies until after the USSR came into being.
So no, democratic communism hasn't really existed yet, but I also submit that has more to do with the palateability of socialism instead.
I think it's about even odds. Gore stated several times that he believe Saddam had WMDs, and linked Iraq to terrorism is a few speeches while he was VP.
The intellegence community that supplied the evidence used to precipitate action in Iraq is more career employees than political appointees, so the evidence would have been similar.
Finally, Clinton/Gore supported actions against Iraq, and a war in the former Yugoslavia. There is enough information to at least say "it may have been a similar strategy from Gore". At least enough to not be able to say "it would be different" with any authority.
I sincerely doubt it. He wouldn't have had the echo chamber of PNAC right outside his Oval Office doors.
Communism in practice and history though usually follows a Marxist-Leninist or a Maoist philosophy. These political idealogies are based on an authoritarian system that crushes the individual, censors the intellectual, and always has a damaging effect on the nation it takes hold of. The belief is, as supposed by Lenin, is that Marx was right but that society can be jump started through forced industrialization and can go from a preindustrial society straight to a communist society through government programs. Maoist thought is very similar but focuses more on an agricultural society than an industrial society. This was the line of thinking that led to 5 Year Plans of Stalin and the social programs of Mao. There is no democracy in these regimes and if there is it is a shame designed to silence dissedence. The "justice" systems of these societies is also harsh and involves "Re-Education Camps" as well as forced labor camps such as the famous Soviet Gulags. Cuba is one of the few societies today that follows a Marxist-Leninist plan.
The Cuban people supported the communists in the overthrow of Batista but can it be said that this justified the revolution and violence that came after it, most certainly not. The fact that the illeteracy rate of Cuba at that time was very high leads me to believe that the majority of the Cuban people had no idea what they were getting into or what exactly the revolutionaries stood for. The fact that a minority of the Cuban people saw it upon themselves to impose their will over the majority of the Cuban people does not make me think fondly of that nation's communist regime because that is tyranny plain and simple. Sure, Batista was a monster but Castro and the revolutionaries have become no better in the end.
There is nothing wrong with Marxist Communism, a fine system in places such as Kerala that allows for a prosperous, healthy, and educated society, but anyone who believes that Marxist-Leninism can liberate the Third World is a fool. All Marxist-Leninism does is exchange the shackles of the former oppressors and replaces them with the shackles of "the people".
JFK is a great example of the kind of string-pulling that goes on in a democracy. Hiring people with the same name as your opponent to befuddle voters is pretty sleazy.
Naturally I can't find links at the moment, but everything I've heard about the issue of pre-war intelligence completely contradicts this. While there was a split in opinion among the career people, the Iraq-supports-terrorism group was a very small minority, and the political appointees--with lots of unprecedented pressure from Cheney and his office--latched onto very dubious intelligence and interpretations. Hence the Wilson/Plame affair.
Plus, it just didn't make much sense to begin with: Saddam Hussein came to power largely by undercutting the religious elements in Iraq, who weren't terribly radicalized to begin with since Iraq was one of (if not the most) secular Islamic states in the Middle East.
Occasional air strikes to eliminate Iraqi military actions in clear violation of a standing UN mandate absolutely /= full-scale invasion of Iraq based on dubious-at-the-time and, we now know, completely mistaken intelligence.
Power is subject to abuse, no matter what ideology is behind it.
There's also a tendency to recall the sins of the 'enemy', yet ignore the atrocities permitted by our own governments.
That's unfortunately human nature.
'They' act, 'we' react.
Hilariously enough, the second link presented on the Google search results page you linked gives the following:
Ignore is probably not the right word. Atrocities committed by the US government are routinely debated, discussed, aired for the world to see, and shamed if necessary.
You've made the atrocities of one person into your avatar for pete's sake.
Is anyone on this forum named "Abu Ghraib" or "My Lai"?
You believe it was perpetuated as a personal revenge? That's pretty juvenile.
Yes, it is juvenile. But there can be no doubt that the reasoning behind at the very least the occupation of Iraq was flawed. Very flawed.
Like it or not, Che was a potent figure in shaping world events, and his actions have had a lasting effect. A small island like Cuba is pretty insignificant next to a superpower like America. The fact that a handful of men had the balls to stand up to a bullying foreign power and bloody their nose in the process set an important precedent on the world stage.
I don't admire the man for what some might call his 'misdeeds'. I admire his strength of conviction.
Keep reading.
And don't believe ever piece of propaganda thats handed to you.
The same goes for you too, just because you think you are right with all your heart doesnt mean you are.
Your evidence is just as likely to be faulty as the other guys.