A history of American violent imeprialism since WW2

[RGacky3]

http://killinghope.org/images/interventions_map.png

This is not even including threats, economic pressure, multinational pressure, and so on.

[Nox]

Wasn't there something like 600 assassination attempts on Castro?

[Deicide]

This is very interesting. Where did you find it?

[CommunityBeliever]

Thank you for this really nice map. It would be nice if the luminosity of the color of a country corresponded to the relative amount of bombing there.

[Partizanac]

The 600 are probably propaganda. But very nice picture.
People do forget about this.


This is very interesting. Where did you find it?

Read the darn source dude :D

[Bostana]

It's funny because they didn't have the guts to try and assassinate Stalin or any Soviet for that matter

[Prometeo liberado]

Why isn't Mexico red? From the mid to late 60's and early seventies the CIA trained Mexican torture squads and also sent out-of-uniform military "advisers" to quell several leftist guerrilla groups as well as student/labor movements. Just saying.

[gorillafuck]

It's funny because they didn't have the guts to try and assassinate Stalin or any Soviet for that matterthey didn't not have the guts. they were just smart enough to not do it. there was probably some hypothetical plans for how it would be done, but not trying to kill Stalin is more called "behaving intelligently" than being gutsless.

[Deicide]

The 600 are probably propaganda. But very nice picture.
People do forget about this.



Read the darn source dude :D

Rofl, I missed it entirely.

[#FF0000]

I know Vogel. Dude's a nativist hack.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

My mother had to live through one of these American Imperialist adventures during the 1980s. I do not know if you guys can even see it on this map (I can see it, but I had to look real hard), but my mother is from the little Central American nation of El Salvador. While they were having a civil war/revolution between the rebels of the people, the Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN), and the United States backed right-wing dictatorship and death squads, Asswipe-Supreme Reagan thought that it was not enough to send the Salvadoran government ridiculous amounts of financial aid. He decided to also send huge amounts of military aid (one of the largest military aid contributions given by the United States in that decade). He sent about $7,000,000,000 (that's seven fucking billion dollars) of military aid to the Salvadoran government over a period of ten year. That's seven billion dollars for a country you cannot even find on the map! Some of this military aid included American planes and helicopters that American pilots used to kill my mother's people with, excusing their actions by claiming they were killing rebels (as if that is an excuse). People died all around my mother because of these helicopters and planes, and she had to watch them die right before her eyes when she was only a young child. They used to call these American aircrafts "los roncos," or "the hoarse." This was because of the horrifying noise they made as they approached innocent villages to unleash their imperialist terror upon. Even to this day, over twenty years after the fighting ended, my mother suffers from PTSD and frequently has nightmares because of these imperialist pricks. I just went to El Salvador in 2005 and many parts of the country are still in ruins (Usually the poor parts. How nice).

The United States had no excuse for this imperialist bullshit in my mother's country. It was a small nation with a revolutionary force that the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Nicaragua all refused to send military aid to (at least substantially). This was not a proxy war against the Soviet Union, this was pure Reagan paranoia and imperialism. He could not blame it on the Soviets, even though he tried really hard to. This was a horrible imperialist conflict that the United States perpetuated. Imagine having your mother and little sister die in front of you when a bomb is dropped from a U.S military aircraft near your house! My mother had to see that at the tender age of eight! Damn imperialists. If I believed in hell, I would have hoped that Ronald Reagan were burning in it for all eternity.

[Ostrinski]

saved. thanks gack.

[bugsbunny]

This map is good. It shows the US has done much to fight for freedom and help prevent the world from becoming another Cambodia, Soviet Union, Cuba, N Korea etc.

According to the Black Book of Communism, the leftists killed or starved to death 100 million people. The US saved Europe from Soviet invasion, saved South Korea from becoming a starving concentration camp like N Korea, saved Taiwan from Communist Chinese invasion etc.

It also helped prevent Chile from becoming another Cuba by backing Pinochet. Today Chile is a rich democracy unlike Cuba. It failed in Indo-China because of the western left who supported the genocidal regimes of N Vietnam and Pol Pot.

This resulted in millions of deaths which the Left has never apologized for.

[Ostrinski]

It also helped prevent Chile from becoming another Cuba by backing Pinochet.No I mean you are kidding right

[Os Cangaceiros]

It failed in Indo-China because of the western left who supported the genocidal regimes of N Vietnam and Pol Pot.

This resulted in millions of deaths which the Left has never apologized for.

lol you mean the "western left" like the US government, who aided the Khmer Rouge in exile in Thailand, after they were driven from power by the Vietnamese military? :lol::closedeyes:

[bugsbunny]

No I mean you are kidding right

No, I am not.

[bugsbunny]

lol you mean the "western left" like the US government, who aided the Khmer Rouge in exile in Thailand, after they were driven from power by the Vietnamese military? :lol::closedeyes:

The Khmer Rouge would not have gained power if the US stayed in Vietnam 5 years longer. They were winning the war but left prematurely because of the western left.

As for backing the Khmer Rouge, this is a geopolitical neccessity to stop equally evil Communist Vietnamese whom the western left loves too. Its not different from supporting Stalin against Hitler.

Stalin is of course another genocidal Socialist that the western left loves. Walter Duranty used to write Stalin's propaganda in the NYT.

[#FF0000]

lol this guy

stalin bad but pinochet is okay

[#FF0000]

evil

ahahahahahahahahahahahah

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Khmer Rouge would not have gained power if the US stayed in Vietnam 5 years longer. They were winning the war but left prematurely because of the western left.

Lol, right, "because of the western left". I think you give the "western left" way too much credit.


As for backing the Khmer Rouge, this is a geopolitical neccessity to stop equally evil Communist Vietnamese whom the western left loves too. Its not different from supporting Stalin against Hitler.

Ah, so now American policy decisions are based on "geopolitical necessity". That certainly goes against this previous statement, which seems to ascribe a more altruistic nature to America's actions across the globe:


It shows the US has done much to fight for freedom


Stalin is of course another genocidal Socialist that the western left loves. Walter Duranty used to write Stalin's propaganda in the NYT.

Really, the western left still loves Stalin huh? Interesting. Tell me something, are you still living in the early 1950's?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The Khmer Rouge would not have gained power if the US stayed in Vietnam 5 years longer. They were winning the war but left prematurely because of the western left.

As for backing the Khmer Rouge, this is a geopolitical neccessity to stop equally evil Communist Vietnamese whom the western left loves too. Its not different from supporting Stalin against Hitler.

Stalin is of course another genocidal Socialist that the western left loves. Walter Duranty used to write Stalin's propaganda in the NYT.

Why in the world has this guy not been kick out of Revleft yet?! He is obviously either a troll or a neocon who needs to find a website for other neocon asswipes like himself. You insult me and you insult all the people of the world who have died at the hands of American imperialism, including the grandmother I never met.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47842000/jpg/_47842123_nickutphotograph466.jpg

Would you have the balls to tell this girl that the United States should have stayed in Vietnam for 5 more years? Get out, troll.

[gorillafuck]

The Khmer Rouge would not have gained power if the US stayed in Vietnam 5 years longer. They were winning the war but left prematurely because of the western left.

As for backing the Khmer Rouge, this is a geopolitical neccessity to stop equally evil Communist Vietnamese whom the western left loves too. Its not different from supporting Stalin against Hitler.

Stalin is of course another genocidal Socialist that the western left loves. Walter Duranty used to write Stalin's propaganda in the NYT.the western left didn't cause the US to leave Vietnam. the US lost because the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong were beating them. the American left didn't do shit.

does anyone else find it funny how bugsbunny propagates against libertarian philosophy?

[#FF0000]

Why in the world has this guy not been kick out of Revleft yet?! He is obviously either a troll or a neocon who needs to find a website for other neocon asswipes like himself. You insult me and you insult all the people of the world who have died at the hands of American imperialism, including the grandmother I never met.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47842000/jpg/_47842123_nickutphotograph466.jpg

Would you have the balls to tell this girl that the United States should have stayed in Vietnam for 5 more years? Get out, troll.

way to literally get mad at a thing on the internet, kid

[eric922]

This map is good. It shows the US has done much to fight for freedom and help prevent the world from becoming another Cambodia, Soviet Union, Cuba, N Korea etc.

According to the Black Book of Communism, the leftists killed or starved to death 100 million people. The US saved Europe from Soviet invasion, saved South Korea from becoming a starving concentration camp like N Korea, saved Taiwan from Communist Chinese invasion etc.

It also helped prevent Chile from becoming another Cuba by backing Pinochet. Today Chile is a rich democracy unlike Cuba. It failed in Indo-China because of the western left who supported the genocidal regimes of N Vietnam and Pol Pot.

This resulted in millions of deaths which the Left has never apologized for.
You do realize that book is widely considered to be rather inaccurate even by mainstream non Marxist historians. Oh and speaking of deaths, since you mentioned Pinochet, you do realize he was a brutal dictator who committed numerous human rights violations and over 40,000 people were victims of political repression, including torture, and over 3,600 were killed by his regime. Seriously, I can't believe you are trying to defend Augusto Pinochet.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

way to literally get mad at a thing on the internet, kid

People need to get mad about things like this.

[#FF0000]

People need to get mad about things like this.

getting mad and getting obviously emotional on the internet doesn't make your argument look good. it makes you look like a baby. stop it.

[Fawkes]

This map is good. It shows the US has done much to fight for freedom and help prevent the world from becoming another Cambodia, Soviet Union, Cuba, N Korea etc.

According to the Black Book of Communism, the leftists killed or starved to death 100 million people. The US saved Europe from Soviet invasion, saved South Korea from becoming a starving concentration camp like N Korea, saved Taiwan from Communist Chinese invasion etc.

It also helped prevent Chile from becoming another Cuba by backing Pinochet. Today Chile is a rich democracy unlike Cuba. It failed in Indo-China because of the western left who supported the genocidal regimes of N Vietnam and Pol Pot.

This resulted in millions of deaths which the Left has never apologized for.

I know it's never good to get overly emotional in arguments, but I want to fucking strangle you right now. My teacher/good friend grew up in Argentina during the "Dirty War", don't ever try to fucking say that the hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. government gave to the Argentine state for massive rape, kidnapping, torture, and murder was for "freedom" you dumbass.



Yeah, maybe I am feeding the troll, but every once in a while it's good to vent on pieces of shit like this.


And, for what it's worth, I've never defended N. Vietnam, Korea, Soviet Union, Cuba, China, or any other "socialist" state, pull your brainless head out of your ass.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

getting mad and getting obviously emotional on the internet doesn't make your argument look good. it makes you look like a baby. stop it.

I am not getting emotional, I think you are just trying to be rude to me when I never provoked you. But, whatever, I do really not want to argue with you. We should be arguing against imperialism, so let us get back on topic.

[bugsbunny]

Why in the world has this guy not been kick out of Revleft yet?! He is obviously either a troll or a neocon who needs to find a website for other neocon asswipes like himself. You insult me and you insult all the people of the world who have died at the hands of American imperialism, including the grandmother I never met.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47842000/jpg/_47842123_nickutphotograph466.jpg

Would you have the balls to tell this girl that the United States should have stayed in Vietnam for 5 more years? Get out, troll.

I would tell her that it was an unfortunate accident to prevent even worst atrocities like this one:

http://likeawhisper.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/skullscambodia.jpg

Cambodia skulls.

Or this one:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/02/22/460cam.jpg

Picture of people who died.

[gorillafuck]

you are aware that Vietnam and Cambodia are two separate countries right?

out of curiosity, why do you oppose libertarian philosophy? usually only batshit leftists or batshit rightists oppose it as adamantly as you seem to.

[#FF0000]

words

"atrocities are okay when my side commits them" -- bugsbunny

[Caj]

This map is good. It shows the US has done much to fight for freedom

Orwellian. . . .


According to the Black Book of Communism, the leftists killed or starved to death 100 million people.

Oh, please. Applying the same methodology that the Black Book uses, one can "prove" that capitalism killed far more than 100 million.

For example, it's estimated that roughly 10 million children die of starvation every year, despite the fact that current levels of food production could theoretically ensure that everbody receives about 2,700 calories daily. That's 100 million child deaths in capitalist countries from just starvation every decade. Are you willing to attribute those deaths to capitalism? Yeah, didn't think so. Besides, you'd have to add another 100 million deaths anyway since the regimes described in the Black Book were state capitalist, not socialist.


The US . . . saved South Korea from becoming a starving concentration camp like N Korea

Yes, by imposing a fascist strongman that imprisoned, tortured, and murdered political dissidents and calling it "democracy." Then, after his ouster by a democratic students' movement, supporting a series of equally repressive military dictatorships until around 1990.


It also helped prevent Chile from becoming another Cuba by backing Pinochet.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. So much for the US supporting democracy and "fight[ing] for freedom" (your words). :rolleyes:


This resulted in millions of deaths which the Left has never apologized for.

:rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Besides, you'd have to add another 100 million deaths anyway since the regimes described in the Black Book were state capitalist, not socialist.oh my god don't use this argument. it is literally the number one thing a socialist can do to send their credibility down the drain.

[bugsbunny]

You do realize that book is widely considered to be rather inaccurate even by mainstream non Marxist historians. Oh and speaking of deaths, since you mentioned Pinochet, you do realize he was a brutal dictator who committed numerous human rights violations and over 40,000 people were victims of political repression, including torture, and over 3,600 were killed by his regime. Seriously, I can't believe you are trying to defend Augusto Pinochet.

The 3,600 people who died were small compared to what Castro or Pol Pot or Lenin killed. It was either him or a Socialist dictatorship under Allende, supported by Castro and the Russians. I don't approve of any killling but I have to say he was the lesser of two evils.

There was an attempted Socialist revolution in Chile led from the top by Allende. Pinochet led a counter revolution and established a capitalist dictatorship thereby preventing a Socialist dictatorship. Had Pinochet failed, the body count, going by historical experience would have been much higher.

He restored Chile to prosperity using free markets and later held a referendum. When the people rejected him, he stepped down. Did Castro hold a referendum to ask the people if they still wanted him? No. He is still in power ruling an impoverished country where people risk their lives to escape to America.

Who do you think is better? Castro or Pinochet?

[gorillafuck]

There was an attempted Socialist revolution in Chile. Pinochet led a counter revolution and established a capitalist dictatorship thereby preventing a Socialist dictatorship. Had Pinochet failed, the body count, going by historical experience would have been much higher.socialist dictatorship? there was a socialist elected, who the soviet union disapproved of because he was lenient on opposition :laugh:

bugsbunny shows that he does not support concepts such as individual rights, and favors dictatorship over elections when he disapproves of the outcome. once again, out of curiosity, why do you so staunchly oppose libertarian philosophy? I am not a libertarian myself but even I don't oppose the philosophy behind it nearly as adamantly as you.

[eric922]

The 3,600 people who died were small compared to what Castro or Pol Pot or Lenin killed. So he was the lesser of two evils. I don't approve of any killling but I have to say he was the lesser of two evils.

There was an attempted Socialist revolution in Chile. Pinochet led a counter revolution and established a capitalist dictatorship thereby preventing a Socialist dictatorship. Had Pinochet failed, the body count, going by historical experience would have been much higher.

He restored Chile to prosperity and later held a referendum. When the people rejected him, he stepped down. Did Castro hold a referendum to ask the people if they still wanted him? No. He is still in power ruling an impoverished country where people risk their lives to escape to America.

Who do you think is better? Castro or Pinochet?
You do realize Salvador Allende was a democratically elected, correct? So what you are really saying is, you are fine with replacing a democratically elected leader with a dictator as long as the dictator agrees with you? Congratulations, you just lost any right to claim you are a proponent of freedom or democracy, since you clearly only care about democracy when the people agree with you. Try to not be so hypocritical in the future.

[CommunityBeliever]

Why in the world has this guy not been kick out of Revleft yet?!

I think banning is off the table at this point. The only remaining option is to humanely euthanise this bunny so that nobody else will die of shock at the sight of his utter stupidity or suffer major injuries from repeated face-palming.

[Caj]

oh my god don't use this argument. it is literally the number one thing a socialist can do to send their credibility down the drain.

I'm not using it as an actual argument. Attempting to discredit a position because it "killed X amount of people" is absurd, and I'm trying to demonstrate that to BugsBunny.

[gorillafuck]

well he's not a fascist so he cant be banned

[Ostrinski]

As for backing the Khmer Rouge, this is a geopolitical neccessity to stop equally evil Communist Vietnamese whom the western left loves too. Its not different from supporting Stalin against Hitler.Even if we were going to play the degree game, the lesser of two evils argument, this wouldn't even stand. How could you say that the Viet Minh were worse than the Khmer Rouge. I mean I'm not an ML but goddamn.

edit: I'm never gonna be able to look at the bugs bunny cartoon the same again. All I'm gonna see is a sinister pro-imperialist rodent.

[CommunityBeliever]

Every three seconds a child dies of extreme poverty because it isn't profitable for the capitalists to provide that child the necessities of life.

http://danielroweblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/extreme-poverty1.jpg

Over a billion people live and grow up in slums, because it isn't profitable enough to give them a decent living space.

http://www.ethiopianreview.com/album/albums/files/addis_ababa_slum021.jpg

This is the sort of destitution created by capitalism. Capitalism hinders economic progress, it destroys wealth, and it creates such ridiculous extents of inequality such that capitalist scum like Bill Gates live lives of luxury well the vast majority of the world's people suffer from poverty.


The 3,600 people who died were small compared to what Castro or Pol Pot or Lenin killed.The Western imperialists are ultimately behind the vast majority of the violent deaths of the past few centuries. They even fostered the creation of Pol Pot's genocidal regime in Cambodia.

On the other hand, the effect of socialist construction in Cuba and the USSR was to drastically increase life expectancy and living standards so the reality is that Lenin and Castro helped to save millions of people from poverty, destitution, and death.


There was an attempted Socialist revolution in Chile led from the top by Allende. Pinochet led a counter revolution and established a capitalist dictatorship thereby preventing a Socialist dictatorship. Salvador Allende was democratically elected and the reforms he intended to introduce would've considerably improved Chilean society. On the other hand, Pinochet was a despot who slaughtered thousands of innocent people.


It also helped prevent Chile from becoming another Cuba by backing Pinochet.The real problem here is that you don't know how to read properly. If you actually read anything I wrote (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2366750&postcount=52) in the "will there be a revolution in Cuba" thread, you would know that creating another Cuba would have been a relatively good thing.


Had Pinochet failed, the body count, going by historical experience would have been much higher. The "historical experiences" you are referring to are all fabrications. The bourgeoisie has so thoroughly twisted your understanding of socialism that it is now the opposite of reality.


According to the Black Book of Communism, the leftists killed or starved to death 100 million people. The author of that book was so obsessed with reaching a figure of 100 million deaths for 20th century communism, that he twisted every piece of data he came along to support that conclusion. The black book of communism is worthless and it should be put to use as toilet paper by those who are too poor to afford other sources of toilet paper.


This resulted in millions of deaths which the Left has never apologized for. The left shouldn't have to apologise for something that never happened. Leftists are people who support democracy and egalitarianism as opposed to authoritarianism and elitism, so the statement that "leftists slaughtered people" is inherently contradictory.


saved South Korea from becoming a starving concentration camp like N KoreaNorth Korea, although it isn't socialist, certainly isn't a "starving concentration camp" either. You should try to get some of your information from sources that aren't bourgeoisie propaganda. To start with here is an account of North Korean society (http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=656) that isn't so biased.

[bugsbunny]

socialist dictatorship? there was a socialist elected, who the soviet union disapproved of because he was lenient on opposition :laugh:

bugsbunny shows that he does not support concepts such as individual rights, and favors dictatorship over elections when he disapproves of the outcome. once again, out of curiosity, why do you so staunchly oppose libertarian philosophy? I am not a libertarian myself but even I don't oppose the philosophy behind it nearly as adamantly as you.

Pinochet's was elected with only about 36% of the vote. The Chilean Chamber of Deputies were not controlled by him but by opposition parties. So his power was limited by the constitution. But he ignored the constitution.

You are obviously not aware that Pinochet was flouting the constitution and was in fact starting a revolution from the top. His goons illegally took over 1500 farms and hundreds of factories and torturing people. The Chilean Congress condemned him in a resolution by a wide majority. Read this link. (http://www.josepinera.com/articles/articles_neveragain.htm)

The resolution accused Allende of, amongst other things, creating illegal armed groups which threatened the safety of citizens and obstructed the police in their duties. It also accused the government of ignoring the Rule of Law, making illegal arrests and torturing victims.


He was advised by Cubans and Russians who had already set up Socialist dictatorships in their own countries that killed millions of people. What do you think would have happened had Allende won? The same will happen.



It further accused the Allende government of illegally taking over farms and giving them to the peasants, his voters. When the police tried to enforce the law, armed groups loyal to Allende's party put up a fight.


The resolution also accused Allende of attacking educational freedom by illegally and surreptitiously implementing the Decree of the Democratization of Learning, whose Orwellian goal was Marxist indoctrination.


From all this, it became clear that Allende was attempting to start a violent Marxist revolution. To prevent Chile from becoming another Cuba or Soviet Union, who were advising Allende, General Pinochet launched a coup.


Excerpt from link:



In this context, it is shocking to read the honest confession of a former Argentine guerrilla: "Today I can tell you how lucky we are that we were not victorious. Given our formation and our heavy dependence on Cuba, we would have sunk the continent in general barbarism. One of our watchwords was to turn the Andes into the Sierra Maestra of Latin America. First we would have shot the soldiers, then the opposition, and then any of our comrades who opposed our authoritarianism" (Jorge Masetti, El Furor y el Delirio, 1999).

Pinochet saved Chile from becoming another Cuba or worse, another Soviet Union or Cambodia.

[Bostana]

This map is good. It shows the US has done much to fight for freedom and help prevent the world from becoming another Cambodia, Soviet Union, Cuba, N Korea etc.

According to the Black Book of Communism, the leftists killed or starved to death 100 million people. The US saved Europe from Soviet invasion, saved South Korea from becoming a starving concentration camp like N Korea, saved Taiwan from Communist Chinese invasion etc.

It also helped prevent Chile from becoming another Cuba by backing Pinochet. Today Chile is a rich democracy unlike Cuba. It failed in Indo-China because of the western left who supported the genocidal regimes of N Vietnam and Pol Pot.

This resulted in millions of deaths which the Left has never apologized for.

There version of freedom, which involves slavery of the Proletariat.

This is why a third of the world hates the U.S. because they get into shit they shouldn't being involved with.

Yah how much has the U.S. and right wingers killed in their History? The Nazi party, the KKK, the Skinheads, Republicans, etc, etc. Are all considered Right Wing and look at the people they have killed. More than they can count.

What about the Cuban Blockade? That has starved people yet the U.S. still think they're helping Cuba? You people make me sick. Fascist Hypocrites.

[Bostana]

Anything to enforce your version of freedom.

Let's see:

mdmhHAPw-Mg

[CommunityBeliever]

He was advised by Cubans and Russians who had already set up Socialist dictatorships in their own countries that killed millions of people.

Socialist construction in the USSR and Cuba vastly improved living standards in those countries, which saved millions of people from starvation, destitution, and death. Yet again you have everything backwards.


Pinochet saved Chile from becoming another Cuba or worse, another Soviet Union or Cambodia.

You are clearly looking at this from the perspective of the Western bourgeoisie because the only thing that Pinochet saved in Chile was the Western business interests. On the other hand, if Chile had become another Cuba then that would've been great for the majority of the Chilean people, who would now have full employment, universal health care, and many other advantages they currently lack.

[bugsbunny]

Hi Bostana,

I am afraid that they have lied to you. The USSR was the biggest seller of arms to Saddam Hussein, not the US. Here is the link (http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001853.html).
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002USSR ........................................ $25.1 b.............57.26 % of total
France....................................... $5.6 b...............12.74%
China..........................................$5. 2b................11.82%
USA............................................$0. 2b.................0.46%

That is the real reason why USSR, France and China strongly opposed the US invasion of Iraq. They did not want to lose a good customer.

France's case is interesting. Unlike China and the USSR, France is a democracy but it swings to the left and therefore has an uncompetitive economy and high unemployment. So it had to sell stuff to unsavory characters like Saddam and Mugabe to create jobs.





The US is usually a very princinpled nation in international affairs unlike Socialist dictatorships like the USSR or China.

[Omsk]

The US is usually a very princinpled nation in international affairs


Like in the Balkans?Where they made things much,much worse?

And a question for you:What exactly do you think was so wrong with the USSR?

[CommunityBeliever]

The USSR was the biggest seller of arms to Saddam Hussein, not the US.I would like to emphasise that even if that is true, the USSR was state capitalist at least by 1965, which was 14 years before Saddam Hussein held any political power.

[Bostana]

Hi Bostana,

I am afraid that they have lied to you. The USSR was the biggest seller of arms to Saddam Hussein, not the US. Here is the link (http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001853.html).

Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002
Country$MM USD 1990% TotalUSSR2514557.26France559512.74China519211.82Cz echoslovakia28806.56Poland16813.83Brazil7241.65Egy pt5681.29Romania5241.19Denmark2260.51Libya2000.46U SA2000.46South Africa1920.44Austria1900.43Switzerland1510.34Yugos lavia1070.24Germany (FRG)840.19Italy840.19UK790.18Hungary300.07Spain29 0.07East Germany (GDR)250.06Canada70.02Jordan20.005Total43915100.0
The US is usually a very princinpled nation in international affairs unlike Socialist dictatorships like the USSR or China.

When did I say that America was the biggest?

But the fact is your completely ignoring all of the other stuff in the video. When you see what America does in this video it scream Imperialism. I mean look at this.
Remember the whole Contra Scandal? They kill over 30,000 Civilians and yet Oliver North Ronald Reagan, and George Bush still funded them.
By selling weapons to Iran illegally.

You know what else is funny about it? America is pissed that Ian has weapons when really it was America that gave them the weapons. And they still want to place and embargo on Iran.

They say they will still try to place an embargo which isn't the first time America has gone against the U.N.'s decision since the whole Cuban Blockade and all.

America has a history of hypocrisy and Imperialism.

[Bostana]

Yah you know what I am talking about with the Contra Iran scandal.

With Oliver North. I have to show this video because it is hilarious and teaches us at the same time:

juxm4P4fnq8

[NorwegianCommunist]

My mother had to live through one of these American Imperialist adventures during the 1980s. I do not know if you guys can even see it on this map (I can see it, but I had to look real hard), but my mother is from the little Central American nation of El Salvador. While they were having a civil war/revolution between the rebels of the people, the Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN), and the United States backed right-wing dictatorship and death squads, Asswipe-Supreme Reagan thought that it was not enough to send the Salvadoran government ridiculous amounts of financial aid. He decided to also send huge amounts of military aid (one of the largest military aid contributions given by the United States in that decade). He sent about $7,000,000,000 (that's seven fucking billion dollars) of military aid to the Salvadoran government over a period of ten year. That's seven billion dollars for a country you cannot even find on the map! Some of this military aid included American planes and helicopters that American pilots used to kill my mother's people with, excusing their actions by claiming they were killing rebels (as if that is an excuse). People died all around my mother because of these helicopters and planes, and she had to watch them die right before her eyes when she was only a young child. They used to call these American aircrafts "los roncos," or "the hoarse." This was because of the horrifying noise they made as they approached innocent villages to unleash their imperialist terror upon. Even to this day, over twenty years after the fighting ended, my mother suffers from PTSD and frequently has nightmares because of these imperialist pricks. I just went to El Salvador in 2005 and many parts of the country are still in ruins (Usually the poor parts. How nice).

The United States had no excuse for this imperialist bullshit in my mother's country. It was a small nation with a revolutionary force that the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Nicaragua all refused to send military aid to (at least substantially). This was not a proxy war against the Soviet Union, this was pure Reagan paranoia and imperialism. He could not blame it on the Soviets, even though he tried really hard to. This was a horrible imperialist conflict that the United States perpetuated. Imagine having your mother and little sister die in front of you when a bomb is dropped from a U.S military aircraft near your house! My mother had to see that at the tender age of eight! Damn imperialists. If I believed in hell, I would have hoped that Ronald Reagan were burning in it for all eternity.


Im so sorry hear that about your family Comrade! :(

[bugsbunny]

When did I say that America was the biggest?

But the fact is your completely ignoring all of the other stuff in the video. When you see what America does in this video it scream Imperialism. I mean look at this.
Remember the whole Contra Scandal? They kill over 30,000 Civilians and yet Oliver North Ronald Reagan, and George Bush still funded them.
By selling weapons to Iran illegally.

You know what else is funny about it? America is pissed that Ian has weapons when really it was America that gave them the weapons. And they still want to place and embargo on Iran.

They say they will still try to place an embargo which isn't the first time America has gone against the U.N.'s decision since the whole Cuban Blockade and all.

America has a history of hypocrisy and Imperialism.

The contra affair was started to stop the Commies from taking over Nicaragua, if I recall correctly. Castro and the USSR was involved. Whenever a Socialist revolution takes place, there is a massive bloodbath.

Leftists in the US congress wanted to help fellow leftists in Nicaragua and so prevented Reagan from helping the contra rebels. So Oliver north raised money by selling weapons to Iran.

With that money, he helped the contra rebels which prevented Nicaragua from becoming a Socialist dictatorship like Cuba or the USSR which killed millions. (Oops! I mean a state capitalist dictatorship. There is no such thing as a Socialist state yet by the definations of some of you here.Such an utopia will never exist.)

Iran and Iraq were both dangers to the civilized world being ruled by madmen like Saddam and Khomeini. They were fighting a war. When they fight, they won't bother the rest of us.

Reagan's strategy was to keep them both fighting rather than invade. But he was fair to saddam. He gave Saddam intelligence to tell the Iraqis when the Iranians were coming thus neutralizing whatever weapons he sold to the Iranians. Very fair.

One more thing. Your youtube link said that the US sold billions of weapons to Saddam. Wrong. Acccording to the Stockholm institute of peace, the US only sold $200 million of weapons to Iraq. That's only 0.46% of the total weapons sold. Less than $1 billion. The worst hypocrisy came from Socialist countries who claim to have superior economic system but had to sell weapons to unsavory dictators to make profits. Only area where they are competitive. They can't sell cars, tv sets, computers etc. Only weapons.

[RGacky3]

bugsbunny, ALL of your excuses could be used by every single empire in history, including the USSR.

[Bostana]

The contra affair was started to stop the Commies from taking over Nicaragua, if I recall correctly. Castro and the USSR was involved. Whenever a Socialist revolution takes place, there is a massive bloodbath.

Leftists in the US congress wanted to help fellow leftists in Nicaragua and so prevented Reagan from helping the contra rebels. So Oliver north raised money by selling weapons to Iran.

With that money, he helped the contra rebels which prevented Nicaragua from becoming a Socialist dictatorship like Cuba or the USSR which killed millions. (Oops! I mean a state capitalist dictatorship. There is no such thing as a Socialist state yet by the definations of some of you here.Such an utopia will never exist.)

Iran and Iraq were both dangers to the civilized world being ruled by madmen like Saddam and Khomeini. They were fighting a war. When they fight, they won't bother the rest of us.

Reagan's strategy was to keep them both fighting rather than invade. But he was fair to saddam. He gave Saddam intelligence to tell the Iraqis when the Iranians were coming thus neutralizing whatever weapons he sold to the Iranians. Very fair.

Bloodbath of the Bourgeoisie. But when the Contras started fighting it as a bloodbath of 30,000 Nicaraguan civilians.

Illegally. Selling weapons to Iran Illegally. Yes a Capitalist dictatorship like the former Shah of Iran. Or when threw overthrew democratically elected President ARBENZ of Guatemala killing 200,000 civilians in the process. Our when they staged a coup de ta in Chile in which Democratically elected President Salvador Allende was killed.

America has installed dictatorships ever since they were created.

If Iraq and Iran were both dangers why did you fund both of them? :laugh:
You see why this is hypocritically stupid?

[Omsk]

Whenever a Socialist revolution takes place, there is a massive bloodbath.



Yes,because of the right-wing reaction.

Why dont you answer my previous questions?

[roy]

These justifications are getting increasingly feeble. Relax the dogma a bit. People from all sides of the field do some really bad shit.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Bugsbunny, in the thread about Cuba you complained about many leftist having a too black and white perspective. Well... You are taking that to its most stereotypical form right now, supporting fascist regimes just because they fought against 'reds' , ignorring the horrors they commited and Democracies they destroyed.

And wahts up with the posting of weak sourcess? Dont you check out them first? and then decides theire reliabillity? In the thread about Cuba you linked to a site that compared the countries helathcare to Auschwitz (you later admited that this was pure propaganda, but why post it then). And now you are refering to José Piñera, a former minister of Agusto Pinochet, known to be the kind of right-winger that mnay other right-wingers wouldnt want to be associated with (at least here in Sweden). He was a minister under the years when Chile was a dictatorship and know he blaims the left for blocking the democratic process of the country. What a coincidence.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Bugs, you are more of a cartoon character than your screen name implies. You argument is a straw-man, historical fiction, and a sick apologetic for a brutal dictatorship that disappeared and slaughtered trade-unionists and radicals among many others.

From all this, it became clear that Allende was attempting to start a violent Marxist revolution. To prevent Chile from becoming another Cuba or Soviet Union, who were advising Allende, General Pinochet launched a coup.

Pinochet saved Chile from becoming another Cuba or worse, another Soviet Union or Cambodia.

Allende's whole political position was AGAINST worker's revolution and for a gradual reform "road to socialism". His sin wasn't socialism but nationalizing US industries like Castro and Chavez did and were met with similar coup-attempts by the US. The US doesn't care about Democracy it's goal is control and influence and, at that time, keeping USSR imperialist aims in check. Before Allende had a chance to warm up the Presidential easy-chair, the US was already moving to depose him:


On October 16, 1970, a formal instruction was issued to the CIA base in Chile, saying in part, "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October, but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..."http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/chile05-01.jpg

The US was trying to overthrow him since 1970 (when he was elected) - so it wasn't a response to anything he did in particular, just a response to Cold War politics and the US's desire to control the politics and economies in it's "backyard".

Allende's policy was the "Chilean road to Socialism" which was basically a program of gradual reforms including nationalization of some industry which had actually already been underway before he took office. The "crisis" in Chile was massive polarization between the right and left with Allende playing the middle. He did not support or plot the worker takeovers during this time, this was the result of workers becoming impacient at the "gradual" nationalizations at a time when the rich were also "striking" (bosses strikes) and trying to push Allende from the right. In the end these workers were correct, if they had been able to organize and pose an alternative to "the Chilean road" then maybe workers could have mobilized to prevent the coup (or even take power themselves) and thereby prevent a massive attack on the working class and trade-unions that followed.

While Allende is cited by the revolutionary left as an example of the US's hollow ideals and how their imperial aims trump any fake claims about supporting democracy (see Afghanistan today - Obama is now saying, "democracy would be nice, but US interests need to come first and so we need to reconsider"). While many reformists see Allende as some lost martyr, revolutionary leftists (marxists and anarchists) tend to see Allende as a cautionary tale about attempts at electoral socialism and socialism from above rather than worker's revolution from below.

Neither Washington nor Moscow... worker's power, proletarian democracy!

[Bolshevik_Guerilla_1917]

Is it just me or is it kinda weird how they targeted Australia.

[danyboy27]

''if we would have stayed in vietnam 5 more years the kmer rouges would not have gained power''

You do realize the kmer rouge where anhilated by the vietnamese ''communist
forces'' right?


M-L tendencies 101:
Marxist leninist are not fan of Maoists, and vice versa.

[m1omfg]

bugsbunny, you truly believe your shit? And by the way, I think Cuba or the USSR were way better countries than the piece of shit Pinochet regime you support. If we really killed 100 million people, then we would have certainly killed fuckers like you long time ago.

[Decolonize The Left]

lol

http://artoftrolling.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/chatroulette-trolling-trollbunny.jpg

Seriously.

- August

[Fawkes]

I would tell her that it was an unfortunate accident to prevent even worst atrocities like this one:

http://likeawhisper.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/skullscambodia.jpg

Cambodia skulls.

Or this one:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/02/22/460cam.jpg

Picture of people who died.

You do realize that the Khmer Rouge was supported for years by the U.S. after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, right?

Also, during the Vietnam War, nearly 3 million tons' worth of bombs were dropped on Cambodia by the U.S. The Allies (not just the U.S.) dropped roughly 2 million tons' worth throughout Asia and Europe for the entirety of WWII (including Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

That's a lot of "unfortunate accidents"

[Neoprime]

It's funny because they didn't have the guts to try and assassinate Stalin or any Soviet for that matter

Stalin would of had that ass whoop/killed.:thumbup1:

[bugsbunny]

bugsbunny, you truly believe your shit? And by the way, I think Cuba or the USSR were way better countries than the piece of shit Pinochet regime you support. If we really killed 100 million people, then we would have certainly killed fuckers like you long time ago.

I knew it. Socialists are prone to violence.

[bugsbunny]

And wahts up with the posting of weak sourcess? Dont you check out them first? and then decides theire reliabillity? In the thread about Cuba you linked to a site that compared the countries helathcare to Auschwitz (you later admited that this was pure propaganda, but why post it then).

Hi Bob,

That's a good question and I will take the trouble to answer. There are two reasons.

1)Firstly, people here are mostly pro Cuba. They sing Castro's praises - like him creating high educational, medical standards etc. I wanted to show them that there are a lot of people out there who think Cuba is one of the worst places on earth. They hold their anti-castro views as strongly and passionately as most people hold their favorable views on cuba. This, I hoped would get you to think and ask if their beliefs are correct. Maybe its the other side who is correct.

2)I want you to realize that Socialist proganda is also like the anti-castro propaganda. After waiting for people to have a chance to read the "The Real Cuba" website, I freely admitted that its an anti-castro propaganda site. I even came up with WHO statistics showing cuba's ranking of its health care system to be nearly as high as the US.

Since the Cold War, both capitalists and socialists have been engaged in a propaganda war. Propaganda is not necessarily all false information. The propagandist must establish his credibility. If he keeps getting caught with lies, his credibility will drop to zero.

So most of the time, he just emphasizes the bad things of his opponent and keeps quiet about the good things. That is what "The Real Cuba" website has done. The pictures are real but the website cherry picked all the worst pictures to prove their case that cuba has a terrible health care system.

But the Left is also doing the same. Someone gave me some links showing how bad the US health care system is. But after all the mud slinging, both health care systems are ranked about the same, according to WHO.

So what I wanted you all to realize is this. Be careful of propaganda from both sides, including your own. I personally think that all of you have been victims of Socialist propaganda - which gives only bad things about capitalism and america and stay silent on the good things. It also only says good things about socialism and never bad things. Ask yourself. Is there anything that is created by man that is perfect in this world? No. So how can Socialism not have its bad side too?

Just as Castro's oppponents play this game, so too do socialists to prove capitalism is bad.




And now you are refering to José Piñera, a former minister of Agusto Pinochet, known to be the kind of right-winger that mnay other right-wingers wouldnt want to be associated with (at least here in Sweden). He was a minister under the years when Chile was a dictatorship and know he blaims the left for blocking the democratic process of the country. What a coincidence.


Jose Pinera was an economist who did not kill anyone. He was a technocrat who managed the economy and he did a good job. Chileans greatly benefitted from his work. I can give other links to show that allende subverted the constitution and used illegal means to achieve power.

[Jimmie Higgins]

A Presidential election without a clear winner, resulting in another body in the government deciding the election, the chosen candidate becomes President and expands executive power and does things that his opposition call "unconstitutional"... so think there should have been a coup against George Bush?

[RGacky3]

1)Firstly, people here are mostly pro Cuba. They sing Castro's praises - like him creating high educational, medical standards etc. I wanted to show them that there are a lot of people out there who think Cuba is one of the worst places on earth. They hold their anti-castro views as strongly and passionately as most people hold their favorable views on cuba. This, I hoped would get you to think and ask if their beliefs are correct. Maybe its the other side who is correct.


Most of us here are NOT pro-Cuba in the sense that we think that Cuba is a model we should strive for, or that Cuba is doing things sytemically right.

HOWEVER, the facts are the facts, Cuba has done heaps better in education, medical standards, living standards and so on than other comparative countries.

Accepting the facts of accomplishments, while also accepting failures and injustices is not pro-Cuba, its accepting the facts.


Since the Cold War, both capitalists and socialists have been engaged in a propaganda war. Propaganda is not necessarily all false information. The propagandist must establish his credibility. If he keeps getting caught with lies, his credibility will drop to zero.


Which is why almost no one ever believes the US government when it comes to foreign policy (other than die hard patriots), and the USSR does'nt exist anymore.

Socialists don't have a propeganda machine.

The USSR used to.


But the Left is also doing the same. Someone gave me some links showing how bad the US health care system is. But after all the mud slinging, both health care systems are ranked about the same, according to WHO.


Sure, The United States is the richest country in the world and the only world power at the moment!!! Its no suprise that it can compete with a third world country thats been ravaged by colonialism, imperialism and so on for decades.

That would be like Ancient Rome boasting that its education is just as well developed as some gaulic villiage.


So what I wanted you all to realize is this. Be careful of propaganda from both sides, including your own. I personally think that all of you have been victims of Socialist propaganda - which gives only bad things about capitalism and america and stay silent on the good things. It also only says good things about socialism and never bad things. Ask yourself. Is there anything that is created by man that is perfect in this world? No. So how can Socialism not have its bad side too?


Where are these propeganda machines???
The Socialist worker magazine??? The nation??? Revleft??? Indymedia???

Common now.


Jose Pinera was an economist who did not kill anyone. He was a technocrat who managed the economy and he did a good job. Chileans greatly benefitted from his work. I can give other links to show that allende subverted the constitution and used illegal means to achieve power.

The fact that you EVEN support Pinoche, shows that your not an honest debater here, your just on team capitalist/conservative.

[bugsbunny]

A Presidential election without a clear winner, resulting in another body in the government deciding the election, the chosen candidate becomes President and expands executive power and does things that his opposition call "unconstitutional"... so think there should have been a coup against George Bush?

Bush did not get his supporters to take over farms and factories, armed them and fought police who tried to enforce the law.

[bugsbunny]

Most of us here are NOT pro-Cuba in the sense that we think that Cuba is a model we should strive for, or that Cuba is doing things sytemically right.

HOWEVER, the facts are the facts, Cuba has done heaps better in education, medical standards, living standards and so on than other comparative countries.

Accepting the facts of accomplishments, while also accepting failures and injustices is not pro-Cuba, its accepting the facts.



Which is why almost no one ever believes the US government when it comes to foreign policy (other than die hard patriots), and the USSR does'nt exist anymore.

Socialists don't have a propeganda machine.

The USSR used to.



Sure, The United States is the richest country in the world and the only world power at the moment!!! Its no suprise that it can compete with a third world country thats been ravaged by colonialism, imperialism and so on for decades.

That would be like Ancient Rome boasting that its education is just as well developed as some gaulic villiage.



Where are these propeganda machines???
The Socialist worker magazine??? The nation??? Revleft??? Indymedia???

Common now.



The fact that you EVEN support Pinoche, shows that your not an honest debater here, your just on team capitalist/conservative.

All I said was that Pinochet was the lesser evil compared to the alternative. Do you agree that he was better than socialist dictators like castro, lenin, pol pot etc.

[bugsbunny]

You do realize that the Khmer Rouge was supported for years by the U.S. after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, right?

Also, during the Vietnam War, nearly 3 million tons' worth of bombs were dropped on Cambodia by the U.S. The Allies (not just the U.S.) dropped roughly 2 million tons' worth throughout Asia and Europe for the entirety of WWII (including Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

That's a lot of "unfortunate accidents"

They were trying to stop the socialist dictatorships like the khmer rouge and the n vietnamese. do you want these people to win?

[roy]

All I said was that Pinochet was the lesser evil compared to the alternative. Do you agree that he was better than socialist dictators like castro, lenin, pol pot etc.

Now you're just calling one murderer "better" due to ideology. That's warped. You should really sit down and think this stuff over if you're serious.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Bush did not get his supporters to take over farms and factories, armed them and fought police who tried to enforce the law.No, but Lincoln did. Are you a Boothist? Or just a Confederate?

[RGacky3]

All I said was that Pinochet was the lesser evil compared to the alternative. Do you agree that he was better than socialist dictators like castro, lenin, pol pot etc.

Not better than castro, not better than lenin,, probably better than pol pot.

Also the alternative was a democracy.

[Partizanac]

You do realize that the Khmer Rouge was supported for years by the U.S. after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, right?

Also, during the Vietnam War, nearly 3 million tons' worth of bombs were dropped on Cambodia by the U.S. The Allies (not just the U.S.) dropped roughly 2 million tons' worth throughout Asia and Europe for the entirety of WWII (including Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

That's a lot of "unfortunate accidents"


Yeah someone should try and push for this on the wiki.
The article today suggests the opposite. The Khmer Rouge where never allied with the Vietnamese. Only a coalition consisting of them but also other elements such as those supporting the recently couped progressive king that ruled the country were. As soon as the Khmer Rouge were installed the Vietnamese shrugged them off and actually were the ones that stoped the slaughter.

I doubt the person who posted these pictures will take note. People are so unwilling to change their opinions, especially over internet drabble. But Cambodias people owe a great deal to the Vietnamese and can only despise the Americans for shrinking so low.

[eric922]

All I said was that Pinochet was the lesser evil compared to the alternative. Do you agree that he was better than socialist dictators like castro, lenin, pol pot etc.
The alternative was a democratically elected. Seriously, your blatant hypocrisy is getting old. Do you have no principles at all? You claim to talk of freedom and democracy, but clearly to you, freedom means the right to do as America says.

[bugsbunny]

The alternative was a democratically elected. Seriously, your blatant hypocrisy is getting old. Do you have no principles at all? You claim to talk of freedom and democracy, but clearly to you, freedom means the right to do as America says.

Pinochet might have been elected but he tried to tear up the constitution. He armed thugs to illegally take over farms and factories who clashed with the police.

This was revolution. The Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution that condemned him. If he was really for democracy, he would not have done illegal things.

Take a look at this link (http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/general-pinochet-a-defender-of-freedom/).

Excerpt:



Pinochet led a revolution in Chile that by communist standards was virtually bloodless. Some 3,000 people were killed by the military when they overthrew Salvador Allende, the president elected by 36 percent of the voters. He was taking Chile down the road to communism, violating the constitution and ruining the economy. Just a few weeks before the military overthrew Allende, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies overwhelmingly passed a resolution charging Allende with a long list of crimes ranging from usurpation of the legislative prerogatives of Congress to systematic violations of the Constitution. The resolution called on all members of the military in the government to act to bring an end to these illegal actions.

The Chilean military acted three weeks later, saying that it found strong evidence that Allende was plotting a coup that would have saddled the country with an irreversible totalitarian dictatorship. The Washington Post reported before the military acted that Chile was in crisis because Allende was trying to carry out sweeping changes that did not have the support of the majority of the people. He did, however, have the support of Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union.

[RGacky3]

Pinochet might have been elected but he tried to tear up the constitution. He armed thugs to illegally take over farms and factories who clashed with the police.

It was'nt illigal, his predecesor had started it with the approval of congress.

So it was legal.

As far as the constitution he did'nt ingore it, he had it amended.

But agian, you obviously prefer a dictator who dissregards human rights, murders tons of innocent civilians, and destroys the economy with market fundementalism, over a democratic government that socializes things

[bugsbunny]

Not better than castro, not better than lenin,, probably better than pol pot.

Also the alternative was a democracy.

The alternative was a Socialist dictatorship led by Allende who was been advised by the Russians and the Cubans.

[RGacky3]

The alternative was a Socialist dictatorship led by Allende who was been advised by the Russians and the Cubans.

He was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, and there was no real signs that he planned on a dictatorship, the socialization started before him and elections continued.

His socialism was slightly more radical than the Scandanavian social democracies, and not at all more dictatorial.

[Omsk]

Do you also support the Western "democracies" when they helped Hitler achieve his goals and expand his power?

[bugsbunny]

Not better than castro, not better than lenin,, probably better than pol pot.

Also the alternative was a democracy.

Better than Castro, Lenin and Pol Pot. At least we agree that Pinochet was better than Pol Pot.

Pinochet killed 3000+ people

Now see this link. (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html)

Castro killed 30,000

Lenin killed 30,000

But Pinochet restored the economy to health and prosperity and later restored democracy. Castro is still dictator and lenin died a dictator. They both also ruined their economies.

[bugsbunny]

Do you also support the Western "democracies" when they helped Hitler achieve his goals and expand his power?

It was the USSR who formed an alliance with Nazi Germany and invaded Poland. The Germans also got the idea of concentration camps from the Russians.

Stalin's Unholy alliance with Hitler (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18884)

[eric922]

Better than Castro, Lenin and Pol Pot. At least we agree that Pinochet was better than Pol Pot.

Pinochet killed 3000+ people

Now see this link. (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html)

Castro killed 30,000

Lenin killed 30,000

But Pinochet restored the economy to health and prosperity and later restored democracy. Castro is still dictator and lenin died a dictator. They both also ruined their economies.
How do I know your site isn't just making numbers up? It gives no references. Secondly,the Lenin being a dictator comment is just false. Dictators rule with by decree alone, Lenin had to get the Soviets to support his policies, and you can't even claim the Soviets merely rubberstamped his decisions since he was voted down several times on the issue of getting out of WWI.

Now, this is purely anecdotal so you can believe it or not, but a couple years ago I asked my Western Civ professor if he thought Lenin was a dictator, he said no. He said he certainly thought Stalin was, but Lenin was not.

[Metacomet]

Better than Castro, Lenin and Pol Pot. At least we agree that Pinochet was better than Pol Pot.

Pinochet killed 3000+ people

Now see this link. (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html)

Castro killed 30,000

Lenin killed 30,000

But Pinochet restored the economy to health and prosperity and later restored democracy. Castro is still dictator and lenin died a dictator. They both also ruined their economies.


Stalin killed 4 billion people
Reagan killed 387 million. I know it cuz the internet told me.

[bugsbunny]

Now you're just calling one murderer "better" due to ideology. That's warped. You should really sit down and think this stuff over if you're serious.

No, not due to ideology. But due to what he did compared to the others.

Pinochet killed fewer people than Castro, Stalin and Pol Pot. He gave his people better life than the other three murderers. His country prospered under free market policies while Stalin's Castro's and Pol Pot's people starved under Socialist policies. Pinochet held a referendum asking the people whether they still wanted him to rule.

When the people told him they no longer wanted him, he stepped down. Castro, Stalin and Pol Pot never asked the people if they wanted them to rule. They just used force. So Pinochet was a better man than the Socialist dictators.

[RGacky3]

But Pinochet restored the economy to health and prosperity and later restored democracy. Castro is still dictator and lenin died a dictator. They both also ruined their economies.

That is total bullshit, how are you counting the deaths???

If we are using the same methods we should include ALL the casualties in the wars America engages in (including the nuclear bombs), and people who die due to lack of medical coverage.

Castro and Lenin greatly increased living standards for everyone ... (again I'm no leninist defender).

The Chilean economy crashed in the late 80s early 90s due to the policies, extreme poverty jumped, poverty jumped.

Also Pinoche democratized in name only, he still controlled the military and essencially policy.

What happened to Chiles economy happens to ALL economies that turn to neo-classical reforms.

[bugsbunny]

How do I know your site isn't just making numbers up? It gives no references. Secondly,the Lenin being a dictator comment is just false. Dictators rule with by decree alone, Lenin had to get the Soviets to support his policies, and you can't even claim the Soviets merely rubberstamped his decisions since he was voted down several times on the issue of getting out of WWI.

Now, this is purely anecdotal so you can believe it or not, but a couple years ago I asked my Western Civ professor if he thought Lenin was a dictator, he said no. He said he certainly thought Stalin was, but Lenin was not.

Lenin was not elected by the Russian people. That makes him a dictator.

[bugsbunny]

That is total bullshit, how are you counting the deaths???

If we are using the same methods we should include ALL the casualties in the wars America engages in (including the nuclear bombs), and people who die due to lack of medical coverage.

Castro and Lenin greatly increased living standards for everyone ... (again I'm no leninist defender).

The Chilean economy crashed in the late 80s early 90s due to the policies, extreme poverty jumped, poverty jumped.

Also Pinoche democratized in name only, he still controlled the military and essencially policy.

What happened to Chiles economy happens to ALL economies that turn to neo-classical reforms.

Chile is one of the richest, if not the richest (http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=3757), country in South America. Pinochet set the ball rolling with his reforms. He took over a bankrupt country caused by Allende. His successor continued the free market reforms.

[eric922]

Lenin was not elected by the Russian people. That makes him a dictator.
That isn't the definition of a dictator. Merriam-Webster defines dictator as:

a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome
b : one holding complete autocratic control
c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively

None of those mention not being elected as criteria. By your definition Hitler was not a dictator because he was elected and George Washington was a dictator because he was appointed by the electoral college, the people had no say in who was chosen to be the first president of the U.S.

[RGacky3]

Lenin was not elected by the Russian people. That makes him a dictator.

Actually he was. (does'nt make him not a dictator in my book, but get the damn facts straight).


Chile is one of the richest, if not the richest (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=3757), country in South America. Pinochet set the ball rolling with his reforms. He took over a bankrupt country caused by Allende.

Yes, 20 years after Pinochet was out of power and after social-democratic parties and socialists cleaned up the mess.

[bugsbunny]

Here is a good article (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/chile.html)on Chile and Pinochet's reforms.

Excerpt:



And yet, Pinochet's despotic but economically successful legacy remains troublingly ambiguous to many Chileans. Led by young, free-market policy makers, Pinochet privatized everything from mines to factories to social security. He welcomed foreign investment and lifted trade barriers, forcing Chilean businesses to compete with imports or close down.

The reforms were wrenching. At one time, a third of the labor force was unemployed. But since the mid-1980s, the economy has averaged almost 6 percent annual growth, raising per capita income for the 16 million Chileans to more than $7,000—making them among the most prosperous people in South America—and creating a thriving middle class.

Today, only 18.7 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, compared, for example, with 38.7 percent in Brazil and 62.4 percent in Bolivia. At this pace, Chile, within a generation, will become Latin America's most prosperous nation.

Neighboring countries, many of which embrace populist, left-wing economic policies, tend to resent Chile's growing prosperity, rooted as it is in the policies put in place by the region's most notorious dictator. "We can't go around rubbing our neo-capitalism in the faces of other Latin Americans," says Raul Sohr, a Chilean novelist and leading center-left political commentator. "Bachelet certainly won't do that."

At home, however, neo-capitalism has taken root. The democratically elected governments that have succeeded Pinochet in Chile have barely tinkered with the economic model he ushered in. "Voters figure that the same economic policies will continue no matter who gets elected," says former economics minister Sergio de Castro, 76, who forged many of the Pinochet-era reforms. "So, if the left wants to appropriate the model we created, well that's just fine."


See. Even the left wants Chile's economic model - the free market.

[Omsk]

Pinochet was a small,right-wing autocrat trash,unworty of mention.

Like all right-wing 'leaders'.

[bugsbunny]

Actually he was. (does'nt make him not a dictator in my book, but get the damn facts straight).




Nope. he was elected by his party and not by the Russian people. He ruled by force.

[RGacky3]

Nope. he was elected by his party and not by the Russian people. He ruled by force.

and the bolsheviks won the soviet elections, so yeah, he was elected by the russian people.

[Bostana]

I knew it. Socialists are prone to violence.

As Capitalists are prone toe money

[eric922]

Okay, Bugs lets look at this differently. Let's assume you are right at what Allende did violated the Constitution of Chile. What right does that give the U.S. to enact a coup and install a military junta? There are a lot of people who think Bush's actions, especially the Patriot Act, were unconstitutional, would you be happy if a foreign country overthrew Bush and installed a Junta?

[Fawkes]

They were trying to stop the socialist dictatorships like the khmer rouge and the n vietnamese. do you want these people to win?

Do you not know how to read or something? How is aiding the Khmer Rouge "trying to stop" them?

If by "these people" you mean the Khmer Rouge and the Viet Minh (operating in two completely different countries, so stop trying to conflate them), no, I don't want them to "win" (present tense isn't exactly appropriate here), I'm an anarchist. I don't see how that is remotely relevant to the fact that the U.S. bombed an entire country back to the stone age, and got pretty damn close to doing the same to Vietnam.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Bugs, its kind of tradgic that you just points out that leftists are "brainwashed" with red propaganda, when you youreself clearly are dnying hard facts and picks out fishy right-winged propaganda and holds that as the truth.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It was the USSR who formed an alliance with Nazi Germany and invaded Poland. The Germans also got the idea of concentration camps from the Russians.


They got the idea from the American Native American camps; so "effective" were the camps at processing Native Americans Hitler sought to replicate said effects in Germany.

[Kitty_Paine]

His country prospered under free market policies while Stalin's Castro's and Pol Pot's people starved under Socialist policies. Pinochet held a referendum asking the people whether they still wanted him to rule.

Uhhhh, what? Not only did Castro drastically improve his people's living standards but a vast majority of his people loved him.

The poor economic conditions that Cuba has suffered under has been 101% due to the United States and it's embargo on Cuba. The United States had a shit load of money coming out of Cuba from land and companies it owned, when Castro came to power he said GTFO and the U.S. had a hissy fit and started the embargo and the assassination plots, etc. The history goes even further back than when the United States made Cuba almost entirely dependent on the sugar cane the country produced and sold to the U.S. This had terrible consequences on Cuba's economy and employment because of the harvest cycle... anyway, I could go on but how about you pick up a book and stop assuming everything is because of "socialist policy". Read Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century or anyother book on the subject before you blame the poor conditions in Cuba on "socialist policies".

[Omsk]

It was the USSR who formed an alliance with Nazi Germany and invaded Poland. The Germans also got the idea of concentration camps from the Russians.


Only after the Western power proved they want to turn Nazi Germany on the USSR,and only after they [Western Powers] ignored open calls for an alliance against Nazism.And,its not an alliance,it was just a pact,which was needed.And dont write nonsense posts anymore,if you could.



Stalin's Unholy alliance with Hitler

Oh please...

Sure,it was " Unholy alliance!!! " but when 'unholy Stalin's USSR' basically won the war for us,hes OK.

Typical nonsense.

[bugsbunny]

Uhhhh, what? Not only did Castro drastically improve his people's living standards but a vast majority of his people loved him.

The poor economic conditions that Cuba has suffered under has been 101% due to the United States and it's embargo on Cuba. The United States had a shit load of money coming out of Cuba from land and companies it owned, when Castro came to power he said GTFO and the U.S. had a hissy fit and started the embargo and the assassination plots, etc. The history goes even further back than when the United States made Cuba almost entirely dependent on the sugar cane the country produced and sold to the U.S. This had terrible consequences on Cuba's economy and employment because of the harvest cycle... anyway, I could go on but how about you pick up a book and stop assuming everything is because of "socialist policy". Read Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century or anyother book on the subject before you blame the poor conditions in Cuba on "socialist policies".

You have got it wrong. The embargo is not the cause of the island's economic problems. The cause is Socialism. Cuba cannot earn enough money because its Socialist economy cannot make enough stuff that the rest of the world is willing to buy.

Only the US has an embargo on Cuba. Cuba is free to trade with the rest of the world. It even trades with the US because the US embargo exempts food and medicine. In fact, the US is Cuba's 7th largest trade partner.

Look at the other Socialist economy - N Korea. Its another basket case right? That was how the Soviet Union fell. The people were fed up with having to wait in queue for hours.

Its the same with the Cubans. What makes you think the Cubans love Castro when there are no free elections?

[bugsbunny]

Oh please...

Sure,it was " Unholy alliance!!! " but when 'unholy Stalin's USSR' basically won the war for us,hes OK.

Typical nonsense.

The USSR was an imperialist power that was eyeing Poland and Finland. It made a deal with the Nazis to gain the Baltics and half of Poland.

USSR played its part and so did the west - (US and UK). Its not the case that the USSR won the war for the US.

Stalin was in fact desperate for the west to open up a second front (http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/in-depth/the-conferences.html)against Hitler to draw away German troops.

Excerpt:



The Soviet Union was desperate for the Western Allies to open a second front in Europe, the fate of Great Britain depended on the USSR’s ability to occupy the Nazis on the eastern front,


The USSR won the war for us? You have been too brainwashed with Soviet propaganda.

Here is more info on how the US helped the USSR to survive (http://www.historynet.com/russias-life-saver-lend-lease-aid-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm)in World War II.

Excerpt:



Spam was one of the many food items sent to the former Soviet Union by the United States under the Lend-Lease Program first suggested by Winston Churchill, to which the United States contributed the major portion. The subject has been previously covered by such books as Hubert van Tuyll's Feeding the Bear (1989), but the present well-written text has the advantage of access to Russian sources, which were put to good use by Albert Weeks. The author makes a clear case that the program was a major factor in the survival of the Soviet Union and the victory over Nazism.


So without Allied help, the Soviet Union would have been defeated by the Nazis. The US and the UK saved the USSR.

[rednordman]

@Bugsbunny: Are you actually from Chile? Did you live during the Pinochet dictatorship? Its one of the few dictatorships that was backed by the USA, that even the USA openly admit the crimes of his regime. The death toll of about 3,000 people is a bit of a smokescreen as they recon tens of thosands more people went missing without explanation and shit loads more people, including religious people who openly opposed his dictatorship got tortured into silence.

I'm not going to say that the communists at the time where angles on that either, just to defend Pinochet and try and make him sound like some benign dictator is well, ignorance beyond belief.

As as a British person, it is almost common consensus that if the nazis had have put in half as many troops when invading us than they did the Soviet Union, we would have been totally fucked. Your right, the US and UK did help/aid the SU. But it was very much in all their interests to do so.

I suppose your going to try and defend the Nazis now for fighting against socialism are you?:rolleyes:

[Omsk]

The USSR was an imperialist power


No it was not,and you dont have any proof or actual examples to back this up,mainly because the USSR simply wasnt imperialist,and i think you fail to understand what imperialism means.


It made a deal with the Nazis to gain the Baltics and half of Poland.

You are wrong,again,the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact never mentioned any kind of a military alliance which would aim at the spliting of Eastern Europe.


Stalin was in fact desperate for the west to open up a second front (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/in-depth/the-conferences.html)against Hitler to draw away German troops.


You are wrong again,and again,you make mistakes on beginner's grounds: By 1943 the USSR already won the most important battle,while the allies were doing nothing,in comparison.


The USSR won the war for us?

Yes,with over 80% and more of the Wermacht troops on the East,which were defeated,by the Red Army,the USSR had the most credit for the victory in the war.This is undeniable.

On the other hand,the British were actively supporting Hitler,ad pushing him to go to the East.

British diplomacy granted to Hitler Germany everything that it had refused for more than a decade to the German republic: the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Nazi -- terrorized plebiscite in the Saar, German rearmament and naval expansion.... British finance, which had strangled the struggling German democracy with demands for impossible war reparations, supported Hitler's regime with heavy investments and loans. It was no secret to any intelligent world citizen that the British Tories made these concessions to Hitler because they saw in him their "strong--arm gangster" who would eventually fight the Soviets, which important sections of British finance capital have always seen as their greatest foe.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 147


If any doubt remained as to the motives of the British and French foreign offices, it was removed at the Munich conference. Munich -- with its cynical sell out of Czechoslovakia -- was the trump card of the Tory ruling cllass in its game of driving Germany toward the east. The British Prime Minister chamberlain posed as "appeasing" Hitler, while actually egging him on. Chamberlain suggested that the Sudetenland might be given to Hitler before anyone in Germany had dared to express such a desire.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 148


Almost as soon as the Nazi troops marched into the Czech territory, it was discovered that representatives of London finance had agreed with German industrialists some weeks earlier about the financing of the great Enterprises thus seized.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 149




Here is more info on how the US helped the USSR to survive (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.historynet.com/russias-life-saver-lend-lease-aid-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm)in World War II.




That is a pathetic excuse for a 'supporting argument/information' .

Again,you are both wrong,and you have no proof.


So without Allied help, the Soviet Union would have been defeated by the Nazis. The US and the UK saved the USSR

Absolutely no proof,this is quite ridiculous.

Do you know what Churchil said about the Soviet war effort?

It is the Russian army said Churchill on August second 1944 that has done the main work of tearing the guts out of the German Army.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 493

Here is some information about this second frot you are talking about:


Stalin became convinced that the Anglo-Saxon Powers were pursuing a policy of prolonging the war, so that not only should Germany be brought low, but the Soviet Union should be so bled white that after the war it would be a weak country. This Stalin repeatedly and plainly declared, and again and again he pressed for the creation of the 'Second Front'. It was this front above all that began to poison the relations between the allies.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 367

Until the middle of 1944 this question [the second front] occupied center-stage in his [Stalin] diplomatic efforts. True, as the wind of victory filled his sails, he became less insistent, and indeed the front in western Europe was only opened when it had become obvious that the Soviet Union was capable of destroying Nazi Germany on her own.
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 485

According to Eisenhower, they could not open a second front in 1942-43 allegedly because they were unprepared for such a large-scale combined strategic operation. That was certainly far from the truth, for they could have opened a second front in 1943. They deliberately waited till our troops would inflict greater damage on Germany's military force.
Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 681

Stalin made it painfully clear that the Soviet government took no interest in the TORCH operation [code-name for the North African landings]. He spoke caustically of the failure of the Western Allies to deliver the promised supplies to the Soviet Union. He spoke of the tremendous sacrifices that were being made to hold 280 German divisions on the Eastern Front.
Sherwood, Robert E. Roosevelt and Hopkins. New York: Harper, 1948, p. 620


The 'allied help' is nicely described by the traitor Zhukov:

What role did the military and economic assistance of our Allies play in 1941 and 1942? Great exaggerations are widely current in Western literature.
Assistance in accordance with the Lend-Lease Act widely publicized by the Allies was coming to our country in much smaller quantities than promised. There can be no denial that the supplies of gun-powder, high octane petrol, some grades of steel, motor vehicles, and food-stuffs were of certain help. But their proportion was insignificant against the overall requirements of our country within the framework of the agreed volume of supplies. As regards tanks and aircraft supplied to us by the British and American Governments, let us be frank: they were not popular with our tank-men and pilots especially the tanks which worked on petrol and burned like tender.
Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 391-392

Yet more informatio:

It should be pointed out here, although this has nothing to do with the Russian attitude, that it is easy for Americans to overestimate the amount of help given to the Soviet Union through Lend-Lease. The Allied deliveries of tanks, artillery, and aircraft, while needed, were insignificant compared to Russian production. One Soviet tank plant alone produced 35,000 tanks, several times the number supplied by the Allies during the war. Soviet artillery was entirely Russian, and reputed to be the equal of any in the world. Russian made planes played the biggest part on the eastern front, although the Soviets did get 13,000 planes from the United States, about 5% of our total production.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 108

[RGacky3]

You have got it wrong. The embargo is not the cause of the island's economic problems. The cause is Socialism. Cuba cannot earn enough money because its Socialist economy cannot make enough stuff that the rest of the world is willing to buy.


So then I guess the cause of the rest of capitalists latin america's worse poverty is capitalism, there we go.


Look at the other Socialist economy - N Korea. Its another basket case right? That was how the Soviet Union fell. The people were fed up with having to wait in queue for hours.


No one in their right mind would call North Korea socialist, not even those that claim cuba is.

(at least cuba has local democracy).

[#FF0000]

So without Allied help, the Soviet Union would have been defeated by the Nazis. The US and the UK saved the USSR.

without the ussr the us and the uk would've faced the entire wehrmacht when they were already having trouble with far less resistance than the Russians were in the Hedgerows.

I mean, people look at World War 2 and do a lot of dumb things like paint Hitler to fit the Evil Genius trope or act like the war would've been won or lost earlier or by a different side IF ONLY SO AND SO DID THIS and honestly I also think acting like one country won the war is also one of those things, but if not for the catastrophe for the Germans that was Operation Barbarossa and the Russians fighting like mad dogs through defenses more savage than the other Allies had to face, the US and the UK would have had a hell of a time getting to Berlin at all, let alone as early as 1945.

I'm not even a fan of the USSR in the slightest but saying "oh but the US had to help the Russians out" is a pathetic argument considering the Russians still took on the bulk of the German forces and drove into Germany while the Allies were stuck on the last defensive lines around Germany.

[bugsbunny]

@Bugsbunny: Are you actually from Chile? Did you live during the Pinochet dictatorship? Its one of the few dictatorships that was backed by the USA, that even the USA openly admit the crimes of his regime. The death toll of about 3,000 people is a bit of a smokescreen as they recon tens of thosands more people went missing without explanation and shit loads more people, including religious people who openly opposed his dictatorship got tortured into silence.

I'm not going to say that the communists at the time where angles on that either, just to defend Pinochet and try and make him sound like some benign dictator is well, ignorance beyond belief.

As as a British person, it is almost common consensus that if the nazis had have put in half as many troops when invading us than they did the Soviet Union, we would have been totally fucked. Your right, the US and UK did help/aid the SU. But it was very much in all their interests to do so.

I suppose your going to try and defend the Nazis now for fighting against socialism are you?:rolleyes:

I regard the Nazis as Socialists too. Its just a different variation.

Since you are British, then you should have known that the Battle of Britain saved Britain. Without control of the Air, Hitler's army even if it was twice what it sent to invade the Russians, could not have crossed the English Channel.

Pinochet - After he stepped down, an enquiry reveal that those killed by Pinochet's regime including those that disappeared amounted to about 3,000 and not tens of thousands. You must be thinking of Argentina. There were other victims - those imprisoned and tortured. These amounted to 37,000.

I am not defending him, only pointing out what is obvious to me. He was the lesser of two evils. Allende may have been elected but like Hitler he was setting himself up as a dictator. The Chilean Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution condemning him and asked the army to step in. Allende, with Russian and Cuban advisors was using violence to take over the country. He was unhappy with the constitutional restraints put on him and wanted total power, like Stalin, Hitler and Castro.

Also don't forget that the 3,000 Pinochet's men killed were Allende's thugs who were trying to make Allende a dictator. Think of them as the Chilean equivalent of Hitler's brown shirts.

[RGacky3]

I regard the Nazis as Socialists too. Its just a different variation.


Semantics games, STOP IT, Nazis are not socialists, they did not impliment policies that socialists supported, stop with the semantics games.

Its petty and immature.


Pinochet - After he stepped down, an enquiry reveal that those killed by Pinochet's regime including those that disappeared amounted to about 3,000 and not tens of thousands. You must be thinking of Argentina. There were other victims - those imprisoned and tortured. These amounted to 37,000.


The "disappeared" people are those who have never been accounted for, many more were murdered.


I am not defending him, only pointing out what is obvious to me. He was the lesser of two evils. Allende may have been elected but like Hitler he was setting himself up as a dictator. The Chilean Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution condemning him and asked the army to step in. Allende, with Russian and Cuban advisors was using violence to take over the country. He was unhappy with the constitutional restraints put on him and wanted total power, like Stalin, Hitler and Castro.


Thats total bullshit, he was doing everything legally and constitionally, with the consent of congress, the Chilean Chamber of deputies did'nt like it, but that does'nt matter, they did'nt have the constitutional right to form a coup. The naitonalizations had started BEFORE Allende and continued with legal and congresssional consent.

Your basically making things up.


Also don't forget that the 3,000 Pinochet's men killed were Allende's thugs who were trying to make Allende a dictator. Think of them as the Chilean equivalent of Hitler's brown shirts.

Allende was dead, calling them "thugs" is rediculous, its like calling everyone sent to gulags "thugs" of the Zsars and foreign corporations.

How about we THINK of them as they were, people with a conscience.

I guarantee you if what happened in Chile happened in the US, you'd be pretty pissed too, THAT is the 911 that Latin America remembers.

[#FF0000]

I regard the Nazis as Socialists too. Its just a different variation.

Uh the Nazis had a very typical war-time Keynesian economy. Are you trying to tell me that Keynesian economics = Marxian economics?


I am not defending him, only pointing out what is obvious to me. He was the lesser of two evils. Allende may have been elected but like Hitler he was setting himself up as a dictator. The Chilean Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution condemning him and asked the army to step in. Allende, with Russian and Cuban advisors was using violence to take over the country. He was unhappy with the constitutional restraints put on him and wanted total power, like Stalin, Hitler and Castro.


oh nooo this guy is setting himself up to be dictator!

better install a dictator.


Also don't forget that the 3,000 Pinochet's men killed were Allende's thugs who were trying to make Allende a dictator. Think of them as the Chilean equivalent of Hitler's brown shirts.

lol those folk singers and american nuns, always settin up dictators.

[Grenzer]

You can't be seriously comparing Pinochet to Fidel Castro.



So without Allied help, the Soviet Union would have been defeated by the Nazis. The US and the UK saved the USSR.
[/SIZE]

There is some truth in those statements, but this may be a bit of exaggeration. If the Soviet Union had not been fighting the Germans, then it seems very likely that the Nazis would have overrun Britain pretty quickly.

The British and American victory over the Axis in Africa was critical in helping halt the German advance into Russia, but at the same time it seems difficult to argue that Britain and the United States could have defeated Germany if the Russians had never been involved. Seems to me that the Soviet Union did most of the work in that regards.

What's the point of this supposed to be anyway? The fact is that capitalism still sucks, making some tit for tat argument about who owes who doesn't really seem to have any bearing on that.

[Kitty_Paine]

You have got it wrong. The embargo is not the cause of the island's economic problems. The cause is Socialism.

Of course, because if one of the most (or the most at the time) powerful and influencial countries on the earth proclaimed an embargo against your country, highly discouraging trade with you from any other country, of course that wouldn't hurt your economy, would it? No, don't be silly.

Please just read about this, it's not "socialist propaganda" its just fact. I'm not trying to push anything on you. But to say the embargo isn't the cause of most of Cuba's economic problems is a little crazy.


Cuba cannot earn enough money because its Socialist economy cannot make enough stuff that the rest of the world is willing to buy.

At this point I'm not even trying to defend/support socialism, this is just turning into a history lesson. The United States crippled the Cuban economy a long time ago by making them almost 100% dependant on the sugar cane crop they export. All of their other exports, crops and industry both, shrank or disapeared because no one could make money off of those products. Only sugar cane was profittable and therefore all other forms of exports were almost useless. It had nothing to do with any "socialist economy". But seriously... this is not even bias information, this is straight history man. Please read the book I recommended to you.

Your not even providing arguments, you're just saying "It's because they're socialists".



Only the US has an embargo on Cuba. Cuba is free to trade with the rest of the world. It even trades with the US because the US embargo exempts food and medicine. In fact, the US is Cuba's 7th largest trade partner.

Uhhhh, really? Sure Cuba is free to trade with the rest of the world and they'd like to but most other countries won't trade with them because of... now say it with me... the U.S. embargo. Which basically was a stern warning or a strong suggestion for the rest of the world not to trade with Cuba. And coming from the U.S., of course most countries are going to listen.

Granted, this is mostly in the past and as time goes on things relax. Cuba is trading with more countries and recovering from their sugar cane dependency. But obviously its a hard road to recovery.



Look at the other Socialist economy - N Korea. Its another basket case right? That was how the Soviet Union fell. The people were fed up with having to wait in queue for hours.

Yeeeeeeeah, North Korea is.... yeah, no. I think other's have already responded correctly.



Its the same with the Cubans. What makes you think the Cubans love Castro when there are no free elections?

I'm talking about Fidel, not this new Castro. And a lot of Cubans did love him, he liberated their country from that U.S. back dick head. Not everyone liked him, but the majority did. Whether is was right or wrong I'm not arguing, I'm just saying most like him, fact.

Please read a few books on this subject.

[El Chuncho]

As for backing the Khmer Rouge, this is a geopolitical neccessity to stop equally evil Communist Vietnamese whom the western left loves too. Its not different from supporting Stalin against Hitler.

Equally evil? Yeah, right. Because Vietnam had killing fields and places like Tuol Sleng.

Anyway, your point is ridiculous Vietnam did the world (and Kampuchea in particular) a great service by Kampuchea from the Khmer Rouge and even saving the lives of a few children waiting to be killed in Tuol Sleng - a place that Vietnamese forces found due to the smell of corpses. The Vietnam liberators were all horrified and disgusted because the Khmer Rouge ran Kampuchea very differently from the Communist Party of Vietnam.

The US didn't just support the Khmer Rouge when they were in power, by the way. They supported them when they already new about the horrors of their regime (which was brought to light by Vietnam, which brought it before the UN and publicized it so that the world could know), after they were overthrown. You claiming that the Vietnamese were ''equally evil'' is an insult to the only country who truly stood up to the Khmer Rouge and put an end to its inhuman brutality.


Stalin is of course another genocidal Socialist that the western left loves.

No, the west hates Stalin and believes nonsensical, anti-communist propaganda against him; which inflate him into a dictator worse than Hitler.

[bugsbunny]

You are wrong again,and again,you make mistakes on beginner's grounds: By 1943 the USSR already won the most important battle,while the allies were doing nothing,in comparison.



The Lend-Lease Act was signed into law in March 1941 which helped Britain, the USSR and other Allies. Without US aid, the Soviet Union would have lost and not won in 1943.

[bugsbunny]

Of course, because if one of the most (or the most at the time) powerful and influencial countries on the earth proclaimed an embargo against your country, highly discouraging trade with you from any other country, of course that wouldn't hurt your economy, would it? No, don't be silly.

There were shortages in the former USSR and other East European countries in the bad old days before the Berlin Wall fell. So why do you think the Cuban economy would be any different? If things got worse its after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, then its because the USSR was no longer giving them any aid.

The embargo is mostly for show to appease Cuban American voters who are indirectly helping the regime by sending their relatives money. The US, as I pointed out earlier, is already the 7th largest trade partner for Cuba. The Embargo exempts food and medicine so that Cubans need not suffer.

Other countries do not have an embargo. Foreign companies doing business with Cuba will get blacklisted but this can easily be circumvented. All a businessman has to do is to form a company specifically to do business with Cuba. His other company can still do business with the US.




Please just read about this, it's not "socialist propaganda" its just fact. I'm not trying to push anything on you. But to say the embargo isn't the cause of most of Cuba's economic problems is a little crazy.
No, its Socialism or if your prefer, state capitalism, that is the cause. Socialism simply does not work. It did not work in the USSR either. That's why it collapsed. To you, my views sound crazy. To me your views sound crazy. Anyone unable to see that Socialism does not work after the collapse of the USSR and other Soviet Bloc countries is crazy to me.




At this point I'm not even trying to defend/support socialism, this is just turning into a history lesson. The United States crippled the Cuban economy a long time ago by making them almost 100% dependant on the sugar cane crop they export. All of their other exports, crops and industry both, shrank or disapeared because no one could make money off of those products. Only sugar cane was profittable and therefore all other forms of exports were almost useless. It had nothing to do with any "socialist economy". But seriously... this is not even bias information, this is straight history man. Please read the book I recommended to you.
Taiwan was embargoed by China for 50 years and it prospered. Israel was embargoed by its neighbors and faced a few restrictions in Europe and Israel still prospered. Cuba was receiving aid from the USSR till the Berlin Wall fell. If Cuba can produce stuff that the rest of the world wants to buy, you can be sure that it would have prospered.



Your not even providing arguments, you're just saying "It's because they're socialists".
Isn't the failure of Socialism in N Korea, the former Warsaw Pact countries enough evidence that Socialism does not work? Why did the USSR collapse? I know this forum has a different bunch of people. But when I talk to a different crowd, all I have to say that its because of Socialism. They would accept it without any further ado because its so obvious to them. The only way to prove it to you is to wait for the Cuban regime to fall. Then you will hear all the horrors of Fidel Castro's rule.




Uhhhh, really? Sure Cuba is free to trade with the rest of the world and they'd like to but most other countries won't trade with them because of... now say it with me... the U.S. embargo. Which basically was a stern warning or a strong suggestion for the rest of the world not to trade with Cuba. And coming from the U.S., of course most countries are going to listen.

Granted, this is mostly in the past and as time goes on things relax. Cuba is trading with more countries and recovering from their sugar cane dependency. But obviously its a hard road to recovery.
Recovery would be ten times faster if they tried private entreprise instead of state capitalism (ie Socialism).




I'm talking about Fidel, not this new Castro. And a lot of Cubans did love him, he liberated their country from that U.S. back dick head. Not everyone liked him, but the majority did. Whether is was right or wrong I'm not arguing, I'm just saying most like him, fact.

Please read a few books on this subject.
Written by who? Pro castro author or anti-castro author?

The best test is if Fidel had faced a genuine elections before anyone can say he is popular. He obviously dares not. At least Pinochet had the courage and honor to face the voters and stepped down when he lost the vote.

[bugsbunny]

Equally evil? Yeah, right. Because Vietnam had killing fields and places like Tuol Sleng.

OK. You are right, N Vietnam was not as evil as Khmer Rouge, but they were still evil. They executed 65,000 people after the fall of South Vietnam and sent another 1 million people to 're-education' camps where another 165,000 people died (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/vietnam_boat_people.htm). As a result of the terror they inflicted, more than 1 million people fled in leaky boats where an estimated 125,000 people died.

The Americans did not want this horror repeated in Thailand and other SE Asian countries which faced Communist insurgencies. That's why it sided with the Khmer Rouge which was a weak spent force ousted by the Vietnamese. The threat to Thailand by the Vietnamese was real and they then had the resources of an united Vietnam plus Cambodia, their client state.

The US did not help the Khmer Rouge much. It was more diplomatic support. Most of the material support came from China. Sometimes you have to make a deal with one devil to fight off a bigger devil. Its the same analogy as the US making an alliance with Stalin to fight Hitler. Both were equally evil.



No, the west hates Stalin and believes nonsensical, anti-communist propaganda against him; which inflate him into a dictator worse than Hitler.Stalin commited genocide against the Kulaks,working and starving them to death because they were deemed the class enemy. Hitler worked, starved and later gassed the Jews because they were the racial enemy. Both were evil.

Were Stalin's crimes any worse than Hitler's? (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100053846/were-stalins-crimes-really-less-wicked-than-hitlers/)

Medvedev: Don't gloss over Stalin's crimes. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/europe/31russia.html)

[Omsk]

The Lend-Lease Act was signed into law in March 1941 which helped Britain, the USSR and other Allies. Without US aid, the Soviet Union would have lost and not won in 1943.

An one liner is not an adequate respons to my post.Wonder why?Because you dont have arguments,and because you are wrong.Im out of here.

[#FF0000]

OK. You are right, N Vietnam was not as evil as Khmer Rouge, but they were still evil.

"evil"

You know, for someone who likes to throw words like this around you sure do have an elastic view of morality.

[El Chuncho]

Why not just ban Bugs? Actual leftists have been banned for far less than his trolling...

[#FF0000]

Why not just ban Bugs? Actual leftists have been banned for far less than his trolling...

No. He actually posts arguments and not just assertions like other posters around here (socialjusticeactivist) and is generally a lot more pleasant than others I could think of (night ripper) even if I think his views are more odious.

[Fawkes]

There were shortages in the former USSR and other East European countries in the bad old days before the Berlin Wall fell.

There are food, housing, clothing, and education shortages in every ghetto and working-class neighborhood in the U.S.




Also, what's this whole "evil" thing you keep referring to? Mind defining that for us?

[bugsbunny]

No. He actually posts arguments and not just assertions like other posters around here (socialjusticeactivist) and is generally a lot more pleasant than others I could think of (night ripper) even if I think his views are more odious.


Thank you #FF0000

[bugsbunny]

No it was not,and you dont have any proof or actual examples to back this up,mainly because the USSR simply wasnt imperialist,and i think you fail to understand what imperialism means.



It invaded Afghanistan in 1980. It invaded Poland and Finland before WW II. It turned East European countries into puppet states and held the Baltics against the people's will. Czechoslovakia 1967 and Hungary 1956 (?).

[Omsk]

It invaded Afghanistan in 1980.
That is something different.USSR 1917-1950' and USSR '1970-1990' is something completely different.


It invaded Poland and Finland before WW II.

Not imperialism.


It turned East European countries into puppet states

False,it didn't even turn them to socialist states straight away after WW2.


Czechoslovakia 1967 and Hungary 1956 (?).

As i said,things changed,but 1956 was still not imperialism.

You simply fail to understand the meaning of the word.

[l'Enfermé]

Yeah, the Soviet Union didn't invade "Poland". It invaded Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, and Western Ukrainians and Western Belorussians didn't particularly like being oppressed by Warsaw, the Poles trying forcefully Polishize them and all. Not that they liked being in the Soviet Union much, either, but I'm just saying.