i don't know about chomsky....

[reagan lives]

pce, neither Ambrose nor Chomsky presents any evidence of an American attempt to assert economic dominance.

On to my comrade vox. Vox, your favorite rhetorical trick is to make unsubstantiated statements and providing no proof other than your holy Word that they are true. Then, when the facts that you failed to present don't get refuted, you declare yourself the victor of the argument. It's a pretty easy thing to do when you hide in an environment where you know that everyone agrees with you (and those who question are called "inhuman filth").

Your second-favorite thing to do seems to be "citing" unabashedly biased op-ed sources, even to point of quoting Chomsky to support Chomsky. Then, when rhetorical trick #1 is pointed out, you yell about how you have provided links and quotes and such, and call them "evidence," regardless of the fact that they don't actually provide any facts either.

vox, you're the last person who should be accusing others of "intellectual dishonesty" (and then, in the same paragraph, denying that the Cold War world was a bipolar system, and providing no other justification for this assertion other than your post-Cold-War neutral stance...way to go). You waste all of our time harping on essentially two points:
1) Agusto's research skills.
2) Agusto's moral relativism and "either-or fallacy."
You do so by:
1) Displaying research skills that continue to prove shoddy at best.
2) Betraying your own moral relativism and "either-or" viewpoint by referring to Agusto, who is moderate by all practical standards in the real world, as "the right-wing."

"We do not force history to dance on the stage of our metanarrative, like Agusto does, but rather we seek historical evidence in order to inform our knowledge of the world as it really is, rather than how we wish it to be."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I gotta say, vox, you are hysterical.

(Edited by reagan lives at 2:49 am on Oct. 13, 2001)

[pce]

hasn't the u.s. economically dominated the world since wwII? any country that the u.s. doesn't help is basically screwed.

am i wrong, or are you saying the u.s. didn't do this on purpose?

[RedCeltic]

This is sort of unrelated to your discussion... But I was just listening to National Public Radio... and they had Chomskey on talking about his ideas and the book 'Blowback" by Chomers Johnson... I actually don't know too much about him, and sadly only catched the tail end of the program....

[AgustoSandino]

For the sake of brevity, right?


“Actually, I didn’t resort to any rhetorical tricks, and Agusto fails to point to any.”-Vox

Allow me to point out the rhetorical deception I explicitly identify: The cautious reader would immediately see that this response is rampant with rhetorical tricks. VOX HAVING DONE NOTHING TO DISPROVE THE ORIGINAL ASSERTION REGARDING AMERICA’S SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACIES TRIES TO HID HIS POLEMICAL DEFICIENCIES BY ASKING A WOULD BE RESPONDENT TO “PROVE [HIM] WRONG. I fail to see how not having made any statements you can ask to be proven wrong.

Vox then continues to betray his lack of knowledge in the field of economics with this particular Chomsky quote:
“To prevent an economic collapse that would enhance their influence, and to rebuild Western Europe's state-capitalist economies, the US instituted the Marshall Plan (under which Europe was provided with more than $12 billion in loans and grants between 1948 and 1951, funds used to purchase a third of US exports to Europe in the peak year of 1949).”
I believe that this misunderstanding arises from the communist conception of an economy in which the state controls all the means of production. This is not the case in capitalism, the state and its business entities are different. Do we pay taxes to corporations? Why is this distinction important, because the US was not, as Chomsky’s quote implies giving money to itself. Yes the US government was giving European nations to purchase American goods, notably food stuffs, but I ask you what is the problem? If not for American farms, Europe’s agricultural infrastructure having been destroyed in the war, where would Europeans have received their food. This particular Chomsky quote betrays a belief that runs counter to the notion of Teaching a man to fish, rather than giving him a fish. One can only assume that if it was dastardly of Americans to give Europeans money to then buy products from them, that it would have been moral to give them the goods free of charge. In that sense the Marshall Plan would have served no purpose and European nations, rather than using what was left of aid money in infrastructure and capital investment would have been dependent on US handouts.

Notice how Vox did not attempt to disprove my points regarding the democratic nature of capitalist states in Western Europe.

“This is actually very amusing, for Agusto warned us bad commies about moral relativism in another thread, but he embraces the concept to defend the capitalist oppressors. I suppose that the real reason that he wishes to dismiss the very real casualties caused by US intervention in places like Chile and Indonesia is because it makes him seem heartless. According to the official history, being oppressed and murdered by the “good” guys is somehow better than being oppressed and murdered by the “bad” guys, a mistake that Agusto enthusiastically repeats. “-vox

Let us note how easily Vox forgets what we are arguing, the merits of Horowitz’s assessment of Chomsky’s lies, this does not include my personal beliefs on the presence or lack thereof of Moral criticism. But let us tackle Vox’s assertion head on. In Vox’s view Chile presents a case of unwarranted American aggression; moreover he would implie, as communist often do, that Allende had a popular mandate for change. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. First of all Allende only won 36 percent of the vote, his popular support also waned to the point were 6 million Chileans, fifty percent of the workforce was on strike in 1973 demanding his removal. For the sake of portraying the US as the sole aggressors in Chile, Vox dismisses evidence that illuminates the extent of Soviet and Cuban involvement and their initiatives to create a guerrilla war scenerio in Chile.
http://www.fiu.edu/~yaf/pinochetsenemies.html
http://www.pensionreform.org/eys/whelan.html

Of course the simple fact that the majority of Chileans wanted Allende out and did not support the Marxist made the soviet plans difficult to execute.


”This is rubbish.

Agusto performs such incredible intellectual dishonesty here that I doubt most members of this forum were seduced by it. Having set up a bi-polar world, which will recognize only the Soviet Union, the US and her client states, everyone else if forgotten, he then proceeds to convert it into a bi-polar argument! He sets up an either-or situation: either you are with us or you are against us (which Baby Bush just recently did, as well). This is a true embrace of moral relativism. Indeed, if you accept Agusto’s irrational proposition, then anything done in the name of fighting the enemy would have to be excused.

I will continue to maintain my position of not supporting either camp, and, of course, fall outside of Agusto’s profoundly twisted “logic.””-vox

Here vox demonstrates the Chomsky method of double-think. He earlier showed his sympathy for world communism and so called “freedom fighters,” and then he asserts that he supports neither camp. Yet it cannot be denied that Marxist guerilla movements the world over received their support from the Soviet camp. This means very clearly that the Cold War was an either or situation, since group A is receiving aid from the soviets group B needs to be supported by the US. The reason for this is not simply balance of power, in many cases it was done so as to ensure prosperity, look at North Korea and South Korea, who is better? I know many of you here often hear arguments that evoke the situations in Communist nations and so feel that they are ineffective; yet you should realize why you so often hear them, because they are true. Socialism has failed in these nations.

Vox would then have you believe that I’m being morally-relativistic, this is a charge that I can not deny in reference to the cold war. Believe it or not the USSR posed a tremendous threat to the US, the existence of America was threatened. To many here that may not have been so bad, although I doubt you’d feel that way had the USSR won the cold war, but I find it ridiculous that many here would expect America to do nothing to preserve its existence.



“Of course the counter-argument here is that the US decided to “take over the world” following WW2. Here Vox conveniently ignores the evidence presented by Horowitz:

a)Billions of dollars in Marshall Plan aid to improve the LIVES OF EUROPEANS. A little known fact the US even invited the USSR and eastern European states under Stalin’s control to the Paris conference of July 12, 1947. Molotov, the Soviet Foreign minister declined invitations on behalf of Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, Poland, East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Yet the ministers of Czechoslovakia, whose government has 1/3 communist, before the communist coup of 1948, and whose ministers reflected this ration voted unanimously to attend(Michael Hogan, The Marshall Plan: America, Britain, and the Reconstruction of Europe). The point, the US even offered to help the USSR and its satellites. –agusto qtd. In vox

Let’s not forget that this shining example of US benevolence, the Marshall Plan, also funneled funds to destroy the Communist Party in France and to finance the corruption of the Italian elections in 1948. (See Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Lawrence Hill Books, NY, 1991, p.54-63; Sallie Pisani, The CIA and the Marshall Plan, University Press of Kansas, 1991, p. 99-105 and elsewhere.) Perhaps this was the reason that the USSR declined “assistance.”

b)As Horowitz points out the US demilitarized after the war, disbanding its army of 1.6 million people, the Soviets kept their army of 2 million.

I point these pieces of evidence out because although one might disapprove of America’s actions, one must see them as what they are: Responses to Soviet Aggression. In this context disapproval of American actions is simply de facto approval of Soviet actions. Take your pick I suppose, but I like America, hey we can even discuss commandante Guevara here without fear.

Already answered.” – vox

Here Vox points to CIA funds that went to advertising for the Christian Democrats and the trade unions and socialists as part of the Marshall Plan when the two were exclusive. Vox also conveniently forgets the acts of aggression that the Soviet Union committed before or early in 1948, they are also mentioned in my first post:
-Soviets force communist governments on Eastern Europe
-Soviets deny Eastern European governments Marshall Plan Aid
-Soviets Blockade West Berlin in order to force a capitulation to communism
-Soviets force a coup in Czechoslovakia


“The policy in NSC 68 is not the immediate American response to the conditions following WW2. They are a response to Soviet aggression. These are not policies of aggression, but those of defense.- Agusto qtd in vox

It seems that Agusto missed the point. This was in response to his right-winger’s assertion that Chomsky provided no evidence. Clearly, he did.

Perhaps he’s responding to the author’s assertion that this was 1945. However, it’s clear from reading the book in question, which I do not believe Agusto has done, based on this post of his, that Chomsky is talking about general post-war policy. Indeed, Chomsky, on p. 8, gives the date of NSC 68. Of course, if it’s a matter of dates, PPS 23 was written in 1948 by George Kennan, which Chomsky also discusses. The right-wing seems to be very selective, and the author of the original article didn’t mention this at all, though he only discusses the first 25-30 pages of the book at length.”-vox

I did not deny that Chomsky provided evidence, I simply felt that his evidence was wrong. In reference to PPS 23, which Vox states was written in 1948 and which Horowitz allegedly dismisses, let us look at the acts of Soviet Aggression that occurred before or early in 1948:
-Soviets force communist governments on Eastern Europe
-Soviets deny Eastern European governments Marshall Plan Aid
-Soviets Blockade West Berlin in order to force a capitulation to communism
-Soviets force a coup in Czechoslovakia


“The Marshall Plan has already been discussed, but it’s very, very difficult to believe that Agusto wants us to think that in the years following WWII Europe was an “economic competitor.” Europe was our biggest market, actually, and this added to our already dominant industrial base. Agusto asserts that we are trying to defend democracy, not realizing, apparently, that capitalism is not compatible with democracy.

One might want to look at South Korea today, or Japan, to see the failures, rather than the successes, of capitalism. South Korea is an especially good example of the wonder that a lack of capital controls can do to a nation. In 1999, just two short years ago, the currency was down 33%. This, however, gets into a very different discussion, one about the contradictions of capitalist production, that I’m happy to have, but not in this thread, which is lengthy enough, I think.” –vox

Contrary to abundant empirical evidence Vox would like you to believe that “capitalism is not compatible with democracy.” As Reagan pointed out: Vox, your favorite rhetorical trick is to make unsubstantiated statements and providing no proof other than your holy Word that they are true.

Then he implores us to look at capitalisms failures in South Korea and Japan, once again betraying his ignorance in economics. To respond to his first superficial assertion with an equally shallow answer, last time I checked, and believe me I have, the people of South Korea and Japan are still living comfortably. His second superficial assertion requires a more poignant response. Vox points to currency devaluation in Asia as a terrible event, obviously following the CNBC or Lou Dobbs line. Yet the way economics works as asian currency becomes weaker, it becomes cheaper to trade for it, i.e. you give one dollar you get more yen. This means that it becomes cheaper to purchase Asian goods in America. As Americans buy more asian goods the devaluation stops and eventually reverses, as is now the case. The reason there was panic in the US is that in order to hasten the recovery of the Asian economies the government wanted to make the dollar stronger. In order to do this Alan Greenspan would have to raise interest rates. The Asian crisis took place in 1998, when America was riding high on the wave of economic growth, Greenspan’s possible move would have had tremendous effects on the American economy. I understand economics is complicated, but that should not dissuade you from studying it and understanding it rather than simply disregarding capitalism for a system that has no practical foundations (many here say Marxism is good, but explain somewhere how it works). Vox, it would not hurt to register for a principles of economics course, if you’re not in college I would suggest a book by Gregory Mankiw simply called Principles of Economics.

Actually, the footnotes say “and sources cited.” I think that perhaps Agusto, and the original author, need to be reminded that What Uncle Sam Really Wants is an interview with Chomsky. Referring to a more scholarly work that one has written is, of course, completely acceptable in an interview. Nowhere, however, is anything proved wrong. Another rhetorical trick of the right-wing. –vox


Actually it is not a rhetorical trick but rather simple academic standards. And nothing is proven wrong, because nothing was put forth to disprove in the first place. No one denies that ex-Nazis were used to infiltrate the USSR. The point of contention is that this was done, not as part of some “US-Nazi alliance” which implies, as horowitz notes that the Nazis were using the US; but that it was part of the US using the resources available to counter the SOVIET THREAT, need I remind the reader a third time of the acts of communist aggression committed in the 3 years after WW2.



Perhaps Agusto just missed this part, but I’ll quote directly from the original article, which is intact above: “This episode was no "Nazi" taint on America, but
a necessary part of America's Cold War effort in the cause of human
freedom. " The author indeed mean to point out precisely what Agusto says he “did not intend to point out.” Perhaps Agusto missed it, or perhaps he just thinks we are all very stupid. –vox

Here Vox misinterprets me, The author does not need to cite sources to prove that this was done in defense of human freedom it is implicit in the discussion that human freedoms exist in the US and would not have had the USSR won the cold war. As I note, and vox takes issue with:

“Why didn’t the writer attempt to show that this was about human freedom, because it is something that is implied by the very fact that in our “repressive fascist state” Chomsky can say whatever he feels like saying.”-agusto qtd, in vox



”Agusto, I’m asking you right now, in all seriousness, if you support the action that the US took in Indonesia and Chile. These are two of most well-documented “interventions,” so I’d really like to know. If that is too hot for you, then please tell me if you think life is better in Cuba now than under Batista, who the US supported”-vox


I handled the topic of Chile earlier in my response.

“Agusto, you’re a liar, plain and simple. That can be the only explanation for this travesty. I’ll explain for you:

You say that taking quotes out of context is a terrible thing, right? Well, you lied about one thing, and misrepresented another. First, you misrepresent your quote, making it sound like Chomsky talked about a “Nazi world order,” which he didn’t. That may just be sloppiness on your part, but I’m not thinking that it was. The lie is when you say this bogus “Nazi world order” was the aim of the US in WWII. Even the author of the original piece didn’t make this absurd claim! Yet, you attribute it to Chomsky, and support it with a quote not from Chomsky at all! Indeed, the original quote ends, “… was America's real postwar agenda.” Anyone can see this. You’ve made a couple very serious errors here, and, given your obvious desire to be considered an intellectual, I can only assume that you knew what you were doing.

Here’s a hint for the future: don’t take one person’s caricature and attribute it to someone else.”Vox

the author of the original piece didn’t make this absurd claim-vox, regarding the “US-Nazi Alliance”

Chomsky describes these events as though the United States had not
defeated Hitler, but had made a pact with the devil himself to attack
the innocent: "These operations included a `secret army' under US-
Nazi auspices that sought to provide agents and military supplies to
armies that had been established by Hitler and which were still
operating inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through the
early 1950s." This typical Chomsky distortion of what actually took
place is as bold a lie as the Communist propaganda the Kremlin
distributed in those years, from which it is cynically cribbed.-horowitz

But then again rather than attack my argument Vox has resorted to attacking the way in which it is presented.


“Far from tasting Stalinism, which isn’t necessarily what would have happened had the US not gotten involved in the civil war there, they tasted fifteen years of brutal fascism, for the US supported the fascists over the communists who had fought against Hitler in WWII. I suppose the Greeks were very lucky indeed to taste the freedom of fascism, and that Agusto must be very pleased with their horrible oppression. “-Vox

Unfortunately I have never visited Greece, and so have never experienced first hand the “horrible oppression” that the greeks suffer. Yet there is a devious fellow on this board whose name is Drunktank, he must be quite the clandestine operative if he can elude the claws of the greek fascist state as he praises communism. But the came very close to “tasting Stalinism,” It may be hard to fathom, in our enlightened age, but Stalin was once a popular guy, have any of you ever read Pablo Neruda, Canto General, written in the 40’s a fabulous pean to Stalin. The period in which the Greek Civil war was fought was one in which Stalin’s crimes where unknown and his image was one of a savior. Here see how close Greece came to Stalinism.

http://csf.colorado.edu/mirrors/marxists.o...3/StalTrot.html


Apparently, anything is permissible if it fights against a popular movement, right, Agusto? -Vox

I would like Vox to prove to me that these were indeed popular movements in the purest definition of the word. Did these movements enjoy mass support among the populations of the countries in question. Most people often note the Allende government and say that it was popularly elected, yet the election results show that Allende only had 36 percent of the vote. Nowhere did these so called popular movements enjoy broad support, not even in Nicaragua. The Sandinista front had been around for decades prior to 1979, yet it was the assassination of Pedro Chamorro, a moderate, and critic of Samoza, that initiates the popular upheaval. The Sandinistas simply capitalize on the power vacuum. You mention earlier that they won free elections; considering the “withdrawal” of the Independent Liberal Party (PLI) a strong contender, I doubt the veracity of this claim. Ironically, in 1990 the Sandinistas lost the first free elections in Nicaragua to Violetta Chamorro, the wife or Pedro.

“First let us start with Vox’s hollow statement that there are no Left-wing (really the term should be communist) states that haven’t been meddled with by America. Should I run down the long list of Eastern European puppet states and Yugoslavia.

Again, the right-wing insists on saying that Stalin was a leftist. Hmmm, same old song and dance from a beaten argument.

If a man professes love for all creatures and complete pacifism, and is then shown to have raped little girls, we call that man a criminal and a hypocrite. If a man says he’s a Marxist, and then betrays every principle of Marxism, the wise don’t call him a Marxist but rather a totalitarian dictator. We leave it to the right to call him a Marxist.

Oh, and the US had forces fighting in Russia during the revolution, so even that wasn’t tainted.”- Vox

Obviously anyone who disagrees with Vox is “right-wing” and filth, and he accused me of a “for us or against us “ mentality. The fact is that Stalin was a Marxist. Was Pope Gregory X a Catholic Christian, despite the fact that he commited many heinous crimes that unbecoming of a man of his spiritual stature? Stalin was a marxist, he inspired Mao, who in turn inspired “freedom fighters” the world over that adhered to his views, groups like Cendero Luminoso, or Shinning Path as they are known in English.


Without the economic support of the USSR, Cuba has also been liberated from the social controls imposed by the USSR. Cuba has quality medical care for everyone, education for everyone, and is undergoing a wonderful transition in its production of food to a natural method of growing, and the socialist beauty of urban gardens, which supply a third of all food to the island nation, according to a report I just heard today on NPR. All of this after fifty years of de facto war waged against it by the US. I think that’s pretty darn good. Good enough that Cuba can assist other Latin American nations in times of crisis. -vox


The reason Cuba has “urban gardens” is because the socialist government, which controls the whole economy cannot feed its people otherwise. I will have to agree with Vox on this one, we have committed 50 years of unwarranted aggression against Cuba. Had we had their best interest in mind we would never have imposed the embargo, rather we should have immersed Cubans in Democracy and Capitalism.

AND WHY, I will quote directly from Horowitz, because, It is poor because it is socialist, Marxist and Communist. It is poor because it is run by a lunatic and sadist. It is poor because in Cuba, America lost the Cold War.” The contention to this obvious truth is that the US embargo has hurt Cuba, I agree it has, in that it hampers the development of a free-market democracy by not allowing American goods and ideals to flow into the repressed island state. To say that Cuba is a failure because of the American embargo is really to say that she is a failure because she has no contact with capitalism and democracy.

Yeah, but I didn’t say that. Yet another strawman argument from the right-wing fringe. –vox

Here vox does not even try to argue with me, rather he dismisses me as a member of the right-wing fringe. To anyone that knows me personally that is laughable, but I suppose it makes Vox feel secure in his little bubble if he dismisses everyone that disagrees with him as a right-winger. What you should understand is that I’m quite the political moderate, it is Vox that is on the fringe. Wanna know who I voted for in the last election…2 clues he didn’t poll 5 percent and his name rhymes with Vader.


Actually, Agusto missed the point yet again. The argument is that by supporting Lon Nol, the US divided the country. Sihanouk wouldn’t lick the US hand, so he was bad, but to say that he was a communist, which Agusto implies, is to lie outright.-vox

Well I never mentioned Sihanouk was a communist, rather I stated the fact that he was the King of Cambodia. Furthermore, If we had been sleeping with Lon Nol, why would we not have prevented the Khmer Rouge take over? Could it be that our involment in Cambodia was minimal, we didn’t even have a diplomatic mission to the country, how would we run an effective espionage operation. Chewbacca is a wookie, why does he live in Andor…It doesn’t make sense.



Agusto is lying again.

We know, for example, that Allende acted independently of the USSR during his legitimate and democratic reign.

What we don’t know is how many countries may have benefited from a popular and democratic movement. Even Australia, certainly a free state, incurred our wrath and had its leader removed due to it. We know this.

What Agusto fails to do is to prove that the Sandanistas were terrible. We do know that, while in power, democratically elected power, too, living standards in Nicaragua began to
improve. How Reagan must have hated that. –vox

My desire to make this as short as possible leads me to suggest the reader note my handling of the Chile Topic earlier in my response, and look at these links.
http://www.fiu.edu/~yaf/pinochetsenemies.html
http://www.pensionreform.org/eys/whelan.html
Furthermore, since you are all quite the Che fans I assume you’ve read bios. In Companero, by Jorge Casteneda, Kremlin documents show that Allende was ORDERED by Moscow not to assist Che out of Bolivia.


First, Agusto, you must show that he once supported these “communists” you speak of, without any documentation at all. Indeed, you’ve been going on for some time now without anything real to say, attributing things to people without any basis in reality. You’re a liar. That’s all that has been made clear by this-vox

It seems clear to me that the underlying motivation behind any critical assessment of US foreign policy. (i.e. criticizing America for opposing the sandinistas ) is sympathy with the regimes it combated. One cannot condemn US policy in combating these regimes lest one approves of the regime, or simply wishes the US do nothing at all.

Agusto makes no distinctions at all. Anything he doesn’t like is labeled “communist” or “Marxist,” without rhyme or reason, or at least none that he’s chosen to display. But then, when it’s convenient, he contradicts himself, goes back on his word. On the one hand he says the author blames not Marx, but these other folks, and in doing so Agusto agrees with me. But then, on the other hand, he tells us that Marxism is the reason for so much horror. He can’t even keep his own lies straight, it seems. But then, that’s the kind of mess you get into when you deny history in favor of rhetoric-vox

This is my personal belief: I do not believe that Marx was a sadist of so great a scale that he wrote the Manifesto so that Hundreds of millions would be killed in its name. Rather I blame him for passing of as empirically derived, a work of dubious academic worth, that proposes tremendous revolutionary change to a different system, but never explains how the system is to work. Furthermore Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Nicholas Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Castro, and many more were indeed Marxist and based their policies on interpretations of Marxism. While you may continue to reject this fact for your own political purposes, it is undeniable that in their search for followers they evoked Marx and used his writings to recruit people. In addition to that I oppose Marx because his economic system is unsustainable. I’m sure everyone here would work for free for the common good.


Why am I not surprised that Agusto lists Chile as a success? Chile, not a democratic country for a long time, is a success. Why, again, does he list South Korea as a success, when it has so horribly failed?

And why doesn’t he admit that there has not been one even semi-Left government in which the US has interfered, including Whitlam’s in Australia?

Because, if he were to do so, his whole thesis, based on a false dichotomy to begin with, would fall apart. Agusto believes, as he has clearly shown here, that anything is permissible in the assistance of capital, which does not coincide with the interests of human beings. Not too surprising from a libertarian.

The last time I beat Agusto, he just abandoned the thread and acted like it never happened. The only question here is will history repeat itself?
We’ll what you should be surprised about is that following the 88 elections when democracy was restored Chile experienced its highest rates of economic growth. And again I will ask vox to prove how S.Korea is “horribly failed”. Rather I explained how the devaluation actually helps it. Did the US interfere with the Labour Governments of Britain, did it interfere with the internal affairs of France, or the Scandanavia countries, or of Spain’s socialist governments following Franco’s departure.

All in all nice try Vox, but your scholarship should shame you, as it certainly inspires me.

[gooddoctor]

agusto, i can't even read this thread you dickhead because one of your lines is too long. i wouldn't bother anyway, you say nothing that i haven't heard a million times before and know to be both wrong and crude. your only purpose on this bb is to disagree with people whatever they say. you don't listen so you can never learn from us or anyone. on the other hand you are the grindstone on which we will sharpen our knives, and with each defeat of your pathetically fragile arguements the flame of our revolutionary fervour will burn all the brighter.

[vox]

Allow me to point out the rhetorical deception I explicitly identify: The cautious reader would immediately see that this response is rampant with rhetorical tricks. VOX HAVING DONE NOTHING TO DISPROVE THE ORIGINAL ASSERTION REGARDING AMERICA’S SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACIES TRIES TO HID HIS POLEMICAL DEFICIENCIES BY ASKING A WOULD BE RESPONDENT TO “PROVE [HIM] WRONG. I fail to see how not having made any statements you can ask to be proven wrong.

This is strange, for, in Agusto’s last response to me he seemed eager to prove me wrong. Now, he’s claiming that there is nothing there to be proved wrong. Which is it?

My claim, by the way, was that the US does not act in the interest of democracy throughout the world, but in its own interest, and democracy is not a consideration.


Vox then continues to betray his lack of knowledge in the field of economics with this particular Chomsky quote:
“To prevent an economic collapse that would enhance their influence, and to rebuild Western Europe's state-capitalist economies, the US instituted the Marshall Plan (under which Europe was provided with more than $12 billion in loans and grants between 1948 and 1951, funds used to purchase a third of US exports to Europe in the peak year of 1949).”

I believe that this misunderstanding arises from the communist conception of an economy in which the state controls all the means of production. This is not the case in capitalism, the state and its business entities are different. Do we pay taxes to corporations? Why is this distinction important, because the US was not, as Chomsky’s quote implies giving money to itself. Yes the US government was giving European nations to purchase American goods, notably food stuffs, but I ask you what is the problem? If not for American farms, Europe’s agricultural infrastructure having been destroyed in the war, where would Europeans have received their food. This particular Chomsky quote betrays a belief that runs counter to the notion of Teaching a man to fish, rather than giving him a fish. One can only assume that if it was dastardly of Americans to give Europeans money to then buy products from them, that it would have been moral to give them the goods free of charge. In that sense the Marshall Plan would have served no purpose and European nations, rather than using what was left of aid money in infrastructure and capital investment would have been dependent on US handouts.

Notice how Vox did not attempt to disprove my points regarding the democratic nature of capitalist states in Western Europe.

Notice how Agusto misrepresents the quote. When Chomsky wrote, “To prevent an economic collapse that would enhance their influence..,” he was referring to popular left-wing movements. Agusto does not respond to that at all.

Western Europe has, for the most part, semi-free representative democracies, much like the US. That was never in question, I believe, and I’m wondering why Agusto thinks that it was.

“This is actually very amusing, for Agusto warned us bad commies about moral relativism in another thread, but he embraces the concept to defend the capitalist oppressors. I suppose that the real reason that he wishes to dismiss the very real casualties caused by US intervention in places like Chile and Indonesia is because it makes him seem heartless. According to the official history, being oppressed and murdered by the “good” guys is somehow better than being oppressed and murdered by the “bad” guys, a mistake that Agusto enthusiastically repeats. “-vox

Let us note how easily Vox forgets what we are arguing, the merits of Horowitz’s assessment of Chomsky’s lies, this does not include my personal beliefs on the presence or lack thereof of Moral criticism. But let us tackle Vox’s assertion head on. In Vox’s view Chile presents a case of unwarranted American aggression; moreover he would implie, as communist often do, that Allende had a popular mandate for change. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. First of all Allende only won 36 percent of the vote, his popular support also waned to the point were 6 million Chileans, fifty percent of the workforce was on strike in 1973 demanding his removal. For the sake of portraying the US as the sole aggressors in Chile, Vox dismisses evidence that illuminates the extent of Soviet and Cuban involvement and their initiatives to create a guerrilla war scenerio in Chile.
http://www.fiu.edu/~yaf/pinochetsenemies.html

http://www.pensionreform.org/eys/whelan.html

Allende headed up a coalition government. To see why his support may have waned, one need only look at the tremendous covert campaign, sponsored by the US, against Allende. Even disregarding that, however, one has to wonder at Agusto’s defense of Pinochet, for if we accept Agusto at his word then disapproval of one means tacit approval of the other, something he’s stated several times over the last two posts.

The first link that Agusto leaves proves nothing, for the communications with the USSR that it cites begin three years AFTER Allende was executed. Hardly a damning article about Allende himself. The reader is left to wonder about the history of Chile without the US aiding in the destruction of its democratic government.

The second link is nothing but an apologist screed for Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship. Somehow, we’re expected to believe that he was a good guy. History shows that isn’t the case, unless torture and rape by his security forces are to be considered good. It also leaves the question of Chile’s democracy unanswered, preferring to let the reader conclude that dictatorship was preferable to democracy.

For those interested in the actions of the US in Chile during this period, I strongly urge you to read Covert Action in Chile, 1963-1973, a Staff Report of The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect To Intelligence Activities (US Senate), 18 December 1975, which you can do here: http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/policy/church-chile.htm

Pay special attention to the highlighted page 26.


Vox would then have you believe that I’m being morally-relativistic, this is a charge that I can not deny in reference to the cold war. Believe it or not the USSR posed a tremendous threat to the US, the existence of America was threatened. To many here that may not have been so bad, although I doubt you’d feel that way had the USSR won the cold war, but I find it ridiculous that many here would expect America to do nothing to preserve its existence.

This, I believe, is the crux of the argument here.

I did not support the USSR when it was around, and I don’t support it now. I’ve been very clear that the USSR was not a Marxist state at all, but authoritarian collectivist. Agusto may continue to call an apple an orange, but the empirical fact is that it remains an apple.

The thing that Agusto assiduously avoids is the fact that I have only supported governments that have been democratically elected. While Cuba is far better off under Castro than it was under Batista, I’ve been and remain critical of the lack of democracy in Cuba.


Here Vox points to CIA funds that went to advertising for the Christian Democrats and the trade unions and socialists as part of the Marshall Plan when the two were exclusive. Vox also conveniently forgets the acts of aggression that the Soviet Union committed before or early in 1948, they are also mentioned in my first post:
-Soviets force communist governments on Eastern Europe
-Soviets deny Eastern European governments Marshall Plan Aid
-Soviets Blockade West Berlin in order to force a capitulation to communism
-Soviets force a coup in Czechoslovakia

Actually, I pointed to Marshall Plan funds, so please don’t change what I say. I maintain that the two were not exclusive at all. We know, from things like PPS 23, the overall foreign strategy by which the US was guided. There’s no need to blur anything here.

Okay, I suppose, since you keep harping on it, that I will have to deal with Soviet aggression in the years immediately following WWII. Fact is, Stalin got much of Eastern Europe by accident. After the war, while the world was being divided, it was common that the country that defeated the Nazis in a region would keep control of it in order to assist in its rebuilding after the war. Had Germany not broken its non-aggression pact with Stalin, there is little to support thinking that the USSR would have been able to expand into Eastern Europe. After Hitler attacked, however, Stalin sided with the West. Indeed, Stalin displays here the same kind of thinking that the US often displays: he sided with whomever he believed would be most beneficial to him.

The Marshall Plan didn’t begin until late 1947, by which time Eastern Europe had already been given to the Soviets, and the Cold War was underway in earnest. How surprising is it that money was not accepted?

The Soviet blockade of West Berlin, which failed, was in response to a joint British, French and US plan to create a strong Germany, a country that had twice invaded Russia. This, quite obviously, set off alarm bells. One needs to look past the official, US-centric view of history in order to see what really happened, for the blockade was a response, not an aggression.

The bloodless coup in Czechoslovakia was indeed a terrible thing. Who has argued otherwise? Just as when the US denies democracy to a country, it’s wrong when the USSR did so as well. What is unclear?


I did not deny that Chomsky provided evidence, I simply felt that his evidence was wrong. In reference to PPS 23, which Vox states was written in 1948 and which Horowitz allegedly dismisses, let us look at the acts of Soviet Aggression that occurred before or early in 1948:
-Soviets force communist governments on Eastern Europe
-Soviets deny Eastern European governments Marshall Plan Aid
-Soviets Blockade West Berlin in order to force a capitulation to communism
-Soviets force a coup in Czechoslovakia

I’ve already responded to much of this. I would like to know, however, just what Agusto means by the “evidence was wrong?” It’s a phrase that makes little sense. Is he saying that it’s untrue? That’s not very likely. It’s a summary dismissal of inconvenient facts that undermine the notion that the US acted in the interest of democracy, which is how I started my first post and which Agusto calls a rhetorical trick. Far from being a trick, it’s the basis of criticism for US intervention in the world since WWII.

For those who don’t know, here’s some of what Kennan had to say in PPS 23:

“…we [the US] have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population....In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity....To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives....We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

As anyone can plainly see, this isn’t about supporting a “democratic coalition” at all, but using our foreign policy to maintain a “position of disparity.” This isn’t about fighting Soviet aggression but keeping the poor down, lest there be a threat to US economic imperialism. It doesn’t get much more straightforward than this. This was our post-war policy. Part of this policy was fighting the USSR, but that was incidental to the real purpose, which Kennan so explicitly points out. Too, this has nothing to do with the “human freedom” that Agusto pretends the US supported, but with US economic domination. There is no debate here. We have the empirical evidence to make an informed judgment. It’s evidence that Agusto and his ilk do not like, of course, and so ignore.

Contrary to abundant empirical evidence Vox would like you to believe that “capitalism is not compatible with democracy.” As Reagan pointed out: Vox, your favorite rhetorical trick is to make unsubstantiated statements and providing no proof other than your holy Word that they are true.

No one will deny, I think, that capitalism, by its correct and proper function, creates vast disparities in wealth. Too, I don’t think that anyone will deny that the wealthy have a greater access to government than the poor. Industry groups are consulted about policy planning, and lobbyists representing major corporations are part and parcel of the workings of the US government.

If we consider that a society is democratic to the degree to which people have a voice in the policies under which they live, then we can see that when one segment of society has a much louder voice, due to the economic system that is in place, then democracy is diminished. A practical example of this was the health care debate a few years back in the US. While poll after poll showed majority support for a single payer plan, it wasn’t even on the table, thanks to heavy lobbying and propaganda by the HMOs and insurance companies. Corporate domination of the media, another effect of capitalism, results in a very narrow range of debate. The very people who benefit from the capitalist system are the ones who decide which ideas are acceptable to be discussed in media outlets.

It would appear that democracy is a way for the citizenry to ratify decisions that have already been made for them.

Then he implores us to look at capitalisms failures in South Korea and Japan, once again betraying his ignorance in economics. To respond to his first superficial assertion with an equally shallow answer, last time I checked, and believe me I have, the people of South Korea and Japan are still living comfortably. His second superficial assertion requires a more poignant response. Vox points to currency devaluation in Asia as a terrible event, obviously following the CNBC or Lou Dobbs line. Yet the way economics works as asian currency becomes weaker, it becomes cheaper to trade for it, i.e. you give one dollar you get more yen. This means that it becomes cheaper to purchase Asian goods in America. As Americans buy more asian goods the devaluation stops and eventually reverses, as is now the case. The reason there was panic in the US is that in order to hasten the recovery of the Asian economies the government wanted to make the dollar stronger. In order to do this Alan Greenspan would have to raise interest rates. The Asian crisis took place in 1998, when America was riding high on the wave of economic growth, Greenspan’s possible move would have had tremendous effects on the American economy. I understand economics is complicated, but that should not dissuade you from studying it and understanding it rather than simply disregarding capitalism for a system that has no practical foundations (many here say Marxism is good, but explain somewhere how it works). Vox, it would not hurt to register for a principles of economics course, if you’re not in college I would suggest a book by Gregory Mankiw simply called Principles of Economics.

Agusto’s analysis is a bit flawed.

He’s correct that economics can be a bit complicated, however. For those interested in what really happened in South Korea, I refer you to this article: http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/arti...tyjulyaug98.htm

It delves into the history of South Korean economic development a bit, and clearly shows what happened there.

However, to answer Agusto’s point, what he’s saying is that when a currency is devalued, it’s exports become cheaper, which is true. He leaves this next part out, but it’s part of the same reasoning, so I’ll include it. When a currency is devalued, imports also become more expensive, leading people to buy domestic goods. Both of these things work to increase domestic production, creating employment. Okay, that’s not a new concept and is pretty basic economics.

However, Agusto’s analysis goes awry when he claims that the panic was caused because the government wanted to make the dollar stronger. That’s not really the case, I think. Looking at Thailand gives us a very good example of the real reason for the economic meltdown. Successful corporations began to expand into other areas, which is not a surprise and very normal. However, these new investments failed to return quick profits and were financed by loans: South Korea borrowed $U.S. 100 billion, Thailand $70 billion, Indonesia $55 billion, and Malaysia $22 billion, much of which, with some outside encouragement, was used to speculate in real estate, build unneeded office buildings, luxury apartment complexes, and golf courses, and build factories to produce new products (i.e., automobiles) for which the market was already becoming glutted.

Many governments/corporations became concerned as the loans came due, and tried to increase exports. Since, by this point, there were many countries exporting the same thing, currency devaluation was considered, but that couldn’t work. Thailand was the first to recognize this. Many investors thought that the baht, which is pegged to the US dollar, would be devalued and began trading in it heavily, trying to bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, Thailand had borrowed billions of dollars, and currency devaluation would make these loans impossible to pay off, so the Thai government bought huge amounts of its own currency in order to prop up its value. Finally, however, it surrendered and the baht fell. Thus began the Asian economic meltdown as currency values fell in Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia. Predictably, currency speculators sold, further exacerbating the problem and leaving Asian countries with mountains of debt. Enter the IMF, with its harsh “restructuring” requirements, but that goes beyond the scope of this post.

Regardless, it’s another example of free market failure, not success.

Actually it is not a rhetorical trick but rather simple academic standards. And nothing is proven wrong, because nothing was put forth to disprove in the first place. No one denies that ex-Nazis were used to infiltrate the USSR. The point of contention is that this was done, not as part of some “US-Nazi alliance” which implies, as horowitz notes that the Nazis were using the US; but that it was part of the US using the resources available to counter the SOVIET THREAT, need I remind the reader a third time of the acts of communist aggression committed in the 3 years after WW2.

I believe that an alliance is generally considered to be mutually beneficial, correct? Why, then, must Agusto mischaracterize this in order to make his point? After the war, we aided some of the worst of the murderers against whom we fought. Agusto approves of this. I do not. It’s very clear, really, and, as I’ve shown previously, had nothing to do with fighting Soviet aggression per se, but in keeping the disparity of wealth in the favor of the US. Economic equality was not a consideration, of course.

Here Vox misinterprets me, The author does not need to cite sources to prove that this was done in defense of human freedom it is implicit in the discussion that human freedoms exist in the US and would not have had the USSR won the cold war. As I note, and vox takes issue with:

“Why didn’t the writer attempt to show that this was about human freedom, because it is something that is implied by the very fact that in our “repressive fascist state” Chomsky can say whatever he feels like saying.”-agusto qtd, in vox

”Agusto, I’m asking you right now, in all seriousness, if you support the action that the US took in Indonesia and Chile. These are two of most well-documented “interventions,” so I’d really like to know. If that is too hot for you, then please tell me if you think life is better in Cuba now than under Batista, who the US supported”-vox


I handled the topic of Chile earlier in my response.

I’ve handled it earlier in mine, too. Agusto shows himself to be an apologist for Pinochet.


But then again rather than attack my argument Vox has resorted to attacking the way in which it is presented.

When the way it is presented is duplicitous at best, one must attack it. This is the case here. Agusto would like me to attack the argument, but the argument is built upon a distortion, so correcting the initial flaw makes the argument on which it is based without merit.

Unfortunately I have never visited Greece, and so have never experienced first hand the “horrible oppression” that the greeks suffer. Yet there is a devious fellow on this board whose name is Drunktank, he must be quite the clandestine operative if he can elude the claws of the greek fascist state as he praises communism. But the came very close to “tasting Stalinism,” It may be hard to fathom, in our enlightened age, but Stalin was once a popular guy, have any of you ever read Pablo Neruda, Canto General, written in the 40’s a fabulous pean to Stalin. The period in which the Greek Civil war was fought was one in which Stalin’s crimes where unknown and his image was one of a savior. Here see how close Greece came to Stalinism.

http://csf.colorado.edu/mirrors/marxists.o...3/StalTrot.html

Not being an apologist for Stalin, and this thread not being about that, I have to wonder why Agusto thinks oppression by the West was better than oppression by the USSR. This has been the question, for which there has been no answer. Indeed, there has been much made of human freedom and a democratic coalition, but very little in the way of actual human freedom or democracy as a result of US intervention. Agusto avoids this, of course.


Apparently, anything is permissible if it fights against a popular movement, right, Agusto? -Vox

I would like Vox to prove to me that these were indeed popular movements in the purest definition of the word. Did these movements enjoy mass support among the populations of the countries in question. Most people often note the Allende government and say that it was popularly elected, yet the election results show that Allende only had 36 percent of the vote. Nowhere did these so called popular movements enjoy broad support, not even in Nicaragua. The Sandinista front had been around for decades prior to 1979, yet it was the assassination of Pedro Chamorro, a moderate, and critic of Samoza, that initiates the popular upheaval. The Sandinistas simply capitalize on the power vacuum. You mention earlier that they won free elections; considering the “withdrawal” of the Independent Liberal Party (PLI) a strong contender, I doubt the veracity of this claim. Ironically, in 1990 the Sandinistas lost the first free elections in Nicaragua to Violetta Chamorro, the wife or Pedro.

I’ve proven before on this board that, according to international observers, the 1984 elections in Nicaragua were free and fair. Here’s one of the links that I posted previously: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr...parentinic.html

As for the 1990 elections, how much of a role did the US play? Quite large, it seems:

http://www.brianwillson.com/awolnicelection.html

As for proving anything to Agusto, I fear that nothing like that is possible. When dealing with an ideologue, who dismisses evidence as somehow “wrong,” without even explaining what that might mean, I’m not too keen on getting into a quagmire of philosophical split-hairs about the possible meanings of the term “pure.” I’ll say, however, that no revolutionary movement can be expected to survive without at least some measure of popular support. I think that’s a truism.


Obviously anyone who disagrees with Vox is “right-wing” and filth, and he accused me of a “for us or against us “ mentality. The fact is that Stalin was a Marxist. Was Pope Gregory X a Catholic Christian, despite the fact that he commited many heinous crimes that unbecoming of a man of his spiritual stature? Stalin was a marxist, he inspired Mao, who in turn inspired “freedom fighters” the world over that adhered to his views, groups like Cendero Luminoso, or Shinning Path as they are known in English.

Agusto clings to his right-wing lies like a security blanket. The apple, however, is still an apple. Agusto would like us to believe that words mean everything and actions mean nothing, which makes one wonder how he would react to a disturbed person claiming to be Napoleon. “He said he was Napoleon, so he MUST BE Napoleon!”

Perhaps Agusto would like to cite the Marxist principle by which Stalin ruled in order to bolster his absurd and bizarre claim.


The reason Cuba has “urban gardens” is because the socialist government, which controls the whole economy cannot feed its people otherwise. I will have to agree with Vox on this one, we have committed 50 years of unwarranted aggression against Cuba. Had we had their best interest in mind we would never have imposed the embargo, rather we should have immersed Cubans in Democracy and Capitalism.

Without going into an unnecessary history of Cuba, I do have to wonder about Agusto’s statement at the end of this paragraph, for he seems to be agreeing with me that, in our foreign policy, we do not have the people’s best interests in mind. The obvious question is, then, in whose interests are we acting? In not the people’s, then whose? I’ve already given my answer to this. I did so in the very first post I made, though that was dismissed by Agusto. Hopefully, I’ve expanded on it enough in this post for him to understand what I was saying.

Well I never mentioned Sihanouk was a communist, rather I stated the fact that he was the King of Cambodia. Furthermore, If we had been sleeping with Lon Nol, why would we not have prevented the Khmer Rouge take over? Could it be that our involment in Cambodia was minimal, we didn’t even have a diplomatic mission to the country, how would we run an effective espionage operation. Chewbacca is a wookie, why does he live in Andor…It doesn’t make sense.

I’m not sure how years of bombing a nation can be called minimal involvement, nor do I understand how bombing a nation could have no impact on its internal politics. Agusto, however, seems to understand that. Perhaps he could explain it.


It seems clear to me that the underlying motivation behind any critical assessment of US foreign policy. (i.e. criticizing America for opposing the sandinistas ) is sympathy with the regimes it combated. One cannot condemn US policy in combating these regimes lest one approves of the regime, or simply wishes the US do nothing at all.

When the “regime” is elected, then I question the US interfering with it, and I certainly question the rhetoric of “freedom and democracy” used by apologists like Agusto. In the case of Nicaragua, the US Senate passed the Boland amendment, which clearly stated that the US was indeed supposed to be nothing at all. Reagan continued to violate the law, however.

This is my personal belief: I do not believe that Marx was a sadist of so great a scale that he wrote the Manifesto so that Hundreds of millions would be killed in its name. Rather I blame him for passing of as empirically derived, a work of dubious academic worth, that proposes tremendous revolutionary change to a different system, but never explains how the system is to work. Furthermore Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Nicholas Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Castro, and many more were indeed Marxist and based their policies on interpretations of Marxism. While you may continue to reject this fact for your own political purposes, it is undeniable that in their search for followers they evoked Marx and used his writings to recruit people. In addition to that I oppose Marx because his economic system is unsustainable. I’m sure everyone here would work for free for the common good.

Is there a difference between using something, anything, for your own purposes and the actual actions of a person that may contradict whatever it is that is being evoked? Agusto would have us believe that there isn’t, which is unfortunate, but it suits his agenda.

Anyone at all familiar with Marx would understand that countries that are not industrialized do not have the option of moving into a socialist system, for industrialization was key to Marx. In fact, this period is a requirement. That wasn’t the case in the countries mentioned, however. Still, Agusto insists that they were Marxist, for words speak louder than actions to him.

I, on the other hand, think that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Agusto claim to be a moderate, possibly even a progressive, but his stance as an apologist for US foreign policy makes me question that statement.


We’ll what you should be surprised about is that following the 88 elections when democracy was restored Chile experienced its highest rates of economic growth. And again I will ask vox to prove how S.Korea is “horribly failed”. Rather I explained how the devaluation actually helps it. Did the US interfere with the Labour Governments of Britain, did it interfere with the internal affairs of France, or the Scandanavia countries, or of Spain’s socialist governments following Franco’s departure.

I don’t know. Did we? Rather than remark upon Australia, Agusto seeks to distract people from the question. Avoiding the question puts him in a rather weak position.

We know, for example, that we interfered in Spain during the war. So paranoid were we that the FBI even tailed Hemingway, who has a large file, because he came out against the fascists, saying that they were so terrible any alternative was better, which was counter to US policy.

We will find out eventually, most likely, exactly what our involvement in Europe has been. Considering that they are allies, any covert operations there would likely be very closely guarded, lest it cause political upheaval.

I’ve previously answered the other questions Agusto has in this post, I think, which has grown quite long enough.

vox

[gooddoctor]

agreed.

[Jurhael]

I'd like to chime in and say that:

1. There was NO excuse for the Pinochets, Pol Pots and Papadopalos' of this world. I'm aware that Papadopalos was slightly less disgusting than Pol Pot, but Castro is less disgusting than Pinochet. And Allende was no doubt far more preferable than Pinochet. I honestly believed that the US may have been slightly less disgusting than the USSR, but now I daresay that they were ultimatly no better. BOTH were equally disgusting. If the USSR was more feared, it was because communism is less understood and at least the Soviets were honest in their oppression/imperialsm of people and other countries.

2. Don't give me this stupid bullshit that the Greek communists were Stalinsts. They had NOTHING to do with Stalin. Did you ever stop to think for ONE SECOND that there's different forms of communism? Oh no of course not. The KKE is indeed Communist, but your article admits that there Trotskyists AND Marxists in the group. AND THAT IS NO EXCUSE FOR GREECE BEING THE US'S ASSHOLE!!!!!


BTW, Hitler was popular at first too, yanno. *But that's a different situation as given the situation in 1930's Germany, /I/ would have voted for Hitler. Heh.

I could have sworn there links floating around that proved that the Greek communists had popular support and that they WERE NOT Stalinists.

3. There was NO excuse for Papadolpos and the like. Redundant? Ask me if I care.

Just imagine what it was like being tortured and losing families to such regiemes...imagine being told this:

Perhaps nothing better captures the mystique of the bond felt by the Greeks to their American guardians than the story related about Chief Inspector Basil Lambrou, one of Athens well-known torturers:
"Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance 'You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we. Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S You can't fight us, we are Americans."
Amnesty International adds that some torturers would tell their victims things like "The Human Rights Commission can't help you now ... The Red Cross can do nothing for you. Tell them all, it will do no good, you are helpless." "The torturers from the start," said Amnesty, "had said that the United States supported them and that was what counted."


when YOU are the ONE being TORTUERD. Unless your name is Jesus Christ, you'd hate the US as well as Russia. Or to be more specific, THE FORGEIN POLICY.


"they tasted fifteen years of brutal fascism, for the US supported the fascists over the communists who had fought against Hitler in WWII."

Eh....15 years? Papadapalos ruled for 7. Unless you're referring to Papandreas??? What???? I thought he was like FDR(A social democrat). I never thought he was much of a fascist. Oh dear....




(Edited by Jurhael at 7:28 am on Oct. 14, 2001)