Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B
anomaly said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
After facing down Russia in the matter of their constructing ballistic missile launching sites in Cuba, Perhaps someone thought the risk of similar happenings in Chile was too great.
The thing is, Castro was not elected democratically, he gained power through revolution. Would a democratically elected leader really cooperate with the Soviets?
All communists are red, and as is well known, “Birds of a feather flock together.” Considering the unpredictability of South American politics, a communist in the driver’s seat in a major country at the height of the Cold War would be a cause for undue worry.
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Think of it as self defense. If one has good reason to fear being mugged should one wait for the first blow to be struck and then try to retaliate?
What do you define as good reason, though? Is pressured intelligence (in the case of Iraq) good reason for attacking them? It may be good to note that we supported a brutal dictator in Zaire for 34 years because we feared socialism. Is it really right to say that the US's interests are more important than the people of Zaire's welfare? The arrogance you convey here is amazing.
Russia was caught trying to set up ballistic missiles in Cuba and backed down in the Kennedy faceoff. With a commie president in Chile, which is several thousand times the size of Cuba, Russia may have been successful. What would we do then with nukes pointed at us from Chile?
As we have discussed, Iraq posed an entirely different problem and received different treatment.
Here’s a page from the CIA fact book:
Since 1997, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DROC; formerly called Zaire) has been rent by ethnic strife and civil war, touched off by a massive inflow in 1994 of refugees from the fighting in Rwanda and Burundi. The government of former president MOBUTU Sese Seko was toppled by a rebellion led by Laurent KABILA in May 1997; his regime was subsequently challenged by a Rwanda- and Uganda-backed rebellion in August 1998. Troops from Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, Chad, and Sudan intervened to support the Kinshasa regime. A cease-fire was signed on 10 July 1999 by the DROC, Zimbabwe, Angola, Uganda, Namibia, Rwanda, and Congolese armed rebel groups, but sporadic fighting continued. KABILA was assassinated on 16 January 2001 and his son Joseph KABILA was named head of state ten days later. In October 2002, the new president was successful in getting occupying Rwandan forces to withdraw from eastern Congo; two months later, the Pretoria Accord was signed by all remaining warring parties to end the fighting and set up a government of national unity. A transitional government was set up in July 2003; Joseph KABILA remains as president and is joined by four vice presidents from the former government, former rebel camps, and the political opposition.
The UN was negotiating with all sides. What would have been the the involvement of the US?
Originally Posted by Fantasea
If you compare the globe at three points on time, 1945, 1975, 2005, you will note an almost bell shaped curve showing the rise and fall of the number of nations under communist rule. As people get a taste of freedom, they seek to throw off the yoke of communism. Most European nations have a very small cadre of comminist politicians who side with socialists. However, the spirit of independent existence or entrepeneurial adventure has never been very strong among European commoners many of whom, it would seem, long for the times when nobility controlled the lives and fortunes of the peasantry.
Well, your comments here just made me chuckle, as you once again show your complete ignorance of contemporary anti-capitalism and communism. There never was a country under 'communist rule', the Russians were under the rule of an oppressive Communist Party, and yes, there is a huge difference. As I mentioned earlier, most communists stopped supporting this party in 1968. Obviously you have no idea of what communism is. Perhaps you should read some Marx to discover it. But, to save time, let me point out that communism is when 'the state withers away'. Tell me, did the state wither away under the Communist Party? No. And yes, your right that Euro commies side with socialists, but if you add up all the Marxist and quasi-Marxist parties in Europe, you realize that the Marxist movement (along with the entire anti-capitalist movement) is growing. And your comment about feudalism is just plain dumb, as communism would entail the rise of 'commoners' as you so lovingly call them. This is economic evolution as defined by Marx: Feudalism>Capitalism>Socialism>Communism. Maybe its best you don't speak of anything Marxist again, as you know nothing about it.
I feel as if I am attending a lecture by a socialist-lib-Dem professor at one of the more lefty-lib universities. They regurgitate the stuff they swallow after reading Marx, Engels, and Lenin,
Originally Posted by Fantasea
It seems to me that the commies did so in Mother Russia and in all of its satellites, for some sixty years, intil it collapsed. China and Cuba are still at it.
I'm saying that socialism run by a dictator would inevitably be quite inefficient. This means that a single man would run the entire economy. It just doesn't add up. But this is very Stalinistic. Stalin betrayed Lenin's revolution. Lenin wanted a democratically run economy (democratic socialism) where the people reall do run things. This is what socialism is all about. Power to the people.[/quote]
See my previous comment.
Originally Posted by Fantasea
We disagree.
Why?
It is obvious that we do not agree.
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Capitalism could very well adopt the old Army recruiting slogan, "Be all you can be." Under which other system can millions of persons who are immigrants, or who are born to the lowest rung of the economic ladder, by their will and wits, and imagination,climb as many rungs as ambition will take them? Under what other system can a person start a business on the proverbial 'shoestring' and become a great financial success?
This is a highly idealized version of capitalism. Let me explain how it really works. Under capitalism, competition is wild. This means corporations want to make their products as cheap as possible. Now, this is great for the consumer of, say, the USA, but it is terrible for the worker of, say, China (or Mexico, or Taiwan etc.) As prices drop, less and less money is given to the worker, which in turn gives profit to the company, which is what capitalism is all about: profit. So, although you and I may see the glory of capitalism, never forget that there is a worker (or perhaps even a child) in another country suffering from it. That is the inherent vice of capitalism: the vast, vast inequality created by it.
Under capitalism, corporations must earn profits sufficient to keep them from going out of business. Competition determines which ones survive. It is the support of consumers that determines which corporations survive. Those corporation that remain in business provide jobs for tens of million US workers.
In foreign countries where goods is produced for export to the US, jobs are created which for the first time, in many instances, lift the worker’s family out of poverty for the first time in generations. These jobs are possible only because US consumers purchase the goods produced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Do you know the stories of William C. Penny, Sam Walton, Bill Gates, or tens of thousands of others who are moving in their direction?
Why not you, too?
It is true that both economically and politically we have made, and are continuing to make great advances compared with Europe where the independent nations have decided to band together in The European Union because, individually, that collection of small 'units' was unable to keep pace with the US.
I don't believe it's necessary to repeat, for the third or fourth time, the reasons that some of the European nationa have decided to alienate themselves from the US.
To quote a line from an old Ray Stevens hit, "Everything is Beautiful", that goes, "There is non so blind as he who will not see."
Do me a favor, if you can. Name a few well known political names who, prior to the fall of Baghdad openly stated that Iraq did not possess WMD.
Jealousy? After all, why should an upstart nation, little more than two hundred years old become so much greater than countries with a two thousand year history?
I am not, in the least, concerned that other countries may resent the US. No nation on earth is more honorable than the US which historically has shared its bounty with those in need, regardless of their feelings toward us.
Now, all this concerns your deep animosity towards Europe. I'm simply saying, that in a time of nuclear weapons and the constant possibility of nuclear war, perhaps it is wise for the US to have some allies beyond, well, Britain.[/quote]
There really only two European countries of any consequence that disagree with our foreign policies. Both have dirty hands.
How about an answer to a few that, perhaps, you did not see:
Do you know the stories of William C. Penny, Sam Walton, Bill Gates, or tens of thousands of others who are moving in their direction?
Why not you, too?
Do me a favor, if you can. Name a few well known political names who, prior to the fall of Baghdad, openly stated that Iraq did not possess WMD.
