Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Lizard3 on May 03, 2003, 05:00:49 AM
-
Name the one nation that elected to change to a communist form of government in fair and free elections?
-
Poland?
Might have been Russia... don't recall how their government "adjusted"
-
Ah... Nigaragua
-
Ahh, no MiniD.
The sandinistas came to power after a civil war. When the first elections were allowed in the early 1990s they were defeated..
-
Sure looks like the Sandinista government was ousted by popular vote to me:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/october96/nicaragua_10-22.html
MiniD
-
If we're to include a Nationalist/ Socialist as communist then I'll pick Salvador Allende of Chile. After free and fair elections, he nationalized the US owned copper mines (among other things). Needless to say we didn't take kindly to that and worked for his overthrow.
-
There's also Mongolia:
http://www.cbs.curtin.edu.au/Workingpapers/ef/9901.htm
MiniD
-
MiniD I think you read his question wrong he asked if any country had voted FOR a communist governmebt.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
If we're to include a Nationalist/ Socialist as communist then I'll pick Salvador Allende of Chile. After free and fair elections, he nationalized the US owned copper mines (among other things). Needless to say we didn't take kindly to that and worked for his overthrow.
God Bless General Pinochet!
-
We've had Socialists government for a while here and in France too I think, although... what we call "Socialist" here would be "Democrat" in the US.
They've been doing a lot of ***** if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
We've had Socialists government for a while here and in France too I think, although... what we call "Socialist" here would be "Democrat" in the US.
They've been doing a lot of ***** if you ask me.
I think he said "communist." *ShruG* But hey ... some see "socialist" when they read "communist" and make little difference between the two ideologies. :D
-
You tell me, what did USSR stand for? :)
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
You tell me, what did USSR stand for? :)
You're too easily taken in by names, I see. What's another name for the "National Socialist" party? (Hint: They were anything but "socialists");)
Disclaimer: Arlo did indeed see the opening here for a "Republican" dig but that's not the correct answer. :D
-
Please stop confusing me with facts, I am only here for entertainment. :)
-
My bad. Me too. I get too easily distracted at times. :p :eek: :D
-
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, literally but if you mean in terms of what it STOOD for then initially a rather idealistic Marxist point of view that everyone is equal, no rich elite or aristocracy, no one owns property or at least not too much property to the detriment of others. Nobody goes short of food and has a place to live and has opportunities both educational and careerwise.
Apart from the property bit it's more or less what everyone wants capitalist, communist, socialist, fascist or whatever. What went wrong was that it became a repressive dictatorial regime in which surprise surprise there evolved a relatively rich elite, not everyone was equal and the opportunities only went to those who toed the party line. What collapsed it was that people has no incentive to work harder and improve their lot. Getting a medal for inventing something is poor compensation, a payrise is more motivating. The other issue is the lack of freedom that Communism all too often leads too.
To go back to the original question. I think Bulgaria voted in a Communist government and Poland. But the big differnce is that if the people choose to vote them out in the next election they go. Because they are now proper democrats.
France and Italy have long standing democratic Communist parties and quite often in France the local council and Mayor are Communists elected in free and fair elections.
But has anyone ever voted in a Communist government knowing that they would repress other parties and confiscate the property of the rich and set up a workers Soviet? No I don't think so. Let's face it, who would?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
God Bless General Pinochet!
-
:)
BTW Straffo i have still not gotten your 2nd email.. :(
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Poland?
Might have been Russia... don't recall how their government "adjusted"
LOL
-
Originally posted by Mini D
There's also Mongolia:
http://www.cbs.curtin.edu.au/Workingpapers/ef/9901.htm
MiniD
From your link:
"On the 30th June 1996, Mongolia’s Democratic Union Coalition, won a big victory. They captured 60 of the Mongolian parliament’s 76 seats. This ended 75 years of unbroken communist rule."
So, I don't think that ones it.
-
I misread the initial post... thought you asked who voted to move away from Communism.
MiniD
-
The Great Republic of Drunken Retardia
-
Originally posted by blue1
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, literally but if you mean in terms of what it STOOD for then initially a rather idealistic Marxist point of view that everyone is equal, no rich elite or aristocracy, no one owns property or at least not too much property to the detriment of others. Nobody goes short of food and has a place to live and has opportunities both educational and careerwise.
Apart from the property bit it's more or less what everyone wants capitalist, communist, socialist, fascist or whatever. What went wrong was that it became a repressive dictatorial regime in which surprise surprise there evolved a relatively rich elite, not everyone was equal and the opportunities only went to those who toed the party line. What collapsed it was that people has no incentive to work harder and improve their lot. Getting a medal for inventing something is poor compensation, a payrise is more motivating. The other issue is the lack of freedom that Communism all too often leads too.
To go back to the original question. I think Bulgaria voted in a Communist government and Poland. But the big differnce is that if the people choose to vote them out in the next election they go. Because they are now proper democrats.
France and Italy have long standing democratic Communist parties and quite often in France the local council and Mayor are Communists elected in free and fair elections.
But has anyone ever voted in a Communist government knowing that they would repress other parties and confiscate the property of the rich and set up a workers Soviet? No I don't think so. Let's face it, who would?
Blue figured it out. None. Nada. Zip.
No nation has ever freely voted to adopt a communist form of government.
I wonder why?
-
communism of today and even in russia at the start was nothing like what marx actually wanted...
you see in russia they brough EVERYONE down to the level of a pauper but what marx wanted was everyone to be brought up or down to the middle class...wich is why he said it would only really work in a place like england where much of the population already was middle class...
as for actually electing a communist government...didnt one of those little central asian places do it???
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Blue figured it out. None. Nada. Zip.
No nation has ever freely voted to adopt a communist form of government.
I wonder why?
Well no ****. Even the communists agree that their form of government requires a violent overthrow of the existing social order. Have you heard of the phrase, "the dictatorship of the proletariat"?
The Soviets also supported international revolution, at least while Lenin was alive. The Communist International was basically a way of supporting revolutionaries in other (especially European) countries as they tried to organize proletarian upgrisings against their government. I hope you didn't think that they were pouring money into making election posters and buttons.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
God Bless General Pinochet!
Thought I seen it all, just waiting for him to praise Hitler and Franco next.
Your out of line, GRUNHERZ and you better shape up.
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Name the one nation that elected to change to a communist form of government in fair and free elections?
LOL, it would have been more accurate to ask:
Name just one nation that elected to change to a communist form of government in fair and free elections?
Your question is making the statement of there actually being one nation that did vote to change to a communist form of government.
Amazing what just one word will do to a statement/question.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Thought I seen it all, just waiting for him to praise Hitler and Franco next.
Your out of line, GRUNHERZ and you better shape up.
Franco was great and a very smart guy to keep his nation out of WW2. I am glad Spain did not become a communist country because the republicans were just that - thinly veiled communists. So yea I will praise Franco, barring any new info anout him being really terrible I am quite comfortable in my attitude towards him. He was great for Spain.
As for Hitler - well I think he started a totaly unneccesary war and did all manner of terrible things to europe, the world and of germany and of course humanity. If he wasnt so evil in his hatred of racial/cultural groups I think he could have done better for his country becaiuse maybe then he would not have persecuted jews and started so many wars. His early economic and political steps were largely succesful in bringing Germany out of depression and world political/economic nothingness due to versailles. In the end he was just too bad a guy and his wishes were always clearly for a war to impose nazi political and racial domination on europe - which is not good for all the obvious resons.
Pinochet. Salvador Allende was a communist stooge and a friend of fidel castro so good riddance to him. Thats all I have to say about Pinochet.
-
oops - nm :D
-
Well Grunherz, hope they deport ya back to "yogolan" where you belong.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Well Grunherz, hope they deport ya back to "yogolan" where you belong.
Why would they? America is great, they allow yoy to think freely.
Hey look I'll put up Pinochet's and Franco's record up any day with jus about any of your dear communist leaders - the two of them will come out looking like mother theresa in comparision.
But I have no doubts you just earn for some good old communism - sure must look like all roses from sweden - so I find it funny how you should mention I go back to ex communist country...
Allow me to put it to youy quite honestly:
COMMUNISM = GREATEST EVIL OF ALL TIME
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why would they? America is great, they allow yoy to think freely.
You must be not the best example. Looks like they make you think like senator McCarthy (sp?)
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hey look I'll put up Pinochet's and Franco's record up any day with jus about any of your dear communist leaders - the two of them will come out looking like mother theresa in comparision.
But I have no doubts you just earn for some good old communism - sure must look like all roses from sweden - so I find it funny how you should mention I go back to ex communist country...
Allow me to put it to youy quite honestly:
COMMUNISM = GREATEST EVIL OF ALL TIME
Ignorance is mush worse.
Unlike nazism, Communism is a positive ideology, and has a right to exist.
GH, I again asvise you to read "Rebel" by Albert Camus. If the whole book is too hard for you to read, you can easily find two chapters abaout nazism and Communism.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Unlike nazism, Communism is a positive ideology, and has a right to exist.
Communism has rights? Maybe humans have rights, not idealisms.
Name one communist nation that allows it's citizens to have freedom of speach.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Communism has rights? Maybe humans have rights, not idealisms.
Name one communist nation that allows it's citizens to have freedom of speach.
Name one right-wing extremist military dictature where you have freedom of speach ?
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
:)
BTW Straffo i have still not gotten your 2nd email.. :(
Will repost it (or better rewrote it).
Btw you need to read better documentation about spain civil war...
And about Allende too.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Name one right-wing extremist military dictature where you have freedom of speach ?
I can't name one. What's your point?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Amazing what just one word will do to a statement/question.
But that one word made ya think didn't it.
-
As vorticon said Communism as practised in Russia was not a Marx envisaged. In fact Russia was the last place he would have expected it to be put into practice. Britain was one country but certainly Germany were more likely. You see Russia was a country of rural peasants with limited industrial capacity. Unlike Germany or Britain which were heavily industrialized and had a huge and exploited working class. The proletariat
But despite that Communism is in fact more of a middle class aspiration. The working classes tend to concentrate on survival and bettering themselves. That's still true to a large extent. I wager if you checked out the backgrounds of most reclaim the streets/anti-capitalist/anti-war/anti-globalization participants you will find that they are all the sons and daughter of Doctors, Lawyers, Professors and assorted intellectuals racked with guilt at their privileged and moneyed backgrounds seeking to improve the lot of others. As ever the blue collar workers for the most part depend on the jobs created by the capitalists and are not inclined to bite the hand that feeds them. Armies too consist of the poor and the working class seeking to better themselves. That's a simplification but I think it holds true.
Not being American I can only speculate but I suspect that the most virulent anti communists in America are the ordinary blue collar workers.
But then I also believe that communism and socialism is heavily misunderstood in America. Seen perhaps as a huge monolithic conspiracy to introduce a something like the old Soviet Union. In fact not even communist countries do that anymore. China may be still rather repressive but capitalism thrives under the the new order. Communism as an idealogy is largely dead. There are still communists particularly in South America where there is a long history of repressive right wing governments supported by the US in countries with a huge population of poverty stricken peasants and workers and a small rich ruling elite. So naturally communism is seen as attractive. Cuba is a good example. Castro was educated and middle class. Cuba was led by a US supported dictator. Castro overthrew the dictator and set up a communist regime. The rest we know is history.
The question is the old chicken and egg situation. What comes first? Has American fears of communism in South America created more communists than it prevented.
The truth is that communism in it's purest form is dead and gone. What's left is in effect all the forms of socialism. Tony Blair is a socialist. Castro is a socialist. There is quite a difference. North Korea is the last of the old style communist regimes. They can't feed their own people and it's only a matter of time before it implodes on itself.
Communism is no longer a threat to anyone least of all America. It's a product of the ninteenth century. The big threat these days is from the extreme right wing, fascism is still there despite or perhaps because of Hitler. Religious fundamentalism is a close relative of fascism. That is the new threat.
9/11 was not perpetrated by communists.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You must be not the best example. Looks like they make you think like senator McCarthy (sp?)
Ignorance is mush worse.
Unlike nazism, Communism is a positive ideology, and has a right to exist.
GH, I again asvise you to read "Rebel" by Albert Camus. If the whole book is too hard for you to read, you can easily find two chapters abaout nazism and Communism.
Actually, whats so wrong with McCarthy? He foamed at the mouth a bit much, but he was what we needed, when we needed it. He exposed a number of commi's in our government for what they were. Commi trash. Anyway, we had McCarthy, what did you call the party people who jailed thousands on rumors alone? Godforbid someone speaks up against something or publishes some poetry in France. That will get ya 10 years in the gulags. Am I right?
Jewish? Disappear forever...
I'll take ignorance any day to being a slave of some dimwitted sadistic evil chosen few.
What about communism is positive? Upward mobility? When half your countrymen are dead, someones got to get the good jobs eh? In the early years there's no shortage of housing as half your neigbors are dead eh?
Communism is a disease. A disgusting putrid plague on humanity that is thankfully being removed from the body human.
Communism has wreaked more death and misery on humanity than any other form of governement to date.
It has the right to de-exist.
-
whats positive about communism...well your obviously reffering to the moder military dictatorships calling themselves communists and not the real communism that was envisiond orignally by marx
the differences are as big as the original "free market" society and modern day united states...wich is modelled after that idealism...
how many of you have actually read the communist manifesto??? i have and i can see why it took hold in russia instead of germany or britain...because most of the population in the latter was already middle class they didnt really care if the rich got poorer or the poor got richer
on a base level both extremes in the idealist governments actually have a lot in common its just they have a different way of acheiving those...
as a canadian i can see past the propoganda anti this that and the other put forward by either side...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You must be not the best example. Looks like they make you think like senator McCarthy (sp?)
Ignorance is mush worse.
Unlike nazism, Communism is a positive ideology, and has a right to exist.
GH, I again asvise you to read "Rebel" by Albert Camus. If the whole book is too hard for you to read, you can easily find two chapters abaout nazism and Communism.
First of all I hate communism beacause I chose to, unlike you I did not through all the brainwahing back in my old commnist country- they just started but I got out in time...
Second, I agree with you 100% communiosm is a positive ideology and nazism is a negative one.
A communist will kill you and starve you and club you over the head because he loves you. A nazi will do the same because he hates you.
And thats what mkes communism so much more evil, it is very appealing to so many decent warm hearted people and quickly they get sucked into justifying and ignoring all of communism excesses and horrors on the basis they are doing something good for the people.
Thats why you have communist organizations all over college campuses - its positvie and flowery - in theory. In paractice it has proven to be nothing but a disaster and hundreds of millons have died and suffered.
And no I will not accept any revisonist appoligist BS that some mythical form or "real" communism is still out there and has not been given a chance to flower yet - it has all been tried and the result has always been nationwide and worldwide catastrophe. For humanty's sake give it up and move on...
And it should not surproise us at all that communism is inherntly inworkable as the lazy Marx came up with it while being fully finacially supported by his sugardaddy boyfriend Engles - who himself was the privlaged lazy son of a succesful industrialist - daddy gave him a factory to run all by himself. I'll just say the two of them had unrealistic experiences when it came to econmics and work.
So in the end and with a chorus of hundreds of millions of communism's victims voices in spirit I say:
COMMUNISM IS THE GREATEST EVIL OF ALL TIME
Nothing is even close...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I can't name one. What's your point?
here :
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
God Bless General Pinochet!
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
But that one word made ya think didn't it.
Sure did
;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
here :
Well straffo since Allende was a communist stooge and a friend of castro he would have outlaed free speech pretty quickly and that would have been it. So what Pinochet did was no worse.
Even human rights watch can only say this:
- A total of 3,197 people died or went missing between September 11, 1973 and March 11, 1990 as a result of human rights violations at the hands of the state agents of repression.
- Of these 1,102 classify as disappeared and 2,095 as deaths.
So in all his evil only 3,000 people were killed. Compare that to Allende's friend and mentor fidel Castro.
And lets not forget Pinochet gave up power in 1990 and since there has been a process towards denmocracy and elections, something I have yet to see allende's friend castro do.
Dont get carried away by Allendes lies and ptopaganda he was an evil communist and dictator in the making who would have made chile into cuba and murdered tens of thousands and made sounth america even more of a cold war battleground lededing to even more reginal unrest and suffereing.
-
I don't care of what Allende could have done ...
I'm more concerned by what Pinochet has done.
Not that I support Castro either.
-
Of course it was unfortunate and uncomfortable what Pinochet did - everyone knows the brainwashed communist radical is always hard to deal with and must be dealt with hard, but from historical experience I dont think anyone can ultimately deny the communist Allende would have done far far worse things...
-
Actually, "pure" communism is a benign form of goverment. Ideologically that is.
Problem is, only people like Stalin, Lenin, Mao,Castro, etc, etc used its name to please the masses to bring them to power, and then became brutal dictators. So in practice its been a failure.
Idea good, people bad.
:)
-
only 3,000 people were killed
only 3000 people died in the attack on the WTC. I cant understand why we are getting so upset over it?:rolleyes:
we had no right takeing out a fairly elected government and setting up a dictatorship in chile. and why did we do it? for the all mighty dollar. dont fool yourself when you say we did it for " the good of the world". that is utter BS.
-
It's not even a benign thing in ideas. The problem is that communism does not take humanity into consideration. It would all work if people were machines - like selfless robots in production line who gladly share resources (electrictity) in a common goal (product assembly) but people dont work that way. We have individual desires, aspirations, hopes, individual motivators and individal tastes and preferences. So in order for ideal communism to work all those must be suppressed - and thats why communism has always and will always be accompanied by repression and suprseeion of human desires and freedoms - it cannot work with free choice and liberty, it cannot work while individual unique human personalities are allowed to exist freely.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
only 3000 people died in the attack on the WTC. I cant understand why we are getting so upset over it?:rolleyes:
we had no right takeing out a fairly elected government and setting up a dictatorship in chile. and why did we do it? for the all mighty dollar. dont fool yourself when you say we did it for " the good of the world". that is utter BS.
Just compare that to the benign caommunist governamce of cuba... And frankly 3000 political deaths in a country like chile over 17 years is hardly the making of the great evil communist losers are making pinochet out to be. Plus lets not forget pinochet gave up power in 1990 and democracy took over quite nicely, castro has not and his protege allende would likely have not.
The chilean military had a right to defend its country and oust a communist stooge and his marxist regime whose primary loyalty had been to moscow and havana and not santiago.
-
To answer the original question:
What about the Chinese revolution ? wasn't it *initially* a popular movment?
-
the only reason they would have had to depend on moscow is because we would have turned our backs on them. do you really think castro would still be in power if we would allow our corporations, money, and tourists into cuba? Do not underestimate the influence of the dollar on a society.
btw he honored the constitution of chile. We commited a crime against hummanity.
it was a freely elected government that honored the constitution of chile. Why should we have any say in the freedoms of another country? He commited no crimes against the people of chile, we did.
Maybe you were brainwashed in the old country if you do not believe the people of country cannot be allowed to freely elect their leaders.
-
no i dont think china counts. i think we are only counting when it was elected in and not put in place by military coups that never put communism in place but set up military dictatorships.
-
The chilean military had a right to defend their country from communists.
How exactly would US business help inflenvce them once castro kicked them out?
Look I think it basically comes down to fact that I hate communism and that it makes me very happy to see communists be defeated anywhere in the world. You have different thoughts on the matter and so we honestly disagree. I think thats a fair thing to say.
-
grun you hate it to the point that it violates human rights. thats the difference we have. i value a peoples freedom of choice more then anything. your hate of communism makes you turn a blind eye towards what happened in chile. the congress wasnt communist. the constitution was upheld. there would have been checks and balances. The purpose of the military is to serve take orders from the people, not make judgements for them.
Instead we commited a war crime and backed a military dictator that destroyed the people of chiles freedoms. open your eyes, this situation is far different then cuba, china, or all those other military coups. this was a freely elected president.
-
It is benign in its ideology grun, but like I said in my 1st post, and like you detailed it in your own post, it doesnt work because it is incompatible with one element:
people.
-
Yep, so it is not aconcidence every communist govt in history has try to eliminate that pesky "people" element as much as possible. :)
-
very few governments havnt tried to eliminate the pesky people. the US government never killed off millions of people because they were in the way. never did they once intentionally use biowarfare on a people. wait yes they did.
( not defending communism because it will never work, but just pointing out the flaws in your theory).
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Actually, whats so wrong with McCarthy? He foamed at the mouth a bit much, but he was what we needed, when we needed it. He exposed a number of commi's in our government for what they were. Commi trash. Anyway, we had McCarthy, what did you call the party people who jailed thousands on rumors alone? Godforbid someone speaks up against something or publishes some poetry in France. That will get ya 10 years in the gulags. Am I right?
Jewish? Disappear forever...
I'll take ignorance any day to being a slave of some dimwitted sadistic evil chosen few.
What about communism is positive? Upward mobility? When half your countrymen are dead, someones got to get the good jobs eh? In the early years there's no shortage of housing as half your neigbors are dead eh?
Communism is a disease. A disgusting putrid plague on humanity that is thankfully being removed from the body human.
Communism has wreaked more death and misery on humanity than any other form of governement to date.
It has the right to de-exist.
Well, your idea of "horrors of Soviet regime" is very much wrong, influenced by too much Western propaganda tradition. In fact it is no more then anti-Russian propaganda first used in maybe XVIII century...
What we had here was not much worse then McCarthism and hysterical anticommunism in the US in 40s-60s.
Look at China. They did what USSR should have done, didn't drop the Communist ideology, but simply let people work, and don't pay much attention to "private property" and ideological aspects.
Soviet Socialism showed a great example of dedication and forced development in 1930s-50s. In fact "stalinism" was much closer to state capitalism then to what is called "socialism" in the West.
There are dozens of scenarios to develop dedicated and disciplined planned "stalinist" economics to more liberal and still effective system. One of them is Chinese way. We could try to have something special in late-80s, but instead the "elite" was completely bought by the enemy and thought only about a destruction of our country as a world power and souverign state.
I like some aspects of current situation in Russia and don't want to return to Soviet times, but I see many things that have to be done now, and looks like our current government is too busy filling their pokets to do it :(
-
Grunherz,
Why are you comparing Pinochet to Castro? Isn't the issue Allende and Pinochet? Allende was in office for about 3 years.
During his administration he didn't order the executions or jailings of political opponents. He didn't shut down opposition newspapers. He didn't try to control the media. He didn't declare martial law and install himself as a dictator.
Pinochet on the other hand....
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Name the one nation that elected to change to a communist form of government in fair and free elections?
Chile,
that's why their government and thousands of people was murdered and tourtured with the help of the CIA
err wait it wasn't Communisimn, the people of Chile just elected a leader, in a fair and free election, american government disliked, so he has to die- no biggy - that's life :D
Regards Blitz
btw Kissinger is responsible for the assasination of General Schneider and should see the jail for it- dead or alive -> get him :D
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous- it was a classic Aggression War
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Actually, whats so wrong with McCarthy? He foamed at the mouth a bit much, but he was what we needed, when we needed it. He exposed a number of commi's in our government for what they were. Commi trash. Anyway, we had McCarthy, what did you call the party people who jailed thousands on rumors alone? Godforbid someone speaks up against something or publishes some poetry in France. That will get ya 10 years in the gulags. Am I right?
Jewish? Disappear forever...
I'll take ignorance any day to being a slave of some dimwitted sadistic evil chosen few.
This may be the winner of the scariest post of the year award. How sad.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
the only reason they would have had to depend on moscow is because we would have turned our backs on them. do you really think castro would still be in power if we would allow our corporations, money, and tourists into cuba? Do not underestimate the influence of the dollar on a society.
btw he honored the constitution of chile. We commited a crime against hummanity.
it was a freely elected government that honored the constitution of chile. Why should we have any say in the freedoms of another country? He commited no crimes against the people of chile, we did.
Maybe you were brainwashed in the old country if you do not believe the people of country cannot be allowed to freely elect their leaders.
Yes, I do think Castro would still be in power. He recieved massive aid from USSR, that didnt change a thing. Maybe you think US money has magic dust sprinkled on it. Sorry, we supported Nicaragua for the first 18 months after the "revolution" and it didn't change a thing.
Allende honored the constitution? Is that what you meant? Funny you should bring that up, but that was one of the charges against him before the coup took place. Please site an example of an example of these crimes against humanity we commited? You still refering to Chile? Do you really believe that or is that just something you heard and repeat every time the US is involved internationally? Explain these crimes? You mean destabalizing an already totering nation? A nation with a Marxist leader flirting with and getting aid from most every evil communist nation on earth? Nations who dont think twice about destabalizing/supplying arms/aid/money/advisors to export their brand of human misery and death. Does our crime have something to do with talking to some people who have the will and the means to take over this government , to intercept yet another attempt to export death and destruction into our hemisphere? Really? You cant be serious. Do you know how many Chileans would've died had it been allowed to go commi? If any of the other communist revolutions (which would've had to happen anyway to consolidate power) serve as an example, anywhere from 15 to 40 % of the population would've died. Not in 12 years, but within the first 2 years of them taking power. Most by gunshots to the head, but many more later by starvation and torture. Crime against humanity. Your full of ****.
OK, you say he commited no crimes against the people. The people seemed to think otherwise. Why all the demonstrations daily all over the country. OK, nationalizing the copper mines was kinda borderline, but the confiscation of other personal property wasn't was it? Oh, but your a Chilean constitutional lawyer, so you'd know that huh? The country was on the brink of anarchy. Inflation out of control, unemployment sky rocketing, massive demonstrations.
Besides, the Chilean military had a history of stepping in during catacalismic times. They'd already done it twice before to stabilize the country.
As for your question about wether groinhurtz believes people should be able to vote on there own leaders, well, I guess some of the Chileans did not. Now I refer you to the question that this whole thread is about. Can you name one? Can you? NO, you cant. Commi's dont believe in fair elections. They believe in murder, torture, explotation, lies, deception, the boot. Shame on you, "crime against humanity"...dolt...er, liberal.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
grun you hate it to the point that it violates human rights. thats the difference we have. i value a peoples freedom of choice more then anything. your hate of communism makes you turn a blind eye towards what happened in chile. the congress wasnt communist. the constitution was upheld. there would have been checks and balances. The purpose of the military is to serve take orders from the people, not make judgements for them.
Instead we commited a war crime and backed a military dictator that destroyed the people of chiles freedoms. open your eyes, this situation is far different then cuba, china, or all those other military coups. this was a freely elected president.
I refer you to my post above.
As to war crime, what crime did we commit? Did we supply the Chilean military with weapons? Did US troops actually do the deed? Did we send bombers and fighters to pound the innocent Chileans to pulp? No. We did none of these things. We talked to some people. OH MY! From what I've read, it was relatively bloodless as coups go.
How about Grenada? Was that a crime against humanity? No, I'm not talking about when we liberated the country, I'm talking about the coup that occured as a direct result of Cuban intervention? Were not the Cubans involved in Angola? How about the coup the Veitnamese funded in Cambodia? Wanna talk crimes? That was an absolute horror. Have you read anything about that one? Guatamala? El Salvador?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
very few governments havnt tried to eliminate the pesky people. the US government never killed off millions of people because they were in the way. never did they once intentionally use biowarfare on a people. wait yes they did.
( not defending communism because it will never work, but just pointing out the flaws in your theory).
Millions? Where and when? Biowarfare? You've got to be kidding me. Do you really believe that? Where, when?
(you are defending communism, your spouting party line propaganda as if were the truth.)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, your idea of "horrors of Soviet regime" is very much wrong, influenced by too much Western propaganda tradition. In fact it is no more then anti-Russian propaganda first used in maybe XVIII century...
What we had here was not much worse then McCarthism and hysterical anticommunism in the US in 40s-60s.
Look at China. They did what USSR should have done, didn't drop the Communist ideology, but simply let people work, and don't pay much attention to "private property" and ideological aspects.
Soviet Socialism showed a great example of dedication and forced development in 1930s-50s. In fact "stalinism" was much closer to state capitalism then to what is called "socialism" in the West.
There are dozens of scenarios to develop dedicated and disciplined planned "stalinist" economics to more liberal and still effective system. One of them is Chinese way. We could try to have something special in late-80s, but instead the "elite" was completely bought by the enemy and thought only about a destruction of our country as a world power and souverign state.
I like some aspects of current situation in Russia and don't want to return to Soviet times, but I see many things that have to be done now, and looks like our current government is too busy filling their pokets to do it :(
Explain to me how its wrong oh enlightnd one. The record of your countries inhumanity to its own people is not for debate. Its fact, supported by reams of evidence, most of it coming from your own coutry since the records have been opened. Stalin murdered, tortured and starved more "soviets" than Napolean and Hitler killed in both those wars with Russia/USSR. How many died in the terror famins institued by Lenin? 10 million at the least. TEN MILLION!
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/famdefin.htm
http://hallasianhistory.com/asia/771.shtml
http://www.languagelanterns.com/hunger.htm
You say you had "not much worse here then McCarthism and hysterical anticommunism in the US in 40s-60s."
Are you blind deaf and dumb? What communism did to your country was far far worse than anything comparable in the history of the world. 70 years worth! How can you with any sliver of humanity in your soul actually sport a hammer and sicle as an avatar? It stands as an icon of something so horrible it almost dwarfs the swastika.
China? Now there's an example of good communists, huh? Still nothing but exploitive murdering thugs with no regard to humanity.
I'm skipping your second to the last paragraph as its pure blather, but that last one bothers me. What is it that you see that needs to be done? You actually have an opinion thats not cut and paste pravda blather? I'd like to hear it. Speak out. And...as for your politicians lining there pockets, thats been going on in most all governments since the begining of time. Even your former government official "lined there pockets". No? I bet you would if you could, but thats not the point. You stated that like it was a real bad thing. Like it bothered you. The suffering and death of MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of your fellow countrymen did not?
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Millions? Where and when? Biowarfare? You've got to be kidding me. Do you really believe that? Where, when?
Defoliants in Vietnam?... If THIS wasn't biowarfare, then what is?
Originally posted by Lizard3
(you are defending communism, your spouting party line propaganda as if were the truth.)
Party propaganda was all true when they spoke about a danger from American imperialism. Your leaders have to be stopped. Unfortunately there is no more opposition to their insane ambitions. "Winning" the cold war meant the destruction of the world security system. No only WMD threat can secure any nation from agressors.
It's intersting that propaganda radios like Toad refused to discuss US policy in Latin America with me.
-
What the heck are you people are talking about?
There is no such thing as "communist form of government".
Forms of government are literally how governments are formed: democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, etc.
Communism is a framework of the social organisation - mostly determined by property rights - like capitalism, feudalism, tribalism, etc.
Under communism there is no right for individuals to own property besides personal effects.
Having "free elections" does not mean the country is/was a free country before it could have elected communism organisation of society.
Being a free country has more to do with constitutional form of government - be it monarchy or republic than with elections. If a government can arbitrarily interfere with the rights and freedoms of the population, it is not a free country, even if the decision is adopted through a democratic process.
BTW, all the freedoms and liberties and rights western culture considers its best achievements developed under constitutional monarchies, not democracies.
For instance, (assuming we were still a free country living under Constitution), no amount of democratic voting could have deprived a person in US of his property or right to own property or to own guns or to practice a religion.
You could elect a communist into government but there would not have been a constitutional way to convert USA into a communist country.
Nazism was socialism - private and state property under government control.
Marx did not ever said anything how he envisioned communist society, other than that he could practice one profession in the morning and another in the afternoon. Neither he described political arrangement of the communism that he "envisioned" but considering his sources - Sent Simone, Compte and Hegel, he most likely did not expect it to be a society with any personal freedoms. Which is natural since one cannot have personal freedom without property.
miko
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Grunherz,
Why are you comparing Pinochet to Castro? Isn't the issue Allende and Pinochet? Allende was in office for about 3 years.
During his administration he didn't order the executions or jailings of political opponents. He didn't shut down opposition newspapers. He didn't try to control the media. He didn't declare martial law and install himself as a dictator.
Pinochet on the other hand....
With close ties to the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and North Veitnam, how long do you think it would've taken? He'd ridden the country to the brink of colapse, what was his next move?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This may be the winner of the scariest post of the year award. How sad.
Your a wuss and easily scared if this is the scariest of the year. Besides, there's 8 months left to go and 4 or 5 more of my posts in this thread to read.
You've been reading Libby, Libby, Libby on the Label, Label, Label a bit to much. Grow up, diversify, read a little broader subject matter. :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Defoliants in Vietnam?... If THIS wasn't biowarfare, then what is?
Party propaganda was all true when they spoke about a danger from American imperialism. Your leaders have to be stopped. Unfortunately there is no more opposition to their insane ambitions. "Winning" the cold war meant the destruction of the world security system. No only WMD threat can secure any nation from agressors.
It's intersting that propaganda radios like Toad refused to discuss US policy in Latin America with me.
LOL, thats truly funny. Bio-warfare agains TREES! OMG the horror. Let me clue ya in. The big ugly Ami's were fighting these little people that hid in caves and holes in the ground as well as in thick canopied JUNGLES. You guessed it. JUNGLES are primarily made up of TREES. To see and fight this slippery foe, we removed the TREES with DEFOLIANTS. The DEFOLIANTS killed the jungles, but, as is the nature of JUNGLES, they grew back fast. Then we had to kill the JUNGLES again and again. Later we found out that DEFOLIANTS ingested or applied to the skin in massive quantaties caused humans to get very sick. BIO-WARFARE? NOT(unless you were a TREE)!
So, we had a war, a cold war, you lost. We did not invade your country, we just kept pace with your escalation of the arms race till your backwards economy colapsed. You seem to harbor anger over this. Were you inline to take over daddys post? Is that when the delusions and inablity to face facts appeared?
Seems to me that people have been debating central/south america in this thread for a number of days and you haven't contributed much. Searching for something on Pravda to cut-n-paste?
edit: Personally, I think Toad is one of the more level headed, informed, nuetral posters in the OH-CLUB. Did he disagree with you? Is that why you call him a "propaganda radio"?
-
Lizard3, do you have an idea how to feed millions of people in times when there is almost no harvest at all, your country is boycotted by most of the "free world" and you don't have any gold to buy food abroad?
Ukrainian famine was a great disaster, but such things happened every 5-6 years before Communists came to power. Last great starvation happened here in 1947... It's stupid to blame Communists for STOPPING hunger in late-40s.
What Communism did to my country was saving it from total elimination by nazis. You should never, NEVER ever even compare Communists and nazis.
You don't know anything but propaganda about my country. You don't know anything about China too, only the things your media machine tells you.
It's hard to argue with blind and deaf people. I'll prefer to discuss some issues with Miko. At least we both know what we talk about. BTW, read his brilliant post about Communism. It can make you understand some things.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
communism of today and even in russia at the start was nothing like what marx actually wanted...
you see in russia they brough EVERYONE down to the level of a pauper but what marx wanted was everyone to be brought up or down to the middle class...wich is why he said it would only really work in a place like england where much of the population already was middle class...
About the only thing I really remember about Marxism is what I learned in Business Economics 1 rather than what I learned in all of my Political Science and American History classes. Chiefly, that Marx's initial philosophy was "from those of ability to those of need" and when he realized the lunacy of that position, he changed it to "from those of ability to those who work", which was only marginally better because he forgot that hard work doesn't always result in anything of value. I can work hard all day digging a ditch with a shovel, but that doesn't mean I should get paid more than if I had worked less hard to write a well-thought out dissertation on political philosphy. Which has more value: a pile of dirt or a paper that can educate hundreds of people and improve our society?
In my opinion, anyone who's trying to espouse Communism as a valid form of government is merely trying to use politics as a cover for looting national resources. But hey, that's just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Lizard3, do you have an idea how to feed millions of people in times when there is almost no harvest at all, your country is boycotted by most of the "free world" and you don't have any gold to buy food abroad?
Ukrainian famine was a great disaster, but such things happened every 5-6 years before Communists came to power. Last great starvation happened here in 1947... It's stupid to blame Communists for STOPPING hunger in late-40s.
What Communism did to my country was saving it from total elimination by nazis. You should never, NEVER ever even compare Communists and nazis.
You don't know anything but propaganda about my country. You don't know anything about China too, only the things your media machine tells you.
It's hard to argue with blind and deaf people. I'll prefer to discuss some issues with Miko. At least we both know what we talk about. BTW, read his brilliant post about Communism. It can make you understand some things.
Nope, not propaganda. Fact. Lenin starved and killed all the farmers and wealthy(?) peasants to advance his creation of the industrial proletariat. Its well documented and not just by the "west". All grain stocks, even the seed for future harvests were seized.
From your own archives is this report from an official of the Peoples Commissariat of Food from the Samara Region.
"Today there are no more revolts. we see new phenomena instead: crowds of thousands of starving people gather around the Executive Committee or the Part headquarters of the Soviet to wait, for days and days, for the miraculous appearance of food they need. It is impossible to chase this crowd away, and every day more of them die. They are dropping like flies...I think there must be 900,000 starving people in this province."
If you can, answer some of the questions I asked. State something besides "western propoganda". We're the one's who've dealt with liberal propoganda glossing over the evils while blaming the US for every problem in the world. If there's been any propoganda about, its been fed from leftists to the media.
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
LOL, thats truly funny. Bio-warfare agains TREES! OMG the horror. Let me clue ya in. The big ugly Ami's were fighting these little people that hid in caves and holes in the ground as well as in thick canopied JUNGLES. You guessed it. JUNGLES are primarily made up of TREES. To see and fight this slippery foe, we removed the TREES with DEFOLIANTS. The DEFOLIANTS killed the jungles, but, as is the nature of JUNGLES, they grew back fast. Then we had to kill the JUNGLES again and again. Later we found out that DEFOLIANTS ingested or applied to the skin in massive quantaties caused humans to get very sick. BIO-WARFARE? NOT(unless you were a TREE)!
So trees are not alive? they are not "biological objects"? Interesting POW.
Killing harvests and spreading toxic substances isn't biowarfare? interesting. BTW, how many US servicemen suffered from "agent orange"? including genetic anomalies? And how many Vietnamese, I wonder?...
Originally posted by Lizard3
So, we had a war, a cold war, you lost. We did not invade your country, we just kept pace with your escalation of the arms race till your backwards economy colapsed. You seem to harbor anger over this. Were you inline to take over daddys post? Is that when the delusions and inablity to face facts appeared?
The defeat of USSR in a cold war was a great trouble for my country. We literally broke our neck trying to compete with a nation that never had a war and used other wars only as a commercial enterprises. The very fact that we could oppouse you for almost 50 years is amazing. Unfortunately we couldn't last forever.
We could refrain from the "arms race" but in that case I'm 100% sure we'll have all our cities nuked by 1952-53 according to "Charioter", "Fleetwood" or "Dropshot".
Originally posted by Lizard3
Seems to me that people have been debating central/south america in this thread for a number of days and you haven't contributed much. Searching for something on Pravda to cut-n-paste?
edit: Personally, I think Toad is one of the more level headed, informed, nuetral posters in the OH-CLUB. Did he disagree with you? Is that why you call him a "propaganda radio"?
Chilie is not alone in the line of American crimes in Latin America. I am not a specialist in L.A. history, but I know some things.
Pravda "cut-and-paste" is not my specialisation. I enjoy a 99.5% freedom of speech that we have here. 0.5% includes war propaganda (Yes!) and nationalistic/fascist things. My POV doesn't comply with official Russian views, and sometimes is absolutely different.
Toad is a very well informed person, and sometimes I even share his views. The problem is that speaking about my country he speaks only what they told him on army political informations or whatever it is called in the US. He refuses to use any commin sence at all. He keeps baiting me for being not sure that it were evil Russians who killed Polish officers in Katyn, despite of the fact that Burdenko comission report was signed by Allied representatives.
His point is that Russians are to blame for all evil in the world, that they invaded and occupied every country in Europe while US of North A is a Light of Freedom and Good.
-
The USSR was not really "defeated" - neither by Reagan in Cold War not by Ossama Bin Laden in the Afghan war nor by ukrainian separatists.
The government damaged it's country's economically and the populaton used the ease of some restrictions by Gorbachev to peacefully change their society somewhat.
Those things happen. When US government's erroneous fiscal actions caused a huge damage to the US and world economy by causing the Great Depression, the capitalism was blamed and introducing full-blown socialism in US was seriously considered.
A very minor changes in the society - like the chinese agriculture organisaton or just allowing peasants to own 2 rather than 1 acre of land as personal plots could have kept the old organisation indefinitely - like in China.
Russians certainly do not perceive themselves as defeated nation, whatever Boroda thinks.
One can say that "communism" as a phylosophical concept was defeated, but that is far from truth - there are plenty of communists here in US, probably more than in Russia.
P.S. Chilie was not an american "crime". Ponochet was not a US puppet - he was a quite capable and independed man. He actually introduced free market reform on the advice of the Chicago School of economics - not what US pressures it's puppets to do, which is borrow, tax and spend.
miko
-
Lizard, you have very distorted view on Russian history.
Report from Samara is definetly from 1922 famine in Volga region. JFYI: unlike Imperial government, Bolsheviks tried to stop it... I still have 1922 "Help the starving people on Volga" charity post stamps in my collection. They were issued without price printed on them, everyone bought it paying as much as he could spent on charity...
In 1922 we didn't have "war-time communism" or "socialism", we had "NEP", "New Economical Policy", basically - a capitalism with hard currency supported by gold.
Lenin died in 1924, Ukrainian famine happened in 1932. My family suffered from it, so I do know what I speak about :(
So far what you say is a propaganda lie or a result of a lack of knowledge or mistake, I don't know. You'd better check the dates and the map before posting such things.
Our history is very strange and complicated, and very hard to understand for a Westerner.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Look I think it basically comes down to fact that I hate communism and that it makes me very happy to see communists be defeated anywhere in the world. You have different thoughts on the matter and so we honestly disagree. I think thats a fair thing to say.
Do you think Croatia was better off under the Ustasha?
-
Miko, you are partialy true. It's just a misunderstanding, we didn't "lose" but US "won".
In fact Gorby simply sold out the country, and the late-Soviet projects like Buran were too expencive and resulted in huge credits taken from abroad...
The last straw was the fall of the USSR as a united state, too many economocal bounds were broken, and we had to start almost from the very beginning. For example, in Armenia they had to burn all the trees in the parks in Yerevan to heat the houses... Planned economics turned into a chaos... :(
So US "won" because the only force that could oppose them was gone, and we "lost" because of the economical disaster that followed the refusal from that opposition. The enemy will not be satisfied until Russia will loose all it's high-tech production facilities and nuclear weapons, and brought to starvation. No much difference from famous "Plan Ost"... :(
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
With close ties to the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and North Veitnam, how long do you think it would've taken? He'd ridden the country to the brink of colapse, what was his next move?
The country was already in a state of economic collapse.
That's what happens when a high number of corporations fall under foreign control. The capital gets sucked out of the country rather than returned to the country.
Funny thing is, had he not nationalized the US controlled copper mines, we'd of let him be.
If we hadn't put Chile on an econimic blockade and blacklisted them from the World Bank, he wouldn't of been forced to seek economic aid from those we see as "enemies." Funny how our military aid went up during the same period we were blacklisting them.
That's the game we play. We don't like the leadership of a sovereign nation so we try to blackmail them into submission.
Happened with Cuba. Happened with Nicaragua.
BTW what did he do that was bad for Chile? He was a nationalist using socialism to get his country's wealth back. He wasn't a communist. He did what he said he would do when he ran for office. Although he was part of a group consisting of an alliance of a few different groups, he got the most votes (it was close).
What would you actually do in his situation under the same conditions?
-
Boroda: In fact Gorby simply sold out the country...
Sold to whom? It's own people? He allowed people freedom to speak first and then did not prevent them from changing their form of government. What's so bad about it?
Unless you somehow consider a country separate from the people populating it, your statement does not make sense. But even if we assume that a country is a real thing rather than just a metaphysical concept we use for convenience, why do you think Russia has worse prospective now as a country than USSR had?
and the late-Soviet projects like Buran were too expencive and resulted in huge credits taken from abroad...
Which are tiny compared to the money USSR spent buying grain and food abroad. Considering that private peasant's plots (1 acre per household) provided 40% of the USSR total food production, extending that size to 3 acres would have allowed USSR to became a net food exporter and save oil money for something better.
The last straw was the fall of the USSR as a united state, too many economocal bounds were broken, and we had to start almost from the very beginning.
True - when economical bomds are broken, bad things happened. Like when US adopted Smoot-Hawley TariffAct under Hoover, the world-wide Great Depression immediately ensued.
Unlike the Great Depression which was completely unnecessary, most of the economic bonds in the USSR did not make any sense and shoudl have been broken. Those that were still productive did not have to be broken and if one side or another decided to break them, who are we to argue?
So US "won" because the only force that could oppose them was gone,
Opposed in what? Military domination of the world? Russia still has all those nukes if US get too frisky.
and we "lost" because of the economical disaster that followed the refusal from that opposition.
As I've mentioned before, countries - including US - survived even greated economical disaster - often self-inflicted without good any reasons - but do not consider themselves "lost".
BTW - many people said the same thing about US when it almost destroyed itself by inflicting Great Depression while the communist Russia was developing quite nicely.
The enemy will not be satisfied until Russia will loose all it's high-tech production facilities and nuclear weapons, and brought to starvation
You are just paranoid. While getting rid of nuclear weapons is always a good idea, why would anyone consider it beneficial to starve Russia? As a rich and prosperous country, it would pose much less threat to everyone, including being able to better control it's weapos.
Granted, the western world's "help" and influence brought economic ruination to its client third-world countries but it was not intentional, rather the result of the same Keynesian policies that so hurt western society itself.
Once you get onto the wrong side of the Laffer Curve, well-meaning "austerity" plans and forced savings schemes are certain to contract the production.
miko
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Your a wuss and easily scared if this is the scariest of the year. Besides, there's 8 months left to go and 4 or 5 more of my posts in this thread to read.
You've been reading Libby, Libby, Libby on the Label, Label, Label a bit to much. Grow up, diversify, read a little broader subject matter. :D
Oh please daddy... explain to me how tailgunner joe saved our bacon again! I like the part about those 400 State department employees the best! And all those dirty commie students that were just waiting to rape our cars and steal our women!
duck and cover Lizard!!!
:rolleyes:
-
Miko, interesting and productive discussion, thanks! :)
Sold to whom? It's own people? He allowed people freedom to speak first and then did not prevent them from changing their form of government. What's so bad about it?
Do you remember a "perestroyka" joke about a dog on a chain? Chain is made one meter longer, the food is moved 2 meters far away, and you can bark as loud as you want...
The collapse of USSR is a result of Gorby's unsuccessfull provocation... Instead of letting people work he made all the steam go into a whistle, and tried to secure status quo by not letting the new "Union treaty" be signed on August 20 1991. The attempt to "prevent them people changing their form of government" was a complete failure.
In fact he was selling all the post-war political achevements for credits that were nessesary for INDUSTRIAL development. Same old stupid path when 95% of industry were producing means of production.
Unless you somehow consider a country separate from the people populating it, your statement does not make sense. But even if we assume that a country is a real thing rather than just a metaphysical concept we use for convenience, why do you think Russia has worse prospective now as a country than USSR had?
Country isn't separate from people, and the post-USSR republics showed it. Integrity is vital. Political position is vital.
Unlike the Great Depression which was completely unnecessary, most of the economic bonds in the USSR did not make any sense and shoudl have been broken. Those that were still productive did not have to be broken and if one side or another decided to break them, who are we to argue?
Many bounds were broken with customs wars and even "conventional" wars (Armenia-Azerbaijan). The problem was that bounds were broken by administrative decisions, not even by our strange "free market".
Opposed in what? Military domination of the world? Russia still has all those nukes if US get too frisky.
Well, the bipolar world was gone, the Yalta security system ceased to exist. So, now we see the full-scale American imperialism in action. You have strength - you don't need intelligence. What scares so many people is that they can be bombed "to stone age", starved, poisoned etc, in case something happens in the US. We all saw that they have no common sence, they are unpredictable....
USSR/Russia (red side) refused from using force in international politics, but the blue side still relys on it and doesn't meet any opposition. That's what I mean.
BTW - many people said the same thing about US when it almost destroyed itself by inflicting Great Depression while the communist Russia was developing quite nicely.
Most of the things I know about Great depression are from books about FDR (one of my "idols" in politics), but I heard that some Soviet contracts "saved" (sorry for this word) American economics. Looks like the admission of USSR was not only a political decision...
You are just paranoid. While getting rid of nuclear weapons is always a good idea, why would anyone consider it beneficial to starve Russia? As a rich and prosperous country, it would pose much less threat to everyone, including being able to better control it's weapos.
You don't get the point. Russia can't afford a full-scale conventional warfare with it's neighbours. Look at the NATO advance, American presence in Georgia and Pribaltika. North-Western Russian airspace is already controlled by NATO long-range radars in Estonia. Leningrad (sorry, SPb) is within the range of NATO tactical aviation... Paranoid you say?!
Look at the history of last 500 years. We have SOME reasons to be paranoid... :(
Granted, the western world's "help" and influence brought economic ruination to its client third-world countries but it was not intentional, rather the result of the same Keynesian policies that so hurt western society itself.
I doubt that it was unintentional. So far Wesern "Golden Billion" lives as a parasite on the rest of the world. US exports green paper, getting priceless resourses. The only system that can oppose it now is "communist" China. :(
Remember that joke from 70s-80s? Optimists study English, pessimists study Chinese, and realists study Kalashnikov's automat...
:(