Is the US a warlike country?

[Ned]

Originally posted by techumseh


A couple of assumptions leading to an erroneous conclusion.

True. But if you say you are to the left of US Democrats, what is left if not socialism?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
True. But if you say you are to the left of US Democrats, what is left if not socialism?

Well, in Europe, that would be the conservatives.

[Kuciwalker]

Well of course, because in Europe socialism is the status quo.[/Ned]

[techumseh]

3 overall types exist. Social Democracy is the biggest one. It's not really socialism per se, supporting a mixed economy, some government regulation of capitalism and strong social programs. Germany, Sweden, Canada (some provinces only) are examples where this is the main type of "socialism".

Democratic Socialism is true socialism, supporting state ownership of the economy achieved through electoral means. The French Socialist Party is (or was) an example, and I'd probably include many Western European Communist Parties as well.

The last type is Blairism, which is a retrograde development, more akin to Liberalism than anything. Examples are New Labour in Britain, and I'd go out on a limb and add the Labour Party in New Zealand.

Do democratic socialists (including social demorats) support undemocratic ones? That depends. Many of the reforms and social programs are worth supporting. Anti-democratic actions by the government? No way. Support against subversion and invasion by imperial powers in the name of "democracy"? Always.

[Ned]

Clearly US Democrats are Social Democrats. They generally support strong social programs and business regualtion while not supporting government takeovers of business. Thus my essential point remains that the only leftists left of the US Democrats are the socialists themselves, the people who want government to own business and conduct a planned economy.

[techumseh]

Mixed economy means some government ownership in the economy, something US Democrats don't support. Natural resources, transportation and communications, banking and insurance are all things social democrats may support nationalizing, at least in part. The extent of regulation may be greater and social programs more extensive, eg. public health care. However the majority of the economy remains in private hands (eg, Volvo), therefore it's not really socialism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Clearly US Democrats are Social Democrats.

You're just saying that to make me pop, right?

[Ned]

Originally posted by techumseh
Mixed economy means some government ownership in the economy, something US Democrats don't support. Natural resources, transportation and communications, banking and insurance are all things social democrats may support nationalizing, at least in part. The extent of regulation may be greater and social programs more extensive, eg. public health care. However the majority of the economy remains in private hands (eg, Volvo), therefore it's not really socialism.

T, I think they support all this, they just don't dare say it. They know if they do, they will never be reelected.

[Ted Striker]

Social programs

Education

Quality of Life

Whoring the common man to the interests of Big Business

[KrazyHorse]

replacing Ted with a socialist about 6 months ago

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
replacing Ted with a socialist about 6 months ago

Yea, I wonder who hacked his account?

Once that was done, the rest is easy.

"I'm Ted Striker "

"I'd hit it "

"Not hitting it "

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You're just saying that to make me pop, right?

Tragically (or from my point of view, tragicomically), I suspect he states it because he believes it.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander


Yea, I wonder who hacked his account?

Once that was done, the rest is easy.

"I'm Ted Striker "

"I'd hit it "

"Not hitting it "

You forgot one.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Presence of Communists = Soviet subversion? Tudeh was around from the 1920s, well before Stalin tried to turn the Comintern into an agent of Soviet foreign polciy (and the only place he ever really succeede was in the CPUSA). Yeah, the Soviets sure were the professionals that the CIA were playing catch up to and barely keeping at bay!

Who said anything about the 1920's?
Of course they weren't an active armed presence in the 20's, although like as not they did have links to the SU and probably exchanged intel even at that stage.
It wasn't until the cold war began heating up 20-odd years later that they took an more active role.

Your assertion was of a Soviet Fu Manchu devilishly manipulating the foreign policy of the world, while the U.S. was barely holding them back.

Nothing devilish about it - simply more sophisticated and better all around.

You definately do smoke. Receiving military supplies from the USSR is evidence of nothing. Their weapons were less expensive, and Nigeria has always been in the Western orbit. There the coups were always greed driven, who would get to control the country's oil wealth, not what super power you wanted as a backer.

Military supplies by themselves mean very little. In many cases it could reflect a purely a commercial transaction. Nigeria purchased equipment, received more equipment, trained with Soviet advisors and mounted expeditionary forces assisted by those 'advisors' into Angola to assist the marxists trying to throw the Portugese out.
That's a rather different situation altogether.

Another victim of a South African and CIA backed war wich like Angola, suiffered a million dead from externally organized and armed terrorist groups. Cuba defended Angola from the South African/CIA led terrorists. They didn't start the war, they went in to help an existing government that still remains today.

Oh please ... Mozambique and Angola both played their part in trying to spread your 'enlightenment' further.
By the time they were backing further insurrections into Namibia et al the US had gotten it's act together and was hitting back with their own insurgents.
Many have run comparisons like 'Cuba's Vietnam'. It was successful enough that the Cubans were looking for a way out after a few short years.
You can't just praise guerilla tactics supporting your own beliefs and then condemn the same when the opposition begins countering ...

So any time a leftist revolutionary comes to power, that's evidence of Soviet machinations? Cuz those countries certainly weren't giant ****holes and the people there weren't desperate for a new government until some white guy from Moscow told them they should overthrow the divine Haile Salasse or the apartheid government in Rhodesia.

Anytime? No. Often? Yes, at some level anyway. With the continuation of Apartheid policies post WW2 both Rhodesia and SA were obvious exceptions.
Here the SU had already existing insurgencies to work with and their dialectic did give them an edge, having a distinction at least from their old colonial masters which had become US ally's.
Even clandestine support for those states was difficult from the American perspective and probably wouldn't have occurred had your lot not gotten in first.

No, the people of SV hated their corrupt, brutal, French-speaking, Catholic, and imposed from outside government. The government in the South was illegitimate from the beginning and never had the support of its own population. The only propaganda war was the one carried out by the Americans, in a desperate hope to try and win over the people of SV, and it never worked.

You're right about the South Vietnamese disliking their own Govt. That was what made the NV task easier.
As for the rest, I see you haven't lost your communist dictionary?

You don't know **** about those revolutions then. Castro was a hero in the U.S. until after the revolution. If there was the slightest hint that he was a commie, the U.S. would have poured aid towards saving Batista's butt, instead of letting the corrupt murdering bastard fall. It wasn't until after Cuba nationalized some American owned comapnies that we soured towards him, and it wasn't until we snubbed him at the UN that he joined with the Soviets, and it wasn't until a year or so after that that he became a Communist.

As for Nicaragua, it was the earthquake of 1974 that spelled the end of the regime, when Somoza stole all the international aid for the people. Nicaragua didn't get Soviet aid until the U.S. began attacking them with the Countras. They were friendly with Cuba, but you know what Castro told them? Try and stay friendly with the U.S.! Oh, the Devious soviet influence!!

Castro a hero in the US? After spending time with his Marxist pals (including your namesake iirc) scrapping with the Federales and the FBI in Mexico? Hmmm ...
I suppose Che himself wasn't a full-blown red until he was 'pushed-into-it' later either?
Again you're probably spot on though about what would have happened had the US gotten wind of his affiliations. 'His' plans could never have succeeded without nationalizing foreign-owned assets.

As for Nicaragua, I never claimed Castro to be a raving idiot! He would've had to have been had he suggested otherwise.
Cuba was in absolutely no position to challenge the USN in any attempt to provide overt aid whatsoever, and had it come down to a military showdown with US forces becomming involved Nicaragua couldn't have held up for any appreciable period without it.
Afterall, they had power in the country and it's once you've actually taken something and begin to think about keeping it that your attitude changes somewhat ... Of course they wanted to cozy up to the US, afterwards.

The difference is, we can point to actual shipments of goods, documents, actions, of the U.S. supporting the terrorist campaign against Cuba. All you have are your assertions that there were evil Soviets behind every downtrodden peasant who finally said he'd had enough.

Shipments and official documents nicely dug up by those intrepid western journalist types, at little or no consequence to themselves you mean?
Yes indeed, but then of course you're, again, viewing it as a level playing field.
Not very likely that Tass was going to run a front pager on covert Soviet supply runs to beleaguered allies now was it?
Not when they're looking at a prolonged assignment to someplace rather cool making a wildlife documentary, and that'd be if they were lucky.
It'll be interesting though if Comrade Putin or his successor ever implements something akin to the US FoIA ...


Take a look at a military geopolitical atlas, before the start of the cold war, and then again in the late 70's - at the height of Soviet power - showing mlitary agreements, treaties, aid, advisors and conflicts and then tell me who was on the offensive.
The quantity of red on the map increases - quite a bit -and it's not spilled tomato soup either.


[Edit: What's happened to all of the quotes? I used to know how they worked and now it seems to have changed all of a sudden?]

[techumseh]

Originally posted by ravagon

Military supplies by themselves mean very little. In many cases it could reflect a purely a commercial transaction. Nigeria purchased equipment, received more equipment, trained with Soviet advisors and mounted expeditionary forces assisted by those 'advisors' into Angola to assist the marxists trying to throw the Portugese out.
That's a rather different situation altogether.

Now this is news to me. Nigeria mounted an expeditionary force in Angola against the Portugese? Can you point me towards a reference?

Oh please ... Mozambique and Angola both played their part in trying to spread your 'enlightenment' further.
By the time they were backing further insurrections into Namibia et al the US had gotten it's act together and was hitting back with their own insurgents.
Many have run comparisons like 'Cuba's Vietnam'. It was successful enough that the Cubans were looking for a way out after a few short years.

This is interesting also. Can you elaborate on this insurgent campaign against Cuban forces in Namibia?

Castro a hero in the US? After spending time with his Marxist pals (including your namesake iirc) scrapping with the Federales and the FBI in Mexico? Hmmm ...
I suppose Che himself wasn't a full-blown red until he was 'pushed-into-it' later either?

He's right here, Ravagon. Castro was given a ticker tape parade on Wall Street right after the revolution.