Is Communism effectively dead?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Faded Glory, the USSR did not instigate wars in Africa. The USSR since Stalin's time has been a very conserivative government, prefering trying to buy off capitalist hostility by undercutting revolutionary movements that look to the USSR for leadership. In Africa, revolutions occured in spite of Soviet influence, rather than because of it.

This is a blatant lie. The Soviets supported Mengistu Ethiopian regime responsible for millions of death. Not only did the Soviets morally back them, they gave them the weapons they needed to re-occupy Eritrea and invade Somalia. Ethiopia was one of the best armed african nations, all because of there comrades in the politburo.

I can think of a few dozen more examples...shall I go on?

The point: The soviets were more than willing to sell off advanced weapons to murders who to instigate further wars. Give a mugger a knife, he robs a woman with a purse. Give him and his friends machine guns, he robs a bank.

[Az]

yes, faded. It was the soviets that caused the chaos in Africa.

[SlowwHand]

Communism never had a life to speak of.
It came to life, tried to breathe, then went into a death spasm.

[faded glory]

"yes, faded. It was the soviets that caused the chaos in Africa."

I never said

What I did say is them dumping trillions of dollars worth of tanks, klashnikovs, and jet fighters onto the continent sure as hell didnt help things. It just made it easier to kill, overthrow and supress democratic movements.

If anybody denies this, just look at the facts
1) There are over 20 million ak-47's in Africa
2) There are over 15000 soviet era tanks in africa
3) there are Still Cuban 'advisors' all over training dictators police and armies how to root out democratic groups and supress popular uprisings.


Tell me that african wars would have claimed as many lives and africa would still be as unstable today had the Soviet Union never shipped a weapon?

[SlowwHand]

They would still have found a way to kill.
Tribal wars in Africa have been going on just a little less time than in the Mideast.

[Az]

*cough* .

Dumping trillions of dollars? sounds more like american defense spending.

trillions???

training dictators and advising them was much more often a US job, faded , and you know it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by faded glory This is a blatant lie. The Soviets supported Mengistu Ethiopian regime responsible for millions of death. Not only did the Soviets morally back them, they gave them the weapons they needed to re-occupy Eritrea and invade Somalia. Ethiopia was one of the best armed african nations, all because of there comrades in the politburo.

First, there is a big difference between supporting a regime and supporting a revolutionary movement. Menghistu succeeded in overthrowing Hale Selasi not because the USSR was sponsoring him, but because Selasi was such a major bastard to his people. The Soviet Union dislikes revolutions, because one, they make the imperialists mad and increase the possibility of war, and two, there's a chance the revolution might be truely socialist, and show the USSR up for the sham it was. So let's not go tossing around terms like "blatent lie" shall we?

Now, som other facts. It was Selasi that invaded and occupied Eritrea, not Meghistu. And while Ethiopia did invade Somolia, IIRC, it was because the Somoli dictator Sidi Bari invaded Ethiopia first. (I might have that wrong. He may have just sponsored terrorist attacks across the border).

What is true is that Menghistu was a monster, responsible for millions of deaths. Famine was used as a weapon by Menghistu against the regions in which his opponents had their bases of power. There was also famen in the Ogden region, because of the war with Somolia.

What you fail to recognize, however, is that he was overthrown by two Marixst organizations, the Tigrean and Eritrean People's Fronts. (They have since renounced their Marxism.)



Well that blows. I can't find any of my books on Africa.

[faded glory]

One interesting site about cuban/soviet involvement in Angola after Vietnam

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b8-9a3.htm

"Dumping trillions of dollars? sounds more like american defense spending. "

*shrug*

Billions, whatever....ya trillions is more american. But I suspect it would be around 300 billion dollars in military aid to countries like Ethiopia, Angola, Zaire, Sudan, Congo, DROC, etc.....the whole continent is loaded with Soviet equipment. You cant deny the link.


"training dictators and advising them was much more often a US job, faded , and you know it."

Ha..I doubt it. We never sent any of our troops to train dictatorship. Unless you consider south Vietnam and South Korea dictatorships?

Sure the Iran-Contra thing. But they were overthrowing even worse basterds. Thats the story of the cold war, supporting the lesser of two evils.

[Az]

I know the Angola story pretty well. In your opinion , the soviet union was wrong in it's involvement, and the support of the MPLA , but have you seen the other side , the western , and south-african backed , UNITA ?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by faded glory
"yes, faded. It was the soviets that caused the chaos in Africa."

I never said [that]

Originally posted by faded glory
The Soviet Union destroyed africa.

Me thinks you did.

What I did say is them dumping trillions of dollars worth of tanks, klashnikovs, and jet fighters onto the continent sure as hell didnt help things.

Trillions of dollars? Ridiculous. They didn't have that kind of money, not even over the several decades betwen decolonization and the fall of the USSR.

It just made it easier to kill, overthrow and supress democratic movements.

The only democracies overthrown in Africa were overthrown by pro-US forces, backed by the US, and paid for by the US. No one single democracy in Africa fell to leftists, unless you wish to mke the ridculous claim that places like Rhodesia were democracies. Furthermore, what pro-democracy forces there were in Africa were leftists (though they certainly weren't sponsored by the Soviets).

If anybody denies this, just look at the facts
1) There are over 20 million ak-47's in Africa
2) There are over 15000 soviet era tanks in africa
3) there are Still Cuban 'advisors' all over training dictators police and armies how to root out democratic groups and supress popular uprisings.

You forget that Soviet arms were cheap. They are also easily obtained from many sources, not just the Soviets. The "rebels" in Liberia and Sierra Leone certainly aren't getting their weapons from the Soviets, yet the weapons they use are definately Soviet style weapons.

However, I totally agree with you that the arms trade is an absolute evil. If only we could get our own country to stop engaging in the monstrous practice.

Finally, most of the Cuban advisors are doctors and teachers. Their presence in Africa is a good thing. You should read John Stockwell's account of his stint as the head of the CIA's destablization program in Angola. He paints the Cubans in a very good light, while painting Savimbi as completely useless to the Angolan people.

Tell me that african wars would have claimed as many lives and africa would still be as unstable today had the Soviet Union never shipped a weapon?

The Africans would have bought French and American weapons were cheap Soviet weapons not available. The wars would have been every bit as horrible.

[faded glory]

"First, there is a big difference between supporting a regime and supporting a revolutionary movement. Menghistu succeeded in overthrowing Hale Selasi not because the USSR was sponsoring him, but because Selasi was such a major bastard to his people. The Soviet Union dislikes revolutions, because one, they make the imperialists mad and increase the possibility of war, and two, there's a chance the revolution might be truely socialist, and show the USSR up for the sham it was. So let's not go tossing around terms like "blatent lie" shall we?
"

The link I provided proves this is a blatant lie and that you sir, are full of hot air on the issue.

"Now, som other facts. It was Selasi that invaded and occupied Eritrea, not Meghistu. And while Ethiopia did invade Somolia, IIRC, it was because the Somoli dictator Sidi Bari invaded Ethiopia first. (I might have that wrong. He may have just sponsored terrorist attacks across the border). "

That may be true, but alas Mengistu pushed transfer of the Eritreans and did indeed invade Somalia. He also sponsered the Christian revolution in Southern Sudan in hopes of siezing oil fields along the border at a later point.


"What is true is that Menghistu was a monster, responsible for millions of deaths. Famine was used as a weapon by Menghistu against the regions in which his opponents had their bases of power. There was also famen in the Ogden region, because of the war with Somolia. "

Funny, Famine is used by all 'Communist' nations. Sad isnt it? Ukraine, Cambodia, Xiyain. Really pathetic huh?



This is all Irrelevent. The Soviets actively supported the most cruelest regimes on earth. To excuse this here and that. And to explain away things one at a time...is pointless. The Soviets instigated alot of African wars. Even if there still would of been wars, the Soviets made it so much easier for rebels to kill and Dicators to supress democracy.

[faded glory]

im done, debates are boring. Im hungry

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by faded glory
Ha..I doubt it. We never sent any of our troops to train dictatorship. Unless you consider south Vietnam and South Korea dictatorships?

I try to be nice and not insult you, and I'm not going to do so now. But you make it oh so hard to resist when you write things like this.

1) Both of the countries you mentioned were dictatorships. South Korea, despite free elections in the 1990s, is still a very authoritarian state, but it's not a dicatorship any longer.

2) The US has trained the soldiers in dicatorships across the planet: Mexico, Guatelmala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicargua (under Somoza), Panama, Peru, Brazil, Bolvia, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Taiwan, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippeans (under Marcos), Indonesia, Cambodea under Lon Nol, Thailand, Pakistan, Iran (under the Shah), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, and probably quite a few others in Africa.

[Kropotkin]

To a second time comment on the original subject (if communism is dead, remember?) and at the same time put it in the so called context of a number of millions of lifes lost in one way or the other. You know, the reason your calling each other names.

Not that long ago religion was seen as a thing of the past, an archaic remain from the pre-modern world by scholars. With the modern world religion would be a time of the past. Oh this brave new world! This archaic remain that have been used for so much ill-doing, excused so much oppression and wars isn't looking to die out anytime soon afterall.

In the light of this applied on communism, I think it would be to temp faith to claim its death. Communism has in ways caught up ancient ideas that pre-dates "The Communist manifesto" by centuries.

I'm still waiting for the "end of history" here in my Ivory-tower...

[moomin]

Krop: Francis Fukuyama will set you straight.