NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/stang061104.shtml


Read it, and decide for yourself.

He is the best president we have ever had.

He is the best president we have ever had.
We've had far better. He was okay, but not the best.

We've had far better. He was okay, but not the best.

Agreed.

He was awesome for the military though....he saved it after Carter let it fall apart.

He was awesome for the military though....he saved it after Carter let it fall apart.
Fine...but we have had better.

Viva La Reagan Revolution!

Reagan was once very far left, that's for certain. But he moved the Republicans to the right. If he was still a lefty by the time he was president, it didn't show.

I didn't mean best I meant to say one of the best but forgot to put it in there. I think Theodore Roosevelt was the best president we have ever had.

I didn't mean best I meant to say one of the best but forgot to put it in there. I think Theodore Roosevelt was the best president we have ever had.

Bully!

To think that the present crew want to do away with a bunch of his work! :rolleyes:

I didn't mean best I meant to say one of the best but forgot to put it in there. I think Theodore Roosevelt was the best president we have ever had.

Why? Did he do much? All I know of him is that he became a "trust buster" (I'm still pissed off at this so called "Republican" for that) and He wanted to invade Columbia (I think).


________________________________
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

Why? Did he do much? All I know of him is that he became a "trust buster" (I'm still pissed off at this so called "Republican" for that) and He wanted to invade Columbia (I think).


________________________________
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

Those trusts needed busting badly.

Why? Did he do much? All I know of him is that he became a "trust buster" (I'm still pissed off at this so called "Republican" for that) and He wanted to invade Columbia (I think).


________________________________
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini
He didn't want to invade Columbia. What he did was support a revolution in Panama, then under Columbian control. He then leased the Canal Zone, and built the Panama Canal. Other than that, I don't see how he was great.

he lowered unemployment , inflation, had policies even gorbachev says finished the soviets for good, restored patriotism, lowered taxes, and at the end of 8 years in office had the highest approval rating of any president since kennedy. id say he was AWESOME.

he lowered unemployment , inflation, had policies even gorbachev says finished the soviets for good, restored patriotism, lowered taxes, and at the end of 8 years in office had the highest approval rating of any president since kennedy. id say he was AWESOME.

Reagan's anticommunism was as phony as all his predecessors'. As for finishing the Soviets, read 'New Lies For Old' and 'The Perestroika Deception' by Anatoliy Golitsyn. The so-called 'reforms' and 'collapse of the Soviet Union' are as phony as a three-dollar bill.

even gorbachevs aids say he was what did the old guard soviets in. are you disputing them? wouldnt they know? and reagans anti communism is phony? ever hear of his funding of the contras in nicaragua? shows how much u know. he hated communism so much he illegaly funded rebels in communist countries. also, he was the first and only president to present the idea of toal nuclear disarmament at a summit. and he constanly deplored communism. he hated it. read his speeches. for gods sake, he was the epitome of the DEATH of communism. please, take ur book written by some russian lacky and throw it out. read real history. go to primary source documents. im a history major. i know more about reagan than ur entire nieghborhood does. so please, lay off of him before you make me upset.

"The so-called 'reforms' and 'collapse of the Soviet Union' are as phony as a three-dollar bill"

oh yes, we must have imagined russia stopped being communisy. we must have imagined the berlin wall coming down. you may be right. maby our hisotry books and the news from back then was dead wrong.....or mayb you are. i pick you!

even gorbachevs aids say he was what did the old guard soviets in. are you disputing them? wouldnt they know? and reagans anti communism is phony? ever hear of his funding of the contras in nicaragua? shows how much u know. he hated communism so much he illegaly funded rebels in communist countries. also, he was the first and only president to present the idea of toal nuclear disarmament at a summit. and he constanly deplored communism. he hated it. read his speeches. for gods sake, he was the epitome of the DEATH of communism. please, take ur book written by some russian lacky and throw it out. read real history. go to primary source documents. im a history major. i know more about reagan than ur entire nieghborhood does. so please, lay off of him before you make me upset.

Than why did Reagan continue to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, one of our most loyal anticommunist allies? Why did he undermine or otherwise betray anticommunist allies like Ferdinand Marcos and Augusto Pinochet? Why did he do nothing when KAL 007 was shot down? Why did he continue to provide foreign aid to the Soviet Union? Why did he do nothing to stop the spread of communism in Africa? If he was such an anticommunist, why didn't he undo Carter's treasonous policies by breaking off relations with China and re-establishing relations with Taiwan? These are just a few things to think about.

with all of the name calling and half truths, i found it to be unreadable BS

and i hate ronald reagan.

"The so-called 'reforms' and 'collapse of the Soviet Union' are as phony as a three-dollar bill"

oh yes, we must have imagined russia stopped being communisy. we must have imagined the berlin wall coming down. you may be right. maby our hisotry books and the news from back then was dead wrong.....or mayb you are. i pick you!

Read the books before you judge. I can't think of anything more moronic than judging a source and denying it without even reading it.

with all of the name calling and half truths, i found it to be unreadable BS

and i hate ronald reagan.

Well, at least you read it.

... and He wanted to invade Columbia (I think).


ITYM "Colombia".

Than why did Reagan continue to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, one of our most loyal anticommunist allies? Why did he undermine or otherwise betray anticommunist allies like Ferdinand Marcos and Augusto Pinochet? Why did he do nothing when KAL 007 was shot down? Why did he continue to provide foreign aid to the Soviet Union? Why did he do nothing to stop the spread of communism in Africa? If he was such an anticommunist, why didn't he undo Carter's treasonous policies by breaking off relations with China and re-establishing relations with Taiwan? These are just a few things to think about.

1)because south africa did aparthied simpleton
2)hey were dictators who were hurting people fool.
3) what would u have him do?
4) the soviets were starving to death because of communism
5) in global affairs beyond aids africa really doesnt matter--truth hurts
6) because that would have ended the reform spirit in those areas
7) you hate reagan because you dont evidently know what you are talkign about. who else here is a history major?

Than why did Reagan continue to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, one of our most loyal anticommunist allies?

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that the then government were a bunch of fascist bastards that valued the non-white races as little more than cattle?

1)because south africa did aparthied simpleton
2)hey were dictators who were hurting people fool.
3) what would u have him do?
4) the soviets were starving to death because of communism
5) in global affairs beyond aids africa really doesnt matter--truth hurts
6) because that would have ended the reform spirit in those areas
7) you hate reagan because you dont evidently know what you are talkign about. who else here is a history major?

First of all, stop the flaming. When you call names, all you do is make yourself look like an asshole. I'm also a history major. If you think the U.S. was really anticommunist, I can recommend lots of good books. All you have to do is ask politely, stop flaming, and apologize. I never called you names, why what's with your name-calling? How old are you, anyway? Twelve?

so explain again to me how the soviet union never collapsed?
and also, you all choose to ignore south america which completely left communism during reagans tenure. you guys need to read up on ur real history instead of this liberal propagandist tripe you obviously gorge on. please. im leaving this forum. have fun bashing reagan. il be studying more so i can teach your future grandchildren how freaking warped you were....

but u need to stop making people angry by putting forth things which arent true and then snicker than u never did anything when i get angry.

so explain again to me how the soviet union never collapsed?
and also, you all choose to ignore south america which completely left communism during reagans tenure. you guys need to read up on ur real history instead of this liberal propagandist tripe you obviously gorge on. please. im leaving this forum. have fun bashing reagan. il be studying more so i can teach your future grandchildren how freaking warped you were....

No one's stopping you. And by the way, the books I read were written by both conservatives and liberals. Moreover, many were written by the very anticommunists the U.S. betrayed.

i apologize for name calling

1)because south africa did aparthied simpleton
.
.
.
5) in global affairs beyond aids africa really doesnt matter--truth hurts

Is it just me or is there something of a contradiction between these two statements? - South Africa mattered to global affairs because of the apartheid system, but nothing in Africa matters to global affairs beyond AIDS...


who else here is a history major?

Quit boasting. Show us your knowledge of history then, rather than just making hollow claims to authority.

While we're on the subject of education - didn't they teach you how to capitalize at your college or is your keyboard broken?

but not for views. i got angry. i apologize for name calling . that was dumb. but u people need to get over the whole the usa is evil thing. mayb u will if kerry wins...

i apologize for name calling

Thank you. And if I apologize for offending you in any way, I too am sorry. By the way, I'll point out right now that I never have any objection to anyone disagreeing with me. I like to hear different viewpoints. If you'd like, though, I could recommend a list of books that brought me to the conclusion that our government is not anticommunist.

but not for views. i got angry. i apologize for name calling . that was dumb. but u people need to get over the whole the usa is evil thing. mayb u will if kerry wins...

I never said the U.S. was evil. I love America. And I don't blame you for name calling. I'd be a liar if I said I never lost my temper and called names. I propose we bury the hatchet.

send me some book names. i will look em' up. but me standing here with conservative views is sort of like beign a prisoner at abu graib. sometimes we snap. and look, i am not afraid of oppsing views, its just i wrote a serious paper on this very subject recently. please dont think i am some sort of thug, i just flew off the handle. oh, and this is how i type. no caps and all. lol

oh, and this is how i type. no caps and all. lol

Fair enough, we don't actually still crucify people for that, not since... ooh.. January, I think was the last time.

Anyhow: what about the contradictory claims you made about Africa? Maybe you would like to explain why Libya didn't matter to global affairs on April 14th 1986?

it is well known that africa doesnt actualy affect much us policy. we never trade with them much, never power broker with them much. so in that regard they dont matter. however most of the most sad things in the modern world have happened in africa. call me a socialist but i think we had the moral obligation to stop south africa's aparthied and we donate globs of money towards aids and hunger there. they need us desperatly for help.no doubt about it. but as far as actual global politics their power is much less than all the other continents at least insofar as the USA is concerned.

Why? Did he do much? All I know of him is that he became a "trust buster" (I'm still pissed off at this so called "Republican" for that) and He wanted to invade Columbia (I think).


________________________________
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

Except Taft busted more trusts than Teddy ever did.

true. taft busted more trusts. he was good on that regard. taft also gave us the income tax god bless him

you know I am sure you will all think this is eerie. i recently watched the 1972 republican convention on tv. in the audience three men sat in part of the front row in a line. donald reumsfeld----george bush, sr -----george w. bush----------eerie

send me some book names. i will look em' up. but me standing here with conservative views is sort of like beign a prisoner at abu graib. sometimes we snap. and look, i am not afraid of oppsing views, its just i wrote a serious paper on this very subject recently. please dont think i am some sort of thug, i just flew off the handle. oh, and this is how i type. no caps and all. lol

1)Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (by Antony Sutton)
2)National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (by Antony Sutton)
3)The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (by Antony Sutton)
4)Cuba Betrayed (by Fulgencio Batista)
5)The Fourth Floor by (Earl E.T. Smith)
6)Red Star Over Cuba
7)Background to Betrayal (by Hilaire du Berrier)
8)I Saw Poland Betrayed (by Arthur Bliss Lane)
9)The Rape of Poland (by Stanislaw Mikolajczyk)
10)Nicaragua Betrayed (by Anastasio Somoza and Jack Cox)
11)The Great Betrayal (by Ian Douglas Smith)
12)The Politician (by Robert Welch)
13)Again, May God Forgive Us (by Robert Welch)
14)The Actor (by Alan Stang)
15)The Lattimore Story (by John Flynn)
16)America's Retreat From Victory (by Joe McCarthy)
17)Why Not Victory? (by Barry Goldwater)
18)The Shadows of Power (by James Perloff)
19)The Invisible Government (by Dan Smoot)
20)Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent
21)Kissinger on the Couch (by Phyllis Schlafley)
22)Web of Subversion
23)Red Scare or Red Menace? American Communism and Anticommunism During the Cold War
24)The Ordeal of Otto Otepka
25)None Dare Call it Treason...25 Years Later (by John Stormer)
26)None Dare Call it Conspiracy (by Gary Allan)
27)Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask (by Gary Allan)
28)The Assassination of Joe McCarthy (by Medford Evans)
29)McCarthy and his Enemies (by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell)
30)McCarthy (by Roy Cohn)
31)Who Killed Joe McCarthy?
32)Who Promoted Peress? (by Lionel Likos)
33)Ally Betrayed (by David Martin)
34)The Insiders (by John McManus)
35)Perjury (by Allen Weinstein)
36)The Bleeding of America
37)Inside the State Department
38)The Untouchable State Department
39)Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (by Antony Sutton)

call me a socialist but i think we had the moral obligation to stop south africa's aparthied...

One does not need to be a socialist to realise that claims of racial superiority are nothing but bunk.

true. taft busted more trusts. he was good on that regard. taft also gave us the income tax god bless him

He did? Some sources say Taft, some say Wilson. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm confused. I've heard many people say it was Taft, and many others say that it was Wilson.

By the way, are you really glad he (Taft/Wilson) gave us the income tax?

il write some of those down. i will take you at your word they arent written by wack jobs

il write some of those down. i will take you at your word they arent written by wack jobs

They're not. Somoza, Batista, Smith, and others were actual leaders of countries. Smoot worked for the FBI. Lane and E.T. Smith were ambassadors who witnessed the betrayals firsthand. Bozell and Cohn were McCarthy's aids. Etc.

ok, i really dont know about wilson. its possible. i just know taft busted more trusts than roosevelt. wilson might have destroyed more. oh and, hahah, no i think the income tax was a good thing ...then. i think it should be lower now though. our government still ( even now) takes way to much of everyones money. tax freedom day on the middle class is nearly in may now. thats an outrage

That link confused the hell out of me. All it did was refer to anybody that didn't agree with the writer's hardline views as Communist or Marxist when it clearly wasn't (the CFR and the UN? C'mon), and didn't bring up any serious arguments again the bastard. I've got a few dozen. Iran-Contra, Grenada, selling weapons to Saddam Hussein (real bad idea in retrospect, wouldn't you agree?), firing air traffic control workers for demanding better conditions.. etc etc.

And I'm in awe at how Roach-Busters can actually recommend a book by a mass-murdering thug like Somoza and a red-baiting punk like Joe McCarthy as serious reading.

i have to leave now but those books are decent. i will look into them. also, as far as reagan goes i find it amazing california voted for him 4 times.

And I'm in awe at how Roach-Busters can actually recommend a book by a mass-murdering thug like Somoza and a red-baiting punk like Joe McCarthy as serious reading.


The fact that he seemed to be arguing that the US should have leant support to the apartheid regime in South Africa has not escaped my notice.

The fact that he seemed to be arguing that the US should have leant support to the apartheid regime in South Africa has not escaped my notice.

I never said we should have. Did I?

Actually looking at the site and articles...I'd say that website comes across as Libritarian....

You might be right, he could have been a communist...the problem is that he definitivly was not a Stalinist. As such, there was little for him within 'main stream' communism after the sixties.

Personally, it brings up some valid points. But based on the author's choice of words about the left I think he 'ignored' any evidence that is contrary to his position.

That link confused the hell out of me. All it did was refer to anybody that didn't agree with the writer's hardline views as Communist or Marxist when it clearly wasn't (the CFR and the UN? C'mon), and didn't bring up any serious arguments again the bastard. I've got a few dozen. Iran-Contra, Grenada, selling weapons to Saddam Hussein (real bad idea in retrospect, wouldn't you agree?), firing air traffic control workers for demanding better conditions.. etc etc.

And I'm in awe at how Roach-Busters can actually recommend a book by a mass-murdering thug like Somoza and a red-baiting punk like Joe McCarthy as serious reading.

I'm willing to bet you've never read any of McCarthy's books or heard any of his speeches. I, on the other hand, have. How is selling weapons to Saddam Hussein- a pro-communist, pro-Soviet- 'anticommunist?' (If that's what you're implying it was) Who told you Somoza was a mass murderer? The New York Times? I'm not saying he was or wasn't, I'm just curious.

I never said we should have. Did I?


The question you asked -

Then why did Reagan continue to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, one of our most loyal anticommunist allies?

is unclear as to exactly what your position was on the whole affair, therefore I used the word 'seemed'.

The question you asked -



is unclear as to exactly what your position was on the whole affair, therefore I used the word 'seemed'.

Yeah, sorry. But as much as I hate apartheid, it does have some logic to it. There are so many different tribes and races in South Africa- many of them fiercely xenophobic and hostile to another- each radically different in terms of development, culture, etc., that establishing separate homelands for each race to develop separately at its own pace may not have been a bad idea. A morally unjust idea, but at least a little logical. Also, some of South Africa's measures were more than justified. The African National Congress (led by Nelson Mandela) was an extremely violent, terroristic group that massacred thousands of anticommunist blacks, instigated riots that killed hundreds more, and did everything they could to foment blood shed andrevolution and overthrow the government.

Well, from reading this, it has become clear that most of the anti-reagan people have their own ideas and wont hear anything else.

This guy is another of those Trilateral Commission conspiracy wackos, but that doesn't mean I am (now) for Reagan. Work in a welfare office in former steel country, like I do, and see Reagan's legacy for yourself.

Point by point response:

I never said helping Saddam was necessarily anti-communist, just really really dumb and evil. Propping up one malevolent lunatic just because you don't like another stronger malevolent lunatic is a tactic that history has shown to backfire with alarming frequency. At the time Saddam was conducive to our political interests in the region (sort of).

You implicitly gave support to the apartheid South African government by claiming that the ANC was a terrorist, communist movement that enjoyed setting non-leftist blacks on fire. You also recommended one book, the only book I know of that supports that contention, by a man who obliquely boasts on his website (I quoted it for you earlier) of being a mercenary for that same government. I believe you also questioned sanctioning that particular brutal regime. Tell me, is there any vicious, cruel thug that you wouldn't lend support to if he was for sockin' it to the Reds?

McCarthy. I've read several of his speeches and seen excerpts from some more, and I don't feel like I have to debunk him any more than I have to shoot down the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. History has shown him to be a paranoid, opportunistic fraud and the world is better off him.

Somoza: Denying Somoza's atrocities is akin to denying that Mussolini ever had anyone killed. Somoza Debayle was condemned by human rights groups and embezzled millions of dollars earmarked for earthquake relief. His father, Somoza Garcia, was etremely corrupt and used his control of the National Guard to disrupt elections and overthrow people he didn't like. The guardsmen also ruthlessly suppressed any sort of serious dissent fom Somoza's rule.

http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/nicaragua/nicaragua_history_the_somoza_era_1936_74.html

From the freakin' Library of Congress.

As a side note, close family members of mine worked in Honduras as neutral aid workers and a coworker of mine was a photographer working with the FMLF (I think that's the correct acronym) in El Salvador, both bordering countries. They bore out the overall nastiness of the Somoza dynasty, Debayle specifically, from personal experiance. And yes they were in different countries, but the borders were relatively porous and the region is small enough that I feel information reached them accurately.

Yeah, sorry. But as much as I hate apartheid, it does have some logic to it. There are so many different tribes and races in South Africa- many of them fiercely xenophobic and hostile to another- each radically different in terms of development, culture, etc., that establishing separate homelands for each race to develop separately at its own pace may not have been a bad idea. A morally unjust idea, but at least a little logical.

So would you advocate the creation of racial homelands in the USA? Would you describe that as logical? There are different cultures there, and some of them express hostility to each other, and certainly there seems to be economic disparity between some of the cultures and races (which is all I can guess you mean by "development") - so would it be logical to separate the races and cultures in the USA and let them "develop separately" at their own pace? What on earth do you mean by "develop" anyhow - "develop" towards what?

"A morally unjust idea, but at least a little logical" - if you start with immoral assumptions and feed them through valid logical operations you get an immoral result. Merely being logical is no justification for an action concerned with the ethical sphere. Could it be that that is exactly what you are doing here - beginning with morally unjustified assumptions?

Let me give you a perfectly sound piece of logic:

All black people deserve to be killed.
Lee Scratch Perry is a black person.
Ergo, Lee Scratch Perry deserves to be killed.

Do you see where I'm heading with this?

Why do people say he "lowered taxes" and forget he raised them too? Not thar he was a Flip-flopper (Bush would call him one) but you can't hide the truth, include it guys.

So would you advocate the creation of racial homelands in the USA? Would you describe that as logical? There are different cultures there, and some of them express hostility to each other, and certainly there seems to be economic disparity between some of the cultures and races (which is all I can guess you mean by "development") - so would it be logical to separate the races and cultures in the USA and let them "develop separately" at their own pace? What on earth do you mean by "develop" anyhow - "develop" towards what?

"A morally unjust idea, but at least a little logical" - if you start with immoral assumptions and feed them through valid logical operations you get an immoral result. Merely being logical is no justification for an action concerned with the ethical sphere. Could it be that that is exactly what you are doing here - beginning with morally unjustified assumptions?

Let me give you a perfectly sound piece of logic:

All black people deserve to be killed.
Lee Scratch Perry is a black person.
Ergo, Lee Scratch Perry deserves to be killed.

Do you see where I'm heading with this?

By develop I mean technologically, culturally, economically, etc. And I'll point out right now that I am not pro-apartheid. While I'm against forcibly separating people on the basis of race, I'm also against forcibly bringing people together, because that almost always leads to violence and death, most of the deaths being black people. And I never said the U.S. should establish separate homelands. You must have completely missed what I said. I said that the various groups in South Africa did not get along with one another, so keeping them separate so they wouldn't all kill each other at least had some logic to it.

Point by point response:

I never said helping Saddam was necessarily anti-communist, just really really dumb and evil. Propping up one malevolent lunatic just because you don't like another stronger malevolent lunatic is a tactic that history has shown to backfire with alarming frequency. At the time Saddam was conducive to our political interests in the region (sort of).

Agreed. Supporting Saddam was dumb, because in spite of the Reagan Administration's whitewashing of him and their insistence that he was an ally, he was openly contemptuous of the United States.

You implicitly gave support to the apartheid South African government by claiming that the ANC was a terrorist, communist movement that enjoyed setting non-leftist blacks on fire. You also recommended one book, the only book I know of that supports that contention, by a man who obliquely boasts on his website (I quoted it for you earlier) of being a mercenary for that same government. I believe you also questioned sanctioning that particular brutal regime. Tell me, is there any vicious, cruel thug that you wouldn't lend support to if he was for sockin' it to the Reds?

Of course there are. I wouldn't support Suharto, Hitler, Mussolini, or some others. As for 'supporting' the South African government, it's a strict case of the 'lesser of two evils.' I believe we should have done everything we could to help South Africa defeat the communists as quickly as possible, to hasten the dismantling of apartheid. However, if they were absolutely unwilling to get rid of apartheid no matter what (even if the communists were defeated) then yes, sanctions would be more than justified. And by the way, that is not the only book that exposes Mandela for the murderer he was. There are plenty others, the names of which escape me, but I'll happily look them up.

McCarthy. I've read several of his speeches and seen excerpts from some more, and I don't feel like I have to debunk him any more than I have to shoot down the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. History has shown him to be a paranoid, opportunistic fraud and the world is better off him.

History has shown that McCarthy was right about all the people he accused of being communists or procommunists. Owen Lattimore, Haldore Hanson, John Carter Vincent, Mary Jane Keeney, Irving Peress, Annie Lee Moss, etc. were all communists. McCarthy was an extremely courageous man, risking his reputation and everything he had trying to expose the people who were destroying our country from within. He was not an 'opportunist.' He knew he would be ridiculed, denounced, hated, and possibly destroyed, and he didn't care. He just did what he thought was right. And he was not a 'witch hunter.' He never accused anyone of being unpatriotic without first gathering lots of evidence. For example, he consulted at least twenty sources for his speech about George Marshall (later published as the book America's Retreat From Victory), and all of the sources (with the possible exception of one, 'The Hinge of Fate' by Winston Churchill) were sources friendly to Marshall. He was virtually the only man in the country working to expose the communists in the government, because everybody else was either too afraid of being destroy-ed, didn't care, etc. I'd recommend reading America's Retreat From Victory before slamming it. In addition, I'd recommend the books McCarthy (by Roy Cohn), McCarthy and his Enemies (by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell), The Assassination of Joe McCarthy (by Medford Evans), Who Killed Joe McCarthy? (I don't remember the author, but he was a member of the Eisenhower Administration), The Lattimore Story (by John T. Flynn), Who Promoted Peress? (by Lionel Likos), in addition to other books which I'll look up and post the names of here. McCarthy was not a 'fraud.' There were indeed hundreds of communists in the government, and he was very successful at exposing them. That is why the Left destroyed him.


Somoza: Denying Somoza's atrocities is akin to denying that Mussolini ever had anyone killed. Somoza Debayle was condemned by human rights groups and embezzled millions of dollars earmarked for earthquake relief. His father, Somoza Garcia, was etremely corrupt and used his control of the National Guard to disrupt elections and overthrow people he didn't like. The guardsmen also ruthlessly suppressed any sort of serious dissent fom Somoza's rule.

http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/nicaragua/nicaragua_history_the_somoza_era_1936_74.html

From the freakin' Library of Congress.

As a side note, close family members of mine worked in Honduras as neutral aid workers and a coworker of mine was a photographer working with the FMLF (I think that's the correct acronym) in El Salvador, both bordering countries. They bore out the overall nastiness of the Somoza dynasty, Debayle specifically, from personal experiance. And yes they were in different countries, but the borders were relatively porous and the region is small enough that I feel information reached them accurately.

I was not defending or condemning Somoza. Again, it's a case of the "lesser of two evils." He was far better than Daniel Ortega, whose totalitarian regime routinely executed and tortured political opponents, supported terrorism and revolution throughout the rest of the world, and committed genocide (of the Miskito Indians). I put Somoza's book on the list because, who better to consult about Nicaragua's betrayal than the man himself who was betrayed?

Your responses were intelligently written and obviously well thought out, for which I commend you. I would like to add right here that I never have any objection to anyone disagreeing with me, as long as they don't flame (you yourself have not flamed, but many others on this forum have). I enjoy hearing opposing views and debating them.

bump (trying to prevent this thread from being buried...)

bump (trying to prevent this thread from being buried...)

...

And I never said the U.S. should establish separate homelands. You must have completely missed what I said.

I never said you did: if you look I asked that as a question.

I never said you did: if you look I asked that as a question.

(Slaps forehead) Er, sorry.

By develop I mean technologically, culturally, economically, etc.

What on earth is cultural development? Westernisation?

I said that the various groups in South Africa did not get along with one another, so keeping them separate so they wouldn't all kill each other at least had some logic to it.

Keeping them separate is not tackling the problem: it is merely letting it fester for the next generation to inherit with further ingrained divisions and greater cultural misunderstanding of the 'other'.

Funny how the whites didn't have their own homeland and were kept within its confines, no? There your logic breaks down.

Do you agree that logic has no political force if it is only operating on immoral assumptions?

EDIT: somehow part of roach-busters text "I'm not pro-apartheid" appeared to have been written by me.

What on earth is cultural development? Westernisation? And I'll point out right now that I am not pro-apartheid.



Keeping them separate is not tackling the problem: it is merely letting it fester for the next generation to inherit with further ingrained divisions and greater cultural misunderstanding of the 'other'.

Funny how the whites didn't have their own homeland and were kept within its confines, no? There your logic breaks down.

Do you agree that logic has no political force if it is only operating on immoral assumptions?

Didn't understand much of it, so I guess I agree. :( (I hate feeling stupid)

Didn't understand much of it, so I guess I agree. :( (I hate feeling stupid)

What didn't you understand? & how can I elucidate?

1)Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (by Antony Sutton)
2)National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (by Antony Sutton)
3)The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (by Antony Sutton)
4)Cuba Betrayed (by Fulgencio Batista)
5)The Fourth Floor by (Earl E.T. Smith)
6)Red Star Over Cuba
7)Background to Betrayal (by Hilaire du Berrier)
8)I Saw Poland Betrayed (by Arthur Bliss Lane)
9)The Rape of Poland (by Stanislaw Mikolajczyk)
10)Nicaragua Betrayed (by Anastasio Somoza and Jack Cox)
11)The Great Betrayal (by Ian Douglas Smith)
12)The Politician (by Robert Welch)
13)Again, May God Forgive Us (by Robert Welch)
14)The Actor (by Alan Stang)
15)The Lattimore Story (by John Flynn)
16)America's Retreat From Victory (by Joe McCarthy)
17)Why Not Victory? (by Barry Goldwater)
18)The Shadows of Power (by James Perloff)
19)The Invisible Government (by Dan Smoot)
20)Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent
21)Kissinger on the Couch (by Phyllis Schlafley)
22)Web of Subversion
23)Red Scare or Red Menace? American Communism and Anticommunism During the Cold War
24)The Ordeal of Otto Otepka
25)None Dare Call it Treason...25 Years Later (by John Stormer)
26)None Dare Call it Conspiracy (by Gary Allan)
27)Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask (by Gary Allan)
28)The Assassination of Joe McCarthy (by Medford Evans)
29)McCarthy and his Enemies (by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell)
30)McCarthy (by Roy Cohn)
31)Who Killed Joe McCarthy?
32)Who Promoted Peress? (by Lionel Likos)
33)Ally Betrayed (by David Martin)
34)The Insiders (by John McManus)
35)Perjury (by Allen Weinstein)
36)The Bleeding of America
37)Inside the State Department
38)The Untouchable State Department
39)Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (by Antony Sutton)

Thank you for the very through list Roach Busters :) I'll be looking them up soon.

I was not defending or condemning Somoza. Again, it's a case of the "lesser of two evils." He was far better than Daniel Ortega, whose totalitarian regime routinely executed and tortured political opponents, supported terrorism and revolution throughout the rest of the world, and committed genocide (of the Miskito Indians).

Kind of funny how the Miskito Indians are still alive and make up a sizeable proportion of the Nicaraguan populace if they were genocided under the Sandinista government, no?

Also kind of funny how a 'totalitarian' regime held democratic elections which lead to it being put out of power by the popular vote, no?

Supporting revolutiona round the world is a bad thing then, eh? I thought that is what you were advocating that the US support in Communist countries during the 80s. Double standard, perchance?

Thank you for the very through list Roach Busters :) I'll be looking them up soon.

You're most welcome. :)

Kind of funny how the Miskito Indians are still alive and make up a sizeable proportion of the Nicaraguan populace if they were genocided under the Sandinista government, no?

I never said they were wiped out completely, only that Ortega committed genocide against them. Hitler committed genocide of the Jews, but were all the Jews wiped out? No. 'Genocide' does not necessarily have to mean completely wiping out a race. If it did, there would be very few cases of true genocide (Aztecs, Mayans, and maybe a few others).

I never said they were wiped out completely, only that Ortega committed genocide against them. Hitler committed genocide of the Jews, but were all the Jews wiped out? No. 'Genocide' does not necessarily have to mean completely wiping out a race. If it did, there would be very few cases of true genocide (Aztecs, Mayans, and maybe a few others).

Here we differ on semantics and definitions: which I will not argue with you, as we all know that leads nowhere interesting. To me genocide is like murder: you either commit it or you don't - else it is attempted genocide or genocidal actions.

Here we differ on semantics and definitions: which I will not argue with you, as we all know that leads nowhere interesting. To me genocide is like murder: you either commit it or you don't - else it is attempted genocide or genocidal actions.

Okay, fair enough. He attempted genocide, then.

I never said they were wiped out completely, only that Ortega committed genocide against them. Hitler committed genocide of the Jews, but were all the Jews wiped out? No. 'Genocide' does not necessarily have to mean completely wiping out a race. If it did, there would be very few cases of true genocide (Aztecs, Mayans, and maybe a few others).


I'm confused. Are there not Aztec bloodlines still in Mexico and South America? I cannot remember which group is gone lol. The Aztecs or the Mayans. You are quite right about genocide not meaning the total destruction. It is basically the attempt and act to kill them all. I know for a fact that certain North American Indian tribes were hunted down and completely wipe out, but then again that was done by other groups of Indians.

Okay, fair enough. He attempted genocide, then.

'sokay.

Any comments on your claim about the Sandinista's being totalitarian in the light of the democratic elections that they organised and removed them from power, or your hypocritical claim that supporting revolution is somehow a 'bad thing' compared to the way the US operates?

'sokay.

Any comments on your claim about the Sandinista's being totalitarian in the light of the democratic elections that they organised and removed them from power, or your hypocritical claim that supporting revolution is somehow a 'bad thing' compared to the way the US operates?

So? There were elections under Somoza, too. Moreover, Ortega probably only held the elections to appease the Contras.

So? There were elections under Somoza, too. Moreover, Ortega probably only held the elections to appease the Contras.

Elections held against a puppet opposition party so as to maintain the rule of the Somozas...

Even if they were held merely to 'appease' the contras, then surely that disproves your claim that the Sandinista government were a 'totalitarian' one?

Elections held against a puppet opposition party so as to maintain the rule of the Somozas...

Even if they were held merely to 'appease' the contras, then surely that disproves your claim that the Sandinista government were a 'totalitarian' one?

'Totalitarian'- Control over every aspect of the peoples' lives, i.e., Ortega. But as I said, I am by no means defending Somoza or the Contras.

Elections held against a puppet opposition party so as to maintain the rule of the Somozas...

Even if they were held merely to 'appease' the contras, then surely that disproves your claim that the Sandinista government were a 'totalitarian' one?

Then how could Somoza have lost the 1969 (or whenever) election?

Then how could Somoza have lost the 1969 (or whenever) election?

Not just ducking out of this - but I've gotta head now. I'll bump this on Sunday if not before. Later.

...but you'll note that I never made a claim about the Somoza regime being a totalitarian one - it was you that claimed that the Sandinista regime was.

Look, I'm just going to state my opinion and leave; don't bother on responding because I won't even look at this thread again.

I'm sick of having endless discussions with neoliberal "Democrats" whose only liberties they defend are Corporations' and the Corporate World's.

Ronald Reagan was a bastard and a murderer. He provoked the ruin and overthrow of Democratically elected leaders in Central America. Defender of democratic values? I don't think so.

The people elected these leaders -- Socialist leaders. Reagan overthrew them because such systems would not allow the exportation of his version of Democracy: A neoliberal "Democracy" that only fostered inequality and injustice.

The UN argues that neoliberal policies have only worsened the situation in Central America, and that an effective lad redistribution policy would be the only effective relief. But Reagan's "War on Terror" crushed the popular movements that could have achieved this.

But hey, if you think that having supported the continuous violation of human rights in Central America (genocide, torture, etc, rape, sexual torture) makes Ronald Reagan the "best" President the U.S. has ever had . . . Well, that does say a lot about you and your country, doesn't it?

Greetings.

Reagan was once very far left, that's for certain. But he moved the Republicans to the right. If he was still a lefty by the time he was president, it didn't show.
most people with common sense do move to the right as they get older and wiser

http://www.etherzone.com/2004/stang061104.shtml


Read it, and decide for yourself.


Hehe, I thought it was going to be an article about how he was still alive with Elvis somewhere, or alive in cryogenics or something...

most people with common sense do move to the right as they get older and wiser

The problem with common sense is that most of the time it is neither common, nor sense.

The problem with common sense is that most of the time it is neither common, nor sense.

:D

The problem with common sense is that most of the time it is neither common, nor sense.
yup and most people dont get any wiser after age 12 do they now.

Wow...this thread STILL isn't dead yet!? :eek:

The Myth of the Gipper

Reagan Didn't End the Cold War
By WILLIAM BLUM

Ronald Reagan's biggest crimes were the bloody military actions to suppress social and political change in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, but I'd like to deal here with the media's gushing about Reagan's supposed role in ending the cold war. In actuality, he prolonged it. Here is something I wrote for my book Killing Hope.

It has become conventional wisdom that it was the relentlessly tough anti-communist policies of the Reagan Administration, with its heated-up arms race, that led to the collapse and reformation of the Soviet Union and its satellites. American history books may have already begun to chisel this thesis into marble. The Tories in Great Britain say that Margaret Thatcher and her unflinching policies contributed to the miracle as well. The East Germans were believers too.

When Ronald Reagan visited East Berlin, the people there cheered him and thanked him "for his role in liberating the East". Even many leftist analysts, particularly those of a conspiracy bent, are believers. But this view is not universally held; nor should it be. Long the leading Soviet expert on the United States, Georgi Arbatov, head of the Moscow-based Institute for the Study of the U.S.A. and Canada, wrote his memoirs in 1992. A Los Angeles Times book review by Robert Scheer summed up a portion of it:

"Arbatov understood all too well the failings of Soviet totalitarianism in comparison to the economy and politics of the West. It is clear from this candid and nuanced memoir that the movement for change had been developing steadily inside the highest corridors of power ever since the death of Stalin. Arbatov not only provides considerable evidence for the controversial notion that this change would have come about without foreign pressure, he insists that the U.S. military buildup during the Reagan years actually impeded this development."

George F. Kennan agrees. The former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of "containment" of the same country, asserts that "the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." He contends that the extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. "Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union."

Though the arms-race spending undoubtedly damaged the fabric of the Soviet civilian economy and society even more than it did in the United States, this had been going on for 40 years by the time Mikhail Gorbachev came to power without the slightest hint of impending doom. Gorbachev's close adviser, Aleksandr Yakovlev, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded:

"It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it."

Understandably, some Russians might be reluctant to admit that they were forced to make revolutionary changes by their arch enemy, to admit that they lost the Cold War. However, on this question we don't have to rely on the opinion of any individual, Russian or American. We merely have to look at the historical facts. From the late 1940s to around the mid-1960s, it was an American policy objective to instigate the downfall of the Soviet government as well as several Eastern European regimes. Many hundreds of Russian exiles were organized, trained and equipped by the CIA, then sneaked back into their homeland to set up espionage rings, to stir up armed political struggle, and to carry out acts of assassination and sabotage, such as derailing trains, wrecking bridges, damaging arms factories and power plants, and so on.

The Soviet government, which captured many of these men, was of course fully aware of who was behind all this. Compared to this policy, that of the Reagan administration could be categorized as one of virtual capitulation.

Yet what were the fruits of this ultra-tough anti-communist policy? Repeated serious confrontations between the United States and the Soviet Union in Berlin, Cuba and elsewhere, the Soviet interventions into Hungary and Czechoslovakia, creation of the Warsaw Pact (in direct reaction to NATO), no glasnost, no perestroika, only pervasive suspicion, cynicism and hostility on both sides.

It turned out that the Russians were human after all -- they responded to toughness with toughness. And the corollary: there was for many years a close correlation between the amicability of US-Soviet relations and the number of Jews allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Softness produced softness. If there's anyone to attribute the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to, both the beneficial ones and those questionable, it is of course Mikhail Gorbachev and the activists he inspired.

It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagan's and Thatcher's unremitting malice toward the communist superpower.

- William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power. and West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir.

even gorbachev says finished the soviets for good That is absolute garbage as Gorbachev has never said anything of the sort.

The USSR collapsed because of internal problems. Gorbachev himself knows that only too well.

Than why did Reagan continue to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, one of our most loyal anticommunist allies? Maybe because South Africa had a racist government that treated the majority population of the country like slaves.

Despite this, the Reagan administration still secretly backed South Africa in its illegal war against Angola.

Why did he undermine or otherwise betray anticommunist allies like Ferdinand Marcos and Augusto Pinochet? Because they were mass murdering dictators worse than any communist regime at the time.

Why did he do nothing when KAL 007 was shot down? Did you really expect Reagan to start a nuclear war over an airliner?

Why did he continue to provide foreign aid to the Soviet Union? I've looked into this claim since our last discussion and it is simply not true. The US ceased sending aid to the USSR after WW2. After the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the US started selling the USSR grain at a discount price. However, Cold War tensions were declining by that time due to Gorbachev.

Why did he do nothing to stop the spread of communism in Africa? Err.....Africa had been dominated by Western imperialistic powers for hundreds of years. Even when many of the African nations gained independence from their former colonial rulers, the West continued to interfere when it suited their own agendas (while not lifting a finger to help during times of crisis). No wonder African nations turned to the USSR and communist bloc for aid.

If he was such an anticommunist, why didn't he undo Carter's treasonous policies by breaking off relations with China and re-establishing relations with Taiwan? China = massive trading partner.

Taiwan = pathetic little island controlled by defeated nationalists.

Why don't you embrace the spirit of capitalism? ;)

1)Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (by Antony Sutton)
2)National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (by Antony Sutton)
3)The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (by Antony Sutton)
4)Cuba Betrayed (by Fulgencio Batista)
5)The Fourth Floor by (Earl E.T. Smith)
6)Red Star Over Cuba
7)Background to Betrayal (by Hilaire du Berrier)
8)I Saw Poland Betrayed (by Arthur Bliss Lane)
9)The Rape of Poland (by Stanislaw Mikolajczyk)
10)Nicaragua Betrayed (by Anastasio Somoza and Jack Cox)
11)The Great Betrayal (by Ian Douglas Smith)
12)The Politician (by Robert Welch)
13)Again, May God Forgive Us (by Robert Welch)
14)The Actor (by Alan Stang)
15)The Lattimore Story (by John Flynn)
16)America's Retreat From Victory (by Joe McCarthy)
17)Why Not Victory? (by Barry Goldwater)
18)The Shadows of Power (by James Perloff)
19)The Invisible Government (by Dan Smoot)
20)Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent
21)Kissinger on the Couch (by Phyllis Schlafley)
22)Web of Subversion
23)Red Scare or Red Menace? American Communism and Anticommunism During the Cold War
24)The Ordeal of Otto Otepka
25)None Dare Call it Treason...25 Years Later (by John Stormer)
26)None Dare Call it Conspiracy (by Gary Allan)
27)Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask (by Gary Allan)
28)The Assassination of Joe McCarthy (by Medford Evans)
29)McCarthy and his Enemies (by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell)
30)McCarthy (by Roy Cohn)
31)Who Killed Joe McCarthy?
32)Who Promoted Peress? (by Lionel Likos)
33)Ally Betrayed (by David Martin)
34)The Insiders (by John McManus)
35)Perjury (by Allen Weinstein)
36)The Bleeding of America
37)Inside the State Department
38)The Untouchable State Department
39)Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (by Antony Sutton) Are you serious? You're seriously recommending books by people such as Fulgencio Batista, Anastasio Somoza, Ian Douglas Smith and Joe McCarthy?

Any credibility you had still just completely disappeared.

Somoza, Batista, Smith, and others were actual leaders of countries. No, they were mass murdering right-wing dictators.

I believe we should have done everything we could to help South Africa defeat the communists as quickly as possible, to hasten the dismantling of apartheid. Communists? Do you mean South Africa committing acts of aggression against other countries like Angola?



History has shown that McCarthy was right about all the people he accused of being communists or procommunists. Owen Lattimore, Haldore Hanson, John Carter Vincent, Mary Jane Keeney, Irving Peress, Annie Lee Moss, etc. were all communists. McCarthy was an extremely courageous man, risking his reputation and everything he had trying to expose the people who were destroying our country from within. He was not an 'opportunist.' He knew he would be ridiculed, denounced, hated, and possibly destroyed, and he didn't care. He just did what he thought was right. And he was not a 'witch hunter.' He never accused anyone of being unpatriotic without first gathering lots of evidence. For example, he consulted at least twenty sources for his speech about George Marshall (later published as the book America's Retreat From Victory), and all of the sources (with the possible exception of one, 'The Hinge of Fate' by Winston Churchill) were sources friendly to Marshall. He was virtually the only man in the country working to expose the communists in the government, because everybody else was either too afraid of being destroy-ed, didn't care, etc. I'd recommend reading America's Retreat From Victory before slamming it. In addition, I'd recommend the books McCarthy (by Roy Cohn), McCarthy and his Enemies (by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell), The Assassination of Joe McCarthy (by Medford Evans), Who Killed Joe McCarthy? (I don't remember the author, but he was a member of the Eisenhower Administration), The Lattimore Story (by John T. Flynn), Who Promoted Peress? (by Lionel Likos), in addition to other books which I'll look up and post the names of here. McCarthy was not a 'fraud.' There were indeed hundreds of communists in the government, and he was very successful at exposing them. That is why the Left destroyed him. You're delusional, misinformed and just plain mad.




I was not defending or condemning Somoza. Again, it's a case of the "lesser of two evils." He was far better than Daniel Ortega, whose totalitarian regime routinely executed and tortured political opponents, supported terrorism and revolution throughout the rest of the world, and committed genocide (of the Miskito Indians). I put Somoza's book on the list because, who better to consult about Nicaragua's betrayal than the man himself who was betrayed?

I'm afraid human rights groups would disagree with you on that one. Ortega was a nice guy compared to the Somozas.

Speaking of genocide, are you going to defend Rios Montt aswell?

'collapse of the Soviet Union' are as phony as a three-dollar bill. Are you claiming the Soviet Union still exists?

I hated Ronald Reagan but I still seem to be defending him from Roach-Busters.... :confused:

You're delusional, misinformed and just plain mad.

You're delusional, misinformed, and just plain idiotic. Name ONE person McCarthy ruined. ONE. That's the trouble with some of you leftists. You always believe everything you hear and never bother to do the research and figure out the truth for yourself.


I'm afraid human rights groups would disagree with you on that one. Ortega was a nice guy compared to the Somozas.

Speaking of genocide, are you going to defend Rios Montt aswell?

First of all, I don't like your sarcasm. Second of all, I don't know much about Rios Montt, but from what I've heard, he sounds like a real @$$hole, so I don't have anything nice to say about him. And for the last freaking time I AM NOT DEFENDING SOMOZA!!!!!! :mad:

No, they were mass murdering right-wing dictators.

Maybe so, but I bet you wouldn't call them murderers if they were left-wing dictators, would you?

Are you claiming the Soviet Union still exists?

No, only that the communists are still in control there. Yelstsin was a lifelong communist. Likewise, Putin was a veteran of the KGB.

People should read 'The Reagan Phenomena' by Noam Chomsky on his blog.

It explains that 1 year after he left office people thought in a Gallup Poll that he was the 3rd Worst President Ever. After a huge PR drive he became one of the most popular - people forget how shitty and unfeasible reaganomics were and how much he damaged workers rights. Like the ATC Strike.

No, only that the communists are still in control there. Yelstsin was a lifelong communist. Likewise, Putin was a veteran of the KGB.

Yeltsin really, really messed up Russia for Putin.

Are you serious? You're seriously recommending books by people such as Fulgencio Batista, Anastasio Somoza, Ian Douglas Smith and Joe McCarthy?

Any credibility you had still just completely disappeared.

Save your smart-ass sarcasm for after you read the books, thanks. That's why so many liberals are so stupid. They don't even bother to read books if they're by 'right wing whackos,' and they automatically discard anything they may say, yet they eat up everything leftists say, regardless of how farfetched or absurd it may sound.

Besides, if you think about it, who better to tell the stories then the people themselves that the stories were about? :rolleyes:

People should read 'The Reagan Phenomena' by Noam Chomsky on his blog.

It explains that 1 year after he left office people thought in a Gallup Poll that he was the 3rd Worst President Ever. After a huge PR drive he became one of the most popular - people forget how shitty and unfeasible reaganomics were and how much he damaged workers rights. Like the ATC Strike.

Thanks. I'll be sure to check it out. :)

I'm afraid human rights groups would disagree with you on that one. Ortega was a nice guy compared to the Somozas.

Speaking of genocide, are you going to defend Rios Montt aswell?

Oh my God!

Don't tell me somebody here agrees with The War on Central America? Nicaragua was, according to The ICJ, International Terrorism. Why did the US veto the subsequent resolution calling for all nations to abide by International Law?

Nicaragua was an awful crime - 10's of thousands died as a result of the Somozas. They bloody well decapitated thier political enemies! They caused so many deaths and they were the most undemocratic regime. The Somozas were bastards.

Oh my God!

Don't tell me somebody here agrees with The War on Central America? Nicaragua was, according to The ICJ, International Terrorism. Why did the US veto the subsequent resolution calling for all nations to abide by International Law?

Nicaragua was an awful crime - 10's of thousands died as a result of the Somozas. They bloody well decapitated thier political enemies! They caused so many deaths and they were the most undemocratic regime. The Somozas were bastards.

Like I said, I wasn't praising or condemning Somoza. Ortega wasn't exactly Mother Teresa, either, though.

bump

I've looked into this claim since our last discussion and it is simply not true. The US ceased sending aid to the USSR after WW2.

Yes, it is true. Please read some of the books I suggested before jumping to conclusions.

bump (again)

bump (again)

...

bump

Name ONE person McCarthy ruined.

Philip Loeb.

Philip Loeb.

Never heard of him. And I doubt he was 'ruined.' Virtually every person that was allegedly 'ruined' by McCarthy did not have his reputation harmed at all, or else it suffered just a tiny bit for a very short period of time. Moreover, every one of those people either was a communist, a pro-communist, or at the very least a security risk.

Never heard of him. And I doubt he was 'ruined.' Virtually every person that was allegedly 'ruined' by McCarthy did not have his reputation harmed at all, or else it suffered just a tiny bit for a very short period of time. Moreover, every one of those people either was a communist, a pro-communist, or at the very least a security risk.

The broadcasting company he was working for dumped the show he was on when the show owner refused to fire him for having previously been a member of the American Communist Party. Blacklisted and unemployed he killed himself after a depression brought on by his fall.

The broadcasting company he was working for dumped the show he was on when the show owner refused to fire him for having previously been a member of the American Communist Party. Blacklisted and unemployed he killed himself after a depression brought on by his fall.

Okay, so he was a (former) communist. Deserved to be exposed. Deserved to die, no. However, McCarthy did not fire him; the broadcasting company did. McCarthy did not tell him to kill himself; he did it on his own.

But it was McCarthy that set the ball rolling: thus it was McCarthy that ruined him. McCarthy was the one that metaphorically shouted 'fire' in the crowded theatre.


Okay, so he was a (former) communist. Deserved to be exposed.

Explain to me again why a former member of the Communist Party deserves to be exposed, would you?

For being a traitor, plain and simple. ;)

For being a traitor, plain and simple. ;)

Elucidate?

Elucidate?

Communists (or, most of them, anyway) seek the overthrow of the U.S. government. Being a member of such an organization thus designates him as a traitor (or, former traitor).

Communists (or, most of them, anyway) seek the overthrow of the U.S. government. Being a member of such an organization thus designates him as a traitor (or, former traitor).


Problem there: you assert that most, but not all, communists seek to overthrow the US government, but then claim that everyone who is in a communist organisation is a traitor - but by your own admission not all seek to do something you would term as traitorous.


An it is not so much that they wish to overthrow the government, but to change the form of government. Doing so would in no way automatically be traitorous, no more so than adding an amendment to the constitution, for example.

Problem there: you assert that most, but not all, communists seek to overthrow the US government, but then claim that everyone who is in a communist organisation is a traitor - but by your own admission not all seek to do something you would term as traitorous.


An it is not so much that they wish to overthrow the government, but to change the form of government. Doing so would in no way automatically be traitorous, no more so than adding an amendment to the constitution, for example.

Eh, good point.

Eh, good point.

Thank you. Very magnanimous of you (I'm not actually mocking you here).

So what light does this shine on McCarthy/McCarthyism?

Thank you. Very magnanimous of you (I'm not actually mocking you here).

So what light does this shine on McCarthy/McCarthyism?

Sorry, but what does magnamimous mean again? (I always forget...)

What did you mean about what light does this shine on McCarthy/ism?

Sorry, but what does magnamimous mean again? (I always forget...)

"not petty in feelings or conduct"

What did you mean about what light does this shine on McCarthy/ism?

You justified McCarthy because the people he acted against were communists, and thus automatically traitors, but you now concede that labelling all communists as traitors is in error.

"not petty in feelings or conduct"



You justified McCarthy because the people he acted against were communists, and thus automatically traitors, but you now concede that labelling all communists as traitors is in error.

All I know is that McCarthy is one of my number one heroes. That's all. :D

P.S. Thanks for the explanation of magnanimous! :)

All I know is that McCarthy is one of my number one heroes. That's all. :D

Why? - because he acted to condemn people on a basis you now admit is flawed?

Like I said, I wasn't praising or condemning Somoza. Ortega wasn't exactly Mother Teresa, either, though.

I agree with you, but The War on Central America was Reagan at his worst - I remember reading somewhere that after they took absolute control - The Somoza's murdered an entire radio station full of people because it was broadcasting anti-somoza material (among many other atrocities). The only reason the US supported them was because they opened Nicaragua to capitalist interests, its only when the Ortega's come along that the State Department pretends to care about oppressed peoples.

Also, has anyone seen the film and play 'The Crucible' its was intended to be relative to the McCarthy era.

No, only that the communists are still in control there. Yelstsin was a lifelong communist. Likewise, Putin was a veteran of the KGB. The Communist Party was banned under Yeltsin for a short time. He left the party back in the 1980s and later helped to undermine it along with the entire Soviet Union itself. What part of this don't you understand?

Yeltin became a right-wing nationalist. Same with Putin.

Russia today is a ultra-nationalist capitalist nation. Please don't even try to tell me Russia is communist still. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

*jumps into thread*

*jumps out of thread*