NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the fact that the US supports dictatorships in places like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, does it really make sense to call the US pro-freedom?

Well that is the legacy of McCarthy.

Dictators are still better then the commies......

the US is pro-freedom only in that it is anti-other non-US super powers.

Given that the UN supports genocide in the Sudan, dictators in Syria, North Korea, The vatican city and China, could you call the UN an apeasing apologist for human torture and murder?

Given the fact that the US supports dictatorships in places like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, does it really make sense to call the US pro-freedom?

Why do America bashing leftists always post shit like this? Who cares? There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. That's not even exclusively applicable to the U.S. There are dozens of other dictatorships that the U.S. doesn't support that leftists praise.

We all know my country isn't as pro-freedom as it says, Letila.

We can use this as an example of how NOT to act internationally in the future.

Why do America bashing leftists always post shit like this? Who cares? There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. That's not even exclusively applicable to the U.S. There are dozens of other dictatorships that the U.S. doesn't support that leftists praise.

I've never heard any "leftists" praise dictatorships, except possibly Cuba when citing its healthcare.

Why do America bashing leftists always post shit like this? Who cares? There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. That's not even exclusively applicable to the U.S. There are dozens of other dictatorships that the U.S. doesn't support that leftists praise.


Viva Fidel!

Who cares if dissenters are thrown in prison, Rosita can have a free pap smear!

I've never heard any "leftists" praise dictatorships, except possibly Cuba when citing its healthcare.

Leftists have praised lots of dictators: Fidel Castro, every USSR leader (although not Stalin, anymore), Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, Josip Tito, Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, Ahmed Ben Bella, etc.

Viva Fidel!

Who cares if dissenters are thrown in prison, Rosita can have a free pap smear!
Bush - "I think Putin is doing a great job in Russia."
you know putin right? the guy jailing all opposition in his "demcoratically" elected regime

Penochet? US funded. Bin Laden? US trained. Saddam? backed by US.

Leftists have praised lots of dictators: Fidel Castro, every USSR leader (although not Stalin, anymore), Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, Josip Tito, Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, Ahmed Ben Bella, etc.

Of course, every leader has been praised by someone, and if everyone has to be split into "leftists" and "rightists" then you simply have to pick all the bad leaders whose followers fit into "leftlist" (by your definition) and voila! Instant propaganda.

Viva Fidel!

Who cares if dissenters are thrown in prison, Rosita can have a free pap smear!

Other than a few wannabes wearing Che shirts to be cool, most socialists show a great deal more sophistication.

Leftists have praised lots of dictators: Fidel Castro, every USSR leader (although not Stalin, anymore), Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, Josip Tito, Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, Ahmed Ben Bella, etc.

Yummy! Global statements!

So that means the righties support Pinochet, Hitler, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, every leader has been praised by someone, and if everyone has to be split into "leftists" and "rightists" then you simply have to pick all the bad leaders whose followers fit into "leftlist" (by your definition) and voila! Instant propaganda.

Of course. Rightists have praised their share of dictators, too, I was merely refuting Letila's claim that leftists don't praise dictators.

Yummy! Global statements!

So that means the righties support Pinochet, Hitler, etc. etc. etc.

I don't know anyone who supports Hitler.

I don't know anyone who supports Hitler.

He hated commies didn't he?

As to supporters. The KKK and the Aryan Nation have a few! ;)

Bush - "I think Putin is doing a great job in Russia."
you know putin right? the guy jailing all opposition in his "demcoratically" elected regime

Penochet? US funded. Bin Laden? US trained. Saddam? backed by US.
Unless you care to back that up, I'll think its BS. First off, if you said the Afghani terrorists in general you'd be right. Bin Laden? I believe there's a quote from some interview (1996) with the BBC or some British organization where he said he would never, and has never, accepted aid from "America and its Zionist Allies" or something to that effect. To top it off, BIN LADEN ISN'T A DICTATOR

Of course. Rightists have praised their share of dictators, too, I was merely refuting Letila's claim that leftists don't praise dictators.

True I suppose, since if you sort everyone into only two groups, then each group will have a wide range of political beliefs.

Other than a few wannabes wearing Che shirts to be cool,
This describes every socialist I have ever known.

He hated commies didn't he?

As to supporters. The KKK and the Aryan Nation have a few! ;)

I've never met any Klueless Klutz Klan or Aryan Nation members, though. If I had, I'd be in jail right now.

Unless you care to back that up, I'll think its BS. First off, if you said the Afghani terrorists in general you'd be right. Bin Laden? I believe there's a quote from some interview (1996) with the BBC or some British organization where he said he would never, and has never, accepted aid from "America and its Zionist Allies" or something to that effect. To top it off, BIN LADEN ISN'T A DICTATOR
really irrelevant in the overall point

which is

the republicans repeatedly support any one, no matter how bad or evil, as long as they are anti-socialist.

I don't know anyone who supports Hitler.

If you'd joined NationStates earlier you might. There was a period when Nazis in the General Forum were a regular occurence (they were apparently brought here from a nazi forum by nazis already playing). They seem to be a thing of the past now, fortunately. Maybe because the swastika is banned from flags.

Unless you care to back that up, I'll think its BS. First off, if you said the Afghani terrorists in general you'd be right. Bin Laden? I believe there's a quote from some interview (1996) with the BBC or some British organization where he said he would never, and has never, accepted aid from "America and its Zionist Allies" or something to that effect. To top it off, BIN LADEN ISN'T A DICTATOR

Well put. Yes this is true I recall that interview as well.


Additionally, the US as a whole, not just righties or lefties, have support dictators. But then again so has most other regimes throughout the world. Do we remember Nevell Chamberlain appeasing Hitler? Aside from Chamberlain I don't think anybody in the world like Hitler. Franco and Mussolini sure didn't like him all that much either, they were just ideologically aligned (fascism). Hitler was true evil, personified. The KKK are just a bunch of little wussies, my comment to them "Show your face!" Aryan Nation wackos, I have not met any but from what I know of them, they are wackos. And Che Guevara, LOL I totally agree with the comment made about a few wannabe cool people who wear his face on their shirt (not having 1/10th a clue of what he was about). The world is a sad place ladies and gentlemen, populated by a festering majority of uneducated imbiciles.

Bush - "I think Putin is doing a great job in Russia."
you know putin right? the guy jailing all opposition in his "demcoratically" elected regime

Penochet? US funded. Bin Laden? US trained. Saddam? backed by US.


Bin Laden was Funded and Trained By the USA!

Saddam as far as I have found is just a wart on humanity!!!!!

I don't know anyone who supports Hitler.

His followers did!!!!!

Did you forget Hitler was probably one of the most charismatic rulers of all time! Shit how do you think he got to where he was?

really irrelevant in the overall point

which is

the republicans repeatedly support any one, no matter how bad or evil, as long as they are anti-socialist.

Republicans have supported a lot of socialist dictators: Ngo Dinh Diem, the USSR, Mugabe, Castro (we brought him to power), etc.

Unless you care to back that up, I'll think its BS. First off, if you said the Afghani terrorists in general you'd be right. Bin Laden? I believe there's a quote from some interview (1996) with the BBC or some British organization where he said he would never, and has never, accepted aid from "America and its Zionist Allies" or something to that effect. To top it off, BIN LADEN ISN'T A DICTATOR

Show How much this guy really knows!

Bin Laden was funded and trained by the CIA!

Hmmmm Wonder what country the CIA is from!!!!

Flippin Idiot!!!!!

Besides, I'm not talking about "leftists" or "liberals". I'm talking about the US. How can it be pro-freedom when it supports dictatorships?

Besides, I'm not talking about "leftists" or "liberals". I'm talking about the US. How can it be pro-freedom when it supports dictatorships?

It can't. Glad that's settled. Next topic please...:D

Besides, I'm not talking about "leftists" or "liberals". I'm talking about the US. How can it be pro-freedom when it supports dictatorships?

I don't know, but you ask this question practically everyday...

I've never heard any "leftists" praise dictatorships, except possibly Cuba when citing its healthcare.

All the way from Latin America (Castro), to Europe (Milosevic), to the Middle East (Saddam), to Asia (Kim Jong-Il) there will always be a dictator who some radical leftists will praise or defend. These same people will constantly talk about the history of the U.S. installing dictators, especially if they're right-wing dictator. It's all about politics.

I don't blame them for supporting dictators who adhere to the same political ideology as them because I do same thing myself by defending Pinochet (my favorite) and Milosevic (was socialist, but knew how to deal with muslims).

The difference is, I just don't go around bitching about U.S. support for dictatorships just because I don't like the dictator.

Show How much this guy really knows!

Bin Laden was funded and trained by the CIA!

Hmmmm Wonder what country the CIA is from!!!!

Flippin Idiot!!!!!

Shows how much this guy really knows...

There isn't a shred of coherent proof aside from rumors from the Beltway and politicians whispering here and there to show that Bin Laden was directly trained by the CIA. The CIA did train and arm the Mujaheeden (Northern Alliance) against the Soviets in the 1980s. Yes Bin Laden mooched off of those arms and funds. However, there is no coherent proof aside from rumors from the Beltway and politicans whispering and one artcile from the '90s, of which I read but can't seem to find, of a BBC reporter in Pakistan talking about how Bin Laden did not accept any aide from the CIA because of his loathing for America and it's pro-Israeli stance.

Additionally, guess what, the same goes for US supplying WMD to Iraq in the '80s. Now everyone may believe it is common knowledge that the US supplied Iraq with chem/bio weapons against the Iranians just as they believe it is common knowledge that the CIA trained Bin Laden. However, it's all heresay. There isn't a shred of proof that is concrete to support either side, in either case. We certainly turned a blind eye when Iraq gassed Iranians at the border or when they gassed the Kurds in the late '80s and we certainly ignored Bin Laden fighting the Soviets and taking funds and arms from the Mujaheeden but to claim that we supported them fully or not is heresay and doesn't hold up in any viable debate as there is simply NO proof on either side.

Personally I do not believe the CIA trained Bin Laden nor did we directly give Saddam chem/bio weapons in the '80s. There is plenty of proof to show that we gave Saddam money and conventional arms against the Iranians with the hope of evening the playing field. We wanted a status quo in the Iran-Iraq War, neither side to be the victor. We wanted the Soviets to lose in Afghanistan and we supplied the Mujaheeden.

I do believe that Saddam got his chemical/biological weapons from somewhere. Germany I do recall in an article helped him with poison gas but it was also heresay so it wouldn't hold up either. I am certain that, if it were true, we ignored it. Granted the US did give Israel nuclear bombs prior to the 1973 Yom Kippur War, I don't think we'd be as stupid as to give Saddam weapons when we full-well knew how evil of a man he was in the '80s. That was obvious before the Iran-Iraq War and Reagan, Rumsfeld, etc. knew that. But remember, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." That is the basic principle of us supplying the Iraqis against the Iranians and the Mujaheeden against the Soviets.

Yummy! Global statements!

So that means the righties support Pinochet, Hitler, etc. etc. etc.

Oh my god I wish people would stop thinking of Hiter, Mussolini and Fascists in general as "righties."

Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists and today's British National Front are often described as "right-wing," but if you take the time to look at their economic policies, they are actually hardcore left-wing socialists. You wouldn't refer to the likes of Noam Chomsky, George Soros, or anyone more leftist than Howard Dean who constantly bitches about the ills of global capitalism or "globalization" as "right-wing" would you?

According to www.politicalcompass.org, "left" and "right" are "merely measures of economic position." Even the most staunch members of the Hitler fan club on NS (CM, TT, DA, etc.) are far left economic socialists.

Oh my god I wish people would stop thinking of Hiter, Mussolini and Fascists in general as "righties."

Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists and today's British National Front are often described as "right-wing," but if you take the time to look at their economic policies, they are actually hardcore left-wing socialists. You wouldn't refer to the likes of Noam Chomsky, George Soros, or anyone more leftist than Howard Dean who constantly bitches about the ills of global capitalism or "globalization" as "right-wing" would you?

According to www.politicalcompass.org, "left" and "right" are "merely measures of economic position." Even the most staunch members of the Hitler fan club on NS (CM, TT, DA, etc.) are far left economic socialists.

First off, politicalcompass.org is horribly inaccurate so don't use it as a judge. Bad news there.

Secondly, the reason fascism is seen as "right-wing" is because it is the opposite of communism (sort of) and that is "left-wing." See fascism and communism (to practice not ideology) have been both totalitarian regimes and thus not much different. However, it is widely accepted that fascism is the most right and communism is the most left one can get. I too have trouble myself with fascism being far-right because I am far-right and certainly not a fascist. I would label communism and fascism in a totaliatarian category and not a spectrum (let's face it, to date communism has been nothing but totalitarianism even though true Marxism is anarchist).

Given the fact that the US supports dictatorships in places like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, does it really make sense to call the US pro-freedom?


Unfortunately Letila in International Politics you don't have the option of just approving and supporting people you like. Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil, The United States doesn't have much oil at all on our territory anymore. All of our technology in our society from your Anime DVDs to Watches to Computers to Cars is based on oil. Even with alternative energy one needs oil to make the components first. If we turn away from Saudi Arabia they turn to other customers (The People's Republic of China is starting to eat up a lot of Oil now) and American power and economy starts to plummet destroying the nation.

Until we can find a new source of energy and go without oil we must support Saudi Arabia.

We need the oil for the US to survive, if you don't want to see Saudi Arabia supported would you rather go without your Anime, Computers, Cars, Air Conditioning etc? The only other option is to invade and take the oil, and I doubt you would support that.

Also to protect the Interests of the United States we have to back nations like Uzbekistan so that they will counter balance nations that are our enemies (Why we Backed Iraq in the 1980s) or so that they will support us in actions or with help, such as allowing us to maintain military bases and facilities near our enemies and place pressure on them.

First off, politicalcompass.org is horribly inaccurate so don't use it as a judge. Bad news there.

First off, I based positions on economics as measures of political stances before I ever even saw the political compass site. I wan't using it as a "judge," but rather as a reinforcement of what I already believed.

Second, I only used politicalcompass.org as a reference because so many NS members have posted the site, used it, and believed it to be pretty accurate. Kinda like leaving a link for BBC, it's the only thing many liberal Europeans seem to belive and anything else is easily dismissed as "right-wing" or "capitalistic propaganda." I chat with a lot of Communists.

First off, I based positions on economics as measures of political stances before I ever even saw the political compass site. I wan't using it as a "judge," but rather as a reinforcement of what I already believed.

Second, I only used politicalcompass.org as a reference because so many NS members have posted the site, used it, and believed it to be pretty accurate. Kinda like leaving a link for BBC, it's the only thing many liberal Europeans seem to belive and anything else is easily dismissed as "right-wing" or "capitalistic propaganda." I chat with a lot of Communists.

Wasn't chastizing or criticising, just don't want it to be reinforced as the standard. It's tough being a political science major and seeing that quiz. It's like being a baseball player and playing Triple Play 2002 on PS2 (HomeRun Fest).

I found this on a quick search. Its not the BBC, but I remembered it being on some UK News organization's site.

However, there is no coherent proof aside from rumors from the Beltway and politicans whispering and one artcile from the '90s, of which I read but can't seem to find, of a BBC reporter in Pakistan talking about how Bin Laden did not accept any aide from the CIA because of his loathing for America and it's pro-Israeli stance.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/07/wbin07.xml&amp


Q: Going back to the previous question of you and the CIA and American support for the war against the Soviets . . . [The CIA says there was a relationship with you during the Afghan-Soviet war]

OBL: This is misinformation by the Americans. Every Muslim the minute he can start differentiating, carries hate towards Americans, Jews and Christians, this is part of our ideology.

Ever since I can recall I felt at war with the Americans and had feelings of animosity and hate towards them. So what they say happened between them and myself is out of the question.

It is only because the Americans were occupying the region that they threatened to use military force should the Soviets conduct such an intervention. So the Americans would be lying if they claim they had supported us. We challenge them to provide evidence supporting such claims.

They were a burden on us and on the mujahideen in Afghanistan, for we were performing our obligations in protecting Islam in Afghanistan even though this obligation of ours was at times serving, though without our consent, interests of America.

When the interests of two sides coincide at times, this does not amount to co-operation. We regard them with animosity and there are statements going far back with us calling for a boycott of American products, and even the necessity to attack American forces and America's economy. This goes back for over 12 years now.

Excellent find. Well let's look at it this way. This is about the only proof, though straight from the horses mouth. Let's analyze:

Bin Laden says 'Yes' to getting help from the CIA: Seen as a hypocrit to his own people and could lose some of his cult of personality.

Bin Laden says 'No' to getting help from the CIA: Maintains credibility with his people and continues his "righteous" persona.

But hey, it's straight from the horse's mouth so I mean can you really contest it? Sure you may give party to his own personal motives but can you really, honestly tell? No.

But good find!

Shows how much this guy really knows...

There isn't a shred of coherent proof aside from rumors from the Beltway and politicians whispering here and there to show that Bin Laden was directly trained by the CIA. The CIA did train and arm the Mujaheeden (Northern Alliance) against the Soviets in the 1980s. Yes Bin Laden mooched off of those arms and funds. However, there is no coherent proof aside from rumors from the Beltway and politicans whispering and one artcile from the '90s, of which I read but can't seem to find, of a BBC reporter in Pakistan talking about how Bin Laden did not accept any aide from the CIA because of his loathing for America and it's pro-Israeli stance.

Additionally, guess what, the same goes for US supplying WMD to Iraq in the '80s. Now everyone may believe it is common knowledge that the US supplied Iraq with chem/bio weapons against the Iranians just as they believe it is common knowledge that the CIA trained Bin Laden. However, it's all heresay. There isn't a shred of proof that is concrete to support either side, in either case. We certainly turned a blind eye when Iraq gassed Iranians at the border or when they gassed the Kurds in the late '80s and we certainly ignored Bin Laden fighting the Soviets and taking funds and arms from the Mujaheeden but to claim that we supported them fully or not is heresay and doesn't hold up in any viable debate as there is simply NO proof on either side.

Personally I do not believe the CIA trained Bin Laden nor did we directly give Saddam chem/bio weapons in the '80s. There is plenty of proof to show that we gave Saddam money and conventional arms against the Iranians with the hope of evening the playing field. We wanted a status quo in the Iran-Iraq War, neither side to be the victor. We wanted the Soviets to lose in Afghanistan and we supplied the Mujaheeden.

I do believe that Saddam got his chemical/biological weapons from somewhere. Germany I do recall in an article helped him with poison gas but it was also heresay so it wouldn't hold up either. I am certain that, if it were true, we ignored it. Granted the US did give Israel nuclear bombs prior to the 1973 Yom Kippur War, I don't think we'd be as stupid as to give Saddam weapons when we full-well knew how evil of a man he was in the '80s. That was obvious before the Iran-Iraq War and Reagan, Rumsfeld, etc. knew that. But remember, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." That is the basic principle of us supplying the Iraqis against the Iranians and the Mujaheeden against the Soviets.

So lets look at what you have wrote here. What we are looking at is the Afghan war against Russia!!!!!

Come on and get your facts straight. Bin Laden didn't fight in the Iraq Iran affair. He was in the Afghan vs Russian war!!!!!

So lets look at what you have wrote here. What we are looking at is the Afghan war against Russia!!!!!

Come on and get your facts straight. Bin Laden didn't fight in the Iraq Iran affair. He was in the Afghan vs Russian war!!!!!
And now Bin Laden is fighting us . . .

Secondly, the reason fascism is seen as "right-wing" is because it is the opposite of communism (sort of) and that is "left-wing."

No not "sort of" at all. Both believe in extremely centralized government. Just because something opposes Communism, doesn't mean it's "right-wing". If you looking for exact opposites then your best bet is libertarianism or maybe "anarcho-capitalism" as an exact opposite of communism.

See fascism and communism (to practice not ideology) have been both totalitarian regimes and thus not much different. However, it is widely accepted that fascism is the most right and communism is the most left one can get.

The fact that is is "accepted" as "right-wing" is excactly what bothers me. All the Fascists I know are hardcore anti-globalist socialists. The only difference is they're far more nationalistic compared to other non-fascist leftists, and somehow that makes them "right-wing."

First you say that Fascism and Communism are the "opposite" or "sort of" the opposite then you say that they are "both totalitarian" at least by "practice not ideology," when in fact they are similar through both practice and ideology.

I too have trouble myself with fascism being far-right because I am far-right and certainly not a fascist.

No offense, but I'm begining to question your "right-wing" credentials. You sound more like a "moderate Republican."

I would label communism and fascism in a totaliatarian category and not a spectrum (let's face it, to date communism has been nothing but totalitarianism even though true Marxism is anarchist).

This is exactly why I question your credentials. You say that both fascism and communism are merely "totalitarian" and therefore not a "spectrum." How can you say that any ideology which believes in government confiscation of private industry to give to susbstanial control to the "workers" for the ensurement of "social justice" (advacated by both Fascists and Communists), which is clearly leftist, is "not a spectrum" simply because of the totalitarian nature of which it was carried out.

When you say that both are simply "totalitarian," it's almost as if you're trying not to offend leftists because both Communism and Fascism (despite being socially authoritarian) are clearly on the far-left with minor differences. It sounds like something a Democrat would say.

(let's face it, to date communism has been nothing but totalitarianism even though true Marxism is anarchist).

So now you give legitamacy to the leftist claim that "true Marxism" is anarchist and therfore never been accomplished because Communism has been "nothing but totalitarianism." You don't say it directly, but the implication is there, whether you realize it or not.

The fact that Communism has been "nothing but totalitarianism" is why real "right-wingers" are so vehemently opposed to it. We don't believe in "true Marxism" because almost everytime it's tried it has been a failure. Instead of realizing this, you give legitimacy to the myth of "true Marxism."

So lets look at what you have wrote here. What we are looking at is the Afghan war against Russia!!!!!

Come on and get your facts straight. Bin Laden didn't fight in the Iraq Iran affair. He was in the Afghan vs Russian war!!!!!

Where did I say Bin Laden fought inteh Iran-Iraq war?

Leftists have praised lots of dictators: Fidel Castro, every USSR leader (although not Stalin, anymore), Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, Josip Tito, Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, Ahmed Ben Bella, etc.


You are so god damn stupid it's not funny. We have praised Tito openly, but all of the others are total sickos.
But all of you repbulicans have praised Hitler and every "christian" regime around.

No not "sort of" at all. Both believe in extremely centralized government. Just because something opposes Communism, doesn't mean it's "right-wing". If you looking for exact opposites then your best bet is libertarianism or maybe "anarcho-capitalism" as an exact opposite of communism.

Minor differences put them as "sort of."


The fact that is is "accepted" as "right-wing" is excactly what bothers me. All the Fascists I know are hardcore anti-globalist socialists. The only difference is they're far more nationalistic compared to other non-fascist leftists, and somehow that makes them "right-wing."

Nationalism is unfortunately given a bad rep but I got what you're saying here and yep, definitely far more nationalistic.

First you say that Fascism and Communism are the "opposite" or "sort of" the opposite then you say that they are "both totalitarian" at least by "practice not ideology," when in fact they are similar through both practice and ideology.

Both totalitarian. But the ideologies do differ. There are slight variations, mostly wording but they are very similar yet at the same time, very different. It's one of those contradictions that make sense (paradox I believe)?

No offense, but I'm begining to question your "right-wing" credentials. You sound more like a "moderate Republican."

If I'm moderate than we got problems.

This is exactly why I question your credentials. You say that both fascism and communism are merely "totalitarian" and therefore not a "spectrum." How can you say that any ideology which believes in government confiscation of private industry to give to susbstanial control to the "workers" for the ensurement of "social justice" (advacated by both Fascists and Communists), which is clearly leftist, is "not a spectrum" simply because of the totalitarian nature of which it was carried out.

The spectrum, IMHO, is flawed. The more you get to the end, the more they meet. I see it more as a circle rather than a flat line because at the very ends, fascism and communism act in much the same way.

When you say that both are simply "totalitarian," it's almost as if you're trying not to offend leftists because both Communism and Fascism (despite being socially authoritarian) are clearly on the far-left with minor differences. It sounds like something a Democrat would say.

You haven't talked with many Democrats on Communist vs. Fascist nature? They're pretty gung-ho in that they are different and that Republicans are fascists (man do I love them in a comical way).

So now you give legitamacy to the leftist claim that "true Marxism" is anarchist and therfore never been accomplished because Communism has been "nothing but totalitarianism." You don't say it directly, but the implication is there, whether you realize it or not.[/qupte]

Yes I do give legitimacy to Marxism. It is a legitimiate system, albeit a naive utopian one, but certainly nothing to ignore. To ignore Marxism is to essentially ignore an entire school of thought in political science. As a Political Science major I cannot ignore it. And frankly, Marxism would be a good system, you know if Humans weren't evil, vile, greedy, lustful creatures. This is why I like capitalism so much, it makes use of these traits.

[quote]The fact that Communism has been "nothing but totalitarianism" is why real "right-wingers" are so vehemently opposed to it. We don't believe in "true Marxism" because almost everytime it's tried it has been a failure. Instead of realizing this, you give legitimacy to the myth of "true Marxism."

In practice Communism has never been true Marxism. But like I said earlier, how can you completely ignore an entire political school of thought? It doesn't work.

You are so god damn stupid it's not funny. We have praised Tito openly, but all of the others are total sickos.
But all of you repbulicans have praised Hitler and every "christian" regime around.

You are so god damn stupid. Nobody praises Hitler except Nazis. And despite your ruminations and toliet-philosophies, all Republicans are not Nazis, in fact I have never met a Republican that was a Nazi. I have met Nazi's but not Republican Nazi's. OH MY GOD, ALL DEMOCRATS ARE COMMUNISTS. OH NO. REALIZE SARCASM NOW.

You are so god damn stupid it's not funny. We have praised Tito openly, but all of the others are total sickos.
But all of you repbulicans have praised Hitler and every "christian" regime around.

Who in the hell praised Hitler?

What "Christian" regimes are there? Vatican City?

Personally I do not believe the CIA trained Bin Laden nor did we directly give Saddam chem/bio weapons in the '80s. There is plenty of proof to show that we gave Saddam money and conventional arms against the Iranians with the hope of evening the playing field. We wanted a status quo in the Iran-Iraq War, neither side to be the victor. We wanted the Soviets to lose in Afghanistan and we supplied the Mujaheeden.



Try to stick to the one subject we are discussing not 2 in the same paragraph!

Try to stick to the one subject we are discussing not 2 in the same paragraph!

You don't write many papers do you? It's call drawing similarities. Try it some time, you may get a B.

Who in the hell praised Hitler?

What "Christian" regimes are there? Vatican City?

Any country that illegalizes abortion. Like Causicu's Romania. The place became so disease ridden and poor the kids had to give blow-jobs to stay alive. I'm sure that pervert Reagan enjoyed the pro-life philosphy :)

Any country that illegalizes abortion. Like Causicu's Romania. The place became so disease ridden and poor the kids had to give blow-jobs to stay alive. I'm sure that pervert Reagan enjoyed the pro-life philosphy :)


Hmmm...I think Chauchescu's anti-abortion stance was based on some silly notion that a high population would increase the economic power of the country. I don't believe it had anything to do with Christian morality.

If you made the previous statement tongue-in-cheek, I apologize for letting it go straight over my head.

:eek:

All states make policy, whether foreign or domestic based on what they believe are the "enlightend self-interests" of that state. Sometimes, it may make sense to the leaders of a state to support a regime that does not match the ideals that the state was created to serve. If you disagree, then vote them out of office.

In my opinion, the US was wrong to establish and support dictatorships under the false belief that they would be stable enough to withstand USSR (Note that I'm not using the word Communist) influence. Even so, now they've become completely obsolete. We MUST take action to completely eradicate these monstrosities we've created.

If I'm moderate than we got problems.

Then it looks like we got problems.


The spectrum, IMHO, is flawed. The more you get to the end, the more they meet. I see it more as a circle rather than a flat line because at the very ends, fascism and communism act in much the same way.

If you believe that then you might as well not even believe in such concepts as of "left" and "right," let alone describe yourself as "far-right." This is why so many people use the economic system instead, it's the only one that makes any sense. So tell me, where on this "circle" do Adam Smith and Milton Friedman meet the likes of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler?

Yes I do give legitimacy to Marxism. It is a legitimiate system, albeit a naive utopian one, but certainly nothing to ignore. To ignore Marxism is to essentially ignore an entire school of thought in political science. As a Political Science major I cannot ignore it. And frankly, Marxism would be a good system, you know if Humans weren't evil, vile, greedy, lustful creatures. This is why I like capitalism so much, it makes use of these traits.

In practice Communism has never been true Marxism. But like I said earlier, how can you completely ignore an entire political school of thought? It doesn't work.

At last, you reveal yourself.

This is why so many people use the economic system instead, it's the only one that makes any sense.

I wish more people would use the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/). It makes oh so much more sense. I'm lower left.

So tell me, where on this "circle" do Adam Smith and Milton Friedman meet the likes of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler?

Holy smokes...we do have problems!

Where do economists, utopian philosophers, and madmen meet?

Leftists have praised lots of dictators: Fidel Castro, every USSR leader (although not Stalin, anymore), Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, Josip Tito, Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, Ahmed Ben Bella, etc.
What you mean with leftist? I'm one, but I've never praised any of the leaders you mentioned, quite the opposite. And they are not leftist leaders, they are/were dictators (except Yeltsin, Putin was fairly elected, he has gained his unusual power for a president afterwards).

Republicans have supported a lot of socialist dictators: Ngo Dinh Diem, the USSR, Mugabe, Castro (we brought him to power), etc.
Holy shit! Some news you got there! Republicans have supported the USSR! Please tell me more.

Yes I do give legitimacy to Marxism. It is a legitimiate system, albeit a naive utopian one, but certainly nothing to ignore. To ignore Marxism is to essentially ignore an entire school of thought in political science.

National Socialism is an entire school of thought unto itself, and very similar to Marxism. Feudalism, which also is essentially the sort of system that Marxist regimes exercise in practice, is centuries old. Ought they also to be given a "legitimacy" as progressive social systems?

That's not even taking into account that Marxism and it's derivatives, have caused more human death and grief in the 20th century than any other historical event, man-made or otherwise. The death toll outdistanced that of the Golden Horde's tally by at least 2-1, and of bubonic plague by over 3-1.

If one is interested in reducing human populations, I can think of no method more efficient than Marxism.

You are so god damn stupid it's not funny.

I do not consider my opposition to the worst documented sociopaths in the world a matter of either ignorance or stupidity. I do expect said sociopaths to be upset about it, however. That is after all the point. The more upset the better. :D

Bush - "I think Putin is doing a great job in Russia."
you know putin right? the guy jailing all opposition in his "demcoratically" elected regime

Penochet? US funded. Bin Laden? US trained. Saddam? backed by US.

1. It's Pinochet.
2. Isn't hindsight always 20/20? Check your history, USSR invades Afghanistan, the US helps train resistance fighters, so you're saying the US should have done nothing? Then we hear for the next 20+ years how the US stood back and did nothing to stop communist aggression in Afghanistan. Damned if you do, DAMNED if you don't
3. Explain how Saddam was backed by the US, when General Al-Bakr(backed by the Syrian Baathist party) led a coup to gain control of Iraq.

Ah, gravedigging - don't ya just love it?

We've all got our dark sides. We've all made mistakes.

The US has supported dictators, but the vast bulk were during the cold war.

We still do support some, like the Saudis and Uzbeks, but we are pushing them towards more freedom in their countries.

France and Germany supported Saddam Hussein and he was a dictator. Many communists carry around Mao's little red book still, even though he is responsible for upwards of 20 million deaths.

I'm saying it doesn't really matter. Freedom is an internal thing, you can push other countries to it, but in the end the only place where you have any power over freedom is inside your own borders, and the US is prettygood at that. Despite rampant babbling about Gay marriage and such, the main issues inside the US involving libety are fringe issues.

You are so god damn stupid it's not funny. We have praised Tito openly, but all of the others are total sickos.
But all of you repbulicans have praised Hitler and every "christian" regime around.
How about this...

HITLER IS A FUCKING MORON. HE KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. HE WAS EVIL. IT'S GOOD THAT HE'S DEAD.

There, your statement is made null and void. I am a Republican, and I haven't praised Hitler, in fact I just went on a caps lock tangent about how he sucks. As such your use of the word all is null and void.

what i find interesting is that when the US puts a rightful leader back in power (like in iran), everyone freaks out at how evil the US is. but then when the US takes a horrible dictator out of power, everyone freaks out again. and then if the US does nothing, everyone freaks out because the US is the worlds most powerful nation, and they arent doing anything. so what i'm seeing is that no matter what the US does, people hate it.

what i find interesting is that when the US puts a rightful leader back in power (like in iran), everyone freaks out at how evil the US is. but then when the US takes a horrible dictator out of power, everyone freaks out again. and then if the US does nothing, everyone freaks out because the US is the worlds most powerful nation, and they arent doing anything. so what i'm seeing is that no matter what the US does, people hate it.

Life must suck

Given the fact that the US supports dictatorships in places like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, does it really make sense to call the US pro-freedom?
Depending on what you view as freedom. With the US occupying a country US businesses are free to do whatever they want.

Leftists have praised lots of dictators: Fidel Castro, every USSR leader (although not Stalin, anymore), Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, Josip Tito, Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, Ahmed Ben Bella, etc.

Are you just pulling this stuff out of your butt? I don't know how many actual American leftists you know, but speaking as one who is fairly involved, I don't know any liberals who support dictatorships.

Also, I don't know your definition of dictator, but Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas brought democracy to Nicaragua. In 1984 they held Nicaragua's first elections of the 20th century, winning 63% of the vote. In spite of a concerted U.S. campaign to overthrow the Sandinista government he also held elections in 1990, and when he lost to Violeta Chammora, stepped down.

Sounds like democracy to me.

Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, and Ahmed Ben Bella all led their African nations out of colonialism. When Nkrumah and Toure showed themselves to be antithetical to democratic principles they were condemned. Bella only was president of Algeria for 2 years before being overthrown and jailed by a military government.

Boris Yeltsin? Liberals and conservatives praised him at the beginning of his tenure of leadership and condemned him at the end.

By the way it is George W. Bush who has given $300 million to Mugabe's Zimbabwe in the past two years and who looked into the soul of Russia's Putin and called him "straight-forward and trustworthy."

I believe there's a quote from some interview (1996) with the BBC or some British organization where he said he would never, and has never, accepted aid from "America and its Zionist Allies" or something to that effect.
Oh sure. Him you believe?

Depending on what you view as freedom. With the US occupying a country US businesses are free to do whatever they want.
Freedom for US corporate interests over freedom for the citizens of said countries? Way to go :rolleyes:

Given that the UN supports genocide in the Sudan, dictators in Syria, North Korea, The vatican city and China, could you call the UN an apeasing apologist for human torture and murder?

I really dont think you need to worry about the Vatican. It takes up about one city block. But the rest are really good examples.

Freedom for US corporate interests over freedom for the citizens of said countries? Way to go :rolleyes:
It's the American way.

Well. Pretty much we've always supported dictators.

Mostly of them are or were CIA assests. It's all about the politics. Not only that most of it was from the righties being in charge.

It's the American way.*coughs, sputters, and dies*

No... it's the American corporate interests' way. Not all of us like it or support it.

Well. Pretty much we've always supported dictators.

Mostly of them are or were CIA assests. It's all about the politics. Not only that most of it was from the righties being in charge.


Seriously ? have you looked at number of right wing presidents vs left wing? And how many dictators were supported by what administrators

Or are you just spouting anecdotal evidence to make yourself seem less intelligent?

Claims require evidence which you don’t have

Way to be partisen

It's the American way.


Compared to the French way? Rearming a mass murderer, involved in a $21 billion dollar oil-for-food scam(same mass murderer), Rwandan genocide(1994), exacerbating the civil war in Cote d'Ivoire.