NationStates Jolt Archive

This is in response to the 'US support of dictatorships' thread. I acknowledge of course that the US has supported (and still supports) plenty of dictators, but I noticed that everyone who condemns the US because of it always looks the other way or finds an excuse whenever someone mentions that the USSR did the same. Here's a list of the many terrorists and dictatorships the USSR supported:

1.Red China
2.North Korea
3.North Vietnam
4.Laos
5.Cambodia
6.Indonesia (under Sukarno; Suharto was a lot worse, but that doesn't change the fact that Sukarno was a dictator, too)
7.Cuba
8.Nicaragua
9.Angola
10.Algeria
11.Mozambique
12.Zimbabwe
13.South Africa
14.The PLO
15.And many, many more

Well, the US topic was by Letila, who being an anarchist probably has just as little respect for the USSR.

Well, the US topic was by Letila, who being an anarchist probably has just as little respect for the USSR.

True, but whenever someone insults the USSR, he always tries to change the subject as quickly as possible, or makes some feeble excuse. No offense to Letila, he's a great guy and smart as hell, but I don't see why he always slams the US for supporting dictators and never slams the USSR for the same thing.

True, but whenever someone insults the USSR, he always tries to change the subject as quickly as possible, or makes some feeble excuse. No offense to Letila, he's a great guy and smart as hell, but I don't see why he always slams the US for supporting dictators and never slams the USSR for the same thing.

Probably because the USSR no longer exists, and because the US is his home country.

Probably because the USSR no longer exists, and because the US is his home country.

Still, it reeks of hypocrisy.

...and because the USSR was a dictatorship. The US is a "free"* country that shouldn't be supporting dictators. No one gives a crap about a dictator helping a dictator.

*Note: The current US president might be considered a dictator by some accounts. This is not my personal oppinion however, if though I agree he must go.

This is in response to the 'US support of dictatorships' thread. I acknowledge of course that the US has supported (and still supports) plenty of dictators, but I noticed that everyone who condemns the US because of it always looks the other way or finds an excuse whenever someone mentions that the USSR did the same. Here's a list of the many terrorists and dictatorships the USSR supported:

1.Red China
2.North Korea
3.North Vietnam
4.Laos
5.Cambodia
6.Indonesia (under Sukarno; Suharto was a lot worse, but that doesn't change the fact that Sukarno was a dictator, too)
7.Cuba
8.Nicaragua
9.Angola
10.Algeria
11.Mozambique
12.Zimbabwe
13.South Africa
14.The PLO
15.And many, many more

South Africa is an interesting one, because it seems like everybody was happy enough to watch South Africa go along with apartheid.

It's also interesting to note how many of those countries were fighting the US, or supporting battles against the US.

...and because the USSR was a dictatorship. The US is a "free"* country that shouldn't be supporting dictators. No one gives a crap about a dictator helping a dictator.

Eh, good point. :headbang:

South Africa is an interesting one, because it seems like everybody was happy enough to watch South Africa go along with apartheid.

I hate apartheid as much as the next guy, but Mandela's atrocities were unforgivable.

True, but whenever someone insults the USSR, he always tries to change the subject as quickly as possible, or makes some feeble excuse. No offense to Letila, he's a great guy and smart as hell, but I don't see why he always slams the US for supporting dictators and never slams the USSR for the same thing.

The atrocities of the USSR are well-known and I saw no reason to say what we already knew. The US, however, has cultivated a much better imagine that I felt needed to be addressed.

The atrocities of the USSR are well-known and I saw no reason to say what we already knew. The US, however, has cultivated a much better imagine that I felt needed to be addressed.

Eh, good point.

USSR and US both supported dictators right and left, how hard is it to grasp :rolleyes:

The United States support dictatorships only when it is in the best interest of the United States to do so. THAT is hypocrisy. Training afghani insurgents in the eighties (including OSAMA) to fight of Soviet troops, funding Chiang Kai-Shek, funding Batista...
I don't condone what the USSR did at all either. In fact, the USSR was detrimental to socialism for the very reason that it feigned socialism and in actuality was stalinist. True socialism doesn't involve a dictator.

As someone said before, it's not altogether surprising when the Soviets (who did not think in terms of balance of power, a state of equilibrium, but rather in terms of the correlation of forces becoming favourable enough that the Soviet-style "communist" bloc was assured of victory) were happy to support anybody who would work against the West, just like we were happy to support anyone who'd work against the East. The great game.

At least the Soviets weren't hypocrits. They didn't pretend to love freedom. So what they did isn't justifiable by any means. But what we have done is less justifiable. Becuase we continue to live under the banner of "freedom and democracy."

America needs to worry about America for a while. Why are we always answering the proverbial "global 911"?

No government can give you freedom. The US government's supporting of its agenda is strikingly similar to the USSR's agenda of spreading communism and socialism throughout the world. The fact that the US is "spreading democracy" is no different then the Soviet Union spreading communism. They are not hypocrits, they just believe what they are forcing on other countries is better for the US and the countries. It is also INCREDIBLY similar to our operations in Iraq.

Not like I'm defending past actions in south america, or the similar direction were are taking in the middle east. This stuff sucks and we are in for 4 to 8 or more years of misery regardless of who is in office.

ALSO, while Russia was never purely socialist. Nothing can ever be pure socialist, (Lenin tried something far closer to that in the 1910's and the Soviet Union almost fell apart) because the central postulates forming the basis of a socialist situation such as the labor theory of value are not correct and the direct results of following such a suggestion ultimately lead to misery.

Socialism can exist in diluted forms(we have many of them in the US) but they are ultimately unstable formulations that will eventually change or fall apart completely.