NationStates Jolt Archive

They say nothing in history has caused more misery than Russian and Chinese communism (if you can call it communism). But the horrors committed in the name of anti-communism are far worse. I shall name a few famous anti-communists.
Omsar bin Lardin
Saddam Hussian
Adolf Hitler
Franco (dictator of Spain)
Richard Nixon
Together these insane despots have killed around, 50,000,000 communists and trade unionists, none of these would have had anything to do with the purges, the cultural revolution, or the occupation of Tibet, all those Stalinist bastards got off thank to peaceful coexistence.
Saddam gassed the Kurds because Kurdistan is where the Iraqi communist party is based. Hitler gassed the Jews because he thought they created communism to distory Germany. The C.I.A created Al-quida to combat, guess what, COMMUNISM!
Another point, did you the U.S funded Mao and Stalin? You know how many communists they killed?
Final point: The word communism originally refereed to a simplified life-style carried out by Christian communes in the fourteenth century. Marx wanted a RETURN to communism. I don't have any problem Christianity or Islam, sadly capitalism and factionalism has corrupted both great faiths. Jesus walked into a brothel and was forgiving,
Jesus walked into a roman palace and was mild, Jesus walked walked into a currency exchange and was enraged.

They say nothing in history has cased more misery than Russian and Chinese communism (if you can call it communism). But the horrors committed in the name of anti-communism are far worse. I shall name a few famous anti-communists.
Omsar bin Lardin
Saddam Hussian
Adolf Hitler
Franco (dictator of Spain)
Richard Nixon
Together these insane despots have killed around, 50,000,000 communists and trade unionists, none of these would have had anything to do with the purges, the cultural revolution, or the occupation of Tibet, all those Stalinist bastards got off thank to peaceful coexistence.
Saddam gassed the Kurds because Kurdistan is where the Iraqi communist party is based. Hitler gassed the Jews because he thought they created communism to distory Germany. The C.I.A created Al-quida to combat, guess what, COMMUNISM!
Another point, did you the U.S funded Mao and Stalin? You know how many communists they killed?
Final point: The word communism originally refereed to a simplified life-style carried out by Christian communes in the fourteenth century. Marx wanted a RETURN to communism. I don't have any problem Christianity or Islam, sadly capitalism and factionalism has corrupted both great faiths.

Oh boy, this is going to be fun. I can't wait to see what the right has to say.

Why didn't you mention all the Latin American dictatorships who 'purged' themselves of unsavory communist types?

The C.I.A created Al-quida to combat, guess what, COMMUNISM!

You sure about that?

Why didn't you mention all the Latin American dictatorships who 'purged' themselves of unsavory communist types?
Because he’s uneducated on the subject.

Uncompromising ideologies cause the loss of human life, period.

You sure about that?

It was founded with CIA funding from the period of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And he also forgot to mention how many strikers have been killed in the US by private police and the National Guard for trying to get a fairer deal.

Because he’s uneducated on the subject.

Uncompromising ideologies cause the loss of human life, period.
Agreed.

It's a flavour of the month (or decade) kind of thing. Communism here, Muslims there, but behind it all is the absolute dedication to your own ideology justifying the deaths of anyone and everyone who opposes you.

It was founded with CIA funding from the period of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Which is a very different thing to what the OP stated: certainly the US funded and trained the Mujahadeen, but claiming that they purposefully created AQ as an anti-communist entity is missing the point entirely.

Agreed.

It's a flavour of the month (or decade) kind of thing. Communism here, Muslims there, but behind it all is the absolute dedication to your own ideology justifying the deaths of anyone and everyone who opposes you.

Most of us are not uncomprimising. Some are lunatics, but most of us communists/socialists are rather consistent.

Oooh ooh...you could also stretch those numbers by categorising the deaths during attempted thefts and robberies as 'communist deaths'...like that? The commie was exercising his beliefs against private property...

Which is a very different thing to what the OP stated: certainly the US funded and trained the Mujahadeen, but claiming that they purposefully created AQ as an anti-communist entity is missing the point entirely.

Kind of like the intelligence that led us into the Iraq War. Bad conclusions drawn up from out of date evidence.

The OP forgets that Stalinism was anti-communist. :D

The OP forgets that Stalinism was anti-communist. :D

Stalin was anti anti-Stalin.

You're a bunch of arseholes with no respect for human life.

That;'s the basic argument of juat about any ideaology against it's opponents.

Can we give it up now?

(no, no we won;t but hey)

Richard Nixon

Exactly (to within a half million or so) Communists are you claiming Nixon is responsible for offing? If anything he can be looked on as one of the US Presidents who was 'soft' on communism.

This wins the retarded thread of the day award.

Most of us are not uncomprimising. Some are lunatics, but most of us communists/socialists are rather consistent.
One can be consistent and still be uncompromising. The two aren’t mutually exclusive at all.
The OP forgets that Stalinism was anti-communist. :D
Zing!

It was founded with CIA funding from the period of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And he also forgot to mention how many strikers have been killed in the US by private police and the National Guard for trying to get a fairer deal.

Back in the days of the West Virginia coal mine strikes and the railroad barons?

Can you name a 21st century US example of strikers killed by police or national guard?

Or do you have to go back to the late 19th and early 20th century for your examples?

This wins the retarded thread of the day award.

I think it should also get a special medal for Needless Stalinist Apologia.

And he also forgot to mention how many strikers have been killed in the US by private police and the National Guard for trying to get a fairer deal.
What does that have to do with communism?

I think it should also get a special medal for Needless Stalinist Apologia.

Hey, at least the dams got built under Stalin!

What does that have to do with communism?

Ever heard of the IWW? They were responsible for many of the biggest strikes around the turn of the century. They are syndicalist socialists, and were trying to build a large radical labor movement to end capitalism. They weren't too far from succeeding.

Hey, at least the dams got built under Stalin!

Quite possibly out of the bodies of the workers.

Quite possibly out of the bodies of the workers.

But the dam looked so pretty in the New York Times article of the day...

Quite possibly out of the bodies of the workers.


Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "body of work".

Ever heard of the IWW? They were responsible for many of the biggest strikes around the turn of the century. They are syndicalist socialists, and were trying to build a large radical labor movement to end capitalism. They weren't too far from succeeding.
Maybe the leadership had that vision.
But most of the workers just wanted a decent life. Doubt they really cared about Communism or Capitalism

Yes, Christ was outraged at the moneychangers but not because they were capitalists. He was enraged that profits were being made inside the walls of a temple. On that religious note, how many religious people/figures were and are persecuted under communist controlled governments. Destruction of "unauthorized" housechurches in the PRC, etc. Oh, and communism has this necessary hatred of religion. Refer back to Marx's critique of Hegel: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

Now that we've considered the oppression, killing, and disenfranchising of the religious under communism, shall we move on to isolated communist incidents like the Gulags (read any Solzhenitsyn lately? Perhaps 20 million were killed alone by Stalin), the invasion of Tibet, the drugging of Chinese soldiers before aiding North Korea in the conflict,and other assorted deaths and incidents caused by people fleeing from Communist regimes?

You sure about that?

Yes, it's true.

see Russian-Afghanistan War

Yes, it's true.

see Russian-Afghanistan War

No, it's not. See Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, et al. involvement in the Soviet-Afghani War.

"Anticommunists" are not one homogeneous (sp?) group. There are fascist anticommunists, Hitlerite anticommunists, libertarian anticommunists, centrist anticommunists, conservative anticommunists, anticommunist socialists...are we seeing a pattern here?

The anticommunists who were mass murderers would have been mass murderers even if they hadn't been anticommunists. Equating genocide and terrorism with "anticommunism" is too stupid to entertain even for a second.

Moreover, many "anticommunists," like Hitler, were anticommunist in name only. Hitler, for example, conveniently labeled all his opponents as "communists" and exploited peoples' fear of communism for his own sinister purposes.

Communism is a worthless ideology that seeks to supress or change human nature. It's doomed to failure because it attempts to turn humans into ants or bees who live and die for the colony. The results of trying to apply communism to humans have always been opression, inefficiency, shortages, and lack of technological development. I encourage all of my nation's enemies to turn to communism. It will be easier to defeat them that way.

If you'd politely recall, Mr. Hussein was a Soviet client, who adhered to a doctrine known as Ba'athism, a form of militant socialist Arab nationalism, not exactly a capitalist by any stretch of the imagination.

Furthermore, if Adolph Hitler was anti-communist, he was equally anti-capitalist, as he made war on capitalist or quasi-capitalist states well before he made war on communist states.

If you'd politely recall, Mr. Hussein was a Soviet client, who adhered to a doctrine known as Ba'athism, a form of militant socialist Arab nationalism, not exactly a capitalist by any stretch of the imagination.

Saddam was primarily a US ally, and was set up as dictator by US foreign policy types. Ba'athism has nothing to do with socialism, just like Bolshevism has nothing to do with socialism.

Let's not forget that much of the propaganda machine Hitler used was made possible by the centralization of powers. This was something Hitler did not start all by himself.

Saddam was primarily a US ally, and was set up as dictator by US foreign policy types. Ba'athism has nothing to do with socialism, just like Bolshevism has nothing to do with socialism.

Uh, huh, yeah.

Mr. Hussein received support during the Iran-Iraq war, yes, as did Iran. This was not as a part of the campaign against communism, though. This was the United States hoping that the governments of Iran and Iraq would destroy each other, because they were both viewed as incredibly undesirable forces to have in the region. Beyond that, the other major Ba'athist state in the region, Syria, is widely regarded as a Soviet stooge in the middle east. Anyways, the vast majority of the aid Mr. Hussein received came from the USSR. Mr. Hussein was decidedly not a US ally ever, and did not receive support from the US until after the Shah was toppled in Iran.

Furthermore, Ba'athism is a socialist ideology, much as Bolshevism is. That it is not identical to the form socialism that you believe in is inconsequential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party

Saddam was primarily a US ally, and was set up as dictator by US foreign policy types. Ba'athism has nothing to do with socialism, just like Bolshevism has nothing to do with socialism.

No. The bulk of the foreign aid that Saddam received was from the Soviet Union.

Saddam was primarily a US ally, and was set up as dictator by US foreign policy types. Ba'athism has nothing to do with socialism, just like Bolshevism has nothing to do with socialism.

So all those T series tanks, AK-47's and Mig's were bought from the US?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/western_support.stm

No, they're both bad. Damn good at economic development, but murderous monsters when it comes to anything else.

Indeed, we were not Saddam's main ally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990) Far, far from it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Military_Armaments.2FTechnology_2)

OP: Illiterate, rambling, senseless.

Jesus walked walked into a currency exchange and was enraged.

He was enraged because they had turned the temple into a marketplace. Its like a group of Muslims getting angry that the Al Qu-Bah would be turned into a shopping centre.

So all those T series tanks, AK-47's and Mig's were bought from the US?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/western_support.stm

Some with US money, others from South Africa. A country's puppet status doesn't depend on the equipment it uses. Saddam was a mutual puppet. He may not have been a pawn against "communism", but he was most certainly a friend of the foreign policy establishment.

Furthermore, Ba'athism is a socialist ideology, much as Bolshevism is. That it is not identical to the form socialism that you believe in is inconsequential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party

Like Nazism, just because it professes to be "socialist" doesn't mean it acutally is. It uses socialism as part of its policy underpinnings, but then again so does American liberalism and social democracy. Those are not socialist. Ba'athism is more like classic Italian Fascism then anything else, an Authoritarian centrist philosophy.

Some with US money, others from South Africa. A country's puppet status doesn't depend on the equipment it uses. Saddam was a mutual puppet. He may not have been a pawn against "communism", but he was most certainly a friend of the foreign policy establishment.

He was a friend to both sides because he was a secular dictator in a region fuming with anti-US and anti-Soviet sentiment.

Like Nazism, just because it professes to be "socialist" doesn't mean it acutally is. It uses socialism as part of its policy underpinnings, but then again so does American liberalism and social democracy. Those are not socialist. Ba'athism is more like classic Italian Fascism then anything else, an Authoritarian centrist philosophy.

Ba'athists are not your chosen variety of socialist, but they are a variety of socialist. You embrace an extremely strict definition of socialist, but a very broad definition of "the right".

Some with US money, others from South Africa. A country's puppet status doesn't depend on the equipment it uses. Saddam was a mutual puppet. He may not have been a pawn against "communism", but he was most certainly a friend of the foreign policy establishment.

A country's puppet status does heavily depend upon who funds them though, and it's pretty clear that the Soviets were Mr. Hussein's patrons, and the US played an extremely tiny role in his actions. Iraq was viewed as a potential threat to Israel, and US support for Mr. Hussein was intentionally limited because of this fact. Leftists were his primary supporters, and the vast bulk of his equipment and resources came from other folks.

Ba'athists are not your chosen variety of socialist, but they are a variety of socialist. You embrace an extremely strict definition of socialist, but a very broad definition of "the right".

I never said they were right wing. I said explicitly that they are like classical Fascists--authoritarian centrists using the underpinnings of both socialism and capitalism to justify their rule.