NationStates Jolt Archive

Most people should know who Mossadegh is, and if not, they have no right to have an opinion on Iran. At all. For the unenlightened among you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

Summary: Democratically elected leader of Iran in 1950s, tried to end British exploitation of Iran's oil, was overthrown in an American Coup reinstating the Shah. This is the cause for much of the anti-american sentiment in Iran (that which exists, which is less than you think). Later, a revolution against the Shah caused Khomeini to rise to power. Another example of Americas foreign policy coming back to bite it in the ass. Here's to the greatest Iranian leader since...well, he was just the best.

K. :)

Most people should know who Mossadegh is, and if not, they have no right to have an opinion on Iran. At all. For the unenlightened among you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

Summary: Democratically elected leader of Iran in 1950s, tried to end British exploitation of Iran's oil, was overthrown in an American Coup reinstating the Shah. This is the cause for much of the anti-american sentiment in Iran (that which exists, which is less than you think). Later, a revolution against the Shah caused Khomeini to rise to power. Another example of Americas foreign policy coming back to bite it in the ass. Here's to the greatest Iranian leader since...well, he was just the best.

The British are just as responsible for that mess as we are.

This is a good thread, it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the anti-Iran islamophobes that lurk these forums.

The British are just as responsible for that mess as we are.

Well, the British convinced you to do it, but America actually carried out the deed.

Well, the British convinced you to do it, but America actually carried out the deed.

Even if that were the case, you're talking about the Eisenhower Administration, give or take a year. A bit of perspective might not hurt. ;)

I resent the implication that I have no right to my ill-informed opinion. In protest, I refuse to read your link or make anything like an attempt to learn more of Iran's past. Neener neener neener!

Well, the British convinced you to do it, but America actually carried out the deed.

Yes... therefore we have shared responsibility.

Yes... therefore we have shared responsibility.

I concede this point. Plus, the British were the ones who destroyed Irans economy.

I've learned about the person, but I keep forgetting the name. And I'm sure I'll forget the name again. I am quite hopeless in this regard. :P

This is a good thread, it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the anti-Iran islamophobes that lurk these forums.

Yes, because we all know that opposing the Iranian government = Islamophobia


Go troll elsewhere.

Yes, because we all know that opposing the Iranian government = Islamophobia


Actually, that's pretty true, people on these forums who oppose Iran basically only justify themselves by saying 'barbaric moslems' and them being banned for being a puppet account.

Actually, that's pretty true, people on these forums who oppose Iran basically only justify themselves by saying 'barbaric moslems' and them being banned for being a puppet account.

The morons who (mis)rule Iran are barbaric, but not because of their religion. They'd be barbarians whether they were Muslim, Jewish, Christian, atheist, or whatever.

The morons who (mis)rule Iran are barbaric, but not because of their religion. They'd be barbarians whether they were Muslim, Jewish, Christian, atheist, or whatever.

Exactly. Iran's not one homogenous group. I have little doubt that there's a great many good progressive people there.

I have nothing against the Iranian people. I just don't trust their leaders, Ahmadinejad in particular.

And I am sure they don't trust yours either.

That's their perogative.

I have nothing against the Iranian people. I just don't trust their leaders, Ahmadinejad in particular.

And I am sure they don't trust yours either.

I don't trust anyone who makes porn punishable by death.

I don't trust anyone who makes porn punishable by death.

I don't trust anyone who has 2,193,798 people in their jails.

So... what? We were supposed to trust Muslims with oil? They'd probably have sold it to the Communists or something.

Lucky for the Iranians Ike only did some covert behind the scenes stuff to stop communism. If MacAurthur was president we would have nuked them. Not to mention They wouldn't have even known there was oil in their country unless the western companies found it. The brits should have never left Iran after ww2.
If you went and spent a lot of money to set up oil drills and some commie came and took all your equipment and all the potential profits from the work you did, wouldn't you overthrow him?

Lucky for the Iranians Ike only did some covert behind the scenes stuff to stop communism. If MacAurthur was president we would have nuked them. Not to mention They wouldn't have even known there was oil in their country unless the western companies found it. The brits should have never left Iran after ww2.
If you went and spent a lot of money to set up oil drills and some commie came and took all your equipment and all the potential profits from the work you did, wouldn't you overthrow him?

Go away MTAE, your ip stinks.

Being oppressed by a western power gives you the right to fight them until oppression is over. once you are alone AND insane then you are INSANE
Iran is religious, fanatical and if that isnt enough their leader is openly and bluntly calling for the destruction of another sovereign country.
That is enough for me, hating the USA is not an excuse anymore

Lucky for the Iranians Ike only did some covert behind the scenes stuff to stop communism. If MacAurthur was president we would have nuked them.
So, you saying that the Iranians should be grateful for the UK/USA only overthrowing their government?

Not to mention They wouldn't have even known there was oil in their country unless the western companies found it. The brits should have never left Iran after ww2.
One, we couldn't. We were broke. Two, like every other colony, it would have become independent in the sixties. Three, the Soviets would not have withdrawn from Iran had Britain not done so.

If you went and spent a lot of money to set up oil drills and some commie came and took all your equipment and all the potential profits from the work you did, wouldn't you overthrow him?
No, because look what the hell happens as a result.

hindsight is a nice thing but you don't have it when you are actually making decisions like that

hindsight is a nice thing but you don't have it when you are actually making decisions like that

Maybe not, but you could at the least expect rationality.

Interesting - very interesting, it seems that everyone has bought into Moore's arguments about Mossadegh being an innocent victim of some American and British plot. If the plot had failed, we would of course not be discussing this thread, because the Commies would have probably won the Cold War and debate and discussion like this would be punishable by twenty years in a Gulag.

Why am I making such a claim? This entire episode has its foundations in a desire that the Russians have had for three-hundred years; the desire for access to a freely accessible warm water port. Why do you think the Russians invaded Afghanistan? Because they wanted to eventually take over Baluchistan and get access to freely accessible warm water ports. The takeover of warm water ports would have enabled the Soviet Navy to grow in power; not heemed in by ice in Vladivostok, Leningrad and the Turks in the Black Sea, they would have free access - increasing the threat of the Soviet Navy and thus the Soviet Armed forces. The Iranians have warm water ports.

Mossadegh was no innocent leader; if he was not himself a Communist, he was certainly very dangerously associated with Communists. The Tudeh Party, one of Mossadegh's key allies, were certainly Communist. Mossadegh not only took over the assets of Anglo-Iranian, but the farms of Iran as well - collectivisation in simple terms, a policy that was followed by Communist Russia and Communist China. His policies were certainly not helping the Iranian economy and in all likelihood, inflation would have skyrocketed and the economy in general slumped - a perfect vacuum for the Soviet Union to step in.

Bear in mind as well that 1953 was the year that Stalin died; it was during the decade of the Red Scare; Communism was something that was causing many a sleepless night in Washington - the possibility that Iran would fall into the Communist sphere and present with it the opportunity that warm water ports get taken over were certainly not bearable to the Eisenhower and Churchill administrations in the United States and Great Britain respectively. I don't think the coup would have taken place had Mossadegh not been so closely associated with Communists.

Of course there are other things to consider, and perhaps a read of this would be good

http://web.archive.org/web/20050310032150/http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/montage.htm - this is the archived form of what was formerly in the Bowling for Truth website.

hindsight is a nice thing but you don't have it when you are actually making decisions like that
So, you expect that when a popular government is removed by an outside aggressor force, there will be no consequences?

This is a good thread, it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the anti-Iran islamophobes that lurk these forums.

Your hypocrisy gets funnier every day. :p

You troll threads on Israel complaining that "all opposition to Israel is smeared as 'anti-Semitism'", and then you accuse everyone who criticises Iran of being 'Islamophobic'!

Has it ever occured to you that it's possible to be opposed to Western coups and Imperialism while simultaneously opposing fucked up, misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic regimes like Iran?

So, you expect that when a popular government is removed by an outside aggressor force, there will be no consequences?

Apparently not.

Interesting - very interesting, it seems that everyone has bought into Moore's arguments about Mossadegh being an innocent victim of some American and British plot. .

Its got nothing to do with Moore.


Why am I making such a claim?.

To let the Brits and Yanks off the hook?




Mossadegh was no innocent leader; if he was not himself a Communist, he was certainly very dangerously associated with Communists.

It was motivated primarily by the Brits, for oil.

I don't think the coup would have taken place had Mossadegh not been so closely associated with Communists.

It would have been harder to sell. You'll note that the US, France and Britain, having saved the world from a communist Iran, quickly saved the "free Iran" from the bulk of its oil money for a 25 year period.

Even if that were the case, you're talking about the Eisenhower Administration, give or take a year. A bit of perspective might not hurt. ;)

Nope, I don't accept the "a lot of time as gone by so it no longer matters" and its like. The U.S. often kicks over the hornets nest and then throws up its hands in alarm at what results after the swarm settles. We overthrew a democratic leader in Iran for heh, oil, and now are urging that Iran take hold of democracy now. If that isn't hypocrisy what is?

It was motivated primarily by the Brits, for oil.
Hardly our finest hour, that's for sure.

Even if that were the case, you're talking about the Eisenhower Administration, give or take a year. A bit of perspective might not hurt. ;)

What do you mean perspective? We're not talking about antiquity here. The current Ayatollah was 14 when the coup happened. Hell, my own grandfather graduated from high school that year. 1953 really wasn't that long ago in the great scheme of things.

This is a good thread, it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the anti-Iran islamophobes that lurk these forums.

1) It doesn't take an islamophobe to hate the Iranian government.

2) What hypocrisy? The folks who put the shah in control of Iran aren't posting on Nationstates. Nobody here backed the shah and is now complaining that Iran isn't a free and open society.

Even if one doesn't fundamentally agree with the policies of Mosadegh, the meddlesome politics of the UK and the US paved the road for the existing anti-western sentiments that dominate the Islamic republic today. They reap what they have sown.

1) It doesn't take an islamophobe to hate the Iranian government.

Quoted For Truth.

In fact I'll go further: it takes a misogynist NOT to hate the Iranian government.

Atefah_Sahaaleh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atefah_Sahaaleh)

Most people should know who Mossadegh is, and if not, they have no right to have an opinion on Iran. At all. For the unenlightened among you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

Summary: Democratically elected leader of Iran in 1950s, tried to end British exploitation of Iran's oil, was overthrown in an American Coup reinstating the Shah. This is the cause for much of the anti-american sentiment in Iran (that which exists, which is less than you think). Later, a revolution against the Shah caused Khomeini to rise to power. Another example of Americas foreign policy coming back to bite it in the ass. Here's to the greatest Iranian leader since...well, he was just the best.

Deposing Mossadegh was a good thing.

Mossadegh was pro-Soviet and there was no way we were going to allow a Soviet ally to arise in that part of the world. Like it or not. (And btw: the Soviets occupied East and West Azerbaijan during WWII and supported "autonomy movements" there. Who do you think got them to withdraw in 1946? Or did you think they just packed up and went home because they wanted a change in scenery?)

The reason Khomeini "rose to power" was that we had an incompetent peanut farmer in the White House instead of a real President, and because the treacherous French allowed that bastard to freely operate. If we'd supported the Shah instead of abandoning him, and encouraged the "disappearance" of the late unlamented ayatollah, things may well have turned out differently.

In any event, the so-called "Islamic Republic" must be destroyed, and the sooner the better.

So... what? We were supposed to trust Muslims with oil? They'd probably have sold it to the Communists or something.interesting.
I am now wondering about the Human rights Party membership standards. (in your sig)

If we'd supported the Shah instead of abandoning him, and encouraged the "disappearance" of the late unlamented ayatollah, things may well have turned out differently.

If you had your way there wouldn't be anyone left in Iran. The only reason the ayatollah came to power was because every other public figure had been 'disappeared'.

Deposing Mossadegh was a good thing. .

If you're in the way of approving of neo-colonialist adventures.



The reason Khomeini "rose to power" was that we had an incompetent peanut farmer in the White House instead of a real President, and because the treacherous French allowed that bastard to freely operate.

.

And of course he had no popular support, there were no others involved, and three decades of repressive policies had nothing to do with it.


If we'd supported the Shah instead of abandoning him, and encouraged the "disappearance" of the late unlamented ayatollah, things may well have turned out differently..

The death squad....the American believer in democracies bestest friend.

interesting.
I am now wondering about the Human rights Party membership standards. (in your sig)
Have your heard of sarcasm, Ocean?

Exactly. Iran's not one homogenous group. I have little doubt that there's a great many good progressive people there.

Unfortunately, they've been locked out of governance.

1) It doesn't take an islamophobe to hate the Iranian government.

2) What hypocrisy? The folks who put the shah in control of Iran aren't posting on Nationstates. Nobody here backed the shah and is now complaining that Iran isn't a free and open society.

Not to mention that the folks responsible for the installation of the Shah are pretty much all dead.

This is a good thread, it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the anti-Iran islamophobes that lurk these forums.

And I still wonder why the hell you've got such a thing for this third world despotisms. It's not like their the pinnacles of enlightened governanace...far from it. The Iranian government is known for its penchant of hanging homosexuals from construction cranes, stoning innapropriately dressed women and generally being pretty damn oppressive.

Why don't you pick a decent country to support...like Italy?

Why don't you pick a decent country to support...like Italy?
LOL..
when I was denouncing Bush when he was about to attack Iraq.. someone asked me to something like "Why dont you support a nicer Country like Italy"

was that you? .. or maybe other people find Italy to be a very nice.. defendable country.
.
.

Why don't you pick a decent country to support...like Italy?Is Italy likely to be preemptively bombed by a x50 more Powerful Army?

LOL..
when I was denouncing Bush when he was about to attack Iraq.. someone asked me to something like "Why dont you support a nicer Country like Italy"

I'd praise Albania but it seems that Bush's watch wasn't actually stolen there like I thought. :(

LOL..
when I was denouncing Bush when he was about to attack Iraq.. someone asked me to something like "Why dont you support a nicer Country like Italy"

was that you? .. or maybe other people find Italy to be a very nice.. defendable country.
.
.

Is Italy likely to be preemptively bombed by a x50 more Powerful Army?

Oppose the war, oppose violence, but don't sanctify the actions of the government. Don't try to make them seem like some sort of ideal state, which is what dear, dear AP seems to try to do so often.

Anyways, no one is going to be bombing Iran, Venezuela, Cuba or anyone else anytime soon. So why do AP and you constantly and unquestioningly support these pathetic third world despotisms?

And, no, it wasn't me.

Out of interest, is there any major (or any) problem in the world today that the British didn't have a finger/hand/arm in creating?

Out of interest, is there any major (or any) problem in the world today that the British didn't have a finger/hand/arm in creating?

Or any of the European powers in general...

I hate the Iranian government. Just to clear that up. And everyone posting in favor of the coup has been soundly trounced, but there is one point I would like to clear up. Mossadegh was not a communist. The Tudeh Party supported him because he was better than the Shah. He nationalized the oil industry because Britain was taking the oil at ridiculous rates, effectivley stealing it. Any speculation about him being "communist" or "Soviet" are simply untrue. Also, it was not Mossadeghs policies which ruined Irans economy, but Britains orchestrated campaign of economic destruction.

Out of interest, is there any major (or any) problem in the world today that the British didn't have a finger/hand/arm in creating?
No, although you'll have a hard time getting anyone from middle England to admit it.

Sure, the US is (unnecessarily) receiving its fair share of flak for the tough decisions it was forced to make decades ago. However, despite the unfavorable consequences of the coup we supported (the Iranians themselves were responsible for ousting Mossadegh; their ire with him paralleled our own, as he was propelling the country towards economic and social catastrophe), the choice we made was correct. Unchecked, Mossadegh would have allowed Iran to become another outpost of the USSR; in that case, our predicament today would have been even more dire. Perhaps the Cold War would still be ongoing if the USSR had complete access to Iran's vast petrol reserves and could effectively exercise complete control over it.

Incidentally, the notion that a country can hold a fifty-year-old grudge is preposterous; the anti-Western sentiment in Iran is fueled by Islamist propaganda, not by perceived historical iniquities.

Incidentally, the notion that a country can hold a fifty-year-old grudge is preposterous; the anti-Western sentiment in Iran is fueled by Islamist propaganda, not by perceived historical iniquities.

Nations and peoples can hold grudges a hell of a lot longer than 50 years. The Balkans should prove that easily enough.

Nations and peoples can hold grudges a hell of a lot longer than 50 years. The Balkans should prove that easily enough.

Yes, but only in the presence of propaganda. A large majority of Iranians alive today don't remember Mossadegh; thus, they can feel no attachment to him in and of themselves.

Yes, but only in the presence of propaganda. A large majority of Iranians alive today don't remember Mossadegh; thus, they can feel no attachment to him in and of themselves.

Grudges can easily turn into self sustaining things and we are not helping things by using dangerous foolish rhetoric regarding Iran and its so-called intentions. That can create enough of a toxic environment to lead to tensions between us. We could easily leave them alone and the problem could be taken care of for us given the majority of youth doesn't care for its government anymore than we do.

interesting.
I am now wondering about the Human rights Party membership standards. (in your sig)

I was maybe hoping people knew me well enough to know that I was being sarcastic?

Or any of the European powers in general...

I think we outdo the rest just about.

No, although you'll have a hard time getting anyone from middle England to admit it.

Excellent, so we're still number one at buggering up the world, the US has had me worried recently, but with Blair going into Iraq as well we've got those amateurs well covered.:p

We could easily leave them alone and the problem could be taken care of for us

We could have left Nazi Germany alone, too -- but we didn't. History has a tendency to repeat itself; a policy of appeasement is foolhardy when dealing with such obdurate, unyielding foes as Iran or the Third Reich. The problem may be placed on the back burner for several years, but it gradually heats up until it explodes in a fireball of death, destruction, and mayhem.

We could have left Nazi Germany alone, too -- but we didn't. History has a tendency to repeat itself; a policy of appeasement is foolhardy when dealing with such obdurate, unyielding foes as Iran or the Third Reich. The problem may be placed on the back burner for several years, but it gradually heats up until it explodes in a fireball of death, destruction, and mayhem.

I never care for comparisons with Nazi Germany, it rarely works and I never suggested appeasement, should we get real proof of their building nukes we can take further steps but we don't. Besides, the Nazis had the firm support of their youth unlike Iran. Big difference that could bring about internal change. Unless we do something stupid to allow them to rally around the flag.

I hate the Iranian government. Just to clear that up. And everyone posting in favor of the coup has been soundly trounced, but there is one point I would like to clear up. Mossadegh was not a communist. The Tudeh Party supported him because he was better than the Shah. He nationalized the oil industry because Britain was taking the oil at ridiculous rates, effectivley stealing it. Any speculation about him being "communist" or "Soviet" are simply untrue. Also, it was not Mossadeghs policies which ruined Irans economy, but Britains orchestrated campaign of economic destruction.

Well, then how do you explain his collectivisation of the farms of Iran? The operation of collective farms? The last time I heard of state owned collective farms was in the Soviet Union and Communist China, two Communist countries. I have never heard of a non-Communist country that had collective farms on a national scale; if such a land exists, I would like to be enlightened.

...I never suggested appeasement

You suggested leaving them to their own treacherous devices and taking no action halting their blatant violation of international law. That is equivalent to allowing Hitler to float previous accords gobble up various European territories.

should we get real proof of their building nukes we can take further steps but we don't.

We have actually possessed definitive proof for several months; not only are they highly enriching uranium past the level required for power generation, but they are also refusing any effort by the world community to help them in a safe way.

Besides, the Nazis had the firm support of their youth unlike Iran.

The Nazis gained their firm support gradually; because the global community did not intervene in Germany's internal affairs, the Nazis were able to seize power. Remember the Beer Hall Putsch? Such a takeover initially failed, but was later successful because of a timid Britain and France.

Well, then how do you explain his collectivisation of the farms of Iran? The operation of collective farms? The last time I heard of state owned collective farms was in the Soviet Union and Communist China, two Communist countries. I have never heard of a non-Communist country that had collective farms on a national scale; if such a land exists, I would like to be enlightened.

Communism is good.

And I thought you were talking about the 40 days at Musa Dah (the spelling is probably incorrect - let me know what is correct if anyone knows), where the Ottoman Turks (the moral predecessors of the current Iraqis) continued their attempts, with some success, to commit genocide against the Armenians.

where the Ottoman Turks (the moral predecessors of the current Iraqis)
Not even close.
continued their attempts, with some success, to commit genocide against the Armenians.
The Ottomans of this time barely resembled the Empire that ruled the holy land peacefully for centuries. Not even the same government really.

Communism is good.

Tell it to all the dead people, and while you are at it, the people that had to suffer as well. Here is a mission for you, find a Cambodian that is about 35 years plus that lived in Cambodia and ask them to recount their childhood memories to you - not a pleasant story, that is for sure.

If Communism is so good, then why did we have 125 million dead people (50 million in the USSR, 70 million in the PRC, 2 million in Democratic Kampuchea, and millions more in other countries)

Tell it to all the dead people, and while you are at it, the people that had to suffer as well. Here is a mission for you, find a Cambodian that is about 35 years plus that lived in Cambodia and ask them to recount their childhood memories to you - not a pleasant story, that is for sure.


Yep, suriving the Americans and the Communists would be a feat.

Tell it to all the dead people, and while you are at it, the people that had to suffer as well. Here is a mission for you, find a Cambodian that is about 35 years plus that lived in Cambodia and ask them to recount their childhood memories to you - not a pleasant story, that is for sure.

If Communism is so good, then why did we have 125 million dead people (50 million in the USSR, 70 million in the PRC, 2 million in Democratic Kampuchea, and millions more in other countries)

That is NOT communism; it's a perverted form of government that pretends its communism when it's really totalitarianism; authoritative dictatorship.

Tell it to all the dead people, and while you are at it, the people that had to suffer as well. Here is a mission for you, find a Cambodian that is about 35 years plus that lived in Cambodia and ask them to recount their childhood memories to you - not a pleasant story, that is for sure.

If Communism is so good, then why did we have 125 million dead people (50 million in the USSR, 70 million in the PRC, 2 million in Democratic Kampuchea, and millions more in other countries)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucratic_collectivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers%27_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers_state

You want to prove the Soviet bloc was bad, you have no need, I agree with you. My ideologies are democratic socialism, you should read this for my views: http://www.socialistinternational.org/4Principles/dofpeng2.html

That is NOT communism; it's a perverted form of government that pretends its communism when it's really totalitarianism; authoritative dictatorship.

Errr, are you seriously suggesting that Communism in theory and Communism in practice are the same? Just because the theory says one thing, it does not mean that it will happen in practice. What we had in the world was practical Communism, what happens when you apply theoritical Communism to the real world.

Errr, are you seriously suggesting that Communism in theory and Communism in practice are the same? Just because the theory says one thing, it does not mean that it will happen in practice. What we had in the world was practical Communism, what happens when you apply theoritical Communism to the real world.

Just because you call it doesn't make it communism. That's why in practice, it's not the same as in theory because it's not the same thing. If you fail to follow the principles of a theory, you're not practising the theory.

Theoretical communism doesn't have any form of authoritative ruler. Communism is a classless system where the people rule on the same level as one another.

The distribution of wealth in communism isn't based on simply being born into the right family; it's based on one's ability to work and earn his/her keep. Marx wrote that people who earn their wealth through hard work and diligence deserve their money and those born with a silver spoon in their mouth and don't work for their wealth don't deserve it.

Communism leaves no room for hierarchies; no division of people and no status.

Soviet Russia, China, and any other example you quote are not communist, even if they called themselves communist.

ie: People call America a democracy but it's really based on the practices of their government, a republic.

What made him great exactly?

While the country had once boasted over a 100 million dollars a year in exports to Britain, after nationalization, the same oil industry began increasing Iran's debt by nearly 120 million dollars a year. The Abadan Crisis quickly plunged the country into economic difficulties.

Yeah, really great. Except not.

What made him great exactly?



Yeah, really great. Except not.

He liberated the country from an oppresive dictator, he attempted to end the theft of Iranian oil. The cause for the economic difficulties was the orchestrated economic campaign waged against him by the British.

He also orchestrated a soviet-style collectivization of all land.

Communism is good.

No, communism is FUCKING AWFUL.

You suggested leaving them to their own treacherous devices and taking no action halting their blatant violation of international law. That is equivalent to allowing Hitler to float previous accords gobble up various European territories.

What I suggested was that they very well may handle the problem internally when the population gets fed up with the autocratic ways of their leaders and the insanity of their rhetoric and the way they seem to be barreling right along in hurting their economy. These things to me seem to indicate to me along with many of the populace WANTING democratic ways that the current regime could be on its last legs. But not if we take action and have them support that regime for what they will see, rightly of course no matter what our motives are, as an assault on their nation and any chance of turning that country around will evaporate. But should we find that they really are becoming a real threat then more stern measures can be taken, not before.

Communism is evil.

I fixed your typo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucratic_collectivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers%27_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers_state


Except, up until after it was fully evident that the USSR had failed, nearly all western socialists fully and unquestioningly supported the USSR. Orwell wrote about the situation in the 1930's and 1940's, and it continued well into the 1980's.

Now, though, the left has created these theories as an attempt to explain and shift the blame for the USSR and it's actions, and have given them names that are more easily associated with their opponents ideology than with their ideology.

No, communism is FUCKING AWFUL.

Yes, we all know you believe everything you hear on Faux.

Yes, we all know you believe everything you hear on Faux.

Straw man of the first order.

I don't even watch the dreaded Fox, nor have I held anything of a decent opinion of said station since 2001.

You know, it's fully possible that people might just form different opinions from your own without being brainwashed... :rolleyes:

Out of interest, is there any major (or any) problem in the world today that the British didn't have a finger/hand/arm in creating?

Short answer: No, not really...they did it all. Quite industrious of them. :p

Terrorism perhaps?

Just because you call it doesn't make it communism. That's why in practice, it's not the same as in theory because it's not the same thing. If you fail to follow the principles of a theory, you're not practising the theory.

Theoretical communism doesn't have any form of authoritative ruler. Communism is a classless system where the people rule on the same level as one another.

Theoretical communism does have a form of authoritative ruler; you have the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the stage which every single Communist country (and there would have been about 50 of them) got stuck at. Also, as you must agree, adhering to a theory is very difficult in the real world - trying to adhere to the theory of perfect competition for example.

The distribution of wealth in communism isn't based on simply being born into the right family; it's based on one's ability to work and earn his/her keep. Marx wrote that people who earn their wealth through hard work and diligence deserve their money and those born with a silver spoon in their mouth and don't work for their wealth don't deserve it.

I have never seen that bit - not for want to cause problems or anything, I will need to see evidence of that

Communism leaves no room for hierarchies; no division of people and no status.

Soviet Russia, China, and any other example you quote are not communist, even if they called themselves communist.

ie: People call America a democracy but it's really based on the practices of their government, a republic.

They were Communist in the sense that they were aiming to go down the "Communist Road," however, as you agree, they, along with every other country that tried going down that road, got stuck at the dictatorship of the proletariat stage - this is what happens in real life my friend, theories are all good and well, but sometimes reality comes and bites.

Also, America is a democracy in the practical sense of the term.

Communism is TEH EBIL!!!1!!!1

No, but Marxist-Leninism (or Stalinism, if you may) surely is.