Remembering the ideology that started the mess in Afghanistan:

welder wrote:

I've got an ideabecause pinpointing personal ideologies can be a little difficult.

We'll take a test!Now I know these things can be a little inaccurate,but it can be a good starting point.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I'll take it...You take it,and anyone reading this can take it,and we'll compare numbers...

I appreciate the effort  But I don't think much of this test on account of its presuppositions about what the crucial issues are, what the range of responses is, and what they mean. (We've argued this issue before on babble.) I don't think it really reveals much, except how someone with those presuppositions would characterize a person's politics - and I don't find that very useful. 

For example: "A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies," presupposes that we all value genuine free markets! Many of the questions simply locate you in terms of the "culture wars" (which I regard as in many ways a distraction from politics).

welder wrote:

Cop out....Talk is cheap...Take the test and start dealing!!!!

You're demanding that I conduct the discussion on grounds I don't accept. I'm not going to do that.

RosaL wrote:

welder wrote:

Nothing like the extreme left trying to tell others how to think,or they are'nt thinking enough...

 

Very telling indeed...Uncle Joe and Chairman Mao must be smiling in their graves....

Take the test...You seem to be a bit on the authoritarian side...

 

Actually, I did take it. I was more "libertarian" than you are by quite a bit!

Excellent...Now we're getting somewhere!So you would line up on the Anarcho-Syndicalist side of things???You realize that you have alot in common with libertarians on the right in that you really want to be left alone as an individual?

You also realize that,for example,Anrcho-Syndicalists had a healthy dislike of Communism historically because of it's top down,authoritarian governing style?It's one of the main divisions in philosophy that cost the Republican side the Spanish Civil War....

welder wrote:

Excellent...Now we're getting somewhere!So you would line up on the Anarcho-Syndicalist side of things???You realize that you have alot in common with libertarians on the right in that you really want to be left alone as an individual?

You also realize that,for example,Anrcho-Syndicalists had a healthy dislike of Communism historically because of it's top down,authoritarian governing style?It's one of the main divisions in philosophy that cost the Republican side the Spanish Civil War....

Well, I've already outlined my views on the test so I won't go over them again. 

I'm a marxist (though not a dogmatic one). I do know about the historical relationship between communists and anarcho-syndicalists, yes. 

I made a point earlier in response to what you had to say about the Declaration of Independence and American history. Could we go back to that?

RosaL wrote:

welder wrote:

Excellent...Now we're getting somewhere!So you would line up on the Anarcho-Syndicalist side of things???You realize that you have alot in common with libertarians on the right in that you really want to be left alone as an individual?

You also realize that,for example,Anrcho-Syndicalists had a healthy dislike of Communism historically because of it's top down,authoritarian governing style?It's one of the main divisions in philosophy that cost the Republican side the Spanish Civil War....

Well, I've already outlined my views on the test so I won't go over them again. 

I'm a marxist (though not a dogmatic one). I do know about the historical relationship between communists and anarcho-syndicalists, yes. 

I made a point earlier in response to what you had to say about the Declaration of Independence and American history. I'd be interested in your response to that.

I assume you think I'm condoning what American foreign policy has done over the last 100 years ???

I'm generally not a fan of empire,because of it's unsustainability.I don't think "Free Markets" and "Democracy" trump mass murder by Fascist aparatchiks propped up by the US State Dept.I don't think democatically elected individual needed to be overthrown indirectly by the CIA to achieve global domination.Having said that,I'm glad that we never ended up with Soviet domination.That form of dehumanization and collectivism should frighten everyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong,but Marx described his Socialist/Communist revolution as a 3 phase event.

1.Was the revolutionary phase where the upper and upper middle bourgoisie was overthrown violently.

2.Was the dictatorial phase where a "strongman" authoritarian figure would be needed to sort out the chaos of such a revolutionary period.

3.Was the communist equality Shangri La where some sort of complete societal equality was achieved.

The failing of this theory is that Marx could'nt understand that phase 2 would perpetuate itself.I'm surprised he did not grasp the concept that once absolute power is achieved,it never lets go.The utopian vision of Marxism was never ahcieved because it never did entier the 3rd phase.Frankly it never would.

Thanks for returning to the question!

welder wrote:

I assume you think I'm condoning what American foreign policy has done over the last 100 years ???

No, I understood you to be condemning it.

welder wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong,but Marx described his Socialist/Communist revolution as a 3 phase event.

1.Was the revolutionary phase where the upper and upper middle bourgoisie was overthrown violently.

2.Was the dictatorial phase where a "strongman" authoritarian figure would be needed to sort out the chaos of such a revolutionary period.

3.Was the communist equality Shangri La where some sort of complete societal equality was achieved.

The failing of this theory is that Marx could'nt understand that phase 2 would perpetuate itself.I'm surprised he did not grasp the concept that once absolute power is achieved,it never lets go.The utopian vision of Marxism was never ahcieved because it never did entier the 3rd phase.Frankly it never would.

No that's not right at all. I'll see if I can find you a good introduction to marxism. 

welder wrote:

I'm sorry,but I simply did'nt understand the question about the Declaration of Independence..I happen t think it''s a spectacular document on the face of it.

I think you understood it well enough. It's your understanding of marxism that's way off

Maysie wrote:

Hey welder. It's One-Two Mod Friday.

welder wrote:

 it greatly annoys the cadre of leftist bedwetters here.

Cut that bullshit out. First and last warning.

Le me get this straight...

Leftist bedwetters=Bad!

Right wing dilly bar=ignored,and indirectly,OK?

Are'nt you the one who threatened me before because I said a murderer in Alberta was basically an unhinged nutjob?

Did'nt you say I was being "insulting" to the mentally ill?

Just tryin' to figure out your consistency here?

And thanks in advance for hijacking things...

Again...Completely off topic,and not expanding the cordial ideological discussion currently going on..

But define "Progressive" for me please?

Attacking moderators???

More like questioned a moderators consistency.It's called standing up for one's self.

Speaking if attacking people,were'nt you the guy who called me...what was it...Oh yeah,"A right wing asshole",in one of the many Anne Coulter threads?

Calling me obtuse might be construed as a personal attack.If I lived in the culture of offense,as some seem to do here,I might get upset.Perhaps you could enlighten me on my obtuse nature?Or where I could be more acute in my posts?

Perhaps you'd like to take the test on the link I provided and we could compare personal ideological numbers,or you could continue on by blathering on with your pseudointellectual,pseudosuperior tripe.

What's the matter Kroppy,do I disrupt your reaffirmation session?

You have'nt answered the question on what is a "progressive"..

Thanks,in advance,for highjacking a pefectly legitimate conversation dude...

Alrighty then.

Welder.

The drift, or hijacking, as you like to call it, began at post #30. That was YOU. Then the thread became, interestingly, all about you.

The reason I care less about the attacking of the right here (ergo "dilly bar") is because we attack the right here all the time. Usually with a bit more panache, but whatever. The right has gajillions of dollars. They run the fucking world. No, it's not the best behaviour ever. They can handle it. And yeah I draw the line at reinscribing insults based on mental "illness". It's not inconsistent at all.

Harper is a fuckwad. See?

And um, YOU used the inappropriate language. Here's a suggestion: how's about you backing off all of it then? I call you on some, and then you try to "call me on" not blasting you for all of it? Really?

Dude....

And what's even funnier is I agree with you on the extremes. I would call the dictators and regimes you listed at post 30 less about political ideology (right or left) and more about authoritarianism, genocide and state-sponsored oppression. That's why they look so similar. You won't find me supporting present or past oppressive murderous regimes that called themselves "left".

But that drift was started by you.

I'm going to sleep now. Something tells me I will be closing this thread in the morning.

"We know that 30 years ago, Communism is the root of the current problem"

Actually, dude, we DON'T know that.  The historic(and pre-Communist)Russian fixation with having a fresh-water port to its southeast played a role.  The past history of British attempts to stop Russia having that port and to control the Khyber Pass played a role.  The natural Afghan(and universally human) desire to have other countries' troops out of its territory also played a role.

You can't seriously be saying that what happened in the early 1980's happened solely because Russia was ruled by Communists.

No I'm not...There's a long history of foreign intervention in Afghanistan going back to Alexander The Great.My personal opinion on the place is that it is probably almost undemocratizable by any outside element.There is simply to strong of a force of self determination and tribal strife for that to happen unnaturally.

What I am saying is that the current situation,as it relates to American involvement,is almost directly relatable to the Soviet invasion of 1980... 

welder wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Also, Welder, nobody here actually admires Pol Pot, so you owe us all an apology for implying otherwise.  I doubt anyone here actually "admires" Stalin or Mao, although there are some who want to make sure the historical record is set straight for what those two leaders are and aren't responsible for.

 

You can call it whatever you like,however,what I have seen numerous times are some of the more radical members here justify what Stalin,or Chairman Mao did...And virtually make no apologies for it.

Afghanistan was always considered a satellite nation of Russian empire, long before the Soviets came to power. Afghan culture and feudal power structure were left intact and undisturbed by Stalinists. As Canadian John Ryan said about it, not even the CIA blamed the Soviets for what was probably the first civil war in history began as a women's rights movement. The Marxist PDPA was an entirely indigenous affair.

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas260210.htm]U.S Started A War Of Aggression Against Afghanistan
Over 30 Years Ago[/url]

Quote:

According to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan#Afghanistan_1... Morris[/url], National Security Council staff member, the CIA started to offer covert backing to Islamic radicals as early as 1973-1974

Yup...All part of the Trueman Doctrine and the Domino Theory...And they set up there own problems 3 decades later...

By the way,Fidel...You sound like a Confederate with that "War of Agression" stuff...Are you a fan of George Bickley,Elkanah Greer,and,The Knights of the Golden Circle?

Maysie wrote:

Alrighty then.

Welder.

The drift, or hijacking, as you like to call it, began at post #30. That was YOU. Then the thread became, interestingly, all about you.

The reason I care less about the attacking of the right here (ergo "dilly bar") is because we attack the right here all the time. Usually with a bit more panache, but whatever. The right has gajillions of dollars. They run the fucking world. No, it's not the best behaviour ever. They can handle it. And yeah I draw the line at reinscribing insults based on mental "illness". It's not inconsistent at all.

Harper is a fuckwad. See?

And um, YOU used the inappropriate language. Here's a suggestion: how's about you backing off all of it then? I call you on some, and then you try to "call me on" not blasting you for all of it? Really?

Dude....

And what's even funnier is I agree with you on the extremes. I would call the dictators and regimes you listed at post 30 less about political ideology (right or left) and more about authoritarianism, genocide and state-sponsored oppression. That's why they look so similar. You won't find me supporting present or past oppressive murderous regimes that called themselves "left".

But that drift was started by you.

I'm going to sleep now. Something tells me I will be closing this thread in the morning.

Hmmm....

The title of the thread is "Remembering the Ideology that started the mess in Afghanistan".Historically,Afghanistan has been nothing but a mess of tribal warfare,but over the last 30 years (or so),the problems of Afghanistan can be traced to a Soviet sponsored government under Mr.Najibullah(sp).He was an avowed Marxist and had the backing of Moscow.There is no question that the following American indirect involvment only exacerbated the situation.To the point that it became a haven for Islamowac...er... Islamofascists as a base of operations because of the ideologically likeminded Taliban.

(By the way,I firmly think this virulent form of Islam has more to do with a quasi form of Fascism,which was a lesson learned by these people from Pan-Arab Ba'Athists such as Nasser or Haffez El-Assad,or Saddam Hussein than about anything in the Koran.So that is why I think..maybe...it sorta...kinda...does'nt have a toe hold on modern reality,and therefore,could be construed by rational people as...I don't know...Insane?)

But I digress...

We know that 30 years ago,Communism is the root of the current problem...What do we know about Communism?

We know it's a totalitarian,extreme leftist,authoritarian ideology.

We know that it's power is consilidated through violence,intimidation,and,(mass) murder

We know that it has failed everywhere.There is no evidence whatsoever,in the 20th century,where one could find any evidence that it was successful,unless it's success is measured by dead bodies.It's an ideology that is usually measured in terms of economic destruction and mass human tragedy....Dehumanizing and evil..It's an EPIC FAILURE.And the general consensus is that it lines up on the extreme left of the political spectrum.Democratic left leaning people have to own the massive failures of their extreme cousins,just as democratic right leaning people must own the failures of their extreme cousins. 

So,that's how a conversation about the "Ideology that started the mess in Afghanistan" can turn into a relatively civil discussion,and frankly an interesting one personally.I did'nt make it about me,someone asked me a specific question about me.So post # 30 did'nt drift at all,until YOU interjected with your "tough girl(guy) routine about terminology I used a day before.Notice,no one I was talking to said anything about that,except you...1 day later,I might add.I'd suggest you went looking for something to go after me about,but...Nah...You would'nt do that,would you?I mean,you did'nt go after Kroppy for calling me,and I quote,"A right wing asshole" on the 2nd page of the Anne Coulter thread,did you?Your,frankly feeble attempt at justifying your selective discipline as it relates to perjoratives of certain ideologies,leads me to believe you're consistently inconsistent at best.

You see,the term "bedwetter" "might" be a little harsh for the "progressives" here.I could have used the term "suck" or..."mentally weak"...or..."incapable of critcal self reflection as to whether the person offended might be living in a childish,and personally constructed and almost state sanctioned,culture of constant offense",but using that would be a little longwinded and it's meaning is self evident,is'nt it Maysie?

I would prefer this go back to a very informative discussion on ideologies because ...well...I kinda enjoy that stuff...Perhaps I'm a nerd that way...(is nerd offensive in any way?).You,apparently,want to interject with the bullyboy(girl,moderator) routine that has literally nothing to do with what was being discussed.Again,thanks for the hi-jacking!

I don't want the thread locked...Your choice however....

Fidel wrote:

welder wrote:

Fidel!!You're not suggesting Islamofascists are antifemale,are you???

The mujahideen that were created as a result of the 1980's proxy war have taken on a life of their own. This [url=http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Ahmed/ahmed-con0.html]Berkeley Institute for International Studies[/url] interview with Khaled Ahmed gives us a general rundown of what happened during the period referred to as Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The CIA, Pakistan's then US-backed military dictatorship deliberately bypassed moderate Islamists in favour of the most ruthless warlords and drug barons they could find in supporting anti-PDPA forces in Afghanistan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was one of them. The US taxpayer and Saudi princes made him what and who he is today.

The mooj were suddenly unemployed some two years after the Sovs pulled out of Afghanistan. More than two years later, the well armed Mooj finally defeated the PDPA army of men and women volunteers, but not before the Mooj had their tails kicked for them in battles like the one at Jalalabad. Rockets finally rained down on Kabul and Jalalabad and destroying what was left of the infrastructure and civilized society as the CIA backed warlords duked it out in a Darwinian battle to the finish. Hundreds of thousands died and were displaced,  and millions of refugees fled Afghanistan. Four years later the Taliban would celebrate a power grab, and did the mooj, by raping women and arranging marriages between children and old men.

The CIA-funded Mooj were newly unemployed in the 1990s, and some of them were transported to other countries, like the former Yugoslavia where moderate Islamists were, once again, bypassed in favour of militants. Islamists in Bosnia were Europeanized before contact with groups like Al-CIA'da. President Izetbegovich was a Muslim who favoured the fascist occupiers of Yugoslavia during WWII and desired similarly a one folk, one nation and one ruler view for a new Islamic state of Bosnia. [url=http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/iran.htm]Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base[/url] Keep in mind that none of this covert contact and dealings between the American CIA and Islamic militants was supposed to be happening after 1992(mujahideen takeover of Kabul) according to CIA officials of the 1990s. It did happen, and very little of it was mentioned in the official 9/11 Commission Report/coverup.

 

Fidel,you'll get absolutely no arguement from me on US foreign policy.Frankly,the fact that they leapfrogged moderate thinking people for extremists who were generally anti-Communist(usually with Fascist leanings) is right out of the State Dept.'s MO during the Cold War.They did this in South and Central Amerca,SubSaharan Africa,and,Asia.The reason is very simple...Fascist are very easily controlled.Give them  access to guns and money,and a free reign to do whatever is necessary to control their own populouses(sp),and the Fascists are happy.And the US State Dept. was happy because they could be sure that creeping Communism was put in check.I could go into a litany of examples of this,but I'm sure you know about most of them.

The problem is that there was no forward thinking beyond the end of the Cold War,as it relates to US foreign policy of the Cold War.That's why it has seemed to backfire on them,specifically in Afghanistan.The very people the US thought was there to help them is now the very enemy that wants to destroy them.It's understandable because the Islamofascists that were US allies were thrown under the bus as soon as the Soviet threat was basically eliminated.People tend to turn to extreme things to make sense out of chaos.In this case the choice was be a Moscow puppet or a country run by Fascist thugs who use Islam as convenient cover for total control of the populous...Neither is terribly apealing,frankly.

By the way Fidel,you have'nt answered my question about the "War of Agression" stuff...

Fidel, welcome back. :)

Fidel wrote:

welder wrote:

The problem is that there was no forward thinking beyond the end of the Cold War,as it relates to US foreign policy of the Cold War.That's why it has seemed to backfire on them,specifically in Afghanistan.The very people the US thought was there to help them is now the very enemy that wants to destroy them.

Do you really believe the CIA's "blowback" story wrt "al-Qa'eda"?  CIA officials claim to have severed all covert ties with their anticommunist jihadis after 1992. I think there is evidence that this was a lie and that they were carrying on with their Islamic gladios well into the late 1990s. Several of the superstars of 9/11 terrorism were repeatedly protected by the CIA and FBI(and RCMP, too) on several occasions. I think Al-Qa'eda is still a CIA intelligence asset and Islamic terrorist wing of the old NATO-gladio gang. There is evidence that covert gladios have been occurring in their favourite countries in recent years, too.

welder wrote:

By the way Fidel,you have'nt answered my question about the "War of Agression" stuff...

Neither the Sovs or Chinese were a legitimate threat to takeover the world. There is evidence that Stalinists would have been content with creating socialism in one country. The Sovs experienced what was probably history's worst terrorist attack beginning with operation barbarossa that lasted for several years in the 1940's. The solution to that was to move the Sovs line of defences westward by the same layer of countries they liberated from Nazi occupation. And they never trusted the gladio gang after that.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=759]9/11 in Historical Perspective: Flawed Assumptions[/url]
Deep Politics: Drugs, Oil, Covert Operations and Terrorism, A briefing for Congressional staff

by Dr. Peter Dale Scott

Scott is Canadian. This article is very good and goes some way to explaining how the ties between the CIA and their Islamic radical friends were never severed. Some of those radicals became specialists in terrorism trained in Europe and America for covert purposes of destabilizing Central Asia during the cold war. Al-Qa'eda is really Al-CIA'da. I'll say it again, Al-Qa'eda is really Al-CIA'da, and what's  happening today is this: What was a cold war is now a global war of terror being waged against democracy. Cold war era gladio has become a death wish against democracy. Capitalism was always fascism with the mask on, and since the mask began slipping away in the 1990s, their fangs are bared for all the world to see.

Of course Al Quaeda is a CIA organization!And I think Osama Bin Laden is used like some sort of bogeyman to strike fear into people to justify all forms of quasi lagal miltiary action.He's probably sitting on the beach in the US Virgin Islands right now,waiting to put out his next "Death to the Great Satan" video while sipping a Mai Tai!I also think something far more malevolent was going on on 9/11,other than crazed Islamic fundementalists,commandeering airplanes,and,successfully flying them into buildings designed to withstand such an event.I've also read some of the Engineers for the Truth stuff.I'm a welder...so I know a little about steel,structural steel theory,metal melting points,and,metallurgy.I also know about the Columbia University's Geological Dept.,and it's seismographs that measured something like an underground explosion when both buildings fell.I also know that both buildings looked like an implosion,rather than collapsing under the strain of something they were designed to withstand.

I also think that the CIA and the US government lost interest in Afghanistan after vanquishing the Soviets,because it held little to no strategic value,as it related to US foreign policy.I think because of that,it left a power vacuum filled by Islamic extremists  like the Taliban.I also think that Islamofascism is a serious problem in the world,mainly because of it's incompatibility with modern western democratic values.So incompatable that Islamofascists regularily kill their own for not being "Islamic enough"!I do believe there is a building confrontation between the two.I don't believe the US is directly behind that.I believe that it's two things:

1.The Islamofascists learned very well on how to be murderous totalitarians from their former fascist overlords in the Ba'Athist Pan-Arabists like Nasser,El-Assad,and Hussein.Remember,Ayman El-Zawahiri(sp) was an Egyptian imprisoned by the like of Hosni Mubarek.Mubarek is the US' man in Egypt,but he's also a follower of the likes of Nasser,not so much of a follower of Saddat.Add the Ba'Athist influence with the radical Wahabist element from Saudi Arabia,who are Islamic Fundementalist Absolutists (Think of the Amish on steroids,in a constant 'roid rage),plus grinding poverty,and you've got a disastrous mixture that could/can blow over.As I said before,I feel it's more about a warped form of Fascism,than Islam itself.

To your point about about the benign nature of Soviet Communsm,I call total BS!They fomented the same subversive crap in the same places as the US did.Once they got a foothold with your buddy Castro,they tried to use that as a jump off point to areas all over Central and South America.They simply lost the battle.They tried to do the same thing in Angola and Ethiopia.Robert Mugabe is a known Stalinist thinker,speaking of shining examples of success!In every place that Soviet Communism controlled,they had a Moscow aparatchik at the helm,and a secret police force spying on the population and intimidating that population to keep it in line...And murdering those that would'nt.Sorry...No dice on that one.The Soviets were murderous scum and it's better that we have to deal with the so called Manifest Destiny(which I don't believe in) of the United States,than the iron fist of Moscow.

Finally,I think you missed my point about the 'War of Agression" phrase...Frankly,you sound a little like a Confederate using that phrase.Until not very log ago,the US Civil War was called the "War of Northern Agression" or "The War of Yankee Agression".Many Southerners also felt that war was illegal...And seeing as you seem to enjoy those who would subvert Washington,and go against it's ethos,I ask again...

Are you fan of the likes of George Bickley,Elkanah Greer,and,organizations like the Knights of the Golden Circle?

Welder you say you are anti empire then what do you think of American imperialism?  Is it or is it not as murderous an empire as the USSR was?  

You want some real fun go to Free Dominon and express your views on how bad the american empire has been in its rush to conquer the world.  

welder, you sound like you still believe all the Cold War propaganda we North Americans learned in school in the Fifties and Sixties(in my grade school, we did "duck and cover" drill until 1969 or so).

BTW, were you aware that the Communist Party in Cuba(the Popular Socialist Party by name)did not support Fidel Castro and his revolutionaries for several years?  And that the Soviets didn't have that much to do with them until after the Bay of Pigs?  To hear you tell it, everybody in Cuba was perfectly happy with Batista(just like those slaves in the South were just singin' and dancin' in the cotton fields until those Yankee abolitionists showed up)until one day, MOSCOW decided to stir things up.

Please tell me you don't actually believe that.  Do you still believe the "outside agitator" myth in regards to any OTHER situations?

I'm no fan of Soviet Communism.  Never was.  But it's silly to act like it was the only thing that mattered in the world since the end of World War II.

Soviet Communism no longer exists.  Nothing can possibly bring it back.  Why are you still obsessed with it?

And Communism never actually represented "The Left".  Some Left people thought it would lead to a new society, but most of The Left have had no allegiance with the Soviet Union since at least 1956.  So nobody on The Left of today can be held responsible for it.   What we can be held responsible for is making sure that the brutal mistakes of the past won't be repeated.  And we won't.  The Left does have a learning curve, and very little of the brutality in the old models was related to "building socialism".  Most of it was tied to the mistaken notion that preserving "the leading role of the party" mattered more than anything else.

And the Soviet Union(please stop calling it "Moscow"-it was a whole state, not one city)could in fact be underhanded, heavy-handed, brutal and cynical in international dealings.  But the Soviet Union didn't cause the Cuban Revolution(the Cuban people caused that) and the whole U.S. notion since 1945 that EVERY movement for social change in every developing country was a "Communist plot" is and always was absurd.  The insistence on equating all opposition to "pro-American" states with "the International Communist Conspiracy!"achieved nothing but the horrible effect of, in many cases, FORCING people to back Communist-led movements because the U.S. had made it clear that it wouldn't tolerate democratic change.  This was particularly true in Vietnam, where the U.S. absolutely refused to back the democratic opposition to the ruling kleptocracy and insisted on making the war into a fight to preserve the status quo forever. 

The best way to have stopped the Soviets would have been for the U.S. to back democratic socialism around the world.  A planet of Rainbow Swedens would be the most stable world imaginable.

If you don't believe that way about the South and slavery, that's good.  But the "it's all a Commie plot" mindset you tend to exhibit has very often dovetailed into a general "if it weren't for the outside agitators, nobody would've complained" notion.  The truth is, the world doesn't work that way, and nobody accepts inequality and subservience as their natural station in life.  Some people simply tolerate it for short periods until the time is right for revolt.  But oppressed people will ALWAYS, at some point rise against their oppressors.

If the U.S., my country, would finally accept this, we'd be a much more secure country, since our security would be built on a foundation of justice for all the world, instead of clinging to survival by trying to beat back the world with a stick.

Well put, kropotkin.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The key is that imperialism is the evil.  It doesn't matter whether the imperial empire is communist or Czarist or american or british "democracies."  Empires always justify their atrocities and exaggerated their enemy's. Stealing other peoples oil and other resources causes them to become mad and strike back with whatever means they can muster.  

It is not political ideology that causes murderous regimes it is greed.  What you don't understand Welder is that in regimes that the US has backed in the last 60 years the first people murdered in coups were people exactly like the people who come to this web site to post. My first thought when I saw the pictures from September 11 was those people are just like me.  They were young trade union and socialist activists and they had been rounded up like cattle and many were never heard from again.  American imperialism is real and it currently kills people fighting for their liberation every day.

Agreed...I've never been a fan of "Empire"...It's never sustainable.I've never believed in the "Manifest Destiny" theory some in The States hold.Frankly the United States version of enpire is in serious decay and in decline.

By the way,thanks for informing me on who Fascists usually go after first...I would assume you feel that the United States is now in obvious decline,I wonder what your feelings are on the coming Chinese version of empire,and it's crypto-Fascist authoritarian ways?