A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[megaloman]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A real commitment to democracy and capitalism -- a faith that we would win out -- a faith .........

In context you misused the word, but at least its use shows you are paying attention. sort of.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sold to whom? You know the State of the Union isn't really a good time to say "We're kicking up spending to make it seem like we want a war- so they'll realize they can't compete." Even then the Soviets watched US TV.

We're talking about what conservatives believed in the 1980s. I took them at their word. You are now suggesting, in their defense, that our policies were based on a big lie.

Odd, that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by megaloman
In context you misused the word, but at least its use shows you are paying attention. sort of.

Sorry -- I forgot that conservatives have a government-granted monopoly on defining "faith."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Say I get a tumor- was it my fault? did I behave in a way that caused it? was I exposed to toxins from others that caused it? Was it just random coincidence that made me the unfortunate victim-

Fuck I don't care why- it's there. would you please eradicate it with some chemo.

I can't figure out what you or bilmore is talking about here.

My position is that events in other countries are the product of many things -- history, culture, economics, science, geography, etc. E.g., to understand what's happening in Lebanon, you need to understand Lebanon, and not just read the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page.

I don't know what causes tumors, but I imagine that luck plays a role.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We're talking about what conservatives believed in the 1980s. I took them at their word. You are now suggesting, in their defense, that our policies were based on a big lie.

Odd, that.

Geez ty- Reagan said we're doing this to keep up- Club says privately he said "driving up spending will kill the USSR." If your point is he didn't come to your house and tell your 'rents in confidence- okay he "lied." But given that he supposed goal was to kill the USSR can you concede that keeping that goal on the QT made sense- even assuming it required a lie?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Geez ty- Reagan said we're doing this to keep up- Club says privately he said "driving up spending will kill the USSR." If your point is he didn't come to your house and tell your 'rents in confidence- okay he "lied." But given that he supposed goal was to kill the USSR can you concede that keeping that goal on the QT made sense- even assuming it required a lie?

Reagan also said that the Soviet military was stronger than ours. Was that a lie? How about all the other conservatives who spent so much energy worrying about the Soviet military threat -- all lies?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes. Many.
Oh, this is crap. They understood the communist threat. John Kerry went to Vietnam and got shot at.

Yes but then he went and tried to work out a deal with Ortega undermining Reagans foreign policy.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop This whole scheme you've got about how Communists would seize control and never relinquish it is mighty hard to reconcile with Reagan's foresight in seeing that Communism was doomed to fail. Were Russians condemned to permanent poverty? No, thanks to Reagan's wisdom. Nor were Nicaraguans condemned to permanant poverty, thanks to Reagan's wisdom.

You are kidding right? Look at North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam - and it took 70 year to get rid of the Soviet Union. Communist dictatorships are tough to get rid of.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Supporting right-wing dictatorships hurt our efforts to fight communism. Communists drew strength from the abuses and excesses of these governments. The Cold War was a global battle for hearts and minds, with a military undercard. A real commitment to democracy and capitalism -- a faith that we would win out -- a faith that I submit to you liberals like Ted Kennedy had and conservatives like Negroponte did not -- counseled that we act with the courage of our convictions.

Would South Korea be better off if it was part of North Korea?, would Malaysia and Indonesia be better off if they were Communist like Vietnam. Sometimes the choice was between communists or authoritarians. What these liberals were promoting is that we withdraw support from the anti-communist regime and let the communists take over

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Too many conservatives feared that democracies were too weak to stand up to totalitarian Communists regimes, and thought that dictators were a necessary evil.

This was a tough call.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And dictators do not necessarily give way to democracy. Look at Singapore, which you inexplicably keep calling a democracy,.

What makes you think Singapore is not a democracy. The communist party operates freely there. They have democratic elections. All adults can vote. Singapore, by the way, is the only country to go from a third world country to a first world country and thirty years. Also, and not coincidently, it has been consistently rated the freest economy in the world every year since 1975.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop or China. .

First of all China is run by communists. Since 1985 they have slowly been moving towards capitalism. The communist party thinks they will be able to hold on but they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Pretty soon there is going to be strong middle class that will demand democracy.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop South Korea's democratization was hardly inevitable. Of course, Weimar Germany is the classic example.

South Koreas turn towards democracy was inevitavble. Like I said before countries when they reach $6,000 to $8,000 per capita income they always go Democratic. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Chile, Argentina, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan etc. Can you name a country that has over $8,000 per year in per capita income that is not a democracy?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

Incidently, I love being from Texas.

You mean the same state where the Attorney General wants the names of all woman who have had late term abortions? What happened with that anyway?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes but then he went and tried to work out a deal with Ortega undermining Reagans foreign policy.

Substantive disagreement on foreign policy is not treason, or cluelessness, or what have you.

You are kidding right? Look at North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam - and it took 70 year to get rid of the Soviet Union. Communist dictatorships are tough to get rid of.

In some cases. In other countries, Communist governments did not last.

Would South Korea be better off if it was part of North Korea?, would Malaysia and Indonesia be better off if they were Communist like Vietnam.

No. And if that's what you understand me to be saying, you're not reading me right.

Sometimes the choice was between communists or authoritarians. What these liberals were promoting is that we withdraw support from the anti-communist regime and let the communists take over. This was a tough call.

Sometimes nuns had to be murdered, eh?

That wasn't always the choice. We tended to support strong men -- thugs -- because they served our interests, and because we feared that democracies would not survive.

What makes you think Singapore is not a democracy.

You must be kidding. It's things like the absence of a free press and an independent judiciary. I'm with William Safire on this one.

China is run by communists. Since 1985 they have slowly been moving towards capitalism. The communist party thinks they will be able to hold on but they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Pretty soon there is going to be strong middle class that will demand democracy.

I hate to say it, but you sound positively Marxist.

South Koreas turn towards democracy was inevitavble.

Hardly. Read the book by George H.W. Bush's ambassador to South Korea and China, China Hand. Things easily could have worked out differently.

Like I said before countries when they reach $6,000 to $8,000 per capita income they always go Democratic. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Chile, Argentina, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan etc. Can you name a country that has over $8,000 per year in per capita income that is not a democracy?

Singapore and Malaysia are not functioning democracies, though they may hold elections. I'm glad that the military juntas in Chile and Argentina lost power, but it was hardly inevitable.

There obviously is a connection between economic prosperity and political development. I'm not going to argue with you there. But, if so, it kinda makes you wonder why conservatives are so wedded to military force as a way of solving problems that we might solve through other means. Lift the economic sanctions on Cuba and North Korea. And so on.

Presumably your answer to this is that right-wing juntas are peculiarly vulnerable to the growth of a middle class. But why not Communists, too? Your China scenario is that the Communists are inevitably going to be forced out of power by the middle class, right?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Thanks, but I'm comfortable where I am. Spanky's assertion was that communism never leads to elections, authoritarianism does, and by implication a higher standard of living, a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. I never argued with his examples. My point, which you obviously missed, is that I don't see any correlation between the philosphy of a regime and quality of life. Communistic regimes perpetrated horrific crimes. So did non-communistic authoritarian regimes. Some communistic regimes are doing better than some authoritarian regimes in some measures. Some authoritarian regimes have a long history of no free elections (Singapore), but the people are in general doing okay. The correlation isn't there.

I think you have a warped view of "doing okay". In my mind, you cannot massacre 18% of your population, and then claim economic prosperity. I think you have to factor the massacre in. I guess I still just take too much personal offence at anyone's assertion that we should just move on from the 18% in VN or the 27% in C. So, chalk this one up to being my problem.

Plus, if you look at the historical numbers, there is a direct correlation between moving to socialism/communism, and moving downwards economically, if that was your point.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by megaloman
2. This Billmoore chap reminds me of Grover Norquist and hence I question his relevancy.

I need to remember my audience. This group requires a very linear display.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Oh, this is crap. They understood the communist threat. John Kerry went to Vietnam and got shot at.

And then he finagled out early, came home, denigrated the effort, and played a large part in causing our bugout. Following which, the Khmer Krahom and the KVN swept through and clashed with each other and ARVN, as they had planned once they won the war of the newspapers here, and, the first two having wiped out the latter, remade their society, just as had been the communist plan.

Remember how they did that? It involved the massacre of millions. Millions. Which likely bothers you less than a scratched Italian journo. I'd say you don't understand the communist threat.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
And then he finagled out early, came home, denigrated the effort, and played a large part in causing our bugout. Following which, the Khmer Krahom and the KVN swept through and clashed with each other and ARVN, as they had planned once they won the war of the newspapers here, and, the first two having wiped out the latter, remade their society, just as had been the communist plan.

Remember how they did that? It involved the massacre of millions. Millions. Which likely bothers you less than a scratched Italian journo. I'd say you don't understand the communist threat.

[I posted something a little more intemperate which I might regret later, so instead I will just say this: If you really think that, you can kiss my ass. And if you don't, you can kiss my ass for suggesting it.]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore

Remember how they did that? It involved the massacre of millions. Millions. Which likely bothers you less than a scratched Italian journo. I'd say you don't understand the communist threat.

Looks like Bilmore has gotten into to Ty's wine cellar again . . .

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Looks like Bilmore has gotten into to Ty's wine cellar again . . .

Unfortunately, no. There are just some subjects upon which I can no longer comfortably tolerate glib superficiality.

Yeah. Kerry understands the communist threat. My ass.