• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Chavez gets huge applause in Copehagen

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Are you actually that ignorant? The American Left - Communists, Socialists, New Dealers - were avid ideological supporters of the Soviets and later Mao. And the history is clear that there was quite a bit of spying done by Americans for the Soviets. Do some research on "Communist Party USA."

As far as material support goes, Americans, outside of the labor unions and academia, were generally more focused on doing business than following political distinctions. Consider that Henry Ford built a huge auto plant in Nizhni Novgorod, a deal worth a staggering forty million dollars - 1930s millions paid for in gold at the height of the Depression. No other firm in the United States or even in the world conducted as much business with Joseph Stalin than the Ford Motor Company between 1929 and 1936. But, then again, Ford and the Nazis were mutual admirers, so who knows how the politics played out in the background.

In 1941, before the United States entered the war, President Roosevelt sent $11.3 billion worth of U.S. military aid to the Soviets under the Lend-Lease program. And he did the same kind of deal with China, when the Communists and the rest of the factions were somewhat united against common enemies.

That there was little material support of Mao initially by Americans is more a case that there was no clear understanding of what was going on in the Chinese civil war and who the players might become. A bit more on the complications can be found here -

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/chinese-civil-war.htm

Subsequently, China was isolationist and there was little more than a lot of hot air and propaganda by lefties that, in fact, knew nothing about what was actually happening in China, including the joys of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. So, technically, you are right in that no arms or material support went from the American left to Mao, just propaganda support by lefties, who seem to absolutely love all sorts of mass murderers.

Lots of complications in the history and it takes a lot of reading to get understanding. I can suggest reading some books on what life was like then and who was sleeping with whom and the consequences that resulted. The first book studies the Left's historical adoption of all the wrong choices for liberty and democracy, the rest are specific to the Stalinist period and last one with a definitive history of Mao.

United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror
by Jamie Glazov

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935071602

Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million
by Martin Amis

http://www.amazon.com/Koba-Dread-Lau.../dp/1400032202

The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia
by Tim Tzouliadis

http://www.amazon.com/Forsaken-Ameri.../dp/1594201684

Mao: The Unknown Story
by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday

http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Story-Jung.../dp/0679746323
Of course we supported Stalin and Mao, they were allies against Hitler, and we needed their help. I hope you're not suggesting we shouldn't have helped our allies in WW2?

And it was the right wing helping the Nazis, google Prescott Bush.

The recent history, the last 50 years, is of the right in America funding and protecting monstrous dictatorships, not the left.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Of course we supported Stalin and Mao, they were allies against Hitler, and we needed their help. I hope you're not suggesting we shouldn't have helped our allies in WW2?

And it was the right wing helping the Nazis, google Prescott Bush.

The recent history, the last 50 years, is of the right in America funding and protecting monstrous dictatorships, not the left.
How old are you? Are you in grammar school, high school or college? I know the American education system is really bad at teaching history and geopolitics so I can't really fault you for not knowing diddly, but there is no excuse for you not to do some independent reading.

No time to respond at length, and I have already introduced you to some highly respected books that will introduce you to 20th century history.

You should be aware, however, that Mao had nothing to do with Hitler. In fact, Mao fought the KMT and the Japanese and various others. He certainly wasn't shy about killing his own - Chinese deaths attributed to his direct orders and policies run to around 40 million. Nice guy, huh? No one has beat good ol' Mao for killing (may he rot forevermore in hell, hopefully right next to Stalin.)

I like to sometimes compare the various death tolls for the various movements and great leaders of modern times. While this is not an exhaustive recounting, it does provide reference to where one might find megadeath numbers and what those numbers are -

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

...Hemoclysm (is) that string of interconnected barbarities which have made the Twentieth Century so fascinating for historians and so miserable for real people. Here, I have listed the sources for determing the body count for the Big Four -- the First and Second World Wars, Communist China and the Soviet Union -- which together account for maybe ¾ of all deaths by atrocity in the 20th Century.
The above information is just part of the Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century put together by Matthew White. Believe it or not, he is a librarian with only a few years of college under his belt. His maps, however, have been reprinted in several textbooks, and the data collected on his web site has been cited by at least 45 published books and 80 scholarly articles. After you take a look at the numbers, be sure to check out the whole of his research project here -

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm

Y'all have a nice snowy weekend! I'm going to be spending time playing in the blizzard, reading and watching DVD movies with the kids instead of playing on the computer!
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Of course we supported Stalin and ..., they were allies against Hitler, and we needed their help. I hope you're not suggesting we shouldn't have helped our allies in WW2?

And it was the right wing helping the Nazis, google Prescott Bush.

The recent history, the last 50 years, is of the right in America funding and protecting monstrous dictatorships, not the left.
All but three letters of Marincountry's post to pjabber. Amount responded to by pjabber: zero.

The three missing letters: mao. The one error and the only thing pjabber responded to.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
All but three letters of Marincountry's post to pjabber. Amount responded to by pjabber: zero.

The three missing letters: mao. The one error and the only thing pjabber responded to.
An anarcho-Bolshevik offers nothing of substance but another ad hominem attack. C'mon Craig, I know you know a little history, even if it might be revisionist history. Why don't you offer something substantive?

Have you read the books I recommended? They make for some interesting reading!

I won't reply for a few days but everyone here just loves reading your Walls o' Text so please don't mind if I bow out to enjoy the great outdoors for the next few days!
 
Last edited:

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Of course we supported Stalin and Mao, they were allies against Hitler, and we needed their help. I hope you're not suggesting we shouldn't have helped our allies in WW2?

And it was the right wing helping the Nazis, google Prescott Bush.

The recent history, the last 50 years, is of the right in America funding and protecting monstrous dictatorships, not the left.
The selective application of violence, at just the right time, and just the right place is what has allowed the United States to be the Hunter, rather than the hunted. Everone knows this. Without the right, the left would not exist.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
An anarcho-Bolshevik offers nothing of substance but another ad hominem attack. C'mon Craig, I know you know a little history, even if it might be revisionist history. Why don't you offer something substantive?

Have you read the books I recommended? They make for some interesting reading!

I won't reply for a few days but everyone here just loves reading your Walls o' Text so please don't mind if I bow out to enjoy the great outdoors for the next few days!
Why do you need to play in the great outdoors, when you have so much fun throwing around words you don't understand, and lie in the process of doing so?

I guess a little balance is nice, that the people who wrongly refer to me as a 'statist' get you balancing the error by wrong calling me an 'anarchist'.

Bolshevik? You have no shame as you make a fool of yourself with the idiocy. Of course, my positins are far from Bolshevik, but that has nothing to do with you abusing the word.

So, your response to criticism is to ask why the post pointed out your errors, instead of being of 'substance' on the topic? Nice dodge. Sorry, some are topic substance, some point out your flaws.

You can't weasel out that easily from the accountability you can't deal with.

You then throw up the books for a distraction. Maybe they're great, maybe I've read them, nit they're yet another attempt to divert from your own bad posting. No change of subject until you face the issue.

You ask for a history discussion; Marincountry offered you several historical points to dicuss, that you did not respond to.

I note how you repeatedly end posts to me with references how you won't be around to reply. The othr day you were not going to reply because you were rushing to a plane; a while later, you replied.

You shold also learn what the phrase 'ad hominem' means. It doesn't mean pointing out, accurately, that you dodged Marincounty's post (and now, mine).

But hey it's a catchy sounding latin phrase you can try to use as an attack, so why not try and see if people fall for it, eh?

Then for your last attack you get even more desperate, attacking some of my posts' length that are unrelated to this exchange. Maybe that'll divert the topic from your bad post, eh? Maybe not.

So, to summarize your response, you said nothing in response to my pointing out that you said nothing in response to Marincounty's post but for three letters. of it.

Darn, guess the diversion didn't work, but did make it painfully obvious how hard you are trying not to take any accountability.

Enjoy the outdoors. I promise not to find you there and hold you accountable for your bad post.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Enjoy the outdoors. I promise not to find you there and hold you accountable for your bad post.
OK then, crazy cat! The snow is falling and I need to start driving at this late, late hour to our cabin in the woods. Have a nice weekend, hope you catch up with your reading! And even if you haven't read my proffered texts, here is old and famous poem that you might enjoy as a consolation prize...

The Road Not Taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear,
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I marked the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Robert Frost
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,716
51
91
You should work for Fox news you are so full of it. The main supporters of dictators have been the right wing. Stroessner, Marcos, Pinochet, China, etc.. all supported by Republican administrations.
----------------------
I have a vision. On the day that Ronald Reagan's remains are transported from the U.S. Capitol to the National Cathedral for the funeral services, the hearse will pass 800 black crosses.

Each cross will represent one of the men, women and children who were killed by the Salvadoran military in the village of El Mozote in December 1981. Each would be a reminder that the dead man now celebrated in the media as a lover of freedom and democracy oversaw a foreign policy that empowered and enabled murderous brutes and thugs in the name of anti-Sovietism. Many innocents in other lands paid dearly for Reagan’s crusade.

Throughout his presidency, Reagan made nice with dictators—no matter how nefarious—as long as they parroted his opposition to communism. As soon as he entered the White House, his administration tried to normalize relations with Augusto Pinochet, the dictator of Chile, who was responsible for a bloody coup that overthrew a democratically elected (but socialist) government. The Reaganites also cozied up to the fascistic and anti-Semitic junta of Argentina, which tortured, slaughtered and disappeared its political opponents. And don’t forget Reagan’s attempt to woo Saddam Hussein, even after it was known that Hussein had used chemical weapons. (Reagan assigned this task to Donald Rumsfeld.)

Reagan may have pushed for democracy and human rights in the Soviet bloc, but he cared little for these values elsewhere. He dramatically urged the destruction of the Berlin Wall and supported the Solidarity movement in Poland. But he sent money and assistance to regimes that repressed and murdered their people. While visiting Ferdinand Marcos, the Filipino dictator, Reagan’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, toasted Marcos' "adherence to democratic principles." People lost their freedom or died because Reagan and his lieutenants could not see beyond their ideological blinders and cut deals with miscreants who shared their anti-Moscow mantra. Not only did Reagan embolden torturers and murders, but the CIA—following his order to support the contra rebels in Nicaragua (who were trying to oust the socialist Sandinistas)—worked with suspected drug traffickers. Who said so? Not conspiracy-theory nuts, but the inspector general of the CIA. Years after the contra war, the agency’s IG produced two reports that conceded the CIA had enlisted the assistance of alleged drug runners. At the same time Nancy Reagan was preaching “Just Say No” to drugs.

As I noted in this column a few months ago—when there was a media hullabaloo over a schlocky biopic of Reagan—Reagan was AWOL on one of the important battles for freedom and democracy in the 1980s: South Africa. He defended the racist apartheid government there and claimed—as wrongly as could be—that South Africa had "eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country." And when Republicans and Democrats joined together in Congress to impose economic sanctions on the government of South Africa, Reagan vetoed the measure. In response to that veto, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a leader of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, said, "Apartheid will be dismantled, and its victims will remember those who helped to destroy this evil system. And President Reagan will be judged harshly by history." Not this week.

The El Mozote episode is, sadly, only one example of violence borne of Reagan’s foreign policy. The troops that did the killing were supported by his administration because they were fighting leftist rebels. A 1992 report produced by a UN-sanctioned truth commission described the awful event:

"On 10 December 1981, in the village of El Mozote in the Department of Morazan, units of the Atlacatl Battalion detained, without resistance, all the men, women and children who were in the place…. Early next morning, 11 December, the soldiers reassembled the entire population in the square. They separated the men from the women and children and locked everyone up in different groups in the church, the convent and various houses."


"During the morning, they proceeded to interrogate, torture and execute the men in various locations. Around noon, they began taking the women in groups, separating them from their children and machine-gunning them. Finally, they killed the children. A group of children who had been locked in the convent were machine-gunned through the windows. After exterminating the entire population, the soldiers set fire to the buildings."

The report noted that "the Atlacatl Battalion was a ‘Rapid Deployment Infantry Battalion’ or BIRI,’ that is, a unit specially trained for ‘counter-insurgency’ warfare. It was the first unit of its kind in the [El Salvadoran] armed forces and had completed its training under the supervision of United States military advisors, at the beginning of that year, 1981."

When two reporters—Raymond Bonner of The New York Times and Alma Guillermoprieto of The Washington Post —reported the massacre in January 1982, the Reagan administration denied it had occurred. Reagan’s point-man on Latin America, Elliott Abrams, told Congress that these reports were no more than commie propaganda. That is, he lied. (Today, Abrams, that lover of truth and human rights, is a staff member on Bush’s National Security Council responsible for Middle East matters.) A forensic investigation conducted in the early 1990s proved that the massacre had happened. And the truth commission’s report noted that "two hundred forty-five cartridge cases recovered from the El Mozote site were studied. Of these, 184 had discernable headstamps, identifying the ammunition as having been manufactured for the United States Government at Lake City, Missouri. ...All of the projectiles except one appear to have been fired from United States-manufactured M-16 rifles."

Thanks to Ronald Reagan, American tax dollars supported the murder of hundreds of El Salvadoran villagers. And the UN-backed commission, after examining 22,000 atrocities that occurred during the 12-year civil war in El Salvador, attributed 85 percent of the abuses to the Reagan-assisted right-wing military and its death-squad allies. Similar patterns transpired in Guatemala and Honduras in the 1980s.

The El Mozote massacre, though perhaps the largest massacre in modern Latin American history, is a minor footnote in the history of the Cold War, but it is, as writer Mark Danner, author of The Massacre at El Mozote , observed, "a central parable of the Cold War." It is also a telling tale of Reaganism. The lives of the people butchered in this small village by U.S.-trained troops were worth as much of that of the man whose body now lays in a casket draped with the Stars and Stripes. Media commentators have been hailing Reagan as heroic, iconic, patriotic and optimistic figure who led an "American life." It was indeed an American life, but one with lethal consequences for others. That is as important a piece of the Reagan story—if not more so—as his oh-so-sunny and cheery outlook.

I doubt the villagers of El Mozote were thinking about Reagan’s wonderful disposition when made-in-the-USA bullets supplied to their killers by the U.S. government, in accordance with Reagan’s foreign policy, were piercing their bodies and ending their non-American lives.


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reagans_bloody_legacy.php
all that litany of crap doesn't matter. You can bet your arse baby doc obama would love to be a president for life just like the dictators he so adores.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,902
4
81
I hear he's going to be a guest speaker at the Democratic National Convention in a few years.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
639
126
Chavez was just sending Obama a public reminder that he's not moving fast enough. Soros, Obama, Chavez and their ilk are very aware that the clock is ticking. Things have gone South to a great degree and something big has to happen before the 2010 elections or the dream may evaporate.

A public admonishment is sometimes far more effective than a private one.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS