A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I'm sure you haven't perused a travel brochure to Vietnam lately, but I understand the people there are doing much better.

Pol Pot had a good life, at least.

(If you want to speak of the millions in VN and C that died in the purges, intentional starvations, and mass cleansings in both countries, keep going. But I'd walk away from this argument were I you.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
A world where good intention combined with well-aimed action results in a net good? Yeah, I'll go with "pleasant." Beats the heck out of self-hate. I think you always mistake "straightforward" for "simple". There's no merit in cloaking fear and pessimism in contrived moral quandry. The danger is that people begin to recognize that there's no real moral quandry, just partisanship dressed as moral argument.

All of these words convey meaning on their own, but if they are meant to convey some larger meaning when read in conjunction with each other, it eludes me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
All of these words convey meaning on their own, but if they are meant to convey some larger meaning when read in conjunction with each other, it eludes me.

Ah, the famous "huh?" defense. I concede.

[megaloman]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We've already established that Reagan -- brilliantly -- foresaw that a defense build-up would cause the Soviet Union to collapse. So why was it necessary to support death squads and nun killers in Central America?

Because Reagan brilliantly foresaw the dawning of freedom and democracy in Central America, notwithstanding some collateral costs.

Don't confuse nuns or leftist propagandists with the residents of some mythically Shangriladidalandesque moral highground. No one is innocent. Remember those same nuns that you and Carter and the rest of the looney left martyrize in Central america, are the sistren of the accomplices of a conspiracy of child molestation in the American Catholic church that you rail against!

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
Pol Pot had a good life, at least.

(If you want to speak of the millions in VN and C that died in the purges, intentional starvations, and mass cleansings in both countries, keep going. But I'd walk away from this argument were I you.)

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.

[megaloman]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
All of these words convey meaning on their own, but if they are meant to convey some larger meaning when read in conjunction with each other, it eludes me.

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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My original point was that club's suggestion that Democrats were somehow oblivious to the threat posed by the Soviet Union during the 1980s was bizarre. As you and he have demonstrated, there were and are tactical disagreements about how to deal with the threat. But that's a different order of disagreement.

I don't like to use the term Democrats because there were some hard core Democrat cold warriors. There were also some Republicans that were liberal when it came to foreign policy. But the liberals (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry etc) did not understand the communist threat. They talked with communist guerillas claiming they were a better alternative to the right wing authoritarian regimes. What they didn't understand is (1) these communist guerillas, if victorious, would set up a communist regime were there would be no free elections and political prisoners. And the country would be condemned to permanent poverty (2) the right wing authoritarian regimes, as long as they promoted economic growth were sowing the seads of their own destruction. In general, when a countries per capita income passes $6,000 per year then the country goes democratic. This happened in Chile, South Korea, Argentina, Singapore, Malaysia, etc. If the right wing dictatorship did not promote growth then you also had a disaster - like the phillipines - but in general these regimes promoted growth. But no matter how much economic growth these regimes were gaining the liberals always condemned them as even worse than the communists . Chile is a perfect example. Pinochet was completely dismissed by the liberals as an evil right wing sociopath. However, he hired some boys from the University of Chicago to run the economy. Milton Friedman pretty much ran the place, and Chile went form the lowest per capita income in Latin America to the highest. And now it is democratic properous and free. Free markets, prosperity and democracy all go hand in hand.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I'm sure you haven't perused a travel brochure to Vietnam lately, but I understand the people there are doing much better. And despite decades of US-led boycotts, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the good ol' US of A.

As for the authoritarian regimes, I think you left off Ethiopia under Amin, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, Iraq under Hussein, Burma today, etc.

In 1970 South Vietnam had the highest per capita income in Asia. Today the only country with a lower per capita income is Burma (another socialist country). Recently they have been doing better because they have adopted some free market reforms. Cuba has the lowest per capita income in the Caribbean (yes they even beat Haiti). And had the highest per capital income in the Caribbean when Castro took over.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
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.

The correlation is almost absolute. The poorest regimes anywhere in the world are the ones that adopted socialist systems. The wealthier ones are the capitalist. You take any regime at any time in world history, and the more socialist, the poorer they became, and when they adopted free market principles the richer the became.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My original point was that club's suggestion that Democrats were somehow oblivious to the threat posed by the Soviet Union during the 1980s was bizarre. As you and he have demonstrated, there were and are tactical disagreements about how to deal with the threat. But that's a different order of disagreement.

There you go again

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't like to use the term Democrats because there were some hard core Democrat cold warriors.

Yes. Many.

But the liberals (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry etc) did not understand the communist threat. They talked with communist guerillas claiming they were a better alternative to the right wing authoritarian regimes.

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

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.

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

And dictators do not necessarily give way to democracy. Look at Singapore, which you inexplicably keep calling a democracy, or China. South Korea's democratization was hardly inevitable. Of course, Weimar Germany is the classic example.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There you go again

You're the one who brought up Central America and (inexplicably) South America, and suggested that there was something lefties weren't perceiving. So what were you trying to say?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I do not doubt for a second that some people said that the Soviet Union would collapse. But that was hardly the prevailing view in the 1980s among conservatives and liberals alike. Many more conservatives were taken with the idea that democracies could not compete against totalitarian regimes because they were weak in crucial respects. And the defense build-up was not sold as a way to bankrupt with the Soviet Union, but as a way to keep up with their military.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is that happenstance or evil? Evil, right? It must be pleasant to live in such a simple world.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah, the famous "huh?" defense. I concede.

No- always assume the other side is making the genius response- ty's dragged out the Chewbacca defense. Careful now b.