Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ThirdEye who wrote (16078)	1/11/2002 3:12:15 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

TE, most power-seekers are ambitious and have expansionary goals, so in that sense, yes, you are correct that the USSR's expansionary aims were defeated [in Afghanistan most notably]. They didn't actually attempt expansion elsewhere though they did win in their ideological support of Vietnam and defeated the USA, NZ, Australia, which took their losses and left. But that's shifting the argument when you say the expansionary aims were defeated. When people say the freedom-loving west [freedom-loving being a bit of a joke really because it's an idle claim other than in comparison with rampantly totalitarian places] defeated the USSR, they mean they caused the USSR to collapse and go through the Gorby overthrow and subsequent conversion to Yeltsinism. That is not true - other than in the tendentious sense that emulation of the west provided a template for rebellion in the USSR. The 'victory over the USSR' claim is the old 'success has 100 fathers and failure is an orphan' syndrome. Acolytes crowd around the champion because they want some of the allure [and profits] to rub off on them. I am considered a rabid, extreme, right-wing wacko in NZ [supporting and a member of act.org.nz as well as libertarianz.org.nz ]. But arguing certain cases makes people think [because I don't mindlessly chant mantras, cliches and slogans] that I'm some kind of commie, left-wing, racist, capitalist, sexist, fascist [an oddly eclectic and incompatible mix]. People love their labels [makes thinking easier for them; meaning they don't have to do it; which is what they like because they are usually slipping off the left of the bell-curve and if they can learn some slogans, they feel they have a grip on the situation]. My favourite slogan; "Don't let a slogan do your thinking for you". Mqurice PS: I'm well aware the USA had a very major role in the geopolitical nightmare of MAD and ideological conflict with socialism [Britain, France and NZ were neck deep in it so were not only not leading, but were avid socialists, as were, and still are, many Americans]. The USA did go overboard on the other side and supported all kinds of criminals simply because they were definitely not communist. The wacky yanks mistakenly thought it better to have a totalitarian thug in charge than a communist. They were wrong - India did it right, have socialism for decades but relatively few murders in a democratic system. Poverty is NOT all that bad and is NOT a reason to be unhappy. It sure beats being murdered in the name of freedom. Eventually the workers get sick of having the bludgers vote to take their efforts in a parasitic relationship. The USA had a snitch on India for decades because they were socialist and therefore deemed a client of the USSR's. So the silly USA leaned Pakistan's way. Especially when the USSR foolishly headed south. The USA and Pakistan helped defeat the USSR invasion but Pakistan then set up the Taleban and the freedom-fighting Mujahadeen, which promptly allowed the freedom-fighting Osama and enthusiastic Jihadists to set up shop and destroy the WTC, Cole, embassies and others and thousands of people. The USA also was sympathetic to the Chechen 'freedom-fighters' not to mention the IRA murderous 'freedom-fighters'. India is the democracy and deserving of support [meaning trade and normal relations, not handouts]. Pakistan has the 'Islamic Nuke'. That's worse than the 'Communist nuke'. You don't hear communists wanting to be martyrs in self-destructive superstitious jihad. In retrospect, it might have been more sensible for the USA to support USSR conquest of Afghanistan and support India over Kashmir. Now it is apparent that the really big bogeyman is superstitious, medieval, mad mullah fatwah-driven jihad rather than Governor Gray [GG] Californian communism or the Indian version, or Chinese-style statism. The USA has now figured that out. That's good. Which is not to say a good defense against China's interest in taking over Taiwan on bad terms shouldn't be kept at bay. The USA spends a very large chunk of the USA GNP now so it has some close similarities to communism - I suppose it's fascism really, when the state dictates how business runs, takes the money but doesn't actually own the means of production. Political definitions here: planetmike.com