It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by FyreByrd
well how would anybody 'justify' mass killings because of politics and/or economic systems ?
I think the 'commies' have a bit of a history of mass killings with plenty of excuses and 'reasons'.
The mass starvations in commie USSR and commie China are two big ones.
Those happened within a few decades of each other in the 20th Century.
How many have the 'cappies' killed ?
edit on Jul-28-2013 by xuenchen because:
Originally posted by NotAnAspie
I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?
Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by FyreByrd
well how would anybody 'justify' mass killings because of politics and/or economic systems ?
I think the 'commies' have a bit of a history of mass killings with plenty of excuses and 'reasons'.
The mass starvations in commie USSR and commie China are two big ones.
Those happened within a few decades of each other in the 20th Century.
How many have the 'cappies' killed ?
edit on Jul-28-2013 by xuenchen because:
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by NotAnAspie
I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?
Consider what the Soviet Union did after WW2. Their "client states" were taken as buffers. You can easily look them up. Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. Many more.
Communism expanded by military action.
Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by NotAnAspie
I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?
Consider what the Soviet Union did after WW2. Their "client states" were taken as buffers. You can easily look them up. Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. Many more.
Communism expanded by military action.
Well, those aren't really the greatest examples since they did not permanently take them.
To use examples like that you must look at how many places the west has colonized and administered... and many still to this day. Permanently. This is really the point i was trying to make. The communist expansionism always seems to be circumstantial, to regain lost territory they once held, temporary or in times of conflict for security purposes ...just like China in vietnam. whereas western expansionism is not acutely necessary but chronically and methodically aggressive, opportunistic and often permanent... and regarding that there are numerous examples all over the world.
But I understand how conservatives like to find any specious reason to get mad at Obama. For some reason conservatives and Republicans get a lot more hot and bothered about non-issues involving Obama than real issues involving him -- and boy, are there a lot of real issues involving him, but Fox news and the usual gang of right-wing media suspects want to point conservatives to these non-issues rather than address actual ones.
Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by NotAnAspie
I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?
Consider what the Soviet Union did after WW2. Their "client states" were taken as buffers. You can easily look them up. Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. Many more.
Communism expanded by military action.
Well, those aren't really the greatest examples since they did not permanently take them.
To use examples like that you must look at how many places the west has colonized and administered... and many still to this day. Permanently. This is really the point i was trying to make. The communist expansionism always seems to be circumstantial, to regain lost territory they once held, temporary or in times of conflict for security purposes ...just like China in vietnam. whereas western expansionism is not acutely necessary but chronically and methodically aggressive, opportunistic and often permanent... and regarding that there are numerous examples all over the world.edit on 28-7-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)
And yes - it was truly a mess. Ho was looking for freedom for his people. Their idea of freedom was different then ours as was their right. Commies under the Bed.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by grey580
The Mujahideen were freedom fighters then. They were fighting Soviet Communism back then. Somewhere along the way, Osama turned, or he got thrown to the wolves, not really sure which.
Reagan is entirely different from BObo. Reagan knew Communism was the enemy and Bobo, well different story. Bobo and Anita Dunn are quite the pair in glorifying communist dictators.edit on 27-7-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by NotAnAspie
I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?
Consider what the Soviet Union did after WW2. Their "client states" were taken as buffers. You can easily look them up. Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. Many more.
Communism expanded by military action.
Well, those aren't really the greatest examples since they did not permanently take them.
To use examples like that you must look at how many places the west has colonized and administered... and many still to this day. Permanently. This is really the point i was trying to make. The communist expansionism always seems to be circumstantial, to regain lost territory they once held, temporary or in times of conflict for security purposes ...just like China in vietnam. whereas western expansionism is not acutely necessary but chronically and methodically aggressive, opportunistic and often permanent... and regarding that there are numerous examples all over the world.
One can argue that all colonization was for 'security purposes.' Stalin's taking of many countries by military might was 'not acutely necessary but chronically and methodically aggressive, opportunistic and often permanent.' In this case, the aggression lasted from 1945 until 1991, 56 years of the 69 years of the Soviet Union's existence [80%]. It was about as permanent as it could be. Stalin, who killed more of his own people in peacetime than Hitler did in WW2, took those countries as 'buffers' for security purposes and, of course, bled them dry for mother Russia.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by FyreByrd
And yes - it was truly a mess. Ho was looking for freedom for his people. Their idea of freedom was different then ours as was their right. Commies under the Bed.
Our idea of "freedom", by that appraisal, is so radically opposed from finding common ground in even basic concept? I think it's hopeless.
You might say the couple million people Ho's inspired movement murdered in the years following the fall of Saigon missed the boat on all that freedom stuff and the great benefits of "The People's Movement". All they got was dead. Funny how that works? The Soviets kill 10's of millions of innocent people in the purges. The Chinese kill 10's of millions of innocent people in the Cultural Revolution. The Vietnamese kill a couple million innocent people in the retaking and consolidation of power after 1975...and Cambodia had it's epic 'killing fields', shooting anything educated enough to debate the fact. :shk: (Yet some still see this as great to follow? Follow into what.. death?)
Communist rule seems to lead to millions of dead civilians? Odd how that plays out...but it does, actually, play out. It shouldn't have been our place to have anything whatsoever to do with them killing each other over there, but then we're trying to make 1960's moral judgements with 21st century standards today. Never something that can be done in historical research and appreciation of facts, right?
All kinda of warped conclusions start flowing when one judges history with the standards of a radically different time for values and morals, IMO.edit on 29-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)