OT: How Hollywood is rewriting the role of the British and the USA in war (Big)

[argie]

Thanks for not unload all your power over us, not super-power countries inhabitants

I think a few tactical atom bombs could have been done less damage than the "Escuela de las Américas" do...

You're still a bit biased, but no problem. It's hard to see through the other people eyes.

I left this topic here, as is very dificult to me discuss those topics in a language that doesn't native to me...

Ah! About to fight wars, I don't believe in just causes... Not anymore...

The war is over and the people is still starved... I'm not blaming your country (not entirely at least) for it, but thousand of people dies in that war, innocent people the most, and I don't see a better world yet...

This is my last post about this topic.

Sorry.

Ariel

[Formerly Babra]

Ah, "The Beast". Now that was a fascinating foray into unfamiliar Hollywood territory. I enjoyed it immensely.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Hakko Ichiu]

Because you've said you're not going to post in the thread again, I feel a twinge of unfairness at getting in the last word, but I'll survive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie:

Thanks for not unload all your power over us, not super-power countries inhabitants <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not asking for thanks, I just want you to imagine what recent history would be like if America and, say, China had changed places.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I think a few tactical atom bombs could have been done less damage than the "Escuela de las Américas" do...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure I understand the reference. If you mean "The Experience of the Americas", let me suggest that you contemplate what would have happened had Spain remained the dominant power in the Western hemisphere. Remember, historical events don't occur in a vacuum.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You're still a bit biased, but no problem. It's hard to see through the other people eyes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but that goes for everyone. For what it's worth, I believe I acquired my biases after a long period of experience and rational thought, and I'll stick with them until they are disproved to my satisfaction.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I left this topic here, as is very dificult to me discuss those topics in a language that doesn't native to me...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fully sympathize. If you still want to say something to me, write me in Spanish at the e-mail address in my profile. My Spanish is pretty rusty, but I can usually work my way through a newspaper like el Economista. It'll take a while though, so don't expect an overnight reply.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Ah! About to fight wars, I don't believe in just causes... Not anymore...

The war is over and the people is still starved... I'm not blaming your country (not entirely at least) for it, but thousand of people dies in that war, innocent people the most, and I don't see a better world yet...

This is my last post about this topic.

Sorry.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still believe in just causes, but even just causes carry their tragic price. As to people dying in the Cold War, if that is what you're talking about, remember that over 100 million died non-combat deaths at the hands of Communist regimes (cf. Courtois and Cramer, The Black Book of Communism)

WRT the tragic history of Latin America there is plenty of blame to spread around, and the US certainly deserves its share; but it neither the only nor the largest share by any means. The peoples of Latin America must bear the largest portion themselves. Consider, as I'm sure you know, that Argentina was, at the beginning of the 20th century, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Its long downward slide -- caused by a succession of military juntas and kleptocracies -- cannot be blamed on America alone.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Durruti]

Well the thread started with a newspaper quote and as SPR has come up again here's another from Brit publication 'The Big Issue':

'The American flag fills the screen in bleached-bone, apparitional earth-tones, kicking off an extended 25-minute segment of D-Day massacre; US troops wading ashore to be cut down by mortar fire, trampled into the foaming surf. All of which seems to be preparing 'Saving Private Ryan' for an apocalyptic demolition job on American patriotism; Hendrix's 'Star Spangled Banner' set to celluloid. Except that it's not, not really. And at the end of nigh on three hours of gut-churning, white-knuckle cinema, Spielberg's acclaimed opus simply wipes off the blood and signs off with a good ole-fashioned salute. Admittedly, this is a gripping piece of entertainment; a 'Boy's Own' adventure with harrowing realist trimmings as Tom Hanks' anguished everyman steers his troops on a mission to rescue Matt Damon's behind-enemy-lines paratrooper. As an exercise in film-making techniques, 'Saving Private Ryan' - shot for the most part on virtuoso hand-held camera - is immaculate. As an example of cinematic storytelling it's sublime. It's just that this is emphatically not the anti-war classic some claimed it to be. Its Nazi villains are your standard eye-patched monsters, while the only truly flawed figure in Hanks' platoon is Jeremy Davies' bleeding heart interpreter. So the whole picture is a Trojan Horse (suspect tub-thumping coated in a veneer of ambiguity and decorated in documentary-style bunting) that confirms Spielburg as America's expert propagandist. War is hell, the director tells us. But it is a necessary hell, the victory of right over wrong; apple pie over bratwurst.'

Xan Brooks

Anyone?

[Formerly Babra]

I honestly didn't get the impression that "its Nazi villains are your standard eye-patched monsters." I honestly thought (with a few strained plot tricks excepted) that Spielberg was trying to show that everyone was much alike, despite it all.

I remember being appalled when the audience applauded at cowardly Upham shooting down Steamboat Willie, as if he deserved it or something, and as if it was somehow okay. Me, I'm left thinking, "You're still a coward, coward."

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[argie]

A last post, only for not let you with the last word

We are full responsible of our fate in some sense, I said I don't blame USA "entirely" for it

I don't know what is the exact translation or the english name for the military school (escuela) your country used to manage in the past (recent) in Panamá, where most of the military dictators and torturers from Latin América graduates, that is what I was meaning in my reference.

And I don't think we must choose between superpowers. That is the real falacy in Cold War, from my point of view... A nice and warm Socialist regime ala Sweden could be a nice option to live in...

The thing that really amazes me is how hard is to the USA people (not all) understand that your country isn't the Messiah, just the dominant culture

The simple fact that I'm writing it in English is saying something.

I see in "American Beauty" the realization of the USA liberal's dream. If you confuses your own liberal people with marxist leninists, you are closer to the Military Junta than Jefferson, I think.

Look closer at the statistics about people dying in comunist regimes and you found that most of the deads are most related to the traditional racial issues than the actual ideologics ones (the Soviet Union is a very good example of it, then and now). I tend to not believe in the winner's history, as I don't believe in the nazi or stalinist history as well.

I'm not a marxist-leninist, although I don't see nothing wrong in being one.

I know you are a very informed and intelligent person, so, better left this topic here (again ) and don't reach levels that only could be defined by a deadly PBEM.

You know, most of the people in this Forum thinks like you, so I'm starting to look ridiculous...

Ariel

"A goal reached by unjust means, isn't a just goal" Karl Marx (in a very bad translation)

[This message has been edited by argie (edited 06-10-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Durruti:

Well the thread started with a newspaper quote and as SPR has come up again here's another from Brit publication 'The Big Issue':

[...]

Anyone? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much as I like 'The Big Issue', it is not necessarily the gospel on anything. The publication derives its raison d'etre from the people selling it, not from the content published in it, IMHO. This one (which escaped me), to me proves the point. Did the guy actually watch the movie, one wonders.

As for the conflict between communism and the west, I have relatives who lived on the wrong side of the iron curtain. I firmly believe we in Europe can all be thankful for the way things turned out.

And as for Sweden being a model state -hmm, best let a Swede answer that. Dr. Alimantado, where are you when we need you?

------------------

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[John Kettler]

Argie,

The institution you're trying to describe is the School of the Americas, located in Fort Benning, Georgia, U.S.A. It does indeed have the dubious distinction of producing one dictator after another, put out a manual on conducting terrorism and employing torture, and is generally notorious among those who care about human rights. Hundreds of people have been arrested protesting it, including at least one Catholic nun. I believe all the public pressure and outcries finally led to a revision of the curriculum there.

That notwithstanding, it is a conspicuous example of how many local lives the U.S. was willing to wreck or even see lost in order to keep friendly (read non-Communist, obeyed orders, didn't threaten U.S. political or business interests) leaders in power in the region. Noriega's fate also tellingly demonstrates what can happen when a Third World U.S.ally threatens our perceived interests. The record clearly shows that his troubles began when he stopped backing the Contras and got involved in the Contadora regional peace plan, an initiative not created or favored by the U.S. The drug trafficking and harassment of U.S. citizens and soldiers were pretexts, not the real reason. And did you know that special U.S. units were there specifically to create an incident with Panama? I believe that item appeared in the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES. The unit was called the "Hard Chargers."

I did primary research in the Academy Award- winning documentary, "The Panama Deception." In it, we include a visual roster of the numerous dictators who were all graduates of the School of the Americas. I don't know if you can find it out your way, but it was distributed by Rhino Home Video.

Thank you for a most interesting view we otherwise wouldn't have.

Regards,

John Kettler

[argie]

I saw that documentary a time ago.

I'm honored by share this Forum with you, John.

That documentary is one of the best I saw in a long time.

I'm a film and video editor, so I use to see that kind of stuff from time to time

I forgot the name of the director. Was a woman, right?

Ariel

[Bobbaro]

As far as I was concerned, after the first 30 minutes, the original content of the movie was largely exhausted and reverted to Hollywood cliches and SOPs: the appeal to the undescerning by the unknowing. So stunning was that first period that those who noticed tended to forgive the remainder and those who did not fell prey to cheering the local team.

No other movie has depicted the horror of battle in its immediate impact on the human body and spirt for such a prolonged period of time with such vivid show all detail. One may forget the nationalities involved and join at one with suffering humanity.

As far as the propaganda aspect, it is sadly par for the course, and again an internationally shared propensity. It is one that also shows up on the battlefield for a variety of causes.

Where movies depict this aspect of the battlefield attitude, they may be inappropiately blamed for being jingoistic themselves. Where they fail to open the cracks in this facade and where they indeed throw in blankets to hide the humanity of the otherside, they indeed are blameworthy.

Finally, jingoism sells. Where the local market is relatively small one has to consider other markets. That probably makes for better films.

But, where the local market is large, one may recover the investment and indeed exceed it. Where that is wildly successful flawed films are much easier to make without adverse financial results. And then their repetation is such that they make additional money in other markets where the audiences may be suckered in.

[Hakko Ichiu]

I think we're mostly going to have to agree to disagree on this one, but let me correct one major point of fact:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie:

Look closer at the statistics about people dying in comunist regimes and you found that most of the deads are most related to the traditional racial issues than the actual ideologics ones (the Soviet Union is a very good example of it, then and now). I tend to not believe in the winner's history, as I don't believe in the nazi or stalinist history as well.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-- The millions of Chinese killed in the Cultural Revolution were mostly Han Chinese, as were the people who killed them.

-- The millions of kulaks executed or deported to Siberia to freeze and starve to death were victims because of their class, rather than their race.

-- The millions who died in the killing fields of Cambodia were Khmers, as were the Khmer Rouge who killed them.

-- Millions of Ukrainians died in the forced Famine of 1931(?? date, don't have my copy of R. Conquest readily to hand). Russia had controlled Ukraine for centuries before this, yet never saw the need to shed quite so much blood.

These are just the largest examples, but there are hundreds of smaller ones everywhere that Marxist-Leninist regimes seized power.

Incidentally, "The Black Book" hardly constitutes winners' history. The authors are French.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[DrAlimantado]

I will just try to make a few short comments. And you will have to excuse as they will be a bit disoriented, I am doing this from the top of my head and it is getting late.

argie wrote: "A nice and warm Socialist regime ala Sweden could be a nice option to live in..." I see what you are getting at. But, a lot of people I have spoken have unfortunately a slightly outdated and/or exaggerated picture of what Sweden is. Don't get me wrong I still enjoy and support the wellfarestate (the little that is left of it). But it is not so far to the left as it used to be, and as many seem to believe. When I went to college in Colorado a lot of people to the right thought that Sweden was a rampant horror communistic regime. But then on the other hand, leftists believed it to be a warm and cozy heaven. The truth (whatever that would mean) is somewhere in the middle. We still have free university education and general socialwellfare, etc. But that is being dismantled so that the economists are kept happy. We have a culturally conservative backlash against what is percieved as the fragmentation of the world.The monarhy is more popular than ever. etc, etc.

Hakko Ichiu wrote: "I just want you to imagine what recent history would be like if America and, say, China had changed places." In one sense you are of course correct. The world would have been a much worse place if Chine and/or Soviet had gotten the upper hand in the cold war. But then on the other hand ... the outcome could have been better. My experience from living in US and watching the international media, is that a lot of the people who frenetically applaude the death of communism, also have a very selective memory of what the west has been and have done. ... I am NOT saying that this is the case with you,from what I could percieve of your posts, you seem too well read to do that kind of trick. What often is forgotten is that while we say the we fought communism in the name of freedom (we can include Sweden to, Sweden was only neutral on the paper), we tend to forget to look at ourselves. The Black Power movement had to fight on until the early-mid 70's, that is kind of telling about the state of the American democracy at the time. UK and France had colonies while we wanted to liberate the world from communistic opression.

Anyway, now it is time for me to shut up and hit the sack. This is getting way toó late for me. I hope that I made some sense with my irratic ramblings.

Mattias

[argie]

OK. You gonna tell me now that France was in the East side of the Curtain or that the author isn't capitalist

I'm not saying that those massacres doesn't exists. I was unclear in my post: when I point to the racial issue, was meaning the traditional roots of the massacres you describes. Stalin was a dictator. He was the most greatest genocide in history. He could do the same in Comunist Russia or in Capitalist USA...

The khmer, wathever ideologie they have, had a long history of disrespect to human life...

The chinese were in the state them were because the Occidental powers and Japanese imperialism, not Mao...

I don't think pro-western regimes could be done something different in those countries...

I'm tired of it. Sorry again for this useless diatribe...

Ariel

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrAlimantado:

Hakko Ichiu wrote: "I just want you to imagine what recent history would be like if America and, say, China had changed places." In one sense you are of course correct. The world would have been a much worse place if Chine and/or Soviet had gotten the upper hand in the cold war. But then on the other hand ... the outcome could have been better.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are missing my point slightly. I'm not talking about communist vs. capitalist, but rather that almost any other country that found itself in the position of unilateral power that America did would have promptly gone out and conquered the world (o.k., maybe not Sweden, but I trust you see my point). Life in, say, Rwanda might well have been better had it been colonized by the Chinese -- I doubt it though, given Han China's historical xenophobia. I probably should have picked a non-Communist country as a counter-example, e.g., Indonesia. East Timor, anybody?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My experience from living in US and watching the international media, is that a lot of the people who frenetically applaude the death of communism, also have a very selective memory of what the west has been and have done. ... I am NOT saying that this is the case with you,from what I could percieve of your posts, you seem too well read to do that kind of trick. What often is forgotten is that while we say the we fought communism in the name of freedom (we can include Sweden to, Sweden was only neutral on the paper), we tend to forget to look at ourselves. The Black Power movement had to fight on until the early-mid 70's, that is kind of telling about the state of the American democracy at the time. UK and France had colonies while we wanted to liberate the world from communistic opression.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Left in the West likes to play a deceptive little trick: it will say that, for instance, because thousands "disappeared" in Chile, under a regime supported by the US, the US was just as bad as the USSR, if not worse. This totally ignores the difference in scale of the crimes committed by Communist regimes versus the crimes (and there certainly were crimes) committed by anti-Communist regimes. No cause is totally pure, and no great struggle can be played according to the Marquess of Queensbury's rules if one side won't adhere to them. That doesn't make those crimes any prettier.

I don't think the Black Power/Panther movement says much about the state of American democracy, although it says alot about the change in attitude among African American leaders. The movement has been horribly romanticized by the European Left. They were mostly a bunch of criminals (and not of the political kind either) and the movement ended up eating its own. See, for instance, David Horowitz's "Radical Son" and "The Politics of Bad Faith" for an inside view of those events.

Please bear in mind that economic conditions for African Americans were increasing much more quickly in the 40s and 50s, before the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society, then they did in the 60s through the 80s at the height of the welfare state, when they actually fell by many indicators (see Charles Murray, "Losing Ground").

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[John Kettler]

Argie, thanks for the plaudits. You are correct. The director (also co-producer) was Barbara Trent. I spent two weeks straight working closely with her every day during post production.

Bobarro (think that's right), we had enough material to do an eight hour film, but we had to keep it down to ninety minutes in order to keep the audience sufficiently awake and interested that we could do grass roots campaigning immediately afterwards in an effort to get Congressional hearings held on what really happened during Just Cause and why.

The Pentagon stonewalled both us and Congress on Just Cause footage, saying most of it was "lost," yet the History Channel has aired several Panama documentaries with boatloads of supposedly "lost," previously unseen footage. It's amazing how fast things reappear when the government wants to make its point!

To this day, and in spite of our repeated offers to do a shortened version of the film to fit PBS's one hour format on POV, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has refused to air "The Panama Deception." So much for independent broadcasting!

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Regards,

John Kettler

[DrAlimantado]

Hakko: I think that I see what you are saying. The US has not imposed itself in the same way as former superpowers have done during history. But that does not change my main point (maybe we are talking about slightly different things): that even though things might have gotten worse if we gave the US political and economical position to some other country, it should not stop us from critisizing US policy.

This connects to your second point. I would agree with you that the Left likes to ignore differences in crimes commited. In the same way as the right usually ignores crimes commited. Both sides are unable to look at the problem in a balanced way.

The European left without a doubt has romanticized the Black Power movement, in the same way as they romanticized the Viet Cong. But I would still maintain my point for bringing them into the discussion. The US was up to the early 70's not a full fledged democracy as it is today. And this is very much forgotten when talking about the virtues of US politics.

I hope I did not step on too many toes. Now it is time for breakfast.

Mattias

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

Look at almost any movie with pretentions to plot and you will find an extremely dated pseudo-Marxist critique of American society...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you seen Starship Troopers? Seems to me, that movie revels in it's assumption that American society would be more than willing to accept a pseudo-Fascist government. (But then, Heinlein's book was even more so).

I'd also like to point out that there has yet to be practicable government based on Marxist theory enacted on this planet, and that the use of the term "Communist" when describing a Military/Socialist dictatorship is also incorrect.

As to criticism of US policy abroad in supporting Right-wing strong-men and reactionary hereditary regimes: Well, it wasn't called the "Cold War" for nothing, now was it?

If the USA was a true Imperialist state (and we did have our moments around the turn of the century), then why do we keep giving back all the territory we've taken in all our various wars? The US is a market-driven capitalist meritocracy where all that matters is the profit-margin and the bottom line. We don't have to invade you to own you: Economic conquest is much safer, and multi-nationals pay their taxes on time --- unlike all the 3rd world nations about two seconds away from a leveraged buy-out.

As to British huffiness at not having a more prominent role in SPR: It's a movie about an American squad searching for an American soldier in the American area of operations. Jeez! Make yr own damn movie set on Gold Beach and call it Rescueing Private-Soldier Higgins or something!

(Damn, I'm starting to sound like OB&M!)

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 06-11-2000).]

[Bobbaro]

John Kettler, my appologies for the appearant implications of my previous post in this thread. I was addressing the Private Ryan film, not your documentary. My compositional timing was such that other posts, including yours, intervened between mine and the one last referencing SPR. I should have been explicit.

[This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 06-11-2000).]

[Durruti]

von Lucke:

'I'd like to point out there has yet to be practicable government based on Marxist theory enacted on this planet, and that the use of the term 'Communist' when describing a Military/Socialist dictatorship is also incorrect.'

Very true. It always amazes me how many people use the term 'Communist' without the slightest idea of what it means. Also that none of the state-socialist regimes in Russia, China etc. ever claimed to have achieved Communism.

'As to British huffiness at not having a more prominent role in SPR: It's a movie about an *American* squad...'

Again I agree but then I don't think I've come across any Brits that argue Monty's chaps should have been represented in the film. If there are such people then they missed the point of SPR. What I *have* come across are people that claim films like SPR, U-571 etc., twist the facts and then present them as true events in the general consciousness. OK, you can then argue that people who base their historical knowledge around movies they've seen are pretty stupid. Fair enough. One of the main objections seemed to be a form of 'cultural imperialism' where events similar to those that happened in real life to British (or other) servicemen are depicted as if they happened to Americans instead. For instance an attack by Tiger tanks on 13th June in Normandy on a day the British were facing them at Villers-Bocage (US faced no Tigers in Normandy or indeed Panthers or PzIVs for another month). Or the first capture of an Enigma machine and code-books from a German submarine. God, that last one even caused a debate in the Brit Parliament a few days ago with Tony Blair accusing 'U-571' of insulting British servicemen - one of the few times Labour and Conservatives have actually unanimously agreed on anything (who says politicians are just a bunch of wasters with nothing better to talk about )

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Durruti:

von Lucke:

'I'd like to point out there has yet to be practicable government based on Marxist theory enacted on this planet, and that the use of the term 'Communist' when describing a Military/Socialist dictatorship is also incorrect.'

Very true. It always amazes me how many people use the term 'Communist' without the slightest idea of what it means. Also that none of the state-socialist regimes in Russia, China etc. ever claimed to have achieved Communism.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been hearing this particular dodge for over 25 years -- I became politically aware at a very young age.

Yes, the pure Dictatorship of the Proletariat and utopian withering away of the state has never been achieved. But how come every attempt to establish it ends in disaster and, more often than not, genocide? Could it be that the basic premises of Socialism/Communism are flawed?

I, for one, think so.

[edited for a really silly spelling mistake]

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[This message has been edited by Hakko Ichiu (edited 06-11-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Durruti:

Very true. It always amazes me how many people use the term 'Communist' without the slightest idea of what it means. Also that none of the state-socialist regimes in Russia, China etc. ever claimed to have achieved Communism.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they claimed for a long time that they were on the way to achiving it and that that justified whatever they did. So for the sake of argument I for one have no problem labelling these states as 'communist'. I also have no problem labelling Germany as capitalist, which you could argue it is not. The question is whether you want to debate the issues or the labels.

------------------

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie:

OK. You gonna tell me now that France was in the East side of the Curtain or that the author isn't capitalist <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was just a minor dig at the French. I've been smiley free for one week, and I like myself much better now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

<snip>

The khmer, wathever ideologie they have, had a long history of disrespect to human life...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are confusing the Khmer, long acknowledged as a gentle, friendly people -- just ask anyone who visited Cambodia before 1967 -- with Annamese/Vietnamese, a very agressive people who were nicknamed "The Prussians of Asia" long before Dien Bien Phu.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The chinese were in the state them were because the Occidental powers and Japanese imperialism, not Mao...

I don't think pro-western regimes could be done something different in those countries...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That frees Mao from responsibility for his own actions, and I don't buy it. If colonialism makes murderers of its "victims", then why didn't the Poles massacre 10 percent of their population after the fall of the Iron Curtain? Furthermore, Ch'iang K'ai Chek and the Kuomintang weren't exactly the Continental Congress, but it's hard to imagine them committing the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, or Tiananmen Square. In fact, Taiwan looks awfully democratic to me these days, unlike the mainland.

As an aside, this thread has gone wildly OT and yet remains open. Maybe we should insult each other more?

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[DrAlimantado]

I have no problems at all in labeling the former Soviet union and their allies as communistic states. I do not see any other apropriate label for them. But what one should not do is to confuse them with marxist political theory, (especially not the contemporary variants, even though if I am no big fan of them). This is similar to our western liberal democracies. There is a hughe difference between the theoretical liberal political theory and the practical libaral politics that is conducted.In fact, from my point of view most liberal democracies are not so liberal if you look closer.

I do not think that pointing towards the effects of colonialism frees the present opressors/dictators/murderers from responisbility. It is just a partial explanation that you can draw so far. Only rampant biologism or dogmatic religion truly tries to free the subjects from responibility within the political sphere. And of course there is no necessary casuality between the structure of the former colony and what is done later on.

Mattias

[Mark IV]

The former Soviet Union did, and China does, refer to themselves as "communist". So there is really no debate here.

When it comes to incentives, human nature is pretty predictable. It seems that Marxist dogma attempts to either ignore, misinterpret, or change human nature.

Whatever the case, incentives are like a trail of crumbs for the ants, and humans follow them where they are found, and that's why states with Marxist roots seem to always end up the same.

Flourishing black markets, premiums on foreign currency, abuse of power by those with access to goods, periodic crackdown on economic crimes, and low productivity, are all kind of engineered into the system. Some are more benign to their neighbors than others.

The fact that they are doctrinally committed to exporting the dictatorship of the proletariat is one reason they are always perceived as a threat to us imperialists. Our counter-policy of global "containment" polarized the debate and our relationship with communist countries... but that's OK with me. We were both smart enough not to go to WWIII over it and all's well that ends well.

We were going to sell them the rope from which we would eventually hang, remember? And now most of our rope is plastic, and imported from China...

[Murx]

First of all I want to say that I don't want to insult anyone (I hope I didn't it with my first post...) but it may happen as my mind is not always right on target and my arguements sometimes fire wild

For the stuff I said about MCDonald & Coca-Cola - I meant both as a example how they change the everyday way of life of people. Its just a symptom of how the local/cultural way of life of other nations is changed and twisted - the most visible one I can think of.

I like to quote argie on this one :

The thing that really amazes me is how hard is to the USA people (not all) understand hat your country isn't the Messiah, just the dominant culture.

As I did quote Ghandi:

I like to welcome each and every culture in my home but I don't want to be overwhelmed by just one!

Thats rather my whole point - other problems are US own politics and they have to deal with that on their own. Only thing is that I dont wat them to happen elswhere ind the world ...

(BTW I believe US is supporting NATO/UN actions - military ones that is - only to have just right to act when their own politics are affected too. Compare the Gulf-War and the Jugoslavia conflicts with other conflicts. The Gulf war is on oil and the Jugoslavia is on a globar strategical location to the instable post Russian nations, but the wras in south & middle africa are OK, couse they buy lots of weapons (money!), kill each other (less world population) and aren't endangering any worthy natura ressource supplies ....

Thats in answer to Hakko Ichui

Why else do we send our troops on operations that can be of no conceivable net benefit to the United States? E.g., Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sudan. BTW, not You are sending, Your goverment is and what means do You have to stop them ?)

Again hopefully I didn't insult anyone ...

murx