Really great book

[Briareos]

http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194479707&sr=8-1


Really good book. Well researched and a good read. Everyone should read it and realize that Hollywood's version of events of history is based more on their bias then actual fact.

[Crowley]

You know McCarthy attempted to defend the SS right?

Murrow said it best:

His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men.

[Grazzt]

Everyone should read it and realize that Hollywood's version of events of history is based more on their bias then actual fact.

And by Hollywood's version, you mean the version that is generally taught in schools, and reflected in pretty much every other text about the era except for this one that happens to agree with your viewpoint, right?

[beetlebum]

And by Hollywood's version, you mean the version that is generally taught in schools, and reflected in pretty much every other text about the era except for this one that happens to agree with your viewpoint, right?

Not to mention a reflection of reality and all that is sane. I reccomend another book for you to read Bri. It's called The Fifties by David Halberstam. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FFifties-David-Halberstam%2Fdp%2F0449909336&ei=UCY1R6qxMJG4pgSyjL3EDA&usg=AFQjCNFJyFpTrDB6dXca1Blv0dOCEGzgzA&sig2=gCkDPpITcgPt16rwhAmSXg)

There you can read all about Joseph McCarthy's anti democratic assault on dissent. As well as Eisenhower and the CIA's involvement in economic imperialsism, in both Iran and Guatemala. I'm sure 100,000 dead Guatemalans think Eisenhower was a swell guy. And I'm sure The Rosenbergs though the anti-communist hysteria engulfing the nation at the time was "wonderful". :rolleyes:

[Briareos]

Not to mention a reflection of reality and all that is sane. I reccomend another book for you to read Bri. It's called The Fifties by David Halberstam. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FFifties-David-Halberstam%2Fdp%2F0449909336&ei=UCY1R6qxMJG4pgSyjL3EDA&usg=AFQjCNFJyFpTrDB6dXca1Blv0dOCEGzgzA&sig2=gCkDPpITcgPt16rwhAmSXg)

There you can read all about Joseph McCarthy's anti democratic assault on dissent. As well as Eisenhower and the CIA's involvement in economic imperialsism, in both Iran and Guatemala. I'm sure 100,000 dead Guatemalans think Eisenhower was a swell guy. And I'm sure The Rosenbergs though the anti-communist hysteria engulfing the nation at the time was "wonderful". :rolleyes:

Well I'm sure the Rosenbergs were very unhappy because they knew people were on the lookout for them passing classified information to the Soviets.

[Briareos]

Not to mention a reflection of reality and all that is sane. I reccomend another book for you to read Bri. It's called The Fifties by David Halberstam. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FFifties-David-Halberstam%2Fdp%2F0449909336&ei=UCY1R6qxMJG4pgSyjL3EDA&usg=AFQjCNFJyFpTrDB6dXca1Blv0dOCEGzgzA&sig2=gCkDPpITcgPt16rwhAmSXg)

There you can read all about Joseph McCarthy's anti democratic assault on dissent. As well as Eisenhower and the CIA's involvement in economic imperialsism, in both Iran and Guatemala. I'm sure 100,000 dead Guatemalans think Eisenhower was a swell guy. And I'm sure The Rosenbergs though the anti-communist hysteria engulfing the nation at the time was "wonderful". :rolleyes:


This wasn't about dissent this was about actively aiding and abetting enemies of this country who wished to destroys us and force us to live under their rule as slaves. Then again I guess aiding our enemies is the definition of dissent these days to the left.

[Briareos]

Quick challenge for everyone name one person falsely accused by McCarthy.

[Grazzt]

Well I'm sure the Rosenbergs were very unhappy because they knew people were on the lookout for them passing classified information to the Soviets.

While Julius Rosenberg was obviously a spy, his wife's involvement is far less clear. I mean, we know that her accuser confessed to perjuring against her (http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/12/06/23023.html), and according to the Wiki she wasn't even assigned a codename by the KGB, while her accuser's wife (who was never even indicted) was.

Vigilance is one thing. Sending innocent people to their death with the scantiest of evidence is another.

[Grazzt]

Quick challenge for everyone name one person falsely accused by McCarthy.

How about Fred Fisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fisher_%28lawyer%29)?

[Infra-Man]

Quick challenge for everyone name one person falsely accused by McCarthy.

I'd have to do some research on the existence of the wrongfully accused, but as an aside to McCarthy's purging of communists, didn't McCarthy also help orchestrate the firing of government employees simply for being gay or for suspected homosexual behavior?

[Briareos]

How about Fred Fisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fisher_%28lawyer%29)?

He was removed from his position for being part of a organization that was a front group for the communist party.

[Gilda Dent]

Falsely accused of what?

The mere fact of being a communist was not at the time a crime, and did not make one un-American, disloyal, a spy, or any kind of threat to the country. McCarthy either didn't understand or didn't care that there was a difference between being a communist and being a spy.

Even if he was correct about every person accused by him and by his committee being a communist, what he was doing was still wrong because he was attacking people not for being a threat to the country but for having a belief system that differed from his.

Whether he didn't know the difference, or knew and didn't care, his actions hurt a great number of people innocent of any wrongdoing other than believing differently from him.

[Grazzt]

He was removed from his position for being part of a organization that was a front group for the communist party.

There's no actual proof of that. The National Lawyer Guild is leftist, but that is not equivalent to "front for the communist party". McCarthy had no right to call for a former member (not even a current member at the time!) of the NLG to be fired from his firm, as if membership with that group automatically makes a person a Ruskie spy. And Welch was right to call him on that.

[The Xenos]

I'm waiting for someone to come out with a historial book with a theory that the witches in Salem were actually working for the devil and that the people who hung the witches actually saved what would become the God fearing United States of America.

[beetlebum]

I'm waiting for someone to come out with a historial book with a theory that the witches in Salem were actually working for the devil and that the people who hung the witches actually saved what would become the God fearing United States of America.

Well, der, they were because they were a bunch of God forsaking *crosses self*


COMMIES!!!

Burn the whole lot of them!

And the damn Puritans stole our thing.

Catholics were the ones who were supposed to have the monopolies on burning heathens!

http://forum.rscnet.org/images/smilies/inq.gif

http://planetsmilies.net/angry-smiley-1430.gif


Grrrr..... http://planetsmilies.net/angry-smiley-1517.gif

[Cam63]

McCarthy was a bastard.

Now, he's just a dead bastard.

[Crowley]

Yeah it's really sad when people try to recast him as some kind of hero.

[Spike-X]

Then again I guess aiding our enemies is the definition of dissent these days to the fanatical right-wing moonbats who think anybody who disagrees with a Republican President for any reason whatsoever is tantamount to treason.

fixed it for ya.

[the4thpip]

I hear he was mean to Heather Mills.

[beetlebum]

Well I'm sure the Rosenbergs were very unhappy because they knew people were on the lookout for them passing classified information to the Soviets.

Grazzt brought up a good point. Ethel's involvement in the deal was never clearly established. Perjury was committed against her. And to get all X-Files here, I can't help but wonder if she was being made an example of. Because when you think about it, what's an effective way to distract the populace from unsavoury activities that you are involved in order to ensure your own economic interests are protected? Take advantage of an acquiescent press and turn these two people into a side show to incur America's moral indignation, while Kermit Roosevelt Jr. orchestrates a plan to over throw Mossadegh in Iran.

This wasn't about dissent this was about actively aiding and abetting enemies of this country who wished to destroys us and force us to live under their rule as slaves. Then again I guess aiding our enemies is the definition of dissent these days to the left.

I'm actually not a leftist. I'm more objective than subjective in my ethics. I am a political moderate, with no party affiliations. Several times I have argued on this board and others to protect the objective rights of the individual, and I do believe in natural rights (though they are to be reconciled by a social contract as proposed by the likes of Locke and Rousseau and most importantly, tempered by deontology). I have argued against giving the State too much power and the government is the solution to everything ideal. The difference between you and I is I can acknowledge when America has made a mistake. That doesn't make me unpatriotic.

It's constructive criticism, and it's about learning about your past so you don't make the same mistakes. The so-called conservatives nowadays seem to think there side can do no wrong, and that the left is irremediable. Honestly Bri, the right "claims" to be against subjective ethics, but than a lot of folks on that side of the spectrum make excuses for and justify reprehensible activities. The truth is ugly. Skewering it to fit your world view does no good. Don't just read whatever Rush Limbaugh tells you too, or take Michelle Malkin's word at face value. Do your own research.

[Infra-Man]

I will say that it's stuff like this that turns me off to partisan politics on both sides of the political spectrum--namely that partisan politics is not about politics so much as justifying one's ideology and patting oneself on the back for believing in such-and-such a thing.

There is no discussion, just cheerleading; no debate, just a steadfast gripping at one's ideas, like sailors clinging to the mast in a storm; no deliberation, just a party line or an ideological line; no gray zone on issues, but instead a silly and unrealistic dichotomy.

That partisan politics has infected history is troubling, because in this backward glance though ideologically tainted spectacles, one can exonerate villains and denigrate heroes simply to confirm one's beliefs; or perhaps remove all the blemishes from heroes so they are pristine while casting more pitch on the villains.

EDIT:
Post addresses the book cited in the thread, not anyone's posts.

[beetlebum]

I will say that it's stuff like this that turns me off to partisan politics on both sides of the political spectrum--namely that partisan politics is not about politics so much as justifying one's ideology and patting oneself on the back for believing in such-and-such a thing.

There is no discussion, just cheerleading; no debate, just a steadfast gripping at one's ideas, like sailors clinging to the mast in a storm; no deliberation, just a party line or an ideological line; no gray zone on issues, but instead a silly and unrealistic dichotomy.

That partisan politics has infected history is troubling, because in this backward glance though ideologically tainted spectacles, one can exonerate villains and denigrate heroes simply to confirm one's beliefs; or perhaps remove all the blemishes from heroes so they are pristine while casting more pitch on the villains.

I can honestly say I understand your contempt for partisan politics. And yes, there is that danger of looking through history through the prism glass of your own skewed world view. But honestly, I don't think I was cheerleading or towing a party line.

I am in the middle of the political spectrum. Both the right and the left have certain aspects of llltheir philosophy I disagree with. I defended Republicans in Crowley's Democrats thread. I did not mean to generalize ( I hate that actually) Obviously, being someone who is a fan of Russell Kirk and has Barry Goldwater in her sig, I don't think everyone on the right is bad. There are people like Rick Warren, Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul and several members of the One campaign who are conservative in their ideologies.

The point I was trying to make is that there are many people on the right, who claim to be adherents of faith yet make apologies for people like McCarthy, who clearly abused his position of power and ruined several lives in the process. Does that make him a "villain"? In my book, it makes him someone that history should judge harshly. There is that danger to re-write history, as we see now in places like Russia where, despite the purge and the taking of over 10 million lives, Joseph Stalin is venerated in some quarters as an exemplary ideal of socialism and a hero.

It happens of course, on the left as well. Every single one of us has irremediable flaws, one of them is to be objective in what we feel is right. We are partisan towards other individuals with irremediable flaws. What justifies them is if the good outweighs the bad. I can't think of any good the aforementioned McCarthy did.

I believe we can discuss this in a civil matter and remain respectful as interlocutors. BTW, did any one ever tell you that you type well? Honestly, it's like most of your posts are the best term papers or nicked from a text book. :p :)

[singoalla]

http://forum.rscnet.org/images/smilies/inq.gif



I am stealing this one for the next "falsely" accused maniac. :D

[singoalla]

Joseph MacCarthy was a crook and a bastard who used his position to ruin lives of others. History agrees on this. Now go look in the comment section of that bookreview, and you'll see someone hailing Anne Coulter as well. That's the kind of people this book is aimed at: People who will distort truth and fact to fit their own political agenda.

Being a member of a Communist party does not mean you want to destroy the nation you live in. Just like being a member of the Democratic part doesn't, or being a Republican. You have a political opinion and in most western countries you are and should be free to express those views without being labeled a threat.
Unless you actually do blow something up. But no government or police force has the right to accuse and charge and condemn people for thought crimes. If they did, half this world would be in prison and the other half on death row.

[beetlebum]

I am stealing this one for the next "falsely" accused maniac. :D

Thief! :mad:

*beetle pauses, remembers she nicked it from another website*


Nevermind. :o

[Infra-Man]

But honestly, I don't think I was cheerleading or towing a party line.

Actually, my post was aimed at the book Briareos cited, not you. Sorry if it came across that way, which was not the intent and all, but the post I did just happened to fall after yours.

I believe we can discuss this in a civil matter and remain respectful as interlocutors.

Ditto.

BTW, did any one ever tell you that you type well? Honestly, it's like most of your posts are the best term papers or nicked from a text book. :p :)

Thanks'm. Been trying to trying to work on new fiction for the last few months and been noticing a bunch of that slipping into posts lately... don't know why, either.

[beetlebum]

Actually, my post was aimed at the book Briareos cited, not you. Sorry if it came across that way, which was not the intent and all, but the post I did just happened to fall after yours.



Ditto.



Thanks'm. Been trying to trying to work on new fiction for the last few months and been noticing a bunch of that slipping into posts lately... don't know why, either.


It's cool, every thing is okay :) But you do have a point in that both sides do have a tendency to fall into that camp and play selective history and venerate the best aspects of certain individuals and events while ignoring their worst parts. People do that, coincidentally, with the 1950's and it makes me wanna retch.

And I would totally read your stuff. You type really well, and honestly when I read your stuff it's like I'm reading something by Russel Kirk or the best editorial pieces, because the stuff you say is typed in such an eloquent way it makes you pause and be taken aback by how good it is. And besides, can't hate a fellow Jam fan! :D

[singoalla]

Thief! :mad:

*beetle pauses, remembers she nicked it from another website*


Nevermind. :o

Pot. Kettle. <3

:p

[Infra-Man]

Yeah, I guess in one sense partisanship just plays into a person's need to feel like they belong to some group or ideological affiliation, and there's nothing wrong with it per se and I don't fault anyone for identifying with a given party, religion, or political identity. I think it gets to be a problem when the group affiliation becomes more important than facts and truth.

Haven't read any Russell Kirk, actually. Will have to look him up. Lately have been re-reading lots of E. B. White and Italo Calvino non-fiction, Jonathan Franzen, Jonathan Cheever, interviews with Zadie Smith, and lot of hoity toity (and sometimes not very good) contemporary short fiction via Tin House and other literary magazines.

Man... just call me Pretentious Pete :p

[Corrina]

Most of the time, McCarthy played fear-monger. Like saying he had the names of, say, 300 communists in the State Department and holding up a piece of paper.

The equivalent of shouting "boogyman! Boogie! Boogie!"

A claim he retracted, btw, when finally confronted. He's not a true patriot or even deranged--he was just a man looking for the easiest path to power and picked fear as the way to do it, not caring who or what he stepped on in the process.

[Pink Bat Max]

There were a hell of a lot of people who had been socialists during the Great Depression. Try going through a depression like that and NOT having some people explore Marxism. Didn't mean they had ties to the Soviet Union.

One interesting figure to explore is James Baldwin. It saddens me how the McCarthy era made him renounce so much of his work.

And you know what? I've at various times given money to or supported orginizations that would be seen as fronts for the communist party, if not outright declaring themselves Socialist or Communist. I'm a big supporter of Les Feinberg and hir work. Feinberg is a managing editor of the Workers World newspaper, and a straight-up Communist. I haven't voted for either of the two major parties since my first election. Know what else? I'm a loyal American who loves her country.

[rick]

And I'm sure The Rosenbergs though the anti-communist hysteria engulfing the nation at the time was "wonderful". :rolleyes:


Well to be fair, while McCarthy was a douche, and also had nothing at all to do with their case, the Rosenbergs were guilty as hell of helping to pass along information on how to make the atom bomb to the Soviets.

Maybe their execution was an extreme measure, but their guilt, despite the attempts by their sons to clear them, holds up with time.

[Grazzt]

Maybe their execution was an extreme measure, but their guilt, despite the attempts by their sons to clear them, holds up with time.

Quick correction, Julius's guilt holds up. Ethel's is unsure.

[rick]

Ethel Rosenberg was at the very least aware of her husband’s espionage activities, as well as the work of her brother David Greenglass and his wife.

If not guilty of actual espionage, she was certainly part of the conspiracy to support and conceal it.

In the 1970’s I became fascinated by the case after watching a television movie that was highly sympathetic to their case. But over the years as I have read more and more, it is just very obvious that Julius Rosenberg was a classic example of a Russian mole, and so was David Greenglass.

There is very little evidence to suggest that Ethel actually spied. Most of the evidence that does exist was the testimony of her brother who was far more involved with the crimes then his sister since he was actually part of the Manhattan project.

However, it is very clear that Ethel was well aware of what was going on.

[Grazzt]

That still means that she's not guilty of what she was sentenced to death for.

[Sabrinaset]

I dunno ... accomplice after the fact, perhaps?

There was a movie tangentally about McCarthy I saw on ... I think Showtime about McCarthy's right hand man ... dunno his name ATM, but he died of AIDS awhile back, and that movie made it quite clear that the Rosenbergs were railroaded IIRC. I was fairly sure it wasn't quite the case with Julius.

[Pink Bat Max]

There was a movie tangentally about McCarthy I saw on ... I think Showtime about McCarthy's right hand man ... dunno his name ATM, but he died of AIDS awhile back, and that movie made it quite clear that the Rosenbergs were railroaded IIRC.

Roy Cohn.
.............................

[rick]

That still means that she's not guilty of what she was sentenced to death for.

There is very little doubt that Ethel was charged as a way to pressure Julius into confessing and giving information on the espionage.

But it is also very clear that if she had been aware of his activities and was part of the conspiracy.

And while it's great that Greenglass recanted his testimony, it should be pointed out that he didn't do that until the 1990's, and that until that point he strongly asserted numerous times that Ethel had typed secret documents in preparation for them being sent over to the Russians.

[Grazzt]

I dunno ... accomplice after the fact, perhaps?

There was a movie tangentally about McCarthy I saw on ... I think Showtime about McCarthy's right hand man ... dunno his name ATM, but he died of AIDS awhile back, and that movie made it quite clear that the Rosenbergs were railroaded IIRC. I was fairly sure it wasn't quite the case with Julius.

I think that movie was Angels in America.

And while it's great that Greenglass recanted his testimony, it should be pointed out that he didn't do that until the 1990's, and that until that point he strongly asserted numerous times that Ethel had typed secret documents in preparation for them being sent over to the Russians.

Who knows why Greenglass waited so long? Maybe he was letting a statute of limitations run out on his wife, who was never indicted on anything but was far more of a player than Ethel was.

But it is also very clear that if she had been aware of his activities and was part of the conspiracy.

Define "part of the conspiracy". What did she contribute, besides her silence?

[Crowley]

I wonder if this author's real name is Winston Smith?

[rick]

Define "part of the conspiracy". What did she contribute, besides her silence?

In the case of giving the plans for building the atomic bomb to the Soviets, keeping silent was more then enough to make her part of the conspiracy.

She simply was not some kind of naive hausenfrau pulled into circumstances against her will.

[Sabrinaset]

I think that movie was Angels in America.

Just found it out. "Citizen Cohn" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Cohn)

[Grazzt]

In the case of giving the plans for building the atomic bomb to the Soviets, keeping silent was more then enough to make her part of the conspiracy.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. Inaction, sympathetic or not, does not warrant legal punishment. I agree that it's wrong to just stand by and let things like that happen, but I really don't like the idea of government punishing people for not snitching out people, even when there are large stakes involved.

[Pink Bat Max]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. Inaction, sympathetic or not, does not warrant legal punishment. I agree that it's wrong to just stand by and let things like that happen, but I really don't like the idea of government punishing people for not snitching out people, even when there are large stakes involved.

Plus, as his spouse, she was Constitutionally entitled not to testify against him, at the very least. A spouse can not be legally compelled to testify against the accused. I imagine that right covers snitching them out, although I'm no lawyer.

[rick]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. Inaction, sympathetic or not, does not warrant legal punishment. I agree that it's wrong to just stand by and let things like that happen, but I really don't like the idea of government punishing people for not snitching out people, even when there are large stakes involved.

I don’t think she should have been executed, but she certainly deserved some charges.

Think of it this way, if somebody you know commits a murder and you know that they did it, but choose not to turn them into the police, and in fact help keep their crime a secret, shouldn’t you be charged as a conspirator or at the very least an accomplice after the fact?

It isn’t much different then that for Ethel, accept that her silence helped lead to the death of thousands in both Korea and the Cold War.

[rick]

Plus, as his spouse, she was Constitutionally entitled not to testify against him, at the very least.


That isn't actually a Constitutional or Federal protection, although the majority of states allow for spousal confidentiality in most cases.

[Pink Bat Max]

That isn't actually a Constitutional or Federal protection, although the majority of states allow for spousal confidentiality in most cases.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Grazzt]

It isn’t much different then that for Ethel, accept that her silence helped lead to the death of thousands in both Korea and the Cold War.

I thought Rosenberg was peddling atomic secrets. Given that the Russians never actually used a nuke, how did his spying contribute to the death of thousands?

Think of it this way, if somebody you know commits a murder and you know that they did it, but choose not to turn them into the police, and in fact help keep their crime a secret, shouldn’t you be charged as a conspirator or at the very least an accomplice after the fact?

Depending on how you define "help keep their crime a secret". If someone simply didn't bring anything to the police and the police never questioned them (giving them no chance to perjure themselves), and they didn't help the criminal in any way (providing an alibi or what have you), then I feel they would deserve no punishment.

And even if they did provide aid after the fact, wouldn't that just make them an accessory? Conspiracy is a far stronger term, legally.

[rick]

I thought Rosenberg was peddling atomic secrets. Given that the Russians never actually used a nuke, how did his spying contribute to the death of thousands?

The Cold War flourished because once the Soviets had the bomb, it became almost impossible to confront their aggression directly and instead led to all the various proxy conflicts from Vietnam, to Cuba, the revolutions in Latin America and the tightened control of Eastern Europe, and all the deaths that those conflicts led to.

And it isn’t too hard from there to extrapolate that the Rosenberg’s have some responsibility for the long term results of their actions.

Now of course there are some who would argue that keeping America in check during the 50’s and 60’s was a good thing and as such letting the Soviets have the bomb was a positive move, but I’m not one of them.



Depending on how you define "help keep their crime a secret". If someone simply didn't bring anything to the police and the police never questioned them (giving them no chance to perjure themselves), and they didn't help the criminal in any way (providing an alibi or what have you), then I feel they would deserve no punishment.

And even if they did provide aid after the fact, wouldn't that just make them an accessory? Conspiracy is a far stronger term, legally.

You do realize that the law completely disagrees with you here right?

If you are aware of a criminal action and do not report it to the police, depending on what it is you conceal, there are numerous things you can be charged with from impeding an investigation all the way up to being a full fledged accomplice to the crime.

[Grazzt]

You do realize that the law completely disagrees with you here right?

Yes, I do. I just hate snitches. :p No idea why. I must have been a Mafia hitman in a previous life.

And it isn’t too hard from there to extrapolate that the Rosenberg’s have some responsibility for the long term results of their actions.

Not really, given the other atomic spies that came before them (Fuchs for instance) and the fact that the Russians only used the information gained from espionage for cross-checking. The Russians almost certainly would have had a bomb, with or without Julius Rosenberg. Not saying he didn't deserve to be punished (if only to keep him from further spying and to serve as an example to others), just saying that his contribution to the Russians was minimal at best.

[Reverend Smooth]

This wasn't about dissent this was about actively aiding and abetting enemies of this country who wished to destroys us and force us to live under their rule as slaves. Then again I guess aiding our enemies is the definition of dissent these days to the left.Yes, Briareos, we want to feed helpless republican babies to Osama. Mmmm, babies.

It's a shame that the right these days seems to be inordinately dominated by paranoid coward wingnuts like you.

Y'all give the moderates a bad name.

Oh, for the days of Goldwater~

[Karl J Barnes]

I wonder if this author's real name is Winston Smith?

1984,anyone??

[Crowley]

1984,anyone??

that's the reference I was making.

In 1984, Winston is responsible for changing history to match The Party's agenda.

[MacQuarrie]

Quick challenge for everyone name one person falsely accused by McCarthy.

Missing the point.

While it's true that every one of the so-called "Hollywood 10" was in fact a card-carrying member of the Communist party, the fact remains that it was not, and should not have been, illegal for them to be members. They broke no laws and were unjustly persecuted for their political beliefs.

This was a blatant betrayal of the principles and values that the members of HUAC had sworn to uphold.

[MacQuarrie]

This wasn't about dissent this was about actively aiding and abetting enemies of this country who wished to destroys us and force us to live under their rule as slaves. Then again I guess aiding our enemies is the definition of dissent these days to the left.

My friend Fenris put it best:

"It is the somewhat dubious glory of the First Amendment that its primary purpose seems to be to provide the enemies of freedom with every rhetorical weapon necessary for their attack. It reflects an almost mystical faith in the good judgment of the American people."

We should never have to stifle the voices of dissent, if our opposing arguments are sufficiently reasoned, backed up by fact and articulated effectively.

Besides which, we could have ended the Cold War and defeated communism a good 25 years earlier if we had acted, not in fear, but in common sense. Instead of embargoes and paranoia, we should have sent in the people who eventually did bring down communism in the USSR and East Germany: McDonalds', Levi Strauss and MTV. It was good old American consumerism that prevailed where bluster and threats couldn't. If we wanted to put an end to Castro, we'd send in Starbucks, not the Marines.

In other words, I'm not all that worried about our alleged enemies. They want the same things we want.

[beetlebum]

Well to be fair, while McCarthy was a douche, and also had nothing at all to do with their case, the Rosenbergs were guilty as hell of helping to pass along information on how to make the atom bomb to the Soviets.

Maybe their execution was an extreme measure, but their guilt, despite the attempts by their sons to clear them, holds up with time.

I am aware of that fact. The Army-McCarthy hearings started in 1954. The case against the Rosenbergs and Sobell began on March 6, 1951, and they were convicted and executed in 1953. The point I was trying to make is I am anti-death penalty, and executing Ethel for being an accomplice at best was wrong. She may have known about her husband's activities, but putting her to death for knowledge is wrong and sets up a dangerous precedent. And when Winston Churchill declared an Iron Curtain has descended across Europe and when Truman declared an anti-communist policy in 1947, the hysteria against the communist threat was used to distract the nation from America's unsavory involvement in places like Guatemala, Iran and Greece, where the CIA appointed Konstandinos Karamanlis [senior] as Prime Minister in September 1955.

That was the real danger. Overall, the cold war was not a struggle of good vs. evil, as Briareos would like to think it was. It was more about totalitarianism vs. free market consumerism, or a struggle between America and Russia over who can assert and maintain their influence over other nations better, which America ultimately won.



Besides which, we could have ended the Cold War and defeated communism a good 25 years earlier if we had acted, not in fear, but in common sense. Instead of embargoes and paranoia,

But that's too rational and makes too much sense! :p. Besides, war is business, war makes profit. To use another 1984 reference; "We are at war Eastasia, we are not at war with Eurasia." "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." It's a good way to distract the populace and get em' stoked up. I'm with you on this one when you say they ultimately wanted what we wanted and the irresistible call to freedom is what spurned them on and brought them down.

[Briareos]

I am aware of that fact. The Army-McCarthy hearings started in 1954. The case against the Rosenbergs and Sobell began on March 6, 1951, and they were convicted and executed in 1953. The point I was trying to make is I am anti-death penalty, and executing Ethel for being an accomplice at best was wrong. She may have known about her husband's activities, but putting her to death for knowledge is wrong and sets up a dangerous precedent. And when Winston Churchill declared an Iron Curtain has descended across Europe and when Truman declared an anti-communist policy in 1947, the hysteria against the communist threat was used to distract the nation from America's unsavory involvement in places like Guatemala, Iran and Greece, where the CIA appointed Konstandinos Karamanlis [senior] as Prime Minister in September 1955.

That was the real danger. Overall, the cold war was not a struggle of good vs. evil, as Briareos would like to think it was. It was more about totalitarianism vs. free market consumerism, or a struggle between America and Russia over who can assert and maintain their influence over other nations better, which America ultimately won.



But that's too rational and makes too much sense! :p. Besides, war is business, war makes profit. To use another 1984 reference; "We are at war Eastasia, we are not at war with Eurasia." "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." It's a good way to distract the populace and get em' stoked up. I'm with you on this one when you say they ultimately wanted what we wanted and good ol' capitalism is what brought them down.


Yes there was no one good side that the Soviets never had to build a wall in Berlin to keep the East German people from leaving. And those hundreds of Millions of people that were killed in the U.S.S.R. and Cambodia and North Korea and Vietnam by the communists are no never mind I guess.

Another book you need to read.

http://www.amazon.com/Useful-Idiots-Liberals-Wrong-America/dp/B00066R4ZC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194845849&sr=8-1

[beetlebum]

Wow, useful idiot huh? Not insulting at all. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I haven't seen the world in such black and white terms since I was a child. Because when I became all growed up I read stuff and learn-ed things. You should too.

Bri, the Soviets did bad things. There is no doubt about that. My mother had to flee Laos during the early 70's because the Communists took over Laos. Luckily, what happened in Cambodia didn't happen there. But really, your intransigence does blind you from acknowledging any thing that does not fall into your way of thinking. Will you acknowledge that CIA involvement and the death of 100,000 Guatemalans was wrong? The fact that there are so many people like you in America bothers me. And it shows that no matter how much information is available, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

(Iraq.)

EDITTOADDNOTE: The fact that you stated that I would dismiss the deaths of those who died in the aforementioned countries is wrong, and is nowhere near a genuine reflection of my character. Not to mention it is insulting. I am an intrincisist who values human life. I've spoken of it several times. Can we please discuss this like adults?

[Cam63]

Bastards are bastards. It matters not what political party they say they are a member of.

[LtMarvel]

I don’t think she should have been executed, but she certainly deserved some charges.

Think of it this way, if somebody you know commits a murder and you know that they did it, but choose not to turn them into the police, and in fact help keep their crime a secret, shouldn’t you be charged as a conspirator or at the very least an accomplice after the fact?

It isn’t much different then that for Ethel, accept that her silence helped lead to the death of thousands in both Korea and the Cold War.
But you can't be compelled to testify against your spouse, Rick. Therefore, how can you be charged?

[LtMarvel]

Doesn't one lose all credibility when defending Joe McCarthy and his tactics?I mean, like permanently?

[beetlebum]

Doesn't one lose all credibility when defending Joe McCarthy and his tactics?I mean, like permanently?

Briareos apparently doesn't think so. :rolleyes:

[rick]

But you can't be compelled to testify against your spouse, Rick. Therefore, how can you be charged?


I am not a legal expert, and I am more then willing to be corrected, but I’m pretty sure that in most criminal cases, in the majority of states, there is no spousal right to confidentiality.

An interesting sidebar, that I do believe is at least worth noting, is that even up to the time of their deaths; Julius had the ability to save Ethel’s life, simply by confessing and naming names.

And chose not to.

Just something to think about.

[beetlebum]

An interesting sidebar, that I do believe is at least worth noting, is that even up to the time of their deaths; Julius had the ability to save Ethel’s life, simply by confessing and naming names.

And chose not to.

Just something to think about.

How? :confused:

[Alix Harrower]

Briareos apparently doesn't think so. :rolleyes:

It's not like he's ever had any credibility to LOSE, mind you.

[Josh S]

I am not a legal expert, and I am more then willing to be corrected, but I’m pretty sure that in most criminal cases, in the majority of states, there is no spousal right to confidentiality.


There is privilege that says you can't force a defendant's spouse to testify against him (a defendant can't stop his spouse from testifying, though). However, I'm not sure how it would work in this specific case since the spouse is also an accomplice. I'd be pretty surprised, though, if becoming an accomplice doesn't negate any spousal privilege.

[LtMarvel]

*Puts on TV-influenced hat*

Every cop show I've seen, realistic or otherwise, strives to convince such a spouse for a deal to testify.

[singoalla]

Yes there was no one good side that the Soviets never had to build a wall in Berlin to keep the East German people from leaving. And those hundreds of Millions of people that were killed in the U.S.S.R. and Cambodia and North Korea and Vietnam by the communists are no never mind I guess.

Another book you need to read.

http://www.amazon.com/Useful-Idiots-Liberals-Wrong-America/dp/B00066R4ZC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194845849&sr=8-1

Yes, and those rotten commies bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima and... Oh, wait. My bad.

See how this goes? It's like blaming christianity for the crusades. We all know they did it in the name of christianity, but most likely they were just bloodthirsty bastards no matter what their religion. Just like you can't blame Communism itself for the gulags, but rather the people behind the political agendas.

[Reverend Smooth]

Yes there was no one good side that the Soviets never had to build a wall in Berlin to keep the East German people from leaving. And those hundreds of Millions of people that were killed in the U.S.S.R. and Cambodia and North Korea and Vietnam by the communists are no never mind I guess.

Another book you need to read.

http://www.amazon.com/Useful-Idiots-Liberals-Wrong-America/dp/B00066R4ZC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194845849&sr=8-1
You know, I'm curious. Why do you hang out here when you feel that way about lliberals? So far's I know, Gail's a liberal. She's (and the rest of us are) an idiot traitor now?

[the4thpip]

Doesn't one lose all credibility when defending Joe McCarthy and his tactics?I mean, like permanently?

People like the author of the book and Ann Coulter (down, Bree!) are "testing the waters" to see if years of Fox"News" and post 9-11 fear mongering have moved America far enough to the right that it's ok to <heart> McCarthy again.

[cactusmaac]

Being a member of a Communist party does not mean you want to destroy the nation you live in. Just like being a member of the Democratic part doesn't, or being a Republican. You have a political opinion and in most western countries you are and should be free to express those views without being labeled a threat.

Lots of people who were later found out to have spied for the Soviets, or worked for them in some capacity or the other, had been members of the Communist party. Being suspicious of Communists then was as unremarkable as being suspicious of terrorist affiliates now.



Oh, for the days of Goldwater~

Goldwater? The guy who ran with Curtis LeMay as his VP?



Besides which, we could have ended the Cold War and defeated communism a good 25 years earlier if we had acted, not in fear, but in common sense. Instead of embargoes and paranoia, we should have sent in the people who eventually did bring down communism in the USSR and East Germany: McDonalds', Levi Strauss and MTV. It was good old American consumerism that prevailed where bluster and threats couldn't. If we wanted to put an end to Castro, we'd send in Starbucks, not the Marines.

In other words, I'm not all that worried about our alleged enemies. They want the same things we want.

?

Communist regimes were responsible for keeping out Western companies, entertainment and news in order to prevent their citizenry from learning how shitty their lives were in comparison. Not much use beaming MTV to Eastern Europe if buying a satellite dish earned you a stay in a detention centre.

Communism went down because they ran out of money.

[Reverend Smooth]

Goldwater? The guy who ran with Curtis LeMay as his VP?See what we're reduced to?

[Alix Harrower]

Goldwater? The guy who ran with Curtis LeMay as his VP?

Goldwater's VP candidate was Walter Miller, a Republican Congressman from New York. LeMay ran as George Wallace's VP in 1968.

[cactusmaac]

Goldwater's VP candidate was Walter Miller, a Republican Congressman from New York. LeMay ran as George Wallace's VP in 1968.

Damn. Didn't know that.

Still it's a bit odd to refer to him when he supported McCarthy right through his censure and was regarded as the most militant person to have ever been a presidential candidate.

[beetlebum]

I see the myth of Barry Goldwater as a crack pot still endures to this very day. Thank you so much Lyndon Johnson. If your failed Great Society wasn’t bad enough, you lied about the Gulf of Tonkin and increased American involvement in Vietnam, which took over 50,000 American lives. Not to mention it helped put America into a recession which compromised of both double digit inflation and unemployment for two decades. You’ve forever marred someone’s legacy. The only three good things you did were Civil Rights legislation, Head Start, and Medicaid. It’s true that Barry thought Civil Rights should not have been a federal issue. But contrary to a belief perpetuated by some, he wasn’t opposed to it in principle. He was a firm believer in State’s rights and thought that States should determine these laws indeterminably amongst themselves. And he was wrong about that, and he later recanted. And it’s true that he did talk about the possibility of a nuclear strike on North Vietnam. But a lot of politicians today do that, and no one calls Obama a “crackpot”. And he did talk about bombing North Vietnam, but guess what? Johnson did it anyways.


The people who like to perpetuate the Barry is a crack pot ideal completely forget about the fact that he led the charge and helped turn the Republicans against Nixon, which helped get him impeached. And that Barry was a strong advocate for gay rights, women’s reproductive rights and opposed the ideologues like Falwell (whom he once said deserved a good kick in the ass) for opposing Sandra Day O’ Connor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. And for believing that laws could somehow temper man’s irremediable flaws by trying to impose their beliefs upon others ( when the truth is, some things are better left up to the individual to resolve). Yeah, what a real crack pot.

[cactusmaac]

That's good to know, although I don't think anyone here's called him a crackpot.

[beetlebum]

Well, a lot of people have referred to him as one ( and yes I was being defensive, years of defending him will do that).

Note to self, tone down the snark.:o

Barry may have done some things I disagree with, but he later atoned for them through his actions and that is why he's in my sig. :)

It's also important to note that a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum supported McCarthy. The exceptions were people like Estes Kefauver, who staunchly defended civil liberties. Though he did unfortunately by into Frederick Wertham's lies about how comic books "corrupt" adolescence by allowing him to speak during hearings in 1954.

Though he may have defended civil liberties, sadly, he did buy into the wankish notion that pop culture does influence us in a negative way. Completely ignoring the scientific and epistemological evidence that says else wise.

[MacQuarrie]

But you can't be compelled to testify against your spouse, Rick. Therefore, how can you be charged?

That's true in a courtroom. Not at all true in a grand jury indictment or with a congressionally-appointed independent prosecutor.

[EdContradictory]

Briar, do you believe that you can be a communist and an American?

[Sabrinaset]

You know, I'm curious. Why do you hang out here when you feel that way about lliberals? So far's I know, Gail's a liberal. She's (and the rest of us are) an idiot traitor now?

Presumably because all of us ... well, except for Kris ... are comic book geeks, and that trumps political affiliation on this board?

[Crowley]

Presumably because all of us ... well, except for Kris ... are comic book geeks, and that trumps political affiliation on this board?

True, but when you post a book calling a large percentage of us "useful idiots" it kinda beg's Rev's question...

[Evan Waters]

Well I'm sure the Rosenbergs were very unhappy because they knew people were on the lookout for them passing classified information to the Soviets.

I seem to recall the Rosenbergs were caught WITHOUT Sen. McCarthy's involvement, and well before the worst of his excesses.

[Pink Bat Max]

I seem to recall the Rosenbergs were caught WITHOUT Sen. McCarthy's involvement, and well before the worst of his excesses.

And yet McCarthy placed #4 on VH1's 'Biggest Dildos* of the 20th Century' countdown.

*metaphorical, not literal

Their choice for #1 may surprise you!

[Sabrinaset]

And yet McCarthy placed #4 on VH1's 'Biggest Dildos* of the 20th Century' countdown.

*metaphorical, not literal

Their choice for #1 may surprise you!

I know! I know!

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/sabrinaset/HKKVib.jpg

[MacQuarrie]

You obviously haven't seen the Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh models.

[Pink Bat Max]

I know! I know!

Lord, help me, I walked right into that one.

[Briareos]

Briar, do you believe that you can be a communist and an American?

Can you believe in Jihad and be a American?

[Briareos]

Presumably because all of us ... well, except for Kris ... are comic book geeks, and that trumps political affiliation on this board?

Yeah that's pretty much it.

[Crowley]

Can you believe in Jihad and be a American?

Pfft. You can be president.

Ask George W. Bush.

[Paul McEnery]

Can you believe in Jihad and be a American?

Since "jihad" translates literally as "justice"...

[Spike-X]

I thought it was 'struggle'?

Americans are all about struggle. Struggle to pay the rent, struggle to feed your kids, struggle to afford basic health care...

[Paul McEnery]

The Cold War flourished because once the Soviets had the bomb, it became almost impossible to confront their aggression directly and instead led to all the various proxy conflicts from Vietnam, to Cuba, the revolutions in Latin America .

*ahem*

Each of these countries wanted self-determination, which the US opposed under cover of the Cold War.

Don't blame the Russians for that. Blame the irrepressible human spirit.

[Paul McEnery]

Besides which, we could have ended the Cold War and defeated communism a good 25 years earlier if we had acted, not in fear, but in common sense. Instead of embargoes and paranoia, we should have sent in the people who eventually did bring down communism in the USSR and East Germany: McDonalds', Levi Strauss and MTV. It was good old American consumerism that prevailed where bluster and threats couldn't. If we wanted to put an end to Castro, we'd send in Starbucks, not the Marines.


Absolutely.

Not to mention creating in the US a universal healthcare program, and decent distribution of wealth and power.

[Sabrinaset]

*ahem*

Each of these countries wanted self-determination, which the US opposed under cover of the Cold War.

Don't blame the Russians for that. Blame the irrepressible human spirit.

Darn those Hungarians anyway for wanting to be free of the loving authority of the USSR.

[Reverend Smooth]

Yeah that's pretty much it.
o.O So it's convenient for you to call everyone around you idiots, traitors and enemy sympathisers, including the creator the forum's for, but that's just ok because hey, it's convenient for you to ignore it?

Wow, you're a douche. :)

[Cam63]

I know! I know!

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/sabrinaset/HKKVib.jpg

Damn doctors abusing nurses... AGAIN !

[Alix Harrower]

Can you believe in Jihad and be a American?

Why can't you answer the original question?

[Michael P]

Can you believe in Jihad and be a American?

Can you believe in fairies and be a cranberry pie?

Hey, this non sequitur stuff is fun!

[Paul McEnery]

Darn those Hungarians anyway for wanting to be free of the loving authority of the USSR.

You'll notice the ones I was referring to were Vietnam, Cuba, and Latin America. All of those were about American hegemony, and would have been even without any Russian influence.

[Adam C]

Can you believe in Jihad and be a American?

Define Jihad. Contrary to Daniel Pipes' ignorant ramblings the term 'Jihad' is a fairly common one in Islam that refers to spiritual struggle in general (and with it a host of actions) rather than warfare in specific, let alone fanatical religious war.


See how this goes? It's like blaming christianity for the crusades. We all know they did it in the name of christianity, but most likely they were just bloodthirsty bastards no matter what their religion. Just like you can't blame Communism itself for the gulags, but rather the people behind the political agendas.

If Communism itself wasn't to blame for the Gulags, then why is that every country that fell under its banner wound up becoming authoritarian hell-holes? The fact is what we call "Communism" today basically refers to the political doctrine and political system established by revolutionary Marxist Vladimir Illyich Lenin. Lenin already spoke loudly about the need to use force against the revolution's enemies and was certainly willing to put it into practice during the Russian Civil War. (Against not just the White Armies, but peasants who wanted to manage their land as they saw fit, workers who wanted to run the factories themselves, and the Kronstatd sailors who got fed up with Moscow's bullshit.) His disciples across the Third World merely put these principles into practice believing them to be necessary to defend the revolution. (As well as believing that it was necessary for the state to entirely organise the economy to create the conditions necessary for producing Commuism...further necessitating use of repression against anyone who didn't comply.)

[MacQuarrie]

Yeah that's pretty much it.
Has it not yet occurred to you that one can be a right-winger and still think Fox News, Anne Coulter (sorry, Bree) and Rush Limbaugh are full of it and Joe McCarthy was wrong?

I'm as conservative as anyone here. I've voted for conservative candidates since 1976. I registered as a Democrat so I could vote against Clinton in the primaries. I'm firmly pro-life, and I supported the Contract with America. I voted for Bush twice simply because I thought that Gore and Kerry would both be worse. I now know I was wrong, and if I could do it over I'd vote for the Libertarian or another third party because I still don't like Gore or Kerry.

Here's the problem: Bush is not a conservative by any definition of the word. The current administration is and has been a complete betrayal of conservative principles from start to finish.

Now, my advice to you is to forget about the Party system completely. "Republican" and "Democrat" are fictional constructs invented to allow you to pick a side without having to actually think about what you believe and why. They issue a checklist that tells you what to support and what to oppose and the mindless followers do so.

The big two parties DON'T CARE about what's good for the country or the people. They care about what's good for the party, what's going to put them in charge, what's going to hurt the other guy and what's going to move more money and power from your hands to theirs.

They are playing "good cop-bad cop" in the media. Do you know how that game works? One guy acts tough and scary to intimidate the subject, while the other plays it nice and friendly, offering to protect the subject from the scary guy. The goal is to get the subject to knuckle under and they don't care whether the subject caves to the scary guy out of fear or to the friendly guy out of trust; the fact remains that THEY ARE BOTH COPS and they are both working together for the same goal.

There is no functional difference between Karl Rove and James Carville, none at all between the head of the GOP and the head of the NDP. None. It's all about power and control.

The great Bruce Springsteen put it well: "Blind faith in your leaders will get you killed."

Briareos, you need to accept that it's possible to be both a Conservative and a lying, money-grubbing, power-grabbing weasel. Or a raving paranoid loon. Or a shrieking harridan.

Figure out what your core principles are. Stick to them. Oppose anyone who opposes them, even if they belong to "your side." Never excuse an asshole because he's "your guy." Ever.

[rick]

*ahem*

Each of these countries wanted self-determination, which the US opposed under cover of the Cold War.

Don't blame the Russians for that. Blame the irrepressible human spirit.


And yet, even without the US around, neither Vietnam or Cuba ever managed to provide any of that self-determiniation to the masses.

Funny that.

[Sabrinaset]

People like the author of the book and Ann Coulter (down, Bree!)

one can be a right-winger and still think Fox News, Anne Coulter (sorry, Bree)



...Coulter?

[Adam C]

And yet, even without the US around, neither Vietnam or Cuba ever managed to provide any of that self-determiniation to the masses.

Funny that.

His point was that they were struggles over national self-determination against foreign powers, which they were. And that's percisely why Ho-Chi-Minh and Castro, however dictatorial they proved to be, were able to rally popular support in their respective countries to their side.

Granted Vietnam was a French colony, and I don't know what interest the U.S. had in the country outside of Cold War brinksmanship. In Cuba's case however it's a lot clearer since due to U.S interference in Cuban politics since the beginning of the twentieth century.

[beetlebum]

His point was that they were struggles over national self-determination against foreign powers, which they were. And that's percisely why Ho-Chi-Minh and Castro, however dictatorial they proved to be, were able to rally popular support in their respective countries to their side.

Granted Vietnam was a French colony, and I don't know what interest the U.S. had in the country outside of Cold War brinksmanship. In Cuba's case however it's a lot clearer since due to U.S interference in Cuban politics since the beginning of the twentieth century.

The interest the Americans had in Vietnam was to stop the "domino" effect in South East Asia. The theory was that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia Burma and pretty much all of the countries in South East Asia would go along with it. As history shows us of course, that was a flawed way of thinking. I suspect it's why the Americans had such an interest in my country as well, funding an insurgency by convincing the Hmong people they were fighting for freedom. Then promptly abandoning them after Saigon fell, and leaving the delusional remnants to fend for themselves in the jungle (it should be noted most of the Hmong in Laos are peaceful and assimilated. There's just a few that are convinced there is still a war going on.) There may have been an interest in preserving democracy, but one cannot completely dismiss the economic motivation. US involvement in the cold war was not out of pure deontological motives.

[beetlebum]

Both Paul and Rick make valid points. When the Soviets acquired nuclear secrets and made the atomic bomb, it became hard to contain them. The only way to confront them was through proxy. But, and empiricism shows us, the US had less than pure motives for containing Soviet expansion. Toppling Mossadegh in Iran, appointing Konstandinos Karamanlis PM of Greece in 1955 were moves done to ensure that US interests were maintained in this region. Guatemala was the best example of this. President Jacobo Arbenz was brought down, for amongst other reasons, because of the way he treated the United Fruit Company.

So people died for bananas. Allen Dulles must be proud of himself. At least he must be while being tortured in the Ninth circle of the Inferno.

One of the paradoxes of legislative oversight of intelligence in the early Cold War period was that the United States Congress could give strong, if de facto, support of aggressive covert action while, with the exception of a few leaders, not really knowing which such policies were being carried out.

What brought the Soviet Union down was a combination of diplomacy, outspending, and infiltration. Nixon used the improving international environment to address the topic of nuclear peace. The first Strategic Arms Limitation Talks were finally concluded the same year with the SALT treaty. That and his “Ping-Pong” diplomacy in China, which in retrospect was a brills move (and about the only two good things he did).

Ronald Reagen drastically increased the military budget, from $303.4 billion in 1980 to $427.7 in 1989. The Soviets couldn’t keep up; their self reliance was no match for America’s global reach. Almost every single free nation has access to American food chains and entertainment. America’s federal budget 1989: $1,094,200,000,000.

The Soviet Union’s collapse began in earnest in 1985, partly due to amped up pressure from the Americans. By the mid-1980’s, the Soviet Union devoted between 15 and 17 % of it’s GNP to military spending. Until the early 1980’s, Soviet defense expenditures rose between 4 and 7 % per year. These growths in spending were stagnated as Soviet GNP slowed to 3 percent a year. In early 1989, Gorbachev claimed the budget was 77.3 billion rubles, but officials in the West estimate the budget to be twice as much.

Years of military buildup led the Soviets to neglect and do little to foster domestic development and economic growth, and naturally of course led to discontent amongst the populace. Years of repression led to feelings which were eventually going to explode. Infiltration into the Soviet bloc by way of Air America radio helped expose the people behind the Iron Curtain to what they were missing out on. Whether it was the Beatles, or free speech, it played a great factor in motivating these individuals to protest. Out of this movement came people like Lech Wałęsa who led the Solidarity Movement. Because you know, people don’t like it when their not free.

And while socialism may work in smaller countries like Finland, it wont’ work in America. Capitalism is the reason why our GDP is $13.13 trillion, and we are the most influential country on this planet. The best way to combat inequality is through education and by increasing the number of available jobs, and by fostering ways to help people work in these jobs. Our poor education system , where we stand 18th in the world, and a 9.1 trillion budget deficit (which is in large parts spurred on by pork barrel spending) are to me, proof that it just won’t work in this country.

[Adam C]

The interest the Americans had in Vietnam was to stop the "domino" effect in South East Asia. The theory was that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia Burma and pretty much all of the countries in South East Asia would go along with it.

Well yeah I'm well aware of that. I was wondering about motives beyond Cold War brinksmanship.

[Adam C]

The Cold War flourished because once the Soviets had the bomb, it became almost impossible to confront their aggression directly and instead led to all the various proxy conflicts from Vietnam, to Cuba, the revolutions in Latin America and the tightened control of Eastern Europe, and all the deaths that those conflicts led to.

I'm not so sure that it's that straightforward, at least in Latin America's case. The armed communist guerilla groups in the region were in many ways another incarnation of the longstanding problems in the region stemming from the fact that politics and the economy were controlled by a tiny, and virulently racist elite. In the case of Guatemala, the coup that the U.S. aided against Jacobo Arbenz Guzman (who was never even a socialist, but a liberal reformer who wanted to create a class of small holders through land reform) was touched off by the mass of rural organizing that his land reform laws caused. And despite the gloss of communism put on it by Washington and some of Arbenz's opponents, it was longstanding fears of an Indian uprising among Guatemala's ruling class that was very much at work in causing the coup. (It's worth noting that US embassy officials stated "If there is one thing the wealthy Guatemalan fears it is an Indian uprising.") Heck, Guatemala didn't really have a revolutionary Marxist guerilla army until after Castillo Armas and his early sucessors wiped out legitimate politcal opposition in Guatemala. And in Cuba's case there was, as usual, the existing divisions between landed oligarchs and political reformers of all stripes. It's worth noting that Castro launched a rebellion against Batista before he was even familiar with Lenin's ideas.

[beetlebum]

Well yeah I'm well aware of that. I was wondering about motives beyond Cold War brinksmanship.

(See my post at the top of the page). :D

I pulled this offline:

Eventually, even under FDR, American support was given to the French and Indochina was returned to a state of French colonial rule much to the chagrin of the Vietnamese people. When this happened the French instituted even more repressive control in Vietnam, and millions died of starvation while Vietnamese rice was exported to France.

The United State refused to sign an agreement proposed in Geneva in 1954,
which stated that the partition of Vietnam was to be temporary until elections on on July 20, 1956. They did so out of fear that 80% of the Vietnamese population would vote for the communists (sound familiar?)

At this point America had enough of dealing with the French, who had so far been losing their hold on the region, so the US backed Ngo Dinh Diem who American leaders felt would be agreeable to American authority in Vietnam. Ngo Dinh Diem, who lived in the United States during the French-Indochina war, was the first "democratically" elected president of South Vietnam. The election was coerced however. Ngo Dinh Diem was chosen by the U.S. to lead South Vietnam. A devout Roman Catholic, he was fervently anti-communist and was "untainted" by any connection to the French.


They argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower Administration, some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States. It was better, therefore, to fight communism in Asia, rather than on American soil. Thus, the Domino Theory provided a powerful motive for the American creation of a client state in southern Vietnam.

So like all of the other wars of proxy, this was done to insure US interest in the region. While it may not have been a vital economic move, like Iran was (we needed that country's oil), one could also argue it was also done to protect the American companies ranging from beer distributors to manufacturers of jet aircraft, who had invested in Vietnam. So again, US involvement was done to maintain key regional interests.

[MacQuarrie]

Granted Vietnam was a French colony, and I don't know what interest the U.S. had in the country outside of Cold War brinksmanship. In Cuba's case however it's a lot clearer since due to U.S interference in Cuban politics since the beginning of the twentieth century.

Thank the UN for that. We went in as part of a peacekeeping advisory force (that included other nations) to allow France to leave, since the fear was that Viet Nam would continue "the domino effect" and fall to communism if left without western influence. In hindsight, kind of a dumb idea, since communism is inherently self-defeating.

[Reverend Smooth]

Figure out what your core principles are. Stick to them. Oppose anyone who opposes them, even if they belong to "your side." Never excuse an asshole because he's "your guy." Ever.This attitude is fundamentally part of why I respect you.

[the4thpip]

Thank the UN for that. We went in as part of a peacekeeping advisory force (that included other nations) to allow France to leave, since the fear was that Viet Nam would continue "the domino effect" and fall to communism if left without western influence. In hindsight, kind of a dumb idea, since communism is inherently self-defeating.

And I am not sure if Soviet-Union-Expert Condoleezza Rice will ever understand that that is the main difference between the enemy she studied and she enemy she is now faced with: Communism is inherently self-defeating, because they gave people a crappy quality of life and told them there was no god, that this was as good as it got. Great pitch there!
Religious fanaticism tells people that they can reach paradise by sticking to their cause. Much better marketing.