I think Shakespeare said it best that brevity is the soul of wit.
Your point was wasted after the 3rd line.

Anyway, the history of communism shows a clear pattern.
When communist take over the almost always initiate mass executions of their political opponents.
And of course they steal property from people claiming they are taking the property for the people.

So...knowing what is in store should communist succeed in gaining power.
The ends justify the means to stop them.
e.g.
That maddog executioner, Che Guevara was typically of the murdering commie scum that seek power. Mao was a mass killer. Mao's wife was even more bloodthirsty then Mao. Stalin gave Hitler a run for his money when it came to the genocide of Ukrainians. And not to mention Vietnam and Cambodia.

I promise you that the people killed by Che Guevara would in retrospect have been a lot more ruthless towards communist.
And justifiably so. Pinochet took care of business in Chile.
Had he failed, the mass executions in Chile would have well exceeded what Pinochet did.
Pinochet saved lives by stopping communism in Chile.

What is interesting is I see a pattern between post-Pinochet Chile and post-Franco Spain.
After the dictators stepped down from power, a watered down version of socialism follows.

Amazing work, you've packed more propaganda into less space than anyone I've ever seen.

I will do my best to live up to your example.

Oh my bad...
Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro, etc... did not murder anyone after they gained power.
What they did instead was pursue green policies to lower the world's carbon footprint by culling the local populations.

That's not the point.

The point is that the history of "democracy" is marred with the exact same violent beginnings.

What you are doing is hounding on the negative aspects of an ideology you disagree with while ignoring the negative aspects of an ideology you support; your goal is to make the former seem 'bad' and the latter 'good.' That is the essence of propaganda.

<whistles>
Wow! They have the EXACT same violent history.
I guess it was too much trouble to support your absurb assertion by showing some real world examples.

Well don't overheat your big brain by supporting your silly assertions with evidence...

Oh, there's no need for corrections or clarifications from either of us, and I didn't actually read your masterpiece. I just skimmed it to marvel at your talent for densely-packed cliche. There's certainly no need to dilute either your punchy brevity or my heavy handed, rambling satire with actual debate!

By the way, I thought 'maddog executioner' was the highlight of your piece. 'Maddog' is an old standard of course, but the innovative addition of 'executioner' gives the whole phrase a spicier, more up to the moment flavor, evocative of modern day beheading videos from the Middle East.

Once again, I do complement you on your work.

Now why am I not surprised you still won't back up your claim that democracies have the same type of political violence as communist movements?
Instead you avoid the debate.
The truth is you know what you said is false and rather than concede your error you play word games with me avoiding a debate.

It is a sign of your weakness...
OK, I learned my lesson. You won't debate or support your points.
You'll just make outlandish claims and when someone calls you on it you start running away.

Last chance...
Please give some examples to support your claim that democracies engage in the exact type of violence as communist movements do.
Otherwise you're just not worth my time...

Okay, I'm tired. I've been awake way too long. I will give my standard answer to people who attempt to associate my political beliefs with those of assorted communist heads of state.

First, I'm a leftist, a socialist to be specific, not a communist. Communism is extremist, just like free market capitalism is extremist. And extremist policies are usually destructive policies.

Socialism is the sensible middle ground. And while the United States does not have as many socialist policies as some European countries do, we are a socialist nation, not a communist nation, not a free market capitalist nation. We have regulation of industry. We have social security. We do not (quite) leave the terminally ill out in the street to die when they cannot afford medical care. We are a socialist country.

Yet America historically attempts to force the people of other countries to accept extremist capitalist policies that are beneficial to American political and corporate interests but that are not beneficial to the majority of the people forced to live under the dictators America installs and supports.

America's frequent interference in the political, social, and economic affairs of Latin American countries for some reason seems to annoy the citizens of these countries, and oddly enough, bloodshed is usually not far behind.

Of course, since America's freshly installed dictator (Pinochet, for example) will usually be the one in control of the country's wealth and its military, and since that dictator can rely on America for funding, equipment, and unshakable support (and of course to overlook any messy transitional tactics like torture and mass murder), most of the blood that gets shed belongs to the people who attempt to express their preferences for bizarre political customs such as voting and democratic elections.

Oh dear, were we speaking of Mao and Stalin or Nixon and Reagan? I always get these ultra violent types mixed up.

Utter scum, all of them. Definitely not my fellow travelers.

If we're still on this topic tomorrow, I'll try to post a more coherent and also less formulaic response to anything you have to say.

Let see...
You lump Nixon with Mao/Stalin and you lump Reagan with Mao/Stalin.
This is what I call a red flag. Or more specifically, TWO red flags.
You might as well carry a sign saying, "Don't debate me because I'll just waste your time with outlandish comments".
You make such giant leaps in assertions that it is impossible to follow your train of thought.
If you put Reagan in the league of these guys, I can't honestly see any way to have a rational discussion with you... Reagan won two elections in landsides. There were so many Democrats voting for Reagan they have them the term "Reagan Democrats". Your hatred of one of America's most popular presidents is as irrational as your Mao/Stalin comments...

I wouldn't debate a person who was a flat-earther just because there is no point.
They are not rational.
A person that equates Reagan with the world's most prolific mass murderers is one I can't take seriously.

Thank you for showing me your cards, you saved me a lot of time in useless debate.

Granada. Nicaragua. Iran. All w/ respect to Reagan.

Your thoughts?

Nixon was an architect of the Pinochet dictatorship, along with Kissinger, just to round out that last bit.


And I'm afraid Felix has no actual thoughts on the subject, he simply wants to duck out of a debate now that he realizes I actually am capable of a debate. (Far more capable than he knows, I spent more than a decade studying US foreign policy, with special emphasis on Latin America).


I doubt he'll want to tangle with you, either, since unlike most Americans, you actually have some knowledge of American policies in Latin America beyond a hazy memory of Ollie North muttering, "I do not recall sir!" Over and over on the nightly news as a bunch of pathetically ineffectual politicians tried to get to the bottom of Iran Contra (or at least pretended to try).


Felix is probably accustomed to fishier opponents and softer topics of debate than he's encountering in this thread. He is far from ignorant of American policy, I don't think he's at all stupid. Quite the opposite, in fact, and I suspect he rarely feels at a disadvantage in any political discussion.


His rhetoric, however, while some of it is nicely worded, is more suited to preaching to the choir than to actual persuasion. He might be young and inexperienced, or he might be out of practice, having had few worthy opponents. Either way, he resorts to outrageous statements and cliches when valenzuela starts to get the better of him, so I assume he will do the same now.


Lord, I am such a snot sometimes. But I bet I summed things up pretty accurately.

Thanks to Valenzuela for making this thread. Speaking of Pinochet, I lived in Chile briefly during the middle of the Pinochet years. I remember the carbineros on every street corner, and the little Citroens with 1000 bullet holes in them because they obviously belonged to dangerous communists. What people forget is that Allende, the filthy communist, was democratically elected, while the lovely, US-friendly Pinochet was the dictator who killed 30,000 of his own people (that's 9/11 times 10).

Funny how lives are so important when they're US but insignificant when it happens abroad. Anyway, I'm drifting off-topic.

Felix, you're trolling the thread. And you haven't really attempted to give evidence yourself. Just your slant. You even said you didn't need to prove anything(lol wat??).

The thing with many threads is they develop into two sides who aren't gonna be convinced by the other side. You dislike Chavez and socialism. We get it. Try and bring some new material. Even one anti-Chavez poster put anecdotal argument - better than mindless ranting.

The idea should be for neutrals looking in to be swayed by the 2 arguing sides, or to have gaps in their knowledge filled - even if they don't join a 'side'. You aren't doing much for your side. How about you accept the evidence as provided earlier ITT that poverty has been reduced under Chavez rule, then back up some of your claims with evidence.

Some of the anti-Chavez posters haven't really suggested any alternative to what a new leader should do. Just cries of "corruption!, crime!!, etc", as if these things don't exist and rise in capitalist societies. Also the point that "Chavez was better than predecessors, but still sucks" - well how should a new leader not suck?

Where does Venezuela go from here?
What policies to combat crime and corruption??
How to manage the economy??

This would be more interesting. An article from the pro-socialist site giving critical analysis of the times:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5836

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." -- Henry Kissinger



It's also funny how freedom and democracy are (supposedly) so important in the US but insignificant when subverted abroad.

My thoughts are Reagan used our military properly against all three of these countries.

dont u play werewolf? or some other Felix?

didnt realize u were propagandized and brainwashed

i thought i could read people pretty well. oh well, it was only a WereWolf game.

Interesting.

Elaborate on how Reagan used the US Military against Iran, please.

If two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner the result may be democratic but it is still a tyranny.
Communists use the power of the state and the military to steal private property from others. And the people have the right to use violence to defend their property. Pinochet was justified in using any violence to kill these thieves.

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran starting mining the Persian Gulf damaging several neutral freighters.
Reagan acted and sank half the Iranian navy in one day...and guess what happen?
Iran stopped mining the Persian Gulf waters.
Another example how properly applied "gunboat diplomacy" can get positive results.
Regimes like Iran only understand force.
If they know you won't use military force against them, then Iran will spit in your face...just like they are doing to Obama.

Reagan was the closest the USA every had to a demi-god.
With the exception of Thomas Jefferson who was even better...

Sorry... I only speak English.

Good. Now we're talking.

Now elaborate on how and from whom both Iraq and Iran were obtaining their military arsenals.

Iran: Mostly the North Koreans, Chinese, and Libyans.

Iraq: Mostly France and the Soviet Union.

If we are talking actual military arsenals, that is.

I kinda wanted Felix to spell this one out. But whatever.

Did the US help out at all?

Yes, the US did supply each side with certain things in exchange for other deals.

But in the overall scheme of the conflict, the US played a relatively small role compared to many other nations in terms of supplies.

So what we can take from that, in the context of Felix's & my conversation, seems to be this: as long as a political leader exports death, murder, and political instability, he's morally absolved from being a murderer/tyrant.

Hence Reagan is Jesus Christ II, Savior of the People, while Stalin is an *******.