Yes, but the '56 elections do need to be discussed in the context of
of communistic imperialism if U.S. actions are to be reasonably
evaluated. The question is: was the western policy of combatting the
worldwide expansion of communsim the moral high ground or not. I'm
not wishing to judge the motives of communists here. I'm only making a
comparison of the havoc created by them as opposed to other systems
which fought their imperialism.
Respectfully; If the "Black Book on Communism" is true in its total
death count, should the free nations of the world oppose communism with
deadly force? If so, will mistakes made by that opposition in that
endeavour negate the moral imperative to act?
So far, we seem to agree that men are flawed beings that cannot
govern themselves perfectly. That's what I get when I hear no solutions
from you - only complaints. If a system of government is set up
which denies man's depravity, as communism does, and then proceeds to
demonstrate man's depravity by setting the historical record for
dealing death, we can discount it as a viable solution for mankind.
Marxism (which you ascribe a certain functional purity to - and claim
that it has never been fully tried) comes from a man and must be
administered by men. What gives you confidence in men Sam?
Humanist philosophy ignores historical reality. Prove me wrong. Our
form of government accounts for man's depravity and responds to it
in punative terms quicker than other forms of government. The evil that
men do is exposed more under this type of government than others
because of an ostensible worship of freedom. I never say America is
perfect. I always say I love America because it stands for freedom.
Anecdotal evidence to the contrary does not change my mind about my
country. When I hear of such things I want to change those things - not
judge the whole system by those things or use those things as a means
of characterizing whole groups - such as our military.
Stuart Gort
