: I've come to similar conclusions (although I'd defend American involvement against the North Vietnamese - simply because we were more successful in Korea doesn't make Ree into any more of a Democrat than Diem. He was just more competant. I also think the bombing of civilians is savage). I agree with the last point. However, Vietnam and Korea were, in my opinion, quite different situations for several reasons. North Vietnam originally was open to a peaceful settlement and negotiations (the Geneva accords) whereas North Korea invaded their neighbro in teh dead of night. Ho Chi Minh had the estimated support of 80% of Vietnamese, both North and South, while Kim never bothered to find out if the South Koreans were happy with Rhee or wanted "unification". North Korea was an obvious front for the Chinese and Russians, while Ho Chi Minh's was an indigenous movement. the Communists and Vietnam, whatever their faults (and the actual extent of cruelty and killings is by no means clear) did make a real, legitimate and partially successful attempt to give the peasantry an increased standard of living and a stake in their country's future, while North Korea did nothing but specialize in starvation, repression and suicidal attempts to take over its neighbors. Moreover, I don't know about Rhee, but Diem was pretty bad, holding an estimated 80,000 political prisoners; from the estimates I've seen, that is eight times the number held by Brezhnev's Russia (I know very little about teh latter, so please take that with a pinch of salt.)
:Yet, I still find myself on the Right, and decidedly so. Frequently, U.S. involvements go sour out of ignorance rather than malice;
Not necessarily. We knew what kind of monster Pinochet was. We had plenty of evidence about the Contras' policy of wholesale murder, torture, rape, and targeting clinics etc. in violation of teh Geneva Convention. Jesse Helms actually boasted about how blatantly we rigged the El Salvador elections. We knew that we were suppressing democracy in Guyana. We attempted to sabotage Cuba's and Nicaragua's economies; if that is not malice, i'd like to know what is. "Ignorance" does not seem to have played much of a role here. You see, I disagree with you here just as I do with Red Deathy. I don't believe that blanket moral statements can be made about US foreign policy. I believe that some of our actiosn have been morally right, others have been just as clearly wrong. And I believe it does make a difference who is in power; it's not just "teh irredeemable system". Carter's foreign policy was deeply moral; Reagan, operating udner the same "System", chose a foreign policy that was deeply immoral. Leaders and their individual choices do matter.
: their opponents are much more likely to act from pre-meditated barbarism.
This is certainly true in soem cases (China, iraq, etc.) but is equally untrue in some others. The evidence seems to show that accounts of Nicaraguan "atrocities" were fabricated. The atrocities of teh North Vietnamese, while they certainly existed, have likewise been heavily exaggerated. And I am not aware that some of our Cold War opponents like India, Burkina Faso, Maurice Bishop, Guinea-Bissau, Chile, Guyana, the CP of Italy, SWAPO, or Zimbabwe ever committed any atropcities (at least, none more significant than those the US itself committed.
:Americans want to trade with, not conquer, the nations of the world. When it works, the lifestyles of all involved improve markedly.
When has it worked? at least in the radical free-msrket form?
: The Left, on the other hand, has been a sore disappointment. What might have been a 'loyal opposition', acting to resolve the problems within Western philosophy and political engagement, have instead acted to exploit them. Thus, I feel uncomfortable criticizing anything about American policy in the company of those with a liberal persuasion.
Same with me; I have reservations whenever I defend American foreign policy actions in the presence of conservatives, lest my comments be misinterpreted. When I talk with Indians, however, I seldom criticize America- their opinions of teh US are often contemptuous enough as it is.
:I would like a mechanism of resolving troubling issues that does not entail exploiting or nationalizing businesses, and I don't find that amongst the 'activists' I've seen.
Well, I believe in nationalizing a large part of business; why should I abandon this belief?
: What to do? I've virtually given up on Communists - they're worse than Nazis, and much more self-righteous.
Who? All Communists? In what way? Talk about an ad hominem, group slur....Just when I'm convinced you want a well-reasoned debate, you resort to the old smear tactics again. Did I ever compare capitalists to Nazis? I f I did, please show me when and where. Although this irritates me extremely, I am going to simply repeat my question. I assume that you are refering to the track record of "Communists" in such places as China and Cambodia,. Let us further assume for teh sake of argument that these atrocities can be usefully compared with the crimes of Hitler.
1) what evidence have you to say that these atrocities typify Communism and Communists any more than, say, the Inquisition typifies Catholicism? than eugenics typifies nineteenth-century science? than
the Congo Free State typifies capitalism?
2) what causal link is there between teh Communists in Italy, Kerala, Namibia or Nicaragua and teh crimes of "Communist" China?
3) by what logic ought the Communist Party of India, say, bear blame for what teh Chinese Maoists did? Especailly when their chief leader purged the Maoist terrorists from the state he governed, incurring teh enmity of the Maoist lunatic fringe all over the world?
4) in what way do the crimes of communist China detract from teh achievements of teh Communists in Kerala?
:Most soft socialists I've encountered have a vicious anti-capitalism streak that makes it very difficult to carry on conversations through.
As Red Deathy said, socialism is teh opposite of capitalism....a bit tautological....
: We are essentially a moral and principled country, a model for the world. We have allies with good ideas, from which we might learn much (German ideas in regards to worker/management relations are excellent, the British have a knowledgable foreign service, etc.)
And the Indians have good ideas about affirmative action, the Sandinistas about campaign fnancing, teh Cubans about free education. Why stop there?
:If we had more Mandelas instead of Castros, political change would be far simpler. But we don't.
See my response to RD. the ANC is one-third communist right now, Mandela has always been pro-communist, he appointed many communists to high positiosn, he and teh communists are clsoe friends and allies (inclduing Castro). Castro and Mandela are allies, you cannot separate them. We need more Castros/ Mandelas, fewer Diems and Suhartos.
:Far more often than not, we are placed in the position where we either support an entrenched dictator, or allow radical thugs free run of a country. We are criticized either way.
If you had allowed the Sandinistas "free run" of nicaragua (to which they were freely elected, I might add) you woudl have got no criticism from me.
: In any case, I still think the West is winning, and that this means that civilization is winning. Am I being obtuse when I include the Japanese culture in that equation?
The "West" is an illusion. The Swedes want no part of our economic inequality, the Danes want no part of our crass entertainment, etc, etc.
: I appreciate the frank dialogue. Understand, however, that you aren't the only one that has used reasoned judgement to get to his conclusions.
I agree.
: "Doc" Cruel
