Posted on 10/08/2001 1:57:12 PM PDT by Zviadist
This is entirely possible, I concede.
But my argument still stands; and I don't think you really disagree with me. I have said that there is no communist conspiracy, that the transition from ex-communist to neo-capitalist was simple and logical and required no fundamental change in "religion," so to speak.
We represent the moral high ground,
Tell that to the Albanians, who saw the US support a communist coup in 1997. Tell it to the Serbs, who saw our "bombs for peace" up close and personal. Tell it to the Belarusians, who see the US demanding that an election be overturned in favor of a former communist Central Committee member. Tell it to the Croatians, who saw the US undermine a conservative, anti-communist party in favor of the current communist coalition government. And so on and so on. But go ahead, keep your fantasies and keep your ignorance. I am sure it is nice and comfy for you to believe this. Unfortunately the facts point to a different conclusion. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of your fantasy?
I'll modify my statement. The US had something to do with it but it isn't the primary cause. Anyway Allende was subsituted with a dictator, a good dictator in my view.
Well, thank you. You are too kind.
And I loved the bit about King-cons, of course.
Personally, I'm not too comfortable with any of the standard prefixed labels. I'll settle for what my friends call me: freak.
The British, Soviets and Romans had an empire and made no bones about it. The US is the only country that runs an Empire but kids itself that it doesn't.
An Empire doesn't require taxation of the subjects. The British didn't tax all of their subjects.
It involves control. Most Latin American countries have to do what the US says because of the consequences of disobeying. Saudi Arabia and many Oil Muslim states are American protectorates. Look at what happened to the Serbs for merely trying to retain the integrity of their country.
You have got to be kidding. Iran didn't get into the war with Iraq. The war was started by Iraq with the support of the US. The Iranians then demanded "unconditional surrender" from Iraq. They got that idea from the US.
I have said that there is no communist conspiracy, that the transition from ex-communist to neo-capitalist was simple and logical and required no fundamental change in "religion," so to speak.
I admire your civil posts. But I will only agree to the above if we can agree that "ex-communism" and "neo-capitalism" are the same ideology and are both essentially totalitarian, that the nomenklatura embraced what they called capitalism, but what was actually even worse than communism: they OWNED the assets they merely managed in the past. The "losers" (anti-communists, freedom-lovers, Christians) under communism became the losers under "democratic capitalism." So, what has changed? What is the point of "we won the Cold War"? What is the basis for all this self-congratulation, when the people who we supposedly fought the Cold War for no longer love America because they are WORSE off now and the United States has been in bed with the former communists since Bush I in 1989 (earlier, actually)? Some liberaters we turned out to be.
I can't help but notice that many, if not all, of the policies and direct actions you refer to happened in the last 10 years or, to put a finer point on it, during the Clinton administration.
I have long suspected that a different crowd came to run our foreign policy in that time. It would have been easy to disrupt the chain of continuity with past American policy, with the arrival of the first Democratic administration in over a decade amid the chaotic aftermath of the Cold War.
We stopped pursuing principled policies and began turning our entire diplomatic, intelligence, and military apparatus into an economic vanguard whose purpose was to execute the will of the Davos crowd. Old distinctions--communist and anti-communist, for instance--were rendered less important than economic considerations.
Do you share this view, or do you think it goes deeper than the Clintonites?
We are in fact (quite markedly, if again on average) a force for stability, freedom, prosperity and moderation in the world.
Don't get around much, do you?
LES REVELATIONS D'UN ANCIEN CONSEILLER DE CARTER
Oui, la CIA est entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes...
[Yes, the CIA entered A. before the Russians]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le Nouvel Observateur. L'ancien directeur de la CIA Robert Gates l'affirme dans ses Mémoires (1) : les services secrets américains ont commencé à aider les moudjahidine afghans six mois avant l'intervention soviétique. A l'époque, vous étiez le conseiller du président Carter pour les affaires de sécurité ; vous avez donc joué un rôle clé dans cette affaire. Vous confirmez ? Zbigniew brzezinski (2). Oui. Selon la version officielle de l'histoire, l'aide de la CIA aux moudjahidine a débuté courant 1980, c'est-à-dire après que l'armée soviétique eut envahi l'Afghanistan, le 24 décembre 1979. Mais la réalité, gardée secrète jusqu'à présent, est tout autre : c'est en effet le 3 juillet 1979 que le président Carter a signé la première directive sur l'assistance clandestine aux opposants du régime prosoviétique de Kaboul. Et ce jour-là, j'ai écrit une note au président dans laquelle je lui expliquais qu'à mon avis cette aide allait entraîner une intervention militaire des Soviétiques. N. O. Malgré ce risque, vous étiez partisan de cette « covert action » [opération clandestine]. Mais peut-être même souhaitiez-vous cette entrée en guerre des Soviétiques et cherchiez-vous à la provoquer ? Z. brzezinski. Ce n'est pas tout à fait cela. Nous n'avons pas poussé les Russes à intervenir, mais nous avons sciemment augmenté la probabilité qu'ils le fassent. N. O. Lorsque les Soviétiques ont justifié leur intervention en affirmant qu'ils entendaient lutter contre une ingérence secrète des Etats-Unis en Afghanistan, personne ne les a crus. Pourtant, il y avait un fond de vérité... Vous ne regrettez rien aujourd'hui? Z. brzezinski. Regretter quoi ? Cette opération secrète était une excellente idée. Elle a eu pour effet d'attirer les Russes dans le piège afghan et vous voulez que je le regrette ? Le jour où les Soviétiques ont officiellement franchi la frontière, j'ai écrit au président Carter, en substance : « Nous avons maintenant l'occasion de donner à l'URSS sa guerre du Vietnam. » De fait, Moscou a dû mener pendant presque dix ans une guerre insupportable pour le régime, un conflit qui a entraîné la démoralisation et finalement l'éclatement de l'empire soviétique. N. O. Vous ne regrettez pas non plus d'avoir favorisé l'intégrisme islamiste, d'avoir donné des armes, des conseils à de futurs terroristes ? Z. brzezinski. Qu'est-ce qui est le plus important au regard de l'histoire du monde ? Les talibans ou la chute de l'empire soviétique ? Quelques excités islamistes ou la libération de l'Europe centrale et la fin de la guerre froide ? N. O. « Quelques excités » ? Mais on le dit et on le répète : le fondamentalisme islamique représente aujourd'hui une menace mondiale... Z. brzezinski. Sottises ! Il faudrait, dit-on, que l'Occident ait une politique globale à l'égard de l'islamisme. C'est stupide : il n'y a pas d'islamisme global. Regardons l'islam de manière rationnelle et non démagogique ou émotionnelle. C'est la première religion du monde avec 1,5 milliard de fidèles. Mais qu'y a-t-il de commun entre l'Arabie Saoudite fondamentaliste, le Maroc modéré, le Pakistan militariste, l'Egypte pro-occidentale ou l'Asie centrale sécularisée ? Rien de plus que ce qui unit les pays de la chrétienté... Propos recueillis par Vincent Jauvert (1) « From the Shadows », par Robert Gates, Simon and Schuster. (2) Zbigniew brzezinski vient de publier « le Grand Echiquier », Bayard Editions.
Vincent Jauvert
I can't help but notice that many, if not all, of the policies and direct actions you refer to happened in the last 10 years or, to put a finer point on it, during the Clinton administration.
But the seeds were planted and fertilized by Bush I and that evil James Baker. Ask the Georgians about our support of that Soviet thug Shevardnadze against a democratically-elected Zviad Gamsakhurdia, and our subsequent support during Bush Admin for the slaughter of Shevardnadze's opposition -- the "Zviadists," who were viscerally anti-communist and pro-freedom.
Bush started it because he traded freedom for "stability" in his vision of a post-Cold War world. In the name of stability, Bush I established a paradigm that Clinton's academics who came to dominate foreign policy were only too happy to exploit in the name of their even more nefarious ideologies. So who was worse? Hard to say. If Bush had stood for freedom and supported freedom wherever it took root, things would have been very different in a way that Clinton might not have been able to disrupt. I blame Bush more.
Is neo-capitalism the same as corporatism? If so, I might not use the word totalitarian to describe it, but it is undoubtedly intolerant, anti-individualist, hyper-rationalist, materialist, and endemically hostile to Christianity (and all other religion). In that sense, its effects are very similar to Communism. Close enough?
I do not know who controls the assets or the "means of production" in the former Soviet empire.
Western corporations, who were awarded these means by the former communists for a very nice price. Domestic entreprenurial activity is nearly nonexistent in the "reformed" economies, aborted in the womb by 10 year tax holidays for foreign investors and a 60 percent tax on domestic economic activities. The game was rigged by the commies in government to make sure the Western robber capitalists had a clear field with no competition. For that they were paid handsomely.
Is neo-capitalism the same as corporatism? If so, I might not use the word totalitarian to describe it, but it is undoubtedly intolerant, anti-individualist, hyper-rationalist, materialist, and endemically hostile to Christianity (and all other religion). In that sense, its effects are very similar to Communism.
Correct, correct, and correct! Well said!
I'd like to read more about this. Can you recommend any good books or articles on the subject?
To bring the discussion back to the present conflict, though, you seem to have a reflexive distaste for any sort of activist foreign policy on the part of the Western powers. I understand your bitterness toward G.H.W. Bush and Clinton, and I (probably) agree with your analysis of their administrations.
But it seems to me that this new threat is different. The Islamists the enemies of Christians, patriots, anti-communists, and Davos elites alike. They will not be content merely to be "left alone." If ever we had an opportunity to reinvigorate the moral center of our foreign policy, this is it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.