[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

So all the liberals who are clamoring for intervention would see the US intervening and stopping the genocide, then say "YOU IMPERIALIST PIGS! LET THE GENOCIDE CONTINUE AND GET OUT!" People who believe intervention into Sudan would be a good thing think so because it would be justified for something that is actually a good thing, not economic interests or the war on terror. Why would they criticize the US for not taking action and campaign for intervention, only to protest intervention when it actually happens?

Probably due to how the intervention happens. Military intervention is not always what we mean when we talk about intervention. And most of the (to be absolutely frank) invasions of other countries undertaken by the US result in the US showing off its power and doing nothing to bolster any sort of system that would protect the country when the US leaves. Keep in mind this is also the norm for the NATO nations. Not so much the UN, but by the time they get off their asses, everything's too far gone for them to help anyway.

Socialist countries don't have gigantic oil lobbyists who, through millions of dollars of donations and millions spent on lobbyists and attorneys who give heavy influence to the government, controlling many aspects of energy.

Heh, they don't need them. The lobbyists become part of the government, just like here in the US, or the government claims ownership of the oil industry in that country. The millions spent on lobbyists and attorneys becomes millions spent on bribes and getting influential people on your side. So, pretty much the same deal, under a different name.

This, however, is the function of government, period, not an economic system.

And the oil supplies are already developed by China. If there were huge undeveloped oil reserves sitting in Sudan, god damn right we would have intervened years ago.

Why aren't we involved in Russia and Venezula then? We want weak governments in those places. Weak governments need money more than strong ones. After the collapse of the USSR, if that theory holds true, we should have been doing everything in our power to weaken the former USSR countries that held oil reserves.

Instead, we gave them aid and began friendly relations, well, relatively friendly relations, with Russia, and now it's got an iron-firm grip on the European oil market.

The whole China argument goes away at the point where we both agree they are a mixed economy.

Well, then, does the US argument go away as well? As stated, we are also a mixed economy. We fiddle with intrest rates, give welfare, and do a lot of other things that pure capitalist countries don't do. Really, in a few years, we won't be that different from China.

First, the soviet union started leaning more towards capitalism after Stalin was in, so their actions are irrelevant. If you can prove Stalin gave huge amounts of arms to Africa, then this argument would go away, since both a predominately socialist and predominately capitalist country sell lots of arms. In my research, I can't find too much about Stalin and Africa. All I have found is a partial article that you have to buy or something, titled "Soviet Arms Trade with the Noncommunist Third World" and the only part I can read is "In the immediate post- Stalin period, Soviet leaders expressed interest in the revolutionary potential of the Third World." I can't get any more details, but this indicates that intervention and interaction with African countries after Stalin, when his more socialist policies were integrated with capitalism.

Nazis had a strong foothold in Africa (remember Rommel?), so it is likely that the Russians and other allies left quite a bit of firepower there. Russia did give a large amount of arms to its communist allies in Iran and Pakistan, as the Americans gave Iraq and Japan some preferential treatment. One of the great ironies of the world is that nearly every bullet that finds a target in one of our soldiers in Iraq was probably sold to the Iraqis by us.

The USSR and US played some pretty vicious games with the undeveloped countries during the cold war, I don't think it's fair to discount the influence of either superpower.

Oh come on, these slimy attacks should be below you. The way you phrase it is so illogical it hurts. Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism AND extremely harsh political policies that led to the execution of people who were connected with the previous government or foreign governments, homosexuals, and educated people. It is so stupid to even try and blame political policies and EXTREME applications of socialism for all the deaths. Marx never preached the destruction of everyone educated. Just because a dictator bastardized socialism doesn't mean all socialism is bad.

Well, you could similarly argue that all the wrongs of capitalism were caused due to misinterpretation of it. Capitalism is dedicated to a free market, not to keeping countries down. Logically, Taiwan and Mexico should be getting very rich fairly soon, as they present vast resources in the way of cheap labor. Price down = demand up, as we learn in basic economics.

Yet, as OwL pointed out elsewhere, we've tripped that up through tarrifs and abusing NAFTA and other treaties, so that it's the case that NO MATTER what capitalistic theories say about increased demand driving up prices and wages, the wages of Mexican workers will always be abnormally low. The system you have an issue with is Feudalism, not capitalism.

Specifically, your statement that "Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism, resulting in the deaths of millions." is so oversimplified it makes me want to bang my head on my desk. If I use your logic, I am justified in saying "Hitler tried to enforce capitalism, resulting in the deaths of millions."

Hitler promoted Nationalism, not capitalism. Hitler was actually a big proponent of a more socialist state, hence his attack on Jews, who were thought to be a big influence in banking. Bankers and intellectuals in general suffered in Nazi Germany, just as they did in Soviet Russia, where the Bible and Plato's Republic were banned, (a great tragedy to Russia's long and storied literary history), and as they did in Communist China, where Taoism and Bhuddism were outlawed, as was the teaching of martial arts, and, incedentally, as they haven't in America, which, despite its faults, does allow a more open discussion of radical ideas than most other countries on Earth, relying on the mass population to restrict anything too radical.

Anyway, your arguments on both sides don't fly. Pol Pot, as most every other Communist leader, attempted to really do a quick version of Communism, using Totalitarianism as a first step. Unfortunately, as we see with Castro, it's not a step most places get over. Nazi Germany was not about capitalism, but about nationalism, and more specifically about how, after WW 1, the Allies demanded reparations from the already war-torn Germany, which left it unable to rebuild, fostering frustration, ultimately expressed by a support for Hitler's very un-German ideas.

Pure socialism has NOTHING to do with mass murder.

Neither does pure capitalism. You'll find the dreamers who come up with these ideas are rather like Terry Pratchett's character Leonardo DeQuirm, a genius who bears a striking resemblance to one of our historic heroes.
Anyway, DeQuirm does lovely work on all manner of great inventions, and, incidentally, on a few horrible devices of war. When questioned about them, he invariably points out their value as exercises in mechanics, as well as their benefit to mankind in stopping war. They are so horrible, he says, that no one would use them, as no one except the very sick wants to murder their fellow man.

The writers of A Communist Manifesto and The Wealth of Nations probably never thought that their ideas would become the basis for war and destruciton. They likely thought their ideas would end poverty and strife forever. Unfortunately, there are a great many sick people who looked at those ideas and saw power, rather than salvation for man.