- Capitalism and Alternatives -

We should have extended a free hand to the NLF

Posted by: Nikhil Jaikumar ( The EFZ, MA, USA ) on April 12, 1999 at 12:42:09:

In Reply to: Actually, we call it 'containment'. It works, too. (: posted by DrCruel on April 11, 1999 at 18:02:04:

(DC: The conflict is fueled by a lack of business activity, caused by left-wing manipulation of Yugoslavian society and economics, which led to the severe lack of jobs in the region. Unemployed, desperate people make great mercenaries, as the Cubans have been well aware of for some time.)

NJ: 1) Yugoslavia was, under Communism, an economic modle for the rest of the world. it possessed a Third Way, neither capitalist nor state-run, where the workers directly controlled their own enterprises. They took the idea of "don't follow leaders" to its furthest conclusion. So don't try to portray Socialist Yugoslavia as something it wasn't. It was an economic success story. The economic collapse happened after Reagan's vile machinations brought down communism in East Europe. As everywhere else, the end of socialsim destroyed economic well-being, tolerance, and humanitarianism in Yugoslavia.

: Yeah. Force. Ever see a communist (ohh, sorry EX-communist?) respond to anything else?

Why is it necessary to get tehm "respond" to anything? What do you ahve agaoinst allowing people to choose tehir own socioeconomic system? Why is it that whenever a country chooses to go communist, tehy suddenly become the enemy? has the Right no respect for freedom and self-determination? No, of course not, I should knwo better than that.

: : For the Record: The Socialist Party opposed both NATO and the Serb Government and the Russian Government (DC: Must'a been a "co-inkidink"), now read on...

No coincidence, teh Socialists and Communists have always been in teh vanguard of every peace movemntin teh world. You knwo that.

: : 4:According to Human rights agitators in FRY, the Western powers have never shown any encouragement towards democratic elements, nor the least opposition to Milosovich. (DC: Due to "agitators", the policy of the U.S. is to interfere as little as possible, except in the most extreme circumstances. Really, one ought not to complain when the West intervenes, and in the same breath admonish them for doing too little.)

: Whatever. The idea was to stop the fighting, not to "favor" one side or the other. Unlike the old Soviet Union, we try not to use ethnic politics to manipulate other nations. As it was, accepting the lines that the respective sides had reached seemed to be acceptable by most of the parties. The negotiators saw a shot at a quick peace, and took it - to their considerable credit, and with the relieved gratitude of the locals, I might add.

: : : The KLA are terrorists. They've been active for some time. We would no more support the IRA than we would support a genocide of the Irish by Britain. We would support a solution agreed to by all parties concerned, and would stay out unless gross atrocities were being committed. That is what "peace-keeping" is all about, you see.

: : Thats why teh US actively backed the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese after the invasion in ;'78 (?) and actively backed Genocide in East Timor? The US lacks credibility- why has not the UN been used to bring peace to the Area? because Russia considers that area its back-yard, so we have an inter-imperialist rivalry going on there

: I don't believe this. The Khmer Rouge were communist zealots. They have been embraced by their Vietnamese "brothers". Gee, and all this time I thought we had supported Sihanouk

Th Khmer rouge were not communists, they were about as communist as Leopold's Free State was free. We supported the Khmer Rouge wholeheartedly after '79. The Vietnamese were, as usual, the sole force fro progressivism and liberation in teh region. Ignroing the way tehir "image" would suffer, tehy shouldered the moral burden of eliminating the KR, and liberated Cambodia, after having already liberated Laos.

: : .
: : : We do not support civil war.

: : Vietnam, Haiti, Columbia, The Contras?

: South Vietnam: Invaded by North Vietnam, after they had signed an international agreement.

The NLF had teh broad support of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower estimated that 80% of South Vietnamese would ahve voted for union with the North. The NLF was an indigenous movement attempting to liberate the Republic of Vietnam from its comprador tyrant rulers, and to enjoy teh benefits of free health care and an end to alienation that teh north provided. I'll repeat- why does the Right ahve no respect for people's right tos elf-determination? The Vietnamese clearly wanted communism. what the hell is the Right's problem with that? Why must they always put tehir own selfish moneyed interest above what the Vietnamese want for themselves?

: Haiti: In the midst of a civil war, we sent troops to quell rampant anarchy, and instill a democratically elected president, by all accounts the rightful leader.

Yes, after a century of 1) refusing to recognize Haiti's Black Revolutionary government, 2) invading and occupying Haiti on numerous occasions to establish business-friendly dictatorships (see 1915-1934) 3)vilifying Aristide fro his leftist policies, 4) supporting the dictator Trujillo in the DR who murdered 40,000 Haitian migrants.

: Columbia: We arrested a drug dealer, who happened to be the leader of a country(?)

No, take a look at what Barry McCaffrey is doing, sending military aid to the most murtderous and tyrannical government in teh hemisphere. Colombia killed 200 civilains last eyar, Cuba killed none, but guess who gets the aid. The drug war is a front for Barry's anti-communism.

: The Contras (also Afghanistan): We defended the people of a region against the machinations of murderous socialist "activists", masquerading as merely a faction in a civil war.
let's compare
1)The Sandinistas were democratically elected in 1984, and had the broad support of the people. the Contras had no support, because they were made up of Somoza's fascist National Guard.

2)The Sandinistas' support ran so deep that they gave arms to villagers, knowing taht the villagers ad no reason to turn on them- and tehy didn't. The Contras were fporced to base themselves in neighboring countries and launch murderous raids from Honduras becaus ethey had no support.

2)The"murderous" Sandinistas abolished the deaTH PENALTY, SET THE MAXIMUM PRISON SENTENCE AT 30 years, and categorically denied the principle of collective responsibility- i.e. the National Guard was not prosecuted for "collective crimes", only selcted individuals for specific acts. The barbaric Contras, on the otehr hand., made a policy out of murdering random civilians to strike terror into teh populace.
They castrated civilian men in front of tehir wives, then forced the men to eat their own genitals; they raped women in front of tehir children, killed children in front of their mothers, stuffed people's mouths with grenades and then pulled the pin. these are the people you defend?

4) The sandinista's goal was to ionstall free health care and education, to give the people control over their own political and economic lives, to build Nicaragua into a prosperous, free, egalitarian, democratic society. The Contras' goal was to reinstate the Somocista Tyranny, with all of the oligarchy, torture, and elimination of political prisoners oit entailed. The Sandinstas succeeded in achieving the fastest economic growth in latin Ameriac and a greater degree of real, grassroots democracy than the US. (E.g. in Nicaragua, it was much easier to start your pown political party and you were guaranteed of government fnding regardless of your ideology, comapre that to America). Which of these is more defensible? Please anwer seriously, without the influence of ideology.

:We will always fight against international criminal activity, whether it be the piracy and lawlessness of the Barbary pirates or the more modern version advocated by the Left.

The US was the major criminal in Nicaragu. Think about what we were saying to those 5 million people. Basically, we were telling them No, you can't try and help your people instead of killing them, you can't allow people to take control of their own lives, because if you do we'll make your life a living hell. If we don't like the government taht gets elected, we will terrorize nd bruytalize you until you sumbit to one that we like. Basically, teh US was using violenbt froce to compel Nicaragua into installing a government taht the US wanted. that is the pure definition of terrorism, involving things like the illegal mining of Nicaraguan harbors, condemned by the ICJ. What we did in Nicaragua was murderous terrroism, pure and simple, on a level rarely paralleled in American history. There is no gainsaying it.

: : : We are for human rights.

: : Thats why US aid budgets go to regimes in proportion to human rights abuses within them- why has the US colluded in Turkey with the repression of the Kurds? (DC: Why did we deal with the Russians and the Chinese, even as they imprisoned their people in the name of the "people's revolution"? Why do we feed the starving North Koreans, even as they repress their people? Ain't realpolitik a bitch?)

Why are all your criticisms directed at Leftist governments. Indonesiua has been the most brutal tyranny in SE Asia, not Vietnam. Indonesia exterminated 1/3 of a nation's population; murdred a million Communists and many Chinese; dislocated populations in New Guinea and otehr islands; allowed exploitation of resourecs without the people';s consent; annexed two countries and attempted to annex a third. Colombia, not Cuba, is teh most muyrderous government in teh Americas. Yet these are two of our clsoe allies. A friend of mine once argued that US policy INVARIABLY takes the side of dictatosrhip over democracy. While thsi is an exaggeration, it ahs a great dela of truth. Look at India vs. Pakistan, Allende vs. Pinochet, Jagan vs. Forbes Burnham, Arbenz vs. Castillo, etc. etc.

Why has the US supported Israel despite the human rigths abuses in Lebanon and against the Palestinians?(DC: Why have the U.S. negotiated with the Palestinians, even with their avowed murderous hostility towards the Israelis, their record of pogroms against them before the formation of Israel, and their active and enthusiastic support of terrorism? Maybe the pursuit of peace? Ya think?)

:Why? because its not in the nationa interest to do so, dictators are only bad when they do not serve US foriegn policy purposes. Hence the American CIA budget being nearly two thirds of What Britain spends on Welfare.

: All our budgets are BIG. We're capitalists, you see, and our system is quite superior. Thank you for noticing.
I would ask for evidence, but the thsi threat would get interminable.

: : :The sooner the Left realizes that they cannot get away with inhuman terrorist acts and genocide, the sooner they will finally be rid of by the world. Thus, we ought to have been more aggressive in Vietnam and against the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, but I digress.

: : Pardon me, but the US dropped more bombs on Cambodia in a few weeks than it dropped on Japan during the entire Second world war, it armed and backed the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese, US foriegn policy in Indochina couldn't have been more agressive, people are still dying due to the after-effects of Agent orange in Vietnam, in non beligerant Laos, people are still dying because of masses of anti-personel bombs the US dropped there, and that it is refusing to Clear up.

: The Vietnamese army of Hun Sen is STILL dropping bombs in Cambodia (as we speak), the Khmer Rouge and Vietnamese are now on the same team,

KR doesmn't exist anymore (c. 100 fighters left)

: U.S. policy in Indochina should have been and should be a HELL of a lot more aggressive,

No, we should ahve allowed the Vietnamese and laotians to liberate tehmselves, as they eventually did

: people are still dying in the killing fields of Cambodia and Laos for the "revolution", and so on, and so forth

Indonesia's atrocities dwarf anything in Indochina, and we are lkilling people today all over the world, what do you ahve agaoinst self-determination? let the Laotians be communist if they want, what's teh RIGHT's problem with that?

: God knows what's happening in Vietnam.
: You, then, agree with me that we ought not to have left Indochina until the communists were fully purged from the region, and the devil take the Chinese communists if they didn't approve?

No, we shoudl ahve given teh communists a free hand, extended to them aid and support, helped them in tehir goal of spreading self-determination, popular democracy, and equality.If we valued our moral principles, taht is. Right now we shoul apoplogize to Vietnam fro everything, and then give them all teh aid and support tehy need. I don't think trying to help one's people instead of killing them ins sucha terrible goal, do you?

:Never too late to finish the job and we'd find more than a few friends to help, too, if we move soon enough. Whadda ya think?

: : : Western intervention has been well meaning, but has not attacked the real issue - that the grasping for power amongst the ex-communist leaders is the primary reason for conflict in the region. We ought to actively and ruthlessly pursue anyone who held a high position in the old Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and bring them to justice. Racist fascism is merely a pale, weakened version of communism, and these 'ex-communists' easily revert to Nazi politics when it suits their opportunistic objectives. Only when we are ready to purge this maniacal faction from the political equation in the Balkans will we ever have hope for true peace in the region.

: : Hmm, blame the pople, not the power structures- this is of course why the US is determined not to unseat milosvich, but merely bomb him into submission, rather like they are trying in Iraq, they don't care about internally oppressive regimes, only about regional stability and capital flows.

: You missed it. I did blame the power structure - the paradigm of revolutionary socialism (and its bastard cousin, Nazism), and the intellectual justification for theft and mass murder that it proposes. Sorry I wasn't more clear; I'll try to be more so in the future.

No, revolutionary socialsim is opposed to race, hierarchy, and all their manifestatiosn. saying racial confliuct in east Europe is due to communism is like saying,
1) Italy has a lot of abortions
2) Italy is Catholic
3) therefore, Catholicism supports abortion.

OBVIOUSLY< racism and violence happen IN SPITE OF communism, not because of it.
: : Now, may I recomend a couple of links:
: : www.zmag.org has a stack of articles regarding the Kosova crisis, of varying quality.
: : www.iwrp.net- is an independant reporting service in the Balkans, covering the war, its analysis is good, and more balanced than mainstream media.

: Thanks for the links. I'll get to them this evening.

: : : DrCruel

: : : :
: : : : --Original Message-----
: : : : From: Phil Gasper
: : : : To: jmusselm_rpa@indiana.edu
: : : : Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 4:54 PM
: : : : Subject: Fwd: Report from 2 Belgrade Socialists




Follow Ups:

None.

The Debating Room Post a Followup