Things would be simple, if we can brand SOVIET=DEMONS, US=ANGELS, or vice versa, but I'm afraid things aren't quite like that. The events that transpired in the third world during the years of the Cold War Imperialism(1945-1989, as Alex Callinicos would state), was typical and very characteristic: the late transition from an agrarian state to an industrial one, struggles to overcome their massive dependencies and subordination to their former masters - the Imperialistic West, and inner class-struggles to finally move on to general 'modernity'.
Granted, that we take the definition of Imperialism as a geo-political/militaristic one(rather than the economical definition as Lenin explained), even in this case mentioning that there was a possibility of USSR trying to turn Nicaragua into a client, is hardly an excuse to justify American foreign policies of the 80's. The question of which side they should be 'friendly with' was for Nicaragua, and thus so was the decision. These 3rd world countries needed the raw powered industrial-drive, and thus, a political system with a centralized power leading this movement was prefered. These countries have witnessed their alternative in the Soviet Union: both the process of economic progress and political formation. Literally, America had no right to intervene. If we can say "It's not right" about USSR and Adghanistan, so can we about America and the Latin American countries.
The "MYTH" of the Cold-War, the national propaganda of "American men protecting freedom against 'open threats to crush the US'" should be now properly refuted. Basically, due to the events of 1914~1921, the Soviet Union was in a state of isolation, and the complex and anxiety towards social revolution was always problems of the West, at least, as Hobsbawm would say, nobody was sure that there WOULDN'T BE a revolution taking place in their own countries whether or not the USSR had something to do with it. The 'world-wide conspiracy' was formed BY the West AGAINST the Soviet Union, not BY the Soviet Union AGAINST the West. The 'Cuban Missile Crisis' and simular events show how the propaganda of both the West AND the USSR works.
After 1950, when Revolution was no more something to worry about, the Cold-War, in reality, reached a silent pact between the West and the USSR. During these 'crises', it is evident that neither of the two super powers had any genuine intention of starting a war. These powers were mutually dependant on each other, and through the forged 'hostilities' each of them found essential ingredients of POWER: the West had successfully formed a long-term cooperation between it's Imperialist powers which began from the Breton-Woods convention, and the USSR had formed it's mirror version of the 'econo-political bloc'. Note that it was AFTER the balance of power started to drastically shift to the West, that America started gaining problems. It's place of the Top-dog is gradually slipping away, and the solidity of the alliance of Western states has began to erode. Indeed, the Cold-War WAS "necessary". A nifty way to secure the role of "LEADER" in their blocs. Also note that Hobsbawm states that there is generally no evidence the US government had either wished or anticipated the fall of the Soviet Union. The myth of 'Reagan Leadership, bringing down the Berlin Wall' is just that. A myth.
: Sure, war can bring about positive social change. That doesn't make war good nor does it legitimize a sick desire for it. Barry doesn't advocate any particualr war for the ostensible reasons it will be waged. He only seeks to profit from the carnage and anarchy that ensues because his views have no hope of suceeding in this democracy. As for genocide, America and it's allies surely had their shares of it. These quotes from the experts who held place in the US State Department during the massacre in East Timor should be enough. Evidence of American influence in all kinds of horrendous murders comitted by it's 'client-states' is overwhelming: "They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands. But that's not all that bad." (My country, the Republic of Korea also suffered the same fate in 1980)
Much is also the same with New Deal, and the downfall of Keynesian theories: propaganda that Reagan Administration did something different. Well, they did not. This recent 'Religion' of monetary economics by the likes of Milton Friedman has taken place so fast, so stern, and so unquestioningly that nobody tries to pick out the 'truth' from the 'false'. Too make it short, the world economy went seperate ways as the Neo-Liberals have predicted it would. The Reagan Administration has seen 10% increase in total production of goods during 1982~1984, dropping unemployment rates, and dropping inflation rates. But the essence of Reagonomics is virtually identical to the ideologies of the New Deal: tax rates were dropped, but massive amounts of public spending still existed, this time on military expenses. A little reminder that the deficit rate increased to 5% of the GDP in 1985.
A lot of things were failing. The 'really existing socialism' AND capitalism, too. Capitalism is a universal force, while the handful were getting richer, the poverty rates are still going up in the most miserable countries. America currently has 50 million people excluded from health insurances. They constitute most of the extreme-poor in America, and most of these people are illiterate,too.
Hmm. Since I tried to add a little to every thing from the post placed before this one, I think I digress. The point is, these certain 'moments of truth' tend to come every now and then. Though calamity and wars are to be avoided to the utmost, what if the price for peace we must pay is 'the stability and reproduction of social injustices'? Remember that the very spirit of democracy and justice, which was once so noble in America, had resulted to the colonial struggle. The moment of truth, will you fight and result in terrifying violence - but achieve justice, or will you surrender - and gain peace? America needed a revolution to gain it's political freedom. If the English graciously gave up and left, than mayhap there was no need for violence. Preferring absolute disdain to violence, absolute peace to everything - what will it lead to? Is it not the perfect weapon for the people who would least want a change that might threaten their monopoly of power and wealth ? - "I LOVE PEACE, I LOVE ORDER, I LOVE THE LAW, I HATE VIOLENCE".
What we need for judging these moments of truth is not a propaganda which absolutely justifies it, or which absolutely denies it, but critical insight. If people would risk their lives, risk the destruction of their friends, family and homelands for the cause of a Revolution, if they are truly that much desperate, then, clearly something IS ALSO FAILING in the very system that they revolt against.