Communist candidate defeated in Colombia.

[TheGreatA]

Communist candidates are pretty scarce these days. They also seem to have a very foolish interpretation of what "communism" meant to Marx. It meant the gradual extinction of "national structures", even socialist structures, and their replacement with future structures, as a result of capital and technological growth. He made no attempt to actually predict what "communism" might amount to, other than that it would be much less restrictive of human growth due to a surplus of availabilities. He had much more to say about the prequel stage of "socialism".

It certainly didn't mean a broke-ass society pretending that they have an endless supply of goods to share, with populist fervor, ending up in slaughter and starvation once reality becomes exposed. Which is what communism as a political ideology has amounted to, for the most part.

 

[sub_thug]

Right, you were not excusing the creation of right wing paramilitaries and brutal dictators at all. Just talking about legitimate governments who asked for help.

Also read a bit about the Cuban revolution and the fall of Batista, the comparison is without merit.

The topic was whether or not the US worked through legitimate governments or exclusively used subversive efforts. The correct answer is that we used both, and that's exactly what I was saying. It's what I was saying from the start.

Bitter? nope, pissed off at apologism? sure as hell.

It would be like me claiming that America deserved 9/11 and then get confused about Americans calling me out.

America acted like any other empire, thats pretty much it, there is nothing exceptional about America, they fucked with weaker nations because they could, no hard feelings about it from me. But dont try to rationalize it.

You regularly whine on here about how US Presidents should be tried as war criminals when they do stuff you don't like. You also need to realize that the world isn't fair, and not all countries are created equal. For example, your country can get slapped around by any number of other countries, and it's pretty much powerless to stop it from happening. That's just the way it goes.

What I said from the beginning was that there were lots of actors involved in Latin America. Internal actors to the country, the Soviets, the Americans, and sometimes, the host country's neighbors. The blame lays at all those actors' feet, largely in equal portions. I never said that the US is free from all blame, but you seem to want to make it totally the fault of the US. That's the issue. You can't blame the US for these countries having shitty conditions for their people in the first place, for being corrupt, for ceding power over to criminal groups, for when the Soviets were the first to interfere, when neighboring countries got involved, or when these countries already had left or right-wing paramilitary groups. Again, take your country for example. Even without anyone else being involved, your country is full of corrupt politicians that have ceded power over to drug dealers. Now, how many politicians have been killed this year alone? And how many citizens work for the cartels in one capacity or another, probably because they don't want to live in squalor? As tourism takes another hit because the turf wars are becoming more violent, your country continues to suffer. That is the fault of your country and your people, and you can't put that at the feet of the US. And don't worry, you're not unique. Plenty of Latin American countries set similar conditions for their own people, and those conditions opened the door for desperation and radicalism. To preserve their own interests, superpowers went from taking passive roles to active ones in select places, and those became ideological battlegrounds.

You can blame the US for when we were the first to interfere and when we promoted one of those paramilitary groups into power.

 

[sub_thug]

But there was an actual genocide going on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide

To what extent was the US involved? Be specific.

And this is the crux of the issue, "Latin Americans are just too dumb to be able to create their own nations with their own goals, so a brutal dictatorship is better than a democracy that may or may not align with us".

There were TONS of good options, thats the whole issue im taking, saying that there is "no good options" in Latin America, is blatant apologism to the meddling the US did in the region.

I never called anyone dumb except you personally. You have an inferiority complex that shows badly.

What I have been saying from the start is that when a Latin American country is being controlled by another power that the Latin American country cannot defeat on its own, then intervention becomes a plausible option. Very simple.

Or maybe you ought to start seeing other people like humans who have the same wants and needs as you.

Freedom and well-being, tons of people were fighting over those.

I absolutely do. When an Afghan leader tells me that he wants to remove Islamists from power so that his daughter can have a future at an education, I believe him. Don't you?

You seem to be unaware what a false dichotomy is. I merely say that a lot of people saw opportunity on the rise of another global power to fight against what they felt was the "older" oppressor.

You are trying to paint a picture of US intervention being reactionary against communism, when it was the opposite, even JFK could see that.

I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country's policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.

— U.S. President John F. Kennedy, to Jean Daniel, October 24, 1963[61]


On October 6, 1960 Senator John F. Kennedy, in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. Presidency, decried Batista's relationship with the U.S. government and criticized the Eisenhower administration for supporting him:

Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years ... and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state—destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista—hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend—at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections.[47]

Yes, the false dichotomy. You mean like the one where I am either supporting the Communists or supporting the Batista regime? Batista was an asshole, and we shouldn't have supported him. At the same time, I don't support Communists. As far as I'm concerned, they could have blown one another apart, and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.

And what I've been saying from the beginning is that in plenty of other cases, such as Bolivia, supporting the government was absolutely a reaction to the introduction of foreign Communist influences.

 

[unimackpass]

lol at "right wing death squads." What nonsense.

Weren't they like the original tea-party?

 

[Black Helicopters]

y’all mind if I... defend communism?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Its the Kong effect.

I’m sure it’s cause you’re ignorant and uninformed on every single topic known to man.

 

[Rod1]

The topic was whether or not the US worked through legitimate governments or exclusively used subversive efforts. The correct answer is that we used both, and that's exactly what I was saying. It's what I was saying from the start.

Your claim was that without US subversion, all of LatAm was going to fall to communism, doesnt matters that the US started subversion to remove Spain from the continent over 60 years before the first serious communist movement kicked off.

You regularly whine on here about how US Presidents should be tried as war criminals when they do stuff you don't like. You also need to realize that the world isn't fair, and not all countries are created equal. For example, your country can get slapped around by any number of other countries, and it's pretty much powerless to stop it from happening. That's just the way it goes.

Gosh, silly me to think that the law that the world powers created would apply to them.

I believe in the law, do you? one key element of the law is Nemo est supra leges "Nobody above the law" the US and other world powers brought the nazis to court and judged them under them under what they considered to be criminal acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

If America said "We killed the nazis because we won, vae victus" i wouldnt say shit about it.

But you are calling me a hater just because im asking for the US leaders to be held to the US created international standards.

What I said from the beginning was that there were lots of actors involved in Latin America. Internal actors to the country, the Soviets, the Americans, and sometimes, the host country's neighbors. The blame lays at all those actors' feet, largely in equal portions. I never said that the US is free from all blame, but you seem to want to make it totally the fault of the US. That's the issue. You can't blame the US for these countries having shitty conditions for their people in the first place, for being corrupt, for ceding power over to criminal groups, for when the Soviets were the first to interfere, when neighboring countries got involved, or when these countries already had left or right-wing paramilitary groups. Again, take your country for example.

I merely attacked your apologism.

. Even without anyone else being involved, your country is full of corrupt politicians that have ceded power over to drug dealers. Now, how many politicians have been killed this year alone? And how many citizens work for the cartels in one capacity or another, probably because they don't want to live in squalor? As tourism takes another hit because the turf wars are becoming more violent, your country continues to suffer. That is the fault of your country and your people, and you can't put that at the feet of the US. And don't worry, you're not unique. Plenty of Latin American countries set similar conditions for their own people, and those conditions opened the door for desperation and radicalism. To preserve their own interests, superpowers went from taking passive roles to active ones in select places, and those became ideological battlegrounds.

And yet my country avoided civil wars for the largest part of the XX century and managed to implement democracy without the need of foreign intervention.

You can blame the US for when we were the first to interfere and when we promoted one of those paramilitary groups into power.

So basically all the time?

To what extent was the US involved? Be specific.

Its right there in the link, its almost as if you are arguing out of false premises and refuse to even budge about it.

I never called anyone dumb except you personally. You have an inferiority complex that shows badly.

You sure you arent talking to a mirror bud?

What I have been saying from the start is that when a Latin American country is being controlled by another power that the Latin American country cannot defeat on its own, then intervention becomes a plausible option. Very simple.

I dont get it, you are justifying soviet intervention here or something?

I absolutely do. When an Afghan leader tells me that he wants to remove Islamists from power so that his daughter can have a future at an education, I believe him. Don't you?

I do, but then again who put the Islamists in power in the first place as an effort to fuck with the Soviets?

Yes, the false dichotomy. You mean like the one where I am either supporting the Communists or supporting the Batista regime? Batista was an asshole, and we shouldn't have supported him. At the same time, I don't support Communists. As far as I'm concerned, they could have blown one another apart, and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.

Yes, this false dichotomy that stems from a massive ignorance in the issue and an unwillingness to even address points im making.

Batista didnt came to power by killing communists, he came to power by taking power from a democratically elected leader with US support.

And what I've been saying from the beginning is that in plenty of other cases, such as Bolivia, supporting the government was absolutely a reaction to the introduction of foreign Communist influences.

And yet there was no need to fund death squads or topple governments in Bolivia, the Bolivians killed che on their own volition.

 

[Seano]

I’m sure it’s cause you’re ignorant and uninformed on every single topic known to man.

"You're black!" said the kettle.

 

[sub_thug]

Your claim was that without US subversion, all of LatAm was going to fall to communism, doesnt matters that the US started subversion to remove Spain from the continent over 60 years before the first serious communist movement kicked off.



Gosh, silly me to think that the law that the world powers created would apply to them.

I believe in the law, do you? one key element of the law is Nemo est supra leges "Nobody above the law" the US and other world powers brought the nazis to court and judged them under them under what they considered to be criminal acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

If America said "We killed the nazis because we won, vae victus" i wouldnt say shit about it.

But you are calling me a hater just because im asking for the US leaders to be held to the US created international standards.

I merely attacked your apologism.



And yet my country avoided civil wars for the largest part of the XX century and managed to implement democracy without the need of foreign intervention.



So basically all the time?



Its right there in the link, its almost as if you are arguing out of false premises and refuse to even budge about it.



You sure you arent talking to a mirror bud?



I dont get it, you are justifying soviet intervention here or something?



I do, but then again who put the Islamists in power in the first place as an effort to fuck with the Soviets?



Yes, this false dichotomy that stems from a massive ignorance in the issue and an unwillingness to even address points im making.

Batista didnt came to power by killing communists, he came to power by taking power from a democratically elected leader with US support.



And yet there was no need to fund death squads or topple governments in Bolivia, the Bolivians killed che on their own volition.

There is so much wrong in this post that I don't even know where to begin. Clearly, you know very little about how the world works, international affairs, and you obviously don't travel much. I actually expect that, but I don't have time to give you a full education. Few quick bullet points:
1. Equating groups with the Nazis isn't something smart people do
2. Arguing that things keep happening for the same reason is a logical fallacy.
3. Saying that facts are in your source when they aren't simply just points out to all of us that you are a fool.
4. You are notoriously bad at cherry-picking, on one hand saying that the US intervenes and it means a significant amount, and then on the other, saying that US intervention was a nonfactor in what was a foregone conclusion.

We are done here. Thanks for wasting my time again.

 

[Rod1]

There is so much wrong in this post that I don't even know where to begin. Clearly, you know very little about how the world works, international affairs, and you obviously don't travel much. I actually expect that, but I don't have time to give you a full education. Few quick bullet points:

Concession accepted

1. Equating groups with the Nazis isn't something smart people do

So you cant use your brain or simply you are simply intellectually dishonest, i never compared anyone to the nazis. I simply pointed out that the law should apply to everyone equally.

When i judge US foreign actions i use the nuremberg principles as laid out by the US itself as a legal framework when they laid "justice" against the nazis and others.

You are either dishonestly, or through sheer idiocy trying to make a point when you should be saying.

"Well i dont think the US should be held to the standards the US holds other weaker nations to".

2. Arguing that things keep happening for the same reason is a logical fallacy.

I dont understand what you are trying to say here, merely that you are intentionally misrepresenting my point.

3. Saying that facts are in your source when they aren't simply just points out to all of us that you are a fool.

I have provided several links, you have decided to ignore them and keep repeating your false dichotomy.

4. You are notoriously bad at cherry-picking, on one hand saying that the US intervenes and it means a significant amount, and then on the other, saying that US intervention was a nonfactor in what was a foregone conclusion.

Its almost as if Latin America was a huge ass geographical region comprised of tens of countries with different circumstances and different time periods.

And thats the difference when someone is arguing from a position of absolutely zero knowledge.

When you end up saying anachronistic things like "It was the communists or Batista" to justify US support of a dictator who took down a democracy, even after being given a small amount of lecture where you can at least get a rough briefing of the timeline of events.

 

[robotsonic]

So it sounds like the US is Fascist since Trump is an authoritarian dick and meanings of words don't matter.

Please explain what you meant by 'state capitalism', I've never heard that term before formally, presumably you meant a state run economy, which is exactly what communism is, I'm not sure? Unless you can explain what you meant, I'm going to assume it's a phrase you pulled out of your ass because you have no real understanding of how communist economies actually work in reality. Do you like actually think there is no money in these countries? LOL, you are woefully uninformed.

The old 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in regards to people defending communism is an old and tired argument I do not want to have.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Its the Kong effect.

I’m sure it’s cause you’re ignorant and uninformed on every single topic known to man.

"You're black!" said the kettle.

Seano no one believes you know anything

 

[Falsedawn]

Please explain what you meant by 'state capitalism', I've never heard that term before formally, presumably you meant a state run economy, which is exactly what communism is, I'm not sure? Unless you can explain what you meant, I'm going to assume it's a phrase you pulled out of your ass because you have no real understanding of how communist economies actually work in reality. Do you like actually think there is no money in these countries? LOL, you are woefully uninformed.

The old 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in regards to people defending communism is an old and tired argument I do not want to have.

You've never heard of state capitalism, but you're going to lecture me about communism.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Too bad the lessons keep being forgotten or ignored by the people who think it will work as long as they are running things. Or on some level they don't really care and just want power for its own sake.

Both the true believers and the cynical manipulators are indispensable to a true hard line socialist/communist disaster.

 

[ocfightfan]

Both the true believers and the cynical manipulators are indispensable to a true hard line socialist/communist disaster.

And lets not forget all the people with envy and resentment in their hearts who are more than willing to do the dirty work for a share of the ill gotten gains.

 

[HatchetHarry]

To some people not liking communism = supporting death squads.

It’s funny because supporting communism = supporting death squads