Re: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
At 04:38 PM 09/03/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Does anyone suggest that the Left of today should issue a blanket >apology for the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the rest? I'm sure that there are people floating somewhere on the Internet who will apologize for these tyrants, just as there are (a much larger number of) people who apologize for US imperialism and worse. (Strictly speaking, Lenin never really became a "tyrant," since his personal power faded as the Russian/Soviet state became more powerful.) (I hope that we don't into the crap of labelling any effort to attain a nuanced understanding of such people as Lenin a "blanket apology." This kind of either/or thinking -- the insistence that other leftists denounce Lenin or whomever -- is simply the Cold War form of "political correctness.") >I would be >hesitant to agree. How can activists of today be responsible for what >some of our intellectual antecedents did when most of us weren't even >born? My point was that the word "communism" was being abused (and not only by the anti-communists). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
Andrew Hagen wrote: > In my view, the Soviet regime was on balance much more tyrannical than it > was noble. Thus, I argue that the Left should castigate Communists. We have been over this many times now. No need to repeat it again. Let me ask a different question: a revolution has broken out in a poor economy, without the ability to confront the imperialism powers head on. Clandestine operations can do great damage to the society. Less committed citizens can be bribed. Misinformation can confuse people, creating factional divisions. Suppose further that the society is divided among different ethnic groups? How far will an open society get? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
I think it's pretty obvious, so I haven't commented on this point before, but I want to object to referring to China as "communism" (in the subject line). In Marxian terms, China has never been "communist." It's a country that's ruled by a party that calls itself "communist." To my mind, China's an example of bureaucratic socialism (known by its initials as BS) in transition to authoritarian capitalism (a.k.a. fascism). China was "communist" only in the Cold War "war of ideologies" ideology (Democracy vs. Communism or Totalitarianism, in the eternal Manichaean battle of the titans). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
Spend 'em into the ground? Like Reagan did with the fSU. But, DoD, NSC, State Dept. doesn't want the PRC to use that arms buildup to attack Taiwan. Do they? :-) Michael Pugliese -Original Message- From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, September 03, 2001 8:21 AM Subject: [PEN-L:16612] Re: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism >isn't it also possible that the US wants China to waste a lot of resources >on its military, undermining its long-run ability to compete with the US >economically? (but then again, who knows?) > >At 11:22 AM 09/02/2001 -0500, you wrote: >>I think that's right. In addition, the Chinese do not have modern >>delivery systems. With their current technology, they probably could >>hit only part of the US. If Prince George's Star Wars plan proves >>feasible, then it will have the ability to knock out maybe 20 missles >>at a time. Without changes on the Chinese side, this would shift the >>balance of power. The US would not be deterred from attacking China by >>the existence of the Chinese nuclear arsenal. Now that the Chinese face >>no opposition to their build up of nuclear weapons and advanced >>delivery systems, however, the balance of power between the US and >>China would be maintained even with Star Wars. > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine >"From the east side of Chicago/ to the down side of L.A. >There's no place that he goes/ We don't bow down to him and pray. >Yeah we follow him to the slaughter / We go through the fire and ash. >Cause he's the doll inside our dollars / Our Lord and Savior Jesus Cash >(chorus): Ah we blow him up -- inflated / and we let him down -- depressed >We play with him forever -- he's our doll / and we love him best." >-- Terry Allen. >
Re: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
isn't it also possible that the US wants China to waste a lot of resources on its military, undermining its long-run ability to compete with the US economically? (but then again, who knows?) At 11:22 AM 09/02/2001 -0500, you wrote: >I think that's right. In addition, the Chinese do not have modern >delivery systems. With their current technology, they probably could >hit only part of the US. If Prince George's Star Wars plan proves >feasible, then it will have the ability to knock out maybe 20 missles >at a time. Without changes on the Chinese side, this would shift the >balance of power. The US would not be deterred from attacking China by >the existence of the Chinese nuclear arsenal. Now that the Chinese face >no opposition to their build up of nuclear weapons and advanced >delivery systems, however, the balance of power between the US and >China would be maintained even with Star Wars. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "From the east side of Chicago/ to the down side of L.A. There's no place that he goes/ We don't bow down to him and pray. Yeah we follow him to the slaughter / We go through the fire and ash. Cause he's the doll inside our dollars / Our Lord and Savior Jesus Cash (chorus): Ah we blow him up -- inflated / and we let him down -- depressed We play with him forever -- he's our doll / and we love him best." -- Terry Allen.
Re: Re: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
Also on the same site: "Join the Free Republic Network Conference Cruise with featured speaker, David Horowitz, for a fun and information filled cruise to the Bahamas! October 15 - 19."
Re: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
cfr below is, www.cfr.org/ FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum" http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b915cf26385.htm To: Harley_hog China Probe Finds Bipartisan Skeletons http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8ba4c406e5.htm 3 Posted on 09/01/2001 15:23:10 PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub [ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ] To: Harley_hog More of those administration 'leaks' that can't tell their butts from a hole in the ground? 4 Posted on 09/01/2001 15:42:06 PDT by piasa [ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ] To: RightOnTheLeftCoast this is nuts 5 Posted on 09/01/2001 15:43:02 PDT by freedomnews [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: RightOnTheLeftCoast "..."We don't see the need for any tests, by anyone, in the near future," the official said. "But there may, at some point, be a need by both countries to make sure that their warheads are safe and reliable."... If our warheads are 'safe and reliable' it's safe to assume that their warheads are too... Assuming, of course, that the chicoms can read the blueprints and follow the instructions for proper assembly, etc. 6 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:06:40 PDT by DWSUWF [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: DWSUWF If there is any truth whatsoever in this report, insanity has taken over the brain functions of our government. 7 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:14:14 PDT by meenie [ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ] To: meenie "...If there is any truth whatsoever in this report, insanity has taken over the brain functions of our government... There's a time during most fairly bad car wrecks when control has been irretrievably lost, and a wreck is inevitable, but the really loud noises and bone-breaking impacts haven't yet begun to happen. That's where we are right now. 8 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:24:33 PDT by DWSUWF [ Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | Top | Last ] To: RightOnTheLeftCoast part of an effort to overcome Chinese objections to the Bush administration's missile defense plans Um, I don't seem to be able to read past the first sentence. Exactly WHY do WE care what COMMUNIST CHINA "thinks" about OUR Missile DEFENSE System 9 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:31:17 PDT by Libertina [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: Sawdring, Pericles, ATC ... 10 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:37:00 PDT by Aaron_A [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: Libertina because the cfr says we have to 11 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:37:40 PDT by IRtorqued [ Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | Top | Last ] To: RightOnTheLeftCoast Didn't one of our ambassadors (April Glespie) tell Saddam we did not oppose his views that Kuwait was part of Iraq? Just before he started invading half the mideast? 12 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:43:11 PDT by djf [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: RightOnTheLeftCoast, Poohbah, Miss Marple, JohnHuang2 Who cares? We'll probably be able to stop `em all, anyhow. 13 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:03:25 PDT by hchutch [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: Sanger, you blathering DNC toe-sucker " China is now developing mobile, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles that would be far more likely to withstand a first nuclear strike to replace those aging missiles "The Indians know what the Chinese are doing, and so does everyone else," a senior administration official said. "If we canceled the whole missile defense program tomorrow morning, China would still build more and better missiles, and other countries would figure out their response." " Hey Sanger, don't you read your own drivel?? 14 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:12:52 PDT by mrsmith [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: mrsmith LOL! 15 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:16:37 PDT by piasa [ Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | Top | Last ] To: All Bush's China Policy: Oh gee, how many nuclear missiles would you like to have pointed at the Unit
RE: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
Just glanced at the NYT webpage. David Sanger byline, "U.S. Will Not Object to Chinese Missile Buildup." (Course when you only have 18-20 nuclear missiles, even 100 times that is only about half of what the USA currently has under the START II treaty limits with the fSU. My numbers about right? I'm not gonna wade through DoD or CDI webpgs. at the moment...Michael Pugliese >From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 9/1/01 1:49:34 PM > >At 01:01 PM 09/01/2001 -0500, you wrote: >>The purpose of the new approach, administration officials say, is to >>convince China that the administration's plans for a missile shield are >>not aimed at undercutting China's relatively small nuclear arsenal, but >>rather intended to counter threats from so-called rogue states. > >maybe the purpose to create a "rogue state" in order to justify Star Wars? > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine >"Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler. > >
