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 mu
Andrew 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 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 evenbor
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
I don't think that's an argument against my approach. I agree that
"communism" stands for the Soviet Union and the regimes connected to it
ideologically. Nor do I deny that the Left of today follows in the wake
of communism, and is thus influenced by it. I criticize communism as
tyrannical. Thus,
Andrew wrote:
>The word "communist" originally spoke to a utopian concept, where
>tyranny did not reign. Today, however, the large majority of the
>world's population uses the word to describe the political bosses of
>the USSR, and all those ideologically connected in some way to them. In
>my vie
The issues are whether Bush aims to spend China into the ground, and
whether China is communist.
First, I'd argue that if the Bush's policy goal is to spend China into
the ground, the goal is poorly considered. Let's assume that Reagan's
defense spending partially caused the Soviet Union's demise
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
IL 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
>econ
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 mod
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."
ns from speaking at conferences on occupation, protecting
themselves from censure, etc.
This isn't your father's communism. It will not win the popular mind.
Rather, the threat is more overt, more violent, and perhaps for that reason
less dangerous (although dangerous nonetheless).
51 Posted on 09/02/2001 08:37:14 PDT by The Old Hoosier
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | Top |
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
