From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 12:53:22 MST
I am, at this time, going to focus on one part of Charles' last response to
me. Matus in my view did a very good job in challenging Charles moral
position in his posts. I feel it absolutely necessary to spell out and debunk
the blatant mischaracterization and gross distortion of historical "fact"
that Charles presents in his view of 20th Century U.S. foreign policy.
"Germany had a democracy before WWII, and would probably have returned to
one as a choice after defeat, though our intervention probably hastened
things."
Let me see, "hastened" things? How about it was the ONLY thing that allowed
it to occur? Remember, Germany was split in two, and shockingly, the
Communist East (I know, *gasp*, a label) side was NOT a Democracy at all for
its entire existence! Yet strangely, that side whose continued existence was
due to the United States, the West, "somehow" became a democratic republic
under Adenauer, Brandt, Kohl and the rest.
"Japan's democrary is still largely a matter of form (the same
ruling party has been in power since the start, if I'm remembering
things correctly). It may become more democratic with time, or at least
adopt the "two identical partys" system that we use."
This comment is closer to the mark, though not precisely true. Tomiichi
Murayama of the Socialist Party was elected to the Prime Minister position in
1995. Contrast that with say, Communist Laos, well there still has been zero
elections and the quality of life is abysmal to this day. With that in mind,
the benefits that Japan reaped from being a proxy of the United States as
opposed to one of the Soviet Union remain blatantly obvious to any impartial
observer.
"I'm not really
very familiar with South Korea,"
Then perhaps you shouldn't comment, no?
"but I seem to recall that it was
basically run by a strong-man... still that was decades ago, and I
haven't paid much attention recently."
Well, apparently you haven't paid any attention at all since the late 80's,
when South Korea became a democracy and has since managed to elect several
different heads of state. A significant contrast, I might add, to the
Communist (label again) North Koreans who have never had election one! But
again, surely a coincidence in your view I'm sure..
"Taiwan has been under the
domination of the Nationalist Party since it took the island, but since
their founding strong-man (sorry, I forget his name-- I keep wanting to
say Ho Chi Minh or Sun Yat-Sen) died they have been less internally
autocratic."
Hello, President Chen Shui-Bian? The Nationalist Party lost control in the
'99 elections. Let us compare that with Mainland China, *Communist*, where
the population has not (you guessed it) had an election since 1949!
"Greece has been a Kindom, a Democracy, a
WarLordShip??, and I guess it may be back to being a democracy again."
This is ridiculous. Greece has been a democracy since 1974. An outcome that
certainly would not have happened had the Soviet insurgency forces won in
1947.
"Again I don't know the details, but I'm guessing that their central
government, whatever it's form, is relatively weak (a good thing from my
point of view). And the US supported all of the variants. The US
doesn't really support democracies, though it tends to like oligarcies,
and finds it convenient if they pretend to be democracies... sometimes
the pretense will drift into an actuality. This may be happening in
Mexico. But it isn't a short process."
Again, every example that we just mentioned became a democracy only because
of direct US intervention in that country. The US did not initially support
democracy in those countries, such as South Korea in 1950, because the choice
there was between authoritarian (Syngman Rhee) and worse (Kim Il Sung). Yet,
South Korea is now a democracy today. North Korea is not. In Taiwan, we
supported an authoritarian (Jiang Jieshi) against worse (Mao Zedong). Yet,
Taiwan is now a democracy. China is not. West Germany. Democracy. East
Germany. Not. It might seem obvious to some that the countries supported by
the United States had the opportunity to allow democracy to flourish, while
those in the Soviet and Communist camp did not. However, this seems to be
beyond what you would ever acknowledge. That being said, please explain to me
how the 50 million people of South Korea would have democracy today had the
US done nothing and it was conquered by the North, and how Taiwan and its 22
million people would enjoy democracy had they been swallowed up by Mao
Zedong's People's Republic. Those examples can be the starters. Then, please
illustrate for me the many nations that were proxies of the Soviet Union that
saw democracy come to their country during the time of the USSR. Since, you
apparently claim that it is only coincidence this happens in US proxies, then
logically by your view it should have occurred SOMEWHERE in the Communist
camp, no?
Regards,
Max Plumm
"In the tumult of men and events, solitude was my temptation, now it is my
friend. What other satisfaction can be sought once you have confronted
history?"
-Charles
DeGaulle
"All that talk about 'liberation' twenty, thirty, forty years ago, all the
plotting, all the bodies, produced this, this impoverished, broken-down
country led by a gang of cruel and paternalistic half-educated theorists."
-Pham Xuan An
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 13:00:33 MST