Re: Evaluation of U.S. Role in World Affairs (was RE: META:Greg Burch's request)

From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 03:30:08 MST

  • Next message: Samantha Atkins: "Re: If Magick Exists (was RE: Ideological blinders)"

    Lee Corbin initially wrote:

    Ø The point needs to be made over and over that the pre-1989
    > world was a LOT DIFFERENT than now. The West was fighting
    > for its life against the Soviet play for world domination.

    To which Damien Sullivan responded:

    "No, the West thought it was fighting for its life. After 1991 it became
    clear
    the Soviet Union was a paper tiger. Okay, a paper tiger with nukes, but its
    economic power had been vastly overestimated."

    To dismiss the Soviet Union as "a paper tiger" is beyond insulting. I am
    astonished that someone that I must view as being quite intelligent (given
    your presence on this list) would so cavalierly dismiss the deaths of
    millions of people due to the direct and indirect actions of the Soviet
    Union. They or their proxy's actions within the borders of the USSR, East
    Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Ethiopia and
    many other countries brought untold misery to hundreds of millions of people.
    It is not responsible to label the Cold War as a "misunderstanding" or any
    other such nonsense. The Soviet Union sought a world dominated by Communism,
    and did its best to inflict its brutal system upon as many people as
    possible.

    "And there wasn't that much fighting, more jockeying for status and
    influence."

    Given the conflicts which occurred in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Ethiopia,
    Greece, Angola et al, how much war and loss of life is required for there to
    be "much fighting" in your view?

    > The choice, as Max Plumm has eloquently explained, was never
    > between "democracy" and "tyranny" in a developing country,
    > but between "pro-U.S. authoritarianism" and "pro-Soviet
    > totalitarianism" in those places. It's still an open

    "I consider that unproven. Greece wandered between democracy and
    authoritarianism."

    As I illustrated in my last post to you, it is highly dubious to suggest that
    Greece would've been capable of "wandering between democracy and
    authoritarianism" had the United States allowed the Soviet proxies in that
    country to emerge victorious in their civil war.

    "Costa Rica has been democratic for a long long time."The rest of Latin
    America was having trouble with democracy since long before Communism; it's
    not clear what the latter had to do with anything."

    I must strongly disagree, if there is one thing that is crystal clear it is
    that a Communist system eliminates any chance at democracy. In regard to the
    struggles of Latin America with democracy, the same can be said of Africa,
    which is precisely why I have attempted to illustrate that the United States
    cannot be criticized for dealing with authoritarians during the Cold War. The
    vast majority of democratic experiments during this era failed. However, it
    should be noted that many that succeeded were allowed to prosper in large
    part because of actions by the United States.

    "Apart from us helping to overthrow democratically elected left-leaning
    governments such as Allende."

    Despite our past decisions in Chile, which I explained in more depth in my
    last post, the people of Chile today do enjoy democracy, and have since 1988.
    As I've mentioned, the United States is the reason there is democracy today
    in South Korea and Taiwan. Please provide ONE example of where the Soviet
    Union brought or fostered democracy in its many proxies. Again, to simply
    dismiss that it is easy for us to have a better record abroad than the Soviet
    Union ignores the entire point of why the Cold War was waged.

    "Oh, India's another counterexample. Definitely still developing, but
    democratic since independence, and leading the Nonaligned Bloc."
     Or Iran, which after 1979 was neither pro-US authoritarian nor pro-Soviet
    totalitarian.
    Maybe getting some aid from the USSR, but mostly going its own theocratic
    way."

    How do these examples invalidate the Cold War? Neither the USSR, nor the
    United States, had infinite resources with which to wage their ideological
    conflict in every country of the globe. The Nazis did not conquer Zimbabwe
    before or during World War II, does that mean they were not seeking world
    domination? The goal of the United States in the Cold War was not to spread
    democracy in every nation (which would have been impossible), it was to
    prevent the spread of Communism. That being said, we still fostered and made
    possible the spread of democracy in places where it otherwise would not have
    occurred. That cannot be said for the Soviets, who willingly suppressed the
    spread of democracy in every instance.

    "Lebanon was roughly democratic until the Syrians moved in, and possibly
    Israel's interference didn't help either."

    You only aid my position with this example. The United States sent troops
    into Lebanon to "prop up" the democratically elected Chamoun government in
    1958. It was not until the 1970s when the Soviet proxies, the Syrians,
    entered that country that democracy was undone. But this gets to the heart of
    the matter. Do you suggest that the goals and aims of the democratic United
    States and Israel during the Cold War were of the same merit and validity of
    the totalitarian Soviet Union and Syria?

    "I now consider the dichtomy not just unproven but rather dubious."

    In what sense? You have acknowledged that you agree with the assertion that
    democracies were the exception and not the rule of the Cold War world. And,
    to my knowledge, you have as of yet not illustrated where the Soviet camp
    spread democracy, nor proven that they did not willingly suppress it
    throughout the globe. I somehow doubt that the peoples of West Germany, South
    Korea, or Greece, among others, would share in your conclusion.

    Regards,

    Max Plumm



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 03:37:56 MST