Platt,
there's the risk to go on ad infinitum....
P:
It was the Soviet Union that wanted to make Nicaragua and Chile into
communist satellites.
M:
Wrong. Allende was a socialist democratically elcted.
P:
You didn't like the Soviet empire near your
borders any more than we wanted them near ours.
M:
Wrong. I've been to Yugoslavia in 1988 and 1989 for holidays and I enjoyed it. No problems. They even did not ask my passport at the frontier. Teen agers playing basketball at the corner. Children with mums. Seemed a normal country, just a bit less rich than us. Maybe a wrong impression.... but surely we did not feel that the presence of the Communists was a problem, like you did.
(M)
> a - "tyrannical systems" prospere wherever people inside the system are convinced that the system is the best one, so take care.
P:
Examples please.
M:
Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Franco, Ceausescu, Mao, Khomeini..... The first step of every dictatorship is to control the media and (try to) convince everyone that paradise has come. Of course, it works just in the beginning. I'm not meaning that America is a dictatorship, of course. I'm just saying that a critical view on your own nation (q-social) is a symptom of individual (q-intellectual) sageness.
(M)
> b - the Soviets were perfectly convinced they were living in the best possible system, and they invaded Hungary just to "Defend their Hemisphere"; that is, for the same reason you are suggesting the USA *rightly* built a tyrannical regime in Nicaragua and Chile.
P:
There you go with moral equivalency again.
M:
No moral equivalency. Just equivalency of real acts in some occasions...
P:
Please explain the fall of Communist Russia if all those Soviets believed they lived in the best
system.
M:
The regime has fallen when people IN THE END understood it was NOT a good system...
P:
As for those tyrannical regimes, check out the situation in
Chile and Nicaragua today and let me know what you find.
M:
Hurt countries.
(M)
> c - USA is a liberal democracy inside its bordelines. Often (Nicaragua, Cuba and Chile are examples) it has not the same abroad, so if I were a Nicaraguan, or a Cuban, I really could not understand why the USA should be better than the Soviet Union. Actually, the absurd policy of the USA
triggered the Cuban revolution, and you have the Communists few miles off Miami since the 50's. This "invasion of your hemisphere" (btw, it is not *yours*) is a consequence of the American policy, not the other way round
P:
Your history is questionable to say the least. Please explain why
millions of Cubans, Nicaraguans and Chileans have risked their lives
to come to the U.S.
M:
Maybe they were tired to risk their lives fighting the USA at their home? Maybe 'cause you are liberal ONLY inside your borders? Or simply, 'cause America is a rich nation. The same happens from Africa and East Europe to West Europe.... the flux of immigrants from East Europe has increased dramatically *after* the fall of the Soviet Regime.
(M)
> d - If the USA is a liberal democracy it is NOT thanks to the facts in
Nicaragua and Chile. Quite the contrary. Please, have the courage to
admit the crimes of your nation. It would make you a better person, and
America a better nation.
P:
Please, have the courage to admit that the U.S. is a shining beacon of
freedom to billions around the world. (Remember the Chinese student
rebellion of a few years back with their makeshift statue of liberty held
high in the square?) And let's not forget the millions of Italian
immigrants who have contributed so much to make America great.
M:
I did. You know I did. I admire many good aspects of America. But also I'm not blind.... I think the same episode could not happen in South America. Remember I was talking of the American policy in Latin America (defined by you "your hemisphere")
(M)
> e - Who do you are to decide what is good for Chile and Nicaragua?
P:
We don't decide.
M:
You did. In Yalta, 1945. This is the source of the "Hemisphere" thing, IMO. Well, in retrospective Yalta has been a crime against DQ. I'm glad that today the world has been able to surpass that agreement between USA and SSSR. Thanks to Yalta, SSSR could assassinate Hungarians while USA could assasinate Latin Americans....
P:
We make it possible for them to hold free elections so
they can decide. (I don't mean phony elections like those held in
communist countries.)
M:
Sometimes I think you are joking with me. Chile had free elections.. then Pinochet came. You seem to concede the adjective "free" only to the elections which end with the result you like better.
(M)
> f - I was just criticizing that *rightly*. Your words sound like "We are a liberal democracy, so we can rightly do what we want"
P:
Recall we were talking about how the U.S. acted in the Cold War. In
that context, what the U.S. did was "right" vis a vis the Soviet Union, a
brutal, tyranny that many seem to forget murdered millions of its own
citizens. If it is not right to resist such a system, I don't know the
meaning of the word nor of morality.
M:
Well, in the end a timid step beyond, Platt. You admit that America had to play a dirty game. This is not far from my point. Now IMHO it's time for you to acquire complete awareness of it.
Bye,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:38 BST