In this thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/408#408

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/426#426

Karnal appears to be arguing that our efforts to block the spread of communism in Asia demonstrates a lack of concern for, or opposition to, freedom. I say appears, because he refuses to make a point or turn his ramblings into a coherent argument. But I'm pretty sure this is what he is getting at.

However, he seems to be missing an inconvenient point - that Communism, particularly in the form that spread from Russia to China and then southwards is incompatible with freedom and democracy, for the simple reason that, if given the choice, people will choose something else. Whatever you think of the methods employed or their success, opposing communism is supporting freedom.

But many lefties do embrace communism or something close to it, something big government or authoritarian, that they believe will do a better job at looking after the poor or the those in the lower social economic spectrum better than a westernized democratic free market society that they criticise all day long in sites like yours freediver.

stryder wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

But many lefties do embrace communism or something close to it, something big government or authoritarian, that they believe will do a better job at looking after the poor or the those in the lower social economic spectrum better than a westernized democratic free market society that they criticise all day long in sites like yours freediver.

its really simple, freedom and self expession works best in a westernized society like australia and america that the lefties loves to ****  about all day long than those seppressive states like saudi arabia and iran, i mean the opportunity to improve yourself, listen to any rock n roll or bad modern music like lorde, left, right political brawls, the choice of looking at porn or not, reading comics that the muslims would not improve of, having a nice harless perv at women. ?????


I would pick a westernized nation anyday to anything like saudi arabia...

thats the real global war over freedom, the cold war brutal communism vs free capitalism ?? that ended in the early 1990s

In all respects communism is dead freediver, the ideological compenent of that war was won by america when the soviet union self imploded and China walked away from planned economies to semi planned ones that allowed a large measure of free market activity to flourish but it hasnt ever let go of communist begginings and its power structure which still exists today.


communism is really dead and its only still kicking in the cold war relics of cuba and north korea.

People will choose some degree of socialism. Our government controls roughly 1/3 of our GDP, and there are sound reasons for this. Some 'lefties' and some 'righties' will choose big government. Some will choose small. People will never choose communism.

We fought communism while we considered it a threat. It was a threat, and millions still live without freedom or democracy because of it.

My point was regarding motivations. Opposing communism, and being willing to go to war to do so, does not mean a person is opposed to freedom, or has no concern for freedom. It may seem like a lot of effort to go to make such a simple point, but Karnal has been ranting about it for pages in the other thread, and demanding I participate.

Quote:

People will choose some degree of socialism.

I know that part through the fact that some australians around 10% of them actually support the australian greens and it certainly reeks alot of more socialism to its nearest and purest forms through its ideas and policies.

Communism had a role to play.

It turned both the USSR and China, from backward agrarian nations into world powers. It was brutal, but it worked.

Its dark side is now seen chiefly in North Korea. In Cuba, it has done much to improve the lot of its people, particularly in education and health care.

But its time is largely done. Most people crave freedom and want to be an individual in a bigger society, and communism prevents that.

Now, most modern Western nations try to establish the best of both socialism and capitalism.

Strong governments controlling health care, education etc, while allowing individual enterprise to flourish.

Largely, it works.

stryder wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:50pm:

In all respects communism is dead freediver, the ideological compenent of that war was won by america when the soviet union self imploded and China walked away from planned economies to semi planned ones that allowed a large measure of free market activity to flourish but it hasnt ever let go of communist begginings and its power structure which still exists today. communism is really dead and its only still kicking in the cold war relics of cuba and north korea.

America didn't defeat Communism. Thatcher and Reagan were deluded.

Communism defeated itself. Finally, most people want to be free.

Hopefully, some day, it will happen even in North Korea. But it will be very nasty and much blood will be spilt.

Cuba is a different story. The people are pretty laid back and don't seem in a mood for great change. Maybe its the rum punch?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:

In this thread: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/408#408 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/426#426 Karnal appears to be arguing that our efforts to block the spread of communism in Asia demonstrates a lack of concern for, or opposition to, freedom. I say appears, because he refuses to make a point or turn his ramblings into a coherent argument. But I'm pretty sure this is what he is getting at. However, he seems to be missing an inconvenient point - that Communism, particularly in the form that spread from Russia to China and then southwards is incompatible with freedom and democracy, for the simple reason that, if given the choice, people will choose something else. Whatever you think of the methods employed or their success, opposing communism is supporting freedom.

One of the architects of our war against Vietnam has since reconsidered his views on the issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0enCCGBW3xc

Us staged the whole Gulf of Tonkin pretext to the Vietnam War:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EROOxBEZ3mk

Quote:

It turned both the USSR and China, from backward agrarian nations into world powers. It was brutal, but it worked.

Peter freedman


Oh so all that push for Russia to turn 100 years of being backwards in modern civilisation to something resembling close to the industrial might of england or america of its time in 30 years through institutionalized terror and forced ideological compliance and millions and millions and millions and millions of deaths whether Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot for me does not make me admire communism at all one bit,  ;D ;D ;D

but i sense it does in you, freedman

Former US Secretary of State admits US was too gung-ho on Vietnam. US should have listened to UK, Germany and Japan on issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKQ0TOc5USM

Former US Secretary of State: lesson of Vietnam should be 'talk to your adversaries'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqbkCs8-5rw

This is probably the most telling video in terms of misguided aims of the US and Australia in Vietnam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHdMeHxDg90

stryder wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:38pm:

Quote: It turned both the USSR and China, from backward agrarian nations into world powers. It was brutal, but it worked. Peter freedman Oh so all that push for Russia to turn 100 years of being backwards in modern civilisation to something resembling close to the industrial might of england or america of its time in 30 years through institutionalized terror and forced ideological compliance and millions and millions and millions and millions of deaths whether Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot for me does not make me admire communism at all one bit,  ;D ;D ;D but i sense it does in you, freedman

Sense what you like. What I say is historically accurate.

And my name starts with a capital letter. Please use it in future.

Thank you.

Give McNamara credit for belated honesty. It is the first time I have ever heard him admit that Vietnam was a civil war and not an attempt at a Communist takeover of SE Asia.

The US failed to understand the history of the enemy. The same thing could be said about Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.

When he was emerging as a nationalist leader, Ho Chi Minh wrote to FDR.

He outlined his aims for a free, democratic Vietnam which could only be brought about by rebellion against the French.

He said he recognised he required the support of a major power and was turning to the US, because it was a nation which gained its independence by rebelling against imperialism, and would therefore understand his aims.

Warned that Ho was a suspected Communist, Roosevelt did not reply.

Oh, FD, you must have missed my pointless post where I made exactly the same point:


Karnal wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 7:24pm:

To be fair to FD, the reason the US exported tyrranny and not Freedom is that it believed communism was the worse of two evils. It believed war, torture, and in some cases genocide, were the price to pay for opposing communist expansion. And it was just a lucky break that there was a buck in it for the US’s friends in business. This, essentially, is what Kissenger’s doctrine of mutual independence was all about, and it drove US foreign policy to the end of the Cold War.

Is your point paraphrasing my pointless point more poignant?

Please explain.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 12:01am:

Give McNamara credit for belated honesty. It is the first time I have ever heard him admit that Vietnam was a civil war and not an attempt at a Communist takeover of SE Asia. The US failed to understand the history of the enemy. The same thing could be said about Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan. When he was emerging as a nationalist leader, Ho Chi Minh wrote to FDR. He outlined his aims for a free, democratic Vietnam which could only be brought about by rebellion against the French. He said he recognised he required the support of a major power and was turning to the US, because it was a nation which gained its independence by rebelling against imperialism, and would therefore understand his aims. Warned that Ho was a suspected Communist, Roosevelt did not reply.

Right on. Malcolm Fraser now blames faulty intelligence for the domino theory and the belief that the North Vietnamese were little more than nationalists. As Army Minister, Fraser was in as good a place as any to make this claim. His government (and its opposition) took us in.

Interestingly, he now blames the same hardheads for the faulty intelligence that took us into Iraq. As ever, it’s not missing information or a lack of analysis that drives these wars, but silly absolutist "values" like FD’s, and the lies that back them up.

It is interesting that Ho approached the USA, rather than Russia or China.

His not going to China was understandable. The Vietnamese had been fighting the Chinese on and off for centuries.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 7:52pm:

It is interesting that Ho approached the USA, rather than Russia or China. His not going to China was understandable. The Vietnamese had been fighting the Chinese on and off for centuries.

True, but if I was in Paris in 1946, I know which country I’d be going with.

Nylon stockings, Coca Cola, chewing gum, jazz. You’d hardly be warming to Stalin, shurely.

Only the desperate countries went with Russia - countries like Cuba, with nowhere else to turn. The smart ones - like India and Indonesia - played both sides off against the other. Nehru and Sukharno were tricky operators. The US was forced to think up an entirely new development model to bring them into the fold. Walt Rostow’s Stages of Economic Growth was a must-read during the Cold War, before Milton Friedman and Pinochet first experimented with Thatcherism and Reaganomics.

Sorry, Freeedom. Pinochet and Suharto had fun with that. Some say it creates wealth.

They are, of course, having a jolly good chuckle.

The point I was making is that if Ho was a true Communist, why approach the most antiCommunist nation in the world?

I think the answer is simple. Ho was first and foremost a Vietnamese nationalist.

He turned Communist only when he realised the only other powers he could turn to were Russia and China.

I'm not saying he didn't support the principles of Communism. But in a strange way, I believe turning Red was a cloak of convenience for him. He was a great man, but also a very complex one.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 4:28pm:

The point I was making is that if Ho was a true Communist, why approach the most antiCommunist nation in the world? I think the answer is simple. Ho was first and foremost a Vietnamese nationalist. He turned Communist only when he realised the only other powers he could turn to were Russia and China. I'm not saying he didn't support the principles of Communism. But in a strange way, I believe turning Red was a cloak of convenience for him. He was a great man, but also a very complex one.

I wonder though, if back then people in Ho Chi Minh's position "turned red". Politics at the time leaned much further to the left. In France during the 1930s the Popular Front, including the French Communist Party, formed government.

In the colonies, communism had formed the main resistence to the Japanese. The allies had included the Soviet Union. It was only after Yalta that the English-speaking world became devoutly anti-communist, and even during the McCarthy era, most intellectuals sympathised with communism. Many held on through the Soviet invasion of Hungary, then Czechoslovakia. In Australia, even the tame old Labor Party's affiliation with leftist unions kept it out of power for a generation with the succession of the DLP.

And Lenin had called the Australian Labor Party the party of monopoly capitalism.

I often wonder at what point a sensible person would have given up communist sympathies. The invasion of Hungary? Khrushchev's Speech on Stalin? The Soviet-Sino split? Russian tanks in Prague? The release of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipeligo?

Many thought they could tame communism, and who knows? If things had been different, maybe they could have. However, if things in the West were as "Free" as FD argues, there may have been no need for the rampant secrecy and militancy of the Western communist parties.

A fantasy, perhaps. Personally, I think communism was lost before the Bolsheviks even defeated the Mensheviks for supremacy in the Russian party. From China to Cuba to Italy, everyone around the world tried to do communism a little differently, and ultimately, they all gave up.

Capitalism is a global syatem. It can be softened by government, but not rivaled. Capitalism prevailed simply because it is.

Our own intelligence at the time could not possibly have predicted this, but they could have looked. The ultimate weakness of the old boy way of thinking is its inflexibility, its absolutism. Whenever it sees this in others, it goes in for the kill, and Fascists, communists, and US apologists are all guilty of this.

Karnal wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 6:09pm:

I often wonder at what point a sensible person would have given up communist sympathies. The invasion of Hungary? Khrushchev's Speech on Stalin? The Soviet-Sino split? Russian tanks in Prague? The release of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipeligo?

Hmmmm....at what point does a sensible person give up on US-style democracy and capitalism? Hiroshima? Invasion of Panama? Bombing of Bologna Train Station? Vietnam War? David Hick's book about Guantanamo being published? Invasion of Iraq?

True Colours wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:08pm:

Karnal wrote on May 2nd, 2014 at 6:09pm: I often wonder at what point a sensible person would have given up communist sympathies. The invasion of Hungary? Khrushchev's Speech on Stalin? The Soviet-Sino split? Russian tanks in Prague? The release of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipeligo? Hmmmm....at what point does a sensible person give up on US-style democracy and capitalism? Hiroshima? Invasion of Panama? Bombing of Bologna Train Station? Vietnam War? David Hick's book about Guantanamo being published? Invasion of Iraq?

I don’t think anyone really turns against Amerikan kulture, demokracy and capitalism. Amerika is a dual-edged sword. It has all the best - and worst - of humanity in it.

If anything, the worst aspect of Amerika now is the polarized, tabloid Foxification of their media and politics.

And we only have Rupert Murdoch to blame for that.

Aussie Aussie Aussie, innit.

Quote:

I know that part through the fact that some australians around 10% of them actually support the australian greens and it certainly reeks alot of more socialism to its nearest and purest forms through its ideas and policies.

That's not what I meant. Our government controls roughly 1/3 of our GDP. It redistributes wealth to the poor and controls industries like health and education. This is socialism.


Quote:

It turned both the USSR and China, from backward agrarian nations into world powers.

How's that working out for Russia right now?

The reason China is booming now is because it is gradually abandoning communism.


Quote:

Interestingly, he now blames the same hardheads for the faulty intelligence that took us into Iraq. As ever, it’s not missing information or a lack of analysis that drives these wars, but silly absolutist "values" like FD’s, and the lies that back them up.

Do you know what my thoughts on Iraq are? In what sense am I absolutist?


Quote:

Hmmmm....at what point does a sensible person give up on US-style democracy and capitalism?

When they adopt Islam?

While I have heard many Muslims attempt to explain their alternative to freedom and democracy, I have never manged to get them to explain their alternative to capitalism. From what has been said it seems a bit like Communism, only less organised.

Many Muslims, eh?

Abu and Falah always get trotted out for what they don’t say.

I blame Mohammed.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:55pm:

While I have heard many Muslims attempt to explain their alternative to freedom [anarchy] and democracy [idiocracy]

Islam embraces freedom with boundaries and guidelines. There is no truly free society in the world - as all conform to laws and rules, without which there would be nothing but anarchy and chaos.





freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 9:55pm:

I have never manged to get them to explain their alternative to capitalism. From what has been said it seems a bit like Communism, only less organised.

If we can accept that communism and America's capitalism are two extremes at the opposite ends of the economic spectrum, then perhaps we might find the Islamic system somewhere in the moderate centre.

True Colours wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 10:44pm:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2014 at 9:55pm: While I have heard many Muslims attempt to explain their alternative to freedom [anarchy] and democracy [idiocracy] Islam embraces freedom with boundaries and guidelines. There is no truly free society in the world - as all conform to laws and rules, without which there would be nothing but anarchy and chaos.

Like the Islamic enclaves in the UK and good old fashioned Aussies shopping in Lakemba and Bankstown Square :D :D
and blocking roads to sit on them to block traffic to pray to an imaginary god whilst there is a perfectly good HUGE empty park right across the road at Lakemba. All just the thumb it to Aussies. No chaos in blocking roads just to pee people off.


True Colours wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 10:44pm:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2014 at 9:55pm: I have never manged to get them to explain their alternative to capitalism. From what has been said it seems a bit like Communism, only less organised. If we can accept that communism and America's capitalism are two extremes at the opposite ends of the economic spectrum, then perhaps we might find the Islamic system somewhere in the moderate centre.

Moderate hmm nah I'd go communism first. Islam to date hasn't shown tolerance at all.

Quote:

Islam embraces freedom with boundaries and guidelines.

There you go Karnal. You can add TC to the list. This sounds very similar to Abu's line about Islam merely having a "different take" on freedom.

So TC. Tell us about these "boundaries and guidelines".


Quote:

There is no truly free society in the world

Ah. Better give up on our values like freedom and democracy then.


Quote:

If we can accept that communism and America's capitalism are two extremes at the opposite ends of the economic spectrum

Even the US has significant socialist components. Laissez Faire capitalism is the extreme end. You won't find a single example of that.


Quote:

then perhaps we might find the Islamic system somewhere in the moderate centre

Tell us about Islam's economic system.

Karnal wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:55pm:

True Colours wrote on May 2nd, 2014 at 7:08pm: Karnal wrote on May 2nd, 2014 at 6:09pm: I often wonder at what point a sensible person would have given up communist sympathies. The invasion of Hungary? Khrushchev's Speech on Stalin? The Soviet-Sino split? Russian tanks in Prague? The release of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipeligo? Hmmmm....at what point does a sensible person give up on US-style democracy and capitalism? Hiroshima? Invasion of Panama? Bombing of Bologna Train Station? Vietnam War? David Hick's book about Guantanamo being published? Invasion of Iraq? I don’t think anyone really turns against Amerikan kulture, demokracy and capitalism. Amerika is a dual-edged sword. It has all the best - and worst - of humanity in it. If anything, the worst aspect of Amerika now is the polarized, tabloid Foxification of their media and politics. And we only have Rupert Murdoch to blame for that. Aussie Aussie Aussie, innit.

Couldn't agree more.

Well said, Karnal.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:07pm:

We fought communism while we considered it a threat. It was a threat, and millions still live without freedom or democracy because of it.

Which reminds me of the tragically ironic quote (can't recall who said it).

"in order to give them freedom and democracy, we were willing to kill millions of them."

Millions of people have died to protect our own freedom and democracy.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:26am:

Millions of people have died to protect our own freedom and democracy.

The quote above, I believe, was in reference to the western military adventurism in Vietnam...

It could (perversely) be applied to the western destruction of Cambodia which precipitated the rise of Pol Pot.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:26am:

Millions of people have died to protect our own freedom and democracy.

According to FD, Iraq and Afghanistan are now demokracies thanks to us.

Yes, millions died, but it will all be worth it in the long run.

Karnal wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:02pm:

freediver wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 10:26am: Millions of people have died to protect our own freedom and democracy. According to FD, Iraq and Afghanistan are now demokracies thanks to us. Yes, millions died, but it will all be worth it in the long run.

Certainly that quote should apply to Iraq and Afghanistan, most particularly with Iraq as the invasion and occupation itself was based on a lie... Its proposal and execution was equal to, if not worse, than that of the Vietnam war about which, even today, the US is still in deep denial about its culpability.

It most likely that the US will remain in the same deep denial about Iraq for decades to come.

Australia, to our shame, partakes in this denial regarding Iraq with our denial of culpability in Vietnam only marginally less than that of the US.

Quote:

According to FD, Iraq and Afghanistan are now demokracies thanks to us.

How would you spin it?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:47pm:

Quote: According to FD, Iraq and Afghanistan are now demokracies thanks to us. How would you spin it?

Oh, the usual CNN spin that both countries are in the midst of civil war, thanks to us.

I’m sure they just say this stuff to keep you watching.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:47pm:

Quote: According to FD, Iraq and Afghanistan are now demokracies thanks to us. How would you spin it?

Interesting response...

Truth or Spin... Sounds like a good name for a quiz show (or a current affairs discussion program).

Karnal wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:56pm:

freediver wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 12:47pm: Quote: According to FD, Iraq and Afghanistan are now demokracies thanks to us. How would you spin it? Oh, the usual CNN spin that both countries are in the midst of civil war, thanks to us. I’m sure they just say this stuff to keep you watching.

Are they democracies? Did we have anything to do with it?

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:20pm:

Karnal wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 12:02pm: freediver wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 10:26am: Millions of people have died to protect our own freedom and democracy. According to FD, Iraq and Afghanistan are now demokracies thanks to us. Yes, millions died, but it will all be worth it in the long run. Certainly that quote should apply to Iraq and Afghanistan, most particularly with Iraq as the invasion and occupation itself was based on a lie... Its proposal and execution was equal to, if not worse, than that of the Vietnam war about which, even today, the US is still in deep denial about its culpability. It most likely that the US will remain in the same deep denial about Iraq for decades to come. Australia, to our shame, partakes in this denial regarding Iraq with our denial of culpability in Vietnam only marginally less than that of the US.

I’d say our culpability in Vietnam is far higher that the US’s. We pleaded with the US to put troops in. We had covert SAS "advisors" in Vietnam in the 1950s. They were experts in guerilla war and covert action. There is no official history of these forces, who comprised largely of Catholic volunteers. Many had cut their teeth in jungle warfare in the Malayan Emergency and were keen to fight communists.

Does anyone really know what pulled the US into Nam? The Gulf of Tonkin incident was most likely staged, or meant little at any rate. JFK had no interest in this war. LBJ seemed desperate to do something. But why?

Our line, "all the way with LBJ", was a ruse. Australia wanted in long before the US, and had a lot more at stake if communism spread to Indonesia, which was the fear during the Sukharno years. Australia had a lot to do with kicking Vietnam off, and was not a passive partner. All the main parties - and particularly the Catholic DLP - supported our involvement. A vast majority of Australians initially supported our involvement.

If we don’t get them there, they’ll end up over here - a catchcry used since we fought Johnny Turk in WWI.

For the Libs, Nam was a cunning way to wedge the ALP. The ALP’s support was about not looking too red. Both sides courted the DLP, who were, perhaps, the only real idealists in the political war.

Our original covert forces, led by Catholics and DLP men, were no idealists. They trained the NVA in torture and even dreamed up some of the booby traps eventually used by the Viet Cong against us. These men were zealots in every sense, and they spearheaded our involvement in the war.

Forget communists, Muslims or Amerikans, the enemy in Nam were the Catholics in our very own ranks. They got us into the war, and until the ALP finally got us out, they kept us in, pretending, all the way, to follow Uncle.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:07pm:

Karnal wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 12:56pm: freediver wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 12:47pm: Quote: According to FD, Iraq and Afghanistan are now demokracies thanks to us. How would you spin it? Oh, the usual CNN spin that both countries are in the midst of civil war, thanks to us. I’m sure they just say this stuff to keep you watching. Are they democracies? Did we have anything to do with it?

What’s your point?

Karnal wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:25pm:

Our original covert forces, led by Catholics and DLP men, were no idealists. They trained the NVA in torture and even dreamed up some of the booby traps eventually used by the Viet Cong against us. These men were zealots in every sense, and they spearheaded our involvement in the war. Forget communists, Muslims or Amerikans, the enemy in Nam were the Catholics in our very own ranks. They got us into the war, and until the ALP finally got us out, they kept us in, pretending, all the way, to follow Uncle.

Has all the hallmarks of a new Dan Brown novel!

A militant Catholic conspiracy! Papists on the march in Vietnam.

Although facetiousness aside, its true that the Catholic Church has nurtured and encouraged a potent virile hatred of Communism (surpassed only by its erstwhile hatred of Jews and Muslims), since Pius XII.

There is no communism anymore. The leaders of communist party in China are corruption monopolists and big capitalists.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:

In this thread: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/408#408 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/426#426 Karnal appears to be arguing that our efforts to block the spread of communism in Asia demonstrates a lack of concern for, or opposition to, freedom. I say appears, because he refuses to make a point or turn his ramblings into a coherent argument. But I'm pretty sure this is what he is getting at. However, he seems to be missing an inconvenient point - that Communism, particularly in the form that spread from Russia to China and then southwards is incompatible with freedom and democracy, for the simple reason that, if given the choice, people will choose something else. Whatever you think of the methods employed or their success, opposing communism is supporting freedom.

Communism and freedom are mutually exclusive.

That is why those slope head chinks migrate to Australia in herds to escape oppressive rule.

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:39pm:

Former US Secretary of State admits US was too gung-ho on Vietnam. US should have listened to UK, Germany and Japan on issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKQ0TOc5USM

US should have listened to Ho Chi Minh, then the whole sorry mess could probably have been avoided.

FDs argument in a nutshell:

it was good and proper to install, support and prop up brutal anti-democratic dictators - to stop the spread of brutal anti-democratic communists.

Gandalf's argument in a nutshell:

If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:

In this thread: Karnal appears to be arguing that our efforts to block the spread of communism in Asia demonstrates a lack of concern for, or opposition to, freedom. [...] However, he seems to be missing an inconvenient point - that Communism, particularly in the form that spread from Russia to China and then southwards is incompatible with freedom and democracy, for the simple reason that, if given the choice, people will choose something else. Whatever you think of the methods employed or their success, opposing communism is supporting freedom.

FD how exactly was propping up Suharto and blocking the development of democracy in Indonesia "compatible with freedom and democracy"?

Thats what Karnal "appears to be arguing".

This is my two wine glass rant. >:( ::)
Communism and totalitarianism are two sides of the same coin. Brutal oppression of the masses. Communalism has been tarnished by the  practises of  these evil bastards.
Communalism encourages  support for mutual benefit, acting to support  local community values for a better life. This can thrive under a democratic system. In fact it does.
Unfortunately some people want more of a countries resources than they are entitled to. If you consider resources belong to all citizens then everyone should get a fair share. I don't want my share sold to overseas shareholders sitting on their fat behinds using their money to avoid putting in 35 hours a week in a factory.
And don't get me started on golfers, the most useless spongers on society. No useful contribution from them and earn millions knocking a ball around a paddock all day.
I reckon everyone should work in a proper job as their contribution to society and do what they like after that. And rationing!
Everyone should get a basic supply of power to support an average household and if they want more they can install solar at their own expense. This way finite resources can be conserved. As for the population which is the real cause of our problem all women should have free access to the pill.
Ahhhh That's better...... ::) :o ::)
There is more but I can't think what it is. ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2014 at 8:02pm: In this thread: Karnal appears to be arguing that our efforts to block the spread of communism in Asia demonstrates a lack of concern for, or opposition to, freedom. [...] However, he seems to be missing an inconvenient point - that Communism, particularly in the form that spread from Russia to China and then southwards is incompatible with freedom and democracy, for the simple reason that, if given the choice, people will choose something else. Whatever you think of the methods employed or their success, opposing communism is supporting freedom. FD how exactly was propping up Suharto and blocking the development of democracy in Indonesia "compatible with freedom and democracy"? Thats what Karnal "appears to be arguing".

Oh goody, let's play "guess what Karnal is on about" instead of "tell freediver what his opinion is".

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 10:25pm:

Oh goody, let's play "guess what Karnal is on about"

Isn't that what this thread is about?

Its a perfectly reasonable question - how was propping up Suharto's distinctly anti-democratic regime supporting freedom and democracy?

It helped to stop the spread of communism, which is a genuine threat to both. This was both the motivation and the effect. Today, Indonesia has democracy and growing freedom, despite the other big threat to freedom and democracy - Muslims.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

It helped to stop the spread of communism, which is a genuine threat to both.

Don't you see? They had to destroy freedom to save it. Kind of like in Vietnam where they "had to destroy the village in order to save it" isn't it?




freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

Today, Indonesia has democracy and growing freedom,

After managing to finally overthrow the US-backed dictator who turned out to be the most corrupt man in history.


freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

despite the other big threat to freedom and democracy - Muslims. [the US]

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

It helped to stop the spread of communism, which is a genuine threat to both. This was both the motivation and the effect. Today, Indonesia has democracy and growing freedom, despite the other big threat to freedom and democracy - Muslims.

Yes we know FD - as we already established - it was good and proper to install, support and prop up brutal anti-democratic dictators - to stop the spread of brutal anti-democratic communists

Quote:

Don't you see? They had to destroy freedom to save it.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.


Quote:

Yes we know FD - as we already established - it was good and proper to install, support and prop up brutal anti-democratic dictators - to stop the spread of brutal anti-democratic communists

If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.

stryder wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

But many lefties do embrace communism or something close to it, something big government or authoritarian, that they believe will do a better job at looking after the poor or the those in the lower social economic spectrum better than a westernized democratic free market society that they criticise all day long in sites like yours freediver.

The left embrace socialism. The extreme left embrace communism. Both lead to tyranny. Unless they are replaced with National Socialism. I agree with a bit of socialism but not to the extant that you need the State to wipe your backside for you.

Lefties naturally lean toward a utopian fantasy which they think will come with socialism but the problem is that the left are naturally lazy little turds who prefer to live in a world of fantasy so they don't have to deal with the harshness of reality. Most young people today are being turned into little leftist tools by the Marxist indoctrination system .. uh-hum .... I mean education system, and their indoctrination is backed up by the rubbish they see on television.

Oh and lets not forget that communism killed at least 80 million last century. Most of the people died during what was supposed to be peace time!! And yet its the Nazis that cop the most amount of crap even though they were fighting a war they didn't start and are accused of mass murdering 6million which is highly questionable. ::)