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.

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



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

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.

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.

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


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

Quote:
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, 

but i sense it does in you, freedman

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

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


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.