Ronald Reagan

[kochman]

if you can take pride in all of that then its a shame.

That's personal judgment...

And, for the record, I obviously don't take pride in the atrocities we committed, but they were of WAY WAY WAY less magnitude than that of the USSR.

I think now you're just beating a dead horse. Again, if you can show me our numbers anywhere near approached the USSR's, let me know. Until then, I'm not going to continue to defend things where the ratio is well over 100:1... it's a waste of time to try to convince people that can't see that on their own.

 

[Crezth]

And, for the record, I obviously don't take pride in the atrocities we committed, but they were of WAY WAY WAY less magnitude than that of the USSR.

I think now you're just beating a dead horse. Again, if you can show me our numbers anywhere near approached the USSR's, let me know. Until then, I'm not going to continue to defend things where the ratio is well over 100:1... it's a waste of time to try to convince people that can't see that on their own.

I don't really have the stamina to do a play-by-play on your last response to my post, I think you've got some good ideas but it's really really important to note that evil can't really be measured in terms of numbers of live lost, or pure amount of atrocities committed. The very fact that both nations have gone to such lengths to commit atrocious acts merely to satisfy their own aims should tell you that this problem is not unique to the Soviet Union, but is endemic to human society as a whole, and the United States is no less culpable for such heinous acts.

In fact, since the dissolution of the USSR, the USA has surely committed more atrocities than Russia. What nation today could possibly match up to the USA on a differential rate - war crimes committed per year? Does the "good" we think we're doing make up for waterboarding?

The USA are not the free peoples of middle earth and the Soviets are not orcs (hyperbole intended, but by calling the USSR an "evil empire" I think you're applying hyperbole anyway, so...). The truth is a bit more nuanced than that.

 

[Behind The Mask]

That's personal judgment....

The 'you' that was basically a placeholder for anyone?

Hardly a personal judgement and seeing as you don't take pride in any of that, which was the point I was getting at... that nobody could take pride in those actions... if obviously wasn't meant to be applied to you.

And, for the record, I obviously don't take pride in the atrocities we committed, but they were of WAY WAY WAY less magnitude than that of the USSR..

Unit 731... if it ranks up there with Nazi Biological Experiments, it has a huge ammount of magnitude; and as I said we may not have performed them, but it was about as damned despicable to give those men immunity.

That is magnitude.

I think now you're just beating a dead horse. Again, if you can show me our numbers anywhere near approached the USSR's, let me know. Until then, I'm not going to continue to defend things where the ratio is well over 100:1... it's a waste of time to try to convince people that can't see that on their own.

I suppose all the lives ruined or ended by the USA are all null and void so long as we can look to the USSR and declare they were worse.

There is no innocent by default option here... The USSR and the USA are both guilty here lest you slap one muderer on the hand and throw the other in prison.

I've never defended the USSR's crimes but I have never opted to defend the USA's either... thats why I cast down these titles of good and evil as void and foolish things; you accuse my of beating a dead horse and yet here you are; I've doen what I can to clear my position but as far as I can discern from yours you haven't really addressed any examples I have given.

You have, however, happily chalked it up to 'magnitude' or 'ratio' without discussion.

it's a waste of time to try to convince people that can't see that on their own.

Is this a personal judgement or simple a judgement that can be taken personally and was posted with that intent?

 

[aronnax]

I already know where you're going with this.
Cuba had already invaded Grenada... sorry.

I never espoused supporting evil regimes, so please, this angle isn't going to work... you guys keep trying to frame my argument that way, it's tired.

Let me know how many millions of civilians the US and its "allies/puppets" killed, and then we will compare it to the USSR's total. If it is ANYWHERE near a 5:1 ration, we can talk about this... I suspect it will be closer to 1000:1, or higher.

Please. Grenada has is just the tiny dot that is the long list of condemnable acts of the US foreign policy.

Firstly. No one is accusing you of supporting evil regimes. We are accusing you of being hypocritical. While you are just blissfully happy in painting the Soviet Union and her actions as evil (which they are) you do not condemn the USA in equal strength.

Any by the way, just because the USA did not lead to more deaths than the USSR, doesn't make the horrible actions of the US foreign policy any less condemnable. Oppression is oppression.

Let put out a list of countries whose dictatorial oppressive leaders are there because of direct US government action.

1) 1953 Iranian coup d'état by the CIA transformed Iran's Constitutional monarchy into an Authoritarian one
2) 1973 Chilean coup d'état "we helped them... created the conditions as great as possible." ~ Henry Kissenger to Nixon
3) Chinese Civil War, Chiang Kai Shek
4) 1977 Operation Fair Play in Pakistan
5) 1945 Installation of Rhee Syng-man
6) and again in the May 16 coup in 1961
7) Somoza family Dynasty during the Nicaraguan Revolution
8) Fulgencio Batista and his 1952 Coup
9) Ngo Dinh Diem and his Installation in South Vietnam
10) 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, CIA-backed Carlos Castillo Armas
11) Joaquín Balaguer installed after popularly elected Juan Borsch stopped from running in 1965 American invasion of the Dominican Republic.
12) 1964 Brazilian coup d'état, deposed popularly elected Joao Goulart

Dictators the USA supported included
1) All the above
2) Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines
3) George Papadopoulos of Greece
4) Suharto of Indonesia
5) Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire
6) Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay (Until Carter)
7) Rafael Leonidas Molina Trujillo of the Dominican Republic
8) Doe, General Samuel of Liberia

Don't forget that the US has invaded Panama, Dominican Republic, Grenada and Vietnam and none of them wanted US intervention. And every time Israel invaded Lebanon counts too.

And many many more. You can add in every Arab Monarchy if you want to stretch it thinner. Now, I don't have the exact numbers of how many people died from these dictators but rest assured none of them have a positive legacy in their countries except for being a brutal dictator. With maybe Suharto as a partial exception.

We all are in agreement that the Soviet Union did terrible things like propping up dictatorial and murderous regimes in order to achieve foreign policy aims like buffer states and containment. We should thus be in agreement that the USA did equally terrible things like propping up dictatorial and murderous regimes in order to achieve foreign policy aims like buffer states and containment.

EDIT:I know that Suharto killed an estimated 500,000 people, Trujillo 50,000 people, Pinochet 200,000 forced exile, 4,000 killed, 30,000 tortured, 40,000 interned, Rhee killed 30,000 just at the Jeju Uprising, probably ten thousands more in his rule. Ngo Dinh Diem tried to persecute Buddhism... in Vietnam. Chiang Kai Shek's White terror...140,000 Taiwanese were imprisoned, of which about 3 or 4 thousand were executed. If you include his time in China from World War II onwards, hundreds of thousands non-combatants dead.

 

[kochman]

I don't really have the stamina to do a play-by-play on your last response to my post, I think you've got some good ideas but it's really really important to note that evil can't really be measured in terms of numbers of live lost, or pure amount of atrocities committed.

Nice cop out. You can compare bad, worse and worst though.
Here's a simple question for you... Where would you have rather lived? The Eastern Bloc or Western Europe, circa 1970?

Does the "good" we think we're doing make up for waterboarding?

Yeah, because waterboarding is really nasty when compared to using armored tanks to crush civilians.

The 'you' that was basically a placeholder for anyone?

Uh, ok. Since you were ascribing that "you" to something I was saying, it was directed at me.

Unit 731... if it ranks up there with Nazi Biological Experiments, it has a huge ammount of magnitude; and as I said we may not have performed them, but it was about as damned despicable to give those men immunity.

Jesus, we heard you already. Giving immunity to them was bad...

I suppose all the lives ruined or ended by the USA are all null and void so long as we can look to the USSR and declare they were worse.

I would ask you, are you glad the cold war is over and the USSR collapsed? Do you think they were a net gain for the world?

There is no innocent by default option here... The USSR and the USA are both guilty here lest you slap one muderer on the hand and throw the other in prison.

Nonsense. That's why we have different punishments for different crimes in legal systems. Just saying, well, that was wrong, but so was that, doesn't make them equal.

You have, however, happily chalked it up to 'magnitude' or 'ratio' without discussion.

See above, it is a well established system. You can judge bad, worse, worst. Hitler was worse than Reagan, was Reagan perfect? No... But who would you rather was your leader?

Would you rather be in East Germany or Latvia in 1970? Or France or W Germany?
Be careful, answering that question would imply judging the USSR and its methods, style, etc.

 

[kramerfan86]

Saying would you rather western bloc or eastern bloc isnt an accurate comparison. A better comparison would be would be things like: "would you rather live in Batista Cuba or Poland?"

 

[Crezth]

Nice cop out. You can compare bad, worse and worst though.

But what's the difference between worse and worst? I don't think...

Here's a simple question for you... Where would you have rather lived? The Eastern Bloc or Western Europe, circa 1970?

...that "where would you rather have lived" is a good metric for morality. Certainly, I would have rather lived in Western Europe. I wouldn't have wanted to live in South Vietnam (compared to North Vietnam) by any means.

Yeah, because waterboarding is really nasty when compared to using armored tanks to crush civilians.

America has killed plenty of civilians during its tenure. Just because it wasn't as many as the USSR, or that they never did it to their own people, doesn't make the atrocity of that power projection any less real.

 

[kochman]

But what's the difference between worse and worst? I don't think...

Do I really have to define superlatives to you?

...that "where would you rather have lived" is a good metric for morality. Certainly, I would have rather lived in Western Europe. I wouldn't have wanted to live in South Vietnam (compared to North Vietnam) by any means.

You wouldn't have wanted to live in an active civil war? Thanks for clearing that up.

America has killed plenty of civilians during its tenure. Just because it wasn't as many as the USSR, or that they never did it to their own people, doesn't make the atrocity of that power projection any less real.

No one claimed it was less "real".

 

[Behind The Mask]

Uh, ok. Since you were ascribing that "you" to something I was saying, it was directed at me. .

It was directed at anyone who may hold that opinion; that you took it personally was not my intention but neither is it my fault that you took it as such.

Jesus, we heard you already. Giving immunity to them was bad....

Now imagine if I just did that to every example you've given against the USSR.

Yeah, yeah. That was bad. We get it.

Again. No discussion or really acknowledgement... You have sidestepped every criticism but have demanded focus on your own points.

Then I am accussed of beating a dead horse when I want my own points addressed?

It comes off as a tad hypocritical, eh?

I would ask you, are you glad the cold war is over and the USSR collapsed? Do you think they were a net gain for the world?.

I've never shown any sort of distaste for living in America nor have I ever praised the USSR.

But that doesn't mean I can't demand accountability for our injustices can I? I atleast am not content with going, "well atleast I don't have it as bad as [insert]", but I do in fact want to look forward to actual progress instead of lingering on assumption and double standard.

Nonsense. That's why we have different punishments for different crimes in legal systems. Just saying, well, that was wrong, but so was that, doesn't make them equal..

Except neither can you overlook the other crime, which seems to be what has been going on... in this situation the crimes are similiar, both at the cost of human life, but one is disregarded...

In a moral arguement that is where I find the point falls through.

See above, it is a well established system. You can judge bad, worse, worst. Hitler was worse than Reagan, was Reagan perfect? No... But who would you rather was your leader?.

"Would you rather?" You've used this meaning nearly three times in this post.

Almost as though it were a blanket excuse to dodge criticism! The imperfection of Hitler does not make Reagen perfect or vice-versa. Its a lousy arguement to deflect criticism by allowing us only two options and stacking them.

Accountability is what I demand!

Would you rather be in East Germany or Latvia in 1970? Or France or W Germany?
Be careful, answering that question would imply judging the USSR and its methods, style, etc.

The fourth instance of this type of question.

You still don't understand the arguement is not against one being more 'evil' then another, but being able to have accountability!

I have judged the USSR before and I'll do it again in the future but that fact will not silence my criticism of the USA.

Which has been my consistent point all this time.

 

[kochman]

Now imagine if I just did that to every example you've given against the USSR.

Again, bad, worse, worst.

But that doesn't mean I can't demand accountability for our injustices can I? I atleast am not content with going, "well atleast I don't have it as bad as [insert]", but I do in fact want to look forward to actual progress instead of lingering on assumption and double standard.

I'm not excusing it, lingering on assumption or double standard.

"Would you rather?" You've used this meaning nearly three times in this post.

And you don't answer it because you know the answer...

Almost as though it were a blanket excuse to dodge criticism! The imperfection of Hitler does not make Reagen perfect or vice-versa. Its a lousy arguement to deflect criticism by allowing us only two options and stacking them.

Again, bad, worse, worst... not a hard concept.
Would you rather eat a bad tasting grilled cheese sandwich (otherwise healthy), a contaminated grilled cheese sandwich, or a crap sandwich...
Better not answer that, it would admitting there are varying levels of CRAPPY.

The fourth instance of this type of question.

Just did the 5th above, and you've yet to answer one.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Again, bad, worse, worst.....

Again. Waltz. Waltz. Waltz. You have danced around any meaningful discussion.

I'm not excusing it, lingering on assumption or double standard..

...and left, now right and spin!

And you don't answer it because you know the answer....

I answered it quite clearly in your other thread; however, the point remains that you ignore all aspects of any opposing arguement and instead recycle your old lines.

Again, bad, worse, worst... not a hard concept.
Would you rather eat a bad tasting grilled cheese sandwich (otherwise healthy), a contaminated grilled cheese sandwich, or a crap sandwich...
Better not answer that, it would admitting there are varying levels of CRAPPY..

What a bunch of bologny.

Just did the 5th above, and you've yet to answer one.

I haven't 'answered' but my conclusion seems apparent in my posts... I posted more directly in the cold War thread my feelings but I was quite hopeful that my answers here was easily comprehensible.

 

[Zelig]

Reagan was a wizard.

 

[Crezth]

Do I really have to define superlatives to you?

I'm talking about what is the practical difference.

You wouldn't have wanted to live in an active civil war? Thanks for clearing that up.

You know what I meant. I meant that the USA-supported south Vietnam treated its people worse than the communist north Vietnam.

No one claimed it was less "real".

No, but the reality of those who have to suffer from those evils in either instance cannot be separated into matters of degree. Someone suffering underneath a USA-supported dictatorship won't be comforted by the knowledge that "at least they aren't in the USSR." That type of thinking forces people to settle for the best of a bad bunch, and I think that we can do better.

 

[kochman]

Again. Waltz. Waltz. Waltz. You have danced around any meaningful discussion.
...and left, now right and spin!

Pot, this is kettle, can you read me? Over. Thanks for the comic relief, since your point was kind of weak.

I answered it quite clearly in your other thread; however, the point remains that you ignore all aspects of any opposing arguement and instead recycle your old lines.

Ah! Finally. Thanks.

What a bunch of bologny.

Hmmmm, yet you were able to decide that you'd prefer the USA... how did you ever manage that without comparing?

You know what I meant. I meant that the USA-supported south Vietnam treated its people worse than the communist north Vietnam.

Source? That's certainly debateable.
Anyhow, individual opportunity was still better in the south, all else being equal...

 

[Behind The Mask]

Pot, this is kettle, can you read me? Over. Thanks for the comic relief, since your point was kind of weak....

I was thinking the same about your post seeing as it was basically a repeat of your entire performance throughout this topic even before I began.

Hmmmm, yet you were able to decide that you'd prefer the USA... how did you ever manage that without comparing?...

I never denied comparing them; you just never listened to the point.

I've just not turned a blind eye on one when looking at the other when doing so; that is the difference you seemingly haven't gotten.

 

[LucyDuke]

So as for Ronald Reagan...

He had above average approval ratings.(Not by much.)
He had something of a hand in speeding up the collapse of the USSR. (Specifics debatable.)
He compromised with Dems. (No specifics.)
He liked parks.
Jews voted for him.
He was better than Hitler.
He was a wizard.

You're telling me that this is why today's Republicans idolize him.

Well, it's nice to have a reason to not take that seriously.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

So as for Ronald Reagan...

He had above average approval ratings.(Not by much.)
He had something of a hand in speeding up the collapse of the USSR. (Specifics debatable.)
He compromised with Dems. (No specifics.)
He liked parks.
Jews voted for him.
He was better than Hitler.
He was a wizard.

You're telling me that this is why today's Republicans idolize him.

Well, it's nice to have a reason to not take that seriously.

Don't forget "he's better than any other Republican president in the last 50 years"!

 

[kochman]

I've just not turned a blind eye on one when looking at the other when doing so; that is the difference you seemingly haven't gotten.

Does a person have to mention all caveats every time they talk about a subject?

It would make every day conversation really annoying... we'd be like the Ents in LotR, taking an unreasonably long time to talk over the smallest of points.

Just because I didn't cheerlead up and down about America's issues/problems while I was specifically addressing the way worse status attained by the USSR's issues/problems doesn't mean I think the US of A has always been perfect... that's quite a stretch.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Does a person have to mention all caveats every time they talk about a subject?

It seems fitting when your making so many comparisons; and that seems the point your arguing, comparing the USSR and USA. If you're going to compare then no point in being so partial...

The sandwiches remember? You've been more exact in describing crap sandwiches then you have been in comparing two superpowers.

This actual seems the ideal place to go into every little detail... a forum for discussion.

 

[kochman]

It seems fitting when your making so many comparisons; and that seems the point your arguing, comparing the USSR and USA. If you're going to compare then no point in being so partial...

The sandwiches remember? You've been more exact in describing crap sandwiches then you have been in comparing two superpowers.

This actual seems the ideal place to go into every little detail... a forum for discussion.

Ok, good point... I haven't really listed all the USSR's flaws in one area (I don't have enough time for that really, so here is a big summary)... I'll list all the things that bother me about the USSR... NOW, please, don't assume that this means I think the USA was perfect, or expect me to mention how the USA wasn't perfect...
*Joseph Stalin murdered when he ruled the Soviet Union is 20,000,000
*The exploitation of natural resources from "satellite" nations
*The annexation of the Baltic States and domination of Eastern Bloc
*The crushing of the Hungarian and Czech Revolutions, with tanks
*The NKVD (secret police), watching every move
*No elections until Gorby (and those were highly suspect, with only Communist Party leaders running)
*Angola, Cuba, Vietnam, etc
*Soviet war crimes, WW2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#1944.E2.80.931945_2
*Bolshevik Revolution and all that entailed
*etc, etc, etc