The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian...

International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

     


                                

              

Pages: 1 2

Living Under a Communist Government

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Pin Boy

hello all

one of the regrets i have abput the dissolution of my relationship with a ukrainian woman is the chance to learn what life was like under a communist regime...i had a short discussion with one of my ex-gf's friends and she told of how her uncle had spent ten years in prison for making a joke, "anecdote" she said, about the government or a government offical. she didn't go into detail.

in the same discussion the subject was raised that some older people, in forgetting or dismissing communist oppression, sometimes wish for the more stable economic life before the fall of the soviet union. but she said no one truly wants to go back to that when they recall the secret police and how a neighbor with a grudge could say to the police that a certain person said something derogatory about the government or a government official and that family may wake up to a late night knock on the door and an unpleasant visit from the secret police.

is there anyone willing to share their experiences or recollections of this time? are these stories exaggerated? does anyone have a family member who suffered oppression or detention or false accusation? any firsthand experience? perhaps people of the FSU are reluctant to discuss this even today because of an ingrained fear? what about the power grab and suppresion of dissent putin is currently engaged in? is there fear of a return to such a life? what about other republics in the FSU?

i know it is an unpleasant topic but it is fascinating to me and would appreciate any replies to this post.

pin boy


Posted by: gino

it has been my experience that what Putin is doing is OK? based on my gf opinion, she says it is normal to live under an authoritarian government. personally i give up trying to change her attitude about it. but in her eyes Putin can do no wrong. i would almost say that she is brainwashed in her ways of thinking, at ripe age of 27. Gino


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

All communist apologist make the proverbial knife in my pocket open by itself. I can somehow understand the petty reasons people have for defending the old system, but they still seem quite minor compared with the mass political, social and economic devastation and the tens of millions of dead victims left over by communism.


Posted by: Jill

People have different reasons. My husband defends the "old system." He has lived in both Soviet Ukraine and Independant Ukraine. He prefers Soviet Ukraine. For him and his family, life was better than. The American in me wants to argue, but the fact is I never lived under Communism, so who am I to say what's better for people? And, really, what good is freedom of speech if you can't afford bread?

Now mass murder is another thing entirely....And I don't know. My in laws all lived through it, and nevertheless, prefer Communism. Actually, my husband's grandparents preferred Nazi occupation to Soviet rule, but that's another story...


Posted by: andrei

The horror affected my family directly.

My Great-Granfather was among the first explorers of Chukotka, a Far East peninsula with lots of gold hidden under the ground.
In 1937 he was labeled "people's enemy" and murdered by Stalin police just because he had some business with people from Alaska. His wife with her son, my Grandfather, immediately ran from Moscow to Siberia, left her son here at her friend's place and moved on to the Far east so that no one around would know that the boy is a son of a "People's enemy".

My Mom always tells me to speak quietly when I make a joke about teh Government. My parents smtimes say "even the walls have ears".

It's still in our blood folks, it's not gone anywhere.


Posted by: Pin Boy

Jill and Andrei,

thanks for your replies and insight. i got a little chill reading your post Andrei. i teach english as a second language and some of my high school Chinese students said similar things about their parents telling them not to say things about the government. China may be even scarier; the are one of a handful of countries that execute juveniles for their crimes.

Andrei, was your grandfather ever reunited witrh his mother?

How do you feel now Andrei? What is the diffrence in people's conversations today from the communist times?

thanks,

pin boy


Posted by: andrei

Man I don't feel like living in horror at all, we're a European country now. I can think whatever I want and tell as many jokes about Putin as I want.

Conversations nowadays are totally opposite to what they were in the 80s when I was a kid. The atmosphere is fresh and all I see is new couples make families and make kids and kids are growing up and everything is flourishing. People that have at least 200 dollars of monthly income already feel happy and look forward into the future.

But I know that if I ever experience a contact with militia I should do what they tell me to do. If they approach me in the street and tell me to dance - I will dance. Because if you ever disbehave you get beat up, they do what they want and no one will help you.

Nowadays your thoughts are free but you should behave.


to answer your question, no, she married a theatrical actor and forgot about her son, he only visited her grave once.


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Well, there will always be stupid people (ie. defenders of communism despite of the facts), but I remember so-called "real socialism" and standing in long lines in Poland for simple things such as ... toilet paper and vinegar. communism !!


Posted by: Jill

Sorry, Pawel_PL, I do NOT consider my husband and his family to be stupid people. They have their opinion based on their experiences (as do you). For them, their quality of life WAS better under communism. This does not make them stupid They also stood in long lines, but at least then they could afford to buy these things. Shorter lines does not always mean better access.


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

I'm sorry Jill, but if someone defends a system that destroyed whole regions of the world and killed tens of millions of innocent people then what else can you call them ? The same applies to national socialism of the Hitler variety. These people only think they were "better off" because they knew of nothing else and their heads were stuffed with propaganda from crib to coffin.

In Poland people remembered the days before 1939 and life in independent Poland. The depression was raging and life was not that sweet, but nevertheless it was still better than under communism ... and the older poeple remembered that and passed the knowledge on.

You know, once I was watching a documentary about the many Poles that were taken by the Soviets to Siberia and Kazakhstan (this, in part, is my beloved's story and how her family wound up in Russia). One older man was telling a story of how he was a boy in a Siberian lagier and he was ordered to report to the local camp leader. The Russian looked at the Polish boy and pointed to the only type writer (and an old, junky one at that !) in the whole camp and said in a proud voice -

"See my boy - this is great Soviet technology, this is what we have in socialist Russia ! I know that in Poland you guys were starving in the streets before our Red Army liberated you."

The boy (now an old man) told the Russian something like this:

"Sir, in Poland we saw those kinds of type writers in the garbage !"

I hope you get where I'm going with this ?


Posted by: lolomarseille

:-))

Communism was made in reaction to people like you
but it's the past....

i just readed " a long walk"
story of a really mad pole cavalry officer escaping from yakustk lager to india ON FOOT in 41 42
nice to read

well, seems we have to try to make a difference between communism and nationalism; all communist regime end into nationalism so destroy themselves (so hannah arendt was wrong)


what's specific in communnist dictature?
here is the point

if we go on the stuff "police, queues..." it's not genuinely communist

Pawel in power could do the same things than Iagoda, just less efficient may be...


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Lolo, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here and I'll be an adult and gloss over your retarded insults just to say that you, like most Americans, Frenchmen etc. haven't got the faintest clue about communism.


Posted by: lolomarseille

that you don't understand is not a surprise
Polish people tried people like you in government and they were so afraid that they prefered post-communist:
so both past and 90's history show us that nobody wants people like you
may be you want to change the people huuu?


Posted by: BradIL

Has there ever been a true Marxist/Communist state in the world?

Specifically, a state where there is not police/state oppression of dissenting (anti marxist-anti communist) thought. Where dissent & protest is not punished by imprisonment/execution?

I'm not referring to socialistic government, but a true communist government that respects human rights.


Posted by: BradIL

Quote:
Originally posted by Jill: People have different reasons. My husband defends the "old system." He has lived in both Soviet Ukraine and Independant Ukraine. He prefers Soviet Ukraine. For him and his family, life was better than. The American in me wants to argue, but the fact is I never lived under Communism, so who am I to say what's better for people? And, really, what good is freedom of speech if you can't afford bread?


Freedom of speech is critically important if you want to discover the reasons "why" you can't afford bread. This is a side of the economics at work that is rarely discussed in this forum. Indeed, to find any economic analysis in the CIS is difficult to find around the internet. A few foundations have material available, but some central questions are unanswered.

How much are food shortages due to lack of production facilities (ovens to bake bread, raw materials to make bread); how much is due to poor distribution (too few bread shops in populous areas); how much due to government interference (too much regulation to open the bakeries/stores to make & sell the bread); how much due to capital problems (not enough gryvna/rubles available to loan to the makers/sellers of bread).

The Hoover Institute once predicted that business would have a hard time finding the money it needed unless the CIS governments were serious about establishing a viable banking system?

Jill--- you are there. How easy/difficult is it for a prospective business to get financing or a 'floor plan' with a bank?

Quote:
Now mass murder is another thing entirely....And I don't know. My in laws all lived through it, and nevertheless, prefer Communism. Actually, my husband's grandparents preferred Nazi occupation to Soviet rule, but that's another story...


Were your husband's grandparents ethnic germans? At the time, how aware were they that Hitler & Stalin were committing mass murder?

In the 1980's Newsweek magazine had someone tromp through Ukraine for them, and the resulting article reported that there were senior citizens (in their 70's & 80's) who still baked bread, wrapped them in sacks, and buried/hid them. A habit they picked up after Stalin raided the graneries of Ukraine in the late 20's or early 30's to sell the goods on foreign markets in order to get foreign capital (money).


Posted by: Jill

Quote:
Freedom of speech is critically important if you want to discover the reasons "why" you can't afford bread.


I agree, but I do sympathize with people who don't see it that way.

Quote:
Jill--- you are there. How easy/difficult is it for a prospective business to get financing or a 'floor plan' with a bank?


Actually, I did work somewhat with small business development when I lived in Ukraine. The short answer is that it's still pretty difficult, but it is getting easier. Bank "credits" are a known concept, but still not a common practice. It does seem to be moving in the right direction, though.

Quote:
Were your husband's grandparents ethnic germans? At the time, how aware were they that Hitler & Stalin were committing mass murder?


No, they were ethnic Ukrainians. I doubt they had any idea of what was going on in the world--they were from a very small village and had that kind of pragmatism that tends to be rather typical of Ukrainian peasants. The whole world for them was pretty much their village and their plot of land and as long as people left them alone and let them work, they were happy. I doubt they knew anything about Nazi ideology--they just knew that the Germans treated them better than the Russians did. And for them that was enough.

When their children (my husband's parents) grew up and moved to the city (Kiev), they ended up becoming big fans of Communism. But in the villages, they just wanted to be left to themselves and the Soviet government had more of a tendency to meddle in their affairs and stir things up than the Germans did. (The German occupiers had been kind, polite, and respectful toward the local people, whereas the Russian "liberators" would beat the locals and steal things from them.)

Quote:
In the 1980's Newsweek magazine had someone tromp through Ukraine for them, and the resulting article reported that there were senior citizens (in their 70's & 80's) who still baked bread, wrapped them in sacks, and buried/hid them. A habit they picked up after Stalin raided the graneries of Ukraine in the late 20's or early 30's to sell the goods on foreign markets in order to get foreign capital (money).


That's very interesting--and I'm not too surprised. It seems that many people also still prefer to hide their money under their mattresses rather than to keep it in the bank (as a result of the various collapses of the banking system over the years).

Although you have also brought up another controversial moment in Ukrainian history--The Famine of '32-'33. It often seems that the people who lobby hardest to have this recognized as genocide are diaspora groups. Ukrainians who live in Ukraine are actually quite divided on the subject. I saw a program on TV not too long ago where they interviewed people on the street (in Ukraine), and almost half of them of them scoffed at the idea that the famine was some kind of Russian-driven genocide against the Ukrainian people. I personally tend to believe it was. But again, my husband's grandparents (who lived through it) also never believed that it was any kind of Russian plot against Ukrainians. They placed the blame for it soley on the Ukrainians themselves. Go figure.

As for Stalin, my father in law claims he was a genius. My husband stops short of that, but he does quite admire Lenin


Posted by: lolomarseille

Quote:
Originally posted by BradIL
Has there ever been a true Marxist/Communist state in the world?

Specifically, a state where there is not police/state oppression of dissenting (anti marxist-anti communist) thought. Where dissent & protest is not punished by imprisonment/execution?

I'm not referring to socialistic government, but a true communist government that respects human rights.


as i'm social demcoratic(aaah, if kerenski had been less naive...) i believe that communism is a crookery
but, in first years of establishing regime, they tend to the ideal; albania; north korea in the 50's, vietnam etc
Tito tried to build a different way; you saw the end
communism works ( with huge blood price) during wars
today we have the victory of maoists in Nepal; unbelievable, like in the handbook of perfect leninist activist


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Lolo, true anti-communist patriots never really got a chance to rebuild Poland and mold it into a normal country. The "Solidarity" people you're reffering to were, in the most part, either labor union activists (caring more about their pockets and the union coffers than matters of state), career-minded young "pampers'y" and many, many agents of the old (but still well-off and powerful) govermental administration and secret police apparatus.

For example, in 1992 prime-minister Olszewski and his interior minister Macierewicz Antoni attempted to expose the names of those in the political establishment who collaborated with the UB (PL version of NKVD) and the SB (PL. version of KGB). To no avail - president Walesa had been working with the SB since the 70's and he sabotaged Olszewski and Macierewicz.

Anyway, that's the story if you care to know.


Posted by: lolomarseille

Polish politics has always be hard, since lublin union...
Yes, a kind of "lustrace" law was impossible in poland
( and did not worked in czech republic)
why did the right failed in poland?
well, you know thatmuch better than me :-)), but it seems division and sectarism is an explanation, no?


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Lolo, lustracja and full decommunization were and are the most important steps to resurrecting a normal Poland and the only reason it was difficult to implement was because the people of the ancien regime were so firmly established in all the "strategic" sectors of government and the economy. That communist-turn-liberal mafia is Poland's cancer.

Lustracja worked much better in Czechia than in Poland - the best example of that is the presidents of the two countries: Poland has the bolshevik swine Kwasniewski while the Czechs have Vaclav Klaus who defends their national interests and favors free market ideas in the economic field. Of course it is a shame the Czechs didn't hang all those commies that now have their own faction in the Prague parliament, but I hope the future brings better luck for the land on the Veltava.

And why did the right in Poland fail ? In my opinion because it failed to follow the guidelines drawn by Roman Dmowski and the old National Democrats.


Posted by: BradIL

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jill: I agree[freedom of speech remark-mine], but I do sympathize with people who don't see it that way.

The absence of 'free speech'/criticism seems to swirl around many problems in eastern europe.



Jill wrote: Actually, I did work somewhat with small business development when I lived in Ukraine. The short answer is that it's still pretty difficult, but it is getting easier. Bank "credits" are a known concept, but still not a common practice. It does seem to be moving in the right direction, though.

It seems the Ukraine is really getting economic 'momentum' among the countries of the CIS. It would seem they are in a good position to really get business financing off to a solid start. I suppose its up to Ukrainians to really start demanding it from their politicians.



Jill wrote: Although you have also brought up another controversial moment in Ukrainian history--The Famine of '32-'33. It often seems that the people who lobby hardest to have this recognized as genocide are diaspora groups. Ukrainians who live in Ukraine are actually quite divided on the subject. I saw a program on TV not too long ago where they interviewed people on the street (in Ukraine), and almost half of them of them scoffed at the idea that the famine was some kind of Russian-driven genocide against the Ukrainian people. I personally tend to believe it was. But again, my husband's grandparents (who lived through it) also never believed that it was any kind of Russian plot against Ukrainians. They placed the blame for it soley on the Ukrainians themselves. Go figure.

When the old COMECON archives were opened after the collapse of the USSR in 91-92, I was amazed at some of the documents that were unearthed. One related to Stalin instructing Berria on establishing the quotas that were used to jail/execute opponents or presumed opponents during the pogroms. How that ended up in COMECON file I'll never understand.

Jill if you ever comes across a library accessing american books, consider reading "The Venona Secrets" by Eric Briendel [sic?] & Herbert Romerstein. The FBI was able to decrypt Soviet cables around WWII, and the results were interesting. Foremost, Harry Hopkins (FDR's Chief of Staff) was feeding intelligence to Stalin! Anyway, Stalin/Berria/Molotov carried on a vigorous conversation with the Soviet Embassy in DC. The Ukrainian famine was a topic that occurred (if memory serves me correctly). A footnote, a number of the Venona cables that were captured have not been decoded, so what gems about history they contain- we won't know, unless Congress would spend money to complete the work.
My gratitude---as usual--- for your responses. ---Brad///


Posted by: BradIL

Quote:
Originally posted by Pawel_PL.USA
Lolo, true anti-communist patriots never really got a chance to rebuild Poland and mold it into a normal country.


Good point Pawel.


Posted by: Jill

Sounds like an interesting read, Brad. I'll check it out if I get the chance. I also seem to recall (and unfortunately I can't provide a source) that Stalin had made some comment about wanting to deport all Ukrainians to Siberia, but that there were just too damn many of them to fit on a train, so (the story goes) he decided to try to starve them all to death. May just be a legend--I can't verify it.


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Ukrainians. I just don't get those people sometimes. It was the bolsheviks that starved the Ukrainians and wanted to deport them en masse and yet so many of them act as if Poland and the Poles were the worst thing in the world (vide Jushchenko's supporters and the OUN-UPA people).


Posted by: lolomarseille

polski pan put a long bitter rule on galicia and others
and their greedyness is the main cause of the great cossack revolt of 1648, beginning of the end for poland


Posted by: lolomarseille

well, pawel, why did moove from poland?
poland is more free than ever now...
strange for a nationalist....


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Lolo, what you're saying about "Polski pan" is pure anti-Polish propaganda spread equally by the Russians, Ukrainian nationalists and the red bandits. Most of the so-called "Polskie Pany" were Ruthenian/Ukrainian nobles trying to Polonize, but not de facto Polish lords. The Cossack Rebellion of 1648 was not caused by "Polish opression", but rather by the fact that the great coalition war king Wladyslaw IV Vaasa was planning against Turkey was called-off because the Polish nobility did not want to pay for it or fight in it. The Cossacks, on the other hand, were ready to march off and pillage the Turks and became extremely furious when the found out the war was cancelled.

And the Ukrainians may have weakened Poland by launching the rebellion of 1648 ... BUT as a consequence they ended up selling themselves into Moscow's claws ... and discovered that Muscovite rule would not be so liberal and tolerant as Poland was.

And LOLO, Poland is not "free" now - it is still ruled by the same communist old guard from the PRL and it just sold its independence to the EU.


Posted by: lolomarseille

except your last phrase which is nonsense, i perfectly agree with you


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Nonsense, old boy ?! You are obviously not up to date with current events ... but then people like to make whacky statements about Poland without knowing much about the country, nation or region (vide - the word "Polish" concentration camps used so often in Western and/or Jewish media, just an off-topic example).


Posted by: lolomarseille

not by me


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

It's just an example. The same is also true of Russia. People in the West (and that also includes Poland, believe me) say many stupid things about Russia without knowing the real facts.


Posted by: lolomarseille

in the kingdom of the blind, who is king?
:-))


Posted by: apricot

We have never had Comminism in Soviet Union. The official name for Soviet regime was "developed Socialism" with "Communism" being an utopia goal to achieve in the years to come.

Communism, as defined by Soviet government, was "everybody produces as much as one can, and everybody consumes as much as one wants" (ot kazhdogo po sposobnostyam, kazhdomu po potrebnostyam"

Socialism was defined as "everybody produces as much as one can, and everybody consumes as much as one makes" (ot kazhdogo po sposobnostyam, kazhdomu po trudu"

Of course, Communism was an absurd goal becauase in this case nobody would want to work hard and everybody would like to get everything for free.


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Communism and bolshevism is nothing more than radical socialism. Leftists like to say that in Poland or Russia "there was no communism, there was only socialism", but that is a double edged sword kind of argument, since if there was socialism in Western Europe and in Russia as well, then what does that say about the Western European "welfare state" big government model? That it was even closer to the Eastern Bloc model than it is generally presumed ?


Posted by: lolomarseille

and galileo was a commie too with his revolutionary theories?

really pityfull analysis, you're an extremist pawel, a real one


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Well, at least "a REAL one" , thank you.


Posted by: BradIL

Quote:
Originally posted by Jill :I also seem to recall (and unfortunately I can't provide a source) that Stalin had made some comment about wanting to deport all Ukrainians to Siberia, but that there were just too damn many of them to fit on a train, so (the story goes) he decided to try to starve them all to death. May just be a legend--I can't verify it.


Jill this goes beyond legend and more towards reality. Nikita Khrushchev verified much of this in his famous speech to the 20th Party Congress in the USSR in 1956:

All the more monstrous are those acts whose initiator was Stalin and which were rude violations of the basic Leninist principles [behind our] Soviet state's nationalities policies. We refer to the mass deportations of entire nations from their places of origin, together with all Communists and Komsomols without any exception. This deportation was not dictated by any military considerations... Ukrainians avoided meeting this fate only because there were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them. Otherwise, [Stalin] would have deported them also. (59)

The speech is available at many websites, but a full, unabridged version (as could be smuggled out) can be found here:

http://www.uwm.edu/Course/448-343/index12.html

Its a compelling read, but takes a lot of time.


Posted by: Jill

Thanks, Brad! I knew I had heard that somewhere. Well, and hence the Ukrainian Famine during which between 7 and 10 million Ukrainians died (either by starvation or shot to death).


Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

... and they all tried escaping to Poland, which was part of the reason why Stalin began erecting the Stalin Line on the Polish frontier in the 30's.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Old thread, but most (perhaps all) of you miss the point. Socialism, Communism, Fascism are just words to describe what is really Authoritarianism. It doesn't matter if you couch the reasoning in terms of nationalism, ethnic purity or the sharing of wealth, it's all the same thing.

Any system of government that concentrates power in the hands of one man will quickly descend into hell. The only type of person who wants that much power (and is strong enough to seize it), is going to be a ruthless megalomaniac. The citizens will pay the price.

Good government is representational. Good government doesn't interfere with your wealth, your speech, your religion or your bedroom. Politicians should be public servants, frightened of the people, not the other way around.


Keith in Kodiak


Posted by: Tatsy

Socialism and Communism have no Authoritarianism ideas in their ideological basis. While Fascism ideology is based on national hatred. It is incomparably. Communism is utopia, idyll. But Socialism is present currently at the Scandinavian countries, I believe. It is similar to what we aspired to.
Sorry for my English (I am RW:-))


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

All "ism's" have a hierarchy of power; a pyramid with one man, or a small group, at the top. This small group relegates to itself powers over the lives of the rest of the citizenry.
The Soviet Union defined itself as "socialist" and put millions of people to death.

I won't even defend Western European socialism, a relatively benign form of the illness. When a government takes away your money to pay for your neighbors housing, health care, etc, it removes your freedom of choice. You can no longer afford to buy the bigger house (that you worked for), buy the premium health care (that you worked for), educate your children in the fine university (that you worked for)...
And of course, under such a system you may eventually destroy the prosperity of the nation itself. If your cars, TV's and computers cost more to produce (through taxes and wages) than those in Taiwan or Japan then you lose business, and you lose jobs - meaning that businesses and those still working have to pay more for their newly unemployed neighbors care, housing, medical... Which raises the price of goods yet again, losing more business...

It's a slow but steady process. It's insidious because the average man votes for the guy who promises to "give him stuff", never reflecting that he is the one paying for this stuff.

Keith in Kodiak


Posted by: Novosibirsk1

Not that I'm aware of. Even the "great" Lenin remarked...." a little terror is a good thing" thus the NKVD, Lubyanka, gulag, the mines, transit prisons and the bullet. What is it they say? .....absolute power corrupts absolutely.


Posted by: vanir

Quote:
...her uncle had spent ten years in prison for making a joke, "anecdote" she said, about the government or a government offical.

I was fortunate in my English class we studied "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," which depicted an engineer who made one too many "subversive comments" and found himself in a Siberian prison camp in which life expectancy was some 3-5 years. The story was autobiographical as I understand it, although many names were changed.
I've also listened to interviews of classical musicians of all people, who used to practise in fear of being arrested because some of their materiel, such as Beethoven was upon the list of censored music styles, as it would lead minds into dissidence.

However in each celebrated case I'm familiar with a pattern of behavior had been established before someone was dragged away by the authorities, so to speak. It seems reasonably unlikely that an isolated comment which any youth might make would get someone suddenly and irrevocably incarcerated. Generally I'd have thought from what I've heard an individual would have to make themselves a bit of a stubborn nuisance, or "clearly psychologically prone to dissidence" ( a very concept I disagree with), hence the theory the governing system is based in socialisation.
That's just the impression I had, dunno how accurate it might be.

A family friend took in a boarder who had escaped the Ukraine shortly before Chernobyl. She was a very nice lady I recall, but she didn't talk about anything regarding her home, except to show me where Chernobyl was on a map once. I liked her.

Like Andrei mentioned though another distinct impression I get is communism is a ridiculously bigoted and racist environment. Chechnya, Georgians, Siberians and aboriginals, it's full of a lot of "true Russian" nonesense, no wonder the British were going to go to war with it in 1940. It seems to replace class structure idiocy with racist and bigoted idiocy and not for an instant actually leaves that element of human nature behind, in fact gives into it further with illusions of mob rule mentality.
The mob rule that typically deals with any social issue with a sledgehammer and a shallow grave, it's in all cultures but the smart ones develope an independant legal system to handle it. Communism I think puts it in an illusion of these social tendancies place one in charge of others, however in some respects all governments are performed by oligarchy and communism no exception.

Quote:
Old thread, but most (perhaps all) of you miss the point. Socialism, Communism, Fascism are just words to describe what is really Authoritarianism. It doesn't matter if you couch the reasoning in terms of nationalism, ethnic purity or the sharing of wealth, it's all the same thing.

Sorry mate, have to point out you're making an entirely different point. Socialism describes a state owned industry, it's not even a political system. Communism describes "collectivism without class structure," though it appears the distinctions regarding racism and bigotry were never clearly made and blatant problems exist in any government where the legal system is not independant, etc.
As for "authoritarianism" certainly Stalin's rule was this in practise, Hitler's and other dictators however I think you might be overlooking the point that these are not alien individuals with powerful laser weapons and spaceships. They're just a guy in a room and absolutely require the support of scores of other individuals to establish their positions and dictates. How exactly this is performed determines the kind of government you have. The driving force of fascism is the election of a particular authoritarian figurehead. The driving force of communism is collectivism.
True that in practise either simply appear authoritarian dictatorships, based on which examples are given. But you don't just as much say, "Bah, everything that isn't capitalism is a dictatorship and America's is the best government in the world," you might as well be voting for the Redsox to run Europe. Like it or not capitalism is just as bigoted and genocidal, it just lies a lot better about it.
Quote:
All "ism's" have a hierarchy of power; a pyramid with one man, or a small group, at the top. This small group relegates to itself powers over the lives of the rest of the citizenry.

This is sort of a nonesensical patronisation of Tats' response, Keith.
As a suffix, the term ~ism means:
Action; process; practice: terrorism.
Characteristic behavior or quality: heroism.
State; condition; quality: pauperism.
State or condition resulting from an excess of something specified: strychninism.
Distinctive or characteristic trait: Latinism.
Doctrine; theory; system of principles: pacifism.
An attitude of prejudice against a given group: racism.

As a noun the term "ism" means:
A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory: “Formalism, by being an ‘ism,’ kills form by hugging it to death” (Peter Viereck).

Neither adhere strictly to the point you're trying to make, nor even suggest it nor clarify it in the slightest. All forms of economic governing ending with ~ism are morally wrong because they are not opportunistic at an individual level like capitalism? Sorry it just doesn't make sense.
Quote:
It's a slow but steady process. It's insidious because the average man votes for the guy who promises to "give him stuff", never reflecting that he is the one paying for this stuff.

As opposed to voting for a guy who promises to "give him stuff," never reflecting that your neighbour is the one paying for this stuff...for everybody in the street.

Perhaps you might want to consider how capitalism works as an economic system (ie. who it does in fact ride the backs of, you wanna tell me why luxury accumilation doesn't reflect cultural representations in the US for a start?). The argument is ownership vs equality in ideology (as Tats mentioned, an ideology that wasn't necessarily achieved in Soviet Russia but there is nothing which suggests that it may not in Scandinavia or other places), the argument is not which political system is morally right vs which political system is morally wrong.

Australians don't think they're racist. Americans don't think they're greedy. British don't think they're bigoted. The list goes on if we're going to play "who's the bad culture."
The point to be made is that Socialism requires the sacrifice of independance, strictly speaking, and by the same token, Capitalism requires the sacrifice of equality. Pretty harsh if you start out on the wrong end of the social financial scale, but there's waaay too much denial inherent to western democracies to ever examine this genuine social issue, the same way perhaps as you and other suggest, communism cannot examine its authoritarian issues.

I want to move somewhere as it is, I've been thinking somewhere like Scandinavia, if what Tats says is true and the place is doing an okay job of a good society I think it might be a nice choice. I'm tired of B'ish C'mwealth and US bullcrap in my life, but quite true I don't much like the idea of even less concealed authoritarianism...it's just that I don't believe this is inherent to socialism as a rule and still believe someone smart enough could make a good system.


Posted by: BradIL

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanir
Perhaps you might want to consider how capitalism works as an economic system (ie. who it does in fact ride the backs of, you wanna tell me why luxury accumilation doesn't reflect cultural representations in the US for a start?). The argument is ownership vs equality in ideology (as Tats mentioned, an ideology that wasn't necessarily achieved in Soviet Russia but there is nothing which suggests that it may not in Scandinavia or other places), the argument is not which political system is morally right vs which political system is morally wrong.

Well... harsh as it can be at times... capitalism has worked well in America (in its modified form here, given the 'commerce clause' in the U-S Constitution and its elastic interpretation).

vanir... I am lost on one point... regarding luxury accumulation and cultural representations in the US? I'm not getting what you're aiming at, please clarify.

America has struggled to balance the ideals of a nation that is both egalitarian and capitalistic. Federalist 10 tries to assert what's most important by saying "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is no less an insuperable obstacle to the uniformity of interests. It is the protection of these rights that is the first object of government".

I just don't understand what socialism is really supposed to do for someone.


Posted by: Tatsy

Quote:
Originally Posted by BradIL
I just don't understand what socialism is really supposed to do for someone.

Socialism does (or gives):
1) The free medical service.
2) The free university education.
3) The free own apartment. (It is not real already currently, but it was).
4) The paid sick leave.
5) The paid vacation on pregnancy and birth of the child. (several months)
6) The paid guaranteed vacation (14 days every half-year or 28 days every year)
If you successful, not poor man - it is fine. You can pay your medical insurance. You can pay education of your children. And you do not need it. But if you lose job, earnings or health, you will recollect advantages of socialism. Do you believe there are no elements of socialism in the American system? Do you believe that capitalism is the last step in the development of humankind? I heard, in the Scandinavian countries the standard of living and lifestyle are not worse, than in America, and even better. As far as I know, actually there are not unemployment and criminality there. However I think, it will be better, if the people from these countries will tell about it.
Sorry for my English :-)


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tats
Socialism does (or gives):
1) The free medical service.
2) The free university education.
3) The free own apartment. (It is not real already currently, but it was).
4) The paid sick leave.
5) The paid vacation on pregnancy and birth of the child. (several months)
6) The paid guaranteed vacation (14 days every half-year or 28 days every year)
If you successful, not poor man - it is fine. You can pay your medical insurance. You can pay education of your children. And you do not need it. But if you lose job, earnings or health, you will recollect advantages of socialism. Do you believe there are no elements of socialism in the American system? Do you believe that capitalism is the last step in the development of humankind? I heard, in the Scandinavian countries the standard of living and lifestyle are not worse, than in America, and even better. As far as I know, actually there are not unemployment and criminality there. However I think, it will be better, if the people from these countries will tell about it.
Sorry for my English :-)


Socialism gives you none of those things for free. All of that comes out of your paycheck. Socialism merely removes the choice of where you receive your medical care, where you educate your children. Where you live, etc.

Socialism assumes that people are hapless children unable to make their own decisions. So, they confiscate the money you've earned (removing all your options and choices) and force you to use the inefficient services of government for all your needs.

There's a wonderful Russian philosopher who deals with all of these issues. The works of Ayn Rand should be required reading in every school. Check out aynrand.org sometime.


Posted by: Tatsy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
Socialism gives you none of those things for free. All of that comes out of your paycheck. Socialism merely removes the choice of where you receive your medical care, where you educate your children. Where you live, etc.


All my life paycheck would not suffice complete payment for all of this (especially of my own apartment). And I can live and educate my children there where I will want to do it. Besides, when I studied, ALL students were receiving the grants, though they did not work.
By the way, about the choice. I see, what choice is in America. When the girls from Russian forum worry, if they do not have the medical insurance. And when they cry, receiving the bills with the huge sums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
Socialism assumes people are hapless children unable to make their own decisions. So, they confiscate the money you've earned (removing all your options and choices) and force you to use the inefficient services of government for all your needs.


Ha! You speak so, as if YOUR government does not do the same things!
Socialism assumes the money should be allocated for all people equally and first of all for social needs.
Do not tell me that socialism is terrible, and capitalism is perfect. I lived at both systems, and I can compare it. Both that, and this has own merits and demerits. Capitalism gives more freedom, but socialism gives more security (protection, safety) in social area.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Well tell me, who do you think pays for the apartment, the medical care, the education? Do you think the government just pulls the money out of some magic hat?

That money comes out of the earnings of average people. People just like you and I.

Now if you think the government is better able to manage your money and your life, decide how big a home you can have or how good an education you can get or where you can get medical care, then vote socialist.

I prefer to run my own life without government interference.


Posted by: Tatsy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
Well tell me, who do you think pays for the apartment, the medical care, the education? Do you think the government just pulls the money out of some magic hat?

That money comes out of the earnings of average people. People just like you and I.

Now if you think the government is better able to manage your money and your life, decide how big a home you can have or how good an education you can get or where you can get medical care, then vote socialist.

I prefer to run my own life without government interference.

No, that money were coming mainly from sale of oil, gas, diamonds, weapon, wood etc, which is currently seized by oligarches receiving super-profit and buying the football clubs.

Well tell me, who do you think pays for the war in Iraq?


Posted by: paulLiverpool

Yes both capitalism and socialism have their pros and cons, be nice if there were a middle ground, we have a national health service here which is a joke, you contribute a percentage of your income called National Insurance contributions (which is seperate from income tax) for in the event that you need medical assistance, trouble is when you become ill you then have to wait maybe a week to see a doctor (you ring your local clinic and book an appointment to see the doctor) and if you want dental treatment then you will be lucky to find a dental practice who have room to have you on their books and even if they do you still have to pay? the idea of socialism is great were everybody is treated equal, (and Iv'e been a socliaist all my life, problem is inevitably their will always be corruption, ever read George Orwells 'Animal Farm'? brilliant book I read as a child and I see it every day of my life, sadly even in my socialist world, you see there will always be greedy b******s who don't care about anyone but themselves, I don't envy anyone who has made a success of themselves and become very wealthy in fact I admire them, that is as long as they haven't trodden on anybody else on the way up, and that they still have their feet firmly on the ground and not breezing round thinking that their wealth entitles them to be rude and arrogant to everybody else, (harm nothing and no-one and no harm will come to thee).

And Tats as for the Iraq war I have my own views on that and have done since the whole thing began the first time round and I am not going there as it annoys me other than to say the whole sorry affair which has cost thousands of lives needlessly will carry on for some time to come.

Anyway tats nice to see you visiting this side of the forum again

Paul


Posted by: Spakoyna

Food for thought! All types of government will work if there is no corruption. All governments will fail because of corruption!


Posted by: inlove

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tats
By the way, about the choice. I see, what choice is in America. When the girls from Russian forum worry, if they do not have the medical insurance. And when they cry, receiving the bills with the huge sums.


Tats, it was their choice to go to America and get married to somebody who cannot buy them health insurance. Unfortunately, before they become citizens they are not eligible for any government-sponsored insurance.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tats
No, that money were coming mainly from sale of oil, gas, diamonds, weapon, wood etc, which is currently seized by oligarches receiving super-profit and buying the football clubs.

Well tell me, who do you think pays for the war in Iraq?


No Tats, it didn't work like that. If it did, the USSR wouldn't have collapsed of its own rotten weight. The USSR exported almost nothing. That's why in the old days "hard currency" was so valuable. When I first visited in 91 the official exchange rate was 1 or 2 Roubles to the Dollar, yet I was getting 1200 Roubles to the Dollar on the street.
What the USSR produced was traded amongst other USSR nations for more worthless currency. Socialism had seventy years to prove itself and it only produced decay.

Those oligarches (as you call them) produce jobs and hard currency profits. It will take many years for Russia and the other FSU states to build an infrastructure after 70 years of socialism.

And yes, I pay for Iraq just as you pay for Chechnya. The difference is that the US can afford such a war, while it is a struggle for Russia.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

There are no pros and cons about socialism and capitalism.

Socialism doesn't work. It has not worked in any nation that has ever tried it. They've either imploded under their own weight (like the USSR) or begun capitalist reforms like China.

You can have a capitalist society with socialized medicine and other social programs, but that's just an expensive shell game. They take the money out of your paycheck for things you could buy on your own. A government run program is always more expensive and less efficient than a private insurance plan. The reason for that is simple - if you don't like your private health plan you go elsewhere. They have every reason to keep you happy.
With a socialized program you have no choice. You will go to jail or have all your assets seized if you fail to pay for the program they've stuffed down your throat.

When you get right down to it this sort of "capitalist socialism" is the same sort of "Bread and Circuses" game that Roman emperors played to keep the mob happy. The mob then didn't realize they paid for all of that extravgance any more than most of the mob today realize they pay for these things.
The slimey politician of today stands at the microphone and promises the mob that if elected he will see that they get "free stuff." And the mob rushes to the poll in glee to yank the lever for the "Free Stuff Party."
They never seem to notice that their paycheck shrinks and the food and consumer goods they need all rise in price to pay for the "Free Stuff."


Posted by: deccie

I thought the banks were paying for Iraq since the US is running such a massive deficit over the whole thing?
So the real truth over who will pay for Iraq is "future generations of americans".
Or did the US budget suddenly come back into balance when I didn't notice?
(-:

So much for a "market economy".


Posted by: Tatsy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
No Tats, it didn't work like that. If it did, the USSR wouldn't have collapsed of its own rotten weight. The USSR exported almost nothing. That's why in the old days " hard currency " was so valuable. When I first visited in 91 the official exchange rate was 1 or 2 Roubles to the Dollar, yet I was getting 1200 Roubles to the Dollar on the street.
What the USSR produced was traded amongst other USSR nations for more worthless currency. Socialism had seventy years to prove itself and it only produced decay.


You know, it is silly dispute. What it means: "USSR exported almost nothing"? USSR exported all same, as now. I repeat again: oil, gas, diamonds, weapon, wood, steel, colour metals. Our natural resources were appreciated very highly. It was earlier and it is now. Or will we argue about it again and again: what did USSR export?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
Those oligarches (as you call them) produce jobs and hard currency profits. It will take many years for Russia and the other FSU states to build an infrastructure after 70 years of socialism.


It is very funny, when the people explain me things, which I know better and which I live among. You saw Those oligarches? Do you know them? Many from them are usual gangsters. Those oligarches have grasped by force or deceit those values, which were created by the simple people for 70 years. Those oligarches NOTHING make or produce. They maintain the received ready petroleum factories, but all other factories lay in ruins. They simply plunder our country, our natural resources, and move money abroad. Or will we argue on it too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
And yes, I pay for Iraq just as you pay for Chechnya. The difference is that the US can afford such a war, while it is a struggle for Russia.

Keith, I am tired. I meant not it. I meant, that despite of your statements, American government confiscate the money you've earned (removing all your options and choices) and force you to pay the war. Though likely do you it with pleasure?
I do not want to argue with you anymore. You argue only to argue.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Deccie,

One way or another we (the American people) will pay for it. And the Russian people will pay for Chechnya.

The only difference is that people love to take shots at the US. They ignore the Russian foray into Chechnya.

If you'd like to discuss Iraq, why don't you start another thread? I'd be happy to participate.


Posted by: Tatsy

Maybe socialism does not work in the pure kind, but capitalism gets features of socialism more and more.


Posted by: inlove

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tats
Keith, I am tired. I meant not it. I meant, that despite of your statements, American government confiscate the money you've earned (removing all your options and choices) and force you to pay the war. Though likely do you it with pleasure?
I do not want to argue with you anymore. You argue only to argue.


Tats, you can also remind Keith that Chechnya is actually a part of Russia, so Russia does not have a choice but to deal with it, while Iraq is an independent country that the USA administration has chosen to invade.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Oh Tats, yes the USSR exported some things. But the amounts were not enough to keep the country afloat. That's why I pointed out the exchange rates for Roubles back in the old days. If the USSR had a solid economy then the rouble would have been traded like other currencies. Roubles were no better than toilet paper outside the USSR.

I have no doubt that some of these oligarches are crooks. Yet, when I go to to Russia today I see people driving new cars (lots of people!). I see people wearing nice stylish clothes. I see the restaurants and cafe's full of customers. I see the stores full of consumer goods and I see people buying those goods.

In the old days I saw people dressed in shabby clothes and carrying those little plastic and string backs just in case they found something to buy. The stores were empty. The money was worthless outside the USSR.
Did you know that much of the food you ate came from Canada and the US? We were able to produce four or five times the amount of food per acre than Russia could! The USSR (with far more farmland than the US) could not even produce enough food to feed itself! This is the waste and gross inefficiency of socialism at work.

Anyway, somebody is creating wealth in todays Russia. I know it's not enough to go around as yet, but it gets better every year. There's no reason Russia can't solve all of its problems and become a wealthy nation. In fact, with the massive resources Russia has there's no reason it can't replace the US as the dominant nation on the planet. I, for one, would be happy to see that happen.
Wealth produces more wealth. A healthy, wealthy Russia is good for everyone.


Posted by: Texas Proud

I will give a number of statements on the last few posts I have read..

TATS... do not get offended... some people do not read what you write, but read what they want to in the words...

Keith.. I believe that Tats was talking about the plundering of the FSU... when they started to privitize, there were corrupt people who stole a lot of the assets of the country and the rest of the people are still paying for this plunder...

Socialism does work in the Scandanavian countries... I have seen a number of programs talking about how well it does.. but it is because most of the people put back into the system.. they do not have the same number of deadbeats that we have so it works...

It would not work in America because of the disparity of the haves and the have-nots... we do have a large welfare system and it is our socialism... and people game the system to get more than what they deserve..

This debate is one that is pointless as most people form their decision and will not change.... like the gold standard...l you either believe it or you do not...


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

A couple of points.

The US congress voted overwhelmingly to go to war with Iraq. They didn't do it without the will of the people.
Iraq signed a cease fire under the obilgation to provide full disclosure for all weapons programs. Under that agreement they were were obligated to destroy the programs under UN observation. They were obligated to to allow unfettered access to every place in Iraq where such programs might be hidden. They were obligated to to cease all weapons purchases from abroad.

They did none of those things. And the UN hit them with 12 "Resolutions" in the following years to comply with the cease fire agreement.
They threw the inspectors out (repeatedly). They hindered any investigations while they were in the country. And they continued to purchase high tech weapons from Russia, France and China. They did this with money stolen from the oil-for-food program - in effect, Russia, China and France starved children to make a few illegal bucks off of Saddam.

And no, Chechnya is no more a part of Russia than Georgia or Belarus or any of the other FSU states.


Posted by: inlove

Here are couple points on history of Chechnya. Educate yourself before making claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chechnya

In case if somebody does not know, ASSR meant autonomy region inside a federal state, the same as Bashkiriya or Buryatia, or many more "republics" of Russia..


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud
Keith.. I believe that Tats was talking about the plundering of the FSU... when they started to privitize, there were corrupt people who stole a lot of the assets of the country and the rest of the people are still paying for this plunder...

Socialism does work in the Scandanavian countries... I have seen a number of programs talking about how well it does.. but it is because most of the people put back into the system.. they do not have the same number of deadbeats that we have so it works...

It would not work in America because of the disparity of the haves and the have-nots... we do have a large welfare system and it is our socialism... and people game the system to get more than what they deserve..

This debate is one that is pointless as most people form their decision and will not change.... like the gold standard...l you either believe it or you do not...


You should read what I wrote.

Yes, I know some of the oligarches are crooks (I say again), yet the lives of the Russian people are improving all the time. Under socialism they lived hand to mouth. The country couldn't even feed itself.

The Scandinavian countries do not practice socialism. They are capitalist countries with socialist welfare programs (I say again). All of the benefits those people receive from the government would be cheaper to purchase privately by the individuals themselves. But they don't have a choice, the money is coerced from them whether they wish to have these services or not.

Not only are their paychecks plundered but they pay far more for good and services than we pay here. The reason for that is since every single component of the system is taxed at a higher rate, those costs can only be passed down in the form of higher prices.

Think about that when you hear the slimey politican suggest: We'll tax the rich! We'll tax business and corporations to pay for your free stuff!

Because, the fact of the matter is that in a capitalist society the rich (who control business) and the the business and corporate worlds themselves never pay taxes - ever!
You tax them and they simply raise the price of their product. The consumer (you) pay the taxes.

That isn't some sort of rotten game that business plays. It's simple survival. If they don't make a profit they go out of business. It's just the way it works. The little guy, the consumer, Joe Lunchbox, always pays the tab in every society.

There is no free lunch.
You either live in a true socialist society like the former USSR - not pretty!
Or you live in a Capitalist/Socialist society and earn less - and/or pay more for everything, which is the same thing...
Or you live in a capialist society and vote to avoid any form of socialization. This means you have to take charge of your own life, but it's the method I prefer.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Quote:
Originally Posted by inlove
Here are couple points on history of Chechnya. Educate yourself before making claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chechnya

In case if somebody does not know, ASSR meant autonomy region inside a federal state, the same as Bashkiriya or Buryatia, or many more "republics" of Russia..


Chechnyans are Chechnyans. They have a different language, different religion and a different history and culture than Russia.
Russia conquered Chechnya after they invaded the Caucasus in 1818. There were rebellions, most notably in 1850 and 1919. They were brutally crushed.
Chechens allied themselves with the Germans in WWII to oust the Russians. This too cost them much because Stalin was brutal in Chechnya after the war. Many thousands were murdered or sent off to the gulag.
In 1991 as the USSR collapsed Chechnya (like many other FSU States)declared itself an independent Republic.
Russia invaded in 1994 and this time were defeated by Chechnya - they withdrew and for a brief time Chechnya was free of Russian domination.
In 1999 Russia attacked again, first bombing and then invading Chechnya.

The war continues.


Posted by: inlove

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
Chechnyans are Chechnyans. They have a different language, different religion and a different history and culture than Russia.
Russia conquered Chechnya after they invaded the Caucasus in 1818.


Yeah, and the United States just happened to come upon Texas and California. Maybe we should give them back to Mexico, just to be fair?


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

If the people of Texas and California overwhelmingly voted to become independent or to rejoin Mexico, you might have a valid point.
They don't want to do that. They prefer to be part of the US.

That's not the case in Chechnya.

Yet, would it surprise you to know that in a recent national referendum 71% of Iraqis said that the US should "stay as long as they are needed" and another smaller number said we should we should stay for a fixed time limit, and only a tiny percentage said we should leave immediately.

The overwhelming majority of people in Iraq favor the US invasion and occupation. Would you wish to deprive the Iraqi people of what they want in the same way you favor depriving the Chechen people of what they want?


Posted by: inlove

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
If the people of Texas and California overwhelmingly voted to become independent or to rejoin Mexico, you might have a valid point.
They don't want to do that. They prefer to be part of the US.

That's not the case in Chechnya.


keith,
You have a couple of amazing abilities. first, of course, is to see insult everywhere you possibly can, even when none was intended or implied, and another one is to talk in assertive way about things you clearly know very little..
Who told you that Chechen people wanted independence from Russia? American media?
I guess you decided not to read the source I provided, so here is a quote:

* During the Soviet era, there was the Checheno-Ingushkaya ASSR, consisting of Chechnja and Ingushetija. In 1990 it was renamed to the Checheno-Ingushkaja Respublika (Chechen-Ingush Republic).
* On September 1, 1991 some Chechen politicians formed the "National Congress of Chechen People", declared that part of the Chechen-Ingush Republic became an independent state of the Chechen Republic and stated that supreme power is given to the Executive Committee lead by Dzhokhar Dudayev.
* On September 2, 1991 a group of religious and public figures made a petition, claiming that the Executive Committee was not legitimate and that actions of the Committee might inevitably lead to bloodshed.
* On September 6, 1991 the building of the Supreme Soviet was occupied by Dzhokhar Dudayev's guards.
* On September 15, 1991, a last session of the Supreme Soviet of the Chechen-Ingush Republic took place, and it decided to dissolve itself (under the request of Dudayev's guards).
* On October 1, 1991 some of the ex-deputies decided to divide the republic into the Chechen Republic and the Ingush Republic.
* On October 27, 1991, an unofficial election was held. Less than 20% (probably 12%) of the population participated, and Dzhokhar Dudayev was elected. Many false ballots were made, so the number of ballots significantly exceeded number of registered voters.
* On November 1, 1991 Dudayev issued a decree of Chechen independence (Указ об "Об объявлении суверенитета Чеченской Республики с 1 ноября 1991 г.")
* On November 2, 1991, the 5th Assembly of People's Deputies of RSFSR (the Russian parliament of that time) took place. A resolution was issued stating that the Chechen Supreme Soviet and President were not legitimate.
* On May, 1993 Chechen parliament and Muftiat (Islamic high council) made an appeal to the Chechen people to defend the old constitution and restore legitimate power. The decision of the Chechen constitutional court was that Dudayev's actions were illegal.

Quote:
Yet, would it surprise you to know that in a recent national referendum 71% of Iraqis said that the US should "stay as long as they are needed" and another smaller number said we should we should stay for a fixed time limit, and only a tiny percentage said we should leave immediately.

The overwhelming majority of people in Iraq favor the US invasion and occupation. Would you wish to deprive the Iraqi people of what they want in the same way you favor depriving the Chechen people of what they want?


You can keep your rosy glasses to yourself.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

I haven't insulted anyone.

Russia DID invade Chechnya (twice) after it declared independence. This is history.

The great majority of Iraqi's are quite happy to be out from under Saddams murderous regime and quite happy to be moving into a free democratic society after 30 years of Baath Socialism. This is not in dispute by anyone who knows anything about the subject.


Posted by: Texas Proud

Keith...

I will be short on this as it is an opinion, but based on facts...

Yes, if you got government out of the various aspects of life it would most likely be cheaper... but the Scandanavian countries CHOSE their form of socialism... in you world, only the rich could afford the various things that the government supplies....

I believe they get 12 months or so maternity... this is state paid... but if you were a low paid person and had no money saved and did not get anything from the state... you do not get the time off...

Believe me, I do not think it would work in many other countries as there are racial problems in most other countries that are not as prevelent in them...


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Yes Tex, I know they voted for it. They've also voted it in (to greater and lesser degrees) in the rest of western Europe, and Canada.

We live in a different world. We don't have socialized medicine or subsidized housing or free higher education. We get to keep more of our paychecks and we get to purchase things at far lower prices.
If we're smart we use that extra money to buy health insurance and investments or savings. We are allowed the freedom of choice because we are allowed to keep more of the money we earn. I like that. I hope it never changes.


Posted by: sidney

Like Keith I'm for less gov't involvement especially when it is coming out of my pocket. My biggest gripe I have is how gov't is in things that they shouldn't be. One is the Pennsylvania state run liquor store where if you want wine or hard liquor you must purchase thru one of their stores. There are no private run liquor stores and like in most states can't purchase at a grocery store. Another is the state run lotto where if you want to gamble you must thru them. I can remember when the mafia ran this and they gave better odds. I feel they should get out of the farming business mainly because they haven't a clue about this business. Probably every system in the world could use some improvement or it least some of us think so.
Sid


Posted by: paulLiverpool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
Or you live in a capialist society and vote to avoid any form of socialization. This means you have to take charge of your own life, but it's the method I prefer.


A dog eat dog world is a very sorry world though kieth, you never know what life is gonna throw at you, what happens when your not in a position to pay for medical insurance and you need, or a close member of your immediate family needs serious medical treatment?, I would prefer some sort of welfare system.


Paul


Posted by: sidney

Paul some people will find reasons for not buying like everything else they procrastinate about. In life you've got to make decisions. I prefer to have made them myself because I've seen where the US Gov't tends to just throw more money at a problem in hopes of it going away. We are not accustomed to less service here.
Sid


Posted by: deccie

So what about the social policies in the us that support both farmers and big business?
The US is no free market economy.
These areas are the two biggest recipients of welfare rather than individuals.

As for Iraq, my views on Iraq are mixed. I *do* support the US staying put
(and Australia for that matter) but they should never have been there in the first place because the justification for doing so did not exist. Because Saddam had no WMD's. Three words.. They (GwB and Co) were wrong. You cannot change the justification from one of WMD to "he's a dictator" mid firefight!

If you recall, the UNSCOM spokeman Hans ? pleaded for more time to do more work before going to war.

The only one of the senior GWB advisors (in this case past advisor) I have any time for is Colin Powell.

Interesting that the only one of the lot with extensive military experience was the most reluctant to commit to war.

However, even though I support the troops to remain I am also skeptical that GWB can deliver on ANYTHING he promises.


Posted by: Texas Proud

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
Yes Tex, I know they voted for it. They've also voted it in (to greater and lesser degrees) in the rest of western Europe, and Canada.

We live in a different world. We don't have socialized medicine or subsidized housing or free higher education. We get to keep more of our paychecks and we get to purchase things at far lower prices.
If we're smart we use that extra money to buy health insurance and investments or savings. We are allowed the freedom of choice because we are allowed to keep more of the money we earn. I like that. I hope it never changes.



Keith.... I agree with you that I would rather keep my paycheck etc... but I was rebutting your statement that socialism does not work... it does work well in a few countries... it works to a lesser degree in others... but, it's design is that everybody is taken care of...

And if you do not think we have our share of socialism.. you need to come down to the lower 48... the welfare system is costing the federal and state governments many billions of $$$... Medicade is one of the largest budget items in many state budgets.. and many more billions from the fed.. subsidized housing is rampent... many builders build Sec 8 housing which is rent subsidized... we just do not call it socialism....


Posted by: Texas Proud

Quote:
Originally Posted by deccie
As for Iraq, my views on Iraq are mixed. I *do* support the US staying put
(and Australia for that matter) but they should never have been there in the first place because the justification for doing so did not exist. Because Saddam had no WMD's. Three words.. [B
They (GwB and Co) were wrong[/B]. You cannot change the justification from one of WMD to "he's a dictator" mid firefight!



Deccie... I am not trying to be personal on this one... but the people who say that WMD was the ONLY reason we went in are trying to rewrite history...

GWB said he had WMD that were not accounted for and was PURSUING atomic power.. and that he did not obey the many UN resolutions... well, he HAD WMDs a long time ago since he used them... and he still was pursuing atomic bomb and he kept firing missles at the US planes almost on a daily basis... Also, GWB did not connect Saddam with Al Quida.. he said BOTH were a threat to the US...

I still think that getting rid of Saddam is a good thing, and in the long run will make the world a safer place...

Did GWB make bad decisions... YES, many many of them... but invading is one I do not think was 'bad'... just the plans for after the invasion were....


Posted by: paulLiverpool

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidney
Paul some people will find reasons for not buying like everything else they procrastinate about. In life you've got to make decisions. I prefer to have made them myself because I've seen where the US Gov't tends to just throw more money at a problem in hopes of it going away. We are not accustomed to less service here.
Sid


I understand where your coming from Sid, there will always be parasites who will avoid paying for anything they are nothing short of scum, but as I said before you never know what life is going to throw at you, one minute you can be successful the next thing you know your on your knees, believe me it can happen to the best of us, the welfare state isn't great by any means but for some it can be vital at certain times of peoples lives, its just a shame that there are scum bags who will try and bleed the system for everything they can.

Paul


Posted by: Tatsy

I can tell you the data for last year: the last year the taxes for Fund of Social insurance and for Fund of Medical insurance of Russian Federation were 7,6% from monthly wages. Is it so large sum for you? This year I do not work in general, but I do not lose my right to use all free-of-charge services. If it is 7,6% from the monthly income, for example, of Bill Gates? :-) Certainly, I can not know this point well, but I think, it is at least one free-of-charge small hospital. (Though then he can not buy the tenth smart house likely. ) And unless don't you have something similar?


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

To all,

Yes, the US is not entirely free of social welfare policies and I don't think it should be entirely free. You do need a safety net at the bottom for those who have lost their jobs or what have you. And yes, this will be abused by those who simply won't work. I just favor limiting such programs to the those who are truly in need. I don't want to expand them in any way beyond what we have already. And in many cases I think they could be eliminated.

Farm and business subsidies? Business subsidies are simply tax breaks for business. Since consumers pay all those taxes anyway, why not give myself a tax break? If other countries want to artificially raise the prices of their consumer goods with taxes, that's good for the US.

Tats, I can get several health plans for 7.6% of my income! And I'm by no means a rich man. That health care will be far superior to that I could get under a socialized system.
I'll give you an example of that. Canada has socialized health care, and it's become a huge business on the American side of the border to provide health care for Canadians. The limitations, the waiting times, the rationing of health care on the Canadian side forces many to come over here for health care.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

Quote:
Originally Posted by deccie
As for Iraq, my views on Iraq are mixed. I *do* support the US staying put
(and Australia for that matter) but they should never have been there in the first place because the justification for doing so did not exist. Because Saddam had no WMD's. Three words.. They (GwB and Co) were wrong. You cannot change the justification from one of WMD to "he's a dictator" mid firefight!

If you recall, the UNSCOM spokeman Hans ? pleaded for more time to do more work before going to war.

The only one of the senior GWB advisors (in this case past advisor) I have any time for is Colin Powell.

Interesting that the only one of the lot with extensive military experience was the most reluctant to commit to war.

However, even though I support the troops to remain I am also skeptical that GWB can deliver on ANYTHING he promises.


Deccie, The talking heads spoke of WMD's but the official justification for going to war was Iraq's failure to comply with the 1991 cease fire agreement. And without question, Saddam had failed to comply. The war was legal. In fact, it was not really a war - the cease fire was simply negated by Iraq's non-compliance. In effect, officially we resumed the 1991 war.

And it' so odd really. Everyone is so complacent when western troops go into an African country to stop genocidal warfare. Nobody had an issue with that Bosnian thing...
Yet, when we go into Iraq, a nation also practicing every kind of human rights abuse, the world goes mad!
Why is that? Are Iraqi lives less valuable than other lives?

The Iraqi people support the war and the continued presence of troops. Much of the Iraqi army simply walked away when the war began, refusing to fight for Saddam. Why can't the world simply honor what the Iraqi people want? Why does the world wish to betray them to Saddam loyalists or Muslim fundamentalists?

In the worlds rush to line up and condemn the US, they forget the most important issue - the will of the people of Iraq.


Posted by: That1Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
Deccie, The talking heads spoke of WMD's but the official justification for going to war was Iraq's failure to comply with the 1991 cease fire agreement.


The Bush administration spent a lot of money and effort selling the war to the American public, and the "talking heads" were a useful tool for the administration. Whether or not there was an "official" reason(s) for going to war, I cannot see how anyone could argue that the administration's misuse of intelligence regarding wmds was not the single biggest "selling point" to the American public. Link TV aired an interesting program recently. I cannot remember the number, but they showed taped press interviews with several administration officials during the runup to the war, claiming Iraq possessed and would use WMDs. This, despite the fact that the intelligence was known to be dubious if not downright inaccurate. (As reported by the sources of the intelligence). They also (directed by Cheney) made many attempts to connect Sadaam and Al Qaida.

Quote:
The war was legal. In fact, it was not really a war - the cease fire was simply negated by Iraq's non-compliance. In effect, officially we resumed the 1991 war.


...And then continued daily bombing for the next 12 years...but this is not a war.

Quote:
And it' so odd really. Everyone is so complacent when western troops go into an African country to stop genocidal warfare. Nobody had an issue with that Bosnian thing...


Many Russians had HUGE issues with NATO's actions in this region.

Quote:
The Iraqi people support the war and the continued presence of troops.


Watch Link TV sometime. They are independent, and give a much more balanced view of world issues than the American networks. Or, try truthout.com - also independent, and not relying on American corporate money. According to many reports I have seen, many Iraqis were happy the Americans came with the promise of freedom. However, many Iraqis do not want us there. They are dissapointed with the lack of security, and basic humanitarian needs not being met. Haliburton and its subsidiary Brown and Root (who will make a fortune rebuilding what the American defense industry made a fortune destroying) have made good progress rebuilding the infrastructure to export oil from Iraq, but there are long lines for gasoline, electrical power is inadequate, and many Iraqis' whos homes were bombed are still living in tents. Many Iraqis feel we are only there to steal their nation's wealth, and certainly want us to leave. I know a guy that has been there for over a year now. His impression is that most Iraqis want us to leave. Of course, there are also those who want us to stay, but even these are against an "occupation" for an indefinite time.


Quote:
In the worlds rush to line up and condemn the US, they forget the most important issue - the will of the people of Iraq.


Which is?


Posted by: That1Guy

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061903F.shtml


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

If you look back a few posts you'll see mention of a national referendum where 71% the Iraqi people favor the US staying as long as necessary. Only a tiny percentage want us to leave immediately.

The left wing BS squad in the rest of the world can continue to defend Baath Socialism, but as of the most recent count 350,000 bodies have now been dug up in the mass graves scattered across the country. These are just the bodies of those who "disappeared" and don't count the many who were murdered and buried openly. And we haven't finished. We continue to dig. We continue to find new mass grave sites.

Has anyone noticed this recent election in Iraq? How many voted for Saddam loyalists? How many voted for the extreme Islamic candidates? Those people were on the ballots and got zip for votes. Yet, people all around the world wish us to betray the Iraqi's and allow the terrorists free rein.

Again, only the left wing head in the sand liberals care about the WMD's. That was not the reason we went to war. We went to war because Saddam violated the cease fire agreement.
The 12 years of bombing that1guy refers to were against military targets that entered the protected zone we threw around the Kurds and Shiites. This was also part of the cease fire agreement. If you oppose our actions there then you might as well say you favor mass murder based on ethnic or religious grounds. We were protecting the unarmed civilians that had Saddam had been slaughtering for 20 years. Apparently, that1guy would prefer the genocide had continued. After all, it was in the name of socialism.

If Saddam had been a Fascist rather than a Socialist, the left would have demanded his destruction 25 years ago. However, since he is a socialist the left will excuse genocide and treaty violations. The US become's the bad guy for taking out this little middle eastern Hitler - excuse me, a Stalin since he's a leftist...


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

I thought about editing what I wrote above since I was a bit hot when I wrote it. But I'm not going to. That is the way I feel even if I could have stated it with a bit less heat.

I would very much like an explanation from some of you. Why did so many of you fight so hard to keep Saddam in power? Why do you ignore the illegal weapons sales to Iraq from France, China and Russia? Why did you oppose the US defending the Kurds and Shiites from the continuation of the genocide in between the 91 war and the latest war? Why do you wish us to abandon the Iraqi's now, when the majority are backing us?

I simply do not understand the motives of people who favor the mass extermination of ethnic groups. I don't understand the defense of murderous dictators.

And if you really feel that way about all of this. Why doesn't the same apply to every other country? Why aren't you bashing the Russians for Chechnya? Why aren't you bashing the French for several recent African adventures? Why aren't you bashing all the Western Europeans for intervening in the genocide in former Yugoslavia?


Posted by: That1Guy

Hi Kieth,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
If you look back a few posts you'll see mention of a national referendum where 71% the Iraqi people favor the US staying as long as necessary. Only a tiny percentage want us to leave immediately.


Actually, I saw the reference before making any comments. However, I know nothing about this referendum that you refer to. I do not doubt that you have read about it somewhere, but I do not know if one was conducted, how it was conducted, or how valid the results were. If what I am seeing reported on Link TV, Truthout.com, and NPR is true, there are many Iraqis that initially welcomed America that now want us to leave. Because of the reputation of these organizations, I have no reason to believe that they are not reporting honestly and fairly their own observations.

Quote:
The left wing BS squad in the rest of the world can continue to defend Baath Socialism, but as of the most recent count 350,000 bodies have now been dug up in the mass graves scattered across the country. These are just the bodies of those who "disappeared" and don't count the many who were murdered and buried openly. And we haven't finished. We continue to dig. We continue to find new mass grave sites.


I must have missed something because I have not read any posts defending the attrocities committed by Sadaam's regime.

Quote:
Has anyone noticed this recent election in Iraq? How many voted for Saddam loyalists? How many voted for the extreme Islamic candidates? Those people were on the ballots and got zip for votes. Yet, people all around the world wish us to betray the Iraqi's and allow the terrorists free rein.


One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, so I pay little attention to the titles western media places on those who disagree with their policies. Before you go balistic, I am NOT defending the use of violence to secure political goals. The point I am making is that the U.S. government knew quite well about Sadaam's human rights attrocities many years ago when we were 'friendly' with these murderers. As with the Taliban in Afghanistan. UNOCAL wanted to run pipelines from the oil-rich region to the north, but because the warring factions created so much instability, it made it impossible. So, with backing from the CIA, the Taliban spread its influence across the country. Then, the same people suddenly became "terrorists" after 9/11. Oh, and wasn't it Bin Laden that the U.S. supported when he was fighting the "Evil Empire" (U.S.S.R)? (Ronald Reagan)

Quote:
Again, only the left wing head in the sand liberals care about the WMD's.


You may call me names, and place titles on me, but it does not affect the fact that this administration deliberately misled the public in order to acheive their agenda. Nor does it change the significance of this action. Why are so many lawmakers outraged by the deceptive techniques used by the Bush presidency? It is a very dangerous and slippery slope we walk when it becomes acceptable for our leaders to misinform us - particularly when seeking support for war.

Quote:
That was not the reason we went to war. We went to war because Saddam violated the cease fire agreement.


I agree that this is not why we went to war. After all, there were no WMDs, and the Bush administration knew this! But, because if they could convince Americans that they were there, and that they posed an immediate danger to the U.S. war was easily justifiable. It wasn't the outspoken so-called liberals who were making such an issue of WMDs BEFORE the war - it was Bush. And it is not WMDs that these people are making an issue of now. It is the fact that our leaders lied to us about an issue in order to sway public opinion in favor of going to war.

Quote:
The 12 years of bombing that1guy refers to were against military targets that entered the protected zone we threw around the Kurds and Shiites.


Actually, the point I tried to make was that if there are bombs falling, and people dying, it's pretty much a war.

Quote:
If you oppose our actions there then you might as well say you favor mass murder based on ethnic or religious grounds.


Why is it black or white? Certainly there must be some other alternatives.

Quote:
We were protecting the unarmed civilians that had Saddam had been slaughtering for 20 years.


We do not appear to be doing so hot at this. It seems that people are dying in Iraq daily.

Quote:
Apparently, that1guy would prefer the genocide had continued. After all, it was in the name of socialism.


So, if I disagree with you, and our government's foreign policy, I favor mass murder? Keith, this is an unfounded accusation. Gee, I thought it was our responsibility to question our government's actions, and change those we disagree with! Isn't this how representative government is supposed to work? Certainly there is more than one side to an issue, and to be able to discuss these without making character attacks, or fear being chastised would be preferable. Alternatively, we could be ruled by a dictatorship where any challenge to authority is dealt with swiftly and harshly. (of course, this is only one possibility).

Quote:
If Saddam had been a Fascist rather than a Socialist, the left would have demanded his destruction 25 years ago. However, since he is a socialist the left will excuse genocide and treaty violations. The US become's the bad guy for taking out this little middle eastern Hitler - excuse me, a Stalin since he's a leftist...


And what were we when we supported his regime? Does having a common enemy (Iran) justify having the blood of the innocent people you claim we are now protecting on our hands? Doesn't the fact that our government overtly supported Sadaam as long as he remained sensitive to our interests tell you anything? Do you think that back then, he was an ok guy, and then suddenly decided to start murdering his political (perceived or real) enemies one morning? Maybe if we had not provided him with the resources to manufacture so many weapons, we would not be there now. Maybe if we had not supported Al-Qaida in their struggle against the Soviet Union, 9/11 would have been just another beautiful autum day. I do not wish suffering on anyone! But I do feel a certain responsibility to at least question the actions or our rulers. Contrary to making me a socialist, or liberal, or whatever title you wish to place upon me, I think it is the responsible and patriotic thing to do.

There is no question that Sadaam and his henchmen were bad people (permit me the gross understatement), but why must our leaders lie to us in order to drum up support? When does it become criminal to do so? Once the line becomes sufficiently blurred, no one can be held accountable. I see this as a great threat to our country. Not just in the sense that it undermines our democratic sensibilities, but serves to add fuel to the anti-american sentiments around the world, and could easily lead to more terrorist acts in this country.

Keith, you will notice that I have not made any attacks on your personal character. I have not suggested that you must think this way or that. Your opinion is valid, and you make good points. We simply disagree on some issues, and that is ok with me. Your comment that I must favor genocide was out of line.


Posted by: That1Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
Has anyone noticed this recent election in Iraq?


From United Press International:

Coercion marred Iraq elections: experts
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- Iraq's elections were marked by widespread intimidation and coercion by paramilitary groups, experts said Tuesday.

"This election appears to have suffered from very many problems. The reports have become overwhelming," Leslie Campbell, regional director of Middle East and North African programs at the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, told a meeting at the Center for American Progress, a think tank headed by John Podesta, President Bill Clinton's former chief of staff.

Campbell said that during the first parliamentary elections under the new Iraqi constitution last Thursday, election monitors had documented "widespread intimidation by security forces affiliated with one group or another.

"Especially in the south (of Iraq), there have been many reports of coercion to vote for the 5-5-5 Shiite coalition parties," he said. "In the north, there is no doubt that Kurdish security forces exerted intense pressure."

The unexpected high results for the Shiite parties in Baghdad province had angered Sunni political parties and led them and former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his supporters to suspect foul play, Campbell said.

"This climate of intense pressure by armed groups is an undeniable fact in these elections," Rand al-Rahim, executive director of the Iraq Foundation and former Iraqi representative to the United States, told the CAP meeting.


Posted by: deccie

I agree with everything that1guy has said on the matter...

The US (and new guy at the UN has stated this) determines it's policy on these sorts of issues by what advances the cause of the US, not on humanitarian grounds.

When Saddam suited US policy the US aided him. Did he change his view towards his people in the last 10 years? Did he only become a tyrant JUST NOW.

No, he has always been a bloody tyrant. But it only suited US policy to remove him NOW. I strongly suspect that if the Kuwait war had never happened Saddam would be being treated the same way as the Saudis are still.

You criticise other nations for supplying him weapons. When are those in the US that supplied him weapons ever going to come up on charges huh?

You cite examples of intervention. What about all the other examples of such behaviour where it has not suited US policy to intervene? Rwanda? Tibet? Burma?

Look at US history in general and the way the US entered the war in both WWI and WWII. I'm sorry Keith but history does not show that the US will wilingly enter a war for humanitarian reasons.

I notice in your reply you did not address US farm subsidies. As an Australian I am only too aware of how the US cried "free trade" and then takes farm issues off the table. Australian farmers are amongst the most efficient in the world but cannot compete when farm subsidies and dumping practicies abound. Now if a country determines that this is in the national interest I don't have a problem with that behaviour. But I do have a problem when the cry is one of "fair trade" and then the practice is something totally opposite.

You also cite a referendum. Who voted? What level of trust is there in such a ballot? You just cite a raw percentage of the people who voted. Sorry but that's like a survey where you don't disclose the sample size. Useless and misleading. What were they asked? Have you ever seen the TV comedy "Yes, minister" where the senior public servant asks his junior a series of questions showing how surveys really work leading to two totally contradictory answers to the same final question?

But, like I said in the first place I support the troops remaining to try to ensure a good outcome. I just don't think GwB is capable of doing it.

My big gripe with those who want to exit now is that leaving will destroy any remaining credibility with those who have thrown there lot in with the west to try and make a go of things. Leaving will ensure they never trust us again. (if they survive at all).

Iraq is a country that is an artificial construct put together by Imperialism.

My suspicion is that it will go exactly the way of Yugoslavia and fracture along more traditional groupings.


Posted by: That1Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith In Kodiak
Again, only the left wing head in the sand liberals care about the WMD's. That was not the reason we went to war. We went to