|
Anaxagoras -> RE: Oh what the fucking fuck??? (4/15/2012 6:08:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Bullshit, I suggest you stop projecting your tiresome Indie/Guardian drivel on those you disagree with, and actually engage with what others say with some integrity. I already made the point that I didn't support American or Western interventionism. I strongly disagreed with it in the 90's with Kosovo etc. I don't fucking make excuses for them because they support another country. I know what so many in Europe think. So many tiresome individuals like you think all the wrongs of the world fucking world eminated out of the US, Americans are thick etc. Hence your startling refusal to consider that the USSR, which put some 30 million of its own to the sword, couldn't kill up to two million in Afghanistan. Its an old leftist diatribe that should have been slung out with far-right politics decades ago, because these fucks supported and still support the most genocidal regimes on the planet. Leftists are trying to get a statue erected at public expense in Galway of Che Guevara, poster boy of the left to this very day. This is a man who acknowledged that he actually wanted a nuclear war with the US during the Bay of Pigs, an event he actually helped instigate, and thought consigning the lives of many millions to a firey end a worthy sacrifice to put an end to "imperialism". Thus is it any wonder monsters like Pol Pot emerged, which other leftist luminaries like Chomsky bent over backward to defend?
I'm the one who's projecting and showing a lack of integrity here. Right.
Dude you have been that way since I have had the pleasure of communicating with you on these forums.
quote:
I'm not denying that the soviets killed a lot of Afghans.
You did actually although you insert "a lot" here which obfuscates that debate. It is widely accepted they killed one to two million which you poured doubt on because they were "American" sources, aww bless...
quote:
I'm just wondering why you feel it was acceptable to replace a democratically elected in Iran with a Shah who spent a quarter of a century killing off all rival factions until the only people left in opposition were the bunch of wingnut wannabe theocrats who staged a revolution and dragged the country back into the fourteenth century back in '79. No amount of whining that the soviets did this, that or t'other alters the fact that Iran would now be in much better better shape if the CIA hadn't deposed Mossadeq.
I didn't say it was acceptable but I pointed out that the matter was far from the black and white issue you leftist lot make it out to be. Furthermore it can be argued that t wasn't even a coup because the Shah had a right to dismiss the PM under certain conditions. I made these fucking points to you days ago, and here I am making them again!
It is also total bollox to suggest the intervention in '53 directly led to the aftermath of 1979. The Islamists actually wanted Mossadeq out in 1953 as well because they were alarmed at his values. However, the Shah was far too liberal and supported womens rights, removal of the veil etc. - these things led to a great deal of anger against him. Furthermore much of the rebellion in 1978/9 was not from religious loonies but the liberal/left which was sidelined so you cannot blame 1953 for the theocratic state that emerged subsequently.
quote:
If you're going to complain about Soviet expansionism and lefty fellow travellers making excuses, maybe you should try taking the moral high ground rather than just pleading a double standard that it's okay for governments you approve of to do that shit because the bad guys would have done it if they hadn't.
I didn't complain about USSR expansionism. I made the point that the intervention in Iran should be seen in a cold-war context by elaborating on the reality of Soviet expansionism.
|
|
|
|
