Democrats Balanced Budget Rhetoric

[nicky g]

Er - estimates of people killed by the US in South-East Asia are between 2 million and 4 million. The 100,000 you claim killed by the North Vietnamese after the war doesn't even approach the numbers killed by the US. Also the Vietnamese communist regime did much more than the US to combat the Khmer Rouge, and it was the illegal bombing of Cambodia by the US that led to the conditions which allowed the Khmer Rouge to prosper in any case.

[MMMMMM]

Well I'm certainly no scholar of that war;-) If any of your facts are wrong I'll leave it to others to point out. Sorry if my own impressions were wrong.

At any rate it doesn't change the main point that on a global scale the scores of millions slaughtered by the communists dwarfs any other figures. Estimates of the totals of their own citizens starved to death, executed, or who perished in USSR and Chinese forced labor camps range up to 80 million. To get a sense of how the figues of various atrocities added up over the years, check out The Museum Of Communism and read of the human rights violations specifically under Lenin, Stalin, Mao and in other time periods in the Museum Of Communism FAQ (right side column clickable link, then numbers 4,5,6,7 especially).

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...m/musframe.htm

[MMMMMM]

By the way, nicky, I just read the section on post-war Vietnam in the Museum of Communism FAQ. It seems that the executions were not the whole story: "The post-war executions, concentration camps, and deportations probably produced several hundred thousand additional deaths."

Regarding the Khmer Rouge: the Khmer Rouge were Communists. My point was not about only the North Vietnamese but Communists in general. So add their killing fields to the list of Communist atrocities. Chomsky's claim that the USA did more harm to the world or to humanity than the Communists would be laughable if it were not so tragically and immensely wrong.

[andyfox]

And I think it is you that ignores the consideration of degree. The corruption in Mexico is petty compared to the corruption in our country. It is more blatant and less subtle, more hidden from view and less sophisticated. The numbers of dollars involved, the size of our government and corporations--these things mean that the scale of corruption in our society drafts that of a country like Mexico. The kind of crookedness exemplified by the careers of, for example, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton (to name two politicians from each party) is certainly indicative of a highly corrupt society. Look at how the two parties and the Supreme Court of the United States behaved in the aftermath of the last presidential election.

[MMMMMM]

andy I think you are just plain wrong on this. The politicians in Mexico are deeply entertwined with the drug smuggling business (and that is huge money too). It's not like here where some politicians get a bit extra from special interest groups or extra campaign money--heh--in Mexico probably most politicians are getting direct cash payments from the drug mob and we're talking guys at the highest levels. Do our governors get direct cash payments from drug smugglers? Well most of their counterparts in Mexico probably do, along with their police chiefs and military leaders. It's like a freaking circus.

In Moscow you practically can't open a Mom and Pop store without paying protection money to the mob. Many of the Russian politicians are actual mobsters themselves, and the mob is also comprised of many ex-KGB officials. Some years ago I read, in a mainstream news source, of a scam that was making the rounds in Moscow. The mob placed ads offering to buy nice apartments at very attractive prices and as part of the deal would offer the sellers cheaper replacement apartments to boot. Not a bad deal if you owned a nice apartment and wanted a goodly chunk of cash, hmmm? So they took the prospective sellers out and showed them the replacement apartments and inked the deal buying their apartment and handed them a handsome check. Then they shot them dead and dumped them in ditches off the sides of the roads all in and around Moscow. Yep, hundreds of them.


You like to read. Why don't you pick up a used copy of The Underground Empire by award-winning journalist James Mills. It's a great read, non-fiction, and a real eye-opener. Take a look into what really goes on behind the scenes in the world's illegal drug trade. At the date of publication (1986), the international narcotics industry was the largest growth industry in the world with annual revenues of over half a trillion dollars (whether it still is I don't know). It's a book you can't put down until you fall asleep, and if you think Tricky Dick Nixon was corrupt, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

[andyfox]

"The politicians in Mexico are deeply entertwined with the drug smuggling business"

-Read Dark Alliance by Gary Webb and/or Whiteout by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair.

"Do our governors get direct cash payments from drug smugglers?"

-Sprio Agnew received bribe money in his office while Vice President. The list of United States senators and member of the House of Representatives who have received cash from organized crime would be extensive.

"if you think Tricky Dick Nixon was corrupt, you ain't seen nothin' yet."

-Thanks for the book recommandation, I'll pick it up. You should try Anthony Summers' The Arrogance of Power. Let me know what you think about Tricky Dick then. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[nicky g]

I agree with you that Communists have killed more people than the US, vastly more, and caused more suffering too. It's an odd comparison though, given that dozens of nations have been one shade of communist or another, while there is only one United States. There are also different types of "communism"; in the 50s-70s any Latin American nation displaying remotely independent thought was labelled communist for instance. Maoism, Khmer Rouge philosophy and democratic socialism are all very different things, for instance. It's absurd to use the Khmer Rouge as the standard bearer of communism - there's no mention anywhere in classic Marxist texts of the need to kill every educated person in the country. The Khmer Rouge was a bizare death cult that grew out of an incredibly brutalised nation. It would be like suggesting Pinochetism (or what happened in Vietnam) is represntative of capitalism. (I am not a pro-communist, by the way, far from it - just pointing out that you have to careful with generalised terms). I doubt the figure of hundreds of thousands of people executed after the fall of Saigon but I also don't know.

[MMMMMM]

The list might be extensive but I doubt the percentage of deeply corrupt officials is anywhere near as high in the USA. We're talking corruption as a way of life in Mexico, Russia, etc.--it's what most government officials do. It's like why they are there in the first place.

In the USA many of our officials go into public service so they can try to further their political visions, do some good, gain some personal perks and advantages and power, etc. In certain other countries they go into public service so they can take bribes--that's like the main reason.

You and Cyrus have both recommended Whiteout so I guess it's a good pick;-)

[MMMMMM]

Andyfox: "Chomsky does believe that our government has caused more sufferering in the world than the Communist governments."

I posted a few reasons why Chomsky is terribly wrong on this...

nickyg:" I agree with you that Communists have killed more people than the US, vastly more, and caused more suffering too."

So then: how deluded or deceptive must Chomsky be to claim the opposite?

And regarding the deaths in post-war Vietnam, the figure of hundreds of thousands is a combined figure of executions, re-education camp deaths, and deaths of fleeing people (mostly drowned attempting to flee in boats).

[nicky g]

Well I certainly think he's wrong, if that's what he does believe. But I also think as I said that it's a pretty meaningless comparison.