At 07:49 PM 5/26/01 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>>When they attempted to throw the Soviets out - in 1956 in Hungary, and
>>in 1968 in Czechoslovakia - the were _massacred_ by Soviet tanks. You
>>have yet to respond to this point.
>
>Gautum, how long have you and I been on this list? You really should know
>by now my opinion about such things. The fact that I question American
>politics, and don't treat capitalism and "The American Way" as gospel,
>doesn't mean I think believe everything the Soviet Union does was right.
And we also know that your repeatedly assert a moral equivalence between
the United States and the USSR.
I know a number of people accuse me of seeing things in black-and-white,
but your position Jeroen, seems to be:
The USSR did some bad things.
The USA did some bad things.
Therefore, the USA was no better than the USSR, and should have recognized
that the USSR had the same moral rights as the USA.
Both yourself, and Kat, seem somehow unable to see the differences in
"badness" between the actions of the USSR and USA. The USSR engaged in
systematic acts of evil. The USSR did few, if any, good and noble things.
The USA made some mistakes, and also did a number of *very* good and noble
things. There is a tremendous difference here.
>BTW, from a military POV, it was an excellent idea to occupy the
>surrounding countries: it provided a large buffer zone that protected the
>SU from invasion. Just because it wasn't a nice thing to do doesn't mean it
>wasn't brilliant.
Nobody here has argued whether or not the Soviet Union were brilliant
military planners. You are changing the subject. The question on the
table is the *morality* of the USSR's actions. Specifically, were the
USA's actions justified, whereas the Soviet Union's were not?
Continuing:
At 08:03 PM 5/26/01 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>>Big difference. The USSR *was* evil. We were not.
>
>The Soviet Union didn't think so...
But that's not relevant. By your standards, evil would not exist.
Whether the Soviet Union thought of itself as being evil has absolutely no
bearing on whether or not it, in fact, *was* evil.
>The SU didn't attack their neighbours in self-defence -- self-defence is
>something you do when you are attacked or see a bully (the US) coming your
>way. The SU's only act of self-defence was building up troops at the
>borders with the West.
And the fact that the people of Hungary and Czech Republica *wanted* the US
to come rumbling in has no bearing? How it self-defence to keep people
from getting what they want? It doesn't add up.
>> >>Geesh, Jeroen, you sound like Weyoun defending the Dominion.
>> >
>> >Jeez, thanks for the compliment! :)
>> >
>> >Well, Weyoun *is* one of my favourite characters on ST:DS9. I find him
>> >quite fascinating...
>>
>>Sort of in the way that Goebbels was fascinating......
>
>Well, surely you will agree that the bad guys on ST are far more
>interesting than those ever-benevolent, politically correct (and therefore
>rather boring) Starfleet people...
I didn't disagree....... You simply said it was a compliment.
If you enjoy being fascinating in the way that Weyoun and Goebbels were
fascinating..... well, may God have mercy on your soul.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of institutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
