>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/20/01 12:48PM >>>
Julien, you have a fine mind, it recognizes irony very well..
steve
((((((((
The only thing is don't get so twisty with your irony as to try to twist history
around and blame the Soviet Union for the US's overthrowing Allende. This would be a
kind of typical anti-Soviet loopy logic, such that, as usual, the Soviets are damned
if they do, and damned if they don't.
First off the Soviet Union had every right in the world to exist. Second, the Soviet
Union was attacked by the imperialist countries en masse from the start. Imperialism
tried to strangle the Baby October Revolution in the crib. In response, the Soviet
Union had every right in the universe to build up its army to a very powerful status
to defend against imperialism's clearly expressed willingness to attack the revolution
to wipe it out. Third, the resulting existence of a large Red Army cannot be twisted
around and be portrayed as somekind of misstep by the Soviet Union that "caused" the
U.S. to get world historically vicious with other Marxist /communist/ national
liberation revolutions around the world in Korea, Viet Nam and Chile , in the first
and worst place, but Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan et al. too.
Finally, it is also probably true that the existence of the SU had the opposite impact
on the U.S. in some ways as with forcing the U.S.to make concessions in the U.S. Civil
Rights movment.
Bottom line: It is warped logic ( and liberal pacifist, phony "moral high ground"
logic , too) to say the SU shouldn't have had such a big military because it "caused"
the U.S and other imperialist nations to get more vicious. In legal terminology it was
a factual cause , but not a proximate cause of U.S. barbarism.
CB
—--------------------
Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Julien Pierrehumbert wrote:
> Stan answered to Steve:
>
> >The diction is confused, and I generally
> >just don't know what you mean.
>
> While I can't read into Steve's mind, I think he means that despite all you're
>saying
> about the Societ armed forces influencing US policy in a progressive way, Allende
> did get overthrown. BTW, in some cases you could argue that the USA engaged
> in reactionary policies not in spite of but because of the Red Army.
>
> As to who's to blame, for what's that's worth, I think that we'd better start with
> Allende and other Chilean progressive politicians and military men.
>
> Julien
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
>
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
