All Lefties I Know in ireland are
over 45 and in Britians all young
lelties support the Iraq war.
What age are you and why do young
condser the iraq wat propressive?
Please reply?
All Lefties I Know in ireland are
over 45 and in Britians all young
lelties support the Iraq war.
What age are you and why do young
condser the iraq wat propressive?
Please reply?
I was also irritated at Bush doing what he did. The 1956 uprising was a heroic moment in the struggle for socialism as well as in the struggle against totalitarianism.
But your argument that America should have "acted": isn't this the argument that the "pro-war left" (which I guess you'd include me in) has made for intervention against totalitarianism in Iraq, even when Iraq poses no threat to "us" over here? Saddam's regime, which drew inspiration from Stalinism, was despotic, and the US should have supported the popular revolution against him in 1993, just as it should have intervened in Hungary in 1956.
I was also irritated at Bush doing what he did. The 1956 uprising was a heroic moment in the struggle for socialism as well as in the struggle against totalitarianism.
But your argument that America should have "acted": isn't this the argument that the "pro-war left" (which I guess you'd include me in) has made for intervention against totalitarianism in Iraq, even when Iraq poses no threat to "us" over here? Saddam's regime, which drew inspiration from Stalinism, was despotic, and the US should have supported the popular revolution against him in 1993, just as it should have intervened in Hungary in 1956.
The argument isn't that America should've acted (or at least that isn't what RTP should be arguing, although the words are ambigiously phrased)but that it was full of shit, as they say in the vernacular, talking about being the last best hope for "democracy" but only supporting "democracy" when it suits American capitalist interests.
The argument isn't that America should've acted (or at least that isn't what RTP should be arguing, although the words are ambigiously phrased)but that it was full of shit, as they say in the vernacular, talking about being the last best hope for "democracy" but only supporting "democracy" when it suits American capitalist interests.
"All Lefties I Know in ireland are
over 45 and in Britians all young
lelties support the Iraq war.
What age are you and why do young
condser the iraq wat propressive?
Please reply?"
With gusto, uh...
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
"All Lefties I Know in ireland are
over 45 and in Britians all young
lelties support the Iraq war.
What age are you and why do young
condser the iraq wat propressive?
Please reply?"
With gusto, uh...
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
There seems to be an unnerving ability of some people to equate liberal democracy, which is the rule of rich men, with socialism, which is the rule of the people.
There seems to be an unnerving ability of some people to equate liberal democracy, which is the rule of rich men, with socialism, which is the rule of the people.
Except, of course, that the US couldn't act because it was slap bang in the middle of a Presidential election: in which Eisenhower had campaigned as a man of peace. It's Britain and France who were the real guilty parties: their disgraceful behaviour gave Krushchev the cover he needed.
Oh, and BobFromBrockley has it absolutely right: you can't slag off America for intervening in Iraq, then complain when it doesn't (or rather didn't: it was 50 freaking years ago. Get over it!) elsewhere. Sorry - but you can't have it both ways...
Except, of course, that the US couldn't act because it was slap bang in the middle of a Presidential election: in which Eisenhower had campaigned as a man of peace. It's Britain and France who were the real guilty parties: their disgraceful behaviour gave Krushchev the cover he needed.
Oh, and BobFromBrockley has it absolutely right: you can't slag off America for intervening in Iraq, then complain when it doesn't (or rather didn't: it was 50 freaking years ago. Get over it!) elsewhere. Sorry - but you can't have it both ways...
no-one's complaining that america didn't act - christ, the last thing hungary needed at that time was a second imperialist country invading - rather that it was talking complete shit when it talked of solidarity with the hungarian revolution.
no-one's complaining that america didn't act - christ, the last thing hungary needed at that time was a second imperialist country invading - rather that it was talking complete shit when it talked of solidarity with the hungarian revolution.
Ah - but the US DID have solidarity with the Hungarians. They liberated Hungary, by winning the Cold War; which is why many in Eastern Europe tend to see rather more of America's good side than the likes of you...
Ah - but the US DID have solidarity with the Hungarians. They liberated Hungary, by winning the Cold War; which is why many in Eastern Europe tend to see rather more of America's good side than the likes of you...
i've not been on here in a while (hey, it's not my main blog), which is why i haven't bothered to respond to this. the idea that somehow eastern europe was liberated by the west is, of course, absurd, and it would be impossible to explain an historical process by which that could have occured which would fit in any way with real experience.
what happened in hungary at the end of the eighties happened across the former soviet union. people all over the region mounted revolutions that overthrew the stalinist state-capitalist regimes, which had rotted for well over half a century.
incidentally, it is pretty disgusting to triumpahlise the cold war, a brutal arms race that caused enormous numbers of people to be starved, and in which it is pure luck that nukes were not fired. the idea that somehow america was fighting on behalf of workers in eastern europe, rather than as an imperialist power, is an insult to the real forces that existed in the region at that time.
and it's worth looking at this because today is the 50th anniversary of the hungarian revolution, one of the most democratic events in history. an event in which we saw the re-emergence of genuine workers organisation, with workers councils and factory committes. the aftermath also showed, to people with illusions in stalinism, that the cold war was a fight between two imperialisms, and why the correct line was 'neither washington nor moscow, but international socialism', one of the key principles of our tradition.
i've not been on here in a while (hey, it's not my main blog), which is why i haven't bothered to respond to this. the idea that somehow eastern europe was liberated by the west is, of course, absurd, and it would be impossible to explain an historical process by which that could have occured which would fit in any way with real experience.
what happened in hungary at the end of the eighties happened across the former soviet union. people all over the region mounted revolutions that overthrew the stalinist state-capitalist regimes, which had rotted for well over half a century.
incidentally, it is pretty disgusting to triumpahlise the cold war, a brutal arms race that caused enormous numbers of people to be starved, and in which it is pure luck that nukes were not fired. the idea that somehow america was fighting on behalf of workers in eastern europe, rather than as an imperialist power, is an insult to the real forces that existed in the region at that time.
and it's worth looking at this because today is the 50th anniversary of the hungarian revolution, one of the most democratic events in history. an event in which we saw the re-emergence of genuine workers organisation, with workers councils and factory committes. the aftermath also showed, to people with illusions in stalinism, that the cold war was a fight between two imperialisms, and why the correct line was 'neither washington nor moscow, but international socialism', one of the key principles of our tradition.
47aa4c 9ca09e331b
47aa4c 9ca09e331b
Commenting by HaloScan
