Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:40 am

They were naive about Stalin because they wanted to see an alternative to capitalism. They had good motives.

The whole cold war wasn't about the evil Soviets, it was about countries acting independent of the American mafia. This is why we deposed Allende, who was a typical social democrat.

We had our claws in many more countries.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:14 pm

I think Mark and Diane are new to this Chomsky interview from CNBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfDdTpWSuX4

You find the rest.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Ezra Lb. » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:59 pm

When your anti-Americanism causes you to wind up defending the Soviet Union I think maybe, just maybe you've slipped off into Cloud-Cuckoo Land.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Moderator » Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:32 pm

FrankChurch wrote:They were naive about Stalin because they wanted to see an alternative to capitalism. They had good motives.

The whole cold war wasn't about the evil Soviets, it was about countries acting independent of the American mafia. This is why we deposed Allende, who was a typical social democrat.

We had our claws in many more countries.


That's just hideously inaccurate from an historic perspective.

Allende was deposed by the elected Chilean Congress (the representatives of the people, Frank).

And it's apparent you have no understanding of the social dynamics of the former Soviet Union nor the workings of its control over satellite states. You've fallen for a line that was old when the Soviets used it in the 1950s.

Please. Read something about the social history of the post war world and resulting geopolitical reality. I don't know who you're parroting, but they missed some very basic historical facts.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

diane bartels
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: CHICAGO IL

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby diane bartels » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:48 pm

Frank, I do not think Chomsky is God. Therefore I give a rat's ass what he has to say. He is just a man. Right about some of his ideas and opinions. Wrong on others. Only capable of trying, one day at a time. As we all do. I already hold the questioning attitude towards authority Prof. Chomsky says he wants to encourage. How could be an Ellison fan not hold that attitude. In my case, the cynicism extends to him.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Steve Evil » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:10 am

FrankChurch wrote:They were naive about Stalin because they wanted to see an alternative to capitalism. They had good motives.

.


Read Homage to Catalonia sir. Please, read the book. They weren't naive; they were willfully blind. They hunted down and killed the Anarchists and Socialists. First they slandered them as agents of Fascism - a bald faced lie parroted by the Commintern - then hunted down and killed them. During the war, British Communists were under orders to actively sabotage the war effort - until the spring of '41 when they mysteriously changed their tune. East Asia's our enemy! Eurasia's our ally!. The intentional erasure of one's own memory became an indispensible requirment of this movement. That's what Orwell found intolerable. That's what allowed atrocities to happen: the refusal to believe they happened.

Now, to a lesser extent, we're seeing the same damn thing. Selective memory and the slandering of heretics. If to this day they can't be honest about Stalinism, how can they be trusted on anything else?

There was no chance in hell Herman would have liked Pinker's book; he'd made up his mind before he cracked it open.

As for the USSR's "short tentacles", how could I forget Hafizullah Amin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanista ... Soviet_war

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:52 pm

I cribbed this from Counterpunch:

"After World War Two the United States moved into Great Britain’s former colonies, forming defense and economic pacts in its desire to encircle the Soviet Union. Like Great Britain before it, Washington’s interactions with Afghanistan exhibited an ignorance of Afghanistan’s historical desire for non-alignment. This ignorance was combined with an insistence that any expression of that desire proved that Moscow was influencing Kabul’s politics. Fitzgerald and Gould write that this was not an accident. In fact, it was the logical outcome of a 1950 national security directive known as NSC 68. This directive, written by the anti-communist and militarist wing of the US foreign policy establishment, insisted that the Soviet Union was intent on establishing world hegemony and that the only way to defeat this was for the US to do so first. The essence of the philosophy motivating this directive was simple: one was either on the side of Washington or one was the enemy. The direct result of this directive was the creation of a permanent war economy and the creation of a national security state. In practice, some of what this meant was that national liberation struggles and national desires for non-alignment were perceived to be Soviet-inspired and terefore part of the enemy camp. Furthermore, US residents who opposed the policies of the US were considered to be potentially traitorous."

Bam.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:19 pm

Ah, Barber, the congress of Chile that you so loved wanted to illegally depose an elected leader. If our congress instructed the military to overthrow Obama that would be evil.

Members of said congress were payees of the American junta, hegemon. And their vote was not a majority. If the people don't like Allende they could have voted him out.

On Sept 11, 1973 the military did engineer the coup, with help from us. Kissinger's fingerprints are on many doorknobs.

------------

You forgot this Duane Clarridge interview with Pilger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNgCyDsvi84

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:09 pm

A women from the Republican Club of New York asked right wing kook Monica Crowley if she knew about all the members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were in high parts of the government. Crowley agreed, mentioning her love affair with Frank Gafney, a major arab racist. What chilled my blood is her friendship with the Romney backers and how she knew he would play hardball to win.

When the New York Republicans act as nutty as the Montana ones you know the GOP is dead and should stay buried.

-------------

Holy shit, actual socialists on Charlie Rose:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12474

I'm literally hard.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Ezra Lb. » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:21 pm

Ya know this would be funny except for the fact this goober might be the next president.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... re-system/

When our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation

Well sir, there's a reason for that.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

Gwyneth M905
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:40 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Gwyneth M905 » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:16 am

Ezra Lb. wrote:Ya know this would be funny except for the fact this goober might be the next president.


Ezra, is he still holding that $50,000 a plate fundraiser dinner in Israel on Tisha B'Av? His people actually backtracked on that gaff and said that they *meant* to do that as a "fast-breaking" meal.

Yeah, and I'm Russell Peters. Somebody gonna get a hurt real bad!
I want to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi Knight, the same as my Father.
STAR WARS (1977)

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Steve Evil » Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:49 am

FrankChurch wrote:I cribbed this from Counterpunch:

Like Great Britain before it, Washington’s interactions with Afghanistan exhibited an ignorance of Afghanistan’s historical desire for non-alignment.



I see. And Moscow's invasion of the country and execution of its president was a perfect example of cultural sensitivity? Here I was thinking I'd have a discussion going, but silly me, for defying the wisdom of counterpunch! Oh pardon my poor humble ignorance!

How was I to know that country that signed the Molitov-Ribbentrop pact, invaded Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Czeckoslovakia and Afghanistan had no expansionist designs?

See, the thing with Z or Counterpunch or any of these guys, is it's not enough to say bad things were done in the name of security. They prefer to insist there was no security threat to begin with. That it was entirely the doing of the west, and that furthermore, Western (meaning US) leaders knew it all the time and used it as an excuse to crush resistence. It's a simplistic and shallow view of history.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:04 am

I like seeing Steve Evil scrappy.

Nobody on the left thinks the invasion of Afghanistan was good, but we do think the Islamic creeps we put into power were far worse. The same creeps that attacked us on 9/11.

The Communist government there at least did good things. Truth is about degrees.

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:17 am

FrankChurch wrote:I like seeing Steve Evil scrappy.

Nobody on the left thinks the invasion of Afghanistan was good, but we do think the Islamic creeps we put into power were far worse. The same creeps that attacked us on 9/11.


Whoa, you got that blatantly wrong. We did not put the Taliban in power, they seized it from the warlords we did support. But even that is a pointless argument, because we in fact didn't "put" anyone into power in Afghanistan. If you will recall, after the Soviet Union left and then collapsed, there was a huge belt-tightening that happened in Washington and part of what got cut was any support for Afghanistan. We hung them out to dry after backing the Mujahadeen, who were already fighting, btw, when Charlie WIlson got radicalized and decided to shunt aid their way.

And the creeps who did us on 9/11 only hid out in Afghanistan, they weren't from there. Bin Ladin's a Saudi, as were most of his suicide morons. So where you get the idea that "we" put Islamic creeps into power baffles me. Part of our traditional problem in the Middle East has been our rather consistent backing of secular creeps against Islamists, who we can't figure out how to trust.

And the Soviet Union did good things, did they? That's kind of like saying "So what if the Catholic Church protects pedophiles, look at the good they do" which is not an argument I've ever seen you make. Maybe you do believe that, but that's ends justifying means thinking, which is not the kind of guy I thought you were, Frank.

You do tend---not always, but often enough that it's a pattern---to do the "Oh, something bad is going on somewhere, it must be the United States' fault." Sloppy.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:53 am

Mark, you are right, we didn't install any government, but we created a power vacuum where the Taliban could creep in. We did fund the Mujahadeen that later became Al Qaida, that I do know, and so do you.

I said the communist government, not the soviets. They let the communist government run itself a bit. They did good things, not Moscow.

I blame America because we are the leading world power and the leading producer of state crime. We are losing power, but still control most of the global economy.

I tend to focus on my own country because I can change it. I cannot change England, only the english people can do that. It is immoral to pontificate about other countries you cannot control.

I have made the point that the Catholic church does good things and worry that it would lose funds from that by being sued all the time, but obviously believe they should pay the victims. They should stop protecting dangerous Priests. Thankfully the nuns have their number. They will save the church.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests