We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spytrdr who wrote (1695)8/28/2002 11:04:14 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3959

China deals U.S. blow over Iraq

August 27, 2002 Posted: 11:38 PM EDT (0338 GMT)

By Willy Wo-Lap Lam
CNN Senior China Analyst

(CNN) --
In a further blow to Washington's effort to get global support for a possible war on Iraq, Beijing has indicated it is against the use of force to resolve Baghdad's differences with the West.

Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan told visiting Iraqi counterpart Naji Sabri on Tuesday that using force or threats of force could not solve the Iraqi problem and "would only cause regional tension and instability."

The official China News Service on Wednesday quoted Tang as saying questions about Iraq should only be resolved within United Nations mechanisms, and "only political and diplomatic methods should be used."

Tang added Beijing was concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people who had lived under conditions of Western embargoes for a long time.

Right now, I'm afraid the ONLY sensible strategy for the US is, FIRST, to nuke Europe, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Switzerland... and then, take on the pièce de résistance, namely, Iraq....

To: Spytrdr who wrote (1695)9/2/2002 10:37:31 AM
From: Spytrdr  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3959

<<Still struggling with Stalin

By Cathy Young, 8/26/2002

AS WE GRAPPLE with the problems and perils of the 21st century, the great debates of the 20th have not gone away. Some of the most contentious questions have to do with the history of Communism, whose unholy ghost continues to haunt us more than a decade after the demise of the Soviet Union. Was Communism as evil as Nazism? Did the Western left collude in its evil?

These issues are powerfully confronted by the British novelist Martin Amis in his new book ''Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million.'' Koba was a nickname for Stalin, and the 20 million are the victims of Soviet terror.

Some of the most stirring pages in this short book chronicle Soviet crimes against humanity, many of them preceding Stalin - from catastrophic famines (caused by confiscation of grain from peasants) to mass executions to labor camps where millions lived, and often died, in hellish conditions. Much of this story will be familiar to those who have read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's ''The Gulag Archipelago'' or Robert Conquest's ''The Great Terror.''

But one of Amis's main points is that it's not familiar enough. Everybody knows of Auschwitz and Belsen, he writes. Nobody knows of Vorkuta and Solovetsky.

Writing in The Atlantic, Christopher Hitchens, who comes under some sharp criticism in ''Koba the Dread'' for his own flirtations with the left, challenges that statement as an insult to all those, including leftists, who have denounced and exposed Stalin's atrocities for at least the last 50 years. But it should be obvious that nobody, like everybody, is a hyperbolic figure of speech. What Amis means is that Soviet terror has not entered general consciousness, the consciousness of the average literate person, the way the Holocaust has. With a few obscure exceptions, it has not been dramatized on film or on TV. The name of Stalin does not viscerally evoke evil incarnate the way the name of Hitler does.

Amis concedes that regardless of overall body counts, Nazism's purposeful, systematic extermination of human beings based solely on their ethnicity was more evil and repugnant than Communism's more haphazard slaughter. But this tiny moral differential between the two regimes does not justify the vast gap in general awareness of their crimes - or the stark double standard in their public judgment.

Thus, Amis notes that at a 1999 public event in London, Hitchens's joking remark about his Communist past was received with affectionate laughter; a similar casual reference to one's past as a Nazi sympathizer would be unthinkable.

There is an even more striking example of this double standard that Amis does not mention. In 1996, a firestorm erupted over the scheduled publication of a biography of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels by British Holocaust revisionist David Irving. After vehement protests, the publisher, St. Martin's Press, withdrew the book.

Around the same time, the Yale University Press published ''Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941,'' by Miami (Ohio) University professor Robert Thurston, who argued that the death toll of Stalin's terror had been greatly exaggerated.

Thurston also asserted that Stalin never planned to rule by terror, he just reacted to events and let things spin out of control - ironically, much the same argument Irving makes about the Nazi murder of the Jews.

While the critical response to ''Life and Terror'' was generally negative, it sparked no outcry. In Publisher's Weekly, Irving's book was called repellent; Thurston's book, controversial.

Why the double standard? Unlike Nazism, Communism claimed to champion the noble ideals of equality, fairness, and brotherhood. To many well-meaning liberals and progressives, it was an expression of the enduring human hope for a good and just society; a nostalgic fondness for that hope, Amis argues, endures to this day. That's why, he says, Hitchens can still profess admiration for Lenin and Trotsky, who laid the foundations for Stalin's brutal police state. (In his essay, Hitchens evades Amis's blunt question: Do you admire terror?''

Today, the issues raised in ''Koba the Dread'' could be seen as purely academic; but they are not. The left's reluctance to acknowledge that Communism wasn't just a failure but an evil is due to more than stubbornness. Such an acknowledgment would amount to (1) validating a view of the West, Communism's Cold War adversary, as good (albeit imperfect), and (2) admitting that the left spent much of the 20th century cozying up to mass murderers and therefore has precious little moral authority to criticize the West today. And that's very relevant to present-day global conflicts.

Cathy Youngis a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.

This story ran on page A11 of the Boston Globe on 8/26/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.>>

here's ally 'Uncle Joe', paladin of freedom and democracy, with his 2 marionettes as they handle him almost all of Europe: