Well as one of those 'customs' destroyed was that women could be educated, hold a job and didn't have to wear a veil, in my mind that is a good thing.

Saddam didn't have a license to 'persecute' an opposition, go and look in a mirror.

As for the 'current administration' being more progress and liberal than Husseins, you are joking? For a start they don't 'administrate' outside the green zone. Secondly, most of them are not secular and want Shariah law. I think that's enough for now about that.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

That's merely your comfortable opinion.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

Go back and read my list. You are shuffling from one argument to another. Firstly, your argument is what other country, then it's which country has treated their own worse! Sit still and think for a minute.

I can give examples of both evils, and have done. I have had a gutful of the mewling, childish 'they were worse than we were' form of debate beloved by a certain type. Evil things were done in more places in the world, more people died in more places in the world, and the blood is still on the ground in more places in the world, more brutal dictatorships were supported in the world - than there should have been.

I am not an apologist for the USSR, but I would like to point out that if you are prepared to call what the US did 'mistakes' then you have to give that same leeway to them. You haven't mentioned that the 'gulags' and the 'famines' occurred mostly in the inter-war years.

You haven't given the USSR leadership the essential point that during those inter-war years they were still recovering from a war and a revolution. That after the Second World War they had been the most devastated country and they were still recovering from that devastation.

While American housewives were benefitting from the post-war boom, housewives in the USSR were queueing for a square inch of bread. The US poured billions into Germany and Japan, how much aid was given to their war-time ally, the USSR. Of course we all know why so much aid was give to those countries, to act as a buffer against the 'evil empire'. No acknowledgement has been paid of the great debt which we all owe that country for its gallant defence against Nazi Germany. A defence which gave time for Britain and the US to re-assess and gather its forces for an invasion.

Your worldview is very selective.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

yeah yeah. your the one who keeps changing the discussion, notice its my posts that say lets get back to the point. the basic point here is, i asked for examples of american brutality that were comparable with soviet brutality, lets say against any citizens, foreign or abroad, and you came up with a list that you have yet to elaborate on and you my friend keep shifting the argument, and i for the sake of argument follow you.

now, i remember hearing about americans standing in line for soup during the great depression, but this country never arbitrarily enslaved thousands of its own citizens and sent them to prison camps to be worked to death.
you try to step back from a distance and say both sides did wrong, which is true, but i try to discuss details about the specifics of each sides behavior and anyone can conclude that they are comparably different.

if the soviets would have recognized the national rights of the nations and peoples under the iron curtain, they may have recieved aid.

i think the pro US stance of eastern europe speaks for itself there.

i dont remember sadam letting iraqis elect officials to draft a constitution. just because the sadam and sunni loyalists are causing so much trouble, it does not mean that the current adminstration is not progressive. the sunni insurgency actually weakens your argument here.

Only a fool would attempt to discuss such matters without giving a context. As you aren't interested in ANY context, whether it is the US or the USSR, what is the point of our discussion.

I suggest, before we continue, that you go and read up on the history of your own country. After that, try world history. For a start look at the conditions which led to the rise of Nazi Germany.

One gets sick and tired of having to start describing evens from scratch. I haven't the time or the inclination, so please go to a 'good' library or website and find out about Joe Hill, Matewan, the two 'red scares', McCarthyism, the genocide committed against the indigenous peoples, the Monroe doctrine and it's effect on South America and The Phillippines.

These matters should concentrate your mind and then you can come back and apologise to those of us, including me, who already know about such things, and admit your ignorance. It's not too late to change!

Sorry if this sounds arrogant but I'm sure your shoulders are broad enough to take it.

Actually, I've just realised that it may be hard for you to find reputable books on most of the history of the US. American academics have to be very careful what they say, big brother is watching and if they don't have tenure...

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

bingo! good way to avoid the discussion. you could have just said, i dont want to debate this with you because you want to talk specifics within a certain context, and therefore i can't use my age-old america sucks arguments because you want to get specific with comparisons with the soviet union. your just mad because none of arguments fit within that context.. a simple discussion, american and soviet behavior compared. and you bring up anything but that and call me ignorant of context. you woman, are brave, but in the end simply humorous!

and by the way, im a history student, and theres plenty of anti-american literature going around over here. bet you never would have found critical literature in the soviet union!

if you bother to explain how those things that i already know about are related to specific context of our discussion, id be happy to here it.

however, when your only rebuttal is 'your ignorant and im not talking to you' and you don't explain yourself, people will wonder about you.

if you don't have the time to discuss this detailed issue of comparison in of the nature of soviet and american behavior, then just say that. dont spew your vague generalist garbage and call any legitamate request of a factually sound argument to support it a plea of ignorance.

when you zoom out and generalize, everything looks the same.

how do you conclude that i am not interested in context? i am well aware that context is important to any discussion.

I have been taught to analyse text, that is my analysis of your posts. If you are a history student, I can only say that most of the articles I read that were written by American historians were highly skewed and highly favourable towards the US. Of course, any that weren't YOU would consider Anti-American. Have you read any of Howard Zinn? Perhaps, but I doubt you would take it seriously, because it's "Anti-American".

If you are familiar with the HNN website, and you should be, you will see that there is not a consensus regarding events before, during and after the Cold War even with the History community. If you don't understand the points made by myself regarding the Cold War, then you are only looking at one facet of a very complicated time and refusing to be objective. Certainly not a trait which should be encouraged in a history professional, and definitely not in an undergraduate!

If I want to indulge myself with discussing and debating the Cold War I have two options. I can contact my old lecturer, who is considered an authority on that time, or I can visit the HNN website and discuss it with History graduates, professors and lecturers. Why would I want to enter into a discussion with an undergraduate who is demonstrating his bias so arrogantly?

And for heavens sake, stop calling atrocities 'mistakes'!!

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

as a history student, i am well aware there is a lot we don't know about a time period which just ended... i am well aware that america has acted in a quasi-imperialist manner since ww2, and before. i am not a blind american zealot who refuses to hear anything bad about his country. i simply wanted to discuss comparisons with american and soviet behavoir. and your answers were laughable. if you think your too good for this discussion or that some on this board are too dumb, by all means go to your other site. don't start a discussion, refuse to explain yourself, then get all high and mighty when someone challenges your views.

Criticism of zinn. after reading this i have doubts about his objectivity and whether or not his research is even scholarly.

Howard Zinn's Histo... :: Dissent Spring 2004 Issue

some interesting quotes:

"But to make sense of a nation's entire history, an author has to explain the weight and meaning of worldviews that are not his own and that, as an engaged citizen, he does not favor. Zinn has no taste for such disagreeable tasks."

"Zinn thins the meaning of the biggest war in history down to its meanest components: profits for military industries, racism toward the Japanese, and the senseless destruction of enemy cities-from Dresden to Hiroshima. His chapter on that conflict does ring with a special passion; Zinn served as a bombardier in the European theater and the experience made him a lifelong pacifist. But the idea that Franklin Roosevelt and his aides were motivated both by realpolitik and by an abhorrence of fascism seems not to occur to hi m."

A People's History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable and makes no serious attempt to address the biggest question a leftist can ask about U.S. history: why have most Americans accepted the legitimacy of the capitalist republic in which they live?

His failure is grounded in a premise better suited to a conspiracy-monger's Web site than to a work of scholarship. According to Zinn, "99 percent" of Americans share a "commonality" that is profoundly at odds with the interests of their rulers. And knowledge of that awesome fact is "exactly what the governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them-from the Founding Fathers to now-have tried their best to prevent."


sounds like a blind idealist who is all too willing to ignore reality. im not impressed with someone who tells a biased one sided story, whether it be a leftist pacifist critical of economic elitism, or an economic elitist critical of liberal ideas. i look for a balance. from what ive heard about zinn, thats the last place i should look. i am a realist, not an idealist.

Now why is it that I predicted your refusal to acknowledge Zinn's account of American History??

Why the fuck are you quoting others 'opinions' of Zinn and not reading him yourself? You are sounding more like someone who reads the dust-jacket rather than the contents!

You may not view yourself as a 'blind American Zealot, but that is the impression you are giving.

As for being 'high and mighty' that is not my intention. I just refuse to debate such a serious issue with a dill.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

i did research on zinn's work, granted i didnt read it, but it sounds like his work has some very basic methodological flaws, including arguments based on unfounded or simplistic premises, and ignoring evidence which he doesnt want to hear. perhaps you knew i looked for those things in true scholarly work and predicted i would not accept such (what appears to be) garbage. this is why people publish reviews. so others dont waste their time.

those are not opinions of zinn. they are critical analysis. to me the criticism sounds logical. if some of his conclusions are true as stated, then i do not see his work as objective. perhaps you could offer a rebuttal to the criticisms?

dust-jackets are full of praise, not scholarly analytical criticism.

if you don't want to discuss this, then why are you?

Why am I? Because I'm not an ignorant dolt who disappears and leaves people in the lurch when it doesn't suit.

As to Zinn, all those 'peer reviews' state in reality is that he is not the darling of the right. So what? As for Zinn's objectivity, I would put it up against yours any day! For heavens sake weren't you taught that primary sources are always best? Instead of flitting around the net, get the book!

I don't agree with all of Zinn's analysis but that's my prerogative.

While you are getting Zinn's work out the library you might also get Alistair Cook's book too.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

zinn aint a primary source. he is a marxist historian who writes with an anti-capitalist agenda. he approaches research with this pre-conceived thesis. i dont read ideological driven garbage. i want reality, baby!

the reviewers question the factuality of his basic premises. not good if you call yourself a historian.

anytime someone comes at you with "99% of the american people have conflicting intersts with their gov" he is a moron! the capitalist elite make up at least 5% !!! lol.