Some of you might say: No way! I like, want like, peace and justice, ya know, not like bad stuff?

Quit being so naive.

Why do you think it is that every where radical revoluatonaries have gained power, what has followed was poverty, oppression, state sponsored violence against the poor, murder and absolutely no human progress.

You know, it happens the first time, in the USSR, and you can say: "Alright. . . mistakes were made. Sorry 30 million murdered peasants. . . won't happen again."

You can even say about Mao: "Well, you can't make an omelet without letting a few million peasants starve!!"

But then when you look at the killing fields of Cambodia, the re-education centers of Vietnam (with one of the worst human rights records in the world), the oppression and poverty in Cuba and the government created famine in Zimbabwe. . .

Well, at some point you have to stop pretending these are mistakes.

It is NOT a coincidence, or a mistake, that the worst atrocities of the 20th century were perpetrated by radical revoluationaries. It is by design.

Right-wingers always forget to include on their list of revolutions "gone wrong" that the United States itself was BORN OF REVOLUTION.

Yes, it was a flawed and imperfect revolution... but over many decades of struggle... Americans have continued to refine and expand their freedom struggle. That's an ongoing process and it continues right here on indymedia.

Those who say that revolutions always end in failure are nothing short of being REDCOATS. They have the mindset of Colonial Masters who warn those they rule over... "don't even try it." Redcoats all, Tories all.

Bobalinga's obvious point is that MARXIST revolutions wind up being backward, murderous cesspools.

Unless you really think the American Revolution was carried out by commies?

Imperfect as it was, was based upon ideals which are anathema to the left. . . self sovereignty, private property and individual rights.

Hence, our success where the others have failed.

"...individual rights."

Is state-mandated pregnancy "individual rights?" Is the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own central nervous system considered
"individual rights?" You sure do have your head up your ass.

Way to change the subject!

But I'll bite...

What about the aborted fetus' rights?

Oh...it's just a piece of meat, right? An inconvenience. Nothing to be troubled with; in a few minutes it's out and gone and maybe she'll cry a little bit but next week she'll be just fine.

Never mind the fact that a human being was just killed.

"Way to change the subject!"
Lay off the aspartame, davie. I was merely addressing Bobalinga's comments.

"What about the aborted fetus' rights?Oh...it's just a piece of meat, right? An inconvenience."
Oh, okay, I'll bite. What about ANIMAL rights? They're just pieces of meat, right? An inconvenience. You conservatives are TOTAL hypocrites.

Is the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own central nervous system considered
"individual rights?"
WELL?

What? No answer, daveman?

"Lay off the aspartame, davie. I was merely addressing Bobalinga's comments."

Fair enough. My bad. (See how easy it is to admit you're wrong? You ought to try it sometime.)

"Oh, okay, I'll bite. What about ANIMAL rights? They're just pieces of meat, right? An inconvenience. You conservatives are TOTAL hypocrites."

Okay, that makes no sense. Last time I checked, animals aren't humans. Not to say that some humans can't be animals, but that's a different thread...

"Is the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own central nervous system considered
"individual rights?"
WELL?"

Again, senseless. If you did a bit of research, you would find that fetuses are carried in uteri, not brains.

You lack of understanding about the differences between human and animals, and about human reproduction, is simply astounding.

"Fair enough. My bad. (See how easy it is to admit you're wrong? You ought to try it sometime.)"
When I'm wrong, I admit it.

"Okay, that makes no sense. Last time I checked, animals aren't humans. Not to say that some humans can't be animals, but that's a different thread..."
Oh, so are you saying that you're a speciesist?

"Again, senseless. If you did a bit of research, you would find that fetuses are carried in uteri, not brains. "
I was talking about DRUGS, you nutcase.

Your lack of understanding about ANYTHING is simply astounding.

Alcohol good. Drugs bad.

'"Again, senseless. If you did a bit of research, you would find that fetuses are carried in uteri, not brains. "
I was talking about DRUGS, you nutcase.'

And this is so obvious because you wrote:
'Is state-mandated pregnancy "individual rights?" Is the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own central nervous system considered
"individual rights?"'
Feel free to fry your brains, Buffy...assuming you have any left.

"Oh, so are you saying that you're a speciesist?"
Unabashadly so. The fact that you think it's an insult makes me revel in it that much more.

"When I'm wrong, I admit it."

You're overdue, Buffy.

"Feel free to fry your brains, Buffy...assuming you have any left."

That's rich, coming from someone who thought a question dealing with the CNS was about ABORTION. All of that animal fat must be choking off the oxygen supply to that pea-sized brain of yours, davey. Try enrolling in a remedial biology course.

It IS odd that you chose NOT to address the drugs question. NOT.

You brought up abortion, Buffy.

Drugs?
Do all you want. But don't drive under the influence, operate heavy machinery, or attempt to engage in rational conversation.

We've all seen what THAT looks like, and it's not pretty.

"Drugs? Do all you want"

Hey, they're against the law! You know, part of that "limited government" you conservatives are always preaching about.

"...or attempt to engage in rational conversation."

You shouldn't do this SOBER, either. We've all seen what THAT looks like, and it's not pretty.

good one douchebag. I like the part when you insult his intelligence "even when he's sober" hahahahahaha stop please. ha ha no really stop.

Buffy, surely a person as enlightened as yourself wouldn't let the law get in the way of higher principles.

Such as, "Duuuuuuude...this is really wicked weed!"

and

"Man, let's go to Denny's...I got the munchies!"

Sometimes you just have to do what's right and
take a stand for your right to be a chemically altered butthead.

"...butthead."

I just love your childish insults. So, is the "war on drugs" limited government? Come on, you good conservative, you. You're supposed to be in favor of "limited government," yet it is you conservatives who want to tell everyone what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

Limited government, Yes. Irresponsible governement, No.

And just what is your definition of "irresponsible government?"

...I don't care what you do with your body, as long as you don't endanger other people. If you need chemicals to make your life worth living, you do what you gotta.

And it's you Liberals who want to tell everyone what to do with their own money.

Those bacteria are too nice.. no more anti biotics for Hypocrite slayer.. (or vitamin C etc..)
he is soo NOT a Hypocrite

--- You know, part of that "limited government" you conservatives are always preaching about.


Ahh the disadvantages of a two party system...
Big government is not bad you just have to be able to trust it not to do stupid things.

Lets look at the good ole' US of A........

Atrocities?
People killed by US aggression

Indochina..........2 million killed

Vietnam............2 million

Iraq.................2 million

Indonesia..........1 million

Southeast asia........2 million

Guatemala.............80,000

El Salvador...........30,000

Hungary.............30,000

India...............18,000

Afganistan........10,000

Panama.........7,000

to my count its 8,165,000
Dead by democracy.

Got links?

You'll have to use common sense in deliberating what southeast asia means-korea etc

http://www.americanstateterrorism.com/ChronologyofTerror.html#Guatemala

http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#u

...are questionable.

The first two, at any rate; the third one timed out on me.

The americanstateterrorism site is filled with inflammatory language and downright hate speech. To me, that makes the claims presented suspect. The site is hardly a dispassionate reporter of fact.

Noam Chomsky, as well, has an anti-America agenda.

Okay, the third site came up. Interesting. I will use this link to rebut.

You list Indochina and the Vietnam war as 2 million each. But they are in fact the same war. Subtract 2 million from your count.

Iraq, 2 million. Most of those deaths are attibuted to the sanctions, which were approved by the UN. Share the blame. Better yet, put it all where it belongs: on Saddam's head. Had he spent the proceeds of the oil-for-food program on his people instead of palaces and WMD, a vast majority of those Iraqis would not have died. Subtract 1.75 million.

Indonesia: Nothing attibuted to the US. Subtract 1 million.

SE Asia: Same as Iraq. Subtract 2 million.

Guatemala: Nothing attributed to US. Subtract 80,000.

El Salvador: Nothing attributed to the US. Subtract 30,000.

Hungary: Nothing attributed to the US. Subtract 30,000.

India: Nothing attributed to the US. I assume you're counting the Bhopal disaster; discounted due to no governmental involvement. Industrial accident. Subtract 18,000.

Afghanistan: Military deaths (Al Qaeda and Taliban): 5,000. The Guardian estimates 19,840 indirect civilian deaths; median indirect civilian deaths total around 1,500. Total: 26,340.

Panama: Average of estimates, civilian and military: 1,300. Subtract 5,700 from your total.

By my count, 1,267,640 dead. Kinda pales in comparison to the 100,000,000 dead by communism, doesn't it?

When posting links to back up any position, we should all avoid those that are rabidly presentling information with lots of scare words and hate speech. We will change no one's mind with these, and will not convince anyone sitting on the fence.

The problem is also their atributing of blame.
It would be easy enough to attribute any death to a government or government policy.

In any chain of events if you look back far enough you will find the country you want as part of it.. then you can call them your "root cause" and ignore anything further back.

For example the good "old man is killed in country by police" "police work for government" "government recives some small amount of money from US" "US is responsible!!"

Yes, and if you follow this logic through then the Soviet Union is ultimately responsible for ALL of these deaths because the US would not have proactively intervened in other countries if it didn't see the USSR as an agressive imperialist threat.

Evil begets evil.