That's the Democrat's solution to everything. Throw the money of Republicans at it.

I'm really starting to dislike Kerry.

He said that the Bush administration empowered the insurgents because the Bush administration wanted Aristide and the rebels to make an agreement of sharing power and as a result the insurgents virtually said no and continued to fight.

And he is correct; what do the insurgents care about Bush's threat to remove aid?

First of all in a democracy, the people has the sole power. Not the ruler.

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything?

What do you think?

I think that this is President Bush's third shot at invading a country, and I'd be interested to see if it goes as "well" as his attempts to establish a government in the other two.

"What do you think?"

I think that you shouldn't refer to all the regimes you don't like as "socialist".

It makes you look foolish in the eyes of the very people who you might be able to convince otherwise.

BalbousHead
He said that the Bush administration empowered the insurgents because the Bush administration wanted Aristide and the rebels to make an agreement of sharing power and as a result the insurgents virtually said no and continued to fight.


And he is correct; what do the insurgents care about Bush's threat to remove aid?

My comment:
I am assuming that Haiti is a democracy where the people is the source of power, Likewise, I have to assume that it was a democracy but when the people saw the real Aristide, they complained. Aristide, like any socialist in power, refused to listen. At any rate the people were angry and demanded Aristide to resign. He said no. That’s where the problem was. Are you with me so far?
Based on Kerry’s statement, he did like when Bush asked both the rebels and Aristide to share power because this gives the insurgents the license to continue fighting. If Kerry was against both the insurgents sharing power, what he would have done I believe if he was President was to send US troops to Haiti to ensure Aristide’s regime continue and ignore the wishes of the Haitian people. Is this the type foreign policy that his administration would have if he was elected President?
If you were Aristide, with his many friends in our Congress, and the fact that Pres Clinton bailed you out in 1994, you would be wishing that Pres Bush would do the same thing. But this President is fair, he wants both Aristide and the people to share power. The rebels did not say no. Aristide was the one who said no. He wanted to retain his dictatorial power with the help of the US. I disagree if that’s Kerry’s approach.
If you disagree with my analysis, will your state in your next comment, what Kerry meant? Clearly, please, so all readers could weigh your side against mine.
First of all in a democracy, the people has the sole power. Not the ruler.


What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything?
My comment:
It appears that your core beliefs about a democracy is much different, Have you ever heard about “government of the people, for the people and by the people”. Lincoln said these words. Do you know where? I hope I have clarified my statement to answer your second question.

What do you think?


I think that this is President Bush's third shot at invading a country, and I'd be interested to see if it goes as "well" as his attempts to establish a government in the other two.
My comment:

Based on Kerry’s statement, he wants President Bush to invade Haiti when the trouble started. That’s why he remarked “He is Late as Usual”.

Your concern is understood, but if you study the principles embedded in our Declaration of Independence which says, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It is the right of the people to alter or abolish It (government). Very strong words.

Hope to hear from you?

To: Andrew Brehm,

I do not call all the regimes that I do not like "socialist". Majority of the socialists, don't want to call themselves socialist. In the US Congress there is only 1 who admits that he is a socialist. The rest calls themselves some other names like moderates, progressives, etc.

But most of the people recognize those people for what they stand for, One who talks like a duck, walks like a duck, is a duck.

aconservative



aconservative

"I am assuming that Haiti is a democracy where the people is the source of power." Not to flame or to criticize a well-written post, but that is a pretty naive assumption. I think that any of the pictures of insurgents armed with guns burning down police stations showed that Haiti is not a democracy.

The US-backed government of Aristide was on the ropes, staggered. If President Bush had determined that American interests would not be served by supporting Aristide, if say Aristide was a dictator as the insurgents claimed, then stand aside and let him fall. If the Aristide government was still a democracy as Aristide claimed, then support it. What we did seemed indecisive to say the least.

I do not expect to change your belief that you, among all people, are able to identify a socialist while others are not. You probably have your reasons to believe that. And you probably have your reasons to claim that all sorts of regimes are "socialist" while also claiming that you do not call regimes that you do not like such per se.

I was trying to point out that your main argument, whatever merits it may have, is just not very persuasive when you refer to regimes that you don't like, regardless of what these regimes stand for, as "socialist".

You are probably seeing yourself as a particularly smart cynic who is able, against left-wing propaganda, to label things as they are, using the right evil term to describe terrible regimes.

But I see an ignorant troll who doesn't seem to know the difference between the politics of the dictator of North Korea and the politics of those who died trying to defend democracy against the likes of Hitler in 1933. (The first is one of the regimes you refer to as "socialist", the second are those who refered to themselves as "socialists", in case you didn't get the point.)

Larry Kuperman

Your statement:

I think that any of the pictures of insurgents armed with guns

My Reply:

What do you call those brave guys armed with guns who declared United States free culminating on July 4, 1776?

Your statement:

If the Aristide government was still a democracy as Aristide claimed, then support it. What we did seemed indecisive to say the least.

My Reply:

Remember Marcos of the Philippines? Marcos was the President and also a dictator. The Philippines have a copy cat constitution and government ala United States, three branches, Legislative, Executive and Judicial - democracy.

The Filipino people became angry when he declared Martial Law and assassinated his chief rival.
Radio Veritas, the Catholic Church ran radio station, exhorted the people to surround the military camps and garrisons with rosaries clutched with their hands.

Just like Bush, Pres Reagan urged Marcos that his time is up and to leave for exile in Hawaii. It was a bloodless revolution that showed the world that people does have the power and can withdraw anytime their support and consent.

Was Pres Reagan also wrong in his decision?

Andrew Brehm

From your comments it appears that you have two definitions of what is a socialist?

You said,

“But I see an ignorant troll who doesn't seem to know the difference between the politics of the dictator of North Korea and the politics of those who died trying to defend democracy against the likes of Hitler in 1933. (The first is one of the regimes you refer to as "socialist", the second are those who referred to themselves as "socialists", in case you didn't get the point.)

This troll does not know the difference, please educate me. Hitler’s Nazis were also called National Socialist German Worker's Party (Germany. As Chancellor, Hitler passed the Malicious Practices Act, which gave him the authority to start imprisoning socialists and communists. Some unknown group burned the Reichstag in 1933. Hitler blamed the communists for starting the fire.

I don’t pretend to know much about German history, but when you referred to “the politics of those died trying to defend democracy against the likes of Hitler in 1933” as socialists, were they the same socialists and communists that Hitler imprisoned in 1933?

Stalin defended his country too, when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. He considered himself a socialist like Karl Marx, Lenin, Gorbachev, Mao Tze Tung, Fidel Castro. What’s the difference? In the eyes of the world these guys are all communists.

How do you differentiate one from the other as far as ideology?

Chao!

aconservative

What do you call those brave guys armed with guns who declared United States free culminating on July 4, 1776?

They weren't defending or establishing democracy, that's for sure. Did the people vote on the Revolutionary War?

It was a bloodless revolution that showed the world that people does have the power and can withdraw anytime their support and consent.

Not always; otherwise, why didn't we conduct one of those "bloodless revolutions" in Iraq?

He considered himself a socialist like Karl Marx, Lenin, Gorbachev, Mao Tze Tung, Fidel Castro.

No, he called himself a socialist; he knew he was a dictator, as did Mao and as does Castro.

You think that the problems in Haiti are new? How nieve. Lets go back in history. It was Bush the 1st who put Aristide in power in the first place. Oh sure you can tout free elections all you want. Then the military had a moment and Clinton restored Aristide to power. Then for 10 years the US ignored Haiti. Both Clinton and Bush the 2nd. So what I want to know is where is the real criminal.....Ben Laden? Enough of these distractions lets hunt down the islamists and wipe 'em out. Let's not play this he said he said crap.

"From your comments it appears that you have two definitions of what is a socialist?"

My comments said nothing about my definition of "socialist". I was wondering about your definition. Your definition of "socialist" apparently includes the regimes of North Korea and Iran, but does it include those who suffered under the Nazis, like the late president of the Socialist International, former German chancellor Willy Brandt?

If your definition of "socialists" includes both opressives fundamentalist regimes like Iran's and those who opposed the Nazis to defend democracy, your definition is quite useless, as it would cover those and everybody in between. Does it cover anarchists too? It already seems to cover everybody from radical democrats who are willing to die for their beliefs to those who kill radical democrats. I don't see much that Willy Brandt and the mullahs in Iran have in common. Perhaps you do? Or perhaps your definition of "socialist" doesn't include the most prominent socialists of the western world, and is actually quite the opposite of what "socialism" means as defined by socialist parties like Brandt's?

It is strange that those who refer to themselves as socialists actually opposed the very regimes that you refer to as socialist, isn't it? And they did so when nobody else would. Conservatives, liberals, nationalists, they all supported Hitler, but (self-proclaimed) socialists did not. Hm...

This whole comment is rather off-topic to the original discussion, of course, but since you asked...

Hitler's party was called "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (short "NSDAP"). The German word "Sozialismus" comes from "Sozius" which is a Latin/German word for "partner". It refers to partnership, not an economic system (as the English word "socialism" does, the German of which is also "Sozialismus"). "Nationalsozialismus" means that all members of the nation should work together, the word still has nothing to do with the economic system envisioned by Marx. "Deutsche" means "German", of course, and "Arbeiterpartei" means "Worker's Party", which is an odd name, since labourers were underrepresented in the party. It was a party of civil servants and teachers, mostly. Labourers voted socialist rather than national socialist, which is why the NSDAP was weak in cities like Berlin (many workers) and strong in more rural areas (no industry).

And, yes, Hitler did imprison the supporters of the socialist parties. Refering to both them and him as if they belonged to the same group would be an insult to the victims, I think.

As for Stalin, I do not know how much of a Marxist he really was. He didn't seem to believe that the proletariat should rule (since he wanted to rule himself) and he didn't seem to want government to whither away (he was rather a very strict statist). If you want to know my opinion, it is that one shouldn't believe Hitler when he claimed to run a worker's party (which had few members that were workers) and one shouldn't believe Stalin when he claimed that in his country the proletariat had the power (since it was him who had the power).

Some people simply aren't very honest about these things, chief among those deeply immoral fanatical murdering tyrants.

As for the differences between Karl Marx and Hitler, ideologically, I see one difference in as much as Marx did not, afaik, advocate the killing of Jews for the heck of it. It simply wasn't a part of his ideology.

Hitler did not, btw, consider himself a "socialist like Karl Marx", because Hitler spoke German and knew that "Nationalsozialismus" wasn't "Sozialismus" (the economic system). He did, in fact, consider socialism his political enemy. And if you don't understand the ideological difference between trying to defend democracy against a dictator (which is what the Marxists of the time did) and murdering millions of innocent people just because they were Jews, I'm not sure how I can help you understand my point.

Some people have taken to using the word "communist" (which originally meant the more anarchist version of "socialist") to describing the likes of Castro and "fascist" to describe the likes of Hitler (and the Syrian dictator seems to fit here too, as did Saddam). But refering to them all as "socialists" is using the name of their victims to describe the criminals, and that is insulting the victims and a very wrong way to remember their sacrifices, no matter how you spin it.

Bulboushead
Andrew Brehm
Skip Stone

Is there a difference between a Socialist, Marxist and Communist? If your answer is "Yes", please state the differences.

aconservative

"Is there a difference between a Socialist, Marxist and Communist?"

Didn't you understand what I tried to explain at all? Because I don't understand what that question has to do with what I wrote.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I didn't take issue with you mixing up socialism and Marxism (one is a superset of the other), I took issue with you refering to all sorts of regimes you don't like as "socialist", thereby spitting in the face of their victims, who were, mostly, socialists.

Maybe an analogy can help you here.

If some tyrant ever managed to take over the USA and decided to murder Republicans for some reason, I would NOT refer to that tyrant as a Republican, and I would NOT refer to all the regimes I cannot stand as Republican either. I would not insist that both the tyrant and his victims are the same, ideologically, because they aren't.

Apparently you have no such moral scruples. That is your privilege and your right, of course.

Andrew Brehm

Thank you for indirectly answering my simple question. Simply you agreed that socialism, marxism and communism are one is a superset of the other. That's clear. Simply stated one is a synonym of the other.

I say that give a socialist or marxist or communist a chance to have complete power - and he becomes a dictator. Hitler who called himself a socialist became a dictator when he was appointed the chancellor. Gerhardt even tho' he became the chancellor does not have. as yet, the supermajority. Saddam Hussein belonged to the Irag Baathist Socialist Party. The Soviet Union under Stalin was called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Fidel Castro of Cuba. Mao Tze Tung of China, the party bossess of Eastern Europe - all masquerated as law abiding socialist but eliminated the freedom of their people was they took power. And one outstanding trait of these dictators - they all loved to be called by one name - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Aristide.

These are historical facts. They are not pigment of the imagination of a troll or one with no moral scruples.

If you have proof that this are not true lay them on the discussion table. And for once let's be civil about this without calling each other names.

aconservative

Actually, it's more accurate to say that Socialism, Marxism, and Communism are spheres that occasionally overlap.

Marxism is the teachings of Marx, which preached a version of communism, which he believed was the only one, it attempted to take the ideals of a communist society, see next, and put it into a large group. Communism is when a group of people come together to form a cooperative group, or commune, not taking any wages, but making things for the good of the group, everyone contributes. Socialism is the ideals of cooperation of communism put into a large scale. It also allows for a blending of capitalist features.

Thus, they share similarities, but they are not the same thing.

Cheers