Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past

Rockhound, it is a commonly accepted myth here in the US that the United States pretty much single handedly won World War II (with very minor assistance from the British), and that after the war the United States alone provided a shield that prevented the Soviets from overrunning Western Europe.You should look at the stunned disbelief when I point out that this is a myth; it's as if I had told them that the sky is green.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

No, the real myth is the persistent belief among the Left that Stalin could be trusted if we just withdrew from Europe and didn't antagonize him.Without the US presence, Stalin would have ruled Europe as at the end of WWII, there was no one able to resist his military except the US, and as he showed with eastern Europe, he was not willing to allow Europe to be independent, nor capitalist.

And the evidence for this is...?

quote:

---

Pay out of pocket. It'll be cheaper, and you can pick the doctor you want, and if they don't treat you right, you can go somewhere else.

---

No, it won't be cheaper. I promise you, we did the math already.Randman, I work in retail, and my husband just finished graduate school, and we live in a city that has some of the highest cost of living in the midwest. I pay almost $1,000/month in rent for a small one bedroom apartment alone.Just how much money do you think we have?

There is far, far less oversight of businesses than there is supposed to be of the Federal government.Also, what if the market crashes, as we know that it does e ery once in a while?What then?

You want a to take a few history courses to get up to speed?What part do you disagree with?

This part:

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

It's always better, even during a crash, than Congress spending it all, and moreover, you structure this to add up over a lifetime and if the economy is so bad people lose money over a 40-50 year span, the dollar won't be worth much anyway, and the government will be bankrupt.There is a reason people don't invest more into social security than they have to.Think about it.This message has been edited by randman, 11-10-2005 03:36 PM

Just look at what he did to Eastern Europe. That's all the evidence you need, and keep in mind Stalin began to set up one-party states under his control when he was still our ally.We decided to enter the Cold War in response to his actions, specifically refusal to allow self-determination, elections, etc,..in the areas he conquered.

I guess maybe you didn't understand your history classes when you were in school.Eastern Europe was occupied by the Soviet Union as a result of the USSR pushing back the German army. The Germany had already invaded the USSR, and Eastern Europe was already under occupation by Germany or headed by regimes that were allied with Germany. The USSR was engaged in a war with Germany (a war, by the way, that was started by Germany, not the USSR). As the USSR was fighting to win a war, it was committed to pushing back the German military forces and occupying a defeated Germany, just as the US and UK were doing from the West. It was the same strategy -- the Germans were committed to fighting until the bloody end, and so Germany's enemies, including the Soviet Union, had to fight to push the Germans back into German territory; as far as the goal of the Allies was the unconditional surrender of Germany, they also had to occupy Germany itself.So, the Soviet Union had already occupied Eastern Europe by the end of WWII. They then proceeded to do what the Russians have traditionally done: they set up buffer states under their control in order to buy time should there be another attempt to invade from the West.What we are discussing is the aftermath of the war. The nations of Eastern Europe were already occupied as the result of a war that was being fought. With the surrender of Germany, the war was over. The occupation of Western Europe would have required the Soviet Union, already bled pretty much by war and with much of its infrastructure destroyed, to start a war with countries with which it was not at war.So, the supposed evidence that Stalin was intending to "take over" the rest of Europe is evidence of no such thing.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Ah, the old buffer argument. Good ole Stalin was just trying to protect himself, eh?Why was Poland not granted independence then? Poland was not at war with Russia.After WWII, it was painfully clear Stalin was not interested in a free Europe but maintaining and spreading his form of communism.His army was not depleted and in fact was on the rise in a major way being able to plunder eastern Europe and use it's industry for more militariazation. The idea that he would not have taken control of all of Germany and France is quite absurd.Why have just have the buffer when you can actually occupy the enemy himself? Perhaps Spain and Italy could have been spared, but the simple fact is the only places communism did not take root were the places defended by US and British troops. Greece was barely saved in fact. Albania and the Balkans were not, but Tito, it must be admitted, at least was able to keep Stalin out after awhile. That is a tough area to conquer and rule.

quote:

---

Albania and the Balkans were not, but Tito, it must be admitted, at least was able to keep Stalin out after awhile.

---

I don't understand how you don't see that you have just undermined your own argument. Not only did Tito able to keep Yugoslavia "free" (at least free from Soviet domination), but Albania, too, was expelled from the Warsay Pact when its foreign policy was too close to China's.At any rate, reading your post, you are simply repeating your earlier post without adding anything new to bolster you opinion.-

quote:

---

After WWII, it was painfully clear Stalin was not interested in a free Europe but maintaining and spreading his form of communism.

---

Whether or not Stalin wanted a "free Europe" is not the point; the point is that the only thing that is painfully clear is that Stalin was interested in maintaining his rule in the Soviet Union and spreading his control in the territories over which the Red Army already had control.Greece is another funny example for you to bring up. The Greek communists were supported by Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union spit, the Greek communists stayed loyal to the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia ended its support. Without Yugoslavian support, the Greek communists were defeated.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

You fail to realize that all of those communists were initially allied with and supported by Stalin. The fact some independent communists emerged in areas difficult for Stalin to launch an attack against does not change the point, and it needs to be pointed out that Tito had an arrangment with the West which prevented Stalin from taking him by force, which he tried to do, but the plot was revealed.All of Germany surely would have been ruled by Stalin, and all the neighboring states of Germany such as France and the Netherlands.

quote:

---

The fact some independent communists emerged in areas difficult for Stalin to launch an attack against does not change the point....

---

No, it supports the point. You are saying that Stalin wanted control but wasn't willing to work very hard to get it. Doesn't sound like a threat to me.-

quote:

---

All of Germany surely would have been ruled by Stalin, and all the neighboring states of Germany such as France and the Netherlands.

---

You are just repeating this again. Just repeating statements do not make them true.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Well, the Washington Post reports than many prominent investment and economic experts consider the Bush plan to put SS funds into the stock market rather risky.Since they are experts, and really the only people who are saying it's a rip-roarin' idea are Bush and those within the administration, I think I'm going to trust them.I really don't think much of the performance of many of the people Bush has appointed. Here is the full text of the article