Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
Russia vs the Romanovs?
Maoist China vs the pro-west Nationalists?
French dominated, then US dominated Vietnam?
Batista's Cuba?
British dominated Malaya?
US dominated Philippines?

The simple fact is that in post WWI and post WWII upheavals, communism was an ideology of change that spoke to populaces seeking change.
That is true -- why do you not at least note the fact that it failed in its promise in all of those nations, that it killed more people than the regimes it replaced? Your concern for the oppressed is noteworthy. It is also IMO excessive in that your concern insists that they behave as you propose and not as they might wish. You need to remove the blinders.

Further evidence of that:
Is Protestantism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Did it take down an empire? Equally yes.

Is Communism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Did it reshape Western Colonial control of Asia? Equally yes.

Is Islamism a "benign" ideology? Yes. Will it reshape Western influence over North Africa and the Middle East. Most likely.

The real ideology in all of those places, times and example was the ideology of liberty and self-determination.
The Protestantism that took down an empire was far from benign, it was ferociously militant and violent -- even cruel. It may be benign now but it was not at all benign back in the day.

Communism as perverted by the USSR and China is responsible for more deaths than the World Wars. And you call that benign? Hmmph.

Islamism is not benign. Islam is, the -ism is not. None of the -isms are particularly benign and that includes 'Americanism.'
I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of some, but the historic facts can be argued, but they are what they are.
That's not going to hurt the feelings of anyone. Though it could to call your logic into question...

OTOH, this:
Carl,

You are a victim of effective propaganda.
is borderline insulting. One who disagrees with you is the victim of propaganda? The implication there is that you have found the Holy Grail and the path of true righteousness and anyone who disagrees is deluded. Heh. Here's a possible delusion:
...Did they die because the oppressors fought to keep them in chains, or because of the ideology they adopted to break free?

Fact is that self-serving and evil men prey on vulnerable governments and populaces. Often a populace ends up in worse hands than what they had before. That is far more a function of the nature of man than a function of the nature of ideology.
While I can agree that mankind is most at fault -- As I have said many times (and with particular reference to the US, another factor you tend to ignore) -- that does not give the ideology that they co-opted a pass. Your reference to ideology "driving the bus" is somewhat apt and if that bus is deliberately running down pedestrians and smashing cars, the driver is at fault. You cannot give him a pass, Mister Prosecutor...

Here are two quotes, the first from Dayuhan, the second from jmm99. I commend both to you for thought.

""have you any idea how patronizing and paternalistic it sounds? It also sets up a quintessentially American situation: we come riding over the hill pronouncing loudly "fear not, America is here to lend stability, to empower and facilitate, to guide and enlighten"... then we get all wounded and resentful when the populace tells us to piss off and die.""

""But, by what right have you or any other American to extend that "shouldn't have" to the rest of the World ?""