Bin Laden calls for truce.

[MonteZuma]

You are trying to dispute Ailerons claim that Saddam's leadership would have kept control of Iraq for prolongued periods of time by making a comparison of the Baathist government and the communist russia.

I challenged the arguments that Aileron used to prove that the Hussein 'dynasty' would last for hundreds of years. That is all.

 

You have no way of knowing how long the USSR would have lasted if the United States hadn't intervened the way they did. The same arguement applies to Iraq and Saddam.

Soviet communists were not toppled by a US invasion and occupation. US and European involvement in the Iraqi situation was very important. The US and Europe WERE involved. What was not needed was an invasion and a US occupation.

[Aileron]

To be fair, there is no way I can prove that the Baathists would have occupied Iraq for hundreds of years, to do so would require psychic powers, a crystal ball, or a time machine.

 

Its clear that defeating the USSR was dependant upon the strategy of containment, which if I'm not mistaken was Winston Churchill's idea. Communism was so fundimentally flawed that its own collapse was inevitable. In some sense Worthless, the USSR did bring itself down. The theory of no property and a classless society just doesn't work, because somebody has to be in charge, and with that comes effective ownership and class.

 

In my humble opinion, Anarchy, Communism, and Athiesm are the same idea applied to government, economics, and religion respectively, and all three have the same flaw in their basic theory, but I digress.

 

You are right in that the Communist government did infact have all its bases covered it terms of preventing revolution. However, while often referred to as such, Communism is not a governmental system. It is an economic system. The USSR's governmental system was a quasi-federalist system with a single political party, not unlike Iraq. Such governmental systems don't exactly provide human rights, but they are stable. There really wasn't any instablity in the USSR's government. It was the USSR's economy that made them unstable.

 

Protests against the USSR's government occurred for economic reasons. As I formally pointed out, its difficult to revolutionaries to build forces when the government controlls all the employment. However, if there is massive unemployment because the economy is bad, then revolutionaries don't have this problem, because the recruits are out of work either way. A poor economy also solves the revolutionaries' supply problems because while they can't get supplies, the opposing army doesn't have any either. It also solves the morale problems caused by a government controlled media, because the opposing army is suffering from low morale because their families at home are poor.

 

Iraq did have the same government as the USSR, but its economy was capitalistic. Economic sanctions would help destabilize it, but were never going to be enough with an economic system so inherently stable.

[MonteZuma]

Its clear that defeating the USSR was dependant upon the strategy of containment

I'm not sure that that is clear.

 

In some sense Worthless, the USSR did bring itself down. The theory of no property and a classless society just doesn't work, because somebody has to be in charge, and with that comes effective ownership and class.

The USSR dissolved because of a number of internal and external reasons. I don't know if a classless society can work or not, but obviously a political system like that faces some pressures. A political system where virtually all power is held by a military strongman also faces considerable internal and external pressure.

 

In my humble opinion, Anarchy, Communism, and Athiesm are the same idea applied to government, economics, and religion respectively, and all three have the same flaw in their basic theory, but I digress.

Huh? I'd love to see a new thread started on that topic Imo, comparing anarchists, communists and atheists is like comparing apples, brocolli and mushrooms (ie, not close enough to use the apples and oranges cliché).

 

However, while often referred to as such, Communism is not a governmental system. It is an economic system.

I don't really know or care what the politics and economics text books and dictionaries say about this, but in reality, this is not true. Industrial China has one of the most capitalistic economies in the world. The only thing that is communistic about day-to-day life in Shanghai for example is the system of government!

 

The USSR's governmental system was a quasi-federalist system with a single political party, not unlike Iraq.

Whatever the 'system' that Iraq claimed to have, it was really a dictatorship ruled by Saddam Hussein. The only similarity between Iraq and the USSR was the absence of democracy.

 

There really wasn't any instablity in the USSR's government. It was the USSR's economy that made them unstable.

Yes. Economic issues had a lot to do with the collapse of soviet communism. Iraq's economy was also a shambles - thanks to the sanctions.

 

Protests against the USSR's government occurred for economic reasons.

Interestingly issues related to the economy also led to the fall of Tsarist Russia (the rise of the USSR) and the rise of Nazi Germany. Yes. Economic failure is a cause of political unrest and revolution. That's why economic sanctions are such a powerful political weapon.

 

As I formally pointed out, its difficult to revolutionaries to build forces when the government controlls all the employment. However, if there is massive unemployment because the economy is bad, then revolutionaries don't have this problem, because the recruits are out of work either way. A poor economy also solves the revolutionaries' supply problems because while they can't get supplies, the opposing army doesn't have any either. It also solves the morale problems caused by a government controlled media, because the opposing army is suffering from low morale because their families at home are poor.

It just isn't that simple. Communism wasn't defeated by revolutionaries. Communism was defeated by a series of unexpected events triggered by glasnost, and to a lesser extent perestroika. This was started not by revolutionaries with weapons or disgruntled soldiers or the unemployed. It was started by Gorbachev - a reformist - not a revolutionary.

 

Iraq did have the same government as the USSR, but its economy was capitalistic. Economic sanctions would help destabilize it, but were never going to be enough with an economic system so inherently stable.

There is nothing inherently stable about a military dictatorship.

[spedhead]

lol you guys must have tons of free time !@#$%^&* i dont care about iraq i say blow up the bad parts and suck up the oil

[SeVeR]

Welcome to the Politics Forum President Bush.