Metal Reviews

Or that capitalism enriches some, whilst communism impoverishes all.



Agreed, in terms of quality vs quantity I think German disco has NSBM beat.

Actually thanks to the American hegemon this is the most peaceful time in history!

Iraq and Afghanistan are low level colonial slugfests. Iraq has calmed down to compared to what it was. Israel Palestine is also low scale insurgency warfare.

Even in long term shitfights like Sri Lanka, Angola and now Sudan, peace has arrived.

Look at the number of wars being fought in 2010:

Europe: 0
North America: 0
Asia: 2: Pakistan-Afghanistan (conflict versus Taliban), Nepal - Maoist insurgency
Middle East: 2 low level insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the Kurds are at relative peace and Chechnya is relatively pacified.
Africa: 2 major civil wars (Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia), a few minor insurgencies in Uganda and a few other countries.

There was skirmishing in other parts of the world (Korea being the most prominent) but none of them were large scale civil or inter country wars.

Compare this to any other period in history.

The reason people think the world is really wartorn now is:
1. Greater access to information via the internet.

2. A media that focuses on overexageration. E.g. Afghanistan and Iraq aren't even close the level of fighting we saw in Vietnam.

3. The Iraqi and Afghani wars involve the USA which is the most media covered part of the world in the most media driven age.

4. People have poor grasp regarding history and usually limit it to their own country.

The USA was involved in almost constant skirmishing and warfare during the 1980s (invasions of Panama and Grenada, bombing of Iran and Libya, combat operations in support of peacekeeping in Lebanon, and direct support for wars in Guatemala, El Salvador, Afghanistan including supply of weapons and training of anti-Communist insurgents and government operatives including Latin American death squads).

At the same time, most of Africa was involved in major civil war (Angola, Zaire, Ethiopia, Sudan, Mozambique, Somalia, Morrocco), Israel slugged it out with Syria and occuppied Lebanon, Iran-Iraq was waging, there were various intracountry wars in Africa (e.g. Ethiopia versus Somalia), the Vietnamese occuppied Cambodia etc.


The major wars in 2000-10 were (i.e. wars of invasion or with major combat ops):
Iraq
Afghanistan
Georgia
Chechnya/Dagestan - technically part of Russia

Even the so-called peaceful 1930's were full of wars - the US was involved in combat ops in just about every Central American country, Italy invaded Ethiopia and Albania, the Spanish Civil War, Chinese Civil War (massed scale fighting), invasion of Manchuria by Japan, British action in Iraq, German invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia etc.


And go back even further in time back to the feudal days when war was endemic. I remember reading a book about Croatia where I'm originally from. For example the various city states of the Dalmatian coast were pretty much constantly at war with themselves or the Venicians or the Turks.

Ummm, so the United States has literally quelled all opposition to their regime through military force and that's a good thing how? It's as if advocates of democracy don't understand pluralism anymore. Peace isn't always a good thing; it often involves the complete suppression of dissenting opinion.

The value judgment of saying that some people benefiting justifies the starvation, oppression and degradation of everyone else is some nasty utilitarianism.

Actually collapse of USSR saw the funding streams for many countries' and groups' military activities stop. You can't wage war without cash.

Even the Chinese approve of US involvement in Asia as a balancing force that keeps the Koreas, Russia and Japan in check.

I'm sure the people in Mozambique or Angola are happy they're no longer dying for dodgy political ideals held by corrupt and barbaric leaders.




What dissenting opinion? Hutus slaughtering Tutsis or carnage in Sri Lanka did nothing for pluralism and it did nothing for the proleteriat either (unless people being massacred is considered good for the proleteriat).

With the rise of China, Brazil and India and the resurgence of Russia and economic and military decline of the West we will have multiple viewpoints/pluralism.

And we will have many more wars because when all things are equal, wars become viewed as an ok method of gaining an advantage - look at the 1800's or the Cold War era for proof of that.





Actualy most people have benefitted from the last 20 more peaceful years or so. And global poverty levels have declined and living standards have improved.

Hell even in countries like China life is a lot more bearable than it was under the Emperors, the warlords and Mao's lunatic social experiments.

It's even better in Africa (except the AIDS epidemic). Corruption and oppression are endemic but war and famine have been reduced considerably.

While not wanting to get too involved in this discussion...I have to voice my doubts about this statement. The Chinese would prefer a US withdrawal from Asia--that is why they are aggressively building their navy as we speak. Furthermore, China has no reason to worry whether South Korea or Japan are held 'in check' and one has to wonder if anything really keeps North Korea in check. And Russia's nuclear arsenal will remain in check whether or not the US are in Asia...unless China decides to invade Siberia, of course!

So war is a better option than people not being able to speak their minds and be obnoxious??? There are not as many big wars to fight without the Communists funding the evil.

China does indeed fear revival of Japanese militarism. So does South Korea. South Korea is itself a growing power and there are issues regarding sovereingty in the Yellow Sea.

Russia and China have had a very chequered relationship. They fought border wars against each other in the 1960s.

Even with the issue of Taiwan, China had up to the late 1980's maintained two events that would trigger a Chinese invasion of Taiwan:
1. Taiwan declares independence
2. Taiwan's government becomes allied with USSR as opposed to USA.

The Chinese prefered US involvement in the region because of the following reasons:

1. It kept Japanese militarism in check. If the US pulls out of the region, Japan would probably start a rearmament program. This would escalate into an arms race with the Koreans joining in as they do not trust Japan due to historical issues.

2. It keeps both Koreas from going at each others throats (minor skirmishing and sabre rattling aside). It also prevents South Korea from getting too powerful and pushing its weight around in the Yellow Sea.

3. It has since the early 1970's prevented Taiwan from seceeding. US assures Taiwans defence and in return Taiwan doesn't declare independence.

4. Up to 1989-91 it limited Russian/Soviet influence in the Asia Pacific Region. Remember that since the 1960's Sino-Russian border clashes, the only war the Chinese fought was a failed invasion of Soviet backed Vietnam in 1979.
The anti-Russian stance will probably become a priority again as Russia rebuilds it's military, economic and strategic might. I suspect Mongolia will become a factor in this due to suspected massive untapped mineral and oil reserves.


So US participation in the region helps stabilise things. It prevents Japan and South Korea from feeling like they have to engage in an arms race which suits the Chinese fine.

It also helps keep the peace in other strategically important areas such as the Malacca Straits, the Persian Gulf and elsewhere without needing the Chinese to send their own forces into.

In essence the US keeps Chinese defence costs down and thus allow it to spend this funding on capability development.

The US fulfills the same role in Europe. Most European militaries are only token forces as the protection of Europe is handled by the Americans.




A crash course in Chinese military history.

Up to the 1990's China's military was based on late 1950's technology that they ripped off the Soviets after the two drifted apart in 1961. These only received minor modifications and improvements up to the 1980's.

Since the 1990's China has been desperately trying to catch up to the rest of the world with purchases of arms from Russia and Israel.

Nonetheless by the 1980's it was the third largest navy and one of the largest armies on the planet.

It is true China has acquired large numbers of ships.

But despite 20 years of pumping lots of cash into it, the People Liberation Army Navy is still a "green water" navy and has very limited offensive capabilities.

Most of the new ships and submarines have gone towards replacing large numbers of obsolete ships and submarines.

The Chinese lack true offensive naval capability and won't have it for at least another couple of decades.

They currently lack the following:

1. Aircraft carriers - an ex-Soviet light carrier is being refurbished to act as a training ship. Apparently two more are to be built but these will take at least 10-15 years to get operational. As China has no history of operating an aircraft carrier a whole new doctrine will have to be implemented.

2. Lack of amphibious assault capability. The have numerous landing craft but lack large ships needed to carry them.

3. Lack of aerial refuelling aircraft - they only have 14 such aircraft (US on the other hand has several hundred and even the French and Brits 14-20 air refuellers a piece).

4. Lack of long range strike capability - they have some ancient H-6 bombers which are a knock off of obsolete Soviet Tu-16's.

China's military has actually shrunk in size as the new equipment is not replacing the cheap old nasty crap on a 1:1 basis so numerous divisions and units have been deactivated.

At some point China will become militarily powerful.

But it will always struggle to project power due to massive long borders and surrounded by past and future potential enemies (India, Russia, Vietnam, Korea, Japan). All of these require the Chinese to maintain large force in China itself. The USA does not have this requirement being surrounded by militarily weak and friendly countries.

And the Yanks don't have to fund their own evil scumbags ala Osama Bin Ladin or Central American death squads or organise for coups against democratically elected governments (e.g. Chile).

America should dominate the whole world and keep us all in check. So there will be no more wars. I remember that from somewhere. What was it? Ah yes, it is something HITLER SAID!

Fvck yea, and then shall the mighty rebuplican lefty hippy psudo Bm devastate every other form of BM.

Come on guise, as entertaining as this conversation is, it seems to have gone a little off the rails...

I agree with this (and much of what you say--you certainly know more about the specifics of Chinese naval building than I) to an extent, but the USSR was in the same land-based Eurasian Superpower conundrum before, and they managed to project power across the globe with a far inferior economy. If we analogize the historical Japan to the historical Germany I can see the Chinese respecting a Japanese revival of military power as the Soviet concern over the Germans, but the word 'fear' as applied to Korea and Japan bothers me. The Soviets had far more reason to worry about the Germans after 1945 than the Chinese do about the Japanese in 2010 as large scale conventional warfare seems antiquated. And continuing the Soviet example even further, American involvement in post-war Europe and eventually NATO was far more threatening to the USSR than America's more limited involvement in Asia today.

The USSR became a superpower and challenged US hegemony under more adverse circumstances than China faces today, and therefore I do not buy the argument that they will be unable to project power and perhaps create a sort of Warsaw Pact/NATO style power bloc. The economic is where China will win its early new Cold War battles with the US: soon the cost of restraining an arming China in its own backyard will become prohibitive.

Right on. Pinochet had Milton Friedman, Chicago professor extraordinaire, come and praise his regime. Iraq has become a puppet in order to siphon govt money to private organizations through contracts which are never upheld.

@Skiggath: Free speech equals people being obnoxious? What we have across the world is what Americans love to condemn in China. An obvious example would be the absurd opposition to third parties in America. The media (Ron Paul was uninvited/edited out of debates just so I don't sound like a conspiracy theorist) and the two larger parties vehemently oppose some other agenda being introduced. I don't know it just seems really weird when Americans call speaking out obnoxious, preferring the choice of repression and domination.

*sigh*

He praised the economic liberalisation, yes, but criticised the human rights records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of ... n_Friedman

When I say praised his regime, I directly conflate the economic with the political so Friedman's distinction between liberalization and human rights violation is a false dichotomy. The whole side of the story is that the economic liberalization sent the economy in a talespin, forcing people out on to the streets, starving due to hyperinflation imposed on the economy. The left was already being exterminated and the conditions of the communities pushed more people to support the left, who was working to help the country before Allende was usurped, which in turn led to even more people being hunted and executed. You can't draw a clear line between the economic and political policies of Chile or most other places for that matter. Pinochet had to increase control over the populace in order to instill opposed economic policies on a populace which would starve because of them. It's great that Friedman thinks he brought democracy to Chile but he doesn't like to think about the individuals who suffered, sacrificed for that democracy. Friedman's economic policies fuck shit up and often stabilize when pushed more towards the moderate level over time. It's what they imposed on Iraq but was masked by the war going on.

All I'm trying to say is that capitalism does do wonders, no one should doubt that, but as a realist, those who support capitalism shouldn't be content with some suffering for the gain of others. Capitalism has the resources to better many of those who suffer yet I don't think it ever will since there will always be the need to exploit some group or another. People weren't rioting in Bolivia because they were jealous of our cars; they couldn't afford water to drink, bathe or wash their clothes due to radical economic liberalization of the variety Friedman advocates. Capitalism can provide us with so much yet provides those in the worse conditions so little. All I ask for is democratic representation for these groups in order to bring awareness to their plight. I just don't think capitalism will ever do that. The fact that some of you are fine with military suppression of these voices is frightening to be wholly honest whether you disagree with their tactics or ideas. Extreme measures aren't the initial reaction despite what some think; they often result from a lack of other venues to address the extreme conditions one is in.

We could probably argue all day about it. Two points - Allende was a dictator in his own right, and I am not at all fine with military suppression of anyone. I could also mention Marxists praising the likes of Cuba without referring to the human rights violations, but eh, two wrongs don't make a right. My main objection was that the way you (and most other lefty commentators) phrased that, it implied that Friedman (and by further implication, liberalism) was down with dictatorship, which he wasn't and it most definitely is not.

Umm Allende was elected and his election was surrounded by a bunch of FBI/CIA interference. Praise of Cuba tends to or at least should be directed at the cultural transformations which were sought by Castro's regime. It was a clusterfuck in many ways but it had some success albeit minor. Those successes should be praised and recognized. The problem with the regime is that it was ultimately a dictatorship. Radical democracy has never been reached. The soviets which could've provided that were ultimately dissolved by Stalin before they could even bloom due to Lenin choosing to focus on technological development as opposed to popular sovereignty.

Friedman may not be "down with dictatorship", I couldn't give a fuck about that. What Friedman was down with was the atrocities that resulted from the imposed policy changes which Pinochet put in place at Friedman's advice that caused countless deaths and widespread suffering. That is the problem leftists have with Friedman. I don't love dictators but that's not where the issue is for me. Democracy as the facade it is now creates just as much problems as dictators in my book. The issue is the material conditions the people were in which caused suffering due to Friedman's ideas that aren't limited to Chile.

I agree. I think much like the USA, China will dominate economically and project economic power - indeed they are doing this already in Africa which is resource rich and if things like Wikileaks are to be believed, they are gaining momentum there due to a very practical approach.

I don't think Chinese military power will ever be as potent as say 18th/19th century Britain or 20th century USA/USSR.

They simply don't pump that much money into military development. The Chinese military expenditure is only a small fraction of what the US spend or USSR spent on defence even when taking into account accounting discrepancies such as not including military acquisition into defence expenditures.

The other thing is that the Chinese military is completely untried having not fought a war since 1979. Engaging in military adventurism and potentially losing would result in a great loss of face. It will be baby steps (e.g. deployment of Chinese ships for antipiracy operations in .

China is also hindered by having access to only one ocean (Pacfic) and being ringed by potentially hostile countries of which some have major militaries of their own. Even the USSR had access to two oceans. The USA definitely does. It means being able to deploy forces quickly and without having to rely on foreign controlled access channels.

On the other hand US military dominance and power projection will shrink as the US economy shrinks relative to the Chinese and military programs skyrocket in costs. The US military is already shrinking - e.g. the carrier fleet is slowly being reduced, the USAF has lost several hundred fighters in the last couple of years (and a few thousands over the last two decades and the army has switched to small brigades as opposed to divisions).

I think this is where we will see the growth of conventional warfare - not USA versus China but rather proxy wars as those fought in the Cold War.

Definitelly was a democratically elected leader. And was definitely toppled by a CIA sponsored coup.



Also Americans forget that their little puppet dictator in Cuba, Batista, was an absolute pig of a human being.

John F Kennedy on Batista:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista

"Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years ... and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state - destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista - hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend - at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections."


Castro may be a piece of shit dictator but at least he's brought some level of stability to the country and has made some inroads on education and health.

It would be interesting to see how Cuba would perform if the US lifted the sanctions.

And definitely went against democratic checks and barriers, making him a dictator who, at the time of the Pinochet coup, announced that the country had three days' supply of flour left. Hard to see how his remaining in power would not have been a tragedy, whatever came under the following regime.



They're good at bringing order, these dictators. Kind of the whole point.

The US had a habit of supporting the assassination of any leader or toppling of any government that didn't play ball - be it the Iraqi monarchy in 1958, the Dominican dictator in the 1961 or South Vietnam's General Diem.

It wasn't for humanitarian needs. It was for geo-political gain.

The US didn't care about the plight of Chile's people. It cared about potential Communist advances in Latin America.

Indeed the US happily supported Indonesia's Suharto who killed 1 million people when he came into power. They also happily supported his invasion of East Timor in 1975 that resulted in at least 250,000 dead. They happily supported death squads in Central America and Argentina's vicious generals (killed 70,000 people in only a few years).

The US invaded Grenada cause the Cubans were upgrading their international airport. Even the Brits and Canadians were angered by this one as it was a blatant violation of international laws.

US policy in 1945-91 was "Better Dead Than Red."

By the way I don't think the US are the bad guys. Everyone else does the same and have always done it. It's simply the way international relations are.



A lot of them are atrocious at bringing order and some indeed create a lot of disorder due to the need to constantly prop up the power base.


E.g.

Papa and Baby Doc - Haiti
Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Baninarama - Fiji
Diem - South Vietnam
Batista - Cuba
Hussein - Iraq
Emperor Selassie - Ethiopia
Idi Amin - Uganda
Trujillo - Dominican Republic
Hitler - Germany (Germany had stabilised by early-1930's)
Mao - China
Stalin - USSR
Sukarno - Indonesia

Communist and other party based dictatorships seem to be more stable as they're not run as personality cults. The Soviet Union was relatively stable post Stalin because not one single personality dominated.

The party based dictatorship also means more people have a vested interest in ensuring the dictatorship survives. Finally party based dictatorships are bureaucratic which means deposing someone is a political thing and not necessarily

The personality cult dictatorships seem to be unstable because they come down to the whims of a single person and because violence is often used as a control measure.