Conspiracy theory angle? Check.
Coming from the crazy wing of the left? Check. (Why can't we have more crazy wing of the right stories on Slashdot? Where are all the stories concerning the gold standard? Where?)
Write-up worded in a way to encourage crazy conspiracy talk? Check.

Good ol' kdawson. So dependable.

kdawson posted this story.

Isn't that shocking.

Why must it be that every person who dares question the "climate change" movement wants worse environmental conditions?

Is it not possible for one to question the amorphous "climate change" hypothesis and work for a better environment? Or is the world so simple that we are all either Prius or Hummer drivers in your view?

There are a great many people - myself included - who do take measures to use less energy (I have a virtually all CFL home, just redid all the insulation on the doors and windows, etc. and try to be as environmentally friendly as possible - I live in a valley, the air sucks, and it should be cleaned up) without buying into the "climate change" argument?

Even if it's not man made, I'm doing my bit. But I'm not a believer. What, I ask, is so wrong with that?

So, it's your position that the Soviets never used proxies to engage in violence in Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, and Bolivia?

And is it your position that the U.S. military has engaged in battle with Bolivia?

Really?

And I'm the one who should study history?

You do realize that the USSR was "trying to promote pro-socialist governments" in many of these countries by funding and arming people responsible for death and destruction on a massive scale, right? And that the Soviets fully expected this in order to create their beautiful world, right?

The Soviets provided constant material support and encouragement to groups that killed millions. It doesn't matter if Soviet troops were on the ground doing the killing or not in this case - they gave them money, they gave them guns, they gave their "pro-socialist" friends the go ahead, and they stood by and encouraged the slaughter of innocent civilians because these folks just weren't ready to live under a "pro-socialist" government.

The truth is a hard thing to bear, but there it is.

Yes, the Soviets were all just happy little larks after Stalin! Pin it all on Stalin!

No, they didn't support, let's say hundreds of insurrections across the third world throughout Latin America and Africa. No, not at all.

Afghanistan? Just "showing off". And a war on drugs! Let's forget about the hundreds of thousands slaughtered. It was all in good fun! Just joking around, guys! If this were sufficient provocation for war, the U.S. would own much of Central and South America at this point.

And the USSR absolutely didn't lend support to murderous dictators across the world. Nope.

Oh, I already know the response to this. "But the U.S. did it too! Waahh!" To which I say, "well, yeah we did." And I can already hear the, "but we HAD to do it to defend against your AGGRESSION towards us!" Yeah, I'm sure U.S. domination of Cuba was a big threat to the USSR. Massive. Same in Nicaragua. Chile. Bolivia. Huge swathes of Africa. Massive threats, that simply had to be met with Communist guerrilla forces who killed civilians by the truckload.

If you're looking for saints, you won't find any. But you're not looking - you're manufacturing.