Cuba Bars Blogger from Accepting Award in Spain

[Bud Struggle]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90268442

May 8, 2008 · Time magazine last week named its picks for the 100 most influential people in the world. Raul Castro made the cut in 2007 as Cuba's acting president. This year, there's a different Cuban on the list (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733756_1735878,00.html). Yoani Sanchez, 32, has gained a worldwide following for the independent blog she writes from Havana.

We definitely should invite her to post here in OI. It would be interesting to see her perspective about life in a Communist country.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Wait; what is she doing alive? The Cuban secret police haven't tortured her, either? I thought Cuba doesn't allow any dissent?

Western bullshit exposes itself. I guess the press doesn't mind tripping over its own propaganda when doublethink readily applies to people who simply hate anything "non-American.":laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

Wait; what is she doing alive? The Cuban secret police haven't tortured her, either? I thought Cuba doesn't allow any dissent?


Perfect segue here Gene:

Cuba arrests Ladies in White

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0422/p01s07-woam.html

On Monday morning, Pollán and nine other Damas were roughed up by a mob and arrested near the offices of President Raúl Castro. "We are here to demand the release of our husbands and won't leave until they are free or they arrest us. We have waited long enough, we want to talk to the new president," Pollán said, according to Reuters.
Moments later, a bus pulled up and about 20 female corrections officers tried to arrest the women, who sat on the sidewalk, clasped arms, and refused to move.

:)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

*Kof.* Because that doesn't occur in our wonderful capitalist paradise:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1930128420080320
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/5/10_arrested_at_general_dynamics_protest
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47743/story.htm
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-01-03.asp
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299959,00.html

The article you quoted says they've been protesting for weeks. They were arrested for obstructing a public right away. Tom, you need to try harder than that.

[luxemburg89]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90268442

May 8, 2008 · Time magazine last week named its picks for the 100 most influential people in the world. Raul Castro made the cut in 2007 as Cuba's acting president. This year, there's a different Cuban on the list (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733756_1735878,00.html). Yoani Sanchez, 32, has gained a worldwide following for the independent blog she writes from Havana.

We definitely should invite her to post here in OI. It would be interesting to see her perspective about life in a Communist country.

Yeah, that's an excellent idea. I don't personally think Cuba is communist but still, if we can make this happen it would be good for everyone on the site.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I suspect, when the technology becomes available, proto-imperialists will be sorely disappointed.

Cuba isn't communist. Nobody educated in proper political philosophies would make that claim - hence you get capitalist apologists spinning out contradictions like "communist state" and "democratic tyranny." ;)

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, that's an excellent idea. I don't personally think Cuba is communist but still, if we can make this happen it would be good for everyone on the site.

I don't really think Cuba is Communist either--or if it is, it's a very warped kind of Communism. But then again no place ever really will be a Communist Country--because just like Fairyland and Santa's hime in the North Pole such places really can exist only in the imagenation.

It seem that if she does join RevLeft--she definoootley will be an OIer.

Here (I believe) is here blog Generation Y: http://www.desdecuba.com/generationy/

[RedFlagComrade]

How is Cuba not communist-well at least socialist?

[Killfacer]

because its a hereditary despotism. Passed from brother to brother like a gift.

[Bud Struggle]

because its a hereditary despotism. Passed from brother to brother like a gift.

It's like North Korea, a Feudal Communist Country.:lol:

[JazzRemington]

EDIT: NM, misread the article.

[R_P_A_S]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90268442

May 8, 2008 · Time magazine last week named its picks for the 100 most influential people in the world. Raul Castro made the cut in 2007 as Cuba's acting president. This year, there's a different Cuban on the list (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733756_1735878,00.html). Yoani Sanchez, 32, has gained a worldwide following for the independent blog she writes from Havana.

We definitely should invite her to post here in OI. It would be interesting to see her perspective about life in a Communist country.

life in a communist country? fuck. i bet you know more than her. lol

[R_P_A_S]

It's like North Korea, a Feudal Communist Country.:lol:

where do you live and why or how is it better?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's like North Korea, a Feudal Communist Country

This mangled contradiction in terms barely deserves a response, but in the interests of defending the truth...

Raul Castro fought in the Cuban Revolution from the beginning. He was among the militants who undertook the attack on Moncada in 1953 that set the wheels in motion. After fighting on the front lines in the mountains, he became a leading member of the armed forces, Communist Party of Cuba and government. He is President of Cuba because he was elected to be so, based upon his merrits and demonstrated dedication to the revolution.

The so-called "Women in White" (wives and mothers of counterrevolutionary agents under the pay of the U.S. government who protest for their freedom) carry out protests on a regular basis. Usually, when they come into the streets, they are confronted by regular Cuban workers and farmers, who despise their traitorous husbands and sons. They were arrested in the account mentioned in this thread for obstructing a public pathway and refusing to move.

If U.S. citizens tried to subvert the government of the United States while being paid to do so by the Cuban government, they would be arrested or worse (they'd probably be disappeared and held indefinitely as 'enemy combatants'). Protests are regularly broken up in every major city in the United States. Try to block a sidewalk in New York City with a protest and tell me what happens.

Property relations in Cuba and the DPRK (north Korea) in no way, shape or form resemble those of feudalism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The title of this thread is "Cuba bars blogger from accepting award in Spain." I wonder if the author is familiar with this:

Cuban scientist barred from receiving U.S. prize (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10010619/)

Guess who did the barring?

[Bud Struggle]

The title of this thread is "Cuba bars blogger from accepting award in Spain." I wonder if the author is familiar with this:

Cuban scientist barred from receiving U.S. prize (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10010619/)

Guess who did the barring?

That is pretty sucky, to be sure. I wonder why the US denyed him a visa? People travel back and forth to and from Cuba all the time. I go from Florida at least once a year (I have my own boat.)

That's a pretty strange thing.

[Killfacer]

Nothing Human is Alien, do you really think that if Raul Castro's surname wasn't Castro he would now be Cuba's leader? He wouldn't. Its a shame, i like Cuba. Its got a good public health service and a good education system. But fundementally it has been handed down through a family. There should have been a law against it, its a disgrace, it destroys the credability of the nation's "communist" government. Having said that, in America you have had two Bushs and could potentially have two Clintons. This undermiens Americas democracy aswell i guess.

R_P_A_S, i live in the UK, living in the UK is better than living in Cuba for loads of reasons, heres just a couple:

1. The UK is a rich country, despite not actually being rich myself i still feel the effects of this wealth, the effects being my being richer.
2. I have a free vote in the UK, if i become fed up with the current government i can freely get rid of it at an election.
3. I can travel where ever the hell i want.
4. I can say, beleive, and do (anything reasonable) anything the hell i want.

[PRC-UTE]

Nothing Human is Alien, do you really think that if Raul Castro's surname wasn't Castro he would now be Cuba's leader? He wouldn't. Its a shame, i like Cuba. Its got a good public health service and a good education system. But fundementally it has been handed down through a family.

But there's lots of other Castro family members with no hands on political power at all... also your point only holds if the position that the Castro's have held is all-powerful, but in fact it's balanced by the power of the masses through CDR, unions, artists and writers organisations and through direct voting on new laws.

[Killfacer]

just because Castro's position is not all powerful, it does not mean that it is ok to pass it down hereditarily. The point still holds. Does anyone genuinly beleive that Raul Castro would be in power if he was not Fidel's brother.

[PRC-UTE]

just because Castro's position is not all powerful, it does not mean that it is ok to pass it down hereditarily. The point still holds. Does anyone genuinly beleive that Raul Castro would be in power if he was not Fidel's brother.

Probably one would if they knew the history of the Cuban Revolution, and the fact that Raul was more the ideological guiding force than Fidel, who was more an administrative leader.

[Bud Struggle]

Probably one would if they knew the history of the Cuban Revolution, and the fact that Raul was more the ideological guiding force than Fidel, who was more an administrative leader.

Raul was the prince, now he's the regent. That's the way monarchies work.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So you two aren't interested in serious debate at all? I figured as much, but weighed in anyway for the sake of comrades who may have been somehow swayed by your hogwash.

[manic expression]

On the original post, I remember something similar with the Ladies in White a few years back. They had won an award and were invited to recieve it abroad, but the Cuban government (gasp) blocked their exit! When the facts came out, it became clear that the Ladies in White deliberately submitted their request for an exit visa late, in an effort to be seen as persecuted. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened here.


Nothing Human is Alien, do you really think that if Raul Castro's surname wasn't Castro he would now be Cuba's leader? He wouldn't.

One of the reasons the Raul was elected President was that the Bush Administration declared Raul would not be acceptable as head of Cuba. The US drew a line and dared Cuba to cross it, and Cuba crossed it.

However, it's not the only reason. As has been previously stated, Raul has put his life on the line and worked his entire life to struggle for the Cuban people. How is Raul NOT qualified? That is what you need to show if your argument is to have any validity.


Its a shame, i like Cuba. Its got a good public health service and a good education system. But fundementally it has been handed down through a family. There should have been a law against it, its a disgrace, it destroys the credability of the nation's "communist" government. Having said that, in America you have had two Bushs and could potentially have two Clintons. This undermiens Americas democracy aswell i guess.

Cuba wasn't "handed down", Raul was elected through due process. That's a central difference that you miss because of rhetoric.


R_P_A_S, i live in the UK, living in the UK is better than living in Cuba for loads of reasons, heres just a couple:

1. The UK is a rich country, despite not actually being rich myself i still feel the effects of this wealth, the effects being my being richer.
2. I have a free vote in the UK, if i become fed up with the current government i can freely get rid of it at an election.
3. I can travel where ever the hell i want.
4. I can say, beleive, and do (anything reasonable) anything the hell i want.

1.) The UK is not under siege from the United States. There are a few other macroeconomic differences I could cite, but you get the picture.
2.) Cubans can freely vote. They do in large numbers, far larger than western capitalist countries. Why? The vote of ordinary Cubans actually matters, whereas Americans know that the status quo is never threatened; Britons knew that as well when they voted in "new labour".
3.) Really? There are no limits on your travel? I find that hard to believe, since you said you weren't rich yourself. However, Cubans do travel quite a bit, so I'm not sure why this matters.
4.) Again, an assumption based on misperceptions. Cuban "dissidents" who find themselves on trial take money from US-based terrorist groups with the intent of destabilizing Cuba.


Raul was the prince, now he's the regent. That's the way monarchies work.

No, that's not how it works. Raul was elected into his present position, he didn't get it through inheritance. Secondly, one of the big reasons for his elections was that the US tried to forbid Cuba from electing him. I could go on, but that's OK for now.

[Killfacer]

Whether Raul Castro is qualified to lead cuba is irrelevant. The passing down, even if as you say it was done by fair vote, of a the leadership of a country is always wrong. He should be disqualified from leading. It reflects extremely badly, escpecially on people who have a bit of support for Cuba such as myself.

The reasons for the UK being a nicer place to live is once again irrelevant. I am not denying that Cuba is worse to live in because of outside intervention. The actions of the US goverment have had long term and extremely negative effects on Cuba. But that does not make it nicer to live in than the UK, which was the original statement by R_P_A_S

[RHIZOMES]

2. I have a free vote in the UK, if i become fed up with the current government i can freely get rid of it at an election.


:lol::laugh:

The Tories vs. New Labour. What a fucking choice!

[Bud Struggle]

So you two aren't interested in serious debate at all? I figured as much, but weighed in anyway for the sake of comrades who may have been somehow swayed by your hogwash.

OK so here's the story. Cuba is and been ruled by a family of despots for the past 50 years. It has great health care and education but it doesn't do breakfast lunch and dinner very well. People are trying to get out of there daily on rafts and boats and whatever else they can get their hands on. I have a summer house in the Florida Keys and we SEE them trying to get to the United States. The people there are poor, very poor. There's a huge underground black market in Cuba where people buy their staples in life. Actually, besides for the veneer of Communism, Cuba is much like any other banana dictatorship.

On the other side America's behavior toward Cuba hasn't been very good either--the Cuban ex-pats make American policy, not the Us government and the ex-pats have such a burning hatred for all things Castro that they have been poisoning relations with that country for the last 35 years. There is a entire world in South Florida that's dedicated to taking over Cuba when Castro dies. They have plenty of money and guns and who knows what else. If they will succeed or not, I have no idea, but they are going to try something--I can assure you that.

[RedAnarchist]

Nothing Human is Alien, do you really think that if Raul Castro's surname wasn't Castro he would now be Cuba's leader? He wouldn't. Its a shame, i like Cuba. Its got a good public health service and a good education system. But fundementally it has been handed down through a family. There should have been a law against it, its a disgrace, it destroys the credability of the nation's "communist" government. Having said that, in America you have had two Bushs and could potentially have two Clintons. This undermiens Americas democracy aswell i guess.

R_P_A_S, i live in the UK, living in the UK is better than living in Cuba for loads of reasons, heres just a couple:

1. The UK is a rich country, despite not actually being rich myself i still feel the effects of this wealth, the effects being my being richer.
2. I have a free vote in the UK, if i become fed up with the current government i can freely get rid of it at an election.
3. I can travel where ever the hell i want.
4. I can say, beleive, and do (anything reasonable) anything the hell i want.

1. Oh yeah, the homeless and those living on council estates don't need food or shelter - this is a rich country, they can be fed and live in the effectr of being a citizen of a rich country!:rolleyes:

2. Come on, don't make me drag out the cliched quotes about voting, you know it doesn't change anything apart from the occasional swapping of the leader.

3. True, if you have a passport and the money to do so. Of course, if you don't you better stay where you are - the rest of the world is only acccessible to those who can pay.

4. Can you? Do you know exactly what you can say, do and believe or not in this country?

[Killfacer]

1. RedAnarchist, i dont see why the unlucky experiances of a tiny minority should be counted against the UK.
2. Voting is hardly a clichy, the policies of the Thatcher government are pretty different to what a labour government would have done.
3. With the advent of cheap air travel, most of us can afford to travel to different countries
4. And yes i can beleieve what the hell i want.

[manic expression]

Whether Raul Castro is qualified to lead cuba is irrelevant. The passing down, even if as you say it was done by fair vote, of a the leadership of a country is always wrong. He should be disqualified from leading. It reflects extremely badly, escpecially on people who have a bit of support for Cuba such as myself.

No, it is relevant. "Passing down" leadership has nothing to do with qualification. Electing a qualified leader, on the other hand, does. Saudi Arabia "passes down" positions, for they are not subject to elections.

Secondly, as I said before, one of the reasons for Raul's election was that the US challenged Cuba and declared Raul would never rule. In electing Raul, Cuba showed them they have no say in their internal affairs.

Just to reiterate, the mere fact that it WAS a fair vote means it wasn't "passing down" anything. It's as simple as that in my view.


The reasons for the UK being a nicer place to live is once again irrelevant. I am not denying that Cuba is worse to live in because of outside intervention. The actions of the US goverment have had long term and extremely negative effects on Cuba. But that does not make it nicer to live in than the UK, which was the original statement by R_P_A_SYes, I'm not denying that, but it is certainly understandable given the wider situation.

Another thing we must remember is that Cuba's programs have no access to an industrial base like the one in the UK. If similar policies were introduced to the UK, the living standards of all British citizens would increase tremendously, just as the living standards of Cubans have drastically increased since the time of Batista. I think this, the model, is the point of Cuba's success that we need to deal with.


3. With the advent of cheap air travel, most of us can afford to travel to different countriesI mean, with the advent of expensive gas and crappy public transportation, most of us in the US cannot afford to travel WITHIN our own country. I know what you're saying, but prospects of travel aren't always as great as they are when it comes to inter-European flights (which are obviously great). And give the dollar a few more years, and Americans won't be able to spend a day and two nights in Britain without going broke. Anyway, I think the more important point is that Cubans can and do travel throughout the world for business and pleasure.

[Killfacer]

i just personally feel that the leadership of a government should never by dynastic, whatever the leadership quality of the second leader. i also feel that just annoying America is not a particuarly good reason for anything.

Your other points cant really be argued against admittedly. What i was saying about the UK being better than Cuba was in response to someone saying otherwise.

[Awful Reality]

That is pretty sucky, to be sure. I wonder why the US denyed him a visa? People travel back and forth to and from Cuba all the time. I go from Florida at least once a year (I have my own boat.)

That's a pretty strange thing.

Thanks for the wonderfully one-sided logic. When talking about cuba, you were clearly implying that this somehow had to do with "communist despotism" or some other garbage like that. However, when something worse- involving, you know, the lives of people- you just can't seem to figure out why...

Please. And then there's that inane crap at the end.

[Bud Struggle]

Thanks for the wonderfully one-sided logic. When talking about cuba, you were clearly implying that this somehow had to do with "communist despotism" or some other garbage like that. However, when something worse- involving, you know, the lives of people- you just can't seem to figure out why...

Please. And then there's that inane crap at the end.

It's not that easy. I (or you) can get on a boat and go to Cuba anytime you want. Cubans aren't allowed to leave Cuba. I can eat in any restaurant in Cuba I want--Cubans can't. I can have internet anywhere I want--Cubans only have it in hotels and cafes used by foreigners. Cuba isn't that free of a country. No one is posting on RevLeft from Cuba--because they can't. People hide out on rafts every day to cross the Straight and flee to the US.

Now, I definitely think it's wrong for the US not to let that guy in the country--and I know why he wasn't let in--it's because of pressure from the Cuban ex-pat lobby. The US has been bending over to please those people for 50 years. Cuba is being treated differently than any other Latin country, And I agree that it's wrong.

But as long as the Lobby can get ex-pat Cubans to vote in block--they are going to get their way.

[Baconator]

I have a question.

Clearly many people here have stated they do not think countries like Cuba , N.Korea, Venezuela, and even China are communist or socialist countries. Ok, but why take a special interest in defending the policies of those states? I guess I don't see the connection. If I were an ardent communist and did not consider those states representative of my views then I wouldn't find any particular reason jump to the defense of those states when they are often violent. At the very least it suggests to the passive observer that you guys actually do have some kind of ideological empathy toward those states.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

I have a question.

Clearly many people here have stated they do not think countries like Cuba , N.Korea, Venezuela, and even China are communist or socialist countries. Ok, but why take a special interest in defending the policies of those states? I guess I don't see the connection. If I were an ardent communist and did not consider those states representative of my views then I wouldn't find any particular reason jump to the defense of those states when they are often violent. At the very least it suggests to the passive observer that you guys actually do have some kind of ideological empathy toward those states.
1. They are anti-american. The USSR provided a counterweight to US imperialism, to a degree protecting the third world.
2. They generally provide their people with a much better standard of living than the western client states they replaced, and the states the west is trying to replace them with (or did in the case of the USSR, the sandinistas, chile etc).

*not north korea, that sucks.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I have a question.

Clearly many people here have stated they do not think countries like Cuba , N.Korea, Venezuela, and even China are communist or socialist countries. Ok, but why take a special interest in defending the policies of those states? I guess I don't see the connection. If I were an ardent communist and did not consider those states representative of my views then I wouldn't find any particular reason jump to the defense of those states when they are often violent. At the very least it suggests to the passive observer that you guys actually do have some kind of ideological empathy toward those states.

It's called enunciating the truth. Is there anything wrong with blowing down false accusations? Marxists don't simplify history and social relations into "good" and "bad." Indeed a whole lot of us are against the policies each country instituted in response to an aggression; few anti-socialists are willing to admit their own country's mistakes, or they just ignore anything that is inconvenient about the past and capitalism.

[Killfacer]

Ha TheDevil'sApprentice, your veiw sums up something particuarly poor about much of the people on this site. I dont think the fact that the USSR disliked the US is good enough reason to actively promote it or even defend it. Yes it was a counterbalance, one which helped nobody. I think everyone on this forum would rather live in cold war America than cold war Russia. Justifying it as a counterbalance is as good as defending Nazi Germany was a counterbalance to the US and the UK. Just a hugely poor justification,

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Ha TheDevil'sApprentice, your veiw sums up something particuarly poor about much of the people on this site. I dont think the fact that the USSR disliked the US is good enough reason to actively promote it or even defend it. Yes it was a counterbalance, one which helped nobody. I think everyone on this forum would rather live in cold war America than cold war Russia. Justifying it as a counterbalance is as good as defending Nazi Germany was a counterbalance to the US and the UK. Just a hugely poor justification,The question is not whether it was better to live in the US than the USSR. The question is whether it was better to live in an american or soviet client state - as thats what both were promoting. American client states were far worse. Yes the USSR was an evil empire - but the american empire makes it look like a bunch of sunday school teachers. Start here:
http://www.cyberspacei.com/jesusi/authors/chomsky/sam/sam.htm

Supporting the USSR against the US was like supporting the US and UK against the nazis, not the other way round. When you include foreign policy the US was by far the greater evil. When the USSR fell, the US and its proxies were much more able to engage in their brutal wars against the third world. This is a bad thing - one that the continued existence of the USSR may have prevented. Its not about the USSR disliking the US, its about the threat of the soviet military preventing american attrocities, and soviet assistance to anti-american forces actively fighting them. The fall of the USSR was also a disaster for the russian people - mass starvation, epidemics, economic collapse etc following the restoration of capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

The question is not whether it was better to live in the US than the USSR. The question is whether it was better to live in an american or soviet client state - as thats what both were promoting. American client states were far worse. Yes the USSR was an evil empire - but the american empire makes it look like a bunch of sunday school teachers.

Actually, Western Europe was a MUCH nicer place than Eastern Europe as far as client states go. So for the most part in developed nations the Americans definitely had the advantage. Now if you want to discuss--not so developed nations, Angola, or Uganda or the countries of South America, neither America nor the Soviet Union did much to help any of these countries. They were on their own with their respective political juntas. A sad state of affairs on both sides.


Start here:
http://www.cyberspacei.com/jesusi/authors/chomsky/sam/sam.htm

Unfortunally while Mr Chomsky is a definite genius when it comes to Linguistics and Semantics, he's a bit of a dunce on the political realm--it's hard to credit his ravings with much merit.


Its not about the USSR disliking the US, its about the threat of the soviet military preventing american attrocities, and soviet assistance to anti-american forces actively fighting them.

Actually, both the Soviets and the Americans did their damage and either side really didn't stop the other side from doing whatever they wanted. The Soviets didn't stop the Americans in Vietnam and the Americans didn't stop the Soviets in Afganistan.


The fall of the USSR was also a disaster for the russian people - mass starvation, epidemics, economic collapse etc following the restoration of capitalism.

Feudalism (the Tsar) Communism and Capitalism were all disasters for the Russian people. But for a moment or two after the Fall of Communism the Russians did have a bit of freedom. (The same thing happened after the fall of the Tsar.)

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Actually, Western Europe was a MUCH nicer place than Eastern Europe as far as client states go.
As it was before the war. If we compare places of similar development at the time they became clients, the soviet ones were much nicer. Lets look at cuba - it got to be both, and the people did much better as a client of the USSR. I was thinking more in terms of repressions against the population mind. Soviet client states never had anything close to the contras.


Now if you want to discuss--not so developed nations, Angola, or Uganda or the countries of South America, neither America nor the Soviet Union did much to help any of these countries. They were on their own with their respective political juntas. A sad state of affairs on both sides.
No, this isn't accurate. There were many american interventions replacing democratically elected regimes with dictatorships, and brutalising countries. Nicuragua, Chile, Guatemala, El Slalvador, Haiti, Indonesia, East Timor etc. CIA orchestrated bloodbaths. US crimes in south america were unspeakable. The amount of weapons the US supplied to monsters is staggering.


Unfortunally while Mr Chomsky is a definite genius when it comes to Linguistics and Semantics, he's a bit of a dunce on the political realm--it's hard to credit his ravings with much merit.
Am I going to get any more than an assertion? Chomsky states facts, thats pretty much all he does in his political writings. They check out.
If you dont like chomsky, try William Blum's 'Killing Hope' - a solid as can be history of CIA interventions since WWII. Not online though.


Actually, both the Soviets and the Americans did their damage and either side really didn't stop the other side from doing whatever they wanted. The Soviets didn't stop the Americans in Vietnam and the Americans didn't stop the Soviets in Afganistan.
Bollocks. The taliban got massive american assistance. The vietnamese got considerably less, but still a significant amount from the USSR. There is no one to help iraq in such a way.


Feudalism (the Tsar) Communism and Capitalism were all disasters for the Russian people. But for a moment or two after the Fall of Communism the Russians did have a bit of freedom. (The same thing happened after the fall of the Tsar.)
Under the later USSR, most russians could eat and had access to some healthcare. Not anymore, and the death toll is enormous.

[anti_fa01]

Ahh, who wanna bet us that we don't touch leathers
Stack cheddars forever, live treacherous all the et ceteras
To the death of us, me and my confidants, we shine
You feel the ambiance, y'all commies just rhyme
By the ounce dough accumulates like snow
We don't just shine, we illuminate the whole show; you feel me?
Factions from the other side would love to kill me
Spill three quarts of my blood into the street, let alone the heat
Fuck em, we hate a fascist lovin this life
In all possible ways, know the Feds is buggin my life
Hospital days, reflectin when my man laid up
On the Uptown high block he got his side sprayed up
I saw his life slippin, this is a minor set back
Yo, still in all we livin, just dream about the get back
That made him smile though his eyes said, "Pray for me"
I'll do you one better and slay these commies faithfully
Murder is a tough thing to digest, it's a slow process
and I ain't got nothin but time
I had near brushes, not to mention three shots
close range, never touched me, divine intervention
Can't stop I, from drinkin Mai-Tai's, with Ta Ta
Down in Nevada, ha ha, Poppa, word life
I dabbled in crazy weight without capitalism, I was crazy straight
Potnah, I'm still spendin money from eighty-eight... what?
Geyeah, know what? I'll make..
you and your wack mans fold like bad hands
Roll like Monopoly, ad-vance you copy me
like white crystals, I gross the most
at the end of the fiscal year than these commies can wish to
The dead presidential, canidate
with the sprinkles and the presidental, ice that'll offend you
In due time when crime fleas my mind
All sneak thieves and revolutionary's can shine
But until then I keep the trillion cut diamonds shinin brilliant
I'll tell you half the story, the rest you fill it in
Long as the capitalist's win
I spend Japan yen, attend major events
Catch me in the joints, convinced my iguanas is bitin
N-A-Z-I hyphen, controllin, manipulatin
I got a good life man, pounds and pence
Nuff dollars make sense, while you ride the bench
Catch me swinging for the fence
Dead Presidents, ya know
Uh-huh, yeah, uh-huh, so be it
The Soviet, The Unified Steady Flow
You already know, you light I'm heavy roll, heavy dough
I might macheted your hoe, your paper falls slow
like confetti, mines a steady grow, bet he glow
Pay five dead it from blow, better believe I have
eleven sixty to show, my doe flip like Tae-Kwon
NSM The Icon, baby, you like Dom, maybe this Cristal's
to change your life huh, roll with the winners
Heavy spenders like hit records: NSM
Don't get it corrected this shit is perfected
from chips to chicks just drivin a Lexus
Make it without your gun, we takin everything you brung
We cake and you commies is fake and we gettin it done
Crime Family, well connected NAZI
And you fake Commies is Unplugged like MTV
I empty three, take your treasure, my pleasure
Dead presidentials, politics as usual
Bla-ouw!

[Bud Struggle]

You have bee SOUNDLY rebutted in the Chatter thread. :cool:

[Bud Struggle]

As it was before the war. If we compare places of similar development at the time they became clients, the soviet ones were much nicer. Lets look at cuba - it got to be both, and the people did much better as a client of the USSR. I was thinking more in terms of repressions against the population mind. Soviet client states never had anything close to the contras.

Cuba is a police state. I've been there a bunch of times--it's simitar to the soviet union (where I have also been) in the way every one watches what they say and looks over their sholder.



No, this isn't accurate. There were many american interventions replacing democratically elected regimes with dictatorships, and brutalising countries. Nicuragua, Chile, Guatemala, El Slalvador, Haiti, Indonesia, East Timor etc. CIA orchestrated bloodbaths. US crimes in south america were unspeakable. The amount of weapons the US supplied to monsters is staggering.

Don't have data on that--I'll look up and get back.



Am I going to get any more than an assertion? Chomsky states facts, thats pretty much all he does in his political writings. They check out. If you dont like chomsky, try William Blum's 'Killing Hope' - a solid as can be history of CIA interventions since WWII. Not online though.

I'm sure the Left has their side to things--so has the right. It was a vast ideological war--that the West won. There are casualties in war.



Bollocks. The taliban got massive american assistance. The vietnamese got considerably less, but still a significant amount from the USSR. There is no one to help iraq in such a way.

The Vietnamese didn't get much help because tthe SU couldn't muster the resources. The Taliban got American assistance--but not massive amounts. The truth is that the Soviet army wasn't all that good. The US took Afganistan without a soldier on the ground.



Under the later USSR, most russians could eat and had access to some healthcare. Not anymore, and the death toll is enormous.

They were starving before the SU fell. I was in the SU before and after it fell--hunting for food was vast and often unfruitful work. For what it's worth--things are better now. (Though admittedly--I haven't been back in ten years.)

[Baconator]

1. They are anti-american. The USSR provided a counterweight to US imperialism, to a degree protecting the third world.
2. They generally provide their people with a much better standard of living than the western client states they replaced, and the states the west is trying to replace them with (or did in the case of the USSR, the sandinistas, chile etc).

*not north korea, that sucks.

Ok, thanks for the response.
1. So the support is there because they are anti-American? Ok,fair enough, I am also anti-American but I don't use that as a pretext to support other states violating the rights of individual people. To me, imperialism and statism are wrong no matter what land mass on earth it is practiced on and I don't distinguish immorality based on some invalid concept known as a 'nation.' I cannot truly be against imperialism/statism if I say it is both right and wrong at the same time. That presents an obvious contradiction in my proposition.

2. Well I don't get it. Are you hinting the USSR was socialist then? Or maybe it was capitalist? I have heard that stated here many other times. Where do you draw the objective line when distinguishing the two? I think we can all agree its rather difficult to find a pure capitalistic or socialist country in the world today as most countries are mixed economies with elements of both.

[Baconator]

It's called enunciating the truth. Is there anything wrong with blowing down false accusations? Marxists don't simplify history and social relations into "good" and "bad." Indeed a whole lot of us are against the policies each country instituted in response to an aggression; few anti-socialists are willing to admit their own country's mistakes, or they just ignore anything that is inconvenient about the past and capitalism.


I never said theres nothing wrong with making a case against false accusations and I understand the Marxist historical materialism which is supposed to be 'scientific' and amoral.
We've had our discussions in the past and I'll point out the same thing I point out frequently. When you and I debate about 'roads' for example I make the market anarchist case stating that a single monopoly over roads is unnecessary yet you bring up the statist argument legitimizing the state's monopoly. You also bring up defensive statist arguments for food inspection and many other things. I don't view anything intrinsically valuable in the state as it is , economically speaking , just a forced monopoly and thats not even using the argument from morality.
I believe you are an anarchist as you say but I am often baffled that you 95% of the time resort to statist arguments against my position instead of using specifically anarcho-socialist arguments. Often times I find myself having to establish the axiom that anarchy is better than the state with you which is something I do debating actual statists and I believe this retards the constructive potential of our debates. Suppose it was flipped around and you made your arguments for anarchy yet I resorted to statist arguments to respond to yours. Wouldn't you consider me a hypocrite if I claim I'm an anarchist but all too often use statist arguments?
And even if your arguments did 'win me over' then you would have effectively just turned me back into a statist and we would still be at odds since you're an anarchist.
Furthermore, I don't attempt to defend any statist-capitalist nation as I am equally, or perhaps , more against corporate capitalism than you are.

Sorry for going off topic a bit there.

[Killfacer]

Sorry bout that

[Robert]

i am pissed off my fucking wankered fizzog.

WTF?

[Baconator]

He's wasted.

[Killfacer]

anyway what i was attempting to say last night is that simply saying you defend the USSR because it was in disagreement with the USA is not good enough a reason. Yes America did stupid things and pretty much destroyed the Sandinistas but this doesnt give you grounds to defend the USSR

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Ok, thanks for the response.
1. So the support is there because they are anti-American? Ok,fair enough, I am also anti-American but I don't use that as a pretext to support other states violating the rights of individual people. To me, imperialism and statism are wrong no matter what land mass on earth it is practiced on and I don't distinguish immorality based on some invalid concept known as a 'nation.' I cannot truly be against imperialism/statism if I say it is both right and wrong at the same time. That presents an obvious contradiction in my proposition.
This highlights the main difference between us. I am a pragmatist, you are an idealist. I am not interested in making moral judgements, I am interested in changing things for the better.
Lets take the nazi example. Would you have supported the war waged by the west against them? I would have done - for the practical reason of stopping nazi imperialism. That does not mean I would have given the west my moral sanction (whatever that means) or approval, or supported their attrocities. Same goes for the USSR vs the US. Maybe I should have better clarified what I meant by support.
Would refusing to help any side in the second world war because they were all states make you a better anti-statist than helping the allies against the nazis? Of course not.


2. Well I don't get it. Are you hinting the USSR was socialist then? Or maybe it was capitalist? I have heard that stated here many other times. Where do you draw the objective line when distinguishing the two? I think we can all agree its rather difficult to find a pure capitalistic or socialist country in the world today as most countries are mixed economies with elements of both.
USSR was 100% pure capitalist. Capitalism is a system where the majority working class sells its labour to a minority rulling class which controls the means of production. Such was the USSR.
Socialism/Communism is a system where the means of production are controled democratically by the people (I dont believe that this can be done through a state) and there is no rulling class.
(note: marxists will tell you socialism is a transition period between capitalism and communism - anarchists like me think this idea is silly and extreemely dangerous)

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

anyway what i was attempting to say last night is that simply saying you defend the USSR because it was in disagreement with the USA is not good enough a reason. Yes America did stupid things and pretty much destroyed the Sandinistas but this doesnt give you grounds to defend the USSR
Lets look at this another way. Do nazi attrocities give us grounds to defend the allies? Considering that the allies did horrible things like the bombing of german cities.

IMO depends what you mean by defend. If there had been no allies, things would have been much worse. And IMO helping the allies in their war would have been a good thing. I don't defend allied attrocities, nor do I like the allies and I would certainly not have supported them unconditionally.

Pretty much the same goes for the USSR. If there hadnt been a USSR, america would have been able to get away with much more, so it was a good thing there was a USSR. Its not about the USSR not liking the US - its about the threat of the soviet military reducing american attrocities like the ones against the sandinistas - and the soviet union supplying weapons to the sandinistas and those like them. Any true supporter of the sandinistas would support these things. I dont support soviet attrocies, like the USSR and I would not have supported them unconditionally. Hope that clears things up.

Oh, and I don't think what was done to the sandinistas was stupid, It was genius. American foreign policy isnt stupid it is evil and very, very clever.

[edit] so I dont tripple post, I'll get back to Tom in a bit

[Killfacer]

I dont think you should make historical comparisons. Once again your attempting to justify something using a stupid means.

By stupid i dont actually me stupid i mean immoral.

I cant help but feel you have misunderstood the nature of the USA during the coldwar. Yes it was agressive, but only to allies of the USSR. Now i am not defending this, it is clearly unfair and a ridiculous foreign policy, i am simply saying that the USSR cannot be defended by saying it acted as a counterweight to the USA.

[Dean]

anyway what i was attempting to say last night is that simply saying you defend the USSR because it was in disagreement with the USA is not good enough a reason. Yes America did stupid things and pretty much destroyed the Sandinistas but this doesnt give you grounds to defend the USSR


Not stupid, downright evil. The U.S. has a history of committing egregious atrocities, and whats more sinister is that the citizens are so fucking brainwashed that they call it stupid instead of calling it vicious, immoral imperialism - if they accept the facts at all. I don't see anyone here calling the atrocities committed by other countries "stupid." They're sick. I say fuck this nation, I'll laugh so hard when it falls and all these petty idols are crushed.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

I cant help but feel you have misunderstood the nature of the USA during the coldwar. Yes it was agressive, but only to allies of the USSR. Now i am not defending this, it is clearly unfair and a ridiculous foreign policy, i am simply saying that the USSR cannot be defended by saying it acted as a counterweight to the USA.
No, it is you who has misunderstood it. America was agressive to anyone trying to change the third world for the better. Hell, in south america they were effectively at war with the catholic church at one point. The primary objective of american foreign policy was to maintain its system of exploitative cleint states. What they feared was a good example of independent third world development. It didnt matter what form that took - if it was better than the US clients (which really wasnt hard) then others may follow its lead. Thus any attempt to change the third world for the better, or inpire hope there had to be crushed. The war agaisnt the third world was much more important to the US than the cold war.

When attacked by the US, those trying to help the third world often turned to the USSR for help, and became soviet allies. But this happened after they were attacked by the US. It was a damn good thing that they could get such help. They can't anymore.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Cuba is a police state. I've been there a bunch of times--it's simitar to the soviet union (where I have also been) in the way every one watches what they say and looks over their sholder.
I am aware that cuba is not a free society. If you have any information on the secret police in cuba, I would be grateful. I often debate against people who argue that cuba is free and socialist. I have been able to find little reliable evidence for major repressions on par with those in american client states or even the USSR. It seems obvious that the level of repression its population faces is much lower than when it was an american client state. They have food, education and healthcare now too.


I'm sure the Left has their side to things--so has the right. It was a vast ideological war--that the West won. There are casualties in war.What are you trying to say here. Winning a war doesnt make you the good guys. I've read milton friedman and the like - Its complete bollocks, rotten to the core. If the right does have its side to things, I'm yet to come across it - and I've looked pretty hard.


The Vietnamese didn't get much help because tthe SU couldn't muster the resources.
They got billions of dollars worth of weapons. They got a lot more from china. Without foreign assistance, they would have lost and it would have been a disaster. Imagine if someone gave that kind of asistance to iraq - the USSR would if it was still about.


They were starving before the SU fell. I was in the SU before and after it fell--hunting for food was vast and often unfruitful work. For what it's worth--things are better now. (Though admittedly--I haven't been back in ten years.)I'd like to see some figures on that. I dont think they will come close to what happened after.

[Killfacer]

Okay, im not trying to defend the USA, although the tangent i went on did make it appear like that. But i still dont think that the actions of either of the countries can be excused. Dean is correct, calling the actions taken by the USA "stupid" is in fact stupid. So i will correct myself: I do not beleive the the atrocities commited the USA and the USSR cancel each other out. Both the nations are guilty of terrible crimes and defending either on the grounds that if it hadnt existed then the other would have done worse is stupid. (i hope that last bit made sense).

[Dean]

Okay, im not trying to defend the USA, although the tangent i went on did make it appear like that. But i still dont think that the actions of either of the countries can be excused. Dean is correct, calling the actions taken by the USA "stupid" is in fact stupid. So i will correct myself: I do not beleive the the atrocities commited the USA and the USSR cancel each other out. Both the nations are guilty of terrible crimes and defending either on the grounds that if it hadnt existed then the other would have done worse is stupid. (i hope that last bit made sense).

I wasn't just talking about you, but thanks for seeing what I'm saying. I'm more frustrated at the general attitude I see among people when I tell them of the negative things our country does. And you're right that the USSR is also to blame for a lot, though many would like to say they weren't imperialist.

[Killfacer]

if invading afghanistan is not imperialist i dont know what is.

[Bud Struggle]

if invading afghanistan is not imperialist i dont know what is.

The US had no plans to invade Afganistan until 9/11 happened. Bin-Laden's hosts, the Taliban kind of pissed America off a bit. On the other hand the US's invasion of Iraq was Imperialism.

[Dean]

The US had no plans to invade Afganistan until 9/11 happened. Bin-Laden's hosts, the Taliban kind of pissed America off a bit. On the other hand the US's invasion of Iraq was Imperialism.

He was talking about the USSR. But its a good point that the invasion of Iraq did nothing, but was also quite bad - first off, 9-11 was a logical response to the violent imperialism our country partakes in. The response was really to spit in the face of all the people we've been fucking over for the past 80 years.

I'll be the first to say that something needs to be done about Afghanistan, but for the U.S. and NATO to do that is laughable. I don't expect people whose economic, social and political lives have been ruined by the U.S. to greet the imperialists with open arms.

TomK, you're not stupid... I think you need to seriously examine your position on the U.S. and its place in the world.

[Bud Struggle]

He was talking about the USSR.

Oops sorry about that!:blushing:

As afr as America's place in the worl--well I'm not totally sanguine with all that goes on--I certainly feel that Iraq was a mistake, as a matter of fact, I have no idea what that is all about. I herar people talking about "profits" and I know a few people are profiting from the war, but it's really doing nothing for America as a whole. That's a mess.

I have no regrets about Afganistan. I don't buy the argument that America has been opressing anyone over there for 80 years. There is nothing over that we oppress that they don't do a better job of oppressing on their own. The Middle East is NOTHING without oil, they sell it they make a few bucks--without oil that entire part of the world has a lower GNP than Finland. They have their kings and emirs and mullahs and their Islam. No one really bothers them culturally or politically--unless they decide to overstep their bounds as the Taliban did.

The Middle East for the most part is a Feudal society. They aren't evolving or growing--the only thing that would be different if we weren't iver there is that they would be poorer than they are now. But now that have to grow a bit as they become involved in the global economy--it's just the way the world is evolving, and they are on a cusp of change with a few reactionaries fight the move.

The Middle East needs to come into the Global Capitalist market and loose millitant Islam--once they do things will become easier for them.

[Killfacer]

If the reasons given for both wars had been honest then i may not support them but i would not actively have a go at them. Instead of lying about WMDs, if the US government had simply said we are going to get rid of a dictator who has killed millions of people im sure alot more people would have agreed with it. Invading afghanistan is much the same, we were never likely to find Bin Laden and even if we did it would not have been worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands. But if we had simply said we were desposing of a radical islamic group who opress women, homosexuals and people of other religions, once again i would not have supported the war but i would have found the reasons far more acceptable.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

I have no regrets about Afganistan.America shelters the miami mafia which has conducted many terrorist atacks agaisnt cuba. The CIA has given them massive assistance. Would you have any regrets if cuba did to america what america did to afghanistan? Why, why not? Of course cuba doesnt have the military might - maybe they should try bioweapons or something?


I don't buy the argument that America has been opressing anyone over there for 80 years.Where do you think the people doing the opressing over there get their guns? What america does is find the biggest set of bastards able to keep the rabble in line, and agree to arm them and keep them in power in exchange for the economy being organised in such a way as most profits leave the country. Without the US, of course there would still be bastards over there trying to opress the people - but they would have a harder time doing so without piles and piles of american weapons.

[Bud Struggle]

America shelters the miami mafia which has conducted many terrorist atacks agaisnt cuba. The CIA has given them massive assistance. Would you have any regrets if cuba did to america what america did to afghanistan? Why, why not? Of course cuba doesnt have the military might - maybe they should try bioweapons or something?

The cubans are certainly welcome to invade the United States. The Cubans know that if they did anything to the US they would be wiped out in an instant. And to be perfectly honest it isn't totally "fair" but the Cuban revolutionaries sided with the wrong side (the now defunct Soviet Union of happy memory) and can't expect to be well loved by America. On the other hand I don't know of any "attacks" the Cuban expats have done against Cuba. They do train excessively and go get all sorts of aid, but large amounts of what they do is "toy soldiering." It keeps them usy and kepps them voting--and someday when the Revolution is over and the expats take over--Anerica will have a good friend 90 miles away.


Where do you think the people doing the opressing over there get their guns? What america does is find the biggest set of bastards able to keep the rabble in line, and agree to arm them and keep them in power in exchange for the economy being organised in such a way as most profits leave the country. Without the US, of course there would still be bastards over there trying to opress the people - but they would have a harder time doing so without piles and piles of american weapons.

Again--no doubt true. We give large amounts of aid to Pakastan and to Egypt both somewhat politically repressive, but both (until the recent troubles in Pakastan) reletively stable countries. But what makes the countries in that part of the world repressive isn't really just their governments--but it's their religious beliefs that the people cling to. So in a lot of ways America with it's far reaching culture of personal freedom is loosening up those bonds--and meeting fierce resistance.

What the people inthe Middle East really resent isn't or money of our guns--it's our culture.

[Killfacer]

Tom you put your foot in it there. "The people in the middle east need our culture" thats a pretty offensive notion. They certainly do not need "our culture" they simply need to develope a new culture, one that is both islamic and peaceful. Western culture may now be a more peaceful one, but i dont think forcing our culture down the throats of others would work.

[Bud Struggle]

Tom you put your foot in it there. "The people in the middle east need our culture" thats a pretty offensive notion. They certainly do not need "our culture" they simply need to develope a new culture, one that is both islamic and peaceful. Western culture may now be a more peaceful one, but i dont think forcing our culture down the throats of others would work.

I'm not forcing anything down their throats. American (Western) culture is out there--it's creeping up on the Middle East--it may not be perfect, but it is tolerant of religious views and beliefs. And that kind of toleration is EXACTLY what the Middle east needs.

If the people of the Middle East want to invent that sort of toleration without buying into Western culture--fine with me. I just don't think they have it in them to do so.

[Robert]

Instead of lying about WMDsI assume you distinguish between lies and mistakes. Let me explain why the WMD story was the latter and not the former: if Bush had known there were no WMD's, he would also have know they would find no WMD's to parade before the press in a triumphant show of vindication. Instead, he would know that responsible people would call him a liar and impeach him.

Politicans are many things, but politically suicidal they are not.

As for the point that he should bear the political and moral consequences
of "mistakes" of this magnitude, no matter how good his intentions, I have no argument. Someone, probably the directors of the several intelligence agencies who made the claim, should have resigned or been fired.

[RGacky3]

if Bush had known there were no WMD's, he would also have know they would find no WMD's to parade before the press in a triumphant show of vindication. Instead, he would know that responsible people would call him a liar and impeach him.

Theres a philisophical book out there called "On Bullshit" its a really good book and I recomend it. A lie is when on knows the truth and chooses to say otherwise, bullshit is when one says something regardless of if its true or not, its truth does'nt matter, what matters is what one is trying to achieve.

Understanding Bullshit will help you understand pretty much all of politics, and PR.


And to be perfectly honest it isn't totally "fair" but the Cuban revolutionaries sided with the wrong side (the now defunct Soviet Union of happy memory) and can't expect to be well loved by America.

Cuba did'nt SIDE with the Soviet Union, the soviet unoin gave them support (not out of good will but because of their own geo-political interests). Even if Cuba wanted the United States support, the US would NEVER support a third world country that wants political and economic autonomy, and wants to distribute its wealth amung the people rather than give it over to Corporations, you know that!

Its not like the US was waiting with open arms and Cuba just decided to go to the Soviet Union.


What the people inthe Middle East really resent isn't or money of our guns--it's our culture.

I'll take the most extreme example Bin Laden, now some say he hates American culture and freedom, I say he hates our unilateral military support of isreal, American troops on Islamic holy land, and support of the corrupt Saudi royalty. You know why I say that? BECAUSE HE SAID IT!!!

Its not like the terrorists have been obscure about it, yes they resent our guns, thats what they've been saying the whole time, this thing about them hating American way of life is rediculous.


But what makes the countries in that part of the world repressive isn't really just their governments--but it's their religious beliefs that the people cling to.

Interestingly in both those countries many hard line Islamists are repressed by the government along with labor leaders and the such. The Muslim brotherhood were hunted down in egypt. The US does'nt support governments because they are stable, the US supports obedient governments.

[pusher robot]

I'll take the most extreme example Bin Laden, now some say he hates American culture and freedom, I say he hates our unilateral military support of isreal, American troops on Islamic holy land, and support of the corrupt Saudi royalty. You know why I say that? BECAUSE HE SAID IT!!!

That's your standard of proof? Bin Laden said it, so it must be true? Or is there a hidden assumption in your mind, perhaps: that cave-dwelling Arabs lack the sophistication for media manipulation that Western elites have?

While I can agree that the reasons are more complex than a simplistic "they hate our freedom!!!!1" to take anything that Bin Laden says publicly at face value is hopelessly naive.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

The cubans are certainly welcome to invade the United States. The Cubans know that if they did anything to the US they would be wiped out in an instant.
So, might makes right. Clearly, the point isnt whether Cuba has the power, but whether the support of the US government for terrorism against cuba would justify the murder of millions of americans. Obviously it wouldnt, just as tsaliban support for al qaida didnt justify the murder of millions of afghans.


On the other hand I don't know of any "attacks" the Cuban expats have done against Cuba.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article132624.html


But what makes the countries in that part of the world repressive isn't really just their governments--but it's their religious beliefs that the people cling to.
The two are intimately connected. The religion is enforced at the barrel of american guns via sharia law. 'Blasphemers' are executed - this is why people 'cling' to the religion - and its with american weapons.


So in a lot of ways America with it's far reaching culture of personal freedom is loosening up those bonds--and meeting fierce resistance.I'd like to see some evidence for this.


What the people inthe Middle East really resent isn't or money of our guns--it's our culture.No, really, its the guns. I know people from the middle east.

[Killfacer]

your an idiot, whats the most popular gun in the world? (i read it in the guniess book of records, thats sourced enough for me) the AK-47. Not produced by yanks my good man, produced my russians.

[Bud Struggle]

So, might makes right. Clearly, the point isnt whether Cuba has the power, but whether the support of the US government for terrorism against cuba would justify the murder of millions of americans. Obviously it wouldnt, just as tsaliban support for al qaida didnt justify the murder of millions of afghans.

Now you giving me some Bourgeois definition of what is "good" and what is "bad"? Look, the United states no justification in this world. If the United States REALLY wantede Cuba gone--it could be taken over in a matter of days.


http://www.voltairenet.org/article132624.html

I'm not saying this isn't true--but I'd like to see something from a more reputable source.



The two are intimately connected. The religion is enforced at the barrel of american guns via sharia law. 'Blasphemers' are executed - this is why people 'cling' to the religion - and its with american weapons.

The problem is as stated by you is that these people are in effect "children" not to be trusted with pointy weapons or guns. That can't be given weapons without killing each other? And why? Because of their religion.


I'd like to see some evidence for this.

You don't have to go any farther than Sharia Law--it's getting more and more brutal as time goes on because it pressing against Western Culture. Who are the people being executed? People that have some relationship with Americans and their culture.


No, really, its the guns. I know people from the middle east.

Then the people in the Middle east are just going to have to learn to live in the big wide world where guns and whiskey and other nasty things are available.

Welcome back. :)

[RGacky3]

That's your standard of proof? Bin Laden said it, so it must be true? Or is there a hidden assumption in your mind, perhaps: that cave-dwelling Arabs lack the sophistication for media manipulation that Western elites have?

While I can agree that the reasons are more complex than a simplistic "they hate our freedom!!!!1" to take anything that Bin Laden says publicly at face value is hopelessly naive.

Well considering Bin Laden is a terrorist trying to make demands, no I don't think he's bluffing, I think he's clear on what he wants. His agenda from day one was clear, Bin Laden doing media manipulation would be like a guy hijacking a plane and telling his demands in riddles, it would be rediculous.

[Kronos]

Cuba did'nt SIDE with the Soviet Union, the soviet unoin gave them support (not out of good will but because of their own geo-political interests). Even if Cuba wanted the United States support, the US would NEVER support a third world country that wants political and economic autonomy, and wants to distribute its wealth amung the people rather than give it over to Corporations, you know that!

I'm afraid Tom Probably didn't know that. But he does now, thanks to you.

Tommy, your homework assignment for tonight is to study the Cuban revolution, the Cuban missle crisis, and the Bay of Pigs incident.

You wouldn't believe the ridiculous shit the CIA tried to pull back then. Get this. At one point, they wanted to stage several ships a few miles off the coast of Cuba, which would launch fire-works into the sky so that Cubans would see the display...and assume that "revelations" was beginning, as described in the bible, to deter any patriotism they might have for Castro's rule.

How's that for subterfuge?

[Kronos]

Well considering Bin Laden is a terrorist trying to make demands, no I don't think he's bluffing

Let the truth be known. I think Bin Laden is a bad motherfucker. Although his head is full of mystical nonsense, the guy is a powerhouse. I wish him the best, and I long for the day that terrorists are crawling out of the woodwork in America.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Now you giving me some Bourgeois definition of what is "good" and what is "bad"?
Only some of us go for the 'all morals are bourgeois' crap.


Look, the United states no justification in this world.
Then why do you support it?


If the United States REALLY wantede Cuba gone--it could be taken over in a matter of days.
And they'd have an insurgency on their hands to dwarf the iraqi one. Massive domestic and international opposition.... Would be an absolute debacle.


I'm not saying this isn't true--but I'd like to see something from a more reputable source.
I'll look for one when I'm less busy.


The problem is as stated by you is that these people are in effect "children" not to be trusted with pointy weapons or guns. That can't be given weapons without killing each other? And why? Because of their religion...
...Then the people in the Middle east are just going to have to learn to live in the big wide world where guns and whiskey and other nasty things are available.
Nice try.
The problem as stated by me is that they are opressive bastards. Its not the people that get guns from the US govt, its a tiny rulling elite, selected by the US as the most likely group to brutally opress the population in such a way as to make it serve US interests. I would be very strongly in favour of the majority of middle eastern people getting weapons to fight back with.
I am equally opposed to the US arming its dictator chums in africa, south america and south east asia as the ones in the middle east. Religion is just one extra means of population control that the ones in the middle east use.


You don't have to go any farther than Sharia Law--it's getting more and more brutal as time goes on because it pressing against Western Culture. Who are the people being executed? People that have some relationship with Americans and their culture.
What I was asking for was evidence that its primarily western culture wich is pressing against sharia, or primarily people related to western culture being executed.


Welcome back. :)Cheers