# The US/Cuba relationship



## Flatlander (Jan 21, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> I would support a war in Cuba


I cannot imagine one justification for this.  What, I wonder, do you actually know about Cuba?  Is it those "evil communists"?  What a laughable position to have.  

I have a question: What legal or ethical right or claim does that United States have to the base at Guantanamo Bay?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 21, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I cannot imagine one justification for this. What, I wonder, do you actually know about Cuba? Is it those "evil communists"? What a laughable position to have.
> 
> I have a question: What legal or ethical right or claim does that United States have to the base at Guantanamo Bay?




I thought we leased the base from the government, with a non-option pact for single exit of the deal. Both parties must agree. 


As to legal documents,  there is one a US President issued to tell Europe to go away, "The Monroe Document": Which basically states that the USA claims the Americas and the continued colonization and expansion by the European countries must stop. We will protect our interests with arms if necessary.  So, if you were to claim that Communism comes from Europe based upon the location of Marx,  one could argue, and not well, that any communistic government falls into this category. 

Besides the arguements not being strong, and having holes in them, the Monroe Document is not in use, and has not been in a very long time.


Still thinking and will reply again later.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 21, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I have a question: What legal or ethical right or claim does that United States have to the base at Guantanamo Bay?


 
It looks like this site contains the language of the lease.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba003.htm


----------



## arnisador (Jan 21, 2006)

A war in Cuba? Us invading Cuba, or a Civil War in Cuba? Invading Cuba might be good for them...though frankly, our recent histroy with such actions isn't very encouraging.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 21, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It looks like this site contains the language of the lease.
> 
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba003.htm




Hmmm, A little war called the Spanish American War, where the USA went into Cuba and took it from Spain as well as also taking the PI from the Spanish in SEA. As part of the settlement, we agreed to release Cuba to its' own, and later, and independant of any agreements with Spain, The USA had plans to do the same with the PI, but was interrupted by WWII, which was accomplished after WWII. 

I wonder if one could argue that since the US Dollar is no longer backed in Gold, is the treaty null and void?


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jan 21, 2006)

I guess I am taking the bait on this one. I would never support a war against Cuba, because I see it as a waste of overall resources, ethical reasons are very very broad, and what is ethical to you may not be ethical to another so who cares really, legal reasons, there may be some property issues in U.S. law, I am not going to bother writing them down, because we are not going to war nor should we. I ve been to Cuba on a student exchange program at the University I attended at the undergraduate level.  Of course what we saw of the Island was what the Cuban Government wanted us to see, I support US/Cuba exchange because I see it as an effective transition for the Cuban people. However,  as far as those evil communists are concerned, I think you are talking about the individuals that do not allow freedom of speech in the Island, you know the ones a certain group like Amnesty International call out every year for having political prisoners of conscience. Cuba is not worth invading for several reasons, but the fact is their government is oppressive having been there however, I can appreciate what I saw, and perhaps that is one of the many reasons I believe that the embargo should finally be lifted, of course that is reserved for another topic.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 21, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Hmmm, A little war called the Spanish American War, where the USA went into Cuba and took it from Spain as well as also taking the PI from the Spanish in SEA. As part of the settlement, we agreed to release Cuba to its' own, and later, and independant of any agreements with Spain, The USA had plans to do the same with the PI, but was interrupted by WWII, which was accomplished after WWII.
> 
> I wonder if one could argue that since the US Dollar is no longer backed in Gold, is the treaty null and void?


 
I wonder, why on earth am I quoted on this post?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 21, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I wonder, why on earth am I quoted on this post?



Because you posted the link that had the treaty that was dated 1903. 

The Spanish American War was about 1898 to 1900. This would be about 3 years after the end of the war, in which I believe the last battle was faught after the official surrender of Spain, because of the time it took for information to travel. 

So, I gave credit to the post and the link by quoting it, for those who would read the post, to understand why Cuba might even enter into a treaty withe USA, for such an amount of money with no length of time set, such as England/British Empire and Hong Kong.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

We maintain Guantanamo out of regional strategic concerns.  That those are our concerns is enough.  The idea that some sort of vague, and undefined, ethical consideration must overcome our practical concerns is ludicrous.  Moreover, it's disingenuous in that every issue that the US is concerned with, becomes a 'moral issue' on the side of anyone who disagrees with the US.  It's a cheap ploy, and I hope we continue to simply ignore it.  

Cuba has been and still is a threat to the US concerns in the western hemisphere.  Hopefully someday, and soon, Castro's funeral procession will show communist Cuba to simply be a product of the cult of personality, and the anachronism that is communist Cuba can be resigned to the dustbin of history.  The only people who think communist Cuba is a good thing, are the communists in power in Cuba, and a few US and European cultural elitists who find supporting and befriending Castro en vogue.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 23, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> We maintain Guantanamo out of regional strategic concerns. That those are our concerns is enough. The idea that some sort of vague, and undefined, ethical consideration must overcome our practical concerns is ludicrous. Moreover, it's disingenuous in that every issue that the US is concerned with, becomes a 'moral issue' on the side of anyone who disagrees with the US. It's a cheap ploy, and I hope we continue to simply ignore it.


Yes, well, what you define as practicality is certainly a function of your perspective, isn't it?  Looks like squatting to me.  If you believe that holding them accountable for an agreement signed more than 100 years ago by a Cuban government installed by Americans is justifiable, then by all means, call _me_ disingenuous.



> Cuba has been and still is a threat to the US concerns in the western hemisphere.


And, what precisely is the nature of that threat?  I'm not seeing it....





> Hopefully someday, and soon, Castro's funeral procession will show communist Cuba to simply be a product of the cult of personality, and the anachronism that is communist Cuba can be resigned to the dustbin of history. The only people who think communist Cuba is a good thing, are the communists in power in Cuba, and a few US and European cultural elitists who find supporting and befriending Castro en vogue.


Ahhhh, the communist label.  Yes, they sure are scary, those communists.  Seems to me like more of the "evil Communist" war cry.  There's a difference between supporting Castro and supporting Cubans to be Cubans however they choose to do be Cuban.  Why the continuous intervention and need for control over other's lives?  I simply do not see how American safety is jeopardized by letting Cuba be Cuba.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> And, what precisely is the nature of that threat?  I'm not seeing it....



I'd kind of like to know this one too...


----------



## jdinca (Jan 23, 2006)

The threat is that Cuba is a seed for spreading communist dictatorships in the western hemisphere. Castro is good buddies with Chavez in Venezuala and the new guy in Bolivia. He's not just content with being a communist dictator in his own country.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

So basically, they are evil because they are communist and therefore should be eliminated?

Do you really believe that Communism is that good of a system that there is a threat of it overtaking capitalism in the US?


----------



## Henderson (Jan 23, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> ...and the new guy in Bolivia.


President Evo Morales

Personally, I think the dictatorial environment will not survive in Cuba beyond the death of Fidel Castro (age 79) and his brother (Vice-president), Raul (age 74). Since 1959, the Cuban people have endured the Castro regime. And even though Fidel made some headway in the areas of industry and agriculture, his policies on enforced nationalization and the suppression of opposing political parties and emigration hopefully have the Cuban people at a point where they want a voice in their own lives.


Frank


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 23, 2006)

I think the U.S. embargo on Cuba is utterly rediculous and pointless, just like some recent events.  It may have served it's purpose at one time, but enough is enough.

Just because we don't like a form of government in a neighboring country doesn't mean we can try to take the moral high ground and impose our political system onto them.  Actually, it is the U.S. embargo that has served to worsen the state of the economic system in Cuba, not their political system.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jan 23, 2006)

There is no embargo, everybody else trades with them, as we should as well.  It is a political move, btw,most of the multinational corporations that do business in the U.S. trade with Cuba, they just do it through other countries.   I also do not really agree that Castro poses any type of threat, I know Chavez, and Morales in Bolivia may be friends with Castro as may be Kirchner and Lula da Silva as well, and maybe even Bachelet in Chile but Castro is not a Latin American and he would never be looked at as a leader to any of those people.  Latin America is quite complex and while Castro may have had a part in the leftist rise of that region, it was bound to happen anyway given all the corruption by previous governments in South America.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> There is no embargo



Sure there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._embargo_against_Cuba

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_of_2006


> As of 2006, the embargo is still in effect, making it one of the most enduring trade embargoes in modern history. It remains an extremely controversial issue worldwide, with the General Assembly of the United Nations condemning it for the 14th time in 2005 by a large margin. Resistance is also growing in the U.S.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Sure there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._embargo_against_Cuba


 

My point that the only country that endures this position which is wrong of course is the U.S. 
Just about every other country in the world trades with Cuba.

What I meant by the fact that there really is no embargo is that corporations in the U.S. can still trade with cuba so long as the trade is done through another country.  So in reality all the U.S. has on Cuba are a bunch of meaningless sanctions that end up hurting the Cuban People. The Cuban government will still be there embargo or not.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So basically, they are evil because they are communist and therefore should be eliminated?
> 
> Do you really believe that Communism is that good of a system that there is a threat of it overtaking capitalism in the US?



I don't think the Cuban people are evil at all. It's their government that I have issue with. Communism doesn't work. It's been proven over and over again.

No, I don't think there's a risk of communism overtaking capitalism in this country. My concern is communism taking over vulnerable countries that could directly or indirectly have a very negative impact on us.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 23, 2006)

Henderson said:
			
		

> President Evo Morales
> 
> Personally, I think the dictatorial environment will not survive in Cuba beyond the death of Fidel Castro (age 79) and his brother (Vice-president), Raul (age 74). Since 1959, the Cuban people have endured the Castro regime. And even though Fidel made some headway in the areas of industry and agriculture, his policies on enforced nationalization and the suppression of opposing political parties and emigration hopefully have the Cuban people at a point where they want a voice in their own lives.
> 
> ...



Morales, thank you. I truly hope that is the case with Cuba.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> I don't think the Cuban people are evil at all. It's their government that I have issue with. Communism doesn't work. It's been proven over and over again.



I don't know, had the USSR come out on top would we be saying the same thing about Capitalism?  Actually a good chunk of the world seems to feel capitalism is evil.

Military dictatorships are where the problem lies.  If they became a democratic but communist country would they still be evil?


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I don't know, had the USSR come out on top would we be saying the same thing about Capitalism?  Actually a good chunk of the world seems to feel capitalism is evil.
> 
> Military dictatorships are where the problem lies.  If they became a democratic but communist country would they still be evil?



Woooaa there... Wait a minute...

Capitalism
Democracy
Communism

Guess which one of these is not a political idealogy or doctrine... :erg:


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

All depends on how you look at it.

There is nothing to say that a communist gov't could not be elected through a democratic process. 

Just as there is nothing preventing a dictatorship governed country from becoming capitalist.

What Marx wrote about was not a military dictatorship.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I don't know, had the USSR come out on top would we be saying the same thing about Capitalism? Actually a good chunk of the world seems to feel capitalism is evil.
> 
> Military dictatorships are where the problem lies. If they became a democratic but communist country would they still be evil?



Do you know of a communist country that wasn't a dictatorship? Where the communist party didn't hold all of the power? 

I think communist and democracy are mutually exclusive terms. They may start out that way but I've yet to see an example where it did not end up as a military style dictatorship.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Do you know of a communist country that wasn't a dictatorship? Where the communist party didn't hold all of the power?
> 
> I think communist and democracy are mutually exclusive terms. They may start out that way but I've yet to see an example where it did not end up as a military style dictatorship.



Given the current state of the world I think it would be very difficult for one to get going.  But, that does not mean it is impossible, there is nothing baout communism that prevents it.  Maybe in another 200 years Communism will work great.  Kind of hard to say.  

But I'm quite certain Democracy & Capitalism would not have worked back in the middle ages, yet today it does.

As the world changes so does its economic and governing structures.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> All depends on how you look at it.
> 
> There is nothing to say that a communist gov't could not be elected through a democratic process.
> 
> ...



True but capitalism, although generally tied in with a political system, it is not a political system on it's own.  That was all I was getting at.  It seemed as though the post was worded in a way that it was comparing capitalism with communism rather than democracy vs communism.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Given the current state of the world I think it would be very difficult for one to get going. But, that does not mean it is impossible, there is nothing baout communism that prevents it. Maybe in another 200 years Communism will work great. Kind of hard to say.
> 
> But I'm quite certain Democracy & Capitalism would not have worked back in the middle ages, yet today it does.
> 
> As the world changes so does its economic and governing structures.



Nothing there I can argue with.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 23, 2006)

One of the things that I try to keep in mind is to NOT get to attached to capitalism.  As *Andrew Green* said, "as the world changes so does its economic and governing structures."  It is entirely possible that in the future, capitalism will not be in our bests interests.  As global competition for resources increases, we will have to become much more conservation minded...and thus far capitalism and conservation have not proven to mix well.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Yes, well, what you define as practicality is certainly a function of your perspective, isn't it? Looks like squatting to me. If you believe that holding them accountable for an agreement signed more than 100 years ago by a Cuban government installed by Americans is justifiable, then by all means, call _me_ disingenuous.


 I don't think you're disingenuous.....just misinformed.  I think you've merely fallen victim to a new fad.....Castro worship.



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> And, what precisely is the nature of that threat? I'm not seeing it....Ahhhh, the communist label. Yes, they sure are scary, those communists. Seems to me like more of the "evil Communist" war cry. There's a difference between supporting Castro and supporting Cubans to be Cubans however they choose to do be Cuban. Why the continuous intervention and need for control over other's lives? I simply do not see how American safety is jeopardized by letting Cuba be Cuba.


  Well, with some historical information, it should be clear the threat that Castro has and currently does present to the US.  From Peru to Ethiopa, Cuban communist troops have assisted other left-wing dictator's in gaining and maintaining power.  Clear evidence exists of long term support, training and funding of communists Guerilla's in south America and elsewhere.  Most specifically FARC in Colombia and the Shining Path guerilla's in Peru.  

That you don't think this is a 'threat' is clearly an indication of how you've swallowed the new and quite popular hobby of Castro worship among many of the trendy left today.  It's merely an example of monkey-see, monkey-do, among many who see celebrities and left-wing 'intellectuals' fawning all over Castro and everything communist Cuba.   Even that mass-murderer Che Guevara has gotten an image change to some sort of hero for the left.  It's truly disgusting.

Perhaps you are ignorant of the fact that Castro has incarcerated large numbers of his population for such 'heinous crimes' against the state as possession of banned books.  Many librariarans, notorious criminals to be sure, have found themselves in Castro's Gulags.  Please, just because it's trendy to support Castro now days, does mean we have to abandon any historical perspective in the face of bizarre hero worship. 

Again, lets review some contemporary crimes of Castro (ignoring some of the older stuff).

He implemented nation wide mandatory testing for HIV.  Commendable?  Not so fast.  Anyone found HIV positive is incarcerated.  This shouldn't surprise anyone, however, as Castro has a long history of incarcerating homosexuals and other 'undersireables'.  How amazing is it that many who endorse homosexual marriage in the US....also worship a man who has condemned homosexuality as a crime against the state.

Cuban military personnel continue to show up around the world training, arming and funding the forces of leftist dictators and communist guerilla groups alike.

Most scholars who have studied the issue, agree that the numbers of people murdered in the political killings by Castro during his reign hovers around 75,000 people.  

Some groups with leftist tendencies, however, take a more reasonable and sober view of Castro, seeing him for the massive human rights crimes he's committed and continues to commit.  

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5279
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/



> Cuban authorities continue to treat as criminal offenses nonviolent activities such as meeting to discuss the economy or elections, writing letters to the government, reporting on political or economic developments, speaking to international reporters, or advocating the release of political prisoners.





> Castro continues to maintain ties to several state sponsors of terrorism in Latin America. Colombia's two largest terrorist organizations, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), both maintain a permanent presence on the island.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18363

The shameless worship of tyrants, simply because they give lip-service to leftist ideals, is disgusting.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 23, 2006)

http://www.trial-ch.org/trialwatch/profiles/en/legalprocedures/p425.html


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One of the things that I try to keep in mind is to NOT get to attached to capitalism. As *Andrew Green* said, "as the world changes so does its economic and governing structures." It is entirely possible that in the future, capitalism will not be in our bests interests. As global competition for resources increases, we will have to become much more conservation minded...and thus far capitalism and conservation have not proven to mix well.


 Heh Heh.  I think there's more honesty in this post than you realize.  It sheds a little light on the REAL motives behind the doom-and-gloom prognostications.  If we can't foment revolution through class-warfare appeals, we'll SCARE people in to revolution by telling them the world is going to end, right?  It's actually pretty creative, I have to admit.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Communists didn't disappear, they just changed their names and tactics.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 23, 2006)

Teachers have been doing it for YEARS. I remember thinking the world was going to be nothing but bare rock and all fish would be dead by acid rain due to all the  movies my teachers used to show in science class (yes reel to reel movies).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I don't know, had the USSR come out on top would we be saying the same thing about Capitalism? Actually a good chunk of the world seems to feel capitalism is evil.
> 
> Military dictatorships are where the problem lies. If they became a democratic but communist country would they still be evil?


 If the USSR had come out on top?  Yeah, and if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hop.  That's the point, partner, in the REAL world (not some leftist fantasy world) the USSR failed.  It failed because it was a fatally flawed system.  

The sooner we realize that, and leave the fantasy stuff to hollywood celebrities the better off we'll all be.  In the mean time, however, many leftists still fantasize about 'What if?'.  

That's likely the REAL source for all the Castro worship.  It's a throw-back to the USSR worshipping days.  Castro's the last great hope for their fantasies of 'Benevolent Communist Dictatorships', and the 'dream' dies with him.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 23, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Heh Heh. I think there's more honesty in this post than you realize. It sheds a little light on the REAL motives behind the doom-and-gloom prognostications. If we can't foment revolution through class-warfare appeals, we'll SCARE people in to revolution by telling them the world is going to end, right? It's actually pretty creative, I have to admit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Somehow "Reduce/Reuse/Recycle" has been transformed in some people's worlds to mean, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."    That, actually, could make an interesting thread...is conservation communistic?  I'd love to see that spin round a few times...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Somehow "Reduce/Reuse/Recycle" has been transformed in some people's worlds to mean, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."  That, actually, could make an interesting thread...is conservation communistic? I'd love to see that spin round a few times...


 Yes, but it wasn't ME who transformed those things.  Reduce, Reuse, Recycle isn't anathema to capitalism.  The statement that captialism may have to yield to those things, however, is an attempt to create a doom and gloom scenario where socialism MUST win for us to survive.  

Conservation isn't communistic, but the issue has moved FAR beyond conservation, in to some sort Quasi-religious, pseudo-scientific, environmental belief system.  Heck, even the terminology has become religious.  'Mother Earth' 'Gaia'.  

Would be an interesting thread discussion.  Start one, and i'll follow you in.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 23, 2006)

At this point, I'd have to ask if anyone follows the Showtime series by Penn and Teller, "Bull-****"? They dispell a lot of comon myths, like this one for instance.


**post edited to comply with MT profanity policy**-Flatlander


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 23, 2006)

I don't really know where the red herring of the widespread "Castro worship" was born. Personally, I'm more concerned with things like respecting national sovereignty. However, it seems as though the Jeet Kune Do approach to foreign policy knows no boundary.

If you look into the dark long enough, the boogeyman will appear.



> From Peru to Ethiopa, Cuban communist troops have assisted other left-wing dictator's in gaining and maintaining power. Clear evidence exists of long term support, training and funding of communists Guerilla's in south America and elsewhere. Most specifically FARC in Colombia and the Shining Path guerilla's in Peru.


Translate this, if you would, into how American National Security is threatened.



> That you don't think this is a 'threat' is clearly an indication of how you've swallowed the new and quite popular hobby of Castro worship among many of the trendy left today. It's merely an example of monkey-see, monkey-do, among many who see celebrities and left-wing 'intellectuals' fawning all over Castro and everything communist Cuba.


No, that I don't see this as a threat is indicative of my reliance on fact and my own judgement to formulate my own opinions. From here, I do not recognize imminent danger. If you're seeing it though, by all means, show me the way. Should you choose to further insult my intelligence with your condescending diatribe, I'll let you argue with yourself. Curiously, that may in fact be your preference.



> This shouldn't surprise anyone, however, as Castro has a long history of incarcerating homosexuals and other 'undersireables'.


I find this surprising. On a recent visit, I saw a few males that appeared to me to be quite homosexual, seemingly disinterested in hiding their flamboyance, while performing in a government owned resort, under the eye of government management. So, perhaps Castro's evolving in that respect....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I don't really know where the red herring of the widespread "Castro worship" was born. Personally, I'm more concerned with things like respecting national sovereignty. However, it seems as though the Jeet Kune Do approach to foreign policy knows no boundary.


 It's not a red-herring, it is, in fact, the source of this entire discussion.  It's a bizarre sort of morality that says that it's ok to respect the 'national sovereignty' of violent and oppressive dictatorships.  It's a lot like saying a man has a right to beat his wife and kids all he wants, so long as it's in his own house (the very definition of Sovereignty). Is that the kind of logic you're using?




			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> If you look into the dark long enough, the boogeyman will appear.


 Talk about red-herrings.  If you pretend a threat doesn't exist, it doesn't, right?  The only problem is that Castro's history is very clearly illuminitated.  It's not in the dark.  So there really is no excuse for ignorance about Castro and his crimes.  



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> Translate this, if you would, into how American National Security is threatened.


 If you aren't aware of how overt technical and material support for terrorist organizations threatens national security, than i'm afraid that I can't make it any simpler for you.



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> No, that I don't see this as a threat is indicative of my reliance on fact and my own judgement to formulate my own opinions. From here, I do not recognize imminent danger. If you're seeing it though, by all means, show me the way. Should you choose to further insult my intelligence with your condescending diatribe, I'll let you argue with yourself. Curiously, that may in fact be your preference.


 'Fact' has little to do with your opinions on this matter, as the source of your 'facts' is nothing more than the current trendy nature of Castro worship in the US, Canada and Europe.  But i'm sure everyone who falls prey to trendy fashions sees themselves as 'original thinkers'.  

You'll excuse me if I don't automatically buy the notion that everyone spontaneously decided one day that Castro was a 'great guy' (if you don't count the executions, political prisoners, repressive laws and support of terrorism), simply because he is, in fact, a great guy.

I still don't understand the trendiness of the whole thing, though.  I just don't see how the defense and worship of a violent and repressive despot in anyway makes someone appear MORE progressive.  Maybe it's somehow based on the perceived open-mindedness of the ability to be understand and defend of the indefensible.  A bizarre argument, but that could be.  I really couldn't say.  



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> I find this surprising. On a recent visit, I saw a few males that appeared to me to be quite homosexual, seemingly disinterested in hiding their flamboyance, while performing in a government owned resort, under the eye of government management. So, perhaps Castro's evolving in that respect....


 Evolving from imprisoning homosexuals, or merely putting on a show for visiting representives of other nations to avoid continued stigma from the bad press he received from incarcerating homosexuals and HIV victims?  I'd let you be the judge, but it's obvious you're more persuaded by the sad theatrics of an aging despot.   

What is truly sad is that these kind of staged shows are nothing new to communist dictators.  In fact, staging shows for visiting sympatheticos is as old a communist tradition as death squads and reeducation.  What is MORE sad is that self-described progressive seems to always fall for the same lies from the worst killers.  

Perhaps they simply want to believe so badly, that they are willing to rationalize the sound of the rifles from the firing squads two blocks over, as simply people celebrating the 'joy of communism' by shooting off fireworks.  It doesn't matter what the reality is, so long as the fantasy of the benevolent communist dictor lives on.

"A lie told often enough, becomes truth" Vladimir Lenin


I will say this about Cuba, though, I don't support the continued embargo against Cuba.  I believe we should bury Cuba in US dollars and tourism.  Engagement should be our new policy.  We should flood Cuba with money as soon as it becomes clear that old Codger is on his death bed.  Cuba should be reintroduced to capitalism in a big way.  Communism in Cuba will die with Castro.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 23, 2006)

I am by no means a homosexual, but I would think that a democratic type government would tend to tolerate such behavior more so than a Communist gov't. 

Castro is no threat. We are simply waiting for him to die. He has harmed his country more than anything else. Prior to communism, he country earned a lot of money by being a major resort. Castro stopped this, and thereby stopped the influx of funds and thereby stopped money entering into the hands of his countrymen. 

There is undisputed evidence that Cuba was more econimcally productive before Castro than after.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> I am by no means a homosexual, but I would think that a democratic type government would tend to tolerate such behavior more so than a Communist gov't.
> 
> Castro is no threat. We are simply waiting for him to die. He has harmed his country more than anything else. Prior to communism, he country earned a lot of money by being a major resort. Castro stopped this, and thereby stopped the influx of funds and thereby stopped money entering into the hands of his countrymen.
> 
> There is undisputed evidence that Cuba was more econimcally productive before Castro than after.


 All true.  However, there is clear evidence that Castro has used Cuban military advisers and his economy to support and train terrorist organizations throughout the world, to include but not limited to the PLO, the IRA, MRTA and Shining Path in Peru, FARC, M-19 and ELN in Colombia, the former Sandanistas, Tupumaros in Uruguay, as well Guatemalan and Salvadoran guerilla's.  In addition, Castro supported the Black Panthers and Puerto Rican Macheteros. 

http://www.futurodecuba.org/Castro'sTerroristConnection.htm

If that's not a 'threat' I don't know what is.

Of course, Castro denies still being in the revolution and terrorism export business.  His historical honesty, however, is questionable at best.  It is worth keeping Guantanamo open, for the moment to keep him close by.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> At this point, I'd have to ask if anyone follows the Showtime series by Penn and Teller, "Bull-****"? They dispell a lot of comon myths, like this one for instance.



Well... what they do is highly biased, completely non-scientific and they fully admit it.  Personally I love the show, but they don't dispell anything, they don't even try to.  They want people to think for themselves, and personally I think sometimes they put out the name of their show as well at times.

**post edited to comply with MT profanity policy**-Flatlander


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well... what they do is highly biased, completely non-scientific and they fully admit it. Personally I love the show, but they don't dispell anything, they don't even try to. They want people to think for themselves, and personally I think sometimes they put out the name of their show as well at times.


 I find the word 'unscientific' gets thrown around a lot when people want to dispute something stated.  Especially when what they really are trying to attack is the logical reasoning behind a certain argument.

For example, calling an argument biased doesn't, of necessity, make something 'wrong'.  You can biased toward the truth, for example, and be called 'biased'.  

What Penn and Teller do is attack illogical beliefs and ideas that don't stand the test of reason.  They do it by illustrating their absurdity.  As such, they are pretty good at exposing fallacies.

As an aside, I think it's pretty clear that their political bias is decidedly Libertarian in nature.  And they do love slaying sacred cows on both sides of the political divide.

In particular, Penn and Teller did an outstanding job of demolishing the confiscatory fantasies of the left in their Gun Control episodes.  They equally demolish such right wing sacred cows as religion.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Conservation isn't communistic, but the issue has moved FAR beyond conservation, in to some sort Quasi-religious, pseudo-scientific, environmental belief system. Heck, even the terminology has become religious. 'Mother Earth' 'Gaia'.



"Religion is the Opium of the people" ~ Karl Marx, founder of Communism.

I don't think anyone in this thread has used the terms "Mother Earth" or "Gaia", I know I certainly haven't and won't.  So this seems a bit of a straw man.  But, if you want to bring that into it, I'd have to say religion is far more connected to right-wing US politics, of which you seem to be a supporter, then it is to environmentalism.  

But then again, what does religion have to do with any of this?:idunno:



> Yes, but it wasn't ME who transformed those things. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle isn't anathema to capitalism. The statement that captialism may have to yield to those things, however, is an attempt to create a doom and gloom scenario where socialism MUST win for us to survive.



No, it is looking at the big picture.  Our population is growing, our natural resources are becoming scarce.  The current model cannot be sustained indefinately.  Even now a good portion of the worlds population is starving and without basic needs being met.

Capitalism, like *every* system before it, will eventually be replaced.  That's simply the way the world works.

The Greeks Fell, the Romans Fell, The British Fell, and eventually... get ready for it... the US will too.  

Now it might happen in 50 years, it might happen in 500.  But eventually, the US in it's current form, the last remaining super power, will loose that status.  It's systems of government and economics will become obsolete and something else will become dominate.

That is not doomsaying, that is history, and choosing to ignore it will pretty much guarantee that it happens, and happens hard.  Just like every other country that has been in that position and thought they where there to stay.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As an aside, I think it's pretty clear that their political bias is Libertarian in nature.



They openly admit that, as well as the fact that their results are unscientific.  Which means they could be knocked down just as easily as the ones they are knocking down.

Fortunately, there are those that do scientifc work on the subjects where the results do mean something.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> "Religion is the Opium of the people" ~ Karl Marx, founder of Communism.
> 
> I don't think anyone in this thread has used the terms "Mother Earth" or "Gaia", I know I certainly haven't and won't. So this seems a bit of a straw man. But, if you want to bring that into it, I'd have to say religion is far more connected to right-wing US politics, of which you seem to be a supporter, then it is to environmentalism.
> 
> But then again, what does religion have to do with any of this?:idunno:


 If you actually followed the bit of conversation that upnorth and I had, you'd know the answer to that question.  If you want a further discussion, start a thread like upnorth suggested.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> No, it is looking at the big picture. Our population is growing, our natural resources are becoming scarce. The current model cannot be sustained indefinately. Even now a good portion of the worlds population is starving and without basic needs being met.


 Heh heh.  Chicken Little politics. A good portion of the worlds population has ALWAYS been starving.  Where have you been?  In fact, having a large segment of the earths population that ISN'T starving is the anomaly that we've created.  That you believe we 'invented' starvation is merely an indication of your extremely myopic view.  Western civilization invented an END to starvation for a large number of people.  

Western culture has brought about a level of prosperity never dreamt about in the history of the world.  It's funny what a little historical perspective will do to destroy a perfectly silly argument.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Capitalism, like *every* system before it, will eventually be replaced. That's simply the way the world works.


 And that's supposed to mean what, exactly?  It may be replaced, but that doesn't mean that what may replace it is an improvement.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> The Greeks Fell, the Romans Fell, The British Fell, and eventually... get ready for it... the US will too.


 And you'll die, and everyone will die.  Those are truisms without a point.  Simply arguing that everything 'ends' isn't an argument about anything.  It's certainly not an argument about which system is superior to another.   For years i've been hearing 'Even Rome fell' as some sort of attack against the US.  All great countries fall, but few countries ever become great, and even the ones that don't become great....fall.  So that proves that we're doing something wrong, because someday we're going to fall?  

That's like calling someone's life, in particular, a failure, because he's someday going to die.  Now that's a serious logical fallacy.  



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Now it might happen in 50 years, it might happen in 500. But eventually, the US in it's current form, the last remaining super power, will loose that status. It's systems of government and economics will become obsolete and something else will become dominate.


 Again, I say....So what?  You've really built up this whole argument, but it's obvious that you're just spouting slogans that you haven't the slightest idea the meaning of.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> That is not doomsaying, that is history, and choosing to ignore it will pretty much guarantee that it happens, and happens hard. Just like every other country that has been in that position and thought they where there to stay.


 No, doomsaying is telling people the world is going to end....unless they embrace your political views.  Sorry if i'm not that gullible.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 23, 2006)

The US is just a baby compared to the old crones of Europe.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> They openly admit that, as well as the fact that their results are unscientific. Which means they could be knocked down just as easily as the ones they are knocking down.
> 
> Fortunately, there are those that do scientifc work on the subjects where the results do mean something.


 There is a whole lot that purports to be science....that actually has very little to do with science.

To illustrate this point, perhaps you could enlighten us on your definition of 'science'.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Heh heh. Chicken Little politics. A good portion of the worlds population has ALWAYS been starving. Where have you been? In fact, having a large segment of the earths population that ISN'T starving is the anomaly.



And now that things are becoming global perhaps we should be working to improve this....



> And that's supposed to mean what, exactly? It may be replaced, but that doesn't mean that what may replace it is an improvement.



Yes it will, it will be replaced because the world changes and it is no longer sustainable.  Same reasons it has changed in the past.  Democracy works now, it wouldn't have worked in the middle ages.  Monarchy worked then, it wouldn't work now.

Feudalism worked then, not now, Capitalism works now, but won't forever.



> And you'll die, and everyone will die. Those are truisms without a point. Simply arguing that everything 'ends' isn't an argument about anything. It's certainly not an argument about which system is superior to another. For years i've been hearing 'Even Rome fell' as some sort of attack against the US. All great countries fall, but few countries ever become great, and even the ones that don't become great....fall.



Sure it is, it's arguing that systems of government and economics that allow countries to reach that point eventually become unsustainable and need to be replaced.  Current systems will get there, it's just a question of when.



> No, doomsaying is telling people the world is going to end....unless they embrace your political views. Sorry if i'm not that gullible.



Well, that happens on both ends...  Lately it's been Terrorism.

And it is a fallacy to say the belief is unfounded because of doomsayers, if that is the case so is the current system.  "Commies are evil!", "Terrorists are going to wipe us out if we don't get them first!"

You are very mistaken if you think environmentalists have a monopoly on doomsaying...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> And now that things are becoming global perhaps we should be working to improve this....


 In case you haven't noticed, we have been.  The work is slow and dangerous, as there are still quite a few vicious dictators and dictator wannabes causing problems.  In addiction, factional disputes and tribalism create situations where societies and peoples are not able to rise above the most basic levels of existence, even with assistance.  The problem is more complex than 'give 'em food'.  



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yes it will, it will be replaced because the world changes and it is no longer sustainable. Same reasons it has changed in the past. Democracy works now, it wouldn't have worked in the middle ages. Monarchy worked then, it wouldn't work now.


 Again, what you are saying is entirely irrelavent.  That the world changes is a true statement, said without context.  That democracy will some day be replaced by something else, is true.  But that's far from saying that it will be an improvement.  If it's not going to be an improvement, it's best to put it off as long as possible.  It's like saying 'Someday i'm going to die, so I might as well die now'.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Feudalism worked then, not now, Capitalism works now, but won't forever.


 And it works fine now.  It's the best of all possible systems now.  Your argument doesn't support changing it right now.  You and I will likely be dead before we move on to 'something else'.  Nations fall, we die, nature of the universe.  Doesn't mean we have to suffer now.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Sure it is, it's arguing that systems of government and economics that allow countries to reach that point eventually become unsustainable and need to be replaced. Current systems will get there, it's just a question of when.


 That's a fallacious argument.  There is no system that lasts for ever....but some are better than others.  Again, yours is an argument devoid of perspective.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well, that happens on both ends... Lately it's been Terrorism.


 Terrorism is a real threat, but not a threat to human existence.  Environmental issues are a sometimes real threat, but not a threat to human existence.  It's the leap to 'The sky is FALLING the sky is FALLING' that I take issue with.  We can deal with terrorists and we can deal with environmental questions, without getting hysterical.  



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> And it is a fallacy to say the belief is unfounded because of doomsayers, if that is the case so is the current system. "Commies are evil!", "Terrorists are going to wipe us out if we don't get them first!"


 Well Commies are evil, but that's besides the point.  :rofl:

Further, terrorists aren't going to 'wipe us out' but they are going to kill Americans, as they have already done.  Again, you miss the point entirely.  Allow me to illustrate the difference.

I can say that the air in a certain area needs to be cleaned up to improve the quality of life there.  That is reasonable.  I can say that terrorists need to be brought to justice or killed before they can attack us, as they've stated they want to do.  Again, that is also reasonable.

However, if I take those positions and say 'We're destroying the planet with our greed and gluttony' that's dogma, and a completely unreasonable statement.  It's not different than saying 'God destroyed New Orleans because of sin and wickedness'.  

You see the comparison?  You see how environmentalism becomes a religion?  It goes from an understanding that sometimes human activities can have unintended consequences, then it turns in to a moral crusade.  I've even heard many truly wacko environmentalists decry the fact that humans exist to 'despoil the planet'.  Truly astounding.  



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> You are very mistaken if you think environmentalists have a monopoly on doomsaying...


 Did I say they had a monopoly?  What I said, my little friend, was that they have become quasi-religious wackos just the same as those nuts who claim that God destroyed New Orleans because of homosexuality.

It's nothing but an indication that certain types of people can turn any position in to a 'Religion'.



At any rate, if you want to further discuss 'Environmentalism: Quasi-Religion?' start a thread, as we've seriously drifted from Cuba.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In case you haven't noticed, we have been. The work is slow and dangerous, as there are still quite a few vicious dictators and dictator wannabes causing problems. In addiction, factional disputes and tribalism create situations where societies and peoples are not able to rise above the most basic levels of existence, even with assistance. The problem is more complex than 'give 'em food'.



Well, using similar reasoning, It's more complex them bomb them until they "get it right" and base there systems on the model of the most powerful nation.

Has it occured to you that maybe, there is even the smallest chance, that dictatorships might be NEEDED in some places.  Like in Europe 500 years ago.  Democracy wouldn't have survived.  Maybe, right now, some places are just not suited for anything but a dictatorship.

Part of becoming global has got to be accepting, not "correcting" other beliefs.  The UN has almost unanimously condemed the Embargo against Cuba.  Do you think that it is fixing the problem?  Wouldn't opening up trade be better help then forcing them into poverty?



> Again, what you are saying is entirely irrelavent. That the world changes is a true statement, said without context. That democracy will some day be replaced by something else, is true. But that's far from saying that it will be an improvement. If it's not going to be an improvement, it's best to put it off as long as possible. It's like saying 'Someday i'm going to die, so I might as well die now'.



It will be a improvement, given the other conditions of the world at the time.  500 years ago Democracy would not have been a improvement, it wouldn't have worked.

Let's try a different annalogy then your "I'm going to die" one.  How about "I have cancer and am dieing, treatment will suck so I should put it off as long as possible." 



> And it works fine now.  It's the best of all possible systems now.



In your opinion.



> That's a fallacious argument. There is no system that lasts for ever....but some are better than others. Again, yours is an argument devoid of perspective.



Well, I'd say it's the other way around.  I am trying to look at other perspectives, while you seem only able to accept a Right-wing US POV.  

So in your opinion this is it, the world will never get any better then the US with a Conservative government?



> Terrorism is a real threat, but not a threat to human existence.



Well, I'd say environmental ones are a bigger threat then terrorism, which by the way, seems to be coming from people so convinced that the US way of life is evil that they will sacrifice there life to play even a small part in disrupting it.

Ok, they are crazy, but they are also as sure you are wrong as you are sure they are.



> Environmental issues are a sometimes real threat, but not a threat to human existence.



More so then terrorism.

Although I don't think many people claim that all human life will be wipped out any time soon, except for religious extremists.



> It's the leap to 'The sky is FALLING the sky is FALLING' that I take issue with. We can deal with terrorists and we can deal with environmental questions, without getting hysterical.



Yep, that we can.  Key word bit there is "deal with".  Environmentalism is not something to be ignored, not put off for the future.  



> Well Commies are evil, but that's besides the point.  :rofl:



And they say the same about you.  What makes you right and them wrong?



> Further, terrorists aren't going to 'wipe us out' but they are going to kill Americans, and they have already done. Again, you miss the point entirely. Allow me to illustrate the difference.



And there people are being killed by the actions of Americans.  How many civillians in the US have died because of US strikes?  A lot more then have died in the US from terrorist strikes.

So there is that perspective thing again.  From theirs, the US is the evil one.



> However, if I take those positions and say 'We're destroying the planet with our greed and gluttony' that's dogma, and a completely unreasonable statement. It's not different than saying 'God destroyed New Orleans because of sin and wickedness'.



Can you point to the post in this thread that claimed those things, I must have missed it.  Pointing to extremists to win a argument is very flawed logic.



> You see the comparison.  You see how environmentalism becomes a religion.





> It's nothing but an indication that certain types of people can turn any position in to a 'Religion'.



So... religion is bad?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 24, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well, using similar reasoning, It's more complex them bomb them until they "get it right" and base there systems on the model of the most powerful nation.


 I never claimed it was simple.  I have made very indepth arguments about what is required in dealing with terrorists.  Go back and read them.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Has it occured to you that maybe, there is even the smallest chance, that dictatorships might be NEEDED in some places. Like in Europe 500 years ago. Democracy wouldn't have survived. Maybe, right now, some places are just not suited for anything but a dictatorship.


 You said it yourself.  All systems die eventually.  It's now the point in history when despotism dies.  That's an inadvertant point you didn't want to make, i'm sure, but it's about the most coherent interpretation of the argument you've presented.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Part of becoming global has got to be accepting, not "correcting" other beliefs. The UN has almost unanimously condemed the Embargo against Cuba. Do you think that it is fixing the problem? Wouldn't opening up trade be better help then forcing them into poverty?


 That's like saying 'Part of being a good neighbor is ignoring it when my neighbor beats his wife and molests his kids'.  It doesn't hold water.  

As for the embargo in particular, you haven't read all my posts.  I think the embargo is a bad idea at this period in time.  I think we can get Castro out quicker at this point, by engagement.   At any rate, Cuban communism won't survive Castro by much.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> It will be a improvement, given the other conditions of the world at the time. 500 years ago Democracy would not have been a improvement, it wouldn't have worked.


 Irrelavent.  Democracy was first developed by the Greeks far longer ago than that.  The Republic, likewise, far predates European Feudalism.

As for what replaces democracy being an 'improvement' history has shown that not to be true.  Feudalism was not an 'improvement' over Athenian democracy or Republican Rome.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Let's try a different annalogy then your "I'm going to die" one. How about "I have cancer and am dieing, treatment will suck so I should put it off as long as possible."


 Oh, you could try that if you want to obfuscate the point.  However, that presumes Democracy and Capitalism are a disease, rather than an entity.  Which simultaneously betrays your bias and destroys your argument.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> In your opinion.


 It's all our opinions.  Though, you'll be hard pressed to point to an era or a system in history that did more good, for more people than our present system.  In fact, i'd say that task will be impossible, so you won't undertake it but, instead, simply ignore it.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well, I'd say it's the other way around. I am trying to look at other perspectives, while you seem only able to accept a Right-wing US POV.


 No, you aren't trying to accept 'other perspectives' you have an absolutist view.  You dislike the, so-called 'Right-wing US POV' and, hence, in your mind it is, by definition ALWAYS wrong.  Further, you identify with anyone else who agrees with your basic premise on the 'Right-wing US POV', no matter how vile or distasteful they are.  'The enemy of my enemy, is my friend'.  It's utterly transpartent, so don't go patting yourself on the back yet for your 'open minded' reactionary belief system.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So in your opinion this is it, the world will never get any better then the US with a Conservative government?


 That's certainly not what I said at all, though it's obviously what you're hoping i'd say.  What i'm saying is that western society, in general, to include the US, Canada, and western Europe, have successfully brought more prosperity to it's own people, using similar systems of government, than has ever been possible in the history of the world.  That's what i'm saying.  Can it be improved on? Certainly, but nothing you've suggested will improve it.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well, I'd say environmental ones are a bigger threat then terrorism, which by the way, seems to be coming from people so convinced that the US way of life is evil that they will sacrifice there life to play even a small part in disrupting it.


 Well, you could claim that, but it's based more on your personal biases than any real objective view of the threat.  The detonation of a nuclear device in a major population area, for example, or a nuclear exchange in the middle east, would cause environmental damage on a scale undreamed of.  The oil wells burned by Saddam in the first Gulf War caused environmental damage to an extent we've still not come to grips with yet.

The point, however, is that absolutists like you, want to make it an either/or thing.  To quote John Kennedy 'We can do this and the other thing'. 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Ok, they are crazy, but they are also as sure you are wrong as you are sure they are.


 Are you?



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> More so then terrorism.


 So you claim, though, again, it lacks any rational certainty.  It's more a of a belief on your part



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Although I don't think many people claim that all human life will be wipped out any time soon, except for religious extremists.


 Well, that's kind of my point.  Environmentalism has become a religion.  They even have 'Doomsday' beliefs.




			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yep, that we can. Key word bit there is "deal with". Environmentalism is not something to be ignored, not put off for the future.


 Thank you for illustrating a point i've been trying to make.  Belief in conservationism and responsible stewardship of resources is a reasonable position.  'Environmentalism' however, is a dogmatic belief.  Even you have confused those very terms.  'Environmentalism' has become a religion, where fact and reality take a backseat to the 'belief'.




			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> And they say the same about you. What makes you right and them wrong?


 That question points to you as well.  Though, it's obvious you couldn't pick up on the tongue and cheek nature of my 'commies are evil' statement.  Again, since you're so interesting in taking the position of questioning 'how I know i'm right' maybe you could enlighten me about how you know YOU'RE right.  If you truly believed the question when you asked it, and it wasn't just a debate ploy, you'll answer 'I don't know i'm right'.  



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> And there people are being killed by the actions of Americans. How many civillians in the US have died because of US strikes? A lot more then have died in the US from terrorist strikes.


 A lot more people in the US have died from US airstrikes?  I'm sure that's not what you intended to say.  Maybe you could clarify.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So there is that perspective thing again. From theirs, the US is the evil one.


 But, there again, I apply your earlier analogy that systems fall and die.  Islamic fundamentalism represents an anachronistic view on the world.  It's time it 'fell' as you already claimed all things do.  The 21st century should be the century of world democracy.  You can have the 22nd century to designate as it's collapse.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Can you point to the post in this thread that claimed those things, I must have missed it. Pointing to extremists to win a argument is very flawed logic.


 First of all, the 'pointing to the extremism argument is flawed' argument is humorous coming from you, because that's been the majority of your arguments up to present, so you might want to reconsider that statement.

Secondly, we were discussing environmentalism, and that's not an 'extreme' statement among environmentalists.  In fact, it's a common theme 'We're destroying the planet'. 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So... religion is bad?


 It is when it clowds reason, and becomes 'dogma'.  There's a tendency among the left to condemn only Christianity for dogmatic belief.  The left excuses much dogma, so long as it isn't christian dogma.  Environmentalism has become, less about reasonable environmental protections, and more about a religious belief system.  

Of course, that fits a theory of mine that when we attack the classic religions, Christianity for example, new religious beliefs rise to take their place.   There are some types of people who can't live without religious like dogmatic beliefs.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 24, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's like saying 'Part of being a good neighbor is ignoring it when my neighbor beats his wife and molests his kids'. It doesn't hold water.



So the US is better?  It's not being accused of human rights issues?  Doesn't excecute it's own people?



> As for what replaces democracy being an 'improvement' history has shown that not to be true. Feudalism was not an 'improvement' over Athenian democracy or Republican Rome.



At the time, yes it was. The world changed, and neither of those two systems worked anymore.  Religion took over and the Dark Ages began.  Science became heresy and the church had all the cards, it was larger and more powerful then either of those.

Don't forget that 90% of the Roman empire was made up of slaves.  The Dark Ages, while not our proudest time, may have been a neccessary step along the way.



> It's all our opinions. Though, you'll be hard pressed to point to an era or a system in history that did more good, for more people than our present system. In fact, i'd say that task will be impossible, so you won't undertake it but, instead, simply ignore it.



That is very subjective and depends on your point of view. If you where in one of the countries that have been destroyed by US related actions would you think so?  Probably not.



> No, you aren't trying to accept 'other perspectives' you have an absolutist view. You dislike the, so-called 'Right-wing US POV' and, hence, in your mind it is, by definition ALWAYS wrong. Further, you identify with anyone else who agrees with your basic premise on the 'Right-wing US POV', no matter how vile or distasteful they are. 'The enemy of my enemy, is my friend'. It's utterly transpartent, so don't go patting yourself on the back yet for your 'open minded' reactionary belief system.



Thank you for telling me what I believe, I wouldn't have thought it was that, but if you say so...



> have successfully brought more prosperity to it's own people, using similar systems of government,



 Look outside those borders, the world is bigger then just western culture.



> The point, however, is that absolutists like you, want to make it an either/or thing. To quote John Kennedy 'We can do this and the other thing'.



Well, I do find it funny that you are calling me a absolutist


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 24, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So the US is better? It's not being accused of human rights issues? Doesn't excecute it's own people?


 Western culture is superior to any that has come before in it's ability to provide the most good for the most people.  I make that claim, and I make unashamedly.  Further, you've yet to make an argument that even tries to assail that fact.  The best you've done is to ask silly questions such 'Well, uh, are you saying the US is the best?'.  

I'm saying that western culture has been more successful at creating more good for more people, in an imperfect world, than has ever been possible before.  Attack that claim, if you can.

Also, don't compare the execution of murderers to firings squads that shoot people who simply possess a banned book or imprisons people for being homosexuals.  It shows you as being completely devoid of perspective.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> At the time, yes it was. The world changed, and neither of those two systems worked anymore. Religion took over and the Dark Ages began. Science became heresy and the church had all the cards, it was larger and more powerful then either of those.


 Ignorance became more powerful than either of those.  Which suggests that wide-spread ignorance is the biggest threat to democracies.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Don't forget that 90% of the Roman empire was made up of slaves. The Dark Ages, while not our proudest time, may have been a neccessary step along the way.


 A necessary step?  You presume much in thinking that the Dark Ages was a 'progression'.  I'd call it a ratchet step backwards in the advance of civilization.  An objective view of history supports that claim.  The Roman Empire was far more advanced and sophisticated than the Dark Ages.  History is not always on a constant march forward.  

Moreover, slavery didn't end with the Roman empire, nor decline during the Dark Ages.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> That is very subjective and depends on your point of view. If you where in one of the countries that have been destroyed by US related actions would you think so? Probably not.


 Silly.  Objectively, the US and other western nations have provided, again, more good for more people than any other systems in history.  You want to turn it in to a subject discussion of individual perspectives, because you know that objective statement is hardly assailable as it stands.  You cannot point to another period in history or another nation in history that has accomplished so much good for so many.  However, the world remains an imperfect place, with imperfect choices.  

You prefer to deal with 'individual perspectives' that serve your theories.  It's clear you'd prefer not to deal with the statement as it stands.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Thank you for telling me what I believe, I wouldn't have thought it was that, but if you say so...


 Save the righteous indignation.  If you don't believe that, please say so.  Though, I suspect, you can't really defend to the contrary.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Look outside those borders, the world is bigger then just western culture.


 Yes, and much of it outside the borders of western culture is violent, brutal and primitive.  To say that western civilization has brought civilization to it's pentacle so far, is no exaggeration.  Perhaps you could point to another civilization that has done so much for so many, so as to refute my point.

Perhaps, you could point to one of those nations 'outside those borders' in that 'bigger world' that represents the achievement of providing more good for more people than currently accomplished in western civilization.  Moreover, you might examine that the most successful nations that fall outside the sphere of what constitutes the western world who are most successful AT providing the most good for the most people......have embraced the western model.  Japan comes to mind.  



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well, I do find it funny hat you are calling me a absolutist


 Oh, I believe you are a a bit of an absolutist.  I also suspect that you're also a bit of a contrarian....But that's beside the point.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 24, 2006)

_
 Capitalism, like *every* system before it, will eventually be replaced.  That's simply the way the world works.

 The Greeks Fell, the Romans Fell, The British Fell, and eventually... get ready for it... the US will too._

Organiztions eventually fall, but not always the method of organization.

The Romans fell and the Greeks fell, but Democracy or Republics or Emporers or Kings. as means of government, did not really.  We still have democracies, republics, monarchies, dictatorships, etc..


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 24, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> A good portion of the worlds population has ALWAYS been starving.  Where have you been?  In fact, having a large segment of the earths population that ISN'T starving is the anomaly that we've created.
> 
> Western culture has brought about a level of prosperity never dreamt about in the history of the world.  It's funny what a little historical perspective will do to destroy a perfectly silly argument.


Yes, very true!  It is also true that the Western culture's infinite capacity of compassion will bring about it's own demise as a powerful culture.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 24, 2006)

I dont think that power and compassion are exclusive. You can be compassionate and still be able to project power. The US military is one of the most powerful on the planet and IMO, as an entity, one of the most compassionate, as much as the media may like to point out the bad parts, theres no other military that goes to greater lengths to avoid unnecessary death or destruction, that tries harder to rebuild their enemies countries (Gernamy and Japan come to mind). And in general, compared to the longer and bloodier histories of the rest of the world, we as a nation may have a little blood on our hands, the rest of the major powers of the world are swimming in it.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 24, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I dont think that power and compassion are exclusive. You can be compassionate and still be able to project power. The US military is one of the most powerful on the planet and IMO, as an entity, one of the most compassionate, as much as the media may like to point out the bad parts, theres no other military that goes to greater lengths to avoid unnecessary death or destruction, that tries harder to rebuild their enemies countries (Gernamy and Japan come to mind). And in general, compared to the longer and bloodier histories of the rest of the world.


I totally agree!


----------



## jdinca (Jan 24, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I dont think that power and compassion are exclusive. You can be compassionate and still be able to project power. The US military is one of the most powerful on the planet and IMO, as an entity, one of the most compassionate, as much as the media may like to point out the bad parts, theres no other military that goes to greater lengths to avoid unnecessary death or destruction, that tries harder to rebuild their enemies countries (Gernamy and Japan come to mind). And in general, compared to the longer and bloodier histories of the rest of the world, we as a nation may have a little blood on our hands, the rest of the major powers of the world are swimming in it.


 
Well put.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 24, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Just because we don't like a form of government in a neighboring country doesn't mean we can try to take the moral high ground and impose our political system onto them.


 
Very true, it has been the US imposing its political system on to South American countries that has given rise to many a South American Terrorist organization.

As far as Communism goes as a political system, it looks good on paper but it never truly works well. It tends to take forget about the reality of human greed and motivation.

As for Cuba, I hardly think Castro is a direct threat, not even if he combined with countries from South America. They could possibly mount terrorist campaigns, but where is the benefit to Cuba in attacking the US?


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 24, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> As far as Communism goes as a political system, it looks good on paper but it never truly works well. It tends to take forget about the reality of human greed and motivation.



Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Communism either.   I like nationalism.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 24, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Very true, it has been the US imposing its political system on to South American countries that has given rise to many a South American Terrorist organization.
> 
> As far as Communism goes as a political system, it looks good on paper but it never truly works well. It tends to take forget about the reality of human greed and motivation.
> 
> As for Cuba, I hardly think Castro is a direct threat, not even if he combined with countries from South America. They could possibly mount terrorist campaigns, but where is the benefit to Cuba in attacking the US?


 
You're limiting your thinking to military threats. Add economic into the equation.


----------



## Kane (Jan 24, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I cannot imagine one justification for this. What, I wonder, do you actually know about Cuba? Is it those "evil communists"? What a laughable position to have.
> 
> I have a question: What legal or ethical right or claim does that United States have to the base at Guantanamo Bay?



  Sorry for the late reply, I just found this thread.

No don't think we should go to war with Cuba for the reason of communism. Although I am against communism I do think in time communism will come to end. I am not for a war against China or Vietnam, two communist countries.

I would support a war in Cuba because of one man: Fidel Castro. This guy may not be as bad as Saddam (although we don't know how many people he has slaughtered to make him as worse as Saddam) but he still has done many crimes against humanities. I have a friend who escaped with his family 4 years ago. His father was killed because of a bogus charge of seduction. This government is run by a tyrant and thee people deserve being liberated!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 24, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> You're limiting your thinking to military threats. Add economic into the equation.


 
Actually. I'm not, I was speaking economics. What advantage is it to Cuba to attack the US? It would be an economic debacle. The only threat they currently pose is through nationalist terrorism. Which, just as a side note, is very different than Religious based terrorism.

Cuba can't afford it, until the South American connection, they were starting to allow a form of capitalism to start. 

From an economic perspective, Communism as a system does not work. 

Also, if you read Marx, there has never been a truly Communist system, based on what Marx says it is. There are communist political parties, but the systems, which they operate in, are closer to socialism. 

Who are the big communist powers, Russia?..changing...China?..changing. Both are still major threats, militarily, but they are allowing more and more capitalist ideas to flourish.

If you want to worry about a Communist government worry about North Korea, not Cuba. Cuba is not a military threat and what economic threat does it pose?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 24, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Actually. I'm not, I was speaking economics. What advantage is it to Cuba to attack the US? It would be an economic debacle. The only threat they currently pose is through nationalist terrorism. Which, just as a side note, is very different than Religious based terrorism.


 At this point in history, Cuba is no longer a direct threat.  In the very recent past, however, they've funded and trained terrorist organizations, some of whom had influence and direct representation within the US itself.  For years Castro has been funding groups in Puerto Rico with the hopes of fomenting revolution.

However, Castro is a lame duck.  Though he'll probably live several more years (his parents both lived in to their 90's if i'm not mistaken), with his advancing age, and most importantly, the collapse of his benefactors in the Soviet Union, Castro is isolated and is in decline.  

What's more, Cuban communism, unlike communism in some other nations, is almost entirely a product of the cult of personality.  Communism in Cuba will not survive Castro for long.



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Cuba can't afford it, until the South American connection, they were starting to allow a form of capitalism to start.


 Again, Castro's death will spell the return of capitalism and democracy to Cuba.



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> From an economic perspective, Communism as a system does not work.


 Certainly true.



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Also, if you read Marx, there has never been a truly Communist system, based on what Marx says it is. There are communist political parties, but the systems, which they operate in, are closer to socialism.


 That is mainly because Communism is impossible in practice.  The only way that communism can remotely be maintained is through force.  Without force, men naturally revert to other economic systems.



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Who are the big communist powers, Russia?..changing...China?..changing. Both are still major threats, militarily, but they are allowing more and more capitalist ideas to flourish.


 Russia ceased entirely being a communist nation.  They now seem to practice a laissez faire style of capitalism not even seen in the US.  What's more, Russia has recently reduced income taxes below even US levels.  They have, in many ways, become even MORE capitalist than we are.  It's interesting to note that Russia has emulated it's former enemy, the US, instead of Europe, in both it's choice of Parliamentary model and economic system.  The belief at the collapse of the Soviet Union, was that the US and Russia would become two new global allies.

As for China, they remain a communist nation in name only.  They are still a mostly despotic regime, but they have embraced capitalist economics (a bizarre situation, considering the state apparatus was developed to ensure communist principles, which no longer seem to exist).

If you want to worry about a Communist government worry about North Korea, not Cuba. Cuba is not a military threat and what economic threat does it pose?
[/quote] North Korea is a threat, mainly in the sense that they've been able to develop nuclear technology.  The main threat is selling of technology to other nations.  North Korea is a much bigger direct threat to South Korea and Japan.  

As an aside, it's of interest whether or not an expanded North Korean threat will force Japan out of it's 60 year purely defensive military posture, and in to a larger military capability.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 24, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Actually. I'm not, I was speaking economics. What advantage is it to Cuba to attack the US? It would be an economic debacle. The only threat they currently pose is through nationalist terrorism. Which, just as a side note, is very different than Religious based terrorism.
> 
> Cuba can't afford it, until the South American connection, they were starting to allow a form of capitalism to start.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not concerned about Cuba attacking us economically, it's a non-issue. My concern is Castro's impact on other countries that could hurt us economically. In particular is Venezuala. Cuba is not content just playing in their own yard. They are very active in supporting leftist rebels and dictatorial regimes throughout the region. Were that to gain momentum and grow, we could have a serious problem. Venezuala and Bolivia, to a lesser extent, already have me concerned.

North Korea is a major issue. We really can't take the military option. The second that happens, Tokyo goes up in a mushroom cloud. Sanctions haven't worked. They don't care a bit about starving their people. China is about the only country that can influence the government, and they aren't exactly our best friends.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 25, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> North Korea is a major issue. We really can't take the military option. The second that happens, Tokyo goes up in a mushroom cloud. Sanctions haven't worked. They don't care a bit about starving their people. China is about the only country that can influence the government, and they aren't exactly our best friends.


 
As for Castro's influence in South America, he currently needs them more than they need him. And South American nations have been doing very well on there own, without help from Cuba, sprouting terrorist organizations.

I am not suggesting to attack North Korea that would be very bad, I am just stating that they are by far a bigger threat than Castro and Cuba. As sgtmac_46 stated mentioned, Castro is not long for this world. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That is mainly because Communism is impossible in practice. The only way that communism can remotely be maintained is through force. Without force, men naturally revert to other economic systems.


 

Agreed, kind of. Communism is currently practiced as a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership. In order to maintain this, force is required. This is why it is not a truly communist system. Communism is, to be very basic; everybody owns everything and all are equal. 
This is why it does not work. Humans can be very greedy and crave power. 

And you are correct China can be very influential in the North Korean situation. As for being despotic, there is definitely a person in charge with a whole lot of power, but I would not call it tyrannical. 

The view we get of other countries, via the news, at least in the US, is not always what is really occurring. We do not hear the entire truth about countries like Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba. But in Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba they do not get the whole story about the US either. I tend to look to the BBC for a more realistic picture of what is going on. 

But to get back to Cuba, I just do not see the threat.


----------

