The embargo is silly regardless of what kind of economic system they have. It's just a leftover grudge by some embarassed cold war hawks who are pissed because they made themselves look stupid with Bay of Pigs, the attempted exploding cigar incident, and attempted beard erasing incident, etc.

Even "forced" socialism is better than forced IMF style capitalism. Wherever they've tried to pressure other countries to have so-called "free trade", it's always been that whacked IMF neo liberal capitalism and it keeps failing while creating a huge rich/poor gap and unrest.

If they move towards some economic reforms, it should be reforms that are in the best interest of Cuba, and not at the best interest of some foreign multinationals who just want more cheap labor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
Please clarify this.

---

If the embaro were lifted either they would be out of an excuse for their economic woes or they would return to a batista like plantation for the US producing mostly tobacco.

Two words for lifting the embargo: Cuban Cigars!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:

Even "forced" socialism is better than forced IMF style capitalism. Wherever they've tried to pressure other countries to have so-called "free trade", it's always been that whacked IMF neo liberal capitalism and it keeps failing while creating a huge rich/poor gap and unrest.

---

*surfs*

You mean like this?
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v1n6/ant_v1n6_monetary.html

I also surfed to the IMF site where I got a headache from reading boring (I didn't understand a lot of it) economic facts and theories. Does the IMF charge interest on its loans? Are they a bunch of blind beaurocrats?

Even so, wouldn't Cuba have a choice of whether or not to join the IMF? From what I read about it, it's not likely Castro will be givin' them a call. It would be the final nail in the coffin of his revolution and he's a stubborn prick. If his successors start taking loans and get in over their heads then fuck 'em, they made a bad decision and weren't smart enough for self rule. I'll bet that Caterpillar and John Deere would extend them credit if they had some contracts to sell their agricultural output. Furthermore, unless Cuba is corrupt or stupid, they'll get a sweet deal because these two companies will be in competition for the new market (or they could go overseas and buy the dinky little euro-tractors.) You don't like the idea of the IMF meddling in their recovery but you also suggest that you might know what is best for them. Isn't that how the IMF thinks?

quote:

---

...cheap labor.

---

Relative to what? It might seem 'cheap' to you and me because it could erode our wage scale (and that sucks), but it could double or triple their standard of living.

e-mail me Mouse.

Ok.. the IMF is bad pretty much because of the fact that absolutely no country has benifited from it and most got worse. You can check out what happened to Argentina and everywhere else that tried out their "reforms". Castro won't go for it, but that guy isn't living forever. They will be itching to stick someone in his place who will go for that.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=125&row=1

I'm not so sure about that Greg Palast interview. It smelled fishy to me. I got about half-way through it. I'll have to verify two statements he made:

Enron was laundering drug-money.

The IMF has 'been handed the Great Lakes'

I got the impression that he was distorting the truth by over-sensationalizing. And, what would Enron gain by aquiring this infrastructure and then abandoning it?

What word describes a government or corporate entity that becomes mired in its own administration? Like a fat man that gets so big he can't get out the door of his own house. Are you sure that isn't the problem with the IMF? Post some more links please.

You can look up other articles and what happened in Argentina. There isn't one country that's been improved by IMF reforms.

Notice what he said about Venezuela and Chavez? That was written before the attempted coup. Look at what happened recently.

The failures of the IMF aren't news.

apparently mouse has no ambition to run her own company.

or she would become one of them money grubbing ceo's.

content with a life of servitude are you mouse?

or if you would run your own company would you pay everybody the same as you make despite their position and value to your business?

not providing any kind of reward for those who make the decisions that allow your company to prosper, people would rather be receptionists for the same pay without the headache.

people are poor in a capitalist society generally because they choose to be.

i have more respect for the man who lost everything attempting to be successful and rich, than for the 40 year old working at mcdonald complaining about his corporate boss as the cause of his misfortunes to a 16 year old working after school to buy beer.

the man who lost everything is poor because he attempted to better himself and was unsuccessful,

the 40 year old at mcdonalds is poor because he chooses to be.

[This message has been edited by lostmind (edited 05-20-2002).]

Lostmind is living up to his handle again.

what is the deal with the cb lingo?

should i start my posts with breaker, breaker.

Too much crank again?

breaker, breaker.

that's a big 10-4.

over.

Mouse,

You don't buy into 'Cuban socialism' do you?

Nope. I also don't buy into IMF style capitalism and embargos though. I think the people of Cuba, and everyone else in the world should have the right to decide where there economy is going to go without powerful outsiders trying to dictate and bully them into submission (such as the US and IMF/WTO). See, they don't give a damn about how China runs it's economy as long as they let the big guys come in and make a buck with massive sweatshop labor. However, in a democracy like Venezuela, they try to overthrow the government and make a coup because Chavez wanted to raise the tax on oil.

Cuba's economy is kinda a silly topic, since the issue has never been about the people or what they want. It's about some cold war hawks holding stupid grudges and a retarded embargo.

Bush is the president of stupid Irony. He made a speech telling Castro that they should have "free elections" and a "democracy" while standing next to the dictator (err.. prime minister) of Malaysia who's worse than Castro ever was.

US stance has never been anything but hypocritical.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 05-21-2002).]

If we lifted the embargo, their economic woes would dissappear. WIth US trade, they'd recieve raw materials that they can't produce, and their standard of living would raise significantly.

mouse may i ask why you continue to live in a country you seem to have no desire for?

our politicians are elected officials, if people don't like what they're doing, they vote them out.

so apparently it's not the government, but the american public in general that you have a problem with.

of which you are a part.

do you know why we still trade with china?

not to line our pockets with money off of cheap labor.

China is a world power on the other side of the world, whose economy is almost dependant on trade with america.

an aggressive nation with nuclear capabilities that doesn't want to lose taiwan, in fact they've stated they'll go to war over that issue.

so you've got a military based world power with nuclear capabilities,

what happens when you cut off their funding?

they invade india, they take taiwan, they take japan,

or worst case scenario they decide a nuclear warhead will settle the issue.

so we trade with china to keep a global stability on two different hemispheres.

why does the embargo on cuba remain intact?

because they are only 90 miles from our shores, flooding our shores with refugees seeking asylum in whatever means they can.

these refugees are now naturalized americans, who someday would like to go home.

these cubans vote, if they go home they go to jail, these cubans support the embargo, and think that lifting it would give castro more power through credibility to his military staff.

as a politician george bush must do what the people of this country, and you seen how florida was in 2000, he needs those votes.

and drop the election crap, why do people think that a state with

1) a republican governor(the brother of the presidential candidate)
2) a republican senate
3) rich old people who could care less about social security

would vote for
1) a democratic president who couldn't carry his own state which would've made the florida fiasco not even relevant.

and in case you haven't heard, a news agency did count all the votes, and the result was the same george bush won, by like 185 votes.

as for the disenfranchised black people,

how come they didn't make a stink on election day instead of 2 weeks later?

politics is not cut and dry, to compare trade with china to a cuban embargo is absolutely nuts.

you want to blame somebody for the continued embargo...

blame cuban americans who for the most part want the embargo left intact,

castro's own daughter who lives in florida and is one of the leaders in anti-castro campaign told bill o'reilly of fox news that she would organize protests and demonstrations if that happened.

the democrats pushed for it because they need some kind of platform to run on this year and anything to shake bushes approval rating.

i guarantee after bush's speech democratic support will fade with the outpouring of cuban-american support for the embargo.

had castro's daughter made that speech a week before carter's trip,

he wouldn't have even gone.

when did castro even become an issue worth caring about this year?

democrats election year politically motivated drive to try and win an election they are currently losing in the polls.

the same with this bullshit, what did bush know and when did he know it.

why did it take 8 months for this come out

because if next year was the election year, it would've taken 1 year and 8 months, which is why it only took 8 months.

al gore said it's absolutely disgusting the repbulicans took 150 dollars for a photo of the president talking on the phone after 9-11,

how much did al gore take in campaign contributions from the chinese, who shortly thereafter it was revealed were stealing secrets from a nuclear facility. hmmmm....

which spouted the whole campaign finance reform issue by john mccain, an issue brought about by the democratic presidential candidate, now supported by the democratic party because the republicans were against it overall.

if the democrats supported it from the beginning why didn't they give the money gore got back to the chinese?

quote:

---

mouse may i ask why you continue to live in a country you seem to have no desire for?
our politicians are elected officials, if people don't like what they're doing, they vote them out.

so apparently it's not the government, but the american public in general that you have a problem with.

of which you are a part.

---

I'm moving to Canada next month to marry my fiance. Even if I didn't move, I still reserve the right to speak against the government when I feel that it is being hypocritical. I did not vote for Bush and most people did not either. The problem I have with the American public is that most of them are too easily fooled and apathetic. Most people do not even vote or think about the news beyond what celebrity is getting married next week.

quote:

---

do you know why we still trade with china?

---

China was just one example, and probably a bad one considering different balances of power. How about Korea? Afghanistan before we blew it up? Malaysia? Indonesia? Columbia? Someone can make lists of all the countries that have dictatorships and crappy human rights that we not only trade with, but give economic and military aid to.

quote:

---

why does the embargo on cuba remain intact?

because they are only 90 miles from our shores, flooding our shores with refugees seeking asylum in whatever means they can.

these refugees are now naturalized americans, who someday would like to go home.

these cubans vote, if they go home they go to jail, these cubans support the embargo, and think that lifting it would give castro more power through credibility to his military staff.

---

No. Keeping the embargo going gives him more credibility. "Embargoes do not cow people into submission, they unite people in defiance", as a certain politician has recently stated. Drop the embargos and Castro will eventually die. In the meantime the people of Cuba won't have to suffer as much.

quote:

---

as for the disenfranchised black people,

how come they didn't make a stink on election day instead of 2 weeks later?

---

So it's not relevant if they didn't all get together and protest about it on election day? Think about it. A lot of people got turned away at the polls, but they had no idea what was going on. They didn't know how many others got turned away. It was only after some time when there was complaints and people looked into it that it was found out what happened. And, it was reported all over the BRITISH press. American press wouldn't touch it, or pushed it to the back pages. I wonder why..

quote:

---

you want to blame somebody for the continued embargo...

blame cuban americans who for the most part want the embargo left intact

---

I do blame them. I think they are a bunch of little brats. If you have a problem with your country stay in it and try to make changes. Don't come crying to the US and make demands on what our foreign policy is going to be like all those Cubans did when Castro took power.

I also blame the US politicians who treat their job like some kind of game instead of standing up for any principles. Most of them are spineless and would rather sell their soul for a campaign contribution than do what is really good morally.

quote:

---

how much did al gore take in campaign contributions from the chinese, who shortly thereafter it was revealed were stealing secrets from a nuclear facility. hmmmm....

---

How much do ALL of them take from Israeli lobbyists when Israel spies on us all the time and ALSO sold secrets to the chinese?

quote:

---

which spouted the whole campaign finance reform issue by john mccain, an issue brought about by the democratic presidential candidate, now supported by the democratic party because the republicans were against it overall.

if the democrats supported it from the beginning why didn't they give the money gore got back to the chinese?

---

Gee, I don't know. Why don't they all give back the money they get from AIPAC? Democrats and Republicans are all bought off. That's how great our "democracy" is. We get to choose between liars, hypocrites, and idiots to vote for. Hmm.. do I pick puppet #1 or puppet #2?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
do you know why we still trade with china?

not to line our pockets with money off of cheap labor.

---

No. That's exactly why we do.

quote:

---

China is a world power on the other side of the world, whose economy is almost dependant on trade with america.

---

We buy 21% of their export and contribute to 10% of their import. Important, but not dependent.

quote:

---

so we trade with china to keep a global stability on two different hemispheres.

---

It's just business. Any regional stability we gain in the deal is merely protection of our investment in those places. Hong Kong being one of the biggest.

You called it 'aid' but I couldn't find where we give anything to China. If 'aid' means US investment with the hope of a profit for the investors, then I'm all for it.

They aren't as much of a nuclear bully as you claim. Otherwise they would have no need to bribe our leaders. North Korea is more of threat and we don't trade with them at all.

China knows it is 'bad business' to nuke their customers. We trade with them for the money that's in it.

Your writing style reminds me of my first car. It was a Rambler.

quote:

---

Your writing style reminds me of my first car. It was a Rambler.

---

Haha! My thoughts exactly.

Lost, you're so out of it. You don't seem to realize that the reason people escape Cuba is because of the embargo. Life on Cuba is so horrible that the government can't supply more then 20,000 visas a year... because it would severely dent the economy. Cuba's so poor because of the fucking embargo. People didn't start escaping Cuba on logs until after the Soviety Union collapsed. In the 70s and 80s, their financial standing was so high that 90% less people left Cuba every year.

Our trade embargo with Cuba is both illegal and immoral - and it punishes the people the Cuba simply because we are ideologically opposed to the way of life they've chosen. All the poverty in Cuba would virtually dissappear if we lifted the embargo. There's literally no reason to justify the illegal act of repression we impose on the people of Cuba, who only deserve admiration for supporting equality and justice when the international superpower would starve thousands to deprive them of it.

65% of Cubans support Castro. They're willing to stick to their socialism system even tho it means economic reccesion, because they know that someday they'll have won their struggle and would live comfortably once again. They are aware of life under Batista's tyranical regime, and are thankful to be liberated from it. They struggle simply make ends meet since our blockade represses them to the point of starvation. They know that if socialism fell in Cuba, the gap between the rich and the poor would widen, and the standard of living would drop for the majority so a small minority can capitalize off American trade.

The dissidents are dissolusioned right wing fanatics that blame Castro for their low standard of living. They refuse to participate in the Cuban struggle, and support the embargo because they are blind to reality.

All the US wants to do is turn it into one of our puppet islands. Rob the farmers and invest in a bunch of casinos. Castro's been a hardliner lately, but his refusal to succumb to capitalist pressure is admirable. He wants to protect Cuba from the tyrancy he's overthrown.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Life on Cuba is so horrible that the government can't supply more then 20,000 visas a year... because it would severely dent the economy.

---

How so? Because they're all busy working in the fields and the loss of labor would affect their impressive GDP? Cuba withholds exit visas from its citizens based solely on political reasons (and if you meant entrance visas, then just use the same answer).

quote:

---

People didn't start escaping Cuba on logs until after the Soviety Union collapsed. In the 70s and 80s, their financial standing was so high that 90% less people left Cuba every year.

---

No. Regular flights from Cuba resumed in '79 and have been a steady, albeit limited, method of exodus since. And did you forget the 1980 boatlift? Sure, Castro emptied his prisons, but the mass desire to leave was the vehicle that made it possible. And how many of those were political prisoners?

quote:

---

Our trade embargo with Cuba is both illegal and immoral

---

I don't think anyone here is disputing that. I wouldn't comment on the legality of it though. In whose court?

quote:

---

65% of Cubans support Castro.

---

I would think his approval rating would be higher due to the fact that he murders and imprisons dissindents. Where did you glean this little tidbit? Did AP conduct a poll? An 'average cross-section' of the populace called to the phone during their dinner to speak their hearts about their leadership?

quote:

---

...if socialism fell in Cuba, the gap between the rich and the poor would widen

---

Sure, when there are no rich, and then suddenly there are, you get gap. Look around the wealthy nations, they got gap.

quote:

---

All the US wants to do is turn it into one of our puppet islands.

---

Maybe. But they'll be better off as a puppet - with Uncle Sam's hand up it's ass - than they are now.

Try reading some of the anti-Castro articles. They're just as slanted as the shit you've been reading but it might teach you to read between the lines.

so mouse you're going to move to a country directly influenced by the united states?

user-x, yes it is exactly what we do, but do we do it intentionally, we deal directly through the chinese government, what they pay their labor force is no concern of ours.

i stand corrected on the use of the term "dependant".

"It's just business. Any regional stability we gain in the deal is merely protection of our investment in those places. Hong Kong being one of the biggest."

true, i didn't mean to imply that it was the only reason we trade, although it did look that way.

i didn't see aid in my post?

"They aren't as much of a nuclear bully as you claim. Otherwise they would have no need to bribe our leaders. North Korea is more of threat and we don't trade with them at all."

see but it's cold war thinking, the nukes are never used as a bargaining tool, but the fact they have them is always in the back of your mind, just as the fact we have them is always in the back of their mind.

quote:

---

so mouse you're going to move to a country directly influenced by the united states?

---

I'm moving to a country that doesn't want to drag everyone into a war all the fucking time. It's hard to find a country that isn't influenced by the US, considering the US throws itself around all the time and makes pieces of shit like the Helms-Burton act and lists of "terrorist" nations while maintaining something that is practically a terrorist school in South America.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
what happens when you cut off their funding?

---

I took this to mean aid.

Mouse,

Don't do it! He's not good for you. And you can't get a decent tan in Canada anyway.

Marry me instead and we'll go to the Bahamas. I can teach you how to sail and 'look the other way'.

Aww.. sorry. Already got my passport and we bought a house =(

Castro does not murder dissindents. He imprisons counterrevolutionaries that plot his overthrow - which is perfectly justifyable because with enough CIA suport he could potentially be overthrown.

and I was referring to exit visas. The Cuban government cannot provide more exit visas then the amount of people needed to create any sort of an agricultural surplus. Cuba's dependent on sugar, and if too many farmers left their economy would only get worse. The majority of Cubans do actively participate in the Cuban struggle. My statistics were official Cuban Communist Party figures, which logically make sense. Communist countries only exist with the backing of the people, since it elies on the people for any sort of production. If the majority of people wanted Castro out, he'd be gone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
The Cuban government cannot provide more exit visas then the amount of people needed to create any sort of an agricultural surplus. Cuba's dependent on sugar, and if too many farmers left their economy would only get worse.

---

If this is true, and your previous statements of the 'horrible' conditions are true, then why not let United Fruit run the place again? It sounds like slavery to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Castro does not murder dissindents. He imprisons counterrevolutionaries that plot his overthrow - which is perfectly justifyable because with enough CIA suport he could potentially be overthrown.

and I was referring to exit visas. The Cuban government cannot provide more exit visas then the amount of people needed to create any sort of an agricultural surplus. Cuba's dependent on sugar, and if too many farmers left their economy would only get worse. The majority of Cubans do actively participate in the Cuban struggle. My statistics were official Cuban Communist Party figures, which logically make sense. Communist countries only exist with the backing of the people, since it elies on the people for any sort of production. If the majority of people wanted Castro out, he'd be gone.

---

double plus good duck speak comrade.

First of all how many people are going to say they want castro out on a survey of a leader who by your admission imprisons people who want him out. All that that statistic would tell you is how many idiots live in cuba.

Beyond that you say that it is right that farmers be forced to stay in the country and farm and lambast capitalism as slavery. My god you posses a knack for cognative dissonance greater than anyone I have ever met. I await your reply master of double think.

It's simply aesthetics, Orwellian allusions don't apply.

Castro does not jail everyone that opposes him. That's completely untrue. There are several protest groups - religious institutions, students, reletives of exiled or imprisoned dissindents - that he actually considers legitimate. The Cuban government recently accepted a petition and are granting 250 people a hearing where they will accuse Castro of civil liberties violations.

If Castro jailed everyone that didn't wanted him out, alot more people would be in jail. 35% actually. Only about 300 political prisoners are being held, the majority of them had fair trials, and their crime isn't speaking out. Their crime is speaking out to the extent that Cuban unity is endangered. Communicating with the CIA and selling them government secrets isn't freedom of speech. Marketing capitalist propaghanda to the extent that it gets in the way of the current 3 year plan isn't freedom of speech either. In the US, if someone was spreading pamphlets saying "bomb the white house," he'd be behind bars.

"If Castro jailed everyone that didn't wanted him out, alot more people would be in jail. 35% actually. Only about 300 political prisoners are being held, the majority of them had fair trials, and their crime isn't speaking out. Their crime is speaking out to the extent that Cuban unity is endangered. Communicating with the CIA and selling them government secrets isn't freedom of speech. Marketing capitalist propaghanda to the extent that it gets in the way of the current 3 year plan isn't freedom of speech either. In the US, if someone was spreading pamphlets saying "bomb the white house," he'd be behind bars."

what hypocrisy,

these people are in jail for creating dissent against a governing body to the point of threatening it's very existance,

yet if that happened in america you would bitch just as you did.

quote:

---

Marketing capitalist propaghanda to the extent that it gets in the way of the current 3 year plan isn't freedom of speech either.

---

Maybe in your bizaro socialist worldview it isn't but here in reality expressing an opinion which contradicts the governments stated aims falls under the auspices of freedom of speech. I feel the fact that you are unaware of this entirely justifies my orwelian allusions.

By the way which three year program deals with becoming not obscenly poor.

All 3, 4, and 5 year plans strive for the betterment of life in Cuba. The plans really don't affect the standard of living mch because most of the raw materials are useless cause we won't buy them.

"freedom of speech" of an overused cliche, and people that think that they're physically more free as people here then they are anywhere else makes me want to throw up. Laws limiting political dissent simply strengthen party unity. The Cuban government tollerates intelligence, peaceful protest to the extent that they granted dissindents are hearing. The people in jail are people that use the CIA's money to start anti-Castro advertisement corperations promoting his violent overthrow, gaining outward support and disturbing passive existence. A tiny island under pressure from it's superpower neighbor needs to go to lengths to defend itself. The only reason corperate America doesn't competely override the first ammendment is because the first ammendment doesn't put them in danger.

Ideology and reality clash at times, and "freedom of speech" pits the two against each other in 1-2-1 combat. Freedom is a wonderful word, but it can only exist within a reality that allows it, and reality must be preserved. Socialist reality is a state of liberation, inw hich people escape being commodoties - which is a freedom western civilization fails to grant. Therefor, while not completely adhering to meaningful civil liberties requirements will give protesters a reason to whine, we must come to grips with the fact that the most important aspect in life is servitude of reality. Since freedom cannot exist without reality, the true Revolutionary mentality involves accepting and serving the it. When blind, meaningless childlike ideas under the guise 'f "freedom of speech" ideologically clash with the world's state of existence, one should strive towards what serves reality the most. In a broader sence, Cuba has more freedom then we do, for they offer true freedom - the freedom to live in society without being a commodity, the freedom to live as yourself, as an embodiment of personal betterment. While we allow anarchist rebel teenagers to bitch and moan, and force them into a life of slavery, controlled by the minority. While the wealthy minority of corperate investers will yell "United we Stand" and sip coffee discussing "freedom of speech" and undying pride, the struggling people of developing Caribean nation will coexist peacefully, and enjoy as many civil liberties as they need to without disturbing the peaceful co-existence.

From your mind numbing drivel I take It you have never been arrested for holding your vapid set of political belifes. Freedom from being a commodity? A communist state such as cuba turns all people in to cattle. Such as those farm workers who as you say cannot leave because the state needs their labour. In a capitalist society the labor that an individual performs and not the individual is the comodity, a commodity that the individual sells of their free will. Free will a commodity that your Ideal state lacks.

The freedom of speech is the freedom of the mind without it that self betterment of which you speak is only becoming a better cattle superior at pulling the yoke of ones bondage, Oh I'm sorry you refer to that as "strenghtening party unity" don't you?

Though I shall concede that Ideology and reality often clash. Such as how your communist ideology that states that when the state seizes the means of production the state becomes a workers paridise clashes with all of recorded history; and the reality that people brave shark infested waters on shodily constructed rafts to travel out of communist countries to capitalist ones.

People only risk their life to leave Cuba because their standard of living is so low. Their standard of living is so low because of the US's illegal blockade. Throughout the 70s and 80s, nowhere near as many people left Cuba, and those who did left LEGALLY. That's because the government had the proper means to give them exit visa.

Communist countries do NOT turn people into cattle. Cattle don't share the profit of their labor evenly with their owners. Cattle don't control the farm. Cattle don't elect their herders. Cattle are bought and sold y various famrers based on their abilities to produce. American workers are more like cattle by those terms. In capitalist countries, labororers work for almost nothing. They recieve only the amount that's needed to keep them working. The majority of farmers don't own the land they till, and starve if they can't produce. At the turn of the century, in the average capitalist country, 10% of farmers owned 85% of farmland. The great majority of the population worked for the minority, recieving nothing, and having no chance at self betterment because they're completely controlled by those with the ability to fire them. When globilization started, the standard of living for workers rose significantly, because we now have the third world to exploit. We don't need human beings with actual bellies to feed when we can have 8 year old boys with no labor laws to adhere to. These working children are victims of capitalism. They work for less money then is needed to keep them alive, and if they die, they can easily be replaced. Their hard lives only benefit the corperations of the United States.

So what freedom do you speak of? The freedom for a chosen few to profit off the labor of thousands? The freedom to buy and sell workers and farmers like they're GI Joe toys? What about the majority? What freedom does the all mighty capitalism grant them? They don't sell their labor as commodities. If they did, they'd profit from at least 50% of their labor. They're slaves, not individuals. The minority sells THEM as commodoties. Their lives resemble that of cattle much more then any Communist workers.

What's left of communism isn't exactly thriving at the moment. This is only because international superpowers don't want it to. Cuba is pretty poor, but this is solely because of the US Illegal Trade Embargo. Vietnam and Laos are in the midst of being penetrated by foreign corperations with iron fists, and China gave up long ago. Fiden Castro is living true to his ideology, and is leading his people through a struggle in which he will one day prevail. Cuba will one day truly succeed as a socialist nation, and the reason some people can't handle the struggle is because we're doing everything we can to destroy their security as a Socialist Nation.

Uncle
You really are living in an illusion. I suggest you purphase one of those Castro 1/6 action figures (I think it is Hot Toys ot In toys who makes it) and adorn your shrine to him further.
Catro could care less about communism or any other ism. I do give him credit for being a stubborn pighead with a quasi eternal grudge against the USA. (No, we are not blameless either) However, One must admire his tenacity but he seems, and I think you must admit, to be coming around proving he never gave a fuck about about any ism other than his own personal vanity. (Nothing wrong in my book about this though)

[This message has been edited by belarion23 (edited 05-27-2002).]

Correction, the Castro doll is made by In the Past Toys. Give them your 60 dollars for capitalism and Castro fetishism, as Marx would say.

Show me evidence that Castro's done anything in his life other then dedicate it to helping the people of his country. I'll turn the tables and say that your quasi-eternal grudge against Castro (he isn't PERFECT) is less legitimate then any of his views, no matter how selfish some appear to be. I'd assume Batista's pseudo feudalist national Casino that exists with US funding is wholesome towards the people?

politicians are politicians-no matter what the ism.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

"Show me evidence that Castro's done anything in his life other then dedicate it to helping the people of his country"

one need only look at cuba to see this, as was stated earlier there are other nations cuba can trade with.

** looks in the distance **

hey, isn't that another boat full of ignorant people risking their lives for the foolish idea that they can live their lives for themselves.

fingers are you aware the amount of money we send to cuba in humanitarian aid, but having to go through castro the washingtons are replaced with pesos,

ever been to mexico? don't let on you have american money if you do go.

Uncle,
Show me the evidence he has done anything other than every other dictator or president. To clarify, I am referring to simply consolodating one's power, period. I have no grudge against Castro. You are obviouly capable of thought but I think you need to purge some propaganda memes from your cortex. I simply can't believe anybody believes such insipid propaganda-rather it be Cuban or American. I don't believe my own government and certainly not one who's ruler struts around in a GI Joe suit, no insult to GI Joe intended.

[This message has been edited by belarion23 (edited 05-27-2002).]

Castro redistributed the farmland evenly among peasants, and raised the standard of living significantly. It remained high until the economic crisis of 1989 following the collapse of the USSR. The other nations Cuba trade with don't possess all of the raw materials they need, aren't 50 miles away from it's ports, and since the US dominates world trade significantly, it curves all other nation's needs for Cuban products. Nobody denies that their standard of living would be significantly higher if not for the blockade. Try to convince me that the Cuban people deserve to suffer because we don't like their leader like a good capitalist pig!

They also had those literacy campaigns, education, and health care. For a while they were doing quite well and quality of life did improve compared to Batista. We supported/support regimes that were/are FAR worse on the human right's record actually. The US has never given a flying fuck about the human rights of the people. The only reason the embargo is still there is vote-coddling to the Florida exile community.

I'm not saying it's perfect, just that US vilifying of the island and maintaining the embargo is hypocritical when you look at the other governments that we do support. US gives millions of dollars to Columbia and Indonesia, then keeps a dated trade embargo on Cuba. Huh????

Castro is a dictator, but a little and petty one. It's not like he's going to take over the world if we lift the embargo.

Uncle
By calling me a Capitalist Pig you obviouly have proven my point about swallowing propaganda.
And NO!, the Cuban people nor should the Iraqi people suffer because our leasers don't like them.
However, that is history my friend. Like it or not, might makes right. I don't know where you are writing from but let us not forget Castro allowed nukes to be placed on his soil to be potentially used against my country (or geographical living area as I prefer to call it) during the hottest moment of the cold war. Perhaps this may better help explain Americans long standing grudge against him.
Lets see? Whom would I dislike more: A murderous regime from Columbia who sends us coke or an individual who allows nuclear weapons to be placed 90 miles away from us in Cuba. Not a Hard choice.

Nasty, I think youre connection with reality snapped sometime durring the thirties seeing as how the majority of american workers live comfortably bourgouise lives. I don't understand how you use %50 as the price of a commodity, the price of a commodity is whatever the market will bare. Being the more efficient system is why capitalism flourished. You speak of communism failing as the fault of the effort of the majority of nations however when the contest between idiologies began at the end of the second world war the playing feild war largely level. communism lost out because it did not work as well and in the long run it was inferior in meeting the needs of its citizens.

The United States attempted to invade Cuba. The USSR placed the missils there simply for Cuba's defence. Considering it an act of war that requires "immediate attention" wasn't that legitimate since we had missils in Turkey. Nation defence is just as important for Cuba as it is for us.

Smithie, capitalism thrived in it's own coutnries because it has the rest of the world to exploit. If you think American workers should be happy at he expense of Libyan preteens, capitalism does work. Scientifically, capitalism is a cycle. In order for one person or nation to get rich, several people or nations must grow poor. In order to avoid severe inflation, their must be a significant gap. Whether within one nation like feudal russia, or throughout the third world like the United States and other imperial oligarchies, capitalism continues a violent cycle, that will always result in the suffering of the majority. Of course the conditions of the third world are improving do to international labor reform, so inevitably the cycle will run out, causing another Great Depression, and mass international unemployment. Everyone can't be happy in a capitalist system.

Cuba's socialist economy did meet the needs of just about all it's civilians with an acception of the upper national bougoeois and aristocracy ("needs" to them means 7 cars and a swimming pool) for three decades. Their standard of living was reletive to hours on paper, and probably higher because of state employment guarentees.

Other Communist states really were impossable to judge because they wree either constantly at war (Vietnam, North Korea), or they immediately changed their form of government from a feudal monarchy (Russia, China) and would take a long fucking time to get back on it's feet. For the most part, the poorest of the poor here were much worse off then in any communist country. While the Soviet Union ended up correpting itself by establishing a ruling class based on ideological purity - in order to stay in power, Stalin granted special priveleges to those that liked him. At that time, Communist International deounced the USSR and most international labor union's considered the Russian Communist society just as class oriented as anywhere else.

Despite this, for the most part, Communism can succeed, would have if not for forces of intense greed devoted to tearing it down. Once the cycle of capitalism deteriorates, Communism will rise again. It has anyhow for the survival of the human race.

Your cataclismic views are misplaced, the reasons for the great depression were largely financal tinkering from the federal reserve and supply of goods overtaking demand drasticly, the emergence of new consumer markets and the increased cost of labor are more likely to cause a bout of stagflation which given a laise faire attitude would abait with the natural corrective cycle. The main foreseable outcome of the loss of the cheap labor market would be a robitics boom.

On the subject of Cuba, Cuba only looked good because it was proped up by Russia; which collapsed under its inefficient, ineffective regime. Humanity does not need communism, socialism or whatever you wish to call it. Everywhere it has grown it has lead to the ruin of the people. The famines of China and Russia the killing fields of Cambodia, stalins Gulags. Communism/socialism has led to more suffering in this century than any other political ideology.

Capitalism has done much worse. Globilization and Imperialism alone have starved more children then the Great Leap Forward. What abot the wars caused for financial reasons? What about all the poverty in the third world?

Don't credit anything done by Stalin or Pol Pot since almost every respected Communist organization in the world denounces them. Pol Pot is the Communist equivelent of a christian that misinterprets the Bible and kills people.

Don't blame the USSR's collapse on innefficiency. Several events and people lead to the collapse, and it could have easily been avoided. Communism hasn't worked because of vast economic pressure from the west, and the fact that direct transition from feudalism is bound to cause severe economic penalties. Communism's success relies on it's taking Marx's directed course, which won't be happening in the near future. Cuba still would have a reasonably high standard of living if the US lifted a finger to help it. This would only add to their top knotch education and health care.

Dude you stopped being worth talkin to about 5 months ago. Karl Marx is not god.

Neither is Mussolini, although I admit he comes closer with his cult following and shit.

As I said cuba only propers when somone is proping it up.

It's a small island. It can't produce every resource it needs itself. What other small Carribean Island economically thrives without being in the pocket of some western superpower?

How well off would America be if we weren't propped up with cheap oil taken from around the world and kept with wars and coups?

how much better off would we be with the world's primary energy source in the hands of our enemies?

is it just a coincidence that russia failure in afghanistan virtually "coinsided" with the collapse of their economy.

is it ignorant to think they were willing to spend 10 years of resources, military hardware and personnel for afghanistan alone?

those wars and coups throughout the cold war is what allows you to freely and openly criticize actions you find disagreeable from an oppressive corporate regime profiting at the expense of the working class and creating poverty around the world to stuff their wallets and load their weapons to kill those who oppose.

then again maybe you'd like it if we lost.

Quite well, considering the industrial base and skilled labor reserves, without cheap oil there would be a boom in the fields of alternative energy and the price of plastics would increase, fluctuations would stabilize and the market standard of living would remain largely the same.

quote:

---

those wars and coups throughout the cold war is what allows you to freely and openly criticize actions you find disagreeable from an oppressive corporate regime profiting at the expense of the working class and creating poverty around the world to stuff their wallets and load their weapons to kill those who oppose.

---

Yes, Allende in Chile was a major threat to my freedom of speech. Iran's ELECTED government wanting to nationalize oil was actually a plot to take away all my civil rights. Hell, if we didn't knock off Aristide in Haiti he might have took over the world. And the Viet Cong were going to row over to California in their rafts and canoes and waste the US navy and airforce if we didn't stop them right away!

Izzy, we waged the cold war. The Soviets never had any intention of invading us. They would have diturbed the world economy, so the politicians wouldn't have quite as much pocket change, but that's about it.

You really think the cold war was to protect civil liberties? lol. The Contras, the Taliban, and the other fascist dictatorships we supported that were much worse then the USSR didn't exactly plan on allowing freedom of speech an assembly. Hey, they executed women and children in order to keep the people afraid, but they allowed "free enterprize."

The Soviets posed no threat to us. We just thought that if Communism dominated the world economy, the corperations wouldn't proffit.

I'll add that most of the Communist's we fought had popular support. We even blocked a few elections and created puppet fascist dictatorships.

let me put you on a what if....

the ussr preached about the death of america,

they take over afghanistan, already having iraq and iran under it's wing, you now have the entire region surrounded and backed into a corner, the only way out, through israel, a nation 12 miles deep that every arab would love to see destroyed anyway.

after afghanistan, you give the arabs their wish, support an all out invasion of israel and completely surround saudi arabia, or maybe it was kgb influence that initiated the 6 day war hmmm....

right there you have the military positioning that would've started world war III.

now let's eliminate us military in saudi arabia, requested by the king of saudi arabia following WWII.

saudi arabia and jordan collapse under the weight of the iron curtain, with libya already firmly planted in the soviet grip.

you now have a communist nation committed to the destruction of the united states in full command of the world's oil supply.

our stock market crashed when iraq invaded pitiful little kuwait smithee.

i doubt the transition would be smooth,
i doubt the soviets would sell us oil and not demand certain things,
i doubt america, smithee, that america would celebrate the collapse of it's economy, and the turmoil that would follow until an alternative and fully affordable energy source would be available to EVERY american and not just the wealthy, it took a long for the automobile itself to become a part of every american's life, i doubt we'd let all this slide, and just shrug our shoulders.

plus there's the responsibility we have to our allies.

there's a lot of what if's there, and it's these what if scenarios that were considered before we ever implemented any action,

mouse in your research of the terrible actions of america,

how about you do a little background searches on the kgb, they are now public information, most of them anyways.

look at the ways they'd use prostitutes to manipulate the vatican and foreign dignitaries, they had a branch of the kgb full of female agents to get secrets from and manipulate the policies of governments through sexual black mail,

these agents would even be used on kgb officials to make sure they were on the level.

they were used several times to get security plans from the vatican which led to two failed assassination attempts on the pope that was meant to be linked to extreme israeli activists, to alter the position of the west towards and stop the military buildup the west was supplying israel which countered the military buildup the soviets were providing the arab nations.

all of your information is public domain with your personal opinion applied to it, there's a lot of hidden facts that went on behind the scenes that won't be public domain until the files are de-classified.

but to think that america is the only nation, the only super power that involves itself in the affairs and policy of foreign nations is complete and utter ignorance,

or is that you only see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe?

quote:

---

but to think that america is the only nation, the only super power that involves itself in the affairs and policy of foreign nations is complete and utter ignorance

---

Umm.. no. I never said that the US was the ONLY one. My point was that it's a big FAT major one, and not for "human rights" and "freedom" but for $ $ $ and power.

There's a huge ton of "what ifs". What if we never crushed all those democratically elected governments we didn't like and propped up dictators? Do you really think every single nation only wants to "take over the US" or maybe they just want to have the same thing that we do. Their own security. The Russians were brutal, but their reasons for invading east Europe was basically for "security" more than world domination. That country has a history of being invaded.

quote:

---

i doubt the soviets would sell us oil and not demand certain things...i doubt america, smithee, that america would celebrate the collapse of it's economy, and the turmoil that would follow until an alternative and fully affordable energy source would be available to EVERY american and not just the wealthy

---

What gives us the right to invade every country and demand oil for OUR comfort and convenience? The world isn't here for us Americans to sit around comfy and cozy with cheap oil and SUV's while other people are screwed. I wish they WOULD have cut off oil supplies and made us pay more so that they our industries would be serious about developing alternative energy (instead of the oil companies dominating over our government because we rely on them) thus making us self sufficient instead of mucking around in other parts of the world for OUR benifit and others expense

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 05-28-2002).]

Communism is dead, period. Uncle, you are beating a dead horse. To say every one is equal in a communist society is a joke of monumental proportion. It sounds great on paper but we are all ruled by biology. Did not all the communist party grand poobahs have opulent estates. Does Fidel live as his people live? No. Because if he did he would probably have died of heat exhaustion/malnutrition etc years ago. And before you ask, NO, Bush does not live like the average American.
As for our treatment of Communist Cuba and other countries, as I stated before, we were and are only looking out for our own interests. Uncle, the fact Communism fell because an idiot like Reagan brought it to financial ruin only further reinforces the holes in it. Perhaps you would feel different about old Joe and Fidel if you had been rushing German lines in human waves during WWII only to be shot by the NKVD if you hesitated for a second.
All truly thoughtful individuals are utopians. All those who put their ideas into practice are dictators.

[This message has been edited by belarion23 (edited 05-28-2002).]

quote:

---

All truly thoughtful individuals are utopians. All those who put their ideas into practice are dictators.

---

$(@&! Gandhi was a mean bastard.

Oh, and yes he liberated India and treated his wife like shit and slept with young girls-of course, there was no funny business going on there and his legacy lasted. HMMMM. Read the paper. Who are the most likely candidates to nuke each other at this very moment. India and Pakistan.
Read a book about him and by pass the movie.
PS: He liked the United States a lot more than Britain because at least he knew we would share a small part of our capitalist booty.
The best indicator someone is a dictator occurs upon their death. The resulting infrastructure disappears. Did this not happen with Gandhi? with Stalin? with Hitler?

I still stand by my last statement about utopians and dictators.

[This message has been edited by belarion23 (edited 05-28-2002).]

Umm.. yes I'm sure that India and Pakistan almost nuking each other today is the fault of Gandhi. What about the signers of the declaration of independence? Were they dictators? I don't think it's quite fair to say that everyone who has an ideal and tries to put their ideas into action are dictators. What's the alternative? Sit around and mope?

"What gives us the right to invade every country and demand oil for OUR comfort and convenience?"

"Umm.. no. I never said that the US was the ONLY one. My point was that it's a big FAT major one, and not for "human rights" and "freedom" but for $ $ $ and power."

you make absolutely no sense mouse, your hipocrisy is absolutely ludicrous,

right there you condemn the united states.

"Do you really think every single nation only wants to "take over the US" or maybe they just want to have the same thing that we do. Their own security."

there you expect to generate sympathy for the countries we "meddle" with, but admit to the fact we do it for our security.

"The Russians were brutal, but their reasons for invading east Europe was basically for "security" more than world domination"

and there you justify a nation, not only strongly influencing another nations politics, but actually taking over another nations politics.

i'll use your lame argument.

what did russia have to fear from pakistan?
what did russia have to fear saudi arabia?
what did russia have to fear from poland? czechoslavakia?

it must've been security reasons that they allowed half of berlin to be free.

"That country has a history of being invaded."


when?

let's look at russian history,

860-1698 The House of Rurik. The period of the Kievan Russian Empire, destroyed by the Mongol - Tatars, and the rise of Moscovy to recentralize the demolished empire.

1698-1917 The House of Romanov. Peter's Westernization of Russia culminated in the destruction of the autocracy by the Socialist Revolution of 1917.

1917-1991 The Communist Party maintained the Empire as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR fell in 1991 and dissolved into 15 nations.

1991-Present With the disintegration of the USSR in December of 1991 Russia has set out on a new road to democracy and a market economy.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/chrono.html

click on the period links as well, you'll find a history of them taking over or attempting to take over many nations.

besides uprisings within the country itself, it was only invaded by the mongol-tartars and the germans.

you're not even worth discussing things with.

i've never met anybody so closed minded.

i'm wondering if you've ever said you're wrong once in your life?

i know here you just blow over the shit you can't respond to,

i noticed you dropped the chinese reference from your protest of the cuban embargo.

quote:

---

you make absolutely no sense mouse, your hipocrisy is absolutely ludicrous

---

I'd like to know how you can't make sense of what I said. Tell me.. what does give us the right to invade other countries so that WE can have cheap oil for ourselves?

quote:

---

right there you condemn the united states.

---

Is that a thought crime? You really think our country is blameless on everything?

quote:

---

there you expect to generate sympathy for the countries we "meddle" with, but admit to the fact we do it for our security.

---

Absolutely not. I said they were brutal, and I personally don't like the KGB. However, I don't believe that them invading east Europe was a personal threat to *us*, or that they were trying to take over the entire world, as you were trying to argue.

When we meddle in countries, it's not for OUR personal security. Sorry, but the security for the profits of some multinational oil corporations and companies is not MY security. Defending ourselves from a country that is going to attack us is fine. Topping an elected government because they want to nationalize oil is not. That's my morals, sorry if you don't like them.

quote:

---

and there you justify a nation, not only strongly influencing another nations politics, but actually taking over another nations politics.

---

See above. I personally don't agree with aggression. That goes against my morals. I was making the distinction between them invading countries for the purpose of security (justified or not) and "trying to take over the world and being a threat to the United States to create an excuse to meddle in South America and the Middle East. We were going to war with an Ideology and for control and profits, not for Democracy and Freedom from Dictatorship. Chili under Allende was NO threat to us.

In the world wars, Russia was invaded from Eastern Europe and suffered huge losses. 25 million dead in WWII. Their goal was to prop up "friendly" governments in those areas so that it wouldn't happen again.

Let me make it clear. I'm not "justifying" that. I don't like aggression. However, there is a huge difference between propping up friendly governments right next to your own boarder after two world wars where you got invaded and lost millions, then propping up a puppet government on ANOTHER CONTINENT to maintain a cheap oil flow or make United Fruit happy.

quote:

---

i noticed you dropped the chinese reference from your protest of the cuban embargo.

---

I dropped it because I admit that it was a bad comparison based on balance of power. China is very powerful with a big military. It's strategically better for us to not push their buttons. That's why I added Korea and Columbia instead.

Mouse,
you still have not shown me Mohandas was not a dictator according to my definition. Of course, he is not responsible for the current conflict anymore than I am responsible for my English (a small percentage I may add) ancestors for brining suffering and death to India.

The Soviet Union dedicated themselves to the death of the US? That's news. We initiated the first phaze of the war, and declared our intent to destroy them.

The KGB were dirty. About as dirty as the CIA. All secret police are dirty, that's not a cause for war. The USSR had the ability to create Nuclear War, but not the intention. Yes, they did take over the oil market, but on what moral grounds shouldn't they have the right to? Izzy, you claim that we defended democracy, yet you haven't commented on the fascist dictatorships we supported with much worse human rights and less democracy then the Soviet Union at it's worst phazes. You've yet to comment on the elections we've blocked because Communists were popular. Enforcing democracy by deterring it.

The USSR invaded Afganistan. We just yanked Texas from the Mexicans. Since when were local feuds world issues. We stationed missles in Turkey long before the Cuban missle crisis. Our desire to destroy them became known long before ANY Soviet aggression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
What if we never crushed all those democratically elected governments we didn't like and propped up dictators?

---

I can only think of one, and it's a weak example. So help me out w/ some examples please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Our desire to destroy them became known long before ANY Soviet aggression.

---

Bullshit. Berlin was still in flames.

Belarion, in most socialist societies ruling classes have developed - workers recieved raises for ideological purity rather then quality of work. Again, all communist countries strive TOWARD communism, and try to destroy the gap. Their will be a temporary hierarchy merely their needs to be one to function in the midst of a surrounding market economy. In a state designed to die, the gap will shrink. Basing promotion on ideology immediately blocks out racial descrimination and sexism, and puts people on an equal level with equal OPPORTUNITY - which is already an advance.

fidel Castro doesn't live in that much luxery. Certainly less then an American businessman. His life is as comfortable as it needs to be. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The greater devotion, the wider the ability, thus greater need. Castro needs more to govern a country then a factory worker needs to turn bolts. Castro's devotion to his cause in preserving such equality requires more then a small shack. Still, socialist socities bring the human race alot closer to equality then capitalist ones - where scientifically for one to succeed another must fail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
...capitalism thrived in it's own coutnries because it has the rest of the world to exploit. If you think American workers should be happy at he expense of Libyan preteens, capitalism does work.

---

You don't know a fucking thing about Libya either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
...workers recieved raises for ideological purity rather then quality of work.

---

That's a good robot.

--Some elected governments we messed up with CIA coups -

Mossadeq government in Iran.

Aristide in Haiti

Allende in Chile (over 5000 Chileans killed in and after CIA led coup.. US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger justified this by saying "I don't see why we should have to stand by and let a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people".)

Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala

US armed forces landed in the Dominican Republic during the election campaign, with the aim of establishing "the American order" and of putting in power a government suited to US monopolies.

Gave millions of dollars a year to rebels to fight against elected government of Angola

--a few liberation struggles we oppossed with force or indirectly by arming the dictator -

Independence rebellion in Peurto Rico crushed by the Americans

US helps dictator in El Salvedor with troops

and......

The good ol' Contra incident in Nicaragua

Communist interference in foreign countries was just as ruthless and no less based on material concerns; You think the USSR invaded afgahnistan raped women destroyed villages and killed civilians wholesale because they wanted to share with their afgan brothers "the glorious revolution of the proletariat" like hell they did, they wanted to expand their spher of influence. You think the marxists of seirra leon are fighting for an amiable cause? I dare you to go there and tell them so in person, go on shake their hands I dare you.

mouse it's obvious you don't even read what i write.


"Is that a thought crime? You really think our country is blameless on everything?"

if you'd follow context, you'd see i was pointing out you not condemning another nation for forcibly taking over another country while condemning us for forcibly manipulating another country.

"However, I don't believe that them invading east Europe was a personal threat to *us*,"

and western europe shouldn't have seen it as a threat either who we are allied with, and because of soviet incursion into europe it was a majority of american forces that were used in countless cold war events because the europeans simply couldn't let their guard down.

remember europe did nothing after germany took over czechoslovakia because they thought it would stop there and signed non-aggression pacts with germany which were ignored.

if it wasn't for the eastern bloc you would've seen a lot more european intervention in iran, viet nam, and korea.

yet it's still our fault isn't it?

"We were going to war with an Ideology and for control and profits, not for Democracy and Freedom from Dictatorship."

democracy and freedom aren't ideals?
what are they?

"In the world wars, Russia was invaded from Eastern Europe and suffered huge losses. 25 million dead in WWII. Their goal was to prop up "friendly" governments in those areas so that it wouldn't happen again."

how can you call forcibly taken control of a country "propping up a friendly government"?

maybe you'd have liked it better if we just instilled an american government in these countries and added more stars to our flag,

would that have been alright with you?

what were we thinking still letting citizens of those countries rule.

okay, i see where we wrong there.

" then propping up a puppet government on ANOTHER CONTINENT"

i didn't east germany was in asia?

afghanistan is closer to china than it is with moscow.

did you even click that link to see what they've done throughout not just the last century but since the beginning of their history?

"I don't like aggression."

i respect that, and it may surprise you to know that i don't like aggression either.

but to further the ideals that i cherish i will fight, and strongly support it. some people can't be reasoned with, so if it has to be your way or my way,

i will fight for my way.

you know, i was just like you 10 years ago.

i'd spray paint no blood for oil on government or government related buildings,

i disagreed wholeheartedly with viet nam for taking my uncles legs.

then i grew up and looked beyond the headlines for the political reasoning behind it.

sure we may have been wrong and russia didn't want to eliminate us, how many nations should we have let russia take over before we did anything?

or should we have done nothing and hope for the best.

that's not a chance i'm willing to take anymore.

we were neutral during WWI til germany requested mexico attack us.

we neutral during WWII til japan did attack us.

europe though it best to sit back and let germany take over a few meaningless countries, look where that got them?

should we always wait until it's too late before we do anything?

i don't think it's worth the risk, and when we are successful headlines may make it look like were up to our old tricks, and when we fail headlines may make it look like when are we going to learn.

but there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we don't have any idea about, and our government will not tell us the under the table reasons even if it would improve opinion of the action, because that is top secret information that helps to keep our information collectors alive and undercover.

my uncle thought the war in viet nam was necessary to show the world that we would fight communism, and to show that we were willing to commit long term to it.

we lost the war, my uncle lost his legs, and was welcomed by hippie protestors throwing eggs at him when he returned home,

all 3 were trivial issues to him in support of a cause he defended and fought for, and that despite press reports which fueled the protests here about the people we were "protecting" being our enemies, most vietnamese offered him what little food they had to thank him and the united states overall for the effort they were giving.

but that's not good news stories, people want conflict in their news not boy scout stories.

"However, there is a huge difference between propping up friendly governments right next to your own boarder"

so what's your beef with cuba then anyway?

"where you got invaded and lost millions,"

is this what you propose we wait for?

we should just sit back and let the world do what it will til this happens to us?

tell me, when this does happen, how many million should die before we use force and underhanded means to ensure our safety?

1 million?
2 million?
5 million?
10 million?
20 million?

Hell no, I don't agree with Soviet excesses and atrocities. Just because they did it, doesn't make it OK for everyone else to do it. I believe in at least trying to keep some kind of moral code.

Ugh.. Lostmind. This is why it's a headache arguing with you. You split up single sentences in my paragraphs then argue with the sentence and disregard the entire point of the paragraphs. I've repeated myself on this issue like 5 times already ok? If you want to keep on picking up fragmented lines then arguing in your own fragmented manner go ahead. Just read my other posts about this and think about it.. the answers are already there.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 05-29-2002).]

spoken true lostmind.

Uncle
"workers recieved raises for ideological purity rather than quality of work."
Pure 100% propaganda, I can't believe you don't see the bullshit in this phrase yourself. It as if some old communist scientist put a thought implant in you.

For those of you who have never put in 16 hours in factory, the hard workers do not get promoted because of the quality of their work. Work good=no future oppurtunity. Shitty workers advance as upper management knows they will not affect production. Perhaps this is why communism fell (other than Reagan forcing them to spend more on defense). The good workers-with the knowledge and good ideas were never promoted where the ideological pure ass kissing ones' were.

I worked in a Union Shop and saw this happen time and time again. Fortunately though, we did not have to kiss the local commissars ass. Despite my strong support for the Unions, I don't believe any of this communistic/socialistic bullshit because anybody who has truly worked on the floor figures out the class structure in about 2 minutes.

Mouse, you're completely forgetting the elections in Vietnam we blocked. Same with North Korea.

Alan, alot of Marxists weren't exactly fighting for the good of the people. I can acknowledge that if you acknowledge that our struggles we put down weren't in the name of human rights either. We fight for money, the USSR fought for power - and since power brings moeny and money brings power, the causes were identical. That still doesn't give us the right to support fascists and put down true peoples' struggles. The attempted Bolivian Revolution was for no other cause then liberation. All those that fought against Batista in Cuba had altruistic purposes. And I would have loved to shake Ho Chi Mihn's hand and commend him for fighting for independence against the French. The movement in Algeria was also pretty honest. Alot of the Soviet Puppets were corrupt, and that would justify US aggression if we werne't using methods that were much worse.

Thanks for the examples. I'll reply one-at-a-time since I have to do some surfin' first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
--Some elected governments we messed up with CIA coups -

Mossadeq government in Iran.

---

The article that I thought was best balanced was the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

First of all, Mossadeq, was a hard-core nationalist with ties to the cleric leadership, so his administration's level of 'democracy' is questionable.

Second, he was about to nationalize Iran's oil industry and therefore void all western investment. If you don't think this is such a bad thing, imagine your 401K being siezed with no recourse.

Third, it can be reasonably assumed that, given the locale (the communist 'hood) and the era (early 50's) that Iran would fall to the Soviets and leave the western half of the gulf in their control.

Fourth, if not the Soviets, then the clerics? That's damn sure not democracy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/11/003r-021100-idx.html

Did we meddle? Yes. Did it have a detrimental effect on the average Iranian? I'm not so sure.

Nationalizing the oil industry would puncture OUR investment, but would enrich the lives of the people. Even if his desision was all around wrong - he was elected fairly, and I will continue believing that until someone proves otherwise. We simply attacked because we wanted more money. An attack that can be "justified" with one sentence.

Uncle,

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Mouse, you're completely forgetting the elections in Vietnam we blocked. Same with North Korea.

---

I know you won't (because you don't want the facts to confuse you and the might show you that you are again wrong) but you should look at the history of the Vietnamese elections and the objective way the voting officials were treated by the Viet Cong.

Nox

Bullshit. Those elections were completely free. Diem and his US backed fascist possy were alot less legitimate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Uncle,
I know you won't

---

I'm psychic and a seer. Thank you for proving me right...again.

Nox

Uncle,
With all due respect, you are full of propagandist lies. You are like a Fundamentalist Christian. Have you ever worked till you have a callus or even three on a factory floor. Have you worked 18 hours on a project because if you loose it some of your fellow workers (with less seniority) will be laid off.
ANSWER PLEASE, BECAUSE I HAVE. I have known what it is to truly work instead of spout communist malarky!
You won't answer my ideological pure worker question because you know there is no answer within the realm of reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Nationalizing the oil industry would puncture OUR investment

---

If it's 'OUR' investment, then why do I smell your nasty fingers reaching for my wallet in an attempt to give it away?

It's probably just 'MY' investment because any real working-man I've ever met knows he's better off without the bullshit sham of socialism.

'Somewhere I don't want to be'. That says it all about your idiotic views of the world.

Isn't there a 'cause' somewhere with your name on it? Does someone with a job need to front you the money for a plane ticket? Don't forget to pack your Karl Marx T-shirt!

i'm glad you made that say "any real working man"

because that is soooo true.

Little communist, capitalist squabbles aside, I would not like foreign countries and companies telling us what to do with our main natural resource. Capitalism is RISK taking. When you make those investments, you take a risk. If something bad happens, you eat it and move on. You don't go overthrow governments with a coup.

Somewhere along the line, people have lost the idea that capitalism is supposed to be risk taking, and now it's just completely rigged with help from the government.

Hi Mouse,

How are ya?

It's hard for me to comprehend a capitalist system that's not playing a rigged game. I agree that it's immoral to put people in misery but I don't see that in the case of Iran. If risks are being taken, I want to be the winner, but not at any cost.

Don't lose sight of the original topic here - the betterment of the Cuban's quality of life.

We are not an exact example of the ideal democracy just as there has never been an exact example of socialism or communism in the world, but it's still the best game in town.

I'm fine.

The people in Iran hated it. They elected someone, then the CIA came in and put a Shah in place to protect the profits of foreign corporations. There was mass protest and rioting when it happened, as would happen here if foreigners knocked off our government to protect their own pockets.

More countries should have the right to keep control of their main resources. Major resources being all owned by the already wealthy western nations is kinda like a type of imperialist leftover isn't it? At what point is someone allowed to say .. "Hey.. sorry but our country and people need money.. these resources are on our land and we need to do this to lift us up", or are the vast bank accounts of multinational investors the only common moral in the world now, even more important than democracy?

capitalism is funneling resources to where they can be best used to tap more resources, mouse. If when "nationalizing" an industry if they were to pay back consideration reasonable interest and an acceptable penalty for breaking a contract I wouldn't have a problem with it because ultimately the resources of the nation are national property. However, most of the time nationalizing is just a glorified term for theft.

No excuse to overthrow a government in another country with covert actions. None. Zilch. You can get pissed and stop trading with them sure. Overthrow their government? No!

The IMF and world bank do a form of "glorified theft" every time they use loan sharking tactics to force a country to privatize their resources to foreigners who end up selling off the assets, but no one goes to war to protect against that.

I've worked in a factory. I'm not as experienced as you, then again I'm only 16, but I know I have alot more comming. I've never headed projects, but I have put in some time on an assembly line and have acrried around crates for large portion of my teenage life. I have seen first hand what capitalism does to real workers. I've seen friends get laid off because the company has a shortage. I've seen workers get jack shit when it comes to representation and rights, and I know that my generation will be subject to the same oppression if something isn't done. Yeah, the USSR has to an extent fabricated a myth of the "dictatorship of the proletariate" when in reality they're just as oppresive as the Czars, but that doesn't mean that Socialism doesn't have a chance. According to the economy's cycle, it'd BETTER have a chance, or the human race and all the money that comes with it is just gonna plunge. The first phaze of Marx's prediction's have come true - the class war has turned in to a physical war, with guns and bombs and the like.

Well mouse its either destroy the government or impose embargoes and sanctions, the case with Cuba, and you people bitch longer when the US does that.

But praytell nasty, What rights of yours have not recieved representation in the course of the honest sale of your labor?

The best solution is to coexist. Don't say Communist nations aren't willing to compramise according to US needs. Khruchshev and Breznev attempted bargains until Gorvachev ended the Cold War.

It wasn't even an American oil company that was going to lose ownership.. it was BRITISH Petrol. The British did take Iran to the Hague court to sue, but LOST. The court ruled in favor of Iran.

thats not surprising considering Europe's socialist leanings.

So that whole thing where kruschev said we will bury you and then talked about stomping out capitalism whilst pounding on a table was just a simple misunderstanding?

How is it any differant than our leaders pounding around screaming about stomping out communism and invading countries/overthrowing them with our CIA for just electing socialist leaders or overthrowing dictators?

Which.. isn't really surprising considering America's history of violently stomping out our own union struggles in the past...

ECONOMICALLY stomp out capitalism, by increasing production. Not nuke them.

because mouse, it comes down to this.

fingers, two contradicting systems cannot coexist because the people will prefer the better of the two.

why do think communist systems are backed by military, not so much for security but for inner peace as well.

there are a lot more russians and chinese defecting to america,

so you can either allow your system to fail or fight to overthrow the other.

tell me something mouse wouldn't you break your moral code to ensure your moral code survived?

that's the one thing pacifists fail to see,

american pacifists i should say who have never had to fight beyond voting and bitching about the government to uphold their morals.

i would do it in contradiction of mine, to ensure the future of mine.

Izzy

Amen, halleluhuaha, Belarion starts speaking in crazy ass non existant tongues!

Uncle, I do agree with your assessment of factory conditions-but, please- Communist ideals are not going to solve them. Further, I think your arguements about the working man's condition would be taken more seriously if you did not mention Marx or any of that other crap because history has proven it to be good in theory but bad in practice.

[This message has been edited by belarion23 (edited 05-30-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by IzzyReele:
because mouse, it comes down to this.

fingers, two contradicting systems cannot coexist because the people will prefer the better of the two.

---

Or what they believe is the better of the two.

Goddamn, this think grows like a weed. I was just here yesterday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
The people in Iran hated it.

---

They hate life under the clerics as well. Puppet, Dictator what's the difference?

quote:

---

There was mass protest and rioting when it happened, as would happen here if foreigners knocked off our government...

---

No. we're armed.

quote:

---

More countries should have the right to keep control of their main resources. Major resources being all owned by the already wealthy western nations is kinda like a type of imperialist leftover isn't it? At what point is someone allowed to say .. "Hey.. sorry but our country and people need money.. these resources are on our land and we need to do this to lift us up", or are the vast bank accounts of multinational investors the only common moral in the world now, even more important than democracy?

---

I'll bet that they don't leave you by yourself to run the store do they?

There may come a point in your life when you begin to think; if the ultra-rich no longer have it so fat and phat, they may stop throwing us their crumbs and we then would end up as dirt-poor as the ones we manipulate. When you get to that point, you can start to enjoy your stuff (NOT just the material items but EVERYTHING a wealthy culture has to offer).

You'll know it when you stop hating the stuff that you now have. You do hate your stuff, don't you Mouse?

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
...I'm not as experienced as you, then again I'm only 16...

---

Sorry for riding you so hard and congratulations for having a set of balls to keep posting your views in the face of people critizing you.

You only come across as wrong, when actually you're just a utopian. You're arguing with pragmatists here and they recognize your righteous indignation as the flag that a fool carries.

*gone fishin*

I do agree with User X's last thread. You have cajones. However, with time, you will learn Karl Marx's Das Capital was just a book. I thought like you at your age. No, I am not knocking you. Yet, you will see things different in the years to come.

Kinda like when I thought Byron and Shelley were the shit!

[This message has been edited by belarion23 (edited 05-31-2002).]

Which is the better system? Communism or capitalism for Cuba? just wondering mouse and others, I seem to remember several times Cubans fleeing on tire rafts and any other shit that would float to risk their lives and gave up all their possesions in Cuba they couldn't carry for a better life here

Point is nasty neither system has proven itself moraly superior in its tactics and when the results are observerd the capitalist nations are the prosperous ones.

I don't worship Karl Marx, nor do I bow down to Lenin, Che, or any other figure. I simply consider Communism in it's purest form is scientificly logical if you look past the social dogmatism.

Capitalism is profitable, Alan, for a minority. The majority suffer, which is true for Communism's initial phazes but at least has an upward track. That's the whole idea - capitalism is a cycle, while communism is an upward path towards a specific goal, of which the first phazes has already been achieved.

Being a cycle, capitalism scientifically as no medium, and the majority of people will suffer in order for the minority to profit. A socialist government has already proven capable of taking steps toward true social democracy, which capitalism has only stayed in the same place. I have more faith in ideologies that move forward.

The vast majority of people in my country prosper on account of it.

Maybe so, at the expense of the vast majority of people in the entire third world.

Even your country will stop prospering do to capitalism when the next Great Depression occurs.

LoL. You really think conditions are going to grow out of the stone age in Africa? I wouldnt hold my breath.

being successful in a capitalist society depends entirely on the inidividual.

granted there are exceptions, but for the most part people in america are poor because they choose to be.

not everybody can be a millionairre, but to live comfortably in america isn't that hard.

and you can't bring "at the expense of third world nations" into this, we are not responsible for their governments, and if we would be you would bitch.

technology made communism obsolete,

which is why it can never work in it's "purest" form, and why every communist nation that has ever been has been a military regime.

Capitalism rewards those that work hard and when you succeed you are rewarded. the people who are poor chose to be due to drugs, alcohol or just general laziness. You too, would bitch if you worked your ass off at your job, put in overtime but had most of the money you earn go to someone who doesn't do jack shit, is an alcoholic and is so lazy he doesn't work for a living or even to find a job

You blame poverty on laziness? That's funny... according to your logic, people worked their asses off throughout the 20s, followed by an international epidemic of laziness in the the 30s, until the 40s when people decided to "get off their lazy asses and work." I also find it funny that 95% of the population of most African countries are lazy and do drugs and drink alcohal, while the majority of Sweeden are hard working fellers that get rewarded for their efforts. Is it in their blood?

After reading Joo Boo's reply, I must step back and show my respect to everyone else that's arguing with me, because you're all capable of displaying logical points.

No I blame the poverty of the great depression on the unconstitutional, illegal, and incompotent actions of the federal reserve which caused the economy to crash, and the heavy spending of hoover and FDR that prevented the natural economic cycle of recovery from occuring.

Never the less For the most part people in the third world work cheaply because it beats subsistance farming with stone age technology. thus they benefit from it aswell, otherwise they would simply stay subsistance farmers.

That's like Comparing Apples and freaking Green Beans Uncle. When you get to American history in HS you'll learn more about how the Great Depression came about

I've taken American history, and I know damn well why the depression occured. It's just saying that actions taken by the government and by multi-national corperations make people poor... not "lazyness."

The idea that poor people are lazy is the most retarded concept I've ever came about. It applies in very few cases, like suburban America, but for the most part they don't control it.

Yes, people do try to avoid substinance farming in third world countries. No matter how much cheap labor they do, they will not be able to get a college education, an NBA, and get a well paying job. They will be poor.

I guess the country of Burma is comprised of a bunch of lazy alcohalics.

No just people that know bad from worse. And As I said If the actions of the federal reserve are examined the principle reason for the depression becomes clear.

I know the reasons for the depression, but it certainly wasn't the fault of the people it affected. The depression is an example about how an epidemic of poverty is not the fault of the people.

Let's see here.

Peson A amasses are large amount of capital from both inheritances from daddy, which he uses to buy up companies, and from insider trading, real estate and manipulating the stock market. He gets tax breaks and puts most of his income in a bank overseas so that he doesn't have to pay taxes on it. His corporation recieves thousands in corporate welfare.

Person B grew up in a normal home, graduates from school and works honestly for years building up seniority to feed his small family. Person A buys off the company that Person B works at, fires most of the workforce, then rehires Person B at 3/5 the wages he used to earn and less benefits. Person A makes huge profit. The wife of Person B now needs to work to make ends meet and put their baby at a day care center. The next month, rent is raised.

Who's the hard worker?

Come on... Enron is the tip of the iceburg of corporate corruption. You still believe the fables that all the rich are hard working moral citizens, and the poor are poor by choice because they are lazy? This isn't capitalism. This is a plutocracy.

Mouse, get out of your house and ask a homeless person why they are out on the street. Have you ever seen a homeless person before? Why don't you go ask one why they are on the street. 9 times out of ten it's drugs, alcohol or just poor choices. Frankly I'm thankful for big business they are the reason why America is what it is and not some shithole like Lesotho or malawi

Actually, I live in a city that has a lot of homeless in the street. Some of them are alcoholics. Some of them are vietnam vets. A great deal of them are mentally ill that were released into the city when the mental hospital shut down. Some of them are runaways. The homeless population is a fraction of the American population living in poverty. And, some homeless do work. There are millions of people who do work hard, but just can't make ends meet, or run into misfortune, such as medical issues and accidents they can't pay for. The world isn't such a damn simple place where you can say that poor people choose to be poor and rich people just worked hard for their money. The rabid pro-capitalists that defend corruption actually remind me of the communists that they yell at for being "brainwashed".

Totally pro-capitalist even when it's corrupt is as stupid as being totally pro-communist even when it's corrupt. I guess some people haven't heard of a happy medium and being able to reject corruption from all sources. When an institution is corrupt, it needs to be fixed. Look at the Catholic church scandal. You don't have to be anti-religious to see that something was wrong there.

Most of those businessmen that rule over our government are about as worthy of your worship as the priests in the Catholic church.

fingers, fingers, fingers,

you do have a lot of promise but you're incorrect here once again.

1979 was the year the soviets invaded afghanistan.

the northern alliance didn't come into being until the taliban took control of the country, FOLLOWING soviet pull out in 1989.

what year was it that the taliban took full control of the country, 1991? i think.

The Taliban didn't have full control of the country throughout the 60s and 70s, but the students that eventually became the Taliban had terretory, secured by the CIA. Would you say these Muslim fundementalists didn't start reigning terror on their population with severe human rights violations until they officially took full control? No - they started as soon as they had any power what so ever.

Even in the early 60s, we knew exactly what these students were doing, and we also intended on their taking and maintaining power over Afganistan.

i can follow you for a little while, but tell me if we intended them to take over...

how come america never recognized the taliban as the rulers?

quote:

---

Originally posted by IzzyReele:
fingers, fingers, fingers,

you do have a lot of promise but you're incorrect here once again.

---

No. Fuck him. It's too easy for anyone to surf and read when they are unsure of their facts. UncleDirtyDigits wallows in ignorance yet sees himself bathing in the righteous waters of moral truth.

Everything you said is true and in addition, the Taliban were heavily influenced by fundamentalist forces outside of the country. They found an easy target (post-war Afghans) and methodically slipped in and took over. Ironic, isn't it? Regional scumbag A subverts government of regional scumbag B.

We didn't recognize them as rulers because they didn't officially rule the whole country, their was quite a bit of internal feud. Even people as stupid as CIA operatives could probably tell that they were intending to take over in that they were TRYING TO TAKE OVER.

Even so, all the Islamic student groups were different in name only. They all engaged in inhumane practices on women, Hindus, Jews, and Zionests, and banned music and fun from culture. If we cared so much about the future of Afganistan, we wouldn've backed up and left the second the Soviets were defeated, knowing exactly what would become. Whether we knew that the Taliban would end up controlling all of Afganistan was meaningless - we knew exactly what they did in the parts that they did control. Plus, no matter who won the Afgan civil war, everyone else would be just as bad as the Taliban. There's some myth that the Northern Alliance are some sort of liberal human rights group - it's bullshit, they're just as bad.

UserX, this argument was perfectly fine without using personal insults. Adding them doesn't exactly like you look superior to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Even so, all the Islamic student groups were different in name only. They all engaged in inhumane practices on women, Hindus, Jews, and Zionests, and banned music and fun from culture.

---

Wrong again. As a general rule, the source of Islamic fundamentalism is the clerics.

And, you've got to be shittin' me, 'Zionism'? PLEASE run that word through your dictionary and PLEASE read the definition. Use my spelling though.

quote:

---

There's some myth that the Northern Alliance are some sort of liberal human rights group - it's bullshit, they're just as bad.

---

You're right. They're mostly poppy farmers. Shining Path types. They are, however, the lesser of two evils. Kind of like Socialism vs Democracy. When you find the Utopians, let me know.

quote:

---

UserX, this argument was perfectly fine without using personal insults.

---

The insult was posted by my evil twin. I lent him my log-on because he's too stupid (unoriginal) to create one of his own. I'll apologize on his behalf (again), but I think I'll withhold the comment regarding your testicular fortitude for I believe it has gone to your head.

Wow, excellent points. Very relevent. Are you by any chance on the debate team? I'm sure they reward your degree of meaningless esoteric sarcasm.

The Northern Alliance are not the lesser of two evils. Their religious doctrine is identical. Open wide, time to swallow some more propaghanda from Newspeak magazine. This time, we'll talk about how the Northern Alliance allied themselves with the National Organization of Women to ensure equal rights for all.

Common, reply with a valid rebuttle instead of a comment about my personality. Maybe the debate captain will see your point of view.

quote:

---

You're right. They're mostly poppy farmers. Shining Path types. They are, however, the lesser of two evils. Kind of like Socialism vs Democracy. When you find the Utopians, let me know.

---

Unfortunately, I'll have to disagree with you again. The Northern Alliance are worse than the Taliban in the eyes of the people. The US press tried to make them look good, but if you cease listening to the US press and actually listen to the Afghan people themselves, you get a different view.

The people of Afghanistan do not accept domination of the Northern Alliance!

Now it is confirmed that the Taliban have left Kabul and the Northern Alliance has entered the city.

The world should understand that the Northern Alliance is composed of some bands who did show their real criminal and inhuman nature when they were ruling Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996.

The retreat of the terrorist Taliban from Kabul is a positive development, but entering of the rapist and looter NA in the city is nothing but a dreadful and shocking news for about 2 million residents of Kabul whose wounds of the years 1992-96 have not healed yet.

Thousands of people who fled Kabul during the past two months were saying that they feared coming to power of the NA in Kabul much more than being scared by the US bombing.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda will be eliminated, but the existence of the NA as a military force would shatter the joyful dream of the majority for an Afghanistan free from the odious chains of barbaric Taliban. The NA will horribly intensify the ethnic and religious conflicts and will never refrain to fan the fire of another brutal and endless civil war in order to retain in power. The terrible news of looting and inhuman massacre of the captured Taliban or their foreign accomplices in Mazar-e-Sharif in past few days speaks for itself.

Though the NA has learned how to pose sometimes before the West as "democratic" and even supporter of women's rights, but in fact they have not at all changed, as a leopard cannot change its spots.

RAWA has already documented heinous crimes of the NA. Time is running out. RAWA on its own part appeals to the UN and world community as a whole to pay urgent and considerable heed to the recent developments in our ill-fated Afghanistan before it is too late.

We would like to emphatically ask the UN to send its effective peace-keeping force into the country before the NA can repeat the unforgettable crimes they committed in the said years.

The UN should withdraw its recognition to the so-called Islamic government headed by Rabbani and help the establishment of a broad-based government based on the democratic values.

RAWA's call stems from the aspirations of the vast majority of the people of Afghanistan.

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
November 13, 2001

Newspeak magazine actually did claim that the Northern Alliance set up a coalition with National Organization of Muslim Women or something like that in America. They actually went to Afganistan and showed their support.

Newspeak also claims that the Northern Alliance fight the Taliban for the sake of human rights. That's bullshit, they fight for power. The only thing the NA have going for them is that they don't have public executions, They still declared Jihad an the non-Muslim world at the end of the Afgan civil war. Lesser of two evils my ass. So is the idea that the ends justify the means...

So we'd rather have a brutal regime that controls it's people with terror and kisses our ass, then a brutal regime that controls it's people with terror that doesn't? HAHAHA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
So we'd rather have a brutal regime that controls it's people with terror and kisses our ass, then a brutal regime that controls it's people with terror that doesn't? HAHAHA.

---

Yes.

The fact that you left out the antithesis of 'kiss our ass', which is 'GO TO WAR WITH AMERICA, IN AMERICA' would easily be missed by a utopian that can't comprehend the definition of 'lesser of two evils', so I'll take this opportunity to point it out to you.

I think my reference to Shining Path accurately describes the Northern Alliance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
The Northern Alliance are not the lesser of two evils.

---

The Taliban are the better faction? Fuck you.

and they would now be extinct, or forced into labor camps,

most killed in the following way...
http://www.prohosters.com/pearl

i love the slicing action of the decapitation myself.

for more info regarding fundamentalist muslim treatment of jews, christians, hindus, and whoever else doesn't think their way i suggest the traces of death video series.

How would the Jews be extinct if most of them don't live in Israel?

Israel has a lot of nerve. A real shitload of nerve. They use terrorism to drive Palestinians off the land (read: Stern Gang, Irgun, Deir Yassin massacre). They use terrorism to drive the brits off the land. They have the nerve to claim that the Palestinians don't exist. They already win wars against the Arab nations and still demand money. They use TERRORISM to attempt to frame Egypt in the Lavon affair and Libya in another bombing. They ignore all UN resolutions. They have the gall to bribe all of our congressmen to support Israel more than our own country (read: AIPAC). They spy on us more than any of our allies. They SELL our technology to CHINA. They ask we give them billions of dollars a year, and use that money to INVADE lebanon and maintain the longest military occupation in recent history and build retarded fucking settlements for more Jewish immigrants that selfishly don't see anything wrong with bulldozing Arab land to make their cheap armed communities that riot in Palestinian marketplaces and burn down their trees. They declare anyone who criticizes them as "Anti-Semitic". They boycott and harrass any US newspaper or journalist that dares to presents Israel as anything but a saint and victim. Enough is enough already!

Maybe.. just maybe.. when the Zionists were trying to decide a place for a Jewish Nation and were looking at Palestine, they should have thought "Hey, there's already hundreds of thousands of people here.. we can ask if they'll be interested in a secular nation for both of us, or maybe we should look elsewhere to build a peaceful nation."

But Nooooo!!! They violently drove out the Palestinians and here they are today trying to paint themselves as the victims fighting for their survival while armed with nuclear warheads pointing at every Arab capital.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 06-08-2002).]

"They use terrorism to drive Palestinians off the land (read: Stern Gang, Irgun, Deir Yassin massacre)."

how is it using terrorism, when you use money and purchase the land from the arab owners,

remember palestinians were not considered citizens by the arabs, which gave them no money, and no right to land.

unless it's jewish land of course.

"They use terrorism to drive the brits off the land."

how do you figure?

"Following World War I, Great Britain received (1922) Palestine as a mandate from the League of Nations. The struggle by Jews for a Jewish state in Palestine had begun in the late 19th cent. and had become quite active by the 1930s and 40s. The militant opposition of the Arabs to such a state and the inability of the British to solve the problem eventually led to the establishment (1947) of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, which devised a plan to divide Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a small internationally administered zone including Jerusalem. The General Assembly adopted the recommendations on Nov. 29, 1947. The Jews accepted the plan; the Arabs rejected it. As the British began to withdraw early in 1948, Arabs and Jews prepared for war."

from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/israel_history.asp

"They have the nerve to claim that the Palestinians don't exist"

show your sources, what do they mention a palestinian state just for their health?

whereas it is common knowledge most arab schools don't have israel on their maps.

who says who doesn't exist?

"They already win wars against the Arab nations and still demand money."

sources, i've never come across any of this.

"They ignore all UN resolutions."

show me they've ignored ALL un resolutions, proof please.

"They have the gall to bribe all of our congressmen to support Israel more than our own country"

come on, jesus christ, stop watching the x-files please, it's a television show.

yeah, they bribe ALL our congressman, even david duke who was a member of the kkk, a sworn anti-semite.

they run all of our business and media in america too don't they.

the jews run the banks.

you say you hate stereotypes?

you probably believe they where them hats to cover their horns too huh?

"They have the gall to bribe all of our congressmen to support Israel more than our own country"

what do you consider more? and i suppose we don't spy on them.

"They ask we give them billions of dollars a year, and use that money to INVADE lebanon"

come on, good lord, yes they demand we give them money, ours and europes support of them financially and militarily was for their benefit,

how many times have they invaded lebanon?

"They declare anyone who criticizes them as "Anti-Semitic"."

you accuse anybody generalizing of stereotyping, yet write a whole rant generalizing a group of people.

"They boycott and harrass any US newspaper or journalist that dares to presents Israel as anything but a saint and victim"

sources?

"Enough is enough already!"

please.

does this mean your biased opinion will not be noted on this subject anymore?

since it is obviously predictable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
The logical sollution would be the have the UN international forces move in and create a precisional democracy, without bombing campaigns, closer to black ops, ect.

---

Those would be blue ops.

Lostimd....

quote:

---

how is it using terrorism, when you use money and purchase the land from the arab owners

---

http://www.deiryassin.org/

quote:

---

how do you figure?

---

[1931] Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization) was founded in Jerusalem; led by Avraham Tehomi, it advocated armed Jewish insurrection against British rule and war against Palestinian Arabs.

[1943] Menachem Begin became leader of the Israeli terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization), which was engaged in a campaign against the British in Palestine.

[1946] King David Hotel bombing (July 22): Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorists, commanded by Menachem Begin, bombed the British office wing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel, killing 91 people, 17 of them Jews. Among other Irgun terrorist actions was the bombing of the British Embassy in Rome.

quote:

---

remember palestinians were not considered citizens by the arabs, which gave them no money, and no right to land.

unless it's jewish land of course.

---

Hardly any of it was Jewish land! Even though they bought land from absentee landlords, they were only able to get around %6 before they drove people off. Palestinians were/are fighting for the right to stay in their own land.

quote:

---

show your sources, what do they mention a palestinian state just for their health?

---

Remember "A people without a land returns to land without a people?"

"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist." (Iron Wall, p. 311) - Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister between 1969-1974

That was the common propaganda for a while... some idiots still believe it.

quote:

---

whereas it is common knowledge most arab schools don't have israel on their maps.

who says who doesn't exist?

---

Common knowledge can easily be retarded propaganda. The PLO has already officially recognized Israel, and most of the people know that Israel is there. It's hard to deny that Israel exists when IT'S THE COUNTRY RULING OVER YOUR LIFE AND ENTERING YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS WITH TANKS AND GUNS. There was one report put out by a Zionist group that's been repeated around as common knowledge. Some other people looked at the schoolbooks themselves, and found out that the Zionist group was lying on a large number of things. The textbooks that were negative toward Israel were old Jordan and Egypt books. The new PA ones were fine, considering the circumstances. It's a very delicate topic. How are they supposed to address the issue of occupation and be really positive towards Israel without obviously lying?

quote:

---

sources, i've never come across any of this.

---

http://www.aipac.org/

http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

quote:

---

show me they've ignored ALL un resolutions, proof please.

---

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

quote:

---

come on, jesus christ, stop watching the x-files please, it's a television show.

yeah, they bribe ALL our congressman, even david duke who was a member of the kkk, a sworn anti-semite.

---

Some more sources...

"A forthcoming edition of Fortune magazine ranks the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as the second most powerful interest group in Washington...The pro-Israel lobby, which the magazine called 'calculatedly quiet,' has for years been successful in encouraging members of Congress and the administration to support U.S. foreign aid to Israel and other issues related to the U.S.-Israel relationship." --Daniel Kurtzman, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 1997.

"The Israeli lobby showed who rules the town by making 95 Senators and 235 congressmen sign a declaration of support of Israel" (in the words of Alon Pinkas, in the Israeli publication Davar[June 28, 1991]).

"In 1976, following careful surveillance of the plainly marked U.S. intelligence vessel the USS Liberty, the Israelis attacked the ship repeatedly, killing 34 U.S. sailors and wounding 171. The Israelis aimed to sink the ship, apparently to prevent its intelligence gathering and reporting of an Israeli invasion of the Golan heights which took place the next day. Following the attack, there were delays in coming to the stricken vessel's aid, based on orders from Washington. Subsequent investigations involved a steady cover-up of the unquestionable fact of the deliberateness of the attack; the official and public line was "tragic error." The captain of the ship was eventually given a congressional medal of honor, but quietly, and only after it had been established that Israeli officials would not object. Admiral Thomas Moorer claimed that the Johnson administration covered up this crime strictly "for domestic political reasons. I don't think there is any question about it."

The basis of the lobby's power is political resources, intelligently and aggressively deployed, strong media and pundit representation and support, a well developed and powerful system of grassroots activism, and the absence of any seriously contesting opposition. Affluent Jews have responded generously in support of pro-Israel lobbying groups, especially in times of perceived threats to Israel. The leading U.S. lobbying group, AIPAC, with an annual budget of some $15 million in the early 1990s, is widely thought to be the most influential lobbying body in the country. There are more than 60 pro-Israel PACs, most of them closely linked to AIPAC, whose resources (supplemented by individual contributions) has made this collective the largest dispenser of single-issue money in U.S. politics. It is deployed aggressively and with sophistication, and its threat terrifies politicians, especially Democrats. They have seen what happens to a Charles Percy or Paul Findley, among many others. According to political analyst Stephen Isaacs, the Democratic National Committee gets about half of its money from Jewish sources, and he reports one non-Jewish strategist as saying: "You can't hope to go anywhere in national politics, if you're a Democrat, without Jewish money." Republicans have been less dependent on this source, but many of them (and their Christian right supporters) have been keen on Israel because of its harsh policies and support of U.S. militarism." - Edward S. Herman

quote:

---

how many times have they invaded lebanon?

---

They invaded and stuck around til Hezbollah drove them out. They have some cute massacres under their belt from that "Operation: Peace for Galilee" as they called it.

quote:

---

sources?

---

Sunday June 17, 2001
The Observer

Members of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem sat down over drinks at their annual meeting at the Inbal hotel a few weeks ago to discuss harassment of reporters covering the intifada. There was much to discuss. A few days earlier Josh Hammer, the bureau chief of Newsweek magazine, had been detained by Palestinians while working in Gaza.
Hammer had said he had been well treated and had enjoyed one of the best meals he had eaten in the Middle East.

What was bothering the journalists, however, was not Hammer's brief detention, but the Israeli government's use of the incident as an opportunity to accuse the Palestinian Authority of harassing, threatening and killing journalists as they went about their work in the flashpoints of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The members of the FPA begged furiously to differ. If journalists were facing any intimidation during the present intifada, complained the assembled reporters, it was not from the Palestinians but from the Israeli army, which they accused of directing gunfire at them. Eight journalists in as many months had been wounded, some seriously, including AP photographer Yolah Monakhov, CNN bureau chief Ben Wedeman and French television correspondent Bertrand Aguirre.

In each case the FPA had complained. In each case the Israeli authorities had declined to reply.

That harassment, correspondents say, is not confined to physical threats. It is psychological as well, and from both official and unofficial sources. At its worst it has smacked of the tactics of the Soviet bloc countries during the Cold War. Correspondents the Israeli authorities feel have stepped out of line - including the Guardian's award-winning correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg - have been threatened with having their accreditation removed.

Dossiers of alleged anti-Israeli bias have been sent to editors, and correspondents who have fallen foul of the authorities have complained of being the target of humiliating searches when they leave the country.

On the unofficial front, the attacks on Goldenberg have been nastier and more insidious. She has been abused in the Jewish media as naive, inexperienced and a 'self-hating Jew'. Goldenberg has been forced to change her email address after being bombarded daily with hundreds of complaints about her coverage. She is not alone.

Last week the sense of siege among journalists covering the intifada was ratcheted up another notch as the offices of the BBC in Jerusalem were deluged with calls complaining about the content of a Panorama programme unseen in Britain and Israel alike. It will be shown in the UK tonight.

A new front is opening in the intifada. Faced with increasing international criticism of its handling of the Palestinian uprising, the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon and its allies in the powerful and influential pro-Israeli lobby, have stepped up their efforts against international media reporting the current crisis. News organisations that fall foul of Israel are accused of being pro-Palestinian at best, and at worst anti-Semitic.

'You only have to look at some of the things that are being said about Israel in the international media,' complains one high-ranking Israeli official in the Ministry of Information. 'You only have to look at the Spanish media. Every time they mention the Middle East they talk about "a holocaust". Of course that is going to offend us.

'And what bothers us is the way in which many organisations - especially the news wires and broadcasters - use Palestinian stringers in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. So, of course, we think they are biased.'

The BBC, which has faced repeated accusations of bias, has been shocked by the response of the Israeli government to Panorama, which examines the well-documented involvement of Sharon in the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982 when, as Defence Minister, he allowed his country's Christian militia allies to enter the camps.

On the basis only of advance publicity material for the programme, the BBC has been accused of bias in the Israeli press. In London the Israeli embassy has already complained to the corporation's deputy director for news. The Israeli leader's lawyers have warned the BBC it must take account of Sharon's views.

And while some harassment of reporters who are felt to be 'biased' against Israel is not new, correspondents say that what has changed has been the intensity of both the lobbying and the intimidation.

For many years, pro-Israeli organisations have organised letter-writing campaigns to protest against articles and programmes they dislike. With the development of email, this activity has grown enormously. Websites, such as honestreporting.com, target individual journalists and provide ready-written letters of complaint for subscribers to send out.

This weekend the site had already produced a pro forma letter of complaint against tonight's Panorama.

Honestreporting.com also issues awards. One recently went to Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of the US magazine New Republic, who 'has consistently stood by Israel's side', and another to Conrad Black, proprietor of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and the Spectator magazine, for lashing out against 'rabidly anti-Israel' journalists and governments.

The intensity of the lobbying, admits Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger - who returned recently from a fact-finding mission to Israel - can have an insidious effect. 'There are all sorts of non-governmental and ad hoc groups who blitz you with letters to complain about allegations of bias in your coverage. It is ignorable stuff on the whole,' he says, though he admits: 'It does get into the bloodstream of the wider debate.

'The pro-Israeli lobby is also very well organised. And the truth is that they do have better access and influence in the media than Palestinian lobbyists.'

It is a lobby too that - despite the accusations of systematic media bias - has powerful allies. Black has never tried to hide his support for the Israeli cause, sending his wife, the journalist Barbara Amiel, to report on it.

The Times under Peter Stothard has also been broadly sympathetic to Israel in its coverage, an editorial line that has been blamed for the departure of its Middle East correspondent Sam Kiley, who is understood to have been uncomfortable with it.

But where the pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby has been most intense has been on media organisations felt to be out of line. Among those groups in Britain are the Conservative Friends of Israel, which invites senior journalists to lunches at the House of Commons. For those working for organisations perceived as being biased against Israel these can be uncomfortable affairs.

One member is the Conservative MP Gillian Shephard, who is at pains to explain the sense of persecution that Israelis and the wider Jewish community feel at the hands of the media.

'Let's not forget that Israel feels under siege. And it literally is. That is what drives the feeling of ultra-sensitivity. They feel that there is bias and there is a conspiracy against them. There is a perception that Israelis are portrayed as instigating the problems and that the historical context of the threat against Israel is forgotten. There is a feeling too that Israel - which is a tiny island of democracy amid much less democratic neighbours - never gets enough credit for what it has achieved.'

It is a view that is not confined to London. In New York, with its large Jewish constituency, questioning Israeli policy in the press is considered close to, if not actually, anti-Semitism and all that entails. Thomas L Friedman, the celebrated New York Times columnist who writes regularly about the Middle East, is in no doubt why it has become such a difficult place to report.

'This is a charged political environment,' he says. 'Everyone wants to own you, and if they can't own you they want to destroy you. That applies just as much to the Arab world as it does to Israel. There is no middle ground. There is no time and no place that someone will put their arm around you and say, "Gosh, I really appreciate your fair and balanced reporting".'

I like the refuseniks, individual Jewish people, Israeli journalists like Amira Hass and Uri Avnery, the Neturei Karta anti-Zionist orthodox Jewish group, and the thousands of other Jewish people who speak out against what Israel is doing. I dislike the zealous and racist Israel nationalists who either deny what is going on or lie about it. I dislike the Israeli government. I think Sharon is a fucking butcher, and I think the settlers (who are mostly immigrants from America) need to be slapped. I'm not anti semitic any more than someone who spoke out against South Africa's Apartheid regime was a "whitey hater", or someone who criticizes the government of Mexico "hates chicanos". That's ridiculous, and it's a really disgusting move of the Israeli government to try and say that it speaks for all Jewish people around the world. A lot of Jewish people are infuriated by that, understandably.

Im prett much in agreement, The only medling in foreign affairs I support is the "does marcelus wallace look like a bitch" kind of actions.