| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2003 04:10:16 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Revolution revisited |
Revolution revisited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1030573,00.html
Brian Wilson MP: Cuba isn't perfect - but it is living proof that it
is possible for a third world country to combat poverty, disease and
illiteracy.
Cuba
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=Cuba&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=Cuba&sa=N&tab=nw
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Cuba&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&lr=&num=100&as_scoring=d&hl=en
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=Cuba&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
.
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
03 Sep 2003 07:12:34 AM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0308280110.11286d40@posting.google.com>...
Revolution revisited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1030573,00.html
Brian Wilson MP: Cuba isn't perfect - but it is living proof that it
is possible for a third world country to combat poverty, disease and
illiteracy.
Cuba
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=Cuba&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=Cuba&sa=N&tab=nw
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Cuba&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&lr=&num=100&as_scoring=d&hl=en
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=Cuba&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
Best of Friends, Worlds Apart
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/race/060500ojito-cuba.html
Joel Ruiz Is Black.
Achmed Valdés Is White.
In America They Discovered It Matters.
By MIRTA OJITO
About This Series
MIAMI -- Havana, sometime before 1994: As dusk descends on the quaint
seaside village of Guanabo, two young men kick a soccer ball back and
forth and back and forth across the sand. The tall one, Joel Ruiz, is
black. The short, wiry one, Achmed Valdés, is white.
They are the best of friends.
Miami, January 2000: Mr. Valdés is playing soccer, as he does every
Saturday, with a group of light-skinned Latinos in a park near his
apartment. Mr. Ruiz surprises him with a visit, and Mr. Valdés,
flushed and sweating, runs to greet him. They shake hands warmly.
But when Mr. Valdés darts back to the game, Mr. Ruiz stands off to the
side, arms crossed, looking on as his childhood friend plays the game
that was once their shared joy. Mr. Ruiz no longer plays soccer. He
prefers basketball with black Latinos and African-Americans from his
neighborhood.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
28 Aug 2003 03:29:57 PM |
|
|
On 28 Aug 2003 02:10:16 -0700, (maff) wrote:
Revolution revisited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1030573,00.html
Brian Wilson MP: Cuba isn't perfect - but it is living proof that it
is possible for a third world country to combat poverty, disease and
illiteracy.
While brutally quashing any political dissent...
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
29 Aug 2003 12:10:32 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:
Revolution revisited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1030573,00.html
Brian Wilson MP: Cuba isn't perfect - but it is living proof that it
is possible for a third world country to combat poverty, disease and
illiteracy.
While brutally quashing any political dissent...
Bush is doing the same here, even as he creates poverty, illiteracy and
a healthcare crisis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
30 Aug 2003 02:13:37 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
I'd think I've been pretty open about absolutely despising
Bush on every level; is that somehow supposed to
improve my opinion of Castro?
Yes. Definitely.
And, not because of Bush. It's because we are worse than
Castro ever was.
I'm speaking objectively here.
As bad as Castro is, he is a huge improvement for the Cuban
people over what he replaced, and we have worked to return
that brutal & corrupt dictatorship.
It's no secret that the mafia was firmly entrenched in Cuba,
running the casinos, and it's no secret that Richard Nixon
got his start working in those casinos. It's also no secret that
the Bay of Pigs was planned to take place during Nixon's
first term as President, and would have if JFK hadn't mucked
things up for him.
We -- the United States -- actively sought to return the brutal
and corrupt dictatorship to Cuba which caused so much
suffering for the Cuban people. So much suffering, in fact, that
both the Cuban & American people welcomed Castro.
As bad as Castro is, our government wanted far worse, and
killed many trying to inflict it on the Cuban people.
The Cuban people have few rights under Castro. This is true.
The Cuban people had fewer rights under the brutal &
corrupt dictatorship that our government supported. The Cuban
people would have fewer rights at this moment, if the United
States government had gotten it's way and returned that brutal
dictatorship to power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
30 Aug 2003 09:25:41 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 03:13:37 -0400, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
I'd think I've been pretty open about absolutely despising
Bush on every level; is that somehow supposed to
improve my opinion of Castro?
Yes. Definitely.
And, not because of Bush. It's because we are worse than
Castro ever was.
I'm speaking objectively here.
I'm quite flabbergasted, honestly. This is rather like asking me to
think better of gonorrhea because syphilis is worse. Thank you, no.
As bad as Castro is, he is a huge improvement for the Cuban
people over what he replaced, and we have worked to return
that brutal & corrupt dictatorship.
Batista has been dead for quite a few years now, so I find that
unlikely.
It's no secret that the mafia was firmly entrenched in Cuba,
running the casinos,
Agreed, not that the US government was responsible for that.
and it's no secret that Richard Nixon
got his start working in those casinos. It's also no secret that
the Bay of Pigs was planned to take place during Nixon's
first term as President, and would have if JFK hadn't mucked
things up for him.
What has this to do with anything?
We -- the United States -- actively sought to return the brutal
and corrupt dictatorship to Cuba which caused so much
suffering for the Cuban people. So much suffering, in fact, that
both the Cuban & American people welcomed Castro.
The Russians welcomed Lenin at first...
As bad as Castro is, our government wanted far worse, and
killed many trying to inflict it on the Cuban people.
Our government wanted Fidel out because they didn't want a Soviet
client state 90 miles from Florida.
The Cuban people have few rights under Castro. This is true.
The Cuban people had fewer rights under the brutal &
corrupt dictatorship that our government supported.
Sorry, but my father's friends who fled Cuba under Fidel strongly beg
to differ.
The Cuban
people would have fewer rights at this moment, if the United
States government had gotten it's way and returned that brutal
dictatorship to power.
Just like they now have fewer rights in Nicaragua since the odious
Sandinistas were shown the door, no doubt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
30 Aug 2003 11:44:46 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
I'm quite flabbergasted, honestly. This is rather like
asking me to think better of gonorrhea because
syphilis is worse. Thank you, no.
That's a lousy analogy. If there's any parallels I certainly
don't see them.
Castro is bad, yes, but he's better (by far) than the government
he replaced. This is why the American people supported
Castro during his rise to power.
Anyhow, how, the personality in charge of Cuba before Castro
is dead, but that's not to say that his government is dead.
The U.S. actively sought to re-introduce to Cuba the ruling
elite that controlled the island for so long.
and it's no secret that Richard Nixon
got his start working in those casinos. It's also no secret that
the Bay of Pigs was planned to take place during Nixon's
first term as President, and would have if JFK hadn't mucked
things up for him.
What has this to do with anything?
It's an case where the people in the U.S. government with the
closest ties to the pre-Castro corruption actively sought to return
the former government to power.
Personally, I think that's relevant.
I mean, the fact that the U.S. government killed people in an attempt
to return a corrupt dictatorship to Cuba.
As bad as Castro is, our government wanted far worse, and
killed many trying to inflict it on the Cuban people.
Our government wanted Fidel out because they didn't want a
Soviet client state 90 miles from Florida.
Funny, they weren't a Soviet client state until *After* our
government tried to return the brutal dictatorship to power.
The Cuban people have few rights under Castro. This is true.
The Cuban people had fewer rights under the brutal &
corrupt dictatorship that our government supported.
Sorry, but my father's friends who fled Cuba under Fidel strongly
beg to differ.
So what?
The Cuban
people would have fewer rights at this moment, if the United
States government had gotten it's way and returned that brutal
dictatorship to power.
Just like they now have fewer rights in Nicaragua since the
odious Sandinistas were shown the door, no doubt.
Yes. If the Sandinistas had been defeated by bullets instead of ballots,
the result would have been a fascist dictatorship. Agreed. There is
no doubt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
31 Aug 2003 12:25:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 00:44:46 -0400, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
I'm quite flabbergasted, honestly. This is rather like
asking me to think better of gonorrhea because
syphilis is worse. Thank you, no.
That's a lousy analogy. If there's any parallels I certainly
don't see them.
Castro is bad, yes, but he's better (by far) than the government
he replaced.
You don't see the analogy? You just restated it. Please recall that
this is what I asked:
" I'd think I've been pretty open about absolutely despising
Bush on every level; is that somehow supposed to
*improve* my opinion of Castro?" (Emphasis added).
To which you replied:
"Yes. Definitely.
And, not because of Bush. It's because we are worse than
Castro ever was.
I'm speaking objectively here."
So essentially, what you're saying is that I'm supposed to somehow
think better of Castro because some other governments may in your
opinion be worse? Please.
This is why the American people supported
Castro during his rise to power.
Sounds like rather an overstatement. Why would you think a significant
percentage of the American people would even be aware of the
pre-revolutionary political scene in Cuba, much less concerned about
it one way or the other?
Anyhow, how, the personality in charge of Cuba before Castro
is dead, but that's not to say that his government is dead.
As it's been out of power for what, 44 years? effectively it is.
The U.S. actively sought to re-introduce to Cuba the ruling
elite that controlled the island for so long.
That's a pretty extreme take on the Bay of Pigs invasion, if that's
what you're referring to. Why send a ragtag bunch of poorly supported
partisans to do a job that a few Marine divisions could accomplish
more effectively?
and it's no secret that Richard Nixon
got his start working in those casinos. It's also no secret that
the Bay of Pigs was planned to take place during Nixon's
first term as President, and would have if JFK hadn't mucked
things up for him.
What has this to do with anything?
It's an case where the people in the U.S. government with the
closest ties to the pre-Castro corruption
actively sought to return
the former government to power.
Not that I'm a Nixon fan at all, but I'd be interested in your sources
for either of your two claims about him above.
Personally, I think that's relevant.
I think it's completely *irrelevant*, given that JFK, not Nixon, was
responsible for the Bay of Pigs.
I mean, the fact that the U.S. government killed people in an attempt
to return a corrupt dictatorship to Cuba.
Quite frankly, methinks you doth protest too much, considering that
even if what you're saying is true, I see no particular reason to
prefer Castro over Batista, other than your say-so..
As bad as Castro is, our government wanted far worse, and
killed many trying to inflict it on the Cuban people.
Our government did no such thing; Cuban partisans against Fidel did;
the US government supported them.
Our government wanted Fidel out because they didn't want a
Soviet client state 90 miles from Florida.
Funny, they weren't a Soviet client state until *After* our
government tried to return the brutal dictatorship to power.
It would be even funnier if you were to claim that Fidel wasn't a
Marxist until then, and he just decided to jump into the Soviets' bed
afterwards.
The Cuban people have few rights under Castro. This is true.
The Cuban people had fewer rights under the brutal &
corrupt dictatorship that our government supported.
Sorry, but my father's friends who fled Cuba under Fidel strongly
beg to differ.
So what?
So people who actually have first-hand knowledge of the various
situations might disagree with your take on things?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
31 Aug 2003 04:00:03 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
So essentially, what you're saying is that I'm supposed to
somehow think better of Castro because some other
governments may in your opinion be worse? Please.
No. Because the alternative was worse.
I'm not arguing that there isn't some theoretical form of
government that is far superior than Castro. What I'm saying
is that the alternative we -- the United States -- have offered
the Cuban people is worse. What I'm saying is that the
government that the United States tried to re-install is worse.
By far.
This is why the American people supported
Castro during his rise to power.
Sounds like rather an overstatement.
It's not.
Why would you think a significant percentage of the American
people would even be aware of the pre-revolutionary political
scene in Cuba, much less concerned about it one way or the other?
The fact that Castro enjoyed popular support amongst Americans,
for starters.
The U.S. actively sought to re-introduce to Cuba the ruling
elite that controlled the island for so long.
That's a pretty extreme take on the Bay of Pigs invasion,
Not at all.
if that's what you're referring to.
That, and the plan to poison Castro.
Why send a ragtag bunch of poorly supported partisans to do a
job that a few Marine divisions could accomplish more
effectively?
The CIA had thought that the job would be done by Marine
divisions. They lied when they claimed that the ragtag bunch of
poorly supported partisans had a good chance of over throwing
Castro. The invasion worked exactly as planned, with the exception
that Kennedy stuck to his word and refused to intervene.
Of course, the plan hadn't counted on Kennedy. The operation was
conceived under Ike, and was the toy of Richard Nixon.
It's an case where the people in the U.S. government with the
closest ties to the pre-Castro corruption
actively sought to return
the former government to power.
Not that I'm a Nixon fan at all, but I'd be interested in your sources
for either of your two claims about him above.
Nixon himself, in 1964 (as a civilian), stated "I have been the strongest
and most persistent advocate for setting up and supporting the CIA
program of covert action against Cuba."
He was either talking about the Bay of Pigs or the plan to assasinate
Castro. Here's the full page, which makes things a little clearer:
http://www.camcocuba.org/news/nixon.html
This was couldn't be more blatent:
http://www.famoustexans.com/howardhughes.htm
I think it's completely *irrelevant*, given that JFK, not Nixon, was
responsible for the Bay of Pigs.
You've completely shut your brain off.
Seriously.
The Bay of Pigs happened in... when? Was it march? Do you really
think that was enough time for Kennedy to put together such an
operation when he only took office in January?
Considering that training had began at least a year previously, don't
you think the operation may have come to the attention of Richard
Nixon... the man who publically claimed that he had more to do with
anti Castro covert operation than anybody?
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
01 Sep 2003 11:16:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 05:00:03 -0400, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
So essentially, what you're saying is that I'm supposed to
somehow think better of Castro because some other
governments may in your opinion be worse? Please.
No. Because the alternative was worse.
I'm not arguing that there isn't some theoretical form of
government that is far superior than Castro. What I'm saying
is that the alternative we -- the United States -- have offered
the Cuban people is worse. What I'm saying is that the
government that the United States tried to re-install is worse.
By far.
At this point, so what? I may repeat myself, but the Bay of Pigs was
*42 years ago*, and wound up (regardless of original intentions, or
who originally planned it), being a half-hearted and half-assed
attempt to drop a bunch of ill-trained partisans into Cuba, where they
were quickly captured or killed. Methinks again that you either doth
protest too much, or that you're living in a weird time warp where
Eisenhower and Nixon still hold office.
We gave up trying to re-install Batista several decades and multiple
generations ago; Castro's been a dictator throughout that whole time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
02 Sep 2003 12:03:45 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
At this point, so what? I may repeat myself, but the Bay of
Pigs was *42 years ago*, and wound up (regardless of
original intentions, or who originally planned it), being a
half-hearted and half-assed attempt to drop a bunch of
ill-trained partisans into Cuba, where they were quickly
captured or killed.
...and in all the time since then we have *Never* offered any
kind of alternative, though we steadfastly insist that we have
a ready alternative available.
We tried to re-install the brutal & corrupt dictatorship, and,
after that, we washed our hands of Cuba.
We keep claiming we have a "Strategy" that'll bring reform
to a huge country like China -- modernizing them -- yet we
refuse to employ it in Cuba.
We didn't get our way and -- ACCORDING TO YOU -- we
stopped trying. We tried to re-install the brutal & corrupt
dictatorship that represented a step back from Castro, and
when that failed -- ACCORDING TO YOU -- we refused to
try any alternatives for 42 years.
Methinks again that you either doth protest too much, or
that you're living in a weird time warp where Eisenhower
and Nixon still hold office.
You're the one with your head up your past, not me.
We gave up trying to re-install Batista several decades
and multiple generations ago;
What was "Plan B"?
Go on, describe it for us.
Castro's been a dictator throughout that whole time.
And everything I've pointed out has been true that whole
time; the U.S. has never once offered any alternative.
Duh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
02 Sep 2003 12:37:26 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 01:03:45 -0400, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
At this point, so what? I may repeat myself, but the Bay of
Pigs was *42 years ago*, and wound up (regardless of
original intentions, or who originally planned it), being a
half-hearted and half-assed attempt to drop a bunch of
ill-trained partisans into Cuba, where they were quickly
captured or killed.
...and in all the time since then we have *Never* offered any
kind of alternative, though we steadfastly insist that we have
a ready alternative available.
When did I claim that?
We tried to re-install the brutal & corrupt dictatorship, and,
after that, we washed our hands of Cuba.
When did I claim that?
We keep claiming we have a "Strategy" that'll bring reform
to a huge country like China -- modernizing them -- yet we
refuse to employ it in Cuba.
And I don't disagree with you that engagement, rather than isolation,
is the policy we ought to be pursuing with Cuba.
We didn't get our way and -- ACCORDING TO YOU -- we
stopped trying. We tried to re-install the brutal & corrupt
dictatorship that represented a step back from Castro, and
when that failed -- ACCORDING TO YOU -- we refused to
try any alternatives for 42 years.
When did I claim that?
Methinks again that you either doth protest too much, or
that you're living in a weird time warp where Eisenhower
and Nixon still hold office.
You're the one with your head up your past, not me.
That's as may be.
We gave up trying to re-install Batista several decades
and multiple generations ago;
What was "Plan B"?
When did I claim there was one?
Go on, describe it for us.
Castro's been a dictator throughout that whole time.
And everything I've pointed out has been true that whole
time; the U.S. has never once offered any alternative.
And your point was...?
Seriously, what, exactly, are you arguing about?
Duh.
Yadda Yadda Yadda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
02 Sep 2003 02:15:40 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
...and in all the time since then we have *Never* offered any
kind of alternative, though we steadfastly insist that we have
a ready alternative available.
When did I claim that?
I'm not attributing it to you. As I pointed out with my entry to this
thread, the U.S. government claims that open markets &
investments brings reforms. Our government isn't just saying it,
heck, it's apply the strategy on the macro scale of China.
Again, this is going back to when I first entered this thread.
We tried to re-install the brutal & corrupt dictatorship, and,
after that, we washed our hands of Cuba.
When did I claim that?
Okay, fine, show us what the government has done since the
Bay of Pigs.
We gave up trying to re-install Batista several decades
and multiple generations ago;
What was "Plan B"?
When did I claim there was one?
If you think that there wasn't one, say so. If you imagine one,
describe it to us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
29 Aug 2003 08:49:17 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:
Revolution revisited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1030573,00.html
Brian Wilson MP: Cuba isn't perfect - but it is living proof that it
is possible for a third world country to combat poverty, disease and
illiteracy.
While brutally quashing any political dissent...
Bush is doing the same here, even as he creates poverty, illiteracy and
a healthcare crisis.
And what? You like Bush so much that you recommend him as a role model
for other world leaders?
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
01 Sep 2003 01:28:26 AM |
|
|
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<gcvvkv4n2ic05ur21q0n0l5hhc4i4qnj43@4ax.com>...
Yes, that's the second time in this thread that I've heard a remark to
that effect. What, may I ask, is the point? I'd think I've been pretty
open about absolutely despising Bush on every level; is that somehow
supposed to improve my opinion of Castro?
Well, yes.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the average IQ in alt.atheism has
been dropping faster than California water tables.
Pretty much these days, you either have to be a straight-ticket
Chomskian or else you're a Nazi. You're not allowed to hold nuanced
beliefs, even if they're about as nuanced as an ice pick in the forehead.
I'm not terribly happy about it either, but I don't run things here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
01 Sep 2003 01:51:41 AM |
|
|
"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote
I don't know if you've noticed, but the average IQ in
alt.atheism has been dropping faster than California
water tables.
...along with reading comprehension.
What on Earth do you think you're reacting to?
Better yet: Don't answer, just stop it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
01 Sep 2003 09:21:14 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote
I don't know if you've noticed, but the average IQ in
alt.atheism has been dropping faster than California
water tables.
...along with reading comprehension.
What on Earth do you think you're reacting to?
Better yet: Don't answer, just stop it.
Ooh, that's telling him, JTEM. Just shut up all those who disagree with you.
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
01 Sep 2003 01:50:52 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
Ooh, that's telling him, JTEM.
If I was capable of telling anyone *Anything*, you'd be
on "Atkins" even as you formally introduced yourself
to a bar of soap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
01 Sep 2003 01:52:48 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
Ooh, that's telling him, JTEM.
If I was capable...
But of course you're not. That's why you're trolling USENET.
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
01 Sep 2003 11:55:37 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
But of [...]
"Atkins" "Soap & Water"
Please, "Fred," just do it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
02 Sep 2003 07:58:00 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Please, "Fred," just do it.
Your infantile attempts at insults are quite amusing, JTEM.
Do please go on with them. They tell us a lot more about you than they
do about me.
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
03 Sep 2003 01:24:58 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
Your infantile attempts at insults [...]
Around & around we go...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
31 Aug 2003 09:48:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 02:51:41 -0400, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote
I don't know if you've noticed, but the average IQ in
alt.atheism has been dropping faster than California
water tables.
...along with reading comprehension.
What on Earth do you think you're reacting to?
I don't know, just as I don't know why you've been going on at such
length that I should think better of Castro because there are worse
despots. What exactly has been your point in all of this? A brutal
thug is a brutal thug, regardless if there are worse ones.
Better yet: Don't answer, just stop it.
I think at this point it might be useful to recall that this thread
started when I objected to an article Maff posted by a British MP
fawning over Castro, and toasting him with "to socialism and peace".
We both agree that Castro's a nasty dictator, so I see no reason for
you to have carried on protesting "but there are worse ones" this
whole time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
01 Sep 2003 01:59:11 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
I don't know, just as I don't know why you've been going
on at such length that I should think better of Castro
because there are worse despots.
That's not what I said.
What I pointed out is that we, through the United States
government, actively sought to install a worse government
in Cuba.
There isn't a government, or a form of government, that can't
be improved upon. The fact that Cuba's government sucks isn't
a crime, what is a crime is the fact that we pretend to care,
though we have never once present any alternative that represents
an improvement for the Cuban people.
I think at this point it might be useful to recall that this thread
started when I objected to an article Maff posted by a British MP
fawning over Castro, and toasting him with "to socialism and
peace".
Given our present choices of either wetting our pants over Cuba
while we offer no better alternatives, or accepting Castro and very
likely securing a better future for Cuba, it makes sense to accept
Castro.
If the west must first "fawn all over" Castro before coming to terms
with him & living with him, so be it.
The point is, it does offer some sort of means, a strategy, for
bringing about the reforms we've have been pretending to want
these past 40 years.
I'll take constructive "fawning" over useless whining any day.
Neither can claim to be unbiased (without encountering laughter),
while only one offers the potential for improvement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
01 Sep 2003 06:29:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 14:59:11 -0400, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
I don't know, just as I don't know why you've been going
on at such length that I should think better of Castro
because there are worse despots.
That's not what I said.
Sorry, then you should have chosen your words differently:
Here's the pertinent exchange:
Me:
I'd think I've been pretty open about absolutely despising
Bush on every level; is that somehow supposed to
improve my opinion of Castro?
You:
Yes. Definitely.
And, not because of Bush. It's because we are worse than
Castro ever was.
I'm speaking objectively here.
As bad as Castro is, he is a huge improvement for the Cuban
people over what he replaced, and we have worked to return
that brutal & corrupt dictatorship.
It's difficult to take that as different from what I'm saying above.
What I pointed out is that we, through the United States
government, actively sought to install a worse government
in Cuba.
There isn't a government, or a form of government, that can't
be improved upon. The fact that Cuba's government sucks isn't
a crime, what is a crime is the fact that we pretend to care,
though we have never once present any alternative that represents
an improvement for the Cuban people.
I think at this point it might be useful to recall that this thread
started when I objected to an article Maff posted by a British MP
fawning over Castro, and toasting him with "to socialism and
peace".
Given our present choices of either wetting our pants over Cuba
while we offer no better alternatives, or accepting Castro and very
likely securing a better future for Cuba, it makes sense to accept
Castro.
That's another story entirely. I believe the embargo should never have
been started in the first place; it only harms the Cuban people, and
doesn't do a damned thing to dislodge Castro.
If the west must first "fawn all over" Castro before coming to terms
with him & living with him, so be it.
There's a difference between acceptance and admiration, which was what
my original point was largely concerned with. There's a difference
between advocating free trade, engagement, et al, and sitting down to
dinner with a dictator and toasting him, after consciously deciding to
deliberately ignore the issue of Human Rights that your team was there
for in the first place, which is what provoked my ire at the start of
the thread.
The point is, it does offer some sort of means, a strategy, for
bringing about the reforms we've have been pretending to want
these past 40 years.
I'll take constructive "fawning" over useless whining any day.
I'll take constructive engagement over either, but I see your point.
Neither can claim to be unbiased (without encountering laughter),
while only one offers the potential for improvement.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J.R." |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
01 Sep 2003 01:48:34 PM |
|
|
(Eric Pepke) wrote in message news:<ef37f531.0308312228.24d3a3b9@posting.google.com>...
raven1 <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote in message news:<gcvvkv4n2ic05ur21q0n0l5hhc4i4qnj43@4ax.com>...
Yes, that's the second time in this thread that I've heard a remark to
that effect. What, may I ask, is the point? I'd think I've been pretty
open about absolutely despising Bush on every level; is that somehow
supposed to improve my opinion of Castro?
Well, yes.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the average IQ in alt.atheism has
been dropping faster than California water tables.
That's because christians are posting more here.
Pretty much these days, you either have to be a straight-ticket
Chomskian or else you're a Nazi. You're not allowed to hold nuanced
beliefs, even if they're about as nuanced as an ice pick in the forehead.
I'm not terribly happy about it either, but I don't run things here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
28 Aug 2003 03:54:35 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 02:10:16 -0700, (maff) wrote:
Revolution revisited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1030573,00.html
Brian Wilson MP: Cuba isn't perfect - but it is living proof that it
is possible for a third world country to combat poverty, disease and
illiteracy.
While brutally quashing any political dissent...
The Bush administration is proving that you don't need to be a third
world country to do that.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
28 Aug 2003 04:04:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:54:35 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 02:10:16 -0700, (maff) wrote:
Revolution revisited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1030573,00.html
Brian Wilson MP: Cuba isn't perfect - but it is living proof that it
is possible for a third world country to combat poverty, disease and
illiteracy.
While brutally quashing any political dissent...
The Bush administration is proving that you don't need to be a third
world country to do that.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm really tired of the tendency of many
leftists to whitewash Castro. A dictatorial thug is a dictatorial
thug, regardless of whatever socialist cant he happens to espouse in
his speeches.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
29 Aug 2003 12:15:06 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
Agreed, but at the same time I'm really tired of the tendency of
many leftists to whitewash Castro.
I've never heard anyone whitewash Castro.
You must hang around with some /strange/ people.
What I often hear -- and often state -- is that if we can really
influence a country like China by lavishing them with most-
favored-nation trade status, high technology and bundles of
investment cash, prove it to me by doing the same in Cuba.
If it'll work on the macro scale of China, prove it on the micro
scale of Cuba.
Castro is a thug and, as a man, thoroughly unlikable. However,
he can't compare to the brutality & protential threat that is
communist China.
That's a fact.
It seems to me that, considering what's at stake, nobody with
so much as a lick of morals can turn their back on Cuba even
as we export our future to China.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
29 Aug 2003 07:11:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:15:06 -0400, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
Agreed, but at the same time I'm really tired of the tendency of
many leftists to whitewash Castro.
I've never heard anyone whitewash Castro.
You must hang around with some /strange/ people.
Did you read the article Maff cited?
Also, I listen to Pacifica Radio (WBAI in NYC), whose main agenda
seems to be "praise Castro, free Mumia, reparations now".
What I often hear -- and often state -- is that if we can really
influence a country like China by lavishing them with most-
favored-nation trade status, high technology and bundles of
investment cash, prove it to me by doing the same in Cuba.
If it'll work on the macro scale of China, prove it on the micro
scale of Cuba.
No arguments from me.
Castro is a thug and, as a man, thoroughly unlikable. However,
he can't compare to the brutality & protential threat that is
communist China.
That's a fact.
It seems to me that, considering what's at stake, nobody with
so much as a lick of morals can turn their back on Cuba even
as we export our future to China.
I wholly agree, and think the whole embargo against Cuba is and has
always been insane. Doesn't change my opinion of Castro, or the fact
that the author of the original article Maff cited was blatantly
sucking up to him to the point of *deliberately* ignoring the issue of
Human Rights that the rest of his delegation was concerned with, as he
rushed to give him the toast "to socialism and peace".
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Revolution revisited |
30 Aug 2003 02:20:16 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote
Doesn't change my opinion of Castro, or the fact that
the author of the original article Maff cited was
blatantly sucking up to him to the point of *deliberately*
ignoring the issue of Human Rights that the rest of his
delegation was concerned with, as he rushed to give
him the toast "to socialism and peace".
The United States government does not give a damn about
Cuban people, and only cares enough about their human
rights to want to see them destroyed.
We -- our government -- as labored to destroy the reforms
made under Castro (however pathetically limited they are),
returning to power the brutal & corrupt dictatorship.
Castro is an improvement over what came before him. This
is why he has managed to hang on where others fell away.
Our alternative to Castro -- what we have killed in support
of -- is a return to brutal dictatorship and mafia corruption.
We have given the Cuban people the choice between bad or
worse, and they picked bad. I don't blame them. I blame us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
