Wow, after all that...thank you Enzo and Patrick. I love you both.

See MaryCas's posts, Enzo's explanation, and any of the posts from the past two years regarding Cuba, the Helms-Burton Embargo, and the Cold War in general.

No matter how he splits linguistic hairs, Patrick is pro-Castro. Undoubtedly.

Or maybe he's just (gasp) anti-American? :p

Someone being Pro-Castro bothers me more actually...

I think we should erect statues (among other things ) to all dictators who point nuclear missiles at us, and give them amnesty and a role in our government. After all, Fidel's such a nice guy, so...admirable. :rolleyes:

I don't know about your idea for statues, JJ, but I cetainly think we should do something to commemorate all of those right wing dictators from various countries who we've supported over the years and whose countries apparently were lacking whatever it is that Iraq has that qualifies it for assistance in the implementation of democracy.

Good point Plawrence.

Very well said indeed.

That would be anti-communist, anti-Soviet stances.

Pat, why you dig Castro anyway? I've never understood it...okay, maybe I would have if I wasn't too lazy to search back this board.

'Cause Che and Fidel stick it to 'da man, mang! :rolleyes:

'Cause Che and Fidel stick it to 'da man, mang! :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]I actually don't like Che at all. And you're humor is so poor that it is actually making me laugh at you now.

RRA - I don't 'dig' Castro. I just admire anyone who tries to do something for the better of the people. He didn't overthrow a great government. He overthrew a corrupted government. Anyways, read my posts from a little back. -Pat

'Cause Che and Fidel stick it to 'da man, mang! :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]I actually don't like Che at all. And you're humor is so poor that it is actually making me laugh at you now.

RRA - I don't 'dig' Castro. I just admire anyone who tries to do something for the better of the people. He didn't overthrow a great government. He overthrew a corrupted government. Anyways, read my posts from a little back. -Pat [/b][/quote]Well, at least you're reading my posts, which is a plus.

Sure, he overthrew Batistas government. Then, he slept with the Soviets, and brought forth the great world revolution that has left his nation and her people on the brink of poverty, powerless without the Soviets, and a group of peoples persucuted and fleeing to the United States, risking life and limb every year.

Oh, and he also threatened America with nuclear weapons.

But he's still a great guy, after all. :rolleyes:

Batista was the head of a corrupt regime in Cuba, for which Castro overthrew...and thus became head of a corrupt regime in Cuba. Different ideologues or imperial partners in bed, but both were still bastards.

Besides, how can I respect a regime that doesn't respect basic human rights like Freedom of Speech or Press or even the right to assemble and protest the government? The government has and continues to jail government protestors and persecute attempts by many groups to demonstrate publicly for more freedoms granted to the populace.

"Tries to help the people..."

You mean Castro and his regime, right? :p

I remember watching Stone's HBO documentary on his interview with Castro...and you see a tyrant that doesn't understand why many of his people oppose him or several of his actions. Gee I wonder why... :rolleyes:

Mmm, agreed. Much like the Somozas in Nicaragua, Batista wasn't exactly the best leader in the world. However, in comparison to the regimes that took over after them, I think that they are mild in many instances. Certainly, I would at the very least prefer the pro-American dictator to a Sandinista or a Castro, but that's me. I'm a patriot. I'm a nationalist.

Oh yes, the well-worn "Lesser of Two Evils"...

Its still Evil!

Really, and we wonder why the social/governmental matrix of our nation lacks logic and common sense...

Fact is, when you compromise American values of freedom(as Bush truely in his heart truely believes in) in speech and basic human rights that a government should never inflict on its populace, for the sake of some short-term ally in some global chess game being played out in a Boardroom Meeting at the Pentagon, then how much do we really value freedom?

Again, while I agree that we are all citizens of the world...

...I am an American citizen first.

And I want what is best for America.

It is as simple as that.

Now, I'm not being naive, I told you that I understand that Somoza and Batista and others like him were bad. But I consider the comparison to be pale when examining what the Stalin regime and the spread of Soviet Communism had done to eastern Europe...the Pols, for example.

The Soviets had to be stopped at any cost. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. Again, as I told Plaw, the Truman quote sums it up nicely.

Would it be nice if we could be moralistic in foreign policy? Of course. If we could ally with peaceful nations, then that would be best, of course. But it isn't realistic. Don't you think that economic deals with shady nations like Saudi Arabia or China in the past don't coincide with American freedoms and ideals? If you take it to that level, than internationalism and capitalism, on a moral level, really doesn't fit with American ideals.

But we're not talking moralism here. We're talking about the US foreign policy, which, in this instance, was necessary to prevent and contain the Soviet menace and the spread of evil.

Umm, preventing the spread of "evil" by using "evil" regimes as check-mate. Am I lost here?

Besides, thats what pisses me off about any government like ours. To be honest, we only fly the flag of human rights and "freedom" when its convenient. Thing is, the nations of Western Europe are notorius for doing this as well.

Fact is, our governments(not the same as "nations" or "countries") of America, Canada, and Western Europe tend to act whatever is in the best interest of our governments, no matter how this ranks in the scales of morality.

Double J, am I wrong on the last point? Even you gotta agree with me on that.

A little. It boils down to whether we were going to let Stalin spread his evil (yes, evil) or we were going to try and establish pro-American, pro-Capitalist governments. It wasn't American priority at the time to chide our allies for any human rights violations.

As I said, the argument has fallacy when looking at it from a moralistic standpoint. But as I said, it really came down to the lesser of two evils.

Of course, though I certainly would hold the US government to a higher standard than any other nation, and deservedly so, for the most part.

That's really not wholly surprising. Of course, especially in the capitalist system, it's going to be for the best survival of the country, and if some feelings are hurt, then so be it.

Of course. As a student of both US foreign policy and international politics, your statement is absolutely true, I'm not going to dispute that.

But like I said - I'm an American, and I want what is best for America.

Thanks DJ...

Speaking of which, I do hate when many people that reside from members of the World's Elite in Japan, Canada, and Western Europe(and even OPEC, but that is another post...) do like to trash the U.S. for being an evil Imperialist nation.

That is like several pretty good lawyers for a Law Firm attacking the most successful and richest attorney of the Firm for "getting scumbags off the hook", "Being a Bastard", "Lying/Burying Evidence", "A Yuppie Asshole", etc.

Now I'm not like many Neo-cons that think all Europeans, Canadians, or Japanese are Anti-American "liberal" douchebag cowards. Most are good honest people as we see here at BB.Net, but their governments is as hypocritical in so many issues and problems as the "Imperial American Pigs". I mean I remember months ago when Denmark announced it planned to start drilling for oil in Greenland and even their territorial claim in Antartica, but then I remember members of their Parliament earlier lambasting America for not adopting friendlier environmental programs. :rolleyes:

Of course, I do support improving the condition of our environment in America, and yes I believe in Global Warming. However, I just hate flat-face hypocrites. Then again, who doesn't?

Here is a rather good example of a current debate I'm having over the Greenhouse effect.

I'm certainly no fan of Fidel Castro.

He overthrew a brutal right wing dictatorship and established a brutal left wing dictatorship in its place, so from the POV of what's best for the United States, we were better of with Batista.

From the POV of the Cuban people, I don't see that it makes very much difference, although I will admit that I am not too familiar with the details of either regime.

But let's get our facts straight here:

It was not Castro who threatened the U.S. with nuclear weapons.

It was the Soviets. Establishing a Soviet missle base in Cuba was part of the quid pro quo for the economic and military aid that the Russians provided in exchange.

I don't believe that there was ever any doubt that it would be the Soviets who would be in control of the missles and determine if and when they would ever be used.

The whole Cuban Missle Crisis was just another move in the cold war chess game between the Soviet Union and the United States, and Castro and Cuba were nothing more than pawns.

I disagree of the use of the term "pawns" as you suggested, but obviously the Soviets had more influence over the Cubans than the Cubans did on the USSR...

Ah.
Why?

They were both dictators. Which is of course very bad. :rolleyes:

But I'd rather prefer a left dictator, then a nazi-racist dictator.

You?

Btw, I'm not a communist, I'm not pro-Stalin, or whatever things you might think of me now.

Hitler killed 9 million, Stalin killed well over 20 million.

I wouldn't take either but if I had to choose I think I'd rather be a German in Germany than a Russian in Russia.

The number is arguable. Hitler started a war, so indirectly he caused many more deads.

I also wanted to mention that we underestimate the Russian part in the victory very much. Russia offered many, many more lives than any other country in order to wipe out the fascism and end the war. I'm not deminishing the American input, that started in Normandy, but Russian and American military actions are at least even.

And if I'm speaking entirely on the true meanings of the systems, what they truly represent:
Communism >>>>>> Fascism

No?

Considering, in return for hosting and aiming the nukes, Fidel received economic aid and weapons technology, he plays more than the role of a pawn. If he didn't really want to do such a thing, why didn't he refuse the aid and tell the Soviets he didn't want to play ball?

Granted, yes, they were Soviet missiles. But it's a little like suing Derringer because some guy shot you. The missiles were coming from the country of Cuba. If he wished, Castro could've either refused to place the missiles or deactivated them on his own.

Statistics wise, Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler, I believe. This would encompass the mass starvations in Poland, the Ukraine, etc., as well as domestically.

So you would prefer Stalin, who was an equal murderer? Seems rather silly to me.

No, it's not. The numbers are Stalin's from deaths in Poland, Ukraine, and the other areas of East Germany as well as inside the Soviet Union.

And I don't see how anyone who starts are war is "indirectly" causing more "deads," it seems to be pretty cause-and-effect in my view.

So Stalin gets a free pass, even though he was as brutal, if not more brutal, than Hitler?

So Stalin gets a free pass, even though he was as brutal, if not more brutal, than Hitler? [/QUOTE]


There you go again Double Jay. Show me one person on this thread who has given Stalin a "free pass?"

And BTW, Double J the solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis was JFK's brilliant insistence that some alternative to war was worked out. Although there was no direct linkage, part of the deal was that we agreed to remove some nuke missiles on the USSR border in Turkey, which, unbeknownst to the Russians, were scheduled to be removed anyway. Thank God the likes of George W. Bush was not in office back then.

Ok, so if he would've declined any aid from the Soviets, Cuba wouldn't have been anything. The US was already planning on assasinating him, so it was the US who turned their backs on Castro just because he was a socialist. I would've done the same damn thing if I was Castro and you would've too, and you know it!

Yeh, because the Soviets wouldn't have cared. The Soviets would've beat the hell out of Cuba if Castro took those missles down.

I'm also going to go with Stalin.

Yes, it is. Hitler started a World War. If you ask me, he was responsible for every life lost because there would've been no loss of life had the Germans not started invading countries and killing everyone. Hitler, alone, is responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews. His army (which took orders from him) are responsible for the millions of other deaths.

Please show me who said Stalin gets a free pass.

So Stalin gets a free pass, even though he was as brutal, if not more brutal, than Hitler? [/quote]The US lost some 450,000 lives in WWII.
The Russians lost 20,000,000 lives. They sacrificed an enormous amount of people. Without the Russians, Hitler would've won (arguable).
Everyone is always saying, the USA liberated Europe, but that's only partly true.
The USA helped very, very good (and we are very grateful for that!!), but we should thank the Russians even more.

That's all, I said nothing about a free pass for Stalin.

BTW, the reason why I choose to be under Stalin, than to be under Hitler is:
Stalin killed people because they were against his system. Hitler did it because of his morals, because of the dirtiest form of racism ever seen. To me, the Holocaust is the ultimate form of all the bestialities the human being can do.
Btw, I prefer to be a German in Hitler's Germany, than a Russian in Stalin's Russia. But then I would be a nazi, part of that dirty system.
And another btw, I prefer to be a Russian in Stalin's Russia, than a communist/gibsy/jew/black/mentally ill, ... in nazi-Germany.

But to take away any doubt, Stalin was a despicable dictator who killed a huge amount of people.

Hitler, Stalin, and the Belgian king Leopold II were the most gruesome killing dictators of the 20th century.

Okay.

Yes, I knew that, but thanks for the attempted history lesson.

Yes, since he's been starting nuclear wars everywhere since coming into office. :rolleyes:

The policy of "containment," originated by President Truman, was an effort to prevent the spread of communism across the globe. The fear was that if Cuba was allowed to turn communist, and Pro-Soviet, it could lead to the entire Latin American continent becoming littered with anti-American nations friendly to the Soviets, and supplying them with resources in exchange for arms.

The US wasn't just against Castro, they were trying to prevent Communist governments from arising across the globe (Turkey, Greece, for example, and later, South Korea and southern Vietnam). In all of these instances there was US intervention of some sort.

We didn't "turn our backs" on Castro - we never had his back in the first place. Having an anti-American dictator that close to the United States wasn't a prospect that Kennedy was going to take lightly.

What makes you think so? If Cuba had decided to ally or at least remain amicable with the US, it is doubtful the Soviets would have started nuclear holocaust over Cuba.

Then you, imho, are a naive fool, choosing to ignore the facts that Stalin and even his counterpart Mao Zedong in China were just as brutal and oppresive as Hitler, and murdered in similar or greater numbers in Stalin's case.

So what about the millions upon millions of Pols killed by Stalin? How about the Ukrainian famines? Even the internal purges and grain massacres inside of the USSR? Those weren't of Hitler's doing, and they were occurring at the same time of Hitler and into the post-war era.

Mmm, this is true, the Russians provided needed manpower as the French and British forces both weren't able to maintain effectiveness alongside the Americans.

How so? Granted, numbers wise, the Russians lost more men, but does that mean that their sacrifice is more important, or the US's is less important?

Stalin hated the Pols, and as I've said, everyone is ignoring the Ukrainian and Polish holocausts that occurred under Stalin. And Stalin didn't just kill people because they were against him, he befriended the Pols and drove out the Germans only to slaughter them after they took power.