Political Change

[chops 111]

The United States didn't invade and occupy "Vietnam."

Well technically I suppose that's true, seeing as the US or it's allies never even declared war on North Vietnam, they did however slaughter millions of peasant farmers.

From the outside looking in I find the ideals of the Cuban system to be inspirational and far more progressive than plenty of other western countries, my own (Australia) included. The reality may be somewhat different though.

That said, I don't think anybody can deny the obvious achievements Cuba has made in providing health care and education for it's people. Compared to similarly poor countries, it's astounding.

It's perplexing to think that the US embargo is in place against Cuba as it's not a democracy, yet the US imports plastic vomit and poisonous toys from China (with a far worse human rights record) by the dozen of tonnes everyday.

What if Florida was a safe Democrat electorate?

I also wonder what would happen if everyone's favourite savages, the Saudi Arabian regime were held to the same standard as the Cubans

Now we have the never ending and absurdly named "War on Terror" I wonder if Bush will see fit to bring Luis Posada Carriles to justice. I hear he walks around little Havana in Miami like a god.

[scary 0]

Every year you hear about hundreds of people freezing to death in the UK due to unpaid electricity bills.

And how would people freeze to death due to unpaid electricity bills in a country that rarely gets cold enough for people to freeze to death? And how would not paying an electricity bill stop people from using their gas central heating?

Perhaps you could link to where you 'heard about' these hundreds of people that no one else has heard of. Although it may be difficult to link to figments of your imagination.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Do you even know what that means?

(about sustainable development)

? Do you know what "fact" means?

I'll take that as a no, you don't know what that means, then.

And fact would be the opposite of fiction; fiction like Robin Hood and frozen people.

Quote[/b] ]Here you can read them:

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf

Page 19.

More info:

http://www.ecosherpa.com/news....lopment

Well, thanks for that, Sparky. I am quite capable of using Google for myself, though.

As you clearly need the meaning of this explaining to you, what the WWF is saying is that a country with virtually no industrial capacity and very limited car ownership is environmentally friendly, something that would be obvious to anyone that hadn't been repeatedly dropped on their head as a child.

Quote[/b] ]Wow, what an argument. 27 Developed countries with strong economies do better than the third world country cuba. Why not mention the fact that Cuba has no space program? How odd. Most be due to socialism.

Cuba's third world economy would be Cuba's fault, no one else's, due to its brand of socialism. Just think how well Cuba could do with an economy.

Quote[/b] ]How many perform worse? What about Haiti Mexico the superpower US? The rest of south america? Cuba performs better than them all.

And worse than the evil capitalist pig-dog that is Europe. And parts of Asia. And Canada. And Aus/NZ.

Quote[/b] ]Isn't a higher life expectancy what you would expect when you compare a rich country to a poor former colony and later gambling den? Somehow Cuba outperforms the US anyway.

By a month, which is statistically meaningless. And I'd rather live a month less at US standards of living than live a month longer at Cuban standards of living. But I get one year and one month more than Cuba at a higher standard of living than the US, so there.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, the antarctic. Let's skip the comparison cuba vs developed countries, cuba vs superpowers, and talk about cuba vs antarctica! No malaria, no people either. They must have a splendid system there.

Why has cuba no malaria when all surrounding third world  countries have?

You're not very bright, are you? Cuba is an island, malaria is distributed by infected Anopheles mosquito which are not native to Cuba and don't swim. Many of the Caribbean islands don't have malaria and the ones that do have got it from accidental introduction by man.

France has rabies, Britain does not, despite them being within viewing distance of each other. Do you think that is because Britain has a far superior health service and economical system or because it is an island?

Quote[/b] ]No, cuba is unique in South America. People have real homes, no shacks. Living in a shack is like being homeless.

Of course they have real homes. Who cares if the roof has fallen in, or being crammed one family to a room in a delapidated, bricked-up hotel.

Cuba is just great.

Quote[/b] ]You assume things you know nothing about. Yeah, 10% growth is because of tourism mr expert.

Unless you're going to back up your drivel with evidence of other industries, Cuba has tourism and cigars, nothing else.

Quote[/b] ]Just like in the UK then...

Apart from the financial sector, service industry, petro-chems, entertainment and high-end manufacturing, it must be tourism that makes the UK the fifth largest economy in the world.  

Quote[/b] ]Sure Hitler had a global commitment too. You're breaking international law and nobody told you to play world sheriff or deputy.

I call Godwin.

Nobody told us to play world sheriff in 1939 either, but we did.

Quote[/b] ]Yea, you're the boss. US is just your puppet.

Or perhaps neither is a puppet, both have similar aims and, therefore, work together to achieve them. Co-operation, it's the future.

Quote[/b] ]During the apartheid loads of people were shot dead, imprisoned, tortured. Was that good? Well according to the US and UK it was ok as they supported that country.

Apart from the UK being the first country to sever relations with South Africa after the PM publically condemned the Apartheid policies in his Wind Of Change speech made in the South African Parliament in 1960. Very supportive.

Quote[/b] ]They sold arms and traded with open arms.

After being coerced out of the Commonwealth trading bloc? Try again.

Quote[/b] ]Castro has a much higher support by his own people and in whole South America.

As long as you like the Henry Ford model of democracy: you can vote for anyone you want so long as it's me.

Quote[/b] ]All soldiers are forced to fight in any war.

Really? I seem to remember volunteering. Much be the decadant Western media and government propaganda affecting my memory.

Quote[/b] ]Why is it bad that cubans unselfishly stopped a rascist advance down in Africa?

Who made Cuba the world sheriff?

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]You think those countries are much better off now?

Namibia I guess, but Angola?

Yea apartheid was better indeed. Is it wrong that Angola minds its own business now? Way better when South African racists handled them? Even South Africa is better off now, even if there are big problems due to social democratic politics.

Quote[/b] ]Never heard of anyone being killed for trying.

So when did they shoot people for trying that in Cuba? And you still didn't answer my question. The only shootings I know of is by american terrorists who shot a european tourist from the sea.

Quote[/b] ]Too bad hardly any of that money goes into important things like the police force.

SA being rich means nothing if government is corrupt and people suffer from high crime and widespread poverty.

I don't support the current Soth African government. I say it's better than under the apartheid. If you don't think that you're a racist. And why should SA put more money on the police force (that's already huge compared to other countries). Maybe they should look at the problems causing crime first? Maybe they should abolish capitalism? The anti-capitalist left is strong in SA, and grows every day.

I looked at your nationmaster link. How can you explain that Cuba is at pos 162? Denmark at 111 and US at 1? I thought those countries were "free". Maybe I was wrong. Who knows.

In cuba they have no poverty related crime problems. Because people don't have to steal to live.

Quote[/b] ]Do you even know the basic definition of a dictator? President Bush doesn't have all the power; therefore, President Bush isn't a dictator.

Castro is the president of Cuba. Just like Bush is of the US. Does that mean that Bush and Castro decide everything? You know there is a parliament in Cuba? Did Tony Blair decide everything?

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

Quote[/b] ]Cuba and South Africa militarily interfered in the Angolan Civil War. Cuba didn't liberate Angola; the Cubans supported a side (MPLA) of that war. Cuba withdrawing from Angola allowed Namibia to become independent.

Did you see the youtube clip I posted? There the president of Namibia clearly states that Cuba liberated Namibia. Angola was losing the war until Cuba stepped in.

Quote[/b] ]You can hear about it time to time on American news. Very cool how people can transform cars into floatable rafts/boats.

Sources? Liberal websites/news don't count. Anticuban sources are reliable?

Quote[/b] ]Sources? Communist and Socialist websites don't count.

...

In Cuba there's no unemployment or homelessness to speak of. Education and healthcare is free for all. There's no economic exploitation. Social security is one of the tightest in the world. There's no torture like in the US.

Quote[/b] ]And how would people freeze to death due to unpaid electricity bills in a country that rarely gets cold enough for people to freeze to death? And how would not paying an electricity bill stop people from using their gas central heating?

Well, read the newspapers carefully this winter.

Quote[/b] ]As you clearly need the meaning of this explaining to you, what the WWF is saying is that a country with virtually no industrial capacity and very limited car ownership is environmentally friendly, something that would be obvious to anyone that hadn't been repeatedly dropped on their head as a child.

So Cuba is the poorest country in the world? No cars? No industries? No irrigation? Why is Cuba an achiever and not let's say Jamaica? You arguments are based on strange assumptions. I guess that's what people learn due to liberal media. You're defending your own oppressors. They make you do it.

Quote[/b] ]Cuba's third world economy would be Cuba's fault, no one else's, due to its brand of socialism. Just think how well Cuba could do with an economy.

Sure, Haiti does so much better. In fact Cuba has one of the highest living standards in the third world just because of their system that doesn't allow exploitation. Cuba has always been a third world country. And it isn't Cuba's fault. Embargos, capitalist aggression, terrorism etc. They still do much better than most countries.

Tell me, why don't you compare Cuba to the emirates? That would be great.

Quote[/b] ]You're not very bright, are you? Cuba is an island, malaria is distributed by infected Anopheles mosquito which are not native to Cuba and don't swim. Many of the Caribbean islands don't have malaria and the ones that do have got it from accidental introduction by man.

France has rabies, Britain does not, despite them being within viewing distance of each other. Do you think that is because Britain has a far superior health service and economical system or because it is an island?

Oh! That explains why there was malaria before the revolution.

Quote[/b] ]By a month, which is statistically meaningless. And I'd rather live a month less at US standards of living than live a month longer at Cuban standards of living. But I get one year and one month more than Cuba at a higher standard of living than the US, so there.

And the US is a super power. Cuba still does better. What does that say?

Quote[/b] ]Of course they have real homes. Who cares if the roof has fallen in, or being crammed one family to a room in a delapidated, bricked-up hotel.

Cuba is just great.

That's what houses look like in most parts of the world, including all parts of Europe and Asia. Welcome to earth. Those houses look fine. They are no shacks. There are no slums. Wonder why? Only in cuba, in whole latin america.

Quote[/b] ]Unless you're going to back up your drivel with evidence of other industries, Cuba has tourism and cigars, nothing else.

Taken from wiki:

Quote[/b] ]More recently Cuba's world-class biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry is gaining in its importance to the economy. It has been claimed that soon it will become Cuba's main source of foreign exchange. Among the products sold internationally are vaccines against various viral and bacterial pathogens, and promising anti-cancer vaccines are undergoing exhaustive clinical trials. Some Cuban scientists, like V. Verez-Bencomo, have been awarded international prizes for their contributions in biotechnology and Sugar Cane. Cuban vaccines are sold, among other countries,in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and several Latin American countries.

Quote[/b] ]Main industries Sugar, petroleum, tobacco, construction, nickel, steel, cement, agricultural machinery, pharmaceuticals

Quote[/b] ]After being coerced out of the Commonwealth trading bloc? Try again.

Wiki:

Quote[/b] ]However, neither Britain nor the US were willing to apply economic pressure upon their multinational interests in South Africa, such as the mining company Anglo American. A high-profile case claiming compensation from these companies was thrown out of court in 2004.

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

And why did the US support the rascist military in the war?

Quote[/b] ]As long as you like the Henry Ford model of democracy: you can vote for anyone you want so long as it's me.

Castro isn't the only candidate.

Quote[/b] ]Really? I seem to remember volunteering. Much be the decadant Western media and government propaganda affecting my memory.

What about WW2? Vietnam? Voluntneers? Draft? Everything isn't Iraq. It's an exception.

Quote[/b] ]Who made Cuba the world sheriff?

Do you really think that Cuba is the world sheriff (and not the US/UK?) because Cuba sent 50 000 troops to fight off racists? Is it bad to fight off racism? Did Cuba occupy and rule those countries? Or did they just lend their troops to their African brothers?

[baddo 0]

People can go to wars voluntarily and lots of it certainly happens. For example when a communist/socialist state is trying to take your land. People here will go to such a war even when they don't officially need to. My grandfather was not old enough to go to the war but he did so by lying his age (his mother helped and lied too). And I have heard many stories that he wasn't the only one who did so. People in Finland felt strongly that they need to go to a war. All those underage boys could have stayed home, or even flee to Sweden, but they chose to go and fight. Also lots of foreign volunteers came to help us against socialists' aggressions. In no way were those people forced by their own authorities, or does someone believe they were.

Actually... you are right, Spokesperson. People are forced to fight wars. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics forced my grandparents, among many others, to fight a war. It would have been better for both sides if those wars never happened. The price for the Soviets was way too big compared to what they got in the end. I wish they had not started it, but it happened and I can't change that. In the Soviet propaganda they said that they are "liberating" us from the capitalists and that they are helping their "comrades". For some reason their "help" was rejected...

I can only hope that no-one ever forces me to go to a war. It's not something I would like to do. But I will have to do it if you don't leave me other reasonable choices.

By the way it's Independence Day. I will light a candle soon for the memory of my grandparents, who were forced to fight a war which they never wanted to happen.

[MehMan 0]

The United States didn't invade and occupy "Vietnam."

Well technically I suppose that's true, seeing as the US or it's allies never even declared war on North Vietnam, they did however slaughter millions of peasant farmers.

Bullshit. Big time bullshit.

Quote[/b] ]In cuba they have no poverty related crime problems. Because people don't have to steal to live.

Source? I smell another load of bullshit.

Quote[/b] ]Castro is the president of Cuba. Just like Bush is of the US. Does that mean that Bush and Castro decide everything? You know there is a parliament in Cuba? Did Tony Blair decide everything?

Yeah, like Castro doesn't have the final word and does what he wants.

Quote[/b] ]In Cuba there's no unemployment or homelessness to speak of. Education and healthcare is free for all. There's no economic exploitation. Social security is one of the tightest in the world. There's no torture like in the US.

Healthcare is shit. Don't think the education is any good either.

Quote[/b] ]So Cuba is the poorest country in the world? No cars? No industries? No irrigation? Why is Cuba an achiever and not let's say Jamaica? You arguments are based on strange assumptions. I guess that's what people learn due to liberal media. You're defending your own oppressors. They make you do it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HA! ha!

Oh man, what a laugh.

It's still the third world. There's a reason why it's called that.

Quote[/b] ]And the US is a super power. Cuba still does better. What does that say?

Cuba is better at what? Sucking? That's right.

Tell me, are you pretending to be a moron or are you a moron? Do you really think Cuba is great at all? If it's so great why is everybody trying to get out? And why don't you hear about a massive emigration of people to Cuba? Oh, that's right, because it sucks. Down right sucks. No, what they put in the press doesn't mirror the truth. They are lying more than the US. They have no other media. There's only one side to the story, the one they allow. And you believe it.

[nindall 0]

Really? I seem to remember volunteering. Much be the decadant Western media and government propaganda affecting my memory.

What about WW2? Vietnam? Voluntneers? Draft? Everything isn't Iraq. It's an exception.

The following is taken from -

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/st_conscription_l.html

A little history about conscription in the UK with an emphasis on provisions for 'conscientious objection'.

Quote[/b] ]

Even in the chauvinist atmosphere of the First World War conscription for the battlefield – the position of all Britain’s allies as well as enemies – was resisted until by January 1916 the flood of volunteers was reduced to a trickle, despite social pressure on ‘laggards’ by attempts to shame them.

...

The turning point in British military policy, the Military Service Act 1916, was unique in conscription history by also providing for exemption on conscientious grounds.

...

British conscription ended in 1919, but twenty years later was resumed (Military Training Act 1939 (May), superseded by National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939 (September)) in the immediate prelude to the Second World War. On this occasion the procedure for conscientious objectors (with the three categories as before) was on the whole more humane.

...

In a different way from the aftermath of the First World War, conscription for men was continued fifteen years into ‘peacetime’, until 1960, adding some 10,000 objectors to the British total.

[chops 111]

The United States didn't invade and occupy "Vietnam."

Well technically I suppose that's true, seeing as the US or it's allies never even declared war on North Vietnam, they did however slaughter millions of peasant farmers.

Bullshit. Big time bullshit.

If only it was

Vietnamese civilians

* ~900,000 to 4,000,000 killed: According to the Vietnam's Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs released figures on April 3, 1995, 2 million civilians in the north and 2 million in the south were killed between 1954 and 1975.[citation needed]

* ~3,000,000 affected by Agent Orange

Cambodian civilians

* ~700,000 killed during war (conforming to newest declarations)

From wikipedia

To argue your point in a more convincing manner mehman, may I suggest you find more substantive means other than simply typing "bullshit" or that "sucks".

Regards

Chops

[billybob2002 0]

Did you see the youtube clip I posted? There the president of Namibia clearly states that Cuba liberated Namibia. Angola was losing the war until Cuba stepped in.

Cuba "liberated" Namibia because Cuba pulled out of Angola. South Africa wouldn't had gone with Namibian independence if Cuba didn't withdraw from Angola.

Let me talk briefly about the invasion of Angola from 1975 to 1976 by South Africa because you are incorrect about Angola. In 1975, civil war broke out in Angola after various Angolan factions declared Angolan independence from Portugal. South Africa covertly invaded Angola to make sure the Marxist MPLA didn't take over Angola and to deal with SWAPO (Namibian "freedom fighters") in Southern Angola. South Africa supported FNLA and UNITA side (anti-MPLA). Cuba already had technicians and advisors in Angola before the invasion in support of MPLA. When South Africa invaded, Cuba sent combat troops to support MPLA. South Africa halted the invasion and pulled out in 1976. I think they pulled out because of the withdrawal of CIA support and OAU (Organization of African Unity) recognized the MPLA as the legitimate government of Angola.

Quote[/b] ]

Sources? Liberal websites/news don't count. Anticuban sources are reliable?

http://www.floatingcubans.com/

http://www.miamiherald.com/top_stories/story/318823.html

Quote[/b] ]

As of Wednesday, the number of Cuban migrants stopped by the Coast Guard was 2,938, just 14 shy of the 2005 mark.

While no mass exodus is afoot, the increased number of interdictions is part of a gradually increasing number of Cubans leaving the island and heading for the United States -- by boat, plane, car and on foot through the U.S.-Mexican border.

At least 3,437 more Cubans left the Communist island and reached the United States between October 2006 and September 2007 than during the previous 12-month period, leading some Cuban affairs analysts to wonder whether a migration crisis is coming.

.....

Quote[/b] ]

In Cuba there's no unemployment or homelessness to speak of. Education and healthcare is free for all. There's no economic exploitation. Social security is one of the tightest in the world. There's no torture like in the US.

So, Cuba is an utopia.....

Quote[/b] ]

Castro is the president of Cuba. Just like Bush is of the US. Does that mean that Bush and Castro decide everything? You know there is a parliament in Cuba? Did Tony Blair decide everything?

You called President Bush a dictator and I challenged your assertion. Guess I successfully refuted that.

[wipman 1]

Hi, G.W. Bush (Junior) is not a dictator; just an asshole that puts

the face for a "way of make policy"; but in many ways the yankees

have laws that the 3rd reich will be proud of. Of course that Castro

is a dictator; they've so drakonian laws that to protect 'emselve

from the yankee "passive agression", they've to keep an eye on

they're population just in the same way than Stalin will do, but with

sun.

The political changes to the left are not always good; but the

political changes to the rigth are always bad; be from the left is

be a patriot, be from the rigth is be an anti-patriot; and if i don't

had 4 warning levels already... i'll say what more is be from the

rigth.

If you want to make a political change for good in a "democratic"

society... then begin to teach respect and some values to your

population; instead have 'em bussy working all day as for even

know what's going on, always with the water until the neck and

fearing the next bank bill. And this, is just for the hippies: Forget

about get ridd of the armys while the human beeing still alive;

because that-don't-gonna-happen. Let's C ya

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]People can go to wars voluntarily and lots of it certainly happens. For example when a communist/socialist state is trying to take your land. People here will go to such a war even when they don't officially need to. My grandfather was not old enough to go to the war but he did so by lying his age (his mother helped and lied too). And I have heard many stories that he wasn't the only one who did so. People in Finland felt strongly that they need to go to a war. All those underage boys could have stayed home, or even flee to Sweden, but they chose to go and fight. Also lots of foreign volunteers came to help us against socialists' aggressions. In no way were those people forced by their own authorities, or does someone believe they were.

Of course there were volunteers. Just as there was on the Soviet side. But this is no discussion about that. The south african army din't consist of volunteers. And most armies don't. You had foreign help in Finland during your civil war as well. But that didn't stop you from slaughtering 30 000 captured workers and peasants. The USSR wasn't sure how you would act in an upcoming conflict and as you had your borders extremely close to Leningrad it was a potential threat. Soviets tried to negotiate and give you much more land than you would give them. Also note that the USSR didn't go further than the territories they wanted even if they could. But let's not discuss that war too.

Quote[/b] ]For some reason their "help" was rejected...

That's an interesting phenomena. It's almost like the Stockholm-syndrome. People stand up for leaders like Bush, completely against their interests. But it's easier to do that when you live in a country that is ruled by corporations and their media.

Quote[/b] ]Bullshit. Big time bullshit.

Petty nationalism is more important than the truth?

Quote[/b] ]Source? I smell another load of bullshit.

Look at that list one guy posted. Nationmaster. Cuba is one of the countries with least prisoners.

Quote[/b] ]Healthcare is shit. Don't think the education is any good either.

Really? Then why do US-americans go to cuba to get healthcare like in the movie "Sicko" and why do americans study in Cuba? Why has cuba the highest density of teachers and academics in the world? Why are there cuban doctors all over the world? More than any other country.

You assume things based on liberal media. Get it. Your liberal corporate news-channels have an interest in showing socialist Cuba as bad.

Quote[/b] ]Cuba is better at what? Sucking? That's right.

Read the topics all over again from page 1. I'm not going to repeat. Cuba beats the US in many aspects, even though it's a third world country...

Quote[/b] ]And why don't you hear about a massive emigration of people to Cuba?

Loads of people move to cuba, even from the US. But you got to remember that it's a third world country. How many move to Mexico? How many move to Haiti? Do you hear about that? Those countries aren't socialist you know.

billybob,

ever heard about the miami herald. What kind of newspaper it is? No? Then read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329394.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1886724,00.html

You're showing me an article which is a lie that is paid by the US government. So much for your sources.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Quote[/b] ]Spain’s Aznar.

Italy’s Berlesconi.

Poland’s twins Jaroslaw and Lech Kaczynski.

Britain’s Blair.

Australia’s Howard.

All of Bush’s water carriers were soundly rejected by their respective county’s citizens.

Well, recently seems big chunks of the worlds population tend to have a view of his policys and expressed them in elections.

But of course, if you asked him I'm sure he's say "the rest of world don't know shyt" (sorry, I didn't get the drall right)

[baddo 0]

You had foreign help in Finland during your civil war as well. But that didn't stop you from slaughtering 30 000 captured workers and peasants. The USSR wasn't sure how you would act in an upcoming conflict and as you had your borders extremely close to Leningrad it was a potential threat. Soviets tried to negotiate and give you much more land than you would give them. Also note that the USSR didn't go further than the territories they wanted even if they could.

Uuh-huh-ah-hah well yes let's not discuss that war I will let you freely ignore whatever you want. Hmmm... and you seem to like to pull numbers out of your *thingy into which the sun sometimes shines* And... krhm? Soviets tried to negotiate? Aawww how nice!  

Quote[/b] ]For some reason their "help" was rejected...

That's an interesting phenomena. It's almost like the Stockholm-syndrome. People stand up for leaders like Bush, completely against their interests. But it's easier to do that when you live in a country that is ruled by corporations and their media.

Is your nationality perhaps Finnish? I've had a feeling for some time now that that could be the case. If it's true then I am very sorry that you have to live in this kind of evil capitalist country.

Your best solution is to head to Cuba as soon as possible. Let us live in the evil capitalist countries, let us choose our problems, and do not think we wouldn't allow you to live in a socialistic country. Just travel to Cuba and all your obvious problems are solved. But if you try to convert my country to suit your idealism... that is not going to end up well.

[billybob2002 0]

You're showing me an article which is a lie that is paid by the US government. So much for your sources.

How is it a lie? Their number comes from the Coast Guard. A legitimate source btw.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/g-opl/AMIO/FlowStats/currentstats.html

Please refute my claim that Cubans are migrating from Cuba to the United States then. You can't refute it because the other link in my previous post has pictures of Cubans trying to reach the United States using car/truck rafts.

[MehMan 0]

The United States didn't invade and occupy "Vietnam."

Well technically I suppose that's true, seeing as the US or it's allies never even declared war on North Vietnam, they did however slaughter millions of peasant farmers.

Bullshit. Big time bullshit.

If only it was

Vietnamese civilians

   * ~900,000 to 4,000,000 killed: According to the Vietnam's Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs released figures on April 3, 1995, 2 million civilians in the north and 2 million in the south were killed between 1954 and 1975.[citation needed]

   * ~3,000,000 affected by Agent Orange

Cambodian civilians

   * ~700,000 killed during war (conforming to newest declarations)

From wikipedia

To argue your point in a more convincing manner mehman, may I suggest you find more substantive means other than simply typing "bullshit" or that "sucks".

Regards

Chops

Well 900.000-4.000.000. There's a big gap there. Plus the number is from 1954-1975. So up until 1962 it was purely a Vietnamese war. Then the advisors weren't really doing anything, so until 1965 actually it was all Vietnam. Then the US got involved with the bombing campaigns.

And they didn't slaughter them, jeez, you're making it sound like they deliberatley went into Vietnam with the purpose of killing peasants. They might have died because of the war, but most likely not by US troops. The North was far worse in this aspect, the aspect of killing innocent people. For example, during the short span in the Tet offensive where the PAVN held Hue they managed to kill 2800 people.

However, the US does not have a clean slate too, we have all seen the videos of the naping of border villages and the running kid video where a plane drops nape behind her(which wasn't a US plane actually, but an ARVN one).

Civilians unfortunatley took a huge toll, the only thing different if the US hadn't gotten involved would be the numbers, slightly smaller and unreported. North Vietnam didn't exactly have a record for being nice to the people.

But in the end it was still a terrible and tragic conflict, like any conflict. Civilans got involved and took a beating, like in any war. Unfortunatley that is a rule now seeing how the modern battlefield does not lie on the planes but on the streets.

[scary 0]

Did Tony Blair decide everything?

No. But as he was a Prime Minister, not a President, that is hardly surprising. You clearly have no idea how a parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy works.

Quote[/b] ]In Cuba [...] There's no torture like in the US.

If Cuba are so opposed to torture, why do they lease Guantanamo Bay to the the US?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And how would people freeze to death due to unpaid electricity bills in a country that rarely gets cold enough for people to freeze to death? And how would not paying an electricity bill stop people from using their gas central heating?

Well, read the newspapers carefully this winter.

If this has been reported in the newspapers in the past it will still be on their websites. It is up to you to verify your claims, not me, so you provide the links.

Unfortunately, you will find it difficult to link to figments of your imagination, so rather than have you waste your time I shall point out the obvious: I live in the UK so, therefore, know damn well what the climate is; that the major source of heating is gas, not electricity; the cost of living; the cost of utilities; minimum levels of income, etc.

Me spending all of today, in December, outside, in a t-shirt, without freezing to death, is not part a liberal-media-supra-governmental conspiracy designed to bring about the downfall of Cuba - they didn't change the weather or my perception of it, I'm not dead and I didn't have a small fire burning in my underpants to keep me warm.

Quote[/b] ]So Cuba is the poorest country in the world? No cars? No industries? No irrigation? Why is Cuba an achiever and not let's say Jamaica?

Jamaica has achieved a hell of a lot more than Cuba. Not being Cuba is an achievement in itself.

Quote[/b] ]You arguments are based on strange assumptions. I guess that's what people learn due to liberal media. You're defending your own oppressors. They make you do it.

Help, help, I'm being oppressed! It's a good job you're here as a beacon of all things that aren't nuts, to save me. Although I'm confused - first you tell me to read the newspapers, but then you say that it is all a conspiracy by the liberal media. Or is it just a conspiracy when their reporting disagrees with your agenda?

Quote[/b] ]Sure, Haiti does so much better. In fact Cuba has one of the highest living standards in the third world just because of their system that doesn't allow exploitation. Cuba has always been a third world country. And it isn't Cuba's fault. Embargos, capitalist aggression, terrorism etc. They still do much better than most countries.

Great, one of the highest in the third world. A pile of horse manure might smell less than a pile of cow manure, but it's still a steaming heap of shit.

Embargos should have no effect on a communist country as said country shouldn't be trading, otherwise it becomes state capitalist. As the US is the only country that observes the embargo, are you saying that Cuba cannot survive without the US?

What the chuff is 'capitalist aggression'? Were they offering to buy things in a threatening manner?

If there is terrorism then there are clearly some unhappy people in Cuba - I wonder why that could be.

Cuba's third world status is Cuba's fault. Adults accept something known as personal responsibility, that way they know how to improve. Children blame everyone else for all their woes.

Quote[/b] ]Tell me, why don't you compare Cuba to the emirates? That would be great.

Why don't you compare Cuba to any of the countries that do better than it? Is it because their existence destroys your argument?

Quote[/b] ]Oh! That explains why there was malaria before the revolution.

People arrive on the island with malaria, through a simple program of anti-malarial drugs and quarantining malaria is eradicated. It is a very easy thing to do on a small island. Try doing some research on how many Caribbean islands have malaria instead of comparing Cuba to South America, which is not an island and to which malaria is native.

Being communist isn't immunisation against malaria and Fidel Castro hasn't driven all the mosquitoes out of Cuba.

Quote[/b] ](referring to life expectancy) And the US is a super power. Cuba still does better. What does that say?

That many Americans are obese. That people die when they get old.

Life expectancy is not going to rise exponentially, it will reach a plateau. Late seventies/early eighties is probably that plateau.

Quote[/b] ]That's what houses look like in most parts of the world, including all parts of Europe and Asia. Welcome to earth. Those houses look fine. They are no shacks. There are no slums. Wonder why? Only in cuba, in whole Latin America.

Did you even look at the photos? A house with its roof caved in is not 'fine'. People in all parts of Europe and Asia don't live in buildings with windows bricked-up and they don't live a family to a room.

You can argue that black is white all you want, it won't change the fact that this is a slum:

Plenty more images of Cuban slums here.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]They sold arms and traded with open arms.

Quote[/b] ]After being coerced out of the Commonwealth trading bloc? Try again.

Wiki:

Quote[/b] ]However, neither Britain nor the US were willing to apply economic pressure upon their multinational interests in South Africa, such as the mining company Anglo American. A high-profile case claiming compensation from these companies was thrown out of court in 2004.

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

It's a good idea to read your own links.

First, from the same page as your wiki quote:

Quote[/b] ]From 1964, the US and Britain discontinued their dealings of armaments to South Africa.

And Secondly, from your Anglo-American link:

Quote[/b] ]Anglo American plc (LSE: AAL, JSE: ANGLO) is a world-wide group of companies, originally founded in South Africa

Sir Ernest Oppenheimer founded the Anglo American Corporation

Sir Ernest Oppenheimer being a German emigre to South Africa. So your 'proof' of British and American collusion is linking to a South African company started by a German.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Really? I seem to remember volunteering. Much be the decadent Western media and government propaganda affecting my memory.

What about WW2? Vietnam? Volunteers? Draft? Everything isn't Iraq. It's an exception.

The UK wasn't in Vietnam and hasn't had subscription since 1960 - and that was due to the aftermath of WW2. As the UK has been on active operations every year since WW2, Iraq is not the exception, it is the norm. In the whole of its very long history, Britain has had conscription for a grand total of 24 years. Every single British soldier, sailor and airman of the last 47 years has been a volunteer and conscientious objector status existed for the periods of conscription, which, despite your back-pedalling, completely refutes your assertion that:

Quote[/b] ]All soldiers are forced to fight in any war.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]No. But as he was a Prime Minister, not a President, that is hardly surprising. You clearly have no idea how a parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy works.

The cuban parliament which is elected by the people, elects the president. You have a naive picture of Cuba when you think the president decides everything. He's not like your "democratic" kings and queen-parasites before the end of ww1.

Quote[/b] ]If Cuba are so opposed to torture, why do they lease Guantanamo Bay to the the US?

They don't lease it. Media never explains this. Cuba doesn't accept the US payment and consider it as occupied territory. Guantanamo bay was a US base before Castro.

Quote[/b] ]It is up to you to verify your claims, not me, so you provide the links.

Sure, here's a link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3344489.stm

Quote[/b] ]More than 260 people are likely to have died from the recent cold spell in the East of England, according to figures published on Tuesday.

The Faculty of Public Health and the Met Office claim about 268 people had probably died "unnecessarily" as a result of the cold during the past week.

The report blamed the problem on damp and cold housing and the result of fuel poverty - when people do not have enough money to spend on heating their homes properly.

More than 260 deaths in one week in east of england. Now be proud and wave your flag. I never heard about any of your queens freeze to death. But yea, when one castle gets cold they can always go to another.

Quote[/b] ]Jamaica has achieved a hell of a lot more than Cuba. Not being Cuba is an achievement in itself.

I've discussed the achievements of Cuba in the previous replies. Let's hear how Jamaica is an achiever.

Quote[/b] ]Help, help, I'm being oppressed! It's a good job you're here as a beacon of all things that aren't nuts, to save me. Although I'm confused - first you tell me to read the newspapers, but then you say that it is all a conspiracy by the liberal media. Or is it just a conspiracy when their reporting disagrees with your agenda?

Yes you're being oppressed when you produce wares for X dollars a month, but get paid Y. The owners take X-Y as profits, and they don't have to work for it. And when people strike against this, the owners/capitalists use their state, their police and army to crush the protestors. It's called wage-slavery.

Quote[/b] ]Great, one of the highest in the third world. A pile of horse manure might smell less than a pile of cow manure, but it's still a steaming heap of shit.

Embargos should have no effect on a communist country as said country shouldn't be trading, otherwise it becomes state capitalist.

You have a nice picture of the third world. And your kind of people are the reason to why the third world still exists. Neo-colonialism, unfair trade policies and embargos. Yea, mr expert. Cuba is a communist country. When I last looked they had a worker-state. A communist society is state and class-less. There haven't been any yet, it takes many generations of socialism and a world revolution before you can get that far. Cuba only describes itself as socialist, which is correct. Calling it a communist country is ignorant. During communism there are no borders even, so talking about communist countries is a contradiction. Oh, so trade is suddenly "capitalist" mr expert? How's that?

Quote[/b] ]Why don't you compare Cuba to any of the countries that do better than it? Is it because their existence destroys your argument?

Yea, let's compare cuban living standards to an oil rich country like the emirates then. Or why don't you compare the cuban military to the US one with their nukes. Or why don't you compare Cuba to the papal states or Iraq? You're stupid if you want to compare countries with other countries that have completely different conditions like history and natural resources. Cuba can be compared to other countries in the region, and it does better than those. That's a fair comparison because the history of colonialism and US-exploitation is the same in the carribean region.

Quote[/b] ]People arrive on the island with malaria, through a simple program of anti-malarial drugs and quarantining malaria is eradicated. It is a very easy thing to do on a small island. Try doing some research on how many Caribbean islands have malaria instead of comparing Cuba to South America, which is not an island and to which malaria is native.

Being communist isn't immunisation against malaria and Fidel Castro hasn't driven all the mosquitoes out of Cuba.

On a small island? How do you make Cuba a small island? And why didn't they do that program before Castro? Why did literacy increase dramatically (and now at a rate higher than the developed country Sweden). It's the same reason.

And besides you're wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Malariageodistribution.png

The map shows the malaria distrubution. Do you see that blue in the carribean? Pfft, no malaria on "small" "islands".

Quote[/b] ]Plenty more images of Cuban slums here.

It's no slum. Those are a few pictures of a few individual houses with no background info. Go to greece or the US or whatever country and you'll find the same standard. But still no slum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1973_Delhi_Slum.jpg that is slum.

Quote[/b] ]The UK wasn't in Vietnam and hasn't had subscription since 1960 - and that was due to the aftermath of WW2. As the UK has been on active operations every year since WW2, Iraq is not the exception, it is the norm. In the whole of its very long history, Britain has had conscription for a grand total of 24 years. Every single British soldier, sailor and airman of the last 47 years has been a volunteer and conscientious objector status existed for the periods of conscription, which, despite your back-pedalling, completely refutes your assertion that:

I'm not talking about UK when I talk about vietnam. And if Britain is an exception, then fine. That's the system in most countries like Germany. However at a close look I see that South Africa had no conscription as someone falsely claimed. So the argument about cubans shooting people who were forced to fight is wrong. But I see no problem in either case. War is war. You shoot people that aim at you. And if you fight against apartheid then that's even better. Same situation in ww2. Not all german soldiers were nazis, but they were still fighting for nazism. Then some guy here on the forum comes and says oh no, the allies shot soldiers that were forced to fight. How terrible.

[-Snafu- 77]

Apologies for the late reply. Been doing some extra work lately for more cash for Christmas.

Quote[/b] ]British Labour call themselves socialist, and they have indeed been socialist, but very long ago. They are liberals. Social liberals. There is no third way, a society either works according to capitalist or socialist principles.

No. They do not call themselves socialists. They may have back in the 80’s and early 90’s but not now. At the start of the 1990’s Labour’s popularity was incredibly low. This was highlighted by one of The Scum’s (Sun’s) headlines at the time, “Would the last person to leave Britain please turn the lights off.†This was putting the message across that the Labour party was unpopular amongst the majority of the population. Labour was seen as being an old fashioned party. Indeed the heavy industries had largely disappeared during the 80’s and with it the working classes of those communities which meant the people the party relied on for votes were gone. By 1997 they were a centre right party and over the years they have been moving more and more to the right. I never said there was a ‘Third Way’.

When Blair came to power he re-invented the party image. The party name was changed to New Labour. He described the party’s policies as being the ‘Third Way’. For example he coined the term ‘Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.’ This showed that he was committed to dishing out harsh punishments but also to tackle the socio-economic causes of crime. The old Labour had been seen as being weak on crime and this statement reflected that he was committed to change. Blair’s popularity shot up and as a consequence they won the ’97 general election.

In conclusion New Labour does not say they are socialist. Socialism brings up the old and now unpopular image of what Labour used to be. Blair’s ‘Third Way’ mentality has replaced the socialist stance.

Quote[/b] ]Probably, but you'll have to remember that most landowners were fighting on the side of the nationalists. Land owners had murdured and mistreated workers before. The peoples liberation army consisted of workers. Some of them were angry, of course.

Statistics on Nationalist Army soldiers please. Eg. Number that were landowners, peasants etc. Same for the Commies as well.

Quote[/b] ]the fascists found Che's location and executed him.

Thankfully.

Quote[/b] ]You like monarchy?

Yes. God Save the Queen.

Quote[/b] ] It's no different from the French or American revolutions. Or don't you support those?

Explain how it is no different. It’s hard to support something that happened hundreds of years ago unless there is a time machine. Moreover Britain already achieved what the French did in their revolution 100 years before. If I had been a Scot back in the time of the American and French Revolutions then it is highly likely I would have not supported them. In both instances Scotland went right in support of the British government. Jacobites who fought against the government in the ’45 were in the British Army slotting as much of the enemy as possible. America was too important economically for Scotland.

Quote[/b] ] There's no torture like in the US.

And you can prove this? Or is it from your Crystal Ball?

There have been executions. British historian Hugh Thomas reckons that perhaps 5,000 executions had taken place by the 70’s.

Quote[/b] ] And the US is a super power. Cuba still does better. What does that say?

Quote[/b] ]Cuba is one of the countries with least prisoners

Nothing. It depends on how a person perceives things.

Everyone may get an education but it will be an education that pushes state line only.

A God Like worship for Castro which is a strange feature for a socialist country. Love Castro or go to prison. Just look at the Armando Valladares case. Jailed for refusing to put a picture of Castro on his desk. Why would they even do that? Do they want the guy to lock himself in his office with some tissues and Castro’s photo or something? Doesn’t sound ‘better’ to me.

People jailed for their political views. Oscar Biscet for example. Jailed for his peaceful vocal opposition to Castro. Doesn’t sound like freedom of speech to me.

A low prison population doesn’t mean anything. They could have an ineffective police force. Their laws may have a lose definition of crime. Furthermore this is all just based on reported crime (caught criminals). There is no way to measure unreported crime. Thus the official crime statistics for Cuba mean little to nothing.

However if I had posted low crime statistics for a capitalist country you would be arguing the point I am now.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote

It is up to you to verify your claims, not me, so you provide the links.

Sure, here's a link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3344489.stm

Fact: 100% of people with heating will die.

On a more serious note how about explaining what is in the link? Honestly I don’t know how this is supposed to prove anything. Let me elaborate.

First of all the article mentions:

Quote[/b] ]It also noted that the elderly, young and disabled were the most at risk with 95% of deaths occurring among the elderly.

If 95% of the people that die are elderly this is more of a health issue. I do fine. A couple years ago in October on the piss I managed to survive roaming about the town the entire night (and early morning). And where I live it gets fecking cold. Moreover I have not heard of anyone dying up here from not having money to turn up the heating. I make feck all, don’t get benefits and can still manage to turn on the heating whenever needs be. Obviously their bodies cannot take the cold and support is available as shown in the article:

Quote[/b] ]making sure the elderly are getting all the benefits they are entitled to.

Quote[/b] ] Mr Humphrey said: "With the advent of pensioner credits we know there are thousands of people entitled to extra income they are not claiming.

Benefits are available to pay heating bills with so it’s more of the people making sure they get the money. The Capitalist state obviously cares or they would not be offering this unlike you claim you narrow minded fool and your typical ‘blame everything bar socialism’ stance. Moreover the article is from 2003 and there doesn’t seem to be anything recent on the side of the page.

Furthermore the article mentions ‘needless deaths’. Call me a cruel bastard but that is life. Plenty of people die needlessly all over the world. I’m 100% positive people die needlessly in Cuba as well. Car crashes for example. It’s not the states fault (although you would probably argue it would be if it was capitalist) the people may just have not had the driving skills. I’m sure there would be methods to improve their skills but the person would just not have taken it up. Just the same as the benefits for heating.

Quote[/b] ] It's no slum.

It is a slum. Where the hell do you live? Mars? If a house with no windows and a family to each room isn’t poor housing then I don’t know what is. Just imagine having to take bricks out of the windows to let light in. Or not being able to shag your wife because the kids are in the same room. Sounds wonderful Spokesperson.  

Quote[/b] ] Then tell me why US people aren't allowed to flee to Cuba, per US law? What makes Cuba worse then? Hipocrisy.

You have no right to call anyone a hypocrite. Look at these statements of yours.

Quote[/b] ] A product of the harsh reality of war.

Quote[/b] ] Guerilla warfare is no tea party

These two statements clearly show what you feel on war. These statements indicate that you accept that shooting POW’s, civilian deaths etc. are a part of war. However you completely contradict yourself when you say:

Quote[/b] ] Recently dozens of workers were killed by a bomb. And the US defend their action by saying they thought they were terrorists.

Quote[/b] ] That's like 1% of all the cases. Shooting kids atop a humwee has nothing to do with hostages. And since when is it ok to bomb hostages? Do you bomb hostages in your own country too?

Mind citing the source you got 1% from? Looks like you just made it up on the fly. Clearly you think it is not a crime and perfectly ok for civilian deaths as long as it is done by an entity that fits with your personal views. However when it is done by a capitalist state it is a heinous crime that must be punished (and that we are all evil - bar anyone left wing). You are inherently two faced. This is shown again by another comment of yours:

Quote[/b] ] The sole purpose of a state is to keep itself running by any means possible. There are no exceptions to this in history. But there's a big difference in what interests a state represents.

Just because a state is socialist or capitalist does not condone what it does. Just because Stalin was the leader of a left wing country does not make it ok that he killed countless amounts of people. There have been instances with you where you seem to have spoken highly of him by mentioning that he is popular in Russia today. And? That makes fuck all difference to what he did. But that seems to be ok with you. However if it was Hitler that was popular in Germany today you would be up in arms.

Honestly Spokey, your obsession with answering questions with questions is a tad annoying. It doesn’t prove or show you know what you are talking about and just makes you look like an utter moron. For example what is this supposed to answer?

Quote[/b] ]

How can this be? How can cuba be the only country in the world with sustainable development according to the WWF? Communist propaganda?

What? This doesn’t show or prove anything. These are questions not answers. A primary school kid can tell the difference but you can’t seem to.

Please try and formulate arguments to try and convince us instead of posting dribble (and that includes shitipedia).

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Statistics on Nationalist Army soldiers please. Eg. Number that were landowners, peasants etc. Same for the Commies as well.

I won't look up any. But it should be common sense. Anticapitalist movements don't contain capitalists. In the same way antilandowner movements don't contain landowners. The landowner reaction (among many others) to change was the formation of the nationalist forces.

I think it's odd that you like monarchy, but in the UK you seem to grow up with that kind of flag waving. Just like with the belief in freedom, religion and democracy. I don't see how monarchy (in any way) can be compatible with freedom and democracy even.

Quote[/b] ]And you can prove this? Or is it from your Crystal Ball?

There have been executions. British historian Hugh Thomas reckons that perhaps 5,000 executions had taken place by the 70’s.

Yes, there have been executions. Not sure who this Thomas is to count. But still that's no torture. Quite a lot of (more) people have been executed both in the US and in the rest of the world (by the USA) too. I'm sure we can compare there too, but now we talk torture.

Quote[/b] ]A God Like worship for Castro which is a strange feature for a socialist country. Love Castro or go to prison. Just look at the Armando Valladares case. Jailed for refusing to put a picture of Castro on his desk. Why would they even do that? Do they want the guy to lock himself in his office with some tissues and Castro’s photo or something? Doesn’t sound ‘better’ to me.

There are a lot of people that say they don't like Castro in Cuba, they aren't put into jail (just check my links about cuban demonstrations above). That picture story seems very odd or simplified.

Quote[/b] ]People jailed for their political views. Oscar Biscet for example. Jailed for his peaceful vocal opposition to Castro. Doesn’t sound like freedom of speech to me.

Everyone is allowed to oppose Castro peacefully in a vocal way without repressions of course. But if you're on a CIA payroll it will be a bit harder to explain. Spy?

Quote[/b] ]A low prison population doesn’t mean anything. They could have an ineffective police force. Their laws may have a lose definition of crime. Furthermore this is all just based on reported crime (caught criminals). There is no way to measure unreported crime. Thus the official crime statistics for Cuba mean little to nothing.

However if I had posted low crime statistics for a capitalist country you would be arguing the point I am now.

Comon, then no statistics show anything. You wouldn't be able to use any statistics, not even when promoting liberals.

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore the article mentions ‘needless deaths’. Call me a cruel bastard but that is life. Plenty of people die needlessly all over the world. I’m 100% positive people die needlessly in Cuba as well.

Still, less people can die. If you don't care then ok. Wonderful world we would have if all were like you. While people were dying in New Orleans due to cold individualist US mentality, the blacks were left to die, the cuban state managed to evacuate everyone from the risk zones into the mountains. Nobody died.

Quote[/b] ]It is a slum. Where the hell do you live? Mars? If a house with no windows and a family to each room isn’t poor housing then I don’t know what is. Just imagine having to take bricks out of the windows to let light in. Or not being able to shag your wife because the kids are in the same room. Sounds wonderful Spokesperson.

It's no slum. A single properly built house doesn't say anything. What's better, that all got somewhere to sleep and live in average homes (in that part of the world) or that people live in the streets. Besides in cuba you don't pay more than a certain (low) percentage of your income for your rent (if you rent, most people own in Cuba). Apart from that large families get bigger houses and loners get small homes accoring to their needs. People usually don't live in huge flats or houses in the rest of the world either. Sure it might be more common in in developed countries, but the houses in the pictures are pretty good compared to the slums in the rest of the world.

Quote[/b] ]These two statements clearly show what you feel on war. These statements indicate that you accept that shooting POW’s, civilian deaths etc. are a part of war. However you completely contradict yourself when you say:

The difference between me and the liberals here is that I admit that I support the progressive forces in society. If Robin Hood has to kill to remove oppression, it's right. If Prince John has to kill to stop Robin Hood, it's wrong. But, it's no hypocrisy, because Robin Hood defends my interests. Prince John doesn't.

Quote[/b] ]Just because Stalin was the leader of a left wing country does not make it ok that he killed countless amounts of people.

If he did that in order to defend the revolution it would be completely ok with me. But it's more complicated than that.

Quote[/b] ]However if it was Hitler that was popular in Germany today you would be up in arms.

And there's a good reason he isn't. There's a good reason why Stalin is popular.

Quote[/b] ]What? This doesn’t show or prove anything. These are questions not answers. A primary school kid can tell the difference but you can’t seem to.

Please try and formulate arguments to try and convince us instead of posting dribble (and that includes shitipedia).

You'll have to read the context and what I replied to in order to understand my reply. It was a parody of one of his answers (but including facts).

[JdB 151]

I think it's odd that you like monarchy, but in the UK you seem to grow up with that kind of flag waving. Just like with the belief in freedom, religion and democracy. I don't see how monarchy (in any way) can be compatible with freedom and democracy even.

There is a difference between the monarchy that you learn wherever it is that you get your political views from, and the constitutional monarchies that can actually be found in countries like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway etc. Constitutional, so based on a constitution governed by chosen representatives where the monarch only has a symbolic role, they have no real power, unlike "presidents" like Castro in Cuba, where the only meets once every 6 months to put a seal of approval on El Presidente's thoughts, we luckily have politicians that mess up every day of the year.

My only gripe with the modern form of the monarchy is that it costs so much, but I'd rather see it spent on the monarchy, than being sent abroad as foreign aid that doesn't work due to corruption in the countries it is meant for.

[Spokesperson 0]

I'm aware of the differences between constitutional and absolute (and all other kinds of) monarchies. However, electing the head of state in elections is more democratic. In the same way as religion is an unnecessary remnant of the bronze age monarchy is a remnant of the middle ages.

Taxmoney spent on parasite monarchs could be spent on improving schools or health-care instead.

[billybob2002 0]

And there's a good reason he isn't. There's a good reason why Stalin is popular.

Do tell, please. The cult of personality he created made him popular. Khrushchev must be laughing somewhere.

Quote[/b] ]

While people were dying in New Orleans due to cold individualist US mentality, the blacks were left to die, the cuban state managed to evacuate everyone from the risk zones into the mountains. Nobody died.

New Orleans was more of about incompetence than individualism.

Quote[/b] ]

Everyone is allowed to oppose Castro peacefully in a vocal way without repressions of course. But if you're on a CIA payroll it will be a bit harder to explain. Spy?

No proof has come out that he was on the CIA payroll.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Do tell, please. The cult of personality he created made him popular. Khrushchev must be laughing somewhere.

Yeah so that's why he wasn't as popular in the 80ies as he is today? Post-Stalin USSR was anti-"stalinist". But after the dissolution of the union, even Soviet critics like Zinovyev changed their minds on the USSR and Stalin.

Quote[/b] ]New Orleans was more of about incompetence than individualism.

If people are left behind and if the solution is for everyone to take care of themselves (even if they can't) the problem is due to selfish individualism. At least in Cuba the state takes care of its citizens.

Quote[/b] ]No proof has come out that he was on the CIA payroll.

The difference between the imprisoned opposition and the one in the streets is that the imprisoned ones have been found guilty of taking money from foreign organizations, mostly CIA.

[billybob2002 0]

Yeah so that's why he wasn't as popular in the 80ies as he is today? Post-Stalin USSR was anti-"stalinist". But after the dissolution of the union, even Soviet critics like Zinovyev changed their minds on the USSR and Stalin.

You still didn't explain why. Is it the fear of expanded freedom? The people have more freedoms but so do the criminals now. Also, the Russian economy wasn't hot during the 1990s. Personally, I see the positive attitudes of Stalin in Russia as a reaction to whats happening in their country. You see this in the United States with the people flying Confederate flags too.

They don't like were their country is/was heading. Everything isn't/wasn't okay in their view. I included "was" and "wasn't" because of the Putin presidency.

Stalin's cult of personality helps out a lot because it paints a rosey picture of his era.

Zinovyev became anti-West and anti-American in the 90s.

Quote[/b] ]

If people are left behind and if the solution is for everyone to take care of themselves (even if they can't) the problem is due to selfish individualism. At least in Cuba the state takes care of its citizens.

I can only direct you to the wikipedia article on Katrina because you can't comprehend that it wasn't individualism.

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

Quote[/b] ]

The difference between the imprisoned opposition and the one in the streets is that the imprisoned ones have been found guilty of taking money from foreign organizations, mostly CIA.

He wasn't found guilty of taking money from the CIA. Even the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention agrees his imprisonment is hogwash.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/wgad/17-2003.html

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]You still didn't explain why. Is it the fear of expanded freedom? The people have more freedoms but so do the criminals now. Also, the Russian economy wasn't hot during the 1990s. Personally, I see the positive attitudes of Stalin in Russia as a reaction to whats happening in their country. You see this in the United States with the people flying Confederate flags too.

On the contrary ordinary people have lost the freedom and social security they had in the Soviet times. The only thing that's free in Russia today is the market and its laws. If you got no money you aren't free. Most people don't. Whats "freedom of speech" if you only can talk to yourself? The blind are free to see too. Special interests own media and press.

Freedom of the capital and business is not the same as the freedom of those exploited by it.

And about Oscar Biscet, wiki:

Quote[/b] ]Biscet was one of the 75 dissidents imprisoned in 2003 by the Cuban authorities for his association with the head of the US Interests Section in Havana, James Cason.

He also seems to be anti-democratic and to base his human rights view on a text from the bronze age. Anti abortion, strong religious laws etc. That's disgusting and certainly counter-revolutionary. Seems to have similar opinions to those of Mr Bush. The whole idea of a proletarian dictatorship (that is more democratic than a bourgeois dictatorship) is to surpress the bourgeois counter revolution. The cubans have no obligation to support CIA agents.

[billybob2002 0]

He also seems to be anti-democratic and to base his human rights view on a text from the bronze age. Anti abortion, strong religious laws etc. That's disgusting and certainly counter-revolutionary. Seems to have similar opinions to those of Mr Bush. The whole idea of a proletarian dictatorship (that is more democratic than a bourgeois dictatorship) is to surpress the bourgeois counter revolution. The cubans have no obligation to support CIA agents.

I'm not going to engage you using Marxists terminology like you are doing because I'm not a Marxist. Therefore, I suggest you turn the Marxists terminology down some because I tend to ignore words like proletarian dictatorship and bourgeois dictatorship.

How is he anti-democratic? FYI, Oscar Biscet and others wrote a paper about Cuba's inhumane abortions. According to the paper, how they were doing the abortions was inhumane (still is?). Again, the Cubans have no proof he is a CIA agent.

Hell, Amnesty International considers him to be a prisoner of conscience.

Quote[/b] ]

On the contrary ordinary people have lost the freedom and social security they had in the Soviet times. The only thing that's free in Russia today is the market and its laws. If you got no money you aren't free. Most people don't. Whats "freedom of speech" if you only can talk to yourself? The blind are free to see too. Special interests own media and press.

Freedom of the capital and business is not the same as the freedom of those exploited by it.

You got a warped view on the Soviet Union. Freedom and the Soviet Union are damn near mutually exclusive. If the Soviet Union existed today, the "ordinary" people would be banned from using the internet.