Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Woolie Wool on February 19, 2008, 10:40:41 pm
-
Didn't see this in the General Discussion forum, so here goes. Also, the quote from Bush may be the most naive thing he's ever said in his entire presidency, and I voted for him:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/19/america/castro.php?page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4309361&page=1
Fidel Castro said Tuesday that he would step down as the president of Cuba, opening the way for his brother Raúl Castro, or another member of his inner circle, to become Cuba's head of state when Parliament chooses a new leader this weekend.
The announcement was made in a letter to the nation under Castro's name, which was read on radio and television programs. In the letter, Castro said his failing health made it impossible for him to return to the presidency.
"It would betray my conscience to occupy a responsibility that requires mobility and the total commitment that I am not in the physical condition to offer," he wrote in the letter, which was posted on the Web site of Granma, the official newspaper, early Tuesday.
Under the Cuban constitution, a newly chosen Parliament will select a 31-member Council of State on Sunday, which in turn will choose the next president. Though Cuban officials say the process is democratic, experts on Cuban politics say the choosing of a successor remains in the hands of Fidel Castro, his brother and his inner circle, many of whom hold positions in the cabinet.
There seemed to be little if any outward reaction to the news, which many Cubans had been expecting for months. Schools remained open, garbage continued to be collected and clusters of ordinary people waiting for a bus or truck to take them to work seemed as large and numerous as ever.
State-owned networks did not interrupt regular schedules but read the announcement as part of the morning news, then returned to the usual mix of music and children's broadcasting. Radio Rebelde, the radio service started by Castro almost half a century ago, broadcast popular music and a discussion of the roots of the Afro-Cuban sound. It only mentioned the resignation briefly, during regularly scheduled newscasts.
In late July 2006, Castro, who is now 81, temporarily handed over power to his brother, Raúl Castro, 76, and to a few younger cabinet ministers, after he underwent emergency abdominal surgery. Despite numerous operations, he never fully recovered, but he has remained active in running government affairs from behind the scenes.
Now, just days before the selection of a new head of state, Fidel Castro said he would resign permanently. "I will not aspire to neither will I accept - I repeat I will not aspire to neither will I accept - the position of president of the Council of State and commander in chief," he said in the open letter.
President George W. Bush, traveling in Rwanda on a tour of African nations, greeted the news by saying that it should usher in a transition to democracy. He also called for Cuba to release political prisoners and to begin building "institutions necessary for democracy that eventually will lead to free and fair elections."
The unexpected announcement left unclear the roles that other high-level government ministers - among them Vice President Carlos Lage Dávila and Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque - would play in the new government.
Castro also indicated that he would continue to be a force in Cuban politics through his writings, just as he has over the past year and a half. "I am not saying goodbye to you," he wrote. "I only wish to fight as a soldier of ideas."
That statement raised the possibility that little would change after the vote on Sunday and that Cuba would continue to be ruled, in essence, by two presidents, with Raúl Castro on stage while Fidel Castro stands in the wings.
Castro sent several signals in recent months that it was time for a younger generation to take the helm. For example, he said in December, "My primary duty is not to weld myself to offices, much less obstruct the path of younger people."
In the letter published Tuesday, he expressed confidence that Cuba would be in good hands with a government composed of elements of "the old guard" and "others who were very young when the first stage of the revolution began."
Castro said he had declined to step down any earlier to avoid dealing a blow to the Cuban government before "the people" were ready.
That strategy appears to have been successful. After decades in which Castro seemed omnipresent, making endless speeches and appearing at rallies and ceremonies all over the island, he has not been seen in public since July 2006. No details of his illness or condition have been released. Many Cubans long ago accepted the fact that he must be seriously ill and would never return to power.
Castro seized power in January 1959 after waging a guerrilla war against the dictator Fulgencio Batista, promising to restore the Cuban Constitution and hold elections. But he soon turned his back on those democratic ideals, embraced a totalitarian brand of Communism and strengthened ties with the Soviet Union.
He brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in the autumn of 1962 when he allowed Russia to build missile launching sites just 145 kilometers, or 90 miles, off U.S. shores. He weathered a U.S.-backed invasion and used Cuban troops to stir up revolutions in Africa and Latin America.
Those actions earned him the permanent enmity of Washington and led the United States to impose decades of economic sanctions that Castro and his followers say have crippled the Cuban economy and kept their socialist experiment from succeeding completely.
For good or ill, Castro is without a doubt one of the most influential and controversial leaders to rise in Latin America since the wars of independence in the early 19th century, not only reshaping Cuban society, but providing inspiration for leftists across Latin America and in other parts of the world.
His record has been a mix of great social achievements and dismal economic performance that has mired most Cubans in poverty. He succeeded in providing universal health care and free education through university and made inroads in rooting out racism. But he never broke the island's dependence on commodities like sugar, tobacco and nickel, nor did he succeed in industrializing the nation so that Cuba could compete internationally.
In the minds of many Latin Americans, he stood in stark contrast with rightist dictators - like the one he overthrew - who often put the interests of business leaders and the foreign policy goals of Washington above the interests of their poorest constituents.
Whether Castro's remaking of Cuban society will survive the current transition remains to be seen. Some experts note that Raúl Castro is more pragmatic and willing to admit mistakes than his brother. He has given signals he may try to follow the Chinese example of state-sponsored capitalism.
Others predict that, without Fidel Castro's charismatic leadership, the government will have to make fundamental changes to the economy or face a rising tide of unrest among rank-and-file Cubans.
Anthony DePalma reported from Havana and James C. McKinley Jr. from Mexico City. Graham Bowley contributed from New York.
Transition to democracy? Keep dreaming, Bush...
Anyway, his brother's 99.99% certain to become the new president. Here comes the new asshole, same as the old asshole. Considering the things Raul has said about the small concessions to private business Fidel made in the past, I doubt he's going to really go for China's Bizarro Capitalism:
La psicología del productor privado y del trabajador por cuenta propia en general, en función de su trabajo de carácter personal o familiar y del origen de sus ingresos -el comercio particular del producto o del servicio que presta-, tiende al individualismo y no es fuente de conciencia socialista.
My Spanish is a bit rusty, but this translates roughly into "Private business is against the spirit of socialism."
-
I'm watching Glenn Beck on it right now
-
...and I voted for him
*hate*
-
...and I voted for him
*hate*
Yeah, that's pretty... wow. :wtf:
-
:rolleyes:
I'm sure he knew exactly how his presidency was going to turn out...
-
What's so bad about Castro and his brother again?
-
Yeh. I thought they had a more or less stable regime and didn't even invade anyone...?
-
It would be nice if this prompted a move towards ending the trade embargo. So Cuba took some missiles and money from the Soviet Union, whatever! The Soviets are long gone now and it's been almost a generation since the embargo was first put into effect, what's the point any more? Surely the boost in trade and tourism to an island paradise within a floating door's distance from the American mainland would go a long way to help the economy of both nations.
-
What's so bad about Castro and his brother again?
He's survived 638 assassination attempts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/638_Ways_to_Kill_Castro) by the US. They're worried he might be immortal.
-
It would be nice if this prompted a move towards ending the trade embargo. So Cuba took some missiles and money from the Soviet Union, whatever! The Soviets are long gone now and it's been almost a generation since the embargo was first put into effect, what's the point any more? Surely the boost in trade and tourism to an island paradise within a floating door's distance from the American mainland would go a long way to help the economy of both nations.
But Mefustae, that's logical... and if there's anything an American administration hates when it comes to Cuba, its logical arguments. That's a policy motiovated entirely by uncensored, irrational emotion.
The embargo was bull**** from day one. The US was just pissy their favorite local dictator got ousted by the local Communist rabble and they haven't forgiven Castro or Cuba since.
-
Well he's managed to outlive most of the presidents who wanted him dead..........
But Mefustae, that's logical... and if there's anything an American administration hates when it comes to Cuba everything, its logical arguments. That's a policy motiovated entirely by uncensored, irrational emotion.
Fixed.
-
It would be nice if this prompted a move towards ending the trade embargo. So Cuba took some missiles and money from the Soviet Union, whatever! The Soviets are long gone now and it's been almost a generation since the embargo was first put into effect, what's the point any more? Surely the boost in trade and tourism to an island paradise within a floating door's distance from the American mainland would go a long way to help the economy of both nations.
But Mefustae, that's logical... and if there's anything an American administration hates when it comes to Cuba, its logical arguments. That's a policy motiovated entirely by uncensored, irrational emotion.
The embargo was bull**** from day one. The US was just pissy their favorite local dictator got ousted by the local Communist rabble and they haven't forgiven Castro or Cuba since.
They were talking about the trade embargo on cnn, one person who was staying there mentioned it being full of crap. The bathroom in the airport had a sink made in Illinois, he drunk a coke, and mentioned several items that were made in the US
-
Call me when something changes.
-
...and I voted for him
*hate*
Yeah, and I hate you too. :P
It was either him or John Kerry, and I wasn't going to vote for John Kerry for any office whatsoever.
-
I've never heard of Cubq.
-
It was either him or John Kerry, and I wasn't going to vote for John Kerry for any office whatsoever.
You do realise of course that if every person who made that nonsensical comment or it's exact opposite had voted for a 3rd party they would have won instead?
Democracy - A system of government whereby the stupid and lazy get to inflict a candidate they didn't like on the rest of us because they couldn't be bothered to actually vote for someone they liked. :rolleyes:
-
I voted for Nader. I was mocked for doing so. By the very same people who share your idea.
Double standards much?
-
My brain.
It's melting.
Somebody help me.
-
I've never heard of Cubq.
It's a communist country that was ruled by Qidel Qastro but he stepped down. :P
-
...and I voted for him
*hate*
Yeah, and I hate you too. :P
It was either him or John Kerry, and I wasn't going to vote for John Kerry for any office whatsoever.
Basically we had a choice between two bowls of sh#!
-
Basically we had a choice between two bowls of sh#!
My definition of politics. On one bowl, the stuff is stirred left-handed; on the other it's stirred right-handed.
On some countries, you also get the opportunity to choose non-stirred bowl, but in US of A, this option is practically marginal and doesn't really count that much at all... :rolleyes:
-
It was either him or John Kerry, and I wasn't going to vote for John Kerry for any office whatsoever.
You do realise of course that if every person who made that nonsensical comment or it's exact opposite had voted for a 3rd party they would have won instead?
Democracy - A system of government whereby the stupid and lazy get to inflict a candidate they didn't like on the rest of us because they couldn't be bothered to actually vote for someone they liked. :rolleyes:
So how are you going to make all these people decide on which third party? Considering that the independent parties range from far-left socialists to Ayn Rand worshipers and everything in between, you're not going to get a substantial percentage of the vote on anyone who isn't in the Big Two.
Most people want to vote for someone who at least has an infinitesimal chance of winning. I do not agree with everything George Bush does or stands for and I don't like him nearly as much as I used to, but he was better than the alternative.
Do you endorse the government forcing all parties to get equal time in political advertising, including the crazies like the communists or ultra-libertarians? Because many of the people in this country aren't even aware of many independent parties.
-
I didn't vote (I'm not 18 yet--and I probably will not be voting in 2008 either because birthday is in December) so I can complain. Gore and Kerry were a bit worse than Bush. Bush's administration could have been different if not for 9/11/01, but that happened and we will never know what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in office for it. I don't particularly like Bush, but I know one thing--he was the lesser of the two electable evils. Third parties are just for stealing votes--the last time a third party had a serious chance at getting the White House was back at the start of the 20th Century with the Bull Moose (Progressive) party--they captured more vote than the Republican party the separated from by a significant amount. Since then, iirc, there's not been a third party that has made a serious run for the presidency.
Oh, and if I was voting for an American party, it would be a Democratic Socialist party. People hate me because I'm not a Democrat or Republican--I don't think socialism should happen like it's been seen (USSR and Cuba are the big two examples) and it doesn't work in economies based on agriculture (again, USSR and Cuba). The best way a Socialist state can arise is in an industrialized nation. I won't vote for a Democratic Socialist canidate as none are reliable--they seem to want to turn the USA into a USSR-lookalike.
-
Bush's administration could have been different if not for 9/11/01,
Actually a lot of what they did after Sept. 11 (the patriot act, invading iraq, etc) is exactly what they planned to do before sept. 11.
-
Bill Clinton actually talked about "regime change" in Iraq but never really did anything besides tell a few stealth fighters to blow something up over there every few years.
-
I don't think socialism should happen like it's been seen (USSR and Cuba are the big two examples)
The USSR and Cuba were communist. Germany was socialist.
EDIT:
(http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/8475/motivator1409818wj3.jpg)
-
Name a non-democratic nation that has had prosperity and human rights anywhere near comparable with the democracies of the Western world. Even many constitutional monarchies are pretty much democracies, because the parliament is democratically elected and the monarch exists only for the sake of having one.
-
I will when you give me the ratio of presidents that the super-majority of the population were satisfied with to the amount of presidents that did not meet the afore mentioned criteria.
The fact is is that all of the people who could possibly lead in an excellent manner rarely do lead, and the failures of the leaders in non-democratic nations are magnified by the fact that there isn't really anyone else to redeem that leaderships misdoings.
IIRC, Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, but all of the other ones have been tried." or something like that.
-
Yes he did. Autocratic governments don't guarantee you better leaders, they guarantee they won't have the same checks on their power, and that any good leaders you do get will often get drunk on power and become bad ones.
-
Damnit, damnit, damnit!
If he had held on for just one more year, one single solitary f*cking year, it would have been a nice, round six decades in power. Thereby ensuring his place in history as one of the longest serving heads of state. But now he'll always be remembered as Fidel "Just Shy of Sixty" Castro.
Well, adios companero! Your fatherly authoritarianism and untameable facial hair will forever be remembered as guiding icons of socialism.
-
So how long before Raul gets his first assassination attempt? Or are they still going after Castro?
I voted for Nader. I was mocked for doing so. By the very same people who share your idea.
Double standards much?
Not from me. I have absolutely no problem with people voting for Nader. A vote for Nader was exactly the kind of protest vote democracies need more of. Not people who sit on their arse and call it a protest. Not people who vote for one of the candidates they think is crap simply because the other candidate is also crap and they want to be on the winning team.
I'm constantly hearing "Well both candidates were **** so I simply picked one and voted for him" Well who put that **** candidate in a position to run? Oh yes, it was the public. The same public who then complain that their candidate is rubbish. :rolleyes:
Bill Clinton actually talked about "regime change" in Iraq but never really did anything besides tell a few stealth fighters to blow something up over there every few years.
Thereby proving that he's not a complete ****ing idiot. There's a huge difference between threatening to topple Saddam and actually being moronic enough to believe it wouldn't be a disaster to try.
-
Yeah, Clinton was smart enough to just starve them into submission. Less Americans lives lost, y'see.
-
I'm constantly hearing "Well both candidates were **** so I simply picked one and voted for him" Well who put that **** candidate in a position to run? Oh yes, it was the public. The same public who then complain that their candidate is rubbish. :rolleyes:
The problem with that is - in a democracy the people... the majority rules and the majority is not always right.
-
Gore and Kerry were a bit worse than Bush. Bush's administration could have been different if not for 9/11/01, but that happened and we will never know what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in office for it. I don't particularly like Bush, but I know one thing--he was the lesser of the two electable evils.
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :eek2: :eek2:
This is not a typo, right?
-
So how long before Raul gets his first assassination attempt? Or are they still going after Castro.
The CIA doesn't do that kind of thing anymore.
-
I'm constantly hearing "Well both candidates were **** so I simply picked one and voted for him" Well who put that **** candidate in a position to run? Oh yes, it was the public. The same public who then complain that their candidate is rubbish. :rolleyes:
The problem with that is - in a democracy the people... the majority rules and the majority is not always right.
Then who is right? You? King jdjtcagle I?
Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.
-
I'm constantly hearing "Well both candidates were **** so I simply picked one and voted for him" Well who put that **** candidate in a position to run? Oh yes, it was the public. The same public who then complain that their candidate is rubbish. :rolleyes:
The problem with that is - in a democracy the people... the majority rules and the majority is not always right.
Then who is right? You? King jdjtcagle I?
Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.
There is no perfect government and I never said democracy should be abolished either.
I just agree with this man when he said...
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." ~ Winston Churchill
-
The CIA doesn't do that kind of thing anymore.
ORLY (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html?hpid=topnews)?
-
Communism rules. Cuba rules. Cuba is a matter of FACT.
(Federation against communism thwarting)
-
Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.
I don't know about that.
Authoritarian regimes are as good or bad as the ruler in question. They can be brilliant or they can be bad.
With democracy you got a load of dimwits that can't agree on practicely nothing, so you basicely get a constant stream or crap..or some mediocricy if you're lucky.
-
I don't think socialism should happen like it's been seen (USSR and Cuba are the big two examples)
The USSR and Cuba were communist. Germany was socialist.
Wait wait wait.
What Germany? You're not talking about... No you cannot be serious. You aren't.
-
Yeah, Clinton was smart enough to just starve them into submission. Less Americans lives lost, y'see.
And thereby not being a complete idiot.
I never said that his strategy was good, fair or even smart. Are you seriously going to tell me invading Iraq was a better plan? :D
Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.
So the solution is surely to educate the electorate so that they don't make such stupid, ill-informed decisions, right?
-
The CIA doesn't do that kind of thing anymore.
ORLY (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html?hpid=topnews)?
Compared to the plans against Castro, that's positively sane and certainly a lot more effective.
Also there is the minor matter that it is literally illegal for the United States to delibrately target foreign heads of state for "the chop" and has been for a good 20 years or more. (IIRC President Ford made the executive order stating so?)
-
I don't think socialism should happen like it's been seen (USSR and Cuba are the big two examples)
The USSR and Cuba were communist. Germany was socialist.
Wait wait wait.
What Germany? You're not talking about... No you cannot be serious. You aren't.
Apperantly it wasn't obvious enough for people to not make mistakes, so I fixed it. You're sarcasm is unappreciated.
Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.
Yes, I think it's great too. Assuming that everyone living in the nation is an intelligent person. Just look at America. What's our representative democracy doing? Representing the logically invalid opinions of idiots. All democracy does is make a horrible leader less horrible than he would in an authoritarian government. But if you have a truly excellent leader, he is only hampered by everyone else. Only in an authoritarian government can the greatness of a good, benevolent, intelligent leader be portrayed in its fullness.
Until we find a leader with the previous mentioned qualities, we'll have to make do with democracy. Once we do, only an authoritarian government will work.
Until we kill every single stupid (stupid is highly debatable in this situation) person in the world, we'll have to make do with a democracy that hasn't reached its fullest potential of ruling quality. Once we do, then a democracy becomes not only highly beneficial, but necessary.
-
Gore and Kerry were a bit worse than Bush. Bush's administration could have been different if not for 9/11/01, but that happened and we will never know what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in office for it. I don't particularly like Bush, but I know one thing--he was the lesser of the two electable evils.
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :eek2: :eek2:
This is not a typo, right?
Which part of it?
And a bit of defense of my post: I was 9 when Bush was elected and 10 when he got in office. I don't remember ol' Bill Clinton. I don't remember the platform Bush ran on for his first election, though the republican party pick was nearly guaranteed to be Bush again, especially since he wanted a second term. Whatever happened to one president cannot be replicated for another president. Bush had two chances and the "people" (the people the first time, the people and the majority the second time) chose him to lead both times. Anyways--some other things. If you remember, it was the USSR, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Still, it was a communist party that made the Socialist "republics". Anyways--Germany was more Fascist than Socialist. As for Cuba, it's a Socialist Republic.
The only way I see socialism working is in an industrialized society. The USSR and Cuba were pretty bad implementations--they were not heavily industrialized and it didn't work. As for Germany, it was industrialized but the direction was revenge, not social equality.
-
Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.
I don't know about that.
Authoritarian regimes are as good or bad as the ruler in question. They can be brilliant or they can be bad.
With democracy you got a load of dimwits that can't agree on practicely nothing, so you basicely get a constant stream or crap..or some mediocricy if you're lucky.
Having unlimited or very extreme power ****s with your mind, and even a brilliant despot can (most likely will) become drunk on his own power and use it to indulge his every whim if he keeps his position long enough. And there's no guarantee at all that you won't get a mass murderer like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or Mao Zedong.
A democracy may not always pick from the cream of the crop (and sometimes it does--look at Theodore Roosevelt), but the worst leaders of democracies tend to be much, much better than the worst leaders of autocracies (compare Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot). Furthermore, a bad democratic leader has much less potential to inflict damage because he can't do whatever the hell he wants. He has to appease his constituents and he has to follow the Constitution. Every decision the president makes is checked by the courts, and Congress can overturn some presidential decisions like vetoes. A bad president can cause an economic slump and piss off his constituents. A bad dictator can cause total economic collapse, famines, death squads, and the deaths of a large portion of his citizens.
But wait, it gets even better! Human beings are nepotists by nature, so dictators tend to put their children first in line for secession. So instead of George Bush I and II, you get George Bush III, IV, V, VI, etc. There's no guarantee the issue of a dictator will be any better or not infinitely worse than the dictator himself. Within a few short years after the death of Charlemagne, his empire was falling apart and his three sons were fighting over the pieces.
Imagine if George W. Bush was a dictator with unlimited power over America. Completely unlimited, as in he could do ANYTHING he wanted. Now imagine him ruling until he died, and then his next of kin ruling until his death, and so on, for centuries.
Hell, imagine if YOU were a dictator. Do you honestly think you'd keep putting the interests of your people ahead of your own, even with numerous opportunities to screw them for your own benefit? We're talking billions of dollars here.
If that's not bad enough, autocrats as a rule don't like people saying bad things about them. They dislike those people enough to imprison or kill them. So, anyone who criticizes the government (and surely we all have at some point), would be eligible to be thrown in prison for years.
Still bullish about this whole authoritarianism idea? How'd you like to live in this alternate universe "Amerika" under the role of President-For-Life Bush, or President-For-Life Kerry, or President-For-Life Obama, or anyone, for that matter. I wouldn't. Even if God were real I wouldn't want him in this position either. Besides, he has a rather bad human rights record, if the Bible is anything to go by.
What Germany? You're not talking about... No you cannot be serious. You aren't.
Yes, THAT Germany was socialist, at least in the beginning. A really ugly kind of socialist, but socialist nonetheless. The official name of the party translated to "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Adolf Hitler was definitely not a white-collar capitalist.
The CIA doesn't do that kind of thing anymore.
ORLY (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html?hpid=topnews)?
Perhaps I should've been more precise. We don't send the CIA to kill heads of state anymore and in fact banned them from doing so. We kill terrorist leaders on a routine basis.
(ngmt1r beat me to the punch)
-
Bush had two chances and the "people" (the people the first time, the people and the majority the second time) chose him to lead both times.
I'm surprised you would say that considering the massive vote fraud that happened in both elections.
-
[The President] can't do whatever the hell he wants. He has to appease his constituents and he has to follow the Constitution.
HA HA! OH WOW!
-
Hell, imagine if YOU were a dictator. Do you honestly think you'd keep putting the interests of your people ahead of your own, even with numerous opportunities to screw them for your own benefit? We're talking billions of dollars here.
Yes.
Imagine if George W. Bush was a dictator with unlimited power over America.
He's working on it.
-
Perhaps I should've been more precise. We don't send the CIA to kill heads of state anymore and in fact banned them from doing so. We kill terrorist leaders on a routine basis.
(ngmt1r beat me to the punch)
Oh really? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/03/cuba.duncancampbell2)
The most recent serious assassination attempt that we know of came in 2000 when Castro was due to visit Panama. A plot was hatched to put 200lb (90kg) of high explosives under the podium where he was due to speak. That time, Castro's personal security team carried out their own checks on the scene, and helped to abort the plot. Four men, including Luis Posada, a veteran Cuban exile and former CIA operative, were jailed as a result, but they were later given a pardon and released from jail.
As it happens, Posada is the most dedicated of those who have tried and failed to get rid of the Cuban president. He is currently in jail in El Paso, Texas, in connection with extradition attempts by Venezuela and Cuba to get him to stand trial for allegedly blowing up a Cuban airliner in 1976. His case is due to come back before the courts later this month but few imagine that he will be sent to stand trial, and he appears confident that he will be allowed to resume his retirement in Florida, a place where many of the unsuccessful would-be assassins have made their homes.
Seems like business as usual to me. Simply with more deniability by saying they're ex-CIA. Since that article was written Posada was released. Meaning that the US is illegally harbouring a terrorist who killed 73 civilians by blowing up their plane. Funny how the war on terror only applies to terrorists who kill US civilians isn't it? :rolleyes:
Try watching this trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7zf3cUPAa8). Or better yet track down the full thing.
-
This is not a typo, right?
Which part of it?
Saying that Kerry or Gore are worse than Bush... I mean...c'mon. That has GOT to be a joke. :lol:
-
*snip*
Don't get me wrong - I'm not for total authoritarian regime. Some level of power control must be there. Exactly how much power a president/ruler should have and how much the senate/congress/whatever is up for debate.
What I would think would be necessary for any government to function properly is if those abusing their power get DRACONIC punishments. Right now, a president or minister abusing his power gets away with redicule or some small fine...assuming he even gets removed from office in the first place (and if he was abusing power by that time he amassed $$$ so what does he care. He pays the small fine and live the rest of his life in luxury).
No, I'm taking things like LIFE IN PRISON or DEATH PENALTY for those in power who steal from the people, are counterproductive and stuff. Then you'll make damn sure you're underlings are doing their job right..and your underlings will make sure their underlings do their job right...when you're head is on the line, you'd be surprised how effective a goivernment can be.
-
What Germany? You're not talking about... No you cannot be serious. You aren't.
Yes, THAT Germany was socialist, at least in the beginning. A really ugly kind of socialist, but socialist nonetheless. The official name of the party translated to "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Adolf Hitler was definitely not a white-collar capitalist.
Do you call North Korea democratic as well?
Here are some core values of nazism:
- invidual rights are secondary to state's interests
- individual is a servant of state
- anti-capitalist rhetoric combined with lots of cooperation with private companies
- strongly racist and pro-nation state
- weird religiosity
- authoritarism and "strong leader"-ideology
How do these compare to socialist values?
Hitler was not a white-collar capitalist and even called the nazis "socialists", however he also vehemently opposed marxism and stated that he wanted to protect private property.
Seriously. Nazism has about as much to do with socialism as modern libertarian ideologue has. Nazism is an authoritarian, state-driven, fiercely nationalistic, racist and chauvinistic warlike ideology where big companies play an important role.
-
You seem to be conflating socialism with communism, and the two are not the same thing. The early Nazi party had far greater control of the economy than any legitimately capitalist government, forced citizens to work, and forced companies to contribute to Nazi projects. Socialism comes in other flavors besides "Marxist worker's paradise", from mildly socialist European economies to Communism to outright kleptocracy. And the first two of the values you mentioned are, in a much less extreme form, socialist concepts. In fact they're pretty much included full strength in communism, right down to Karl Marx's plan to abolish the family and have the state raise children, dismantle all religion so the state can take its place, and remove all threats to the primacy of the state (such as civil liberties).
Hell, imagine if YOU were a dictator. Do you honestly think you'd keep putting the interests of your people ahead of your own, even with numerous opportunities to screw them for your own benefit? We're talking billions of dollars here.
Yes.
I don't believe you. Suppose you were the president. A man in a black trench coat offers you $10 million if some guy who's criticizing his operation was snuffed out. $10 million would be decades' worth of Presidential salary, and nothing would happen to you if you did it. Think about what you could do with $10 million. Think long and hard. Now you see why autocracies lend themselves to incredible corruption and plunder?
Unlimited power turns honest men into murderous assholes.
Imagine if George W. Bush was a dictator with unlimited power over America.
He's working on it.
President Bush's term is almost up, and there's no way he could cheat his way out of leaving office like Putin did or the police would drag him out in handcuffs and the media would rip him to pieces (Vladimir Putin has almost entirely suppressed the Russian independent media). Even Richard Nixon left office voluntarily, and he was far more corrupt than any other president in history. Not to mention the Democrats have control of Congress and are set to win the presidency as well. Bush's goose is quite cooked by this point.
Bush had two chances and the "people" (the people the first time, the people and the majority the second time) chose him to lead both times.
I'm surprised you would say that considering the massive vote fraud that happened in both elections.
Because only the Republicans commit vote fraud. Yeah, right.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/more-democrat-vote-fraud-convictions
[The President] can't do whatever the hell he wants. He has to appease his constituents and he has to follow the Constitution.
HA HA! OH WOW!
If you're talking about the Patriot Act, I'm not sure the 4th Amendment says what you think it says.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It says your body and property, not information about who you are and what you're doing on public library computers. Hmmm...
-
It's quite ironic that this thread shows why you americans are unable to solve your problems with Cuba, here we are in a thread about Cuba and what do you do? Talk about your country's problems and nothing about Cuba.
-
You seem to be conflating socialism with communism, and the two are not the same thing. The early Nazi party had far greater control of the economy than any legitimately capitalist government, forced citizens to work, and forced companies to contribute to Nazi projects. Socialism comes in other flavors besides "Marxist worker's paradise", from mildly socialist European economies to Communism to outright kleptocracy. And the first two of the values you mentioned are, in a much less extreme form, socialist concepts. In fact they're pretty much included full strength in communism, right down to Karl Marx's plan to abolish the family and have the state raise children, dismantle all religion so the state can take its place, and remove all threats to the primacy of the state (such as civil liberties).
Ok. First, source to "abolishing family, dismantling all religion and removing civil liberties". Thank you.
The idea of nation state, destroying civil liberties, putting state on a pedestal, loving powerful leader, racist parts, loving private companies and so on is typical right-wing fascist agenda! It's completely contradictionary to socialist values! The entire idea of private enterprise and strong nation state is an antithesis to most mainstream socialist theories!
I am very left-wing. I know quite well what socialism is. And calling nazism socialism is the same as calling laissez-faire capitalism somewhat a distorted form of social democracy. The two share some values; I do not deny that. They even share the basic rhetoric. But they also differ so vastly from each other, that if you lumped the two into the same "socialist" category, then all normal parties in West will all also fall into "enlightened liberalism". And all communist regimes will also fall to the same "socialist-fascist" group, making any discussion about these completely impossible. When two competing ideologies announce that they are mortal enemies and their core values are in conflict by definition, then lumping them together means an effective end to all discussion regarding the differences between the two.
I will now also state that American liberalism and Cuban communism share so much of their basic ideology (see late 18th century) that the two are actually the same.
-
It's quite ironic that this thread shows why you americans are unable to solve your problems with Cuba, here we are in a thread about Cuba and what do you do? Talk about your country's problems and nothing about Cuba.
Notice that Woolie didn't respond to the one person (me) who actually mentioned Cuba in response to him but did respond to all the people talking about America. :lol:
Let's face it. If America held itself to the same punishments for harbouring terrorists and assassination attempts on national leaders that it considers just to mete out to other nations it would be a bombed out 3rd world country by now.
-
You seem to be conflating socialism with communism, and the two are not the same thing. The early Nazi party had far greater control of the economy than any legitimately capitalist government, forced citizens to work, and forced companies to contribute to Nazi projects. Socialism comes in other flavors besides "Marxist worker's paradise", from mildly socialist European economies to Communism to outright kleptocracy. And the first two of the values you mentioned are, in a much less extreme form, socialist concepts. In fact they're pretty much included full strength in communism, right down to Karl Marx's plan to abolish the family and have the state raise children, dismantle all religion so the state can take its place, and remove all threats to the primacy of the state (such as civil liberties).
Ok. First, source to "abolishing family, dismantling all religion and removing civil liberties". Thank you.
Here is the complete text of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, provided by marxists.org: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
And the relevant quote about family:
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
And religion:
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
The idea of nation state, destroying civil liberties, putting state on a pedestal, loving powerful leader, racist parts, loving private companies and so on is typical right-wing fascist agenda! It's completely contradictionary to socialist values! The entire idea of private enterprise and strong nation state is an antithesis to most mainstream socialist theories!
I am very left-wing. I know quite well what socialism is. And calling nazism socialism is the same as calling laissez-faire capitalism somewhat a distorted form of social democracy. The two share some values; I do not deny that. They even share the basic rhetoric. But they also differ so vastly from each other, that if you lumped the two into the same "socialist" category, then all normal parties in West will all also fall into "enlightened liberalism". And all communist regimes will also fall to the same "socialist-fascist" group, making any discussion about these completely impossible. When two competing ideologies announce that they are mortal enemies and their core values are in conflict by definition, then lumping them together means an effective end to all discussion regarding the differences between the two.
I will now also state that American liberalism and Cuban communism share so much of their basic ideology (see late 18th century) that the two are actually the same.
Do you think all socialism is your brand of socialism? Do you think all capitalism is laissez-faire Gilded Age capitalism? Laissez-faire capitalism and social democracy are both forms of democratic capitalism, only the former is extreme and the latter is not. Nordic welfare states, communist states, the quite unique Chinese economy, and Nazism are all socialist, but they are not the same. It doesn't have to be "mainstream" to be socialism.
-
Perhaps I should've been more precise. We don't send the CIA to kill heads of state anymore and in fact banned them from doing so. We kill terrorist leaders on a routine basis.
(ngmt1r beat me to the punch)
Oh really? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/03/cuba.duncancampbell2)
The most recent serious assassination attempt that we know of came in 2000 when Castro was due to visit Panama. A plot was hatched to put 200lb (90kg) of high explosives under the podium where he was due to speak. That time, Castro's personal security team carried out their own checks on the scene, and helped to abort the plot. Four men, including Luis Posada, a veteran Cuban exile and former CIA operative, were jailed as a result, but they were later given a pardon and released from jail.
As it happens, Posada is the most dedicated of those who have tried and failed to get rid of the Cuban president. He is currently in jail in El Paso, Texas, in connection with extradition attempts by Venezuela and Cuba to get him to stand trial for allegedly blowing up a Cuban airliner in 1976. His case is due to come back before the courts later this month but few imagine that he will be sent to stand trial, and he appears confident that he will be allowed to resume his retirement in Florida, a place where many of the unsuccessful would-be assassins have made their homes.
Seems like business as usual to me. Simply with more deniability by saying they're ex-CIA. Since that article was written Posada was released. Meaning that the US is illegally harbouring a terrorist who killed 73 civilians by blowing up their plane. Funny how the war on terror only applies to terrorists who kill US civilians isn't it? :rolleyes:
Try watching this trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7zf3cUPAa8). Or better yet track down the full thing.
Oh, so you have no proof that he was acting under CIA authority but you're going to say it as if it were undisputable fact, even though even the Guardian said he was no longer a CIA member. If we should send people to prison for pardoning people like this guy, then let's send Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton there too, since Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, who was caught red-handed, and Bill Clinton pardoned convicted criminals.
Also, law only really exists where there is a monopoly of the lawgivers on the use of force. Not a very nice thing to hear, but that's how it goes.
Basically, you're making an unfounded assumption about former CIA operatives who no longer have CIA orders but still have CIA training, and whether it was legal for the US to pardon him or not wouldn't change **** anyway. Let's throw the French government in prison, too, since they blew up a Greenpeace boat in a deliberate attempt to shut them up.
-
Notice that Woolie didn't respond to the one person (me) who actually mentioned Cuba in response to him but did respond to all the people talking about America. :lol:
Let's face it. If America held itself to the same punishments for harbouring terrorists and assassination attempts on national leaders that it considers just to mete out to other nations it would be a bombed out 3rd world country by now.
What country in the world wouldnt be bombed? :D
Anyway, I just hope Raul will lighten things on Cuba so that it becomes a better place in the future. After all, the end of an era always marks the beginning of another.
-
I don't believe you. Suppose you were the president. A man in a black trench coat offers you $10 million if some guy who's criticizing his operation was snuffed out. $10 million would be decades' worth of Presidential salary, and nothing would happen to you if you did it. Think about what you could do with $10 million. Think long and hard. Now you see why autocracies lend themselves to incredible corruption and plunder?
Unlimited power turns honest men into murderous assholes.
Only the weak willed ones. That man in the black trench coat would find himself in Guantanamo for even making me such an offer.
-
What country in the world wouldnt be bombed? :D
Australia! Woo!
-
I don't believe you. Suppose you were the president. A man in a black trench coat offers you $10 million if some guy who's criticizing his operation was snuffed out. $10 million would be decades' worth of Presidential salary, and nothing would happen to you if you did it. Think about what you could do with $10 million. Think long and hard. Now you see why autocracies lend themselves to incredible corruption and plunder?
Unlimited power turns honest men into murderous assholes.
Only the weak willed ones. That man in the black trench coat would find himself in Guantanamo for even making me such an offer.
I don't think any human being has a will strong enough to resist such money, including myself. When you have the opportunity to become rich beyond imagination by screwing people, you will, sooner or later.
What country in the world wouldnt be bombed? :D
Australia! Woo!
Sorry, but the Stolen Generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation) means you're getting blown up too.
-
What country in the world wouldnt be bombed? :D
Australia! Woo!
Wasnt that that country that criminals were shipped to?
-
I don't think any human being has a will strong enough to resist such money, including myself. When you have the opportunity to become rich beyond imagination by screwing people, you will, sooner or later.
That's a pretty bold statement to make. I can't be stuffed looking it up, but i'm willing to wager there have been quite a number of benevolent leaders throughout history. Moreover, it's actually pretty arrogant to imply you have a bead on the moral stature of over 6 billion other people.
You may turn into a greedy douchebag in that situation, but that doesn't mean everyone would. And truly, there is no greater government than one led by a benevolent dictator.
Wasnt that that country that criminals were shipped to?
Horrific punishment, too. Sending criminals to this virgin paradise on the other side of the world.
****, people must have been lining up round the block claiming to be Jack the Ripper!
-
Wasnt that that country that criminals were shipped to?
Horrific punishment, too. Sending criminals to this virgin paradise on the other side of the world.
****, people must have been lining up round the block claiming to be Jack the Ripper!
They weren't really enthusiastic about the diseases, starvation, lack of water, forced labor, inhumane treatment, and possibly hostile Aborigines.
-
Oh, so you have no proof that he was acting under CIA authority but you're going to say it as if it were undisputable fact, even though even the Guardian said he was no longer a CIA member.
So you're saying that because the American government has found a suitable cat's paw and can bring political pressure on their allies to release him whenever he is caught that makes it okay then as long as he isn't an official member of the CIA?
By not extraditing him the US has made itself complicit in his acts. Notice how America refused to extradite him to Venezuela even though he's wanted for terrorism in that country and they have a long standing extradition agreement with that country? Now imagine the stink the Americans would cause if 20 years from now Venezuela had someone connected to 9/11 in their custody and refused to extradite him. Funny how it's a different matter when it applies to terrorists within their own borders.
If we should send people to prison for pardoning people like this guy, then let's send Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton there too, since Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, who was caught red-handed, and Bill Clinton pardoned convicted criminals.
Yes. Let's. I see no good reason why the executive should have the power to trump the judicial branch. It makes a mockery of the entire system if presidents can pardon each other for any crimes they are found guilty of committing. It fosters the creation of an old boys network where any president knows that he can do whatever the **** he likes no matter how illegal safe in the knowledge that the next president will pardon him in order to get the same treatment when he loses power.
But the simple fact is that I didn't actually say anything about sending the people who pardoned him to prison. I said he should be in prison. We're talking about a man who bombed beaches in order to prevent tourism to Cuba. A tactic which the US decries when it happens in Egypt but ignores when it happens in Cuba.
Horrific punishment, too. Sending criminals to this virgin paradise on the other side of the world.
****, people must have been lining up round the block claiming to be Jack the Ripper!
Don't mess with the UK.
We'll **** you up real good! :p
-
I don't think any human being has a will strong enough to resist such money, including myself. When you have the opportunity to become rich beyond imagination by screwing people, you will, sooner or later.
That's a pretty bold statement to make. I can't be stuffed looking it up, but i'm willing to wager there have been quite a number of benevolent leaders throughout history. Moreover, it's actually pretty arrogant to imply you have a bead on the moral stature of over 6 billion other people.
You may turn into a greedy douchebag in that situation, but that doesn't mean everyone would. And truly, there is no greater government than one led by a benevolent dictator.
And there is no greater economic system then wealth falling out of the sky, and no greater car than one that goes 0-60 in two seconds and gets 400 miles to the gallon.
Look around you. The world is packed with greedy douchebags scrambling to grab and enlarge the tiny amounts of wealth and power they currently possess. Who would pick the dictator, and how? What could you do if you ended up with a bad one? How would you protect your rights from being crushed by him?
The United States was unrivalled at the end of the 18th century world for having the right to openly criticize the government and demonstrate against it. The United States was also unrivalled for not having an autocracy (except for France, which ended up with one shortly thereafter). It is human nature for people to abuse whatever power they get, so the guiding principle of democracy is to limit abuse by distributing power widely.
Yes. Let's. I see no good reason why the executive should have the power to trump the judicial branch. It makes a mockery of the entire system if presidents can pardon each other for any crimes they are found guilty of committing. It fosters the creation of an old boys network where any president knows that he can do whatever the **** he likes no matter how illegal safe in the knowledge that the next president will pardon him in order to get the same treatment when he loses power.
But the simple fact is that I didn't actually say anything about sending the people who pardoned him to prison. I said he should be in prison. We're talking about a man who bombed beaches in order to prevent tourism to Cuba. A tactic which the US decries when it happens in Egypt but ignores when it happens in Cuba.
The power of the president to give pardons is protected under Article II, section 2. I'm not really saying that not extraditing him wasn't wrong, I'm saying that it was not illegal, and that it's not the same as the CIA sending an operative under orders to assassinate Fidel Castro. And to my knowledge, Richard Nixon is the only president who has ever been pardoned, and Gerald Ford committed political suicide in doing so. The pardon was most likely an act of realpolitik to antagonize Hugo Chavez. Realpolitik is one of those unfortunate realities we have to live with in international affairs.
-
Except that harbouring terrorists is illegal.
How is the US harbouring a known terrorist any different to the Taliban harbouring Bin Laden? Well except for the obvious difference that the US actually had their terrorist in custody at the time and chose to let him go.
-
I don't think any human being has a will strong enough to resist such money, including myself. When you have the opportunity to become rich beyond imagination by screwing people, you will, sooner or later.
Speak for yourself. Money holds little interest for me.. I'm a low-mantainance person (in other words, I'm perfectly happy with just a few basics - PC+internet connection, roof over head, food ---> arranged in order of importance)
And I despise people that misuse power with all my heart. Just the very THOUGH raises my blood pressure. Death is too good for them!
-
Bush had two chances and the "people" (the people the first time, the people and the majority the second time) chose him to lead both times.
I'm surprised you would say that considering the massive vote fraud that happened in both elections.
I've seen evidence that it was a close race in Florida, but I've never seen evidence that there was fraud. I'd personally dismiss any notion of fraud if the candidate was relatively popular and was elected from a different party than previously held office. I get suspicious of multiple presidents from the same party who all successively win the office. How's it gone in the past 50 years? Two terms of Republican, two terms of two Democrats, two terms of two Republicans, one term of Democrat, three terms of two Republicans, two terms of Democrat, and now two terms of Republican. That's starting with Eisenhower and ending with W. Bush. It includes the assassination of Kennedy and the scandal with Nixon. Either way, we have usually been due in for a change when things aren't going so well.
This is not a typo, right?
Which part of it?
Saying that Kerry or Gore are worse than Bush... I mean...c'mon. That has GOT to be a joke. :lol:
I think that both Gore and Kerry would be worse as a president than Bush. We've had Bush for nearing 8 years now--we can debate all we want about his actions. We have never had Gore or Kerry in office--we can only judge them by their running platform and what the votes finally said about them. The senior Bush won about 53% of the popular vote and 79% of the electoral college. After than, in 1992, Clinton won about 43% of the popular vote (Republicans won 37% and Ross Perot won 19%) and 69% of the electoral college. Four years later he won 49% of the popular vote (republicans had 41% and Ross Perot had 8%) and 70% of the electoral college. Now, Bush had one of the closest elections in recent history. He won just under 48% of the popular vote (just over 48% for democrats, about 3% for Nader) and just over 50% of the electoral college. Close one, no? Popular vote definitely went to the Democrats, though he won the electoral college. Anyways--the decision ultimately was in the Supreme Court and Bush won by 500-some votes in a machine count. Now in 2004, he won a clear majority of both popular and electoral votes. That we can't argue over--he clearly won in 2004 and he's still president now.
-
I've seen evidence that it was a close race in Florida, but I've never seen evidence that there was fraud.
You should look a tad harder. There was rampant fraud in both the '00 and '04 elections. Although for some reason it was played down a great deal in '04, what with the Democrats not really bothering to put up a fight post-election.
-
Except that harbouring terrorists is illegal.
How is the US harbouring a known terrorist any different to the Taliban harbouring Bin Laden? Well except for the obvious difference that the US actually had their terrorist in custody at the time and chose to let him go.
Frankly, I don't give a **** about international law, only laws within nations.
International law is complete joke because it cannot be applied to anyone with any real military or economic power or even a nation that would be impractical or even inconvenient for the prosecutor to violate the sovereignty of (Kim Jong Il, stop building those nukes or we'll tell you to stop again!), the US has an absolute veto on the security council, and the interdependency of Western nations makes serious economic penalties on any of them damaging to all the others. I will recognize the legitimacy of international law when a real world authority can enforce it rather than point their finger and say "that's illegal".
The Hague Court should be disbanded and a more effective solution for international disputes pursued. You can only have rule of law when enforcing laws is actually practical or even possible. I consider an inequitable or unenforceable legal system an illegitimate one. I consider this guy to be a murderer and the US to be in the wrong in pardoning him, but international law is so impotent that I have no respect for it. Also, now that he's pardoned, we can't un-pardon him.
Speak for yourself. Money holds little interest for me.. I'm a low-mantainance person (in other words, I'm perfectly happy with just a few basics - PC+internet connection, roof over head, food ---> arranged in order of importance)
And I despise people that misuse power with all my heart. Just the very THOUGH raises my blood pressure. Death is too good for them!
Now you're being irrational. Richard Nixon was an asshole who lied under oath and had burglars break into the Watergate. He was not a murderer, nor a child molester, nor a traitor. What, exactly, would have justified killing him? Righteous indignation? This is the mentality that fuels witch hunts and lynch mobs. Never mind that a separate justice system for politicians would be completely unconstitutional.
-
Frankly, I don't give a **** about international law, only laws within nations.
So in other words the Taliban were well within their rights to not give up Bin Laden and the US are the aggressor in an unjust war on Afghanistan right?
-
Frankly, I don't give a **** about international law, only laws within nations.
So in other words the Taliban were well within their rights to not give up Bin Laden and the US are the aggressor in an unjust war on Afghanistan right?
No, because the lack of legal protection applies to the Taliban as much as anyone else. International relations are effectively anarchic, and if you really don't like something, then it's up to you to stop it. Which is pretty much what we did. Your sovereignty in a war situation exists only if you can defend it. If some nation really hated what we are doing in Afghanistan, they would have to try to stop us either unilaterally or in an alliance. This has pretty much been the way things have been done for all of human history. You can't have rule of law unless you have a higher authority to keep and enforce the peace, and is capable of doing both of those things. Our present system is capable of neither on an international level.
-
President Bush's term is almost up, and there's no way he could cheat his way out of leaving office like Putin did or the police would drag him out in handcuffs and the media would rip him to pieces (Vladimir Putin has almost entirely suppressed the Russian independent media). Even Richard Nixon left office voluntarily, and he was far more corrupt than any other president in history. Not to mention the Democrats have control of Congress and are set to win the presidency as well. Bush's goose is quite cooked by this point.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
Considering that he has said several times he was above the law, I wouldn't be surprised if he would give it a shot, but I doubt it because his poll numbers are so low. Even if he doesn't he has certainly been setting up the framework for such a power grab for his successor.
Because only the Republicans commit vote fraud. Yeah, right.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/more-democrat-vote-fraud-convictions
I didn't say they were the only ones, but the biggest examples were from the republicans.
I don't believe you.
You just don't know me that well. :p Make me dictator of a nation and I'll prove it to you.
-
I don't believe you. Suppose you were the president. A man in a black trench coat offers you $10 million if some guy who's criticizing his operation was snuffed out. $10 million would be decades' worth of Presidential salary, and nothing would happen to you if you did it. Think about what you could do with $10 million. Think long and hard. Now you see why autocracies lend themselves to incredible corruption and plunder?
Unlimited power turns honest men into murderous assholes.
Here is what I am interpreting from your posts there: All humans are weak, stupid, greedy, and evil little creatures. Now let's let them govern themselves in a democracy.
If all humans are as weak and greedy as you say, then everyone as a whole would be no better in Democracy than in a Facisim. The only difference is that in a Facisim, all of their petty wants and desires aren't being fulfilled.
-
Seems like business as usual to me. Simply with more deniability by saying they're ex-CIA. Since that article was written Posada was released. Meaning that the US is illegally harbouring a terrorist who killed 73 civilians by blowing up their plane. Funny how the war on terror only applies to terrorists who kill US civilians isn't it? :rolleyes:
I'll agree he needs to be extradited, but I don't see any evidence he couldn't have done it on his own.
-
I'm not saying he did it with the direct help of the US but it's pretty obvious he knows that the US will never actually charge him or extradite him. And his is not the only case of this sort of thing happening. If you look at the US's actions in relation to Cuba it's been more of a terrorist state than Libya, Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan.
As I said before he's quite obviously a cat's paw. The US can claim "We don't do stuff like that any more" while simultaneously watching terrorists achieve their aims.
No, because the lack of legal protection applies to the Taliban as much as anyone else. International relations are effectively anarchic, and if you really don't like something, then it's up to you to stop it. Which is pretty much what we did. Your sovereignty in a war situation exists only if you can defend it. If some nation really hated what we are doing in Afghanistan, they would have to try to stop us either unilaterally or in an alliance. This has pretty much been the way things have been done for all of human history. You can't have rule of law unless you have a higher authority to keep and enforce the peace, and is capable of doing both of those things. Our present system is capable of neither on an international level.
:lol: So you insist on restraining the power of petty tyrants to do whatever they want in their own country but they should be able to do whatever they like to a foreign one. I assume that you're also against the Geneva Convention then since that's an international law?
And if someone decided that they'd had enough of the US and bombed you back into the stone age you'd simply say "Fair enough"?
-
I think that both Gore and Kerry would be worse as a president than Bush. We've had Bush for nearing 8 years now--we can debate all we want about his actions. We have never had Gore or Kerry in office--we can only judge them by their running platform and what the votes finally said about them. The senior Bush won about 53% of the popular vote and 79% of the electoral college. After than, in 1992, Clinton won about 43% of the popular vote (Republicans won 37% and Ross Perot won 19%) and 69% of the electoral college. Four years later he won 49% of the popular vote (republicans had 41% and Ross Perot had 8%) and 70% of the electoral college. Now, Bush had one of the closest elections in recent history. He won just under 48% of the popular vote (just over 48% for democrats, about 3% for Nader) and just over 50% of the electoral college. Close one, no? Popular vote definitely went to the Democrats, though he won the electoral college. Anyways--the decision ultimately was in the Supreme Court and Bush won by 500-some votes in a machine count. Now in 2004, he won a clear majority of both popular and electoral votes. That we can't argue over--he clearly won in 2004 and he's still president now.
Wait, wait! You you're equating the number of votes with how good a president they would be? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
That's the most broken and insane violation of logic I have seen in my entire life....well..almost. You get second place.
-
Now you're being irrational. Richard Nixon was an asshole who lied under oath and had burglars break into the Watergate. He was not a murderer, nor a child molester, nor a traitor. What, exactly, would have justified killing him? Righteous indignation? This is the mentality that fuels witch hunts and lynch mobs. Never mind that a separate justice system for politicians would be completely unconstitutional.
ERm...no.
Who's advocating a separate justice system for them? Only far harsher penalties within the current one.
And yes, I consider that as bad as high treason - in fact, even worse - willfully breaking an oath given to the millions, misusing you power and effectively working against the very people you're supposed to protect and care for.
-
:lol: So you insist on restraining the power of petty tyrants to do whatever they want in their own country but they should be able to do whatever they like to a foreign one. I assume that you're also against the Geneva Convention then since that's an international law?
I think that if nations want to agree on something together, they can work it out among themselves, not via some farce of a governing body whose "law" applies only to those too weak to resist. You don't seem to be getting the idea that the nation who is attacked can fight back. Whether it's wrong or right is an entirely different issue.
As for the Geneva convention, couldn't it be adopted internally by each nation, or the nations could develop their own protocols for prisoner of war treatment and rules of engagement?
And if someone decided that they'd had enough of the US and bombed you back into the stone age you'd simply say "Fair enough"?
Well, "bombed back into the stone age" implies nuclear weapons, so that means it's time to roll out the Trident missiles.
-
I think that if nations want to agree on something together, they can work it out among themselves, not via some farce of a governing body whose "law" applies only to those too weak to resist. You don't seem to be getting the idea that the nation who is attacked can fight back. Whether it's wrong or right is an entirely different issue.
Oh I get it. I just think it's a fancy way of you saying that you think strong nations should be allowed to bully weaker ones with no fear of repercussion other than retaliation from another strong nation. Now while that might be what actually occurs I fail to see how anyone who has been claiming that Democracy is the best form of government for a country can then turn around and claim that fictionalisation into regional warlords is the best system for the world.
Surely you see the irony there?
As for the Geneva convention, couldn't it be adopted internally by each nation, or the nations could develop their own protocols for prisoner of war treatment and rules of engagement?
That's meant to be the point with international law. Each member state is supposed to go back and pass their own law which makes the international one the law in their own country.
-
Oh I get it. I just think it's a fancy way of you saying that you think strong nations should be allowed to bully weaker ones with no fear of repercussion other than retaliation from another strong nation. Now while that might be what actually occurs I fail to see how anyone who has been claiming that Democracy is the best form of government for a country can then turn around and claim that fictionalisation into regional warlords is the best system for the world.
Surely you see the irony there?
What I'm saying is that international law is completely useless at preventing stronger nations from bullying weaker nations, especially since the stronger nations rely on each other economically and are pretty much unable to do anything to each other militarily. The idea of global justice is an illusion that wastes time, resources, and money.
I think it's stupid and wasteful to think it is even remotely possible to have anything but anarchy between nations. Nations work because on that level the government can use force to suppress disturbances of public order (even the most minor police action is a use of force--if you resist, the officer can and will drag you to the ground and cuff you). That just doesn't work on an international level--nobody has the will or capacity to send troops to bash down another nation's door whenever they do something unpleasant.
That's meant to be the point with international law. Each member state is supposed to go back and pass their own law which makes the international one the law in their own country.
Yes, but how do you stop those states from deciding not to follow those international laws? There are countries who ignore international judgements time and time again, not even necessarily strong countries. Nothing but military force can stop these people, much like imprisonment is the only way to stop many criminals, and the first world lacks the ability to go kill people and break things in Sudan, North Korea, etc. The stronger countries often have too strong principles to continually ignore international law (i.e. they follow it only because they want to), and if they were to decide otherwise, nobody would be able to do ****--not even economic sanctions, because it would seriously mess up everyone else's economy.
International law is a futile charade that masks the reality that it's still the law of the gun between sovereign nations. Unless we get a world state or Earth ends up administered by some extraterrestrial power, it will always be that way.
-
This whole debate started over you saying that the US doesn't do illegal things like sending assassins into other countries. Surely you see that this is an international law then ratified by the US government?
-
Point conceded. But there's still the issue that it would be illegal to do anything to him as we've given him a pardon and can't reverse it. A sort of catch-22.
-
The US didn't pardon him. They refused to extradite him. Panama pardoned him, for a different crime, no doubt based on US pressure.
Funnily enough the reason they refused to extradite him was because as he is a terrorist he might be tortured. :rolleyes:
The REALLY funny thing is that it's almost like the US has forgotten what happened last time it trained up a bunch of people to fight off communist rule. It's almost like the think the Mujahideen just went away after the Russians pulled out.
-
It all seems to me like a convenient way for the US to issue a "**** you!" to Venezuela than state sponsored terrorism. But it is wrong, and I think something should be done to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Now you're being irrational. Richard Nixon was an asshole who lied under oath and had burglars break into the Watergate. He was not a murderer, nor a child molester, nor a traitor. What, exactly, would have justified killing him? Righteous indignation? This is the mentality that fuels witch hunts and lynch mobs. Never mind that a separate justice system for politicians would be completely unconstitutional.
ERm...no.
Who's advocating a separate justice system for them? Only far harsher penalties within the current one.
And yes, I consider that as bad as high treason - in fact, even worse - willfully breaking an oath given to the millions, misusing you power and effectively working against the very people you're supposed to protect and care for.
Well, it effectively is a completely different punishment system for a certain class of people, which I'm not comfortable with. Assholery like the Watergate break-in is pretty disgusting, but I think it is far from a capital crime. Treason is the act of violently opposing your government or its agents or conspiracy to do so--usually by killing its soldiers (High treason is the act of attempting to murder a reigning monarch and has no relevance to a republic, nor even England--it originally proscribed horrible, agonizing capital punishments like drawing and quartering instead of hanging or decapitation. You can't cut off someone's penis and rip out his guts while burning them in front of his face anymore). What Richard Nixon did was just a dirty trick to increase his chances of being reelected. Had Gerald Ford not pardoned him, he would've been put on trial for conspiracy, perjury, obstruction of justice, and other crimes. Instead, Gerald Ford gave him a free pass but got his due in the form of the destruction of his political career and earning the permanent scorn and disdain of his constituents, which is pretty horrible if you're a politician.
Besides, justice isn't about vengeance.
-
It all seems to me like a convenient way for the US to issue a "**** you!" to Venezuela than state sponsored terrorism. But it is wrong, and I think something should be done to make sure it doesn't happen again.
And the other 637 attempts to kill Castro were what?
The US has a long history of sponsoring terrorists in Cuba. Posanda isn't the only person to have gotten away with it. Again shall I point out that that the Taliban actually did less than the US and were accused of state sponsored terrorism?
-
Can you bring up a figure that demonstrates that US-sponsored assassination attempts against Castro killed more than 3,000 Cuban civilians?
Also, I think you should keep in mind the Cold War mindset most of the attempts were conducted under--the America that ****ed up the Bay of Pigs invasion was a very different America from the one that exists now, and Cuba was a pawn of a second superpower that not only wanted to turn the entire world into Soviet satellites, but had the means to inflict a nuclear holocaust on the entire planet.
-
I think that both Gore and Kerry would be worse as a president than Bush. We've had Bush for nearing 8 years now--we can debate all we want about his actions. We have never had Gore or Kerry in office--we can only judge them by their running platform and what the votes finally said about them. The senior Bush won about 53% of the popular vote and 79% of the electoral college. After than, in 1992, Clinton won about 43% of the popular vote (Republicans won 37% and Ross Perot won 19%) and 69% of the electoral college. Four years later he won 49% of the popular vote (republicans had 41% and Ross Perot had 8%) and 70% of the electoral college. Now, Bush had one of the closest elections in recent history. He won just under 48% of the popular vote (just over 48% for democrats, about 3% for Nader) and just over 50% of the electoral college. Close one, no? Popular vote definitely went to the Democrats, though he won the electoral college. Anyways--the decision ultimately was in the Supreme Court and Bush won by 500-some votes in a machine count. Now in 2004, he won a clear majority of both popular and electoral votes. That we can't argue over--he clearly won in 2004 and he's still president now.
Wait, wait! You you're equating the number of votes with how good a president they would be? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
That's the most broken and insane violation of logic I have seen in my entire life....well..almost. You get second place.
I'm equating number of votes and where (in our messed up democracy with the entire electoral college) to say the we chose the guy to be president. The case went in front of the US Supreme Court who, if I'm not mistaken, are supposed to set aside their personal feelings and decide on issues based on the letter and the intent of the law, just like every Judge out there. It's our laws and processes that got us Bush. However it went, "the people" had chose Bush. Even if it wasn't the first time, we definitely chose him the second time. If you want to dispute his election, tell your district's Congress(wo)man and Senator. After all--you had a say in their election and they're there to represent you.
Enough of this--Bush was elected twice in one form or another. You had a say in this, I didn't. The only evidence of a purchased or an attempt to purchase an election in this thread was done by Democrats. Give me a solid (as in no conspiracy theorist nutjobs) evidence that the election was purchases and I'll rethink my position. Heck--give me any non-conspiracy evidence and I'll rethink my position.
-
or Earth ends up administered by some extraterrestrial power,
If only we can imagine. All hail King Kodos!
Enough of this--Bush was elected twice in one form or another. You had a say in this, I didn't. The only evidence of a purchased or an attempt to purchase an election in this thread was done by Democrats. Give me a solid (as in no conspiracy theorist nutjobs) evidence that the election was purchases and I'll rethink my position. Heck--give me any non-conspiracy evidence and I'll rethink my position.
This is just for 2004:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
http://freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/983
http://www.jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/14/politics/main649380.shtml
http://www.votefraud.org/big_fix_2004_hopsicker.htm
And here's one about 2000 for good measure:
http://www.votefraud.org/election2000_scam.htm
I'm really shocked at how it doesn't bother you that there were such massive inconsistancies in the exit polls. Exit polling has been used for 40 years with perfect accuracy until 2000 and 2004 and is still used in many third world countries to determine if the election is rigged. If the exit polls don't line up with the results by a wide margin, as in 2000 and 2004 in florida and ohio respectively, then you know something is wrong, regardless of which party is the victim.
-
If only we can imagine. All hail King Kodos President Kang!
Clearly, you voted for Kodos.
-
SAVE US XENU...or something.
-
Can you bring up a figure that demonstrates that US-sponsored assassination attempts against Castro killed more than 3,000 Cuban civilians?
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/L3028.doc.htm
Specifically this bit.
BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said it was impossible to eliminate terrorism if some terrorist acts were condemned while others were tolerated or justified. In order to advance, it was necessary to address with complete honesty all the forms and manifestations of terrorism worldwide, not excluding under any circumstances the concept of State terrorism. In the last 44 years, 691 terrorist acts had been committed against Cuba, 33 of them in the last 5 years. As a result, 3,478 Cubans had died, and 2,099 suffered disabilities. In Miami, safe shelter was offered to those who funded, planned and carried out terrorist acts with absolute impunity, tolerated by the United States Government.
Giving examples of terrorist activities against his country, he said that instead of bringing to trial the eight individuals who had hijacked a Cuban plane last November, the United States had provided them with asylum. On 7 February, despite the “orange” anti-terrorist alert in the United States, a Cuban coastguard boat with four armed men arrived and docked in Key West, without being stopped.
On 16 January, Cuba had declassified abundant files about the terrorists who freely acted in Miami. They had been submitted to high-ranking Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) officers in Havana in 1998. Instead of punishing the terrorists, the FBI had arrested five people who had been trying to obtain information about the terrorist groups based in Miami and those young men were condemned to unjust and long jail sentences, two of them for life.
Also, I think you should keep in mind the Cold War mindset most of the attempts were conducted under--the America that ****ed up the Bay of Pigs invasion was a very different America from the one that exists now, and Cuba was a pawn of a second superpower that not only wanted to turn the entire world into Soviet satellites, but had the means to inflict a nuclear holocaust on the entire planet.
I'm pretty sure Osama Bin Laden could say almost the exact same thing to justify his terrorist attacks on the US.
-
Enough of this--Bush was elected twice in one form or another. You had a say in this, I didn't. The only evidence of a purchased or an attempt to purchase an election in this thread was done by Democrats. Give me a solid (as in no conspiracy theorist nutjobs) evidence that the election was purchases and I'll rethink my position. Heck--give me any non-conspiracy evidence and I'll rethink my position.
This is just for 2004:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
http://freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/983
http://www.jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/14/politics/main649380.shtml
http://www.votefraud.org/big_fix_2004_hopsicker.htm
And here's one about 2000 for good measure:
http://www.votefraud.org/election2000_scam.htm
I'm really shocked at how it doesn't bother you that there were such massive inconsistancies in the exit polls. Exit polling has been used for 40 years with perfect accuracy until 2000 and 2004 and is still used in many third world countries to determine if the election is rigged. If the exit polls don't line up with the results by a wide margin, as in 2000 and 2004 in florida and ohio respectively, then you know something is wrong, regardless of which party is the victim.
Let's start with the votefraud.org. I haven't seen a citation page--something that I always look for to back up their claims. To me--that's just wackos making up and spewing lies and distorted half-truths.
I'll continue this later. I have to go somewhere and I'll be back sometime later.
-
Well, it effectively is a completely different punishment system for a certain class of people, which I'm not comfortable with. Assholery like the Watergate break-in is pretty disgusting, but I think it is far from a capital crime. Treason is the act of violently opposing your government or its agents or conspiracy to do so--usually by killing its soldiers (High treason is the act of attempting to murder a reigning monarch and has no relevance to a republic, nor even England--it originally proscribed horrible, agonizing capital punishments like drawing and quartering instead of hanging or decapitation. You can't cut off someone's penis and rip out his guts while burning them in front of his face anymore). What Richard Nixon did was just a dirty trick to increase his chances of being reelected. Had Gerald Ford not pardoned him, he would've been put on trial for conspiracy, perjury, obstruction of justice, and other crimes. Instead, Gerald Ford gave him a free pass but got his due in the form of the destruction of his political career and earning the permanent scorn and disdain of his constituents, which is pretty horrible if you're a politician.
Besides, justice isn't about vengeance.
You're missing the point. The one is power are missing any real deterrent to stop them from misusing their power. As long as politics enables you to get filthy rich and get away with it you'll get assholes in the office because a setup like that attracts them and they swarm like flies to a piece of crap.
People in power should be made VERY, very much responsible for everything they do with harsh reprocutions. Being in politics should be a hard, even dangerous position. The stakes should be higher.
-
I'm equating number of votes and where (in our messed up democracy with the entire electoral college) to say the we chose the guy to be president. The case went in front of the US Supreme Court who, if I'm not mistaken, are supposed to set aside their personal feelings and decide on issues based on the letter and the intent of the law, just like every Judge out there. It's our laws and processes that got us Bush. However it went, "the people" had chose Bush. Even if it wasn't the first time, we definitely chose him the second time. If you want to dispute his election, tell your district's Congress(wo)man and Senator. After all--you had a say in their election and they're there to represent you.
Enough of this--Bush was elected twice in one form or another. You had a say in this, I didn't. The only evidence of a purchased or an attempt to purchase an election in this thread was done by Democrats. Give me a solid (as in no conspiracy theorist nutjobs) evidence that the election was purchases and I'll rethink my position. Heck--give me any non-conspiracy evidence and I'll rethink my position.
I'm not american. I didn't vote for him.
What I'm asking is - what does it matter how many people voted for him? What relevance does it have to a persons quality as a leader? The masses can choose complete idiots - it happens quite often. The masses are...well...dumb.
So how can you state that X is a better leader than Y simply because X had more votes? :wtf:
-
I'm equating number of votes and where (in our messed up democracy with the entire electoral college) to say the we chose the guy to be president. The case went in front of the US Supreme Court who, if I'm not mistaken, are supposed to set aside their personal feelings and decide on issues based on the letter and the intent of the law, just like every Judge out there. It's our laws and processes that got us Bush. However it went, "the people" had chose Bush. Even if it wasn't the first time, we definitely chose him the second time. If you want to dispute his election, tell your district's Congress(wo)man and Senator. After all--you had a say in their election and they're there to represent you.
Enough of this--Bush was elected twice in one form or another. You had a say in this, I didn't. The only evidence of a purchased or an attempt to purchase an election in this thread was done by Democrats. Give me a solid (as in no conspiracy theorist nutjobs) evidence that the election was purchases and I'll rethink my position. Heck--give me any non-conspiracy evidence and I'll rethink my position.
I'm not american. I didn't vote for him.
What I'm asking is - what does it matter how many people voted for him? What relevance does it have to a persons quality as a leader? The masses can choose complete idiots - it happens quite often. The masses are...well...dumb.
So how can you state that X is a better leader than Y simply because X had more votes? :wtf:
I don't know if I accomplished my exact goals with the statement. What I was saying is either way we chose him. Election fraud or no, it's our system that we should influence. Yeah, the masses are a bunch of idiots voting along party lines. There's no doubt that most elections are won because a candidate is from the more popular party, not because they're a better choice.
The biggest example of the opposite of this is Obama's support base stemming from more than just Democrats--he has many anti-Clinton supporters from both Democratic and Republican parties. Many Republics will rally their support just to keep Clinton from an arguably third term in office. Back in the late 1700s, the founding fathers never thought of a man running for president and then his wife running for president--effectively doubling their power over the country and becoming a sort of monarchy.
Regardless of the post-WWII limit of 2 terms for a president, Washington himself started the sort of 2-term limit tradition for whatever reasons he did (old age, fear of a monarchy, &c). It was followed by most presidents prior to WWII, and Roosevelt only stayed in office to support the British and see WWII through. Wartime presidents get elected because a switch in power usually disrupts the war effort. We helped thousands more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than the liberal media will tell us about on a daily basis. They've basically made us forget about the war.
As Iraq and Afghanistan stabilize, we hear less and less about it. No doubt the media chooses what to show and what not to show--they try to direct our attention towards one issue or another. As long as they make advertising revenue and keep a high number of viewers, they'll continue with that. I think one reason we hear less about the war is people started tuning out of it--the war basically marked the true end of my childhood. At 10 years old, I started seeing and hearing and being exposed to the outside world's problems as well as the end of an even worse experience--visitation.
Anyways--the masses are dumb. They're a flock of sheep being led to a slaughterhouse by both the Democratic and the Republican parties. On a whole, we gave up our voices to those ambitious enough to take them from us--our own local politicians. We are so blind of the abuses the government, again Democratic or Republican, on us that we willingly accept them. One thing that immediately comes to mind is state-run burglary--or the lottery. In my state of New York at least, the lottery is meant to help pay for the education system. However, most of the profits are being used anywhere BUT the education system. The only money that really goes from the lottery to education is all for publicity and a burst of new stuff--computers, projectors, calculators, and text books. Stuff that'll almost always be broken or outdated within 3-5 years. The lottery rarely seems to give a handout, and when they do they make sure every local TV station hears about it and makes a story about it.
-
You still haven't answered the question of how does that make Gore or Kerry worse than Bush....
-
You still haven't answered the question of how does that make Gore or Kerry worse than Bush....
I personally didn't like Al Gore. Just something about him never struck me as right, even as a little kid. I don't know why, though I do have a basis for my more recent dislike of Gore. I think he's blowing the entire global warming and environmental disaster theme a bit out of proportion. Yeah he's right about some things, but he still spews too much hot air and seems to be focusing on personal profit over actual improvement. He seems to have taken a genuine issue as a fast trip to Hollywood and a popular topic in media. He may very well have been a better President than Bush--we don't know how different this world would be if 9/11 would have been under a Gore administration, versus a Bush administration.
As for Kerry, he always struck me as a fake. While he served in Vietnam, I think that he lied about some of what he did or how heroic he was. A lot of stories about war are blown out of proportion--and he seemed to want to exaggerate that story as well. One particular point I didn't like about his 2004 bid for the presidency was that the election would basically reverse all progress in Iraq--basically throwing away the Iraqis just like Clinton did. HW Bush started it, Clinton ended it prematurely. W Bush restarted it, seemingly trying to fix the problem left over by Clinton. Kerry seemed to want to throw it away again.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
...
On the Senate floor on October 9, 2002, he said that "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons."
To me, that was basically Kerry changing sides. He had no real position and no backbone on the issue.
...
Besides... botox generally doesn't work for a man.
-
Back in the late 1700s, the founding fathers never thought of a man running for president and then his wife running for president--effectively doubling their power over the country and becoming a sort of monarchy.
Odd that they didn't also think of the more logical and more monarchy like example of a father then son becoming president in that case. You'd have thought that one would have occurred to them straight away.
-
Except since when did John Adams or WHH have any say in what JQA or Ben Harrison did? Hell, if HW had his son by the nuts, we wouldn't have this same mess.
-
I personally didn't like Al Gore. Just something about him never struck me as right, even as a little kid. I don't know why, though I do have a basis for my more recent dislike of Gore. I think he's blowing the entire global warming and environmental disaster theme a bit out of proportion. Yeah he's right about some things, but he still spews too much hot air and seems to be focusing on personal profit over actual improvement. He seems to have taken a genuine issue as a fast trip to Hollywood and a popular topic in media. He may very well have been a better President than Bush--we don't know how different this world would be if 9/11 would have been under a Gore administration, versus a Bush administration.
Well, you then basicely admit that leadership has nothing to do with number of votes. Maybe you just made a big type at the beginning. Anyways, I don't believe Gore is in the enviromentalism for the publicity stunt - he's been at it for 20 years, back in the days when it wasn't very popular. As for the movie - it's a way to get a message across. Overblown? A bit in a few cases, but the masses are dumb and you have to shake em up a bit to stir them into action.
As for Kerry, he always struck me as a fake. While he served in Vietnam, I think that he lied about some of what he did or how heroic he was. A lot of stories about war are blown out of proportion--and he seemed to want to exaggerate that story as well. One particular point I didn't like about his 2004 bid for the presidency was that the election would basically reverse all progress in Iraq--basically throwing away the Iraqis just like Clinton did. HW Bush started it, Clinton ended it prematurely. W Bush restarted it, seemingly trying to fix the problem left over by Clinton. Kerry seemed to want to throw it away again.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
I really wouldn't know about his service record, alltough I noticed that practicely every candididate overblows his military career. As far as his stances go - I don't consider being rigid a good trait in a leader. One should change his stance or oppinions if presented enough evidence.
If a stance is changed for other reasons, wel..that's another matter completely...
-
Hell Bush made a big deal about his military career despite apparently being AWOL for much of that time. There was even an unclaimed $50,000 reward for anyone who could prove he actually fulfilled his service requirements (Which didn't even require him to leave US airspace let alone fight in Vietnam).
Yet strangely people seem to concentrate on Kerry's war record. :rolleyes:
-
One thing that immediately comes to mind is state-run burglary--or the lottery. In my state of New York at least, the lottery is meant to help pay for the education system. However, most of the profits are being used anywhere BUT the education system. The only money that really goes from the lottery to education is all for publicity and a burst of new stuff--computers, projectors, calculators, and text books. Stuff that'll almost always be broken or outdated within 3-5 years. The lottery rarely seems to give a handout, and when they do they make sure every local TV station hears about it and makes a story about it.
In my opinion, anyone who plays the lottery deserves to have his money wasted.:p
As for Kerry, he always struck me as a fake. While he served in Vietnam, I think that he lied about some of what he did or how heroic he was. A lot of stories about war are blown out of proportion--and he seemed to want to exaggerate that story as well. One particular point I didn't like about his 2004 bid for the presidency was that the election would basically reverse all progress in Iraq--basically throwing away the Iraqis just like Clinton did. HW Bush started it, Clinton ended it prematurely.
George H. W. Bush made the decision to pull out of Iraq at the end of the Gulf War. Clinton didn't end the occupation--there was no occupation and we never went into Baghdad.
-
I personally didn't like Al Gore. Just something about him never struck me as right, even as a little kid. I don't know why, though I do have a basis for my more recent dislike of Gore. I think he's blowing the entire global warming and environmental disaster theme a bit out of proportion. Yeah he's right about some things, but he still spews too much hot air and seems to be focusing on personal profit over actual improvement. He seems to have taken a genuine issue as a fast trip to Hollywood and a popular topic in media. He may very well have been a better President than Bush--we don't know how different this world would be if 9/11 would have been under a Gore administration, versus a Bush administration.
Well, you then basicely admit that leadership has nothing to do with number of votes. Maybe you just made a big type at the beginning. Anyways, I don't believe Gore is in the enviromentalism for the publicity stunt - he's been at it for 20 years, back in the days when it wasn't very popular. As for the movie - it's a way to get a message across. Overblown? A bit in a few cases, but the masses are dumb and you have to shake em up a bit to stir them into action.
Things being overblown like that tend to annoy me. While I may have been 9 when Bush was elected the first time, Gore's more recent stunts I have a good memory of. I'm not a big fan of environmentalism--I'll give you a quick quote why... "Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever." (Konstantin Tsiolkovsky). To me, this overbearing environmentalism is in direct dispute with Tsiolkovsky's most famous quote--we are still on this planet like we are because there's no reason to leave or look beyond. The space race against the USSR pushed us off of this planet and on to the closest celestial body--the moon. Part of that was competition (we're better than they are), part of that was survival (a nuclear war can destroy a planet, but you're safe if you're not on that planet). The race to the moon advanced humanity greatly--but now we have no reason to be so innovative. Humanity isn't mature--it's not even an adolescent. Even as a toddler, we have to leave this planet so we can find out more about the rest of the universe. That being said, I'm not going to be driving a dirty gas guzzler to mess up the environment. I'll do my share in making sure that this planet is safe, but I don't approve of scare tactics. I won't feel any more guilty by consuming more electricity than I did before. As Plato once wrote, "necessity is the mother of invention". If it's necessary, we'll eventually find a way to make it. We already know what we need to clean up this planet, though doing so will only send us backwards.
As for Kerry, he always struck me as a fake. While he served in Vietnam, I think that he lied about some of what he did or how heroic he was. A lot of stories about war are blown out of proportion--and he seemed to want to exaggerate that story as well. One particular point I didn't like about his 2004 bid for the presidency was that the election would basically reverse all progress in Iraq--basically throwing away the Iraqis just like Clinton did. HW Bush started it, Clinton ended it prematurely. W Bush restarted it, seemingly trying to fix the problem left over by Clinton. Kerry seemed to want to throw it away again.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
I really wouldn't know about his service record, alltough I noticed that practicely every candididate overblows his military career. As far as his stances go - I don't consider being rigid a good trait in a leader. One should change his stance or oppinions if presented enough evidence.
If a stance is changed for other reasons, wel..that's another matter completely...
To me, being truthful in aspects in history are important. If it's embarrassing, give a good reason why. I'd rather hear a politician experimented with drugs in college from their own mouth, instead of the media. Everyone makes mistakes--nobody alive is perfect. Saying what you did and being modest is to me an important trait as a leader. If you did something absolutely fantastic, a 10/10 in every book, don't say you did an 11/10--I'd prefer if you said it was a 9/10 rather than an 11/10. Modesty and having a personal stance are, to me, important traits in a leader. Being in touch with reality and having your own opinion are important. Being rigid and not listening to anyone is bad--having your own opinion and putting it out there is good. Refusing to sign into law bills that repulse you is, to me, important. I'm personally against birth control--I wouldn't want my popularly elected president who claims to be against birth control signing a bill making it legal 100% of the time. To me, that screams jellyfish--that the politician has no backbone and will bend whatever way the current goes. If there's actual credible evidence, listen to it and consider it. On birth control, saying that it has its few redeeming qualities is enough for me to add in a few exceptions--if a woman is raped, she should have birth control accessible. If the woman AND her child have a slim chance of living past the birth, she should have birth control accessible.
-
One thing that immediately comes to mind is state-run burglary--or the lottery. In my state of New York at least, the lottery is meant to help pay for the education system. However, most of the profits are being used anywhere BUT the education system. The only money that really goes from the lottery to education is all for publicity and a burst of new stuff--computers, projectors, calculators, and text books. Stuff that'll almost always be broken or outdated within 3-5 years. The lottery rarely seems to give a handout, and when they do they make sure every local TV station hears about it and makes a story about it.
In my opinion, anyone who plays the lottery deserves to have his money wasted.:p
But the lottery is to pay for the education system--which is where it's not going. Stupid people playing the lottery? Use the money to educate the next generations. That's not happening--politicians are generally business people and find some way to have personal gain. For most offices in Congress, Senate, and Legislatures, that's not true. For other offices such as Governor or President, that is clearly evident. Besides--the top dog in the system generally has much more influence than an ordinary member.
As for Kerry, he always struck me as a fake. While he served in Vietnam, I think that he lied about some of what he did or how heroic he was. A lot of stories about war are blown out of proportion--and he seemed to want to exaggerate that story as well. One particular point I didn't like about his 2004 bid for the presidency was that the election would basically reverse all progress in Iraq--basically throwing away the Iraqis just like Clinton did. HW Bush started it, Clinton ended it prematurely.
George H. W. Bush made the decision to pull out of Iraq at the end of the Gulf War. Clinton didn't end the occupation--there was no occupation and we never went into Baghdad.
I wasn't around for the first Gulf War. My family is staunchly conservative so that's what I've heard all the time. Still, we secured the trust of an important religious group in Iraq and then left them--next time around they weren't nearly as cooperative and fear a second US pull out. The US leaves and Iraq is back in chaos in the long run--that simple.
I heard a bit about Bush's time during Vietnam. I found he was pretty clearly afraid of fighting in it, and did what most sons of politicians did--he found a way to avoid the front lines entirely. I'd rather a politician say or imply that they didn't want to be in the war, versus serve "heroically" and then come out and claim he's against wars, then support one, and then come out against one again.
-
Ok, here's some more
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud_ohio.html
I find it amazing how you can dismiss such blatant fraud as conspiracy theories.
As Iraq and Afghanistan stabilize, we hear less and less about it. No doubt the media chooses what to show and what not to show
Ahhh yes, the liberal media conspiracy theory. Should we go into how the occupation forces have been inciting civil (http://www.rense.com/general67/cmndo.htm) war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm) by staging terror attacks against the locals? Iraq right now is still a mess, but this time we have no one to blame for it but ourselves.
EDIT: Here is one of the more damning things I found from the Baltimore Chronicle:
This year the election was followed by so many complaints about vote fraud, vote suppression and other anomalies that on Dec. 8, Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) hosted a forum (aired on C-Span) to highlight some of the problems. Last weekend, demonstrations protested vote problems in Ohio, where the Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, was also Ohio’s Bush-Cheney state chairman. Blackwell certified Ohio election results this week. Jesse Jackson called on Blackwell to recuse himself from the election process, saying his objectivity is compromised by his position in the Bush-Cheney campaign. Conyers, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee and dean of the Black Congressional Caucus, has also written to Blackwell, requesting his answer to questions that would have made headlines under any previous administration:
* Why did Warren County officials exclude the press from observing vote counting, claiming that the FBI agent had warned of a terrorist threat, when the FBI has no knowledge of such a warning?
* Why did several counties record more votes for an underfunded Democratic candidate for State Supreme Court than for the Democratic Presidential candidate?
* Why did historically Democratic precincts in Cleveland record up to 22 times more votes for the Constitution Party than all third-party candidates combined received in 2000?
* Why did voters in Mahong County report that when they voted for Kerry their vote was displayed as being cast for Bush?
* Why did some precincts in Perry County at one point record more votes than voters?
* Why did there appear to be a shortage of voting machines in traditionally Democratic precincts, causing up to 10-hour delays for voters, and a surplus of voting machines in traditionally Republican precincts?
http://baltimorechronicle.com/120904Burns.shtml
-
Goodbye Castro! Hello....Castro!
Raul is Prez. And judging by the BBC's "Interview With Locals" thingie, people overwhelmingly approve. Mostly they ***** about small things like education or currency reform, but every single one of them seems to want to continue on with the Revolution. Weird. I think we may be looking at the first and only modern dictatorship that has been consistently popular among its people for nearly 50 years. So they must be doing something right.
-
I wasn't around for the first Gulf War. My family is staunchly conservative so that's what I've heard all the time. Still, we secured the trust of an important religious group in Iraq and then left them--next time around they weren't nearly as cooperative and fear a second US pull out. The US leaves and Iraq is back in chaos in the long run--that simple.
And Bush Snr was responsible for that. Clinton wasn't in power at the time. So I really don't see what this has to do with you thinking that Kerry and Gore were a worse than Bush.
-
Ya know what? **** this thread. I said it before but I didn't post it before.
Quite frankly--this is getting blown out of proportion. I'm not a fan of most liberals so leave me to my opinion--however twisted you think it is. While I don't particularly like Bush, he was elected. End of story--we can all see that. If it was such a big scandal, the liberal media should have torn it up and had it reversed. I didn't like either candidate for 2000 and 2004--that's also my opinion and I gave a few reasons for it (a refresher: I didn't like Gore for a forgotten reason back in 2000, when I was 9, and now I don't like his massacre of accurate Environmentalism and I didn't like Kerry because he appeared shifty and seemed to be wildly overplaying his actions in Vietnam). I don't know if Bush or Gore or Bush or Kerry would be a better president. Quite frankly, I don't care. One thing I learned in the past 17 years of life is let the more-distant past go! Know what happened though don't try to rewrite it. I gave up arguing and debating and presenting my opinion on the actions of previous decades. It happened in war x for Y and Z reasons by generations well before mine. They had their reasons and I shouldn't judge them as I don't know all their reasons. Don't think about it and try writing your own new book to make your own life better on a whole. That goes for politics too. Yeah, I'm young. Yeah, I probably still can't vote in 2008. I'll have my own political decisions to make starting with 2009, and I sincerely hope that I'll never have to vote for a Bush, a Clinton, a Gore, or a Kerry for president.
-
There's a difference between you having an opinion and having factual inaccuracies to back it up.
Similarly if you're going to state your opinion on a discussion thread you should expect the possibility people are going to ask you the reason why you hold that opinion. As that's what a discussion is.
-
One thing I learned in the past 17 years of life is let the more-distant past go!
Go back to bed, America. Do not question the past. Fall in line. Do not trouble yourselves with thought, go drink beer and watch American Gladiators.
-
Come on man, you're blowing things out of proportion. That he's interested in politics at all is a good thing. Not everything calls for Bill Hicks ;);)
Also, i seem to recall this thread being about Castro. Anyone want to place bets on how long Fidel is going to live? I wouldn't be surprised if he outlived Raul.
-
Come on man, you're blowing things out of proportion. That he's interested in politics at all is a good thing. Not everything calls for Bill Hicks ;);)
Also, i seem to recall this thread being about Castro. Anyone want to place bets on how long Fidel is going to live? I wouldn't be surprised if he outlived Raul.
Just because one on-topic post was made, I'll make a single post in reply to it. I'd think that Fidel can't last past a half decade--I'll give him 5 years at max. As for his brother, maybe a decade at max. The old regime can't last forever--though Castro has certainly tried.
-
One thing I learned in the past 17 years of life is let the more-distant past go!
Go back to bed, America. Do not question the past. Fall in line. Do not trouble yourselves with thought, go drink beer and watch American Gladiators.
No need for these sort of comments Mefustae.
-
Even though it is sadly true....... :(
-
I wasn't around for the first Gulf War. My family is staunchly conservative so that's what I've heard all the time. Still, we secured the trust of an important religious group in Iraq and then left them--next time around they weren't nearly as cooperative and fear a second US pull out. The US leaves and Iraq is back in chaos in the long run--that simple.
Wow. Let's try for a realistic history lesson, shall we?
-Iraq fights Iran throughout the 1980s. Neither side wins, but Iraq has successfully held Iran out of the Arab world (Iranians are not Arabs, they're Persian).
-Iraq's economy is left in shambles after the war and they want loans from their neighbours, notably Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, at good rates since they feel they're been protecting them.
-Iraq also feels a historical ownership of Kuwait.
-Iraq issues an ultimatum to Kuwait, then promptly invades.
-UN Security Council tells Iraq to GTFO and creates a deadline. Iraq ignores it.
-UN Security Council authorizes a coalition military force to forcibly remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. That was the sole mandate of the UN forces. They consisted of: most NATO countries, Russia, the Arab League, and several others.
-After a lengthy bombing campaign, the ground war begins. After 100 hours of fighting, Iraqi forces have either been slaughtered, surrendered, or driven far back across the border into Iraq. Retreating Iraqi forces are bombed into oblivion on the road back to Baghdad.
-The US, leading the UN Coalition, declines to pursue the Iraqi's and oust Hussein for three reasons:
1. The UN mandate was only to aid Kuwait, NOT invade Iraq or remove its leadership.
2. The Arab League, a key supporter of the coalition, would not have participated in an operation to remove Saddam, and indeed, may have militarily opposed it.
3. Saddam was on shaky ground anyway and it was widely believed among intelligence sources that an internal coup would successfully remove him. Unfortunately, said intelligence failed to take into account the fact that the Republican Guard was kept largely in reserve and still protected Saddam.
The US and UN were never in Iraq excluding a few ground and air units that pursued fleeing Iraqi forces. Indeed, it was the abject failure of the UN mandate to secure a lasting stability in the region that allowed the US the premise in 2003 to claim Iraq was producing WMDs and invade.
Had the UN resolution allowed more stringent military sanctions against Iraq and actually had teeth when it came to keeping weapons inspectors in-country; or, had the UN forces bombed out the Republican Guard units protecting Saddam and given money and weapons support to pro-democratic and pro-Western factions in Iraq already seeking to oust Saddam... things would have turned out very differently.
As it was, it had very little to do with the man sitting in the White House at the time. And it was Bush in charge during the Gulf War, not Clinton. Clinton was later merely following down the path the UN and Bush had already laid out.
-
One thing I learned in the past 17 years of life is let the more-distant past go!
Go back to bed, America. Do not question the past. Fall in line. Do not trouble yourselves with thought, go drink beer and watch American Gladiators.
No need for these sort of comments Mefustae.
Actually, to balance things out, I thought Mefustae's post was not only reasonable, but insightful. Whatever your political persuasion, knowing history is better than choosing to ignore it.
(Feel free to flame me if I interpreted things completely out of context; I only read back as far as this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,52287.msg1057227.html#msg1057227) post. :))
-
One thing I learned in the past 17 years of life is let the more-distant past go!
Go back to bed, America. Do not question the past. Fall in line. Do not trouble yourselves with thought, go drink beer and watch American Gladiators.
No need for these sort of comments Mefustae.
Actually, to balance things out, I thought Mefustae's post was not only reasonable, but insightful. Whatever your political persuasion, knowing history is better than choosing to ignore it.
(Feel free to flame me if I interpreted things completely out of context; I only read back as far as this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,52287.msg1057227.html#msg1057227) post. :))
Basically I won't reply to this again, so here's a last time.
What I said was basically know history, don't repeat the bad. Sort of learn from the mistakes--you can't change the past so stop trying so hard. Stop arguing over things and don't tell us to get an opinion on it (I'm looking at you, history classes). Focusing on the present and future will get us much further than remaining fixated on the past.
-
What I said was basically know history, don't repeat the bad. Sort of learn from the mistakes
Not everything is so black and white. The entire point of having debates in history class is to teach you how to think critically and review the facts. In the real world this is a useful skill.
-
History classes ask you to have an opinion for a reason. No matter what political persuasion you subscribe to, when the other side is in power, you and yours can balance them out.
That doesn't mean never alter your beliefs. I went into my college-level government course the most staunch right-wing Bu****e that you'd ever seen. After six months of political debates and research, I was much more moderate. Not liberal, by any means, but open to both sides.
-
What I said was basically know history, don't repeat the bad. Sort of learn from the mistakes
Not everything is so black and white. The entire point of having debates in history class is to teach you how to think critically and review the facts. In the real world this is a useful skill.
I debate current problems and events--I don't want to be saying that the Union or Confederates were right in the Civil War. I don't want to say a candidate was good or bad. President Lincoln bent the constitution and trampled over personal liberties during the Civil War--yet after all his actions impeding on us, he's still constantly ranked in the top 5 of American presidents. My favorite president of the past was Theodore Roosevelt--a progressive who made changes for the common people--the square deal that's just not around anymore. I'll debate the need for a new Square Deal, I won't debate every action of Roosevelt, Taft, and all those other presidents.
Anyways--the biggest problem with history class is that the victor writes the history. Everything is biased on who's right and who's wrong, that I don't like disrespecting those people said to be wrong. To me, that's black and white. The ideas are perfectly debatable--the problem is we don't know all the facts, the motives, the reasons, and the actions that would lead to one thing or another. By the way--I'm at the top of my history class because I know what they want to know and write decent essays. I know more of the history than many stupid Americans aged from 16 to 20--all in a Junior's US History class. Those aged about 18-20 are basically going to drop out if they don't pass this year. They're not doing too well--they put no effort into it.
Anyways--I'm not staunch conservative--I see reasons to be more liberal in the US's politics, though I don't share the view of most. While I'd like to register for a Democratic Socialist party, that's a fast track to getting a file in the FBI.
-
People who hate history classes for that reason are thinking of the class to much of as a history class than as a social studies class. I agree wholly with what Kosh said, and I shall elaborate:
First off, most of the time good vs. bad isn't so clear cut, which is the primary reason we have these debates. Back in US history I had a debate about the US usage of the A-bomb, and there was a lot of debating (albeit most of it was fallacious and moronic, and since time was limited I didn't have enough time to point out all of the fallacies and errors in reasoning) for both sides. Although many people have made up their minds and completely closed it off, it's definitely not clear which was right or not.
In the process of doing this, we not only learn of the motives that lead the people to drop the A bomb among other things. These general thought processes could be used in addition to the ways the public reacted to these things in many different careers, as long as the careers fall in the social/governmental, etc spots.
Now I suppose if your going into something like art or photography on the other hand, you could get away with saying "**** everyone, if no one likes my stuff, I'll call it high brow or avant grade, and then they'll like it anyway" and it doesn't really matter what things were like in the past, or for that matter what the quadratic equation is, or even what a ribosome is. But if your going into a political environment, that's not the same. (Although you couldn't tell in America)
-
President Lincoln bent the constitution and trampled over personal liberties during the Civil War--yet after all his actions impeding on us, he's still constantly ranked in the top 5 of American presidents...
[snip]
...the biggest problem with history class is that the victor writes the history.
There's your explanation. ;)