Great Debate - Hitchens vs. Ritter

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
BigPaul wrote:

If Hitchens really does have those values that he claims to shouldn’t he be petitioning our and other governments to intervene in dozens of other places around the world?

again with that silly argument…

what rule says we have to be everywhere at once? And if they did try, I’m sure the anti-US crowd would be all over them for trying to conquer the world.

They just can’t win, no matter what they do.

[/quote]

Silly argument? Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian- as were 15 of 19 hijackers. They are brutally oppressive to their people, and their own people are what was responsible for 9/11. And yet, they are not held accountable, but we invade Iraq because of imaginary weapons and shit intelligence from Iraqi informants?

That just doesn’t hold water bud.

22

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Silly argument? [/quote]

It is a silly argument if you consider that they are basically saying that “well, you’re in Iraq - so you should also be in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti because their leaders are like Hussein, etc., you name it, because if not, you’re just hypocritical.”

Realistically, you know that’s just not possible. Therefore, it’s a silly argument and nothing but a mere deflection.

[quote]
Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian- as were 15 of 19 hijackers.[/quote]

Individuals, individuals… it’s not the same. the difference is that the operation was not sponsored by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[quote]
They are brutally oppressive to their people, and their own people are what was responsible for 9/11. [/quote]

Individuals, NOT THE STATE, that is the crucial difference. McVeigh, an American, was responsible for Oklahoma City - so are we going to attack ourselves?

[quote]
And yet, they are not held accountable, but we invade Iraq because of imaginary weapons and shit intelligence from Iraqi informants?[/quote]

Look the reason was not as simplistic as you lay out, not to mention the fact that you are playing the result. The facts: Hussein never came out and said he didn’t have anything, he never gave UN inspectors full access, and never did Hans Blix categorically say there were no WMDs, basically he wiped his ass with the UN and dared the US to take him on. It’s way more complex than that, but that’s a decent nutshell.

23

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

The fact that we need oil gives us no rights to invade any soverign nation. Empires do this.[/quote]

Um, the reasons for the Iraq war were much more than oil. All I am saying is that Iraq was prioritized partly because of the oil issue.

All this empire bullshit again. I don’t foresee us making Iraq the 51st state anytime soon.

[quote]
And empires eventually piss so many people off by doing this that get destroyed. [/quote]

No. All the great Empires of history were destroyed from within over a prolonged period of time. Judging by what is going on inside the US, it’s time will come too eventually.

[quote]
If Canada invaded the United States because they needed more coal and we had lots of it, everyone would be crying, “How can they do this?”. Its called imperialism buddy.[/quote]

a flawed analogy based on the assumption that the only reason we invaded Iraq was for oil, which of course, is wrong. If that was the only reason, and we were truly an empire, then why did we leave after 1991? If we were truly an empire, why not just tell the UN to fuck off and take Saddam out back then?

Real Empires were beholden to no one. You think if the UN existed back in the 1800’s they would have stopped the British from taking India and half of Africa? Or Napoleon from taking over continental Europe?

That’s the difference between the ‘empires’ you speak of and the U.S.

[quote]
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. If you mean benevolence to other nations- well there is a time for the olive branch and a time for the arrow. For the last five years there has been only an arrow pointing at all the Arabs in the world, sometimes unjustly. Bin Laden is scum. I agree. But why concentrate on Iraq when there are bigger enemies out there- Al Quaida namely.[/quote]

um… who do you think is creating the ruckus in Iraq? here’s a hint: it starts with an “A” and the third letter is a big “Q”.

peace

[quote]
I still believe that is you guys that don’t understand the nature of this enemy. You cannot fight a religion. People will do anything for their religion. This is not an organized enemy that you can throw back or outflank; this is an idealogical war that we lose every time another Muslim comes to despise the US because we cannot seem to mind our own business.[/quote]

no, what you do not understand is that you can’t just stop fighting because it’s a religious foe. That’s basically telling them, “we’re afraid of you.” Once you do that, they’ve already won, it then only becomes a matter of time. History has shown time and again that APPEASEMENT DOES NOT WORK. You have to hit them first and keep them off balance. If you bury your head in the sand and allow them to truly organize (get WMD, nukes, organized army) then you’re truly fucked.

24

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Silly argument?

It is a silly argument if you consider that they are basically saying that “well, you’re in Iraq - so you should also be in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti because their leaders are like Hussein, etc., you name it, because if not, you’re just hypocritical.”

Realistically, you know that’s just not possible. Therefore, it’s a silly argument and nothing but a mere deflection.
[/quote]

I still don’t agree. Listen, if we went in first to give them freedom, and expressly for that, thats one thing. But we did not. No one has found WMD, and “spreading democracy” (as we lose our own thanks to George II) is the last option in order to make this war seem justifiable. When the causes change four or five different times, you can’t just settle on the last one and say, “Well, this is why we’re really here. I swear this time”.

Nor was it sponsered by Iraq. The Senate Committee has said- “There were no Iraqi ties to 9/11”. What more proof do you want?

So why isn’t the INDIVIDUAL repsonsible in custody? We got McVeigh. We haven’t got Bin Laden. There was no state responsible for 9/11, the one that could remotely be considered “responsible” was Afghanistan, and they were invaded (rightfully, in my opinion).

You are right on these counts, except I believe that Hans Blix did say there were no weapons (I dont remember specifics there).

Lots of countries wipe their ass with the UN! We wiped our asses with the UN when we invaded Iraq! And of course, if you were a dictator facing a warlike man with the most powerful army in the world, are you really going to say that you have no WMDs? Hell no, you preserve power by saying nothing.

Once again, I don’t remember the exact points, but Saddam never said that he had WMD. We assumed, we invaded, we are wrong. I’m not saying that he wasn’t an evil fuck who deserved to die; I’m just saying that you can’t start a war over one thing and then claim, three years later, that it was really over something else (when in my opinion) it was over something other than what everyone has been saying anyway (oil).

25

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I still don’t agree. Listen, if we went in first to give them freedom, and expressly for that, thats one thing. But we did not. [/quote]

Freeing Iraqis from Hussein was one reason, the fact that we didn’t really know what he had or did not have another, sitting on a ton of oil another, to try to bring more stability to the Middle East by putting heat on Iraq’s neighbors (Iran, Syria, etc.) another. It’s not as simplistic as the anti-war crowd wants to make it out to be.

I still can’t believe that given the opportunity to do it, with all the shit we now know of what Hussein was doing to his people - basically starving them to death in order to spite the UN sanctions, how can you even support his remaining in power because we had shoddy intelligence?

come on man, people only bring up international law when it’s convenient to them.

I wonder how come no one calls Castro out on all his human rights abuses, how he’s hailed as a hero in most of Europe and South America… what kind of fucked up double standard is that?

[quote]
No one has found WMD,[/quote]

we learned this after the fact, and hell, that does not even begin to broach the possibility that he had them and shipped them out to friendly country.

[quote]
and “spreading democracy” (as we lose our own thanks to George II)[/quote]

against with this anti-Bush we live pseudo-fascist America crap. Dude, you have no clue what a real lack of democracy is. If this were a true fascist state, this internet convo would be monitored and we’d both disappear soon enough for even having this discussion. That’s fascism. You guys are just pissed you aren’t getting your way, no one in the government is listening to you, so claim ‘no democracy.’

Look, if you have such a hard on about the issue, I’ll give you my mom’s phone number and you can talk to her of what living in a totalitarian regime (60’s Cuba) is all about.

[quote]
Nor was it sponsered by Iraq. The Senate Committee has said- “There were no Iraqi ties to 9/11”. What more proof do you want?[/quote]

again, after we went in there and saw what he did (or did not) have.

[quote]
So why isn’t the INDIVIDUAL repsonsible in custody? We got McVeigh. We haven’t got Bin Laden. There was no state responsible for 9/11, the one that could remotely be considered “responsible” was Afghanistan, and they were invaded (rightfully, in my opinion). [/quote]

Not for a lack of effort, I’ll tell you. It’s like searching for a needle in a haystack, made very difficult because of the terrain, and the fact that he is hiding in a friendly country. (he’s somewhere in Pakistan, I’ll bet you)

[quote]
And yet, they are not held accountable, but we invade Iraq because of imaginary weapons and shit intelligence from Iraqi informants? [/quote]

you don’t think Bush is being held accountable? What the hell do you call those record-low approval ratings? One of the main reasons Kerry lost is that he could not be trusted to follow through on the Iraq issue. At least he hasn’t turned and ran out with his tail between his legs to save face. At least he understands how stupid that would be.

[quote]
You are right on these counts, except I believe that Hans Blix did say there were no weapons (I dont remember specifics there).[/quote]

nope, he never said that specifically. If he had, he would have never gotten all those European nations to go along with him.

[quote]
Lots of countries wipe their ass with the UN! We wiped our asses with the UN when we invaded Iraq![/quote]

Exactly, which is why arguments based on the sanctity of international law. “i.e. invading Iraq is illegal.” are completely worthless.

For international law to be legitimate, EVERYBODY has to follow it.

The international arena is regrettably one of the big boys make the rules. Or have you not wondered with the Security Council never gets other members?

[quote]
And of course, if you were a dictator facing a warlike man with the most powerful army in the world, are you really going to say that you have no WMDs? Hell no, you preserve power by saying nothing. [/quote]

No, he was trying to save face with the Arab street. If he backed down, he would be labeled a pussy, and I’ll bet that Uday would have tried a power grab. (Evidence found after the invasion, showed that Uday had already plotted against his father in the past).

Basically, Hussein underestimated Bush,and calculated that Bush would back down like Clinton did. Hussein was using the UN embargo to build public opinion against the US and sympathy for the poor Iraqis. When it came to the issue of the WMDs he tried to bluff, hoping international and domestic pressure would force the President into inaction. Bush simply called him on it.

[quote]
Once again, I don’t remember the exact points, but Saddam never said that he had WMD. [/quote]

Of course not, that would be stupid and suicidal, basically giving us all the justification in the world to go in there.

[quote]
We assumed, we invaded, we are wrong.[/quote]

we assumed based on the games he was playing with the UN. He couldn’t come out and say he didn’t have any - because then he loses any leverage he has against regional nations jocking for power and influence in the region. A Saddam dangling possible WMDs over you is much scarier than a defanged Saddam. However, if he came right out and said “I have WMDs” then of course that gives NATO and the US a green light to go in there and take him out, and in that situation, the UN, even as corrupt as it is, wouldn’t be able to say shit. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that he had to play hide and seek and dance with the inspectors in order to save his skin.

However, when push came to shove, he pushed his luck, and thought Bush was a pussy. Obviously, that was a big mistake. Bush may be stupid, but he’s not weak.

[quote]
I’m not saying that he wasn’t an evil fuck who deserved to die; I’m just saying that you can’t start a war over one thing and then claim, three years later, that it was really over something else (when in my opinion) it was over something other than what everyone has been saying anyway (oil).[/quote]

Well the reality is a bit more complex than that.

But assuming for the sake of argument that you are right, my point is that you probably can.

when you’re the most powerful kid on the block and you are the only country in the world with the resources to solve a lot of the world’s problems - you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want. This is the main reason why the Europeans (and everyone else) resent us so much.

26

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
what rule says we have to be everywhere at once? And if they did try, I’m sure the anti-US crowd would be all over them for trying to conquer the world.
[/quote]

It just seems to me that if one is going to justify something through moralism, that moral standard should be equally applied to the clamant. Moral assertions are rarely reasonable - there is no way in hell that we, or even an aglomeration of every army from every free nation in the world, could fend off all the ills of the world - no debate is going to reach a resolution so long as moralism or another idealism is applied. These folks just need to get practical.

27

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
but he should support us or other governments if they do so.[/quote]

Agreed - the problem is that Hitchens, and many others, have changed the reasons for which they supported the war many times over the past months and years. I saw Hitchens on TV earlier this year using the argument that the inteligence that we had at the time justified the war. I think this is just the most convenient or publicly acceptable reasonings right. If beneath all of the public posturing this most recent assertion has indeed been Hitchen’s core motivation for supporting the war this whole time, I respect that - This, of course, is something that we will just never know.

28

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
OARSMAN wrote:
what rule says we have to be everywhere at once? And if they did try, I’m sure the anti-US crowd would be all over them for trying to conquer the world.

It just seems to me that if one is going to justify something through moralism, that moral standard should be equally applied to the clamant. Moral assertions are rarely reasonable - there is no way in hell that we, or even an aglomeration of every army from every free nation in the world, could fend off all the ills of the world - no debate is going to reach a resolution so long as moralism or another idealism is applied. These folks just need to get practical.[/quote]

Pretty much hits the nail on the head.

29

[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

I still don’t agree. Listen, if we went in first to give them freedom, and expressly for that, thats one thing. But we did not.

Freeing Iraqis from Hussein was one reason, the fact that we didn’t really know what he had or did not have another, sitting on a ton of oil another, to try to bring more stability to the Middle East by putting heat on Iraq’s neighbors (Iran, Syria, etc.) another. It’s not as simplistic as the anti-war crowd wants to make it out to be.

I still can’t believe that given the opportunity to do it, with all the shit we now know of what Hussein was doing to his people - basically starving them to death in order to spite the UN sanctions, how can you even support his remaining in power because we had shoddy intelligence?

come on man, people only bring up international law when it’s convenient to them.
[/quote]

No, the fact is that I didn’t really care whether or not he was in power at all. As far as I am concerned, it was better to have him in power than the radical religious nuts that are going to take over that country in the coming years. But thats not my concern. I have said it many times- if they wanted freedom, they would have fought for it themselves.

Freeing Iraqis was certainly not an initial issue- it was Saddam’s possessions of WMD. Its only one of the reasons now because the WMD’s turned out to be wrong, just like the 9/11 link turned out to be wrong, just like the imminent threat to us that they simply never were.

Castro is hailed because he stands up to America (I’m not fond of him, only because of the mysterious death of Che Guevara, who I do revere). However, I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to the Americas, but the US has fucked them up pretty good in the last 20 years, so don’t act surprised if they like people that hate us. I would too, if I were them.

And it is possible that he shoved them up a camel’s ass and sent them north too. You can sayall you want about what may or may not have happened. The FACT is that they were not there, nor is there any way to prove they were. Assuming (or hoping, as some rightys do) that they were there means nothing.

No, you need to read some history. This government only stifles dissent when it becomes a serious threat. They don’t take into account people like you and me, but if you throw together a hundred thousand people who believe the same thing, one of us will get shot.

I’m not going through history again, I’ve done it on enough posts to show that this country does not care what its people really think. But go look up COINTELPRO. That only happened about thirty five years ago. They did everything they could to bust up every communist, socialist, black power, civil rights, anti-war, etc. etc. organization around. And its admitted by the hierarchy that they went above and beyond what was allowed. Free speech? Only when they let you, brother.

I already have your mom’s phone number.

(sorry man that was too easy)

I agree they are trying. But there should be 150,000 troops in Pakistan and Afghanistan looking for him. Not in iraq.

The reason Kerry lost is because Rove did a splendid job of destroying his record and manipulating the facts. Kerry was not a flip flopper at all, and if you think the man seriously voted for , and then against things, because he couldn’t make up his mind, then you don’t know how Congress really works, and the shit that they slide into bills that are considered “unopposable”. But since I don’t know you personally I am not making any accusations about what you do or don’t know- I just don’t want to hear the Rush Limbaugh bullcrap around here.

Bush should be impeached for launching an unjust war. The Neocons tried to swing the pendulum too far, and I think a backlash is finally coming. But I don’t want it to be against Bush- he is just a figurehead. I want it against the party.

Well then lets just go back to the time of nation-states that war and invade each other just for shits and giggles. Bring Napolean and the Duke of Wellington back…sounds like a plan.

As much as “unilateralists” hate to say it, the UN has kept us from a major all out war. I don’t think the world has gone this long without a tremendous war for a long time. We should be helping to set an example, not bring the UN to its knees, then kick it in teeth.

We have gone over the problems with this, and I agree that things are a little off, and need to be reformed. But, this still does not mean we can make war on whoever we like.

Hey man, like I said, water under teh bridge. I don’t give a shit who kills who over there. But you never tip your hand. He didn’t. I can’t blame him.

I think the term is “missunderestimated” :wink:

Been through this. Already said that there are lots of folks that shouldn’t have these weapons- India and Pakistan namely, and I still don’t trust Russia. But we’re alot more careful when talking to them, aren’t we?

Sorry bud. Fact is, if you’re gonna start a war, better be damn sure you know why. Bush either didn’t, which is his fault, or he didn’t care about that anyway, which is his fauly. Truman used to have a sign on his desk saying, “The Buck stops here”. Hasn’t changed since he was there.

No, you’re right. He might be evil and stupid and crazy (to me), but he does follow through on certain things he says. That is his one admirable quality. I always said he’d be cool to get drunk with, or maybe as a neighbor, but never as a leader.

They resent us because we push our shit onto them. We don’t always do the right thing, and that is what drives the Neocons crazy. You have to admit that we’re wrong sometimes (I say most of the time, but that’s me). And when we are wrong on such a massive scale, well, its time to change some shit.

30

OARSMAN. Do you your own math:

“Real Empires were beholden to no one…”

“When you’re the most powerful kid on the block and you are the only country in the world with the resources to solve a lot of the world’s problems - you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want. This is the main reason why the Europeans (and everyone else) resent us so much.”

Sounds like a fuckin idiot just getting warmed up to me.

31

OARSMAN: Your assertions of Chompsky’s denials are absolutely false. You - like most people - never read Chompsky you only know what others say about him.

Please reference for me where he denied atrocities. It’s funny how the right makes up lies like this one when Chompsky is one of the most outspoken intellectuals on atrocities. Even ones committed by this country(gasp!) A big reason why he is not liked.

The U.S. challenges the legitamacy of the U.N. all the time, so who is going to invade us?

In relation to the Iran/Iraq war, I thought Regan says we would never capitulate to terrorists? Oh well I guess that was just more empty rhetoric. Oh by the way we sold Iran arms as well $$$$$$.

There are people far more dangerous than Saddam so why him, if as you say “we gotta prioritze”. Maybe it’s the fact that Iraq is covered in oil $$$$ and was a very weak country. Wow we should start calling this the first T-administration.

Keep on reading the corporate mass media then you will never know the facts.

32

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
OARSMAN. Do you your own math:

“Real Empires were beholden to no one…”

“When you’re the most powerful kid on the block and you are the only country in the world with the resources to solve a lot of the world’s problems - you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want. This is the main reason why the Europeans (and everyone else) resent us so much.”

Sounds like a fuckin idiot just getting warmed up to me. [/quote]

insults, insults, insults!! Is that your contribution? c’mon man, if you want to debate, debate - but that? weak.

apparently I have to go through my posts for hours now with a fine tooth comb because now I have the thought police looking for inconsistencies. so much for typing on the fly.

Fine, let me clarify: On that point - I was speaking hypothetically. I was saying that THEORETICALLY THE US COULD DO WHATEVER THE HELL IT WANTS BUT IT DOES NOT. That alone should debunk any legit argument of ‘empire’ - there have so many instances of U.S. intervention abroad in the last 60 years where if it was truly imperial it could have taken a piece of land or what have you but it does not.

However, it must piss you off to no end to know that if the US felt like it they probably could. This is one of the many reasons Europeans (and I guess Canadians) hate us. Hence your snide little remark.

whatever, think what you want. Your opinions are of no further consequence to me. It’s a fucking internet forum.

peace.

33

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

The U.S. challenges the legitamacy of the U.N. all the time, so who is going to invade us?
[/quote]

like I said, dude, I’m not going to waste my time arguing with you, were not going to change each other’s mind. Your points are noted.

However, on this one just consider that when it comes to mediating international conflict, the UN is nothing without the US.

Your example is one of many reasons why the UN is pretty much worthless outside of a humanitarian function.

peace.

34

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

They resent us because we push our shit onto them. We don’t always do the right thing, and that is what drives the Neocons crazy. You have to admit that we’re wrong sometimes (I say most of the time, but that’s me). And when we are wrong on such a massive scale, well, its time to change some shit.[/quote]

That is part of it, but based on my travels in Europe I also feel that they resent us most because they feel superior to us, they think we are fat, uncouth cowboy idiots, but yet deep down they recognize that everything revolves around us (culturally and politically) and that the US and not Europe is the real epicenter of the world. At the root, I gotta figure there is a bit of envy thrown in for good measure.

35

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Castro is hailed because he stands up to America (I’m not fond of him, only because of the mysterious death of Che Guevara, who I do revere). [/quote]

I just want to be sure this is what you mean. Are you really saying that the only reason you are not fond of Castro is because of Guevara? I understand the Guevara worship, it’s a common trait for many college kids, but do you really believe that Castro’s only real sin so to speak is his complicity in Guevara’s death? Not trying to bust your balls here, just wondering.

36

[quote]BigPaul wrote:

Agreed - the problem is that Hitchens, and many others, have changed the reasons for which they supported the war many times over the past months and years. I saw Hitchens on TV earlier this year using the argument that the inteligence that we had at the time justified the war. I think this is just the most convenient or publicly acceptable reasonings right. If beneath all of the public posturing this most recent assertion has indeed been Hitchen’s core motivation for supporting the war this whole time, I respect that - This, of course, is something that we will just never know.[/quote]

To be fair regarding Hitchens, WMD is just one of the reasons he favors the Iraq war. He is one of those guys who would support American interventions across the globe, on a humanitarian basis. Above all things he sees the present conflict as a battle between the theocratic absolutism of the Middle East and the Enlightenment of western civ. WMD factors in, but only to the extent that it empowers those folks who Hitchens holds in greatest contempt, religous fundamentalists who perpetuate mass slaughter.

I guess what I am trying to say is that even if Iraq and WMD were never married as threats, Hitchens would have favored the invasion. He thinks this is the opening front in a greater battle that he hopes will vanquish Islamic fundamentalism. Some conservatives may agree but I’m not sure any of them have ever declared it to the extent Hitchens has. I don’t think he has changed his story like many conservatives have.

37

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote.

I’d love to see the debate as I’m sure Chompsky would win as he always does.

You have no idea as to what you’re talking about in relation to Chompsky.
He is one of the most honest intellectuals around.

[/quote]

Experience has taught me that arguing with a Chomsky disciple is futile, they are religious in their devotion to this man. Also, most of them are pretty young.

38

Irish,

Seriously, I understand that revering Che is the trendy thing to do, but you need to get educated.

Che was a totalitarian and a murderer - which seems odd, since you claim to stand against these very traits.

I like you, Irish,and I think you contribute to these political forums in a way that the left-of-center needs - but it will be hard to take you seriously with this idol worship:

“Here?s a cold-blooded murderer who executed thousands without trial, who claimed that judicial evidence was an ?unnecessary bourgeois detail,? who stressed that ?revolutionaries must become cold-killing machines motivated by pure hate,? who stayed up till dawn for months at a time signing death warrants for innocent and honorable men, whose office in La Cabana had a window where he could watch the executions ? and today his T-shirts adorn people who oppose capital punishment!”

Humberto Fontova, SF Herald

39

[quote]
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Castro is hailed because he stands up to America (I’m not fond of him, only because of the mysterious death of Che Guevara, who I do revere). [/quote]

That to me, is extremely offensive, as the son of Cuban immigrants. I wish these Americans who drink the Castro Kool-Aid actually knew what kind of murderous monster lurks behind that beard.

My dad actually went to university with Fidel and knew Fidel personally, (they played baseball together at the U. de La Habana).

My boss right now was a classmate of Fidel’s at the Law School of the U. de La Habana - and both speak of a pissed off,sociopathic, spoiled rich kid (much like Guevara) with megalomaniacal tendencies who read a lot of Marx and Lenin, and were inspired to topple a corrupt government but of course turned out to be a lot more like Stalin, and began to take out the very people who helped them reach power.

If you come down to Miami, you would have an opportunity to meet a lot of Castro’s childhood buddies and see what happens to a man when he is absolutely corrupted by power.

Castro only stands up to the US because he knows the US is not going to do anything to him - there’s nothing in Cuba worth the headache of an American intervention now. He’s like that annoying little fly in the summertime who’s always buzzing around but is essentially harmless.

People speak of the embargo, but in reality there is no embargo - there is so much European/South American money in Cuba it’s ridiculous and the irony is that the very people who keep the US embargo going (the Cuban exiles in Miami) are the ones responsible for keeping Castro in power - they send billions to their families every year to keep them from starving - but the reason the embargo persists is the principle of it.

It’s very complex, but let’s just say that Castro uses the embargo as another PR tool to build sympathy, he knows that to maintain power he has to keep the people hungry and unable to focus on a revolution. Wow, admirable man.

A master politician, undoubtedly.

A murderous scumbag coward, undoubtedly.

A hero? You must be fucking joking.

It’s yet another of his means of capitalizing on global anti-American sentiment to build sympathy PR for his regime. Their hatred and resentment of America blinds them to the fact that he is a murderous dictator.

He says what a lot of European and South American countries secretly wish they could say to the US but don’t because they have an economic interest with the US in keeping their mouth shut.

But such sentiment is there, you can always tell when you troll internet forums and see how the international posters go off on America, or my experiences as a student studying abroad in Europe, or traveling there hanging out in the hostels and you listen to the European/Canadian/Australian/South African students pontificating on the ‘most evil empire in the history of the world’ (this was actually told to me by a South African girl at a hostel in Edinburgh - who then had the gall to argue that Southern discrimination was worse than Apartheid). I mean the level of hate for some of these kids is ludicrous.

You realize Irish, that even though you could be the coolest dude in the world, I could never be your friend after you told me something like that.

I respect your opinion however misguided I may think it is, and it would not be out of anything personal towards you, but out of principle and respect for what my parents and family members and may others I have met in my life who had to rot in jail for no reason other than criticizing “la revolucion” or for trying to go to an underground church on a sunday morning.

You have no idea how they suffer for what that prick (and his cronie Guevara) put (are putting) the Cuban people through. He has completely destroyed that country.

To elevate either Castro or Guevara to any position of honor or “hero worship” is not only naive but in the best of intentions, severely, severely misguided. But hey, you’re free to think whatever you want.

take care,

40

Oarsman,

That was one of the best posts I’ve ever read. If more people were aware of the true nature of these vermin, as you are aware, the world would clearly be a better place. Instead, its easier to go along with the crowd and bash this wonderful country.

How anyone can idolize Castro, Guevera, Mao, and other such lice and call Bush a terrorist…unbelievable.

I’d love to stand amongst a crowd of people saying those things, like those you encountered, and announce: “You are all a bunch of fuck-heads. We are closing our borders and all ties with you. When someone like Der Fuhrer or Osama comes calling, deal with him yourselves, you self-righteous clowns.”