Castro is sooooooo cool

[spunkloaf]

I don't really care to comment, because I am not one of them.

[conley]

Ok, then.  Pinochet was an excellent leader, just because Castro was worse.  That makes ALL THE SENSE IN THE FREE WORLD.

Jesus, D-wang.  What is up with you today?

Again, this was a really simple question. You guys are all over the place.

the question is stupid.

i could just as easily say why does the right worship pinochet?

you're just making false accusations and then expecting people to counter a point that cannot be proven. not sure what the point is.

The Right doesn't worship Pinochet.

exactly! 

seriously who are you talking about drinking chardonnay? or is that just a stereotypical liberal drink?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

  I guess I meant it as a stereotypical liberal drink. I was referring to guys like Jack Nicholson, Redford, etc. who wine and dine Castro.



It is well known that Castro enjoys the finer things in life. 

[spunkloaf]

I think our government plays these figures out to be so much worse than they are.  I never hear of any precise, direct threat to America other than pro-socialist speculation by political powers (in America and other countries) who want nothing more than to preserve economic interests in these countries.

To date, I have heard NO good arguments condoning our involvement in any of these posterior nations and their interior affairs.  Yet our government pours money into them, finding whatever reason necessary to justify it to the American people--as if our opinion mattered, anyways.

If D-wang would be so kind as to post ONE GOOD JUSTIFICATION of these matters without the involvement of economic or political interests, and which poses/posed a direct threat to the American people, I would love to hear it.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I think our government plays these figures out to be so much worse than they are.  I never hear of any precise, direct threat to America other than pro-socialist speculation by political powers (in America and other countries) who want nothing more than to preserve economic interests in these countries.

To date, I have heard NO good arguments condoning our involvement in any of these posterior nations and their interior affairs.  Yet our government pours money into them, finding whatever reason necessary to justify it to the American people--as if our opinion mattered, anyways.

If D-wang would be so kind as to post ONE GOOD JUSTIFICATION of these matters without the involvement of economic or political interests, and which poses/posed a direct threat to the American people, I would love to hear it.

Could you clarify? I don't understand. You want me to justify the actions of the US gov't without taking into consideration it's most basic motivations? 

[spunkloaf]

Thank you.  That was actually the point I wanted you to come to, and you did it without the objective.
Thanks for saving time for the both of us.  Karma point for you.

Now, the real question: Why be it necessary to screw with other countries purely for political and economic interests?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

In the case of Chile, it was not in our strategic interest to have a Soviet satellite in our backyard. One Cuba is enough (although a fascist USA would not have tolerated that) but what about two, three, or four?

Frankly, political and economic interests are all that should preoccupy our gov't.

[spunkloaf]

Of course.  Because nobody would dare phuck with us.

The only reason to have military after becoming a superpower is to go around spreading Americanism throughout the world.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Of course.  Because nobody would dare phuck with us.

The only reason to have military after becoming a superpower is to go around spreading Americanism throughout the world.

We need a military.

The Cold War is over. I would not object to retreating from some of our foregin entanglements. Unfortunately, Chinese hegemony in Asia is not in our interests nor that of our allies Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan. I think you are correct in that there will be continuing tension between China and the US. That's the way the world is and you must come to terms with it eventually. The issue I have with you is that you blame the US for no good reason.

[spunkloaf]

I blame the US for playing dirty, and lying to its people and the world.

If we are a superpower then we have the power to inspire freedom rather than force it.

[Vermouth]

Who the hell cares what movie actors think about politics?

[conley]

Who the hell cares what movie actors think about politics?

exactly!

people who think that guys like jack nicholson, alec baldwin and sean penn are political leaders aren't really worth debating

[Vermouth]

In the case of Chile, it was not in our strategic interest to have a Soviet satellite in our backyard. One Cuba is enough (although a fascist USA would not have tolerated that) but what about two, three, or four?

That was the thinking during the Cold War. Look at Guatemala, 1954 - all that effort to manufacture a coup and install a dictator two years before the president was up for re-election anyway. That was pre-Cuban revolution and the CIA's heydey of creativity.

US intervention in Latin America has decreased over the past half century for various reasons. Now we can afford to allow a disaster like Chavez outlive his welcome. We don't have to be the bad guys anymore thank goodness.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Who the hell cares what movie actors think about politics?

exactly!

people who think that guys like jack nicholson, alec baldwin and sean penn are political leaders aren't really worth debating

I keep picturing that carebear posting this stuff and not a person.

[conley]

Who the hell cares what movie actors think about politics?

exactly!

people who think that guys like jack nicholson, alec baldwin and sean penn are political leaders aren't really worth debating

I keep picturing that carebear posting this stuff and not a person.