World Leaders: A bunch of lying douche bags?

[Guest MikeSC]

It's $5 for the whole seat but you'll only need the EEEEDGE!!! WAAAAAAAA!!!

That might be the greatest sell line ever.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Czech Republic vs. MikeSC: the final confrontation

 

I don't have an MS Paint handy of Mike. darn

[LessonInMachismo 0]

I like having MikeSC around...he takes my thoughts and forms them into words that make sense.

Sometimes someone posts a set-up line so good, its difficult to decide which insulting reply to post...or perhaps to not even post one at all and just let the comment sit like a pie on the proverbial window-sill where everyone can smell and enjoy it.

Well, to be honest, Mr. RobotJerk, it's never hard to decide whether or not to reply to the asinine comments that you sometimes make, even though it's easier to let them sit like proverbial fecal matter in the bottom of an equally proverbial toilet and stink the place up.

[Justice 0]

And all Reagan did was, you know, free half of Europe. And Bush is only, you know, bringing democracy to the Middle East.

Rather than criticize Mike's opinions, I simply ask that he explain, step-by-step, how he believes that Reagan and Bush accomplished this.

 

I feel that by doing so, we can move beyond generalizations and establish how the facts of the Reagan and Bush presidencies conform with Mike's interpretation of their results.

Why not, you know, read a history book?

-=Mike

Speaking as someone who actually does read history books, allow me to inform you many historians disagree on how much Reagan's policies impacted the decline of the Soviet Union. Some even give credit to other people.

 

It is difficult to confirm your claims without establishing some basic facts.

 

It isn't logical to assume every history book will validate your opinion.

He does have a point. There is some merit to saying Brezhnev's buildup before Reagan certainly did speed things up. Perhaps the most accurate way of saying it is "The USSR was going to fall sooner or later, Reagan simply made it sooner."

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Czech and Mike in disagreement? Konservative Korps falling apart at the seams?

WTF is Konservative Korps?

 

And as far as I know, Czech has never been a member of the CB...

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

It's $5 for the whole seat but you'll only need the EEEEDGE!!! WAAAAAAAA!!!

That might be the greatest sell line ever.

-=Mike

If you're not there, you better be dead! Or in jail!

[cbacon 0]

So you don't recognize the killings of farmers who didn't want to collectivize, the massive amount of 'political' prisoners who were taken and tortured, villages where dissidents dug their own graves before they were shot in them? Hey, at least you recognize the forced relocation and razing of the Pacific Indians in a half-hearted, roundabout way. You're almost there!

 

There's no evidence of the kinds of things you're claiming. They're typical Reagan-ite claims that have no grounding in reality. It's like American media trying to paint the Venezuelan government of today as destroying freedom of the press, imprisoning journalists, etc., none of which is true but all of which has been printed in mainstream American press.

 

I love that you somehow miss that the Communists are, without fail, worse than the governments they replaced.

 

The Sandanistas weren't communists, that's a bunch of CIA propaganda that no one outside the U.S. honestly believes. They accepted weapons from the U.S.S.R., yes. When the United States is funding an armed insurrection against you I'm not entirely sure what other option is available (rolling over and playing dead, perhaps?).

 

Because Bush isn't Reagan would seem the simplest answer. That, and the circumstances of the wars would seem to vary greatly. Did you know that there was less support for the 7 Days War in South America than the Kashmir conflict? Well, perhaps they differ because they are completely different conflicts...

 

Because Bush isn't Reagan? They were against the war almost unanimously because Bush isn't Reagan? How does that work? "Are you in favour of the war in Iraq?" "Nah. I mean, if Reagan was still in office it would be all right, but Bush, no way."

 

The enormous popular opposition to the wars in Iraq in Afgahnistan in the region of the world most familiar with U.S. military intervention wasn't related to said military intervention? Are you for real?

 

This is perhaps the most hilariously misguided statement of the day. Are these the same elections that you've called illegitimate for a while now? Wouldn't it have been a good thing if we had tried to stabilize the entire area so 'true' elections could be held? Or is this another one of your many hypocritical statements that tend to surface?

 

It would have been a good idea to not invade. I said before the war, and I'm still saying now, that as soon as the invasion was launched the situation was irreparably fucked. Iraq is going to be a mess for years to come, just like Afghanistan is now. Having elections in January, having elections later, not having elections at all, it's all the same at this point.

 

And how is my statement misguided anyway? The U.S. tried to prevent elections, but were faced with massive non-violent resistance led by Ayatollah Sistani. They tried to force through a constitution written by the Americans, but were met with massive non-violent resitance led by Ayatollah Sistani. No, wait, I'm making this all up because as we all know, Muslims are all evil violent people. They certainly wouldn't be capable of organizing non-violent resitance en masse.

 

And yes, we are still bombing them back to the stone age. It's so very evident today. It couldn't possibly be a bitter and deluded insurgency, could it? Perhaps I'm the one missing the carpet bombings of Fallujah.

 

Apparently you are the one missing the carpet bombing of Fallujah. Entire city blocks are in rubbles. The majority of the casualties in the city after the major assault were civilian. And, I mean, it's not like that was hard to predict. The U.S. announced that they were going to attack Fallujah long before they actually did. Do you think the insurgents were just going to sit back and wait for the U.S. to crush them? Obviously most of them left the city before the attack took place. The military declared the city a free-fire zone during the assault, meaning that soldiers could fire their guns at anyone they saw without any idea whether or not they were soldiers. Or perhaps you could do some reading on how the U.S. determined which houses the insurgents were using?

 

The insurgency, as far as I know, doesn't have airplanes, so I'm not exactly sure how you believe they're carrying out bombing runs.

 

Alll Reagan did was, you know, free half of Europe. And Bush is only, you know, bringing democracy to the Middle East.

 

I've all ready addressed the second half of that, but Reagan freed half of Europe? I'll assume you're referring to the end of Communism. If that's the case, you've proven yourself completely uninformed about 20th century history, since few if any serious scholars genuinely believe that Reagan was responsible for the end of Communism, as RJ also alluded to

[Guest MikeSC]

So you don't recognize the killings of farmers who didn't want to collectivize, the massive amount of 'political' prisoners who were taken and tortured, villages where dissidents dug their own graves before they were shot in them? Hey, at least you recognize the forced relocation and razing of the Pacific Indians in a half-hearted, roundabout way. You're almost there!

There's no evidence of the kinds of things you're claiming. They're typical Reagan-ite claims that have no grounding in reality. It's like American media trying to paint the Venezuelan government of today as destroying freedom of the press, imprisoning journalists, etc., none of which is true but all of which has been printed in mainstream American press.

The Venezuelan press has not been censored heavily?

 

Reporters with Borders (based in Paris) heavily and fervently disagrees.

 

http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200503240637

 

Journalists can be jailed for 1 or 2 years for damaging the "honor" of a public official. Individuals making comments that might hold somebody up to contempt or public hatred can lead to a prison term of 3 years. You can be arrested for working as a journalist without a degree specifically in journalism.

 

You really can't be this blind to Communism.

 

Wait, you read Chomsky. Yes, you can easily can be.

 

See, that comment would lead to me being imprisoned in Venezuela.

 

Just because you choose to believe Communism does not make their statements reality.

I love that you somehow miss that the Communists are, without fail, worse than the governments they replaced.

The Sandanistas weren't communists, that's a bunch of CIA propaganda that no one outside the U.S. honestly believes.

You might want to read something BESIDES Communist-approved propaganda.

They accepted weapons from the U.S.S.R., yes. When the United States is funding an armed insurrection against you I'm not entirely sure what other option is available (rolling over and playing dead, perhaps?).

Well, they could have done what the people wanted and left.

 

Funny that when given the choice, they sure as fuck didn't choose the Sandanistas.

 

And they repeated that in 1996.

 

And again in 2001.

Because Bush isn't Reagan would seem the simplest answer. That, and the circumstances of the wars would seem to vary greatly. Did you know that there was less support for the 7 Days War in South America than the Kashmir conflict? Well, perhaps they differ because they are completely different conflicts...

Because Bush isn't Reagan? They were against the war almost unanimously because Bush isn't Reagan? How does that work? "Are you in favour of the war in Iraq?" "Nah. I mean, if Reagan was still in office it would be all right, but Bush, no way."

 

The enormous popular opposition to the wars in Iraq in Afgahnistan in the region of the world most familiar with U.S. military intervention wasn't related to said military intervention? Are you for real?

The enormous popular opposition was because the Europeans have become immoral cowards and because the far left ceased giving two shits about human rights many years ago.

 

Keep in mind that the vast majority of those who opposed war in Iraq ALSO opposed the war in Afghanistan.

This is perhaps the most hilariously misguided statement of the day. Are these the same elections that you've called illegitimate for a while now? Wouldn't it have been a good thing if we had tried to stabilize the entire area so 'true' elections could be held? Or is this another one of your many hypocritical statements that tend to surface?

And how is my statement misguided anyway? The U.S. tried to prevent elections, but were faced with massive non-violent resistance led by Ayatollah Sistani.

You might want to re-read history about the "non-violent" aspect.

They tried to force through a constitution written by the Americans, but were met with massive non-violent resitance led by Ayatollah Sistani. No, wait, I'm making this all up because as we all know, Muslims are all evil violent people. They certainly wouldn't be capable of organizing non-violent resitance en masse.

Except, of course, they DIDN'T do so.

And yes, we are still bombing them back to the stone age. It's so very evident today. It couldn't possibly be a bitter and deluded insurgency, could it? Perhaps I'm the one missing the carpet bombings of Fallujah.

Apparently you are the one missing the carpet bombing of Fallujah. Entire city blocks are in rubbles.

Gee, couldn't be the sub-humans FIRING ROCKETS FROM MOSQUES and the like.

 

Nope, no chance of that.

 

If we carpet bombed Fallujah, no building would be standing.

The majority of the casualties in the city after the major assault were civilian. And, I mean, it's not like that was hard to predict. The U.S. announced that they were going to attack Fallujah long before they actually did. Do you think the insurgents were just going to sit back and wait for the U.S. to crush them? Obviously most of them left the city before the attack took place. The military declared the city a free-fire zone during the assault, meaning that soldiers could fire their guns at anyone they saw without any idea whether or not they were soldiers. Or perhaps you could do some reading on how the U.S. determined which houses the insurgents were using?

 

The insurgency, as far as I know, doesn't have airplanes, so I'm not exactly sure how you believe they're carrying out bombing runs.

I guess you missed the whole rockets and grenades they were firing ad nauseum.

Alll Reagan did was, you know, free half of Europe. And Bush is only, you know, bringing democracy to the Middle East.

I've all ready addressed the second half of that, but Reagan freed half of Europe? I'll assume you're referring to the end of Communism. If that's the case, you've proven yourself completely uninformed about 20th century history, since few if any serious scholars genuinely believe that Reagan was responsible for the end of Communism, as RJ also alluded to

The same scholars who were telling Reagan that the USSR would never go away during the 80's?

 

Yeah, I take them seriously.

 

Really, I do.

 

That the two most ineptly wrong people on this board disagree only shows how accurate the statement is.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

There's no evidence of the kinds of things you're claiming. They're typical Reagan-ite claims that have no grounding in reality. It's like American media trying to paint the Venezuelan government of today as destroying freedom of the press, imprisoning journalists, etc., none of which is true but all of which has been printed in mainstream American press.

First off, read Breaking Faith. Here's a pretty good review from a guy who actually used to SUPPORT them.http://ticokid.blogs.com/life_in_central_a...ca/sandinistas/]Link[/url]

 

Of course the Sandinistas started off as an idealistic revolution, but as it came about, the real leaders showed their true colors and became just as bad as the Somozas. Wow, how all Communist regiemes seem to end up: fighting for a good cause, but becoming just as bad as their enemies. Anyone else see that pattern?

 

And Mike took care of Venezuela.

 

The Sandanistas weren't communists, that's a bunch of CIA propaganda that no one outside the U.S. honestly believes. They accepted weapons from the U.S.S.R., yes. When the United States is funding an armed insurrection against you I'm not entirely sure what other option is available (rolling over and playing dead, perhaps?).

 

Uh, all you did was try to shift blame onto the CIA. Where is the proof that they weren't communists?

 

Because Bush isn't Reagan? They were against the war almost unanimously because Bush isn't Reagan? How does that work? "Are you in favour of the war in Iraq?" "Nah. I mean, if Reagan was still in office it would be all right, but Bush, no way."

 

The enormous popular opposition to the wars in Iraq in Afgahnistan in the region of the world most familiar with U.S. military intervention wasn't related to said military intervention? Are you for real?

 

Oh dear God, no one can take a joke...

 

Look, the world in GENERAL was massively opposed. There wasn't a "Huge difference" in opposition compared to Germany, France, or anywhere else. It was all the same, and I really don't care. If they want to blame us for all the mistakes of their past, go ahead. They still didn't have any more 'ardent opposition' than anywhere else in the world.

 

It would have been a good idea to not invade. I said before the war, and I'm still saying now, that as soon as the invasion was launched the situation was irreparably fucked. Iraq is going to be a mess for years to come, just like Afghanistan is now. Having elections in January, having elections later, not having elections at all, it's all the same at this point.

 

And how is my statement misguided anyway? The U.S. tried to prevent elections, but were faced with massive non-violent resistance led by Ayatollah Sistani. They tried to force through a constitution written by the Americans, but were met with massive non-violent resitance led by Ayatollah Sistani. No, wait, I'm making this all up because as we all know, Muslims are all evil violent people. They certainly wouldn't be capable of organizing non-violent resitance en masse.

 

So you are for the Status Quo? Good for you.

 

Irreparably fucked? Uh... okay then. If you like ignoring progress being made towards repair and self-government, I suppose you could say that. Though there isn't much indication that the situation is any worse for the people when they were under the terror-net of Saddam. They are forming a Constitution, a new democratic government, and we have people like you running around saying "DEAR GOD IT'S ALL FUCKED!" Seriously, give an honest reason why it's 'irreparably fucked', because I have cautious optimism about the entire situation and I can't see how it's honestly decided one way or another.

 

And Afganistan was a mess long before we came in, moreso than it is now. Without any sort of internal infrastructure, it's going to be a while until big improvements come. But I'm sure that was on the Taliban Budget, right? Just after explosives to demolish Buddhist Temples and statues...

 

It's misguided because we tried to delay IMMEDIATE elections. You bitch and moan about how horridly the elections went, how well do you think they would have gone two years ago when there was a massive outcry for it?

 

And perhaps we were more referring to Sadr than Sistani when it came to violence. I'm glad that Sistani did try, but Sadr didn't. Understand that indeed, there are Iraqis out there who could indeed fall under the word 'evil'.

 

Apparently you are the one missing the carpet bombing of Fallujah. Entire city blocks are in rubbles. The majority of the casualties in the city after the major assault were civilian. And, I mean, it's not like that was hard to predict. The U.S. announced that they were going to attack Fallujah long before they actually did. Do you think the insurgents were just going to sit back and wait for the U.S. to crush them? Obviously most of them left the city before the attack took place. The military declared the city a free-fire zone during the assault, meaning that soldiers could fire their guns at anyone they saw without any idea whether or not they were soldiers. Or perhaps you could do some reading on how the U.S. determined which houses the insurgents were using?

 

The insurgency, as far as I know, doesn't have airplanes, so I'm not exactly sure how you believe they're carrying out bombing runs.

 

This is laughable, because you honestly have no clue what carpet-bombing actually is other than a term to throw around when talking about the 'devestation of the Iraqi People'.

 

Fallujah was almost completely abandoned when we went in. Only around 10% of it's population was still left in it. It's great that you simply assume that the only 10% that would have stayed were the helpless women and children, you were obviously not paying attention to the hundreds of fire-fights going on.

 

And no, you can not have a 'firefight' when only one side is firing.

 

I've all ready addressed the second half of that, but Reagan freed half of Europe? I'll assume you're referring to the end of Communism. If that's the case, you've proven yourself completely uninformed about 20th century history, since few if any serious scholars genuinely believe that Reagan was responsible for the end of Communism, as RJ also alluded to

 

Uh, RJ said there are scholars who don't believe that. He didn't say that few scholars did, or few geniune scholars that did. He just said:

 

Speaking as someone who actually does read history books, allow me to inform you many historians disagree on how much Reagan's policies impacted the decline of the Soviet Union. Some even give credit to other people.

 

Which shows how apt you are to twist facts around to your own extreme world view. But congrats anyways!

[cbacon 0]

I love that you somehow miss that the Communists are, without fail, worse than the governments they replaced

 

You honestly believe that the Sandinistas were worse than the (american backed) Somonza family dictatorships?

 

-The Kleptocratic rule of the Somonzas, which resulted in Anastasio owning 20% of the country's farmland. And exchanging favorable trade terms(terms that included not having to re-forest clean-cut areas) for money straight into the Somanzo family account.

 

-The uncountable numbers of deaths due to the Garbia?

 

- Landless peasants working on large plantations for less than 1 dollar a day.

 

- The water contamination that led to 17% to all Nicaraguan deaths.

 

- The forced relocation of peasants into colonization projects in the rainforest.

 

- The wide usage of chemicals such as DDT.

 

- The bombing of residential neighborhoods, killing tens of thousands of people in an effect to kill a few "sandinistas".

 

 

Do you honestly think that the Sandinstas were worse than the Somanzos? Hell, most of their actrocities were committed in response to Contra action.

 

Did David Horowitz forget to mention the actions of the Somoza family when he was ranting about the Sandinistas?

 

Well, they could have done what the people wanted and left.

 

Funny that when given the choice, they sure as fuck didn't choose the Sandanistas.

 

Really? Because if I remember correctly, the people DID choose the Sandinistas in 1984 during an election that was deemed "free and fair" by and independant observers and the UN alike.

 

Could the 1990 elections also be considered "free and fair"? Not really, considering the Contras had a gun up to the population's head saying "Don't vote Sandinista, or will continue our bombings of soft targets".

 

Not to mention that even to this day the Sandinistas are the offical oppisition.

 

Except, of course, they DIDN'T do so

 

Yeah, but they TRIED.

 

The same scholars who were telling Reagan that the USSR would never go away during the 80's?

 

Yeah, I take them seriously.

 

Really, I do.

 

Jesus christ, end your life. Not every scholar who believes that the USSR fell for reasons other than Reagan were also telling reagan that the USSR would never go away.

[Guest MikeSC]

I love that you somehow miss that the Communists are, without fail, worse than the governments they replaced

You honestly believe that the Sandinistas were worse than the (american backed) Somonza family dictatorships?

 

-The Kleptocratic rule of the Somonzas, which resulted in Anastasio owning 20% of the country's farmland. And exchanging favorable trade terms(terms that included not having to re-forest clean-cut areas) for money straight into the Somanzo family account.

 

-The uncountable numbers of deaths due to the Garbia?

 

- Landless peasants working on large plantations for less than 1 dollar a day.

 

- The water contamination that led to 17% to all Nicaraguan deaths.

 

- The forced relocation of peasants into colonization projects in the rainforest.

 

- The wide usage of chemicals such as DDT.

 

- The bombing of residential neighborhoods, killing tens of thousands of people in an effect to kill a few "sandinistas".

 

Do you honestly think that the Sandinstas were worse than the Somanzos? Hell, most of their actrocities were committed in response to Contra action.

 

Did David Horowitz forget to mention the actions of the Somoza family when he was ranting about the Sandinistas?

 

 

Actually, I listened to what Amnesty Int'l said about them. And, yes, they were worse than the Somozas --- just as Castro was worse than Batista, the Soviets were worse than the Csar, etc.

 

Hmm, 8000 political assassination within 3 years of gaining power.

 

20,000 political prisoners by 1983. And their treatment made Abu Gharib seem like a happy little tickle fight. Oh, and just to make this point, at no point did former Somoza guards mak up 20% of the prisoners.

 

Seized land from the Miskita Indians, killing or imprisoning about 15,000 of them.

 

The usual press censorship, of course, came along.

 

The collectivization of land was lovely. Those who refused to leave were forced to starve to death.

Well, they could have done what the people wanted and left.

 

Funny that when given the choice, they sure as fuck didn't choose the Sandanistas.

Really? Because if I remember correctly, the people DID choose the Sandinistas in 1984 during an election that was deemed "free and fair" by and independant observers and the UN alike.

Gee, an election where the top challenger dropped out because Ortega's goons assaulted and intimated him and his supporters constantly?

 

Yeah, that's fair.

 

And using the UN as a bulwark of electoral legitimacy is laughable.

Could the 1990 elections also be considered "free and fair"? Not really, considering the Contras had a gun up to the population's head saying "Don't vote Sandinista, or will continue our bombings of soft targets".

Actually, they even had Jimmy Carter there to monitor those elections.

 

And, while he vigorously opposed the group that won, he has never once uttered any comments about that.

Not to mention that even to this day the Sandinistas are the offical oppisition.

And by opposition, you mean the party the people DON'T WANT IN POWER.

Except, of course, they DIDN'T do so

Yeah, but they TRIED.

They "tried" to be non-violent?

 

In what alternate universe?

The same scholars who were telling Reagan that the USSR would never go away during the 80's?

 

Yeah, I take them seriously.

 

Really, I do.

Jesus christ, end your life. Not every scholar who believes that the USSR fell for reasons other than Reagan were also telling reagan that the USSR would never go away.

They most assuredly fucking were. They opposed everything Reagan did every fucking step of the way, believing the USSR was never going to go away.

 

I know you love buying into any anti-American bilge you can spew, but you're so factually wrong that words honestly fail to do it justice.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

I like having MikeSC around...he takes my thoughts and forms them into words that make sense.

Sometimes someone posts a set-up line so good, its difficult to decide which insulting reply to post...or perhaps to not even post one at all and just let the comment sit like a pie on the proverbial window-sill where everyone can smell and enjoy it.

Well, to be honest, Mr. RobotJerk, it's never hard to decide whether or not to reply to the asinine comments that you sometimes make, even though it's easier to let them sit like proverbial fecal matter in the bottom of an equally proverbial toilet and stink the place up.

Nothing changes. Corruption, immorality, chaos.

 

Do you know what your problem is, LessoninMachismo? You are a piece of the machine that thinks it is the whole of the machine. The flute that believes itself a symphony.

 

You have malfunctioned. Admit it, and you'll feel better. Your only destiny is to be a nail that is hammered down.

 

Bang,

 

Bang,

 

Bang.

 

 

 

 

 

......really, I'm just amusing myself here.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Nothing changes. Corruption, immorality, chaos.

 

Do you know what your problem is, LessoninMachismo? You are a piece of the machine that thinks it is the whole of the machine. The flute that believes itself a symphony.

 

You have malfunctioned. Admit it, and you'll feel better. Your only destiny is to be a nail that is hammered down.

 

Bang,

 

Bang,

 

Bang.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

MARK OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Nothing changes. Corruption, immorality, chaos.

 

Do you know what your problem is, LessoninMachismo? You are a piece of the machine that thinks it is the whole of the machine. The flute that believes itself a symphony.

 

You have malfunctioned. Admit it, and you'll feel better. Your only destiny is to be a nail that is hammered down.

 

Bang,

 

Bang,

 

Bang.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

MARK OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Definitely. I tend to side opposite Mike(not to be a dick, but he's clearly out arguing) but Bang Bang Bang wins, regardless of what is replied on other side.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Nothing changes. Corruption, immorality, chaos.

 

Do you know what your problem is, LessoninMachismo? You are a piece of the machine that thinks it is the whole of the machine. The flute that believes itself a symphony.

 

You have malfunctioned. Admit it, and you'll feel better. Your only destiny is to be a nail that is hammered down.

 

Bang,

 

Bang,

 

Bang.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

MARK OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Definitely. I tend to side opposite Mike(not to be a dick, but he's clearly out arguing) but Bang Bang Bang wins, regardless of what is replied on other side.

Good luck to you in your holy cause, CanadianGuitarist. May your choices have better results than mine. Remembered not as a messenger, remembered not as a reformer, not as a prophet, not as a hero...not even as Sebastian. Remembered only...as Jack.

[cbacon 0]

So you don't recognize the killings of farmers who didn't want to collectivize, the massive amount of 'political' prisoners who were taken and tortured, villages where dissidents dug their own graves before they were shot in them? Hey, at least you recognize the forced relocation and razing of the Pacific Indians in a half-hearted, roundabout way. You're almost there!

 

Then the Sandanistas marched into pediatric wards and dumped babies out of their incubators onto the cold floor and carried the equipment over to their socialist hospitals.

 

Anyways, I've been studying and thinking about this question for a long time and I've noticed there is a gaping chasm between what Americans think about their government's intervention in south and central america and what the rest of the world thinks. But you don't have to look too closely to spot the pattern: democratic governments overthrown and replaced with right-wing, U.S friendly dictatorships (Haiti, Guatemala, Chile) or progressive revolutionary movements opposed with American-backed terrorists (Cuba, Nicaragua). I've read all the pro-Reagan arguments and in my weaker moments have almost been seduced by them. Then I ask myself: who jailed Pablo Neruda? Who shot Cardinal Oscar Romero? As a thinking person, I cannot be on their side.

 

Two quick questions for Mike and Justice though - what kind of information would you be willing to listen to with an open mind in an attempt to sway your opinion? What kinds of sources do you accept as being valid? I ask because I know of a variety of sources I can use to back up most of what I've said in this topic, but I don't want to waste my time searching through the BBC archives or whatever only to find that you think the British are all closet Commies or something.

[Guest MikeSC]

Considering how inane, lame, and anti-America most of the world's media is (the curse of being the power), not too bloody many.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You know, I don't really read much of what C-Bacon writes. I figure anything really stupid and worth noting will be responded to by the Cerebs/Mikes of this board. However, he does bring up an interesting point: Are there any media sources out there that we as a TSM group can agree upon when citing sources? Just curious...

[Guest MikeSC]

You know, I don't really read much of what C-Bacon writes. I figure anything really stupid and worth noting will be responded to by the Cerebs/Mikes of this board. However, he does bring up an interesting point: Are there any media sources out there that we as a TSM group can agree upon when citing sources? Just curious...

No.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

I honestly say it's a case by case basis. No matter where you look, there will be some honest articles, and there will be some blantantly biased ones. The BBC? Eh, they swing back and forth from presenting an honest view and presenting "their" view. The same can be said for any source, just with varying frequency.

 

The blog posts that I posted show books that document this sort of stuff (one of which from the inside looking out). I could say I've looked the same way at your own arguments and said "You know, they might have a point", then I think of all the sources that document things like the forced collectivization of Nicuraugian farms and such which pushes myself back. I believe the poster because they are a fairly large critic of American intervention in Central America. But maybe that's not enough for you.

 

I think my biggest point that I've always tried to get across to you is that we've made mistakes in the past. But there were better reasons than "Well let's just create misery" like you seem to want to portray it as. Nicaragua is perhaps the best example of this: The Somozas were bad, the Contras were horrible. But the Sandinistas weren't any better, and there is documentation that shows this. It's not this black and white situation, it was straight gray.

 

Honestly, I'll maintain that we should have actively intervined, we shouldn't have been pussy-footing around it and just done it right. With how Communist and Socialist (Don't even try to claim that they weren't, many were self-proclaimed Marxists) often end up as corrupt and destructive machines, it was perhaps the right decision, but the wrong follow-through.

Edited April 27, 2005 by Justice

[Guest MikeSC]

Hell, that is usually the case. Most int'l incidents don't involve a single "good" guy. The Balkan war we intervened in didn't have a single decent person involved. In Nicaragua, we went with the LEAST bad option. In Cuba, we supported the least bad option. In Haiti, we didn't support anybody because there was no least bad option --- they all sucked.

-=Mike

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Nothing changes. Corruption, immorality, chaos.

 

Do you know what your problem is, LessoninMachismo? You are a piece of the machine that thinks it is the whole of the machine. The flute that believes itself a symphony.

 

You have malfunctioned. Admit it, and you'll feel better. Your only destiny is to be a nail that is hammered down.

 

Bang,

 

Bang,

 

Bang.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

MARK OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Definitely. I tend to side opposite Mike(not to be a dick, but he's clearly out arguing) but Bang Bang Bang wins, regardless of what is replied on other side.

Good luck to you in your holy cause, CanadianGuitarist. May your choices have better results than mine. Remembered not as a messenger, remembered not as a reformer, not as a prophet, not as a hero...not even as Sebastian. Remembered only...as Jack.

Huh?

[Vyce 0]

Nothing changes. Corruption, immorality, chaos.

 

Do you know what your problem is, LessoninMachismo? You are a piece of the machine that thinks it is the whole of the machine. The flute that believes itself a symphony.

 

You have malfunctioned. Admit it, and you'll feel better. Your only destiny is to be a nail that is hammered down.

 

Bang,

 

Bang,

 

Bang.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

MARK OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm such a hopeless fanboy. I pretty much have all of those lines committed to memory. Yes, I speak them with a British accent as well.

[Ted the Poster 0]

I'm not. Where is that quote from? I'd fucking recognize it if I knew the origin.

[Vyce 0]

So you don't recognize the killings of farmers who didn't want to collectivize, the massive amount of 'political' prisoners who were taken and tortured, villages where dissidents dug their own graves before they were shot in them? Hey, at least you recognize the forced relocation and razing of the Pacific Indians in a half-hearted, roundabout way. You're almost there!

 

Then the Sandanistas marched into pediatric wards and dumped babies out of their incubators onto the cold floor and carried the equipment over to their socialist hospitals.

 

Anyways, I've been studying and thinking about this question for a long time and I've noticed there is a gaping chasm between what Americans think about their government's intervention in south and central america and what the rest of the world thinks. But you don't have to look too closely to spot the pattern: democratic governments overthrown and replaced with right-wing, U.S friendly dictatorships (Haiti, Guatemala, Chile) or progressive revolutionary movements opposed with American-backed terrorists (Cuba, Nicaragua). I've read all the pro-Reagan arguments and in my weaker moments have almost been seduced by them. Then I ask myself: who jailed Pablo Neruda? Who shot Cardinal Oscar Romero? As a thinking person, I cannot be on their side.

 

Two quick questions for Mike and Justice though - what kind of information would you be willing to listen to with an open mind in an attempt to sway your opinion? What kinds of sources do you accept as being valid? I ask because I know of a variety of sources I can use to back up most of what I've said in this topic, but I don't want to waste my time searching through the BBC archives or whatever only to find that you think the British are all closet Commies or something.

Do you know why you don't like America so much, Bacon? It is because you are a creature that has received pain and given pain and taken too much joy in its application. You have aspired to dreams and been disappointed, because you are not strong enough, or worthy enough, or right enough, so you lash out at anyone - in this case America - who believes they can make a difference, because it reminds you of your own failure. You have to prove they're just as bad, just as flawed as you are. Am I close, Bacon?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Really? I thought it was because he's a terrorist...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Are there any media sources out there that we as a TSM group can agree upon when citing sources? Just curious...

FactCheck.org and Spinsanity (RIP.)

[Guest Vitamin X]

And we've seen how much YOU appreciate the removal of a detestable slug who, at BEST, simply slaughtered his people en masse, tortured all rivals, and destabilized an entire region of the world.

I haven't bothered to read most of this thread anyways, since it's filled with apparently too many C-Bacon posts which I just skip over and Mike arguing with him. I just wanted to comment on what Mike said here, noting that I don't think a Central or South American country would be nearly as unpleasant to deal with in taking out their government and putting one in its place since, quite simply, the Middle East, or rather its inhabitants besides Israel, have a difficult time accepting a Western form of government. Whether you feel it's the right thing or not, they don't feel it is, but they know how much worse life was under Saddam, however I wouldn't want an alien culture and society trying to impose a system of government on me that I may or may not agree with.

 

This wouldn't be the case in a great deal of third world countries, but certainly is in Iraq's case.

[Justice 0]

Are there any media sources out there that we as a TSM group can agree upon when citing sources? Just curious...

FactCheck.org and Spinsanity (RIP.)

That made me want to cry. Such a great, great site.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Huh?

I thought he was up on it, Vyce. Apparently, he just liked the promo for its awesomeness without knowledege of its source.

 

This what Vyce and I were quoting from, CG:

 

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/043.html