My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading

Answers

« Bush's Global Warming Hits Las Vegas | Main | Paper or Plastic? When Freedom of Choice Goes Too Far »

Comments

throbbing shillelagh

Especially in Berkeley, where it is the prevailing wind (current flatulence) of the city council to only allow free speech that the Pinkos approve.

No doubt about it, they truly are brave souls to stand up for what they believe is right in the face of overwhelming support.

kb

feelthedrool drooled:

"krappinghisbeard takes one statement literally, such as chopping off their balls, and then uses the atomic bomb as a metaphor for terrorism."

I didn't use the atmic bomb as a metaphor for terrorism. I said it WAS terrorism. No metaphor at all.

"He conveniently forgot the atrocities committed by the Japanese in their POW camps in the Pacific"

Uhhh...He did? No, he didn't. However, HE is NOT Japanese. HE is American. HE is therefore rsponsible for what HIS country does. Japanese terrorism is NOT HIS responsibility, unless, of course, he's assisted in supporting it, which unfortinately has happened MANY times.

"in territories that weren't even theirs...like oh, say, the Philippines...etc."

Why are you lecturing me about Japanese atrocities? You think I'm unaware of them? Don't be an idiot. Their atrocities are NOT my responsibility for the most part. I'm responsible for OUR atrocities. You should learn to take responsibility for your actions for once instead of focusing exclusively on the 'other' all the time. This is a VERY serious problem among the indoctrinated right. It does come in handy when the government, which they interestingly enough do not trust, but are always willing to go kill for, tells them to go and kill whoever for whatever. Let's give you a pre-school analogy: If you beat up your wife, and the guy down the street, IC, beats up his wife, and someone confronts you about your deviant wife-beating behavior, do you think a good response would be to whine about IC's deviant behavior? This makes your crimes better somehow? It's basically like this. True, this isn't a 100% water-tight analogy, though it DOES emphasize the point that YOU are responsible for YOUR behavior. And, I mean, if even Robert McNamara can admit that dropping the bomb was a war crime, why can't you? After all, he was a part of the whole thing. He and that pathetic deviant Curtis LeMay.

"Or the fact that they were committed to the death until two nukes stopped them in their tracks."

The nukes stopping the war is nonsense, and the entire argument was thrown out with granny's bathwater LONG ago. Rather than repeating outdated rationalizations and lies, which have already been admitted to be as much, even by those involved, why don't you try and practice a little honesty for the first time in your life.(See 'The Fog of War')

"Uh, the US Marines did go hand-to-hand with the Japanese, so yes, they did get 'close enough' to do it, in a manner of speaking. Something krappinghisbeard is too chickenshit to do himself."

Dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations is NOT going hand to hand anymore than flying airplanes into buildings occupied by civilians is going hand to hand. Takes a REALLY good indoctrination NOT to recognize something this obvious. I mean, most of the planet notices readily because it's almost difficult NOT to see it. Takes LOTS of hard work to make sure folks like you don't see things this obvious. And to the credit of the departments in the government like 'The Department of Public Information', i.e., Propaganda Central, they often do get their desired results. They manage to create zombies who would never ask the right questions, look at the obvious, etc....They were even clever enough to test it during the Iraq fiasco when they used Saddam's gassing of the Kurds as one of the reasons why he needed to be stopped, though this and most all of his other crimes were committed DURING the time the U.S. supported him up one side and down the other. Now THAT takes REAL confidence in the propaganda system and it's effects.

"Of course no one in Japan thinks that...so why were the Japanese fighting to begin with?"

Why are you talking about the Japanese? We're not discussing the Japanese and their crimes. We're discussing YOU and your crimes.

"Because of the Socialist Commutard Roosevelt who happened to be a Democrat?"

Yeah, he was a "real lefty".

"Or because they wanted to annex China (the occupation of Nanking comes to mind) in addition to Australia?"

And? Why not discuss the places YOU have annexed? These are the ones YOU are responsible for. Jeez! For a group who likes to pretend that people should be responsible you folks sure have no idea how to do it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"After all, if Japan weren't trying to annex the Pacific Rim, and Italy the Balkans and parts of the Middle East, and Germany the rest of Europe and Africa, why did the Japanese sign the Tripartrate Treaty?
I guess they were Doing Their Bit for world peace."

Why are you babbling as if I think what Japan has done is wonderful? Never even hinted at as much. Why are babbling about Japan at all instead of your crimes? You know, the ones which you don't acknowledge even existing at all, and start foaming at the mouth when the honest folks do? YOu folks are SOOOOO indoctrinated in fact that you even perceive criticism of U.S. actions as tantamount to treason, or even funnier, interpret the criticism as "anti-American". THIS, I'm afraid to say, really DOES demonstrate that you're probably as indoctrinated as the average North Korean, though this isn't really fair to them, and I can easily make an argument showing how. Ask if interested.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
longonlonliness said:

"I heard a Chomsky joke the other day: I listened to one of his lectures."

Me, too. It was something about a rightwing drooler trying to open the cover of one of his books, you know, to actually read ONE, so that, you know, they would actually know what they were talking about when trying to talk about him instead of just saying a bunch of nonsense demonstrating they haven't a clue, and blowing up because it was just too damn hard.

"I read a few Chomsky jokes a week ago. They went something like this: Critical Lives, Manufacturing Consent, Miseducation (truly ironic, considering he is part of the problem as an academic) and Propaganda and the Public Mind."

Well, what were the jokes?

"All the titles are left wing talking points."

Irrelevant. What did the books say? And I have yet to meet a rightwing drooler who knew much of anything at all about the left. Oh, sure, they think they do, but they don't. Same probelm they have with someone like Chomsky. They mistakenly think they know his work, but it becomes apparent in a matter of seconds that they don't. I mean, about 99% of the time anyway.

kb

mandrool said:

"Meh. kb sees everything as an opportunity to bring up - AGAIN - the same handful of topics it's shopping here every single time it posts. It never has anything else to say. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy."

And even MORE evidence of your illiteracy. It has LOTS to say. You just don't understand the words, as you've made abundantly clear.

kb

feelmyignorance said:

"Doesn't seem to be too difficult for MC to do in rebutting krappinghisbeard and Chomsky."

It doesn't? Hahahahahaaaaa....The you either haven't read a word on ANY of the threads, or you haven't understood what you've been reading. THESE are the ONLY two choices, drooler. No wonder you folks tremble in fear at even the thought of actually reading ONE Chomsky book. On some level you know that you don't know shot about him, and know that if you read his work, and interpreted it in the way your jaded preconceived notions will probably lead you to do, that you'll be slapped up one side of the head and down the other so many times you'll start sounding like Bush trying to say the alphabet.

mandible claw

Must .. resist.. urge to bash kb's head in again ... such poor arguments .. lack of debating skills .. yet such overconfidence in himself ..

It's passed. I'm not getting into the whole shebang on this thread as well.

xxxxliberal

"such poor arguments .. lack of debating skills .. yet such overconfidence in himself .."

Projection.

"I'm not getting into the whole shebang on this thread as well."

'Course not, you're losing all over the shop.

xxxxliberal

And no, I'm not "back". I'm here with regard to a thread about 5 below where Mandy is losing hands down in his efforts to keep the IAF in Turkey 'debate' going. Just thought I'd have a look here to see what's going on ...

feelthelove

Then you are 'back.' MC isn't losing...you are running away to other threads, like you have always done.
"We're leaving" means you got your ass kicked and are spouting the same shite on different threads, and getting your ass kicked again, dumbmackfuck.

xxxxliberal

"such poor arguments .. lack of debating skills .. yet such overconfidence in himself .."

Projection.

"I'm not getting into the whole shebang on this thread as well."

'Course not, you're losing all over the shop.

feelthelove

xxxxlaxlibtard, aka tom, is lying yet again about mc losing, among lying about other things.

kb

"Must .. resist.. urge to bash kb's head in again"

Factually incorrect. You said "again" in the sentence above. There isn't a single documented case yet where this has happened, so using the term "again" is false. You can try to do so for the first time though. Go for it.

"... such poor arguments .."

Yeah, you've said this. It's just odd that given how bad they are that you've been unable to demonstrate a single one to be false. What does this make you?

"lack of debating skills .."

Actually, haven't really needed to use much debating skills yet as there have been so few persons with whom to debate. Usually, at leasy in MY experience, when a debate occurs, both sides usually know something about the topic. In this case only one of us does, and it's NOT you. Not only that, you and the other droolers brag NOT to want to know what the other sides position is. THIS is one of your weak spots. Now, were you to ask me to debate some issue regarding someone like, Rush, Coulter, etc...the absolute FIRST thing I would do is to read as much of there's as I could so that I'd know what I was talking about. Regarding you folks and Chomsky, you boast about NOT reading him. Sort of difference in our debating styles and what is important I'd have to say.

"yet such overconfidence in himself .."

Don't know what you're referring to. I have confidence in that I know the topic fairly well, and can read and understand what I've read. Not to mention being able to see when someone else does NOT understand what they've read, if they've read anything at all, which excludes about 97% of anti-Chomsky droolers. Doesn't make me feel all that "confident" simply because I can recognize when someone doesn't know what they're talking about, and set about proving it.

"It's passed. I'm not getting into the whole shebang on this thread as well."

There's nothing to get into, so that's probably the smart thing to do. You sort of made a fool of yourself on the other thread, so if I were you I, too, would just drop it. Now, from MY standpoint, I hope you find yourself unable to "resist", fly off the handle, and start spewing nonsense all over the place again. This will allow me even MORE opportunity to...uhhh...well...point out the problems.

mandible claw

And? Why not discuss the places YOU have annexed? These are the ones YOU are responsible for. Jeez! For a group who likes to pretend that people should be responsible you folks sure have no idea how to do it.

Yeah guys, let's have a brainstorm over all the different colonies of the AmeriKKKan empire we can think of. Lolz..

mandible claw

Posted by: xxxxliberal | July 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM

"such poor arguments .. lack of debating skills .. yet such overconfidence in himself .."

Projection.

"I'm not getting into the whole shebang on this thread as well."

'Course not, you're losing all over the shop.

Let's see, kb's dropped the Israel argument entirely, is ignoring where I demonstrated irrefutably that he's wrong when he claims I don't understand his arguments, has no response to the info on Cuba from emigres that I posted, and it's probably fair to say it's a stalemate on Chomsky - but only because he's effectively throwing out so much chaff to deflect the discussion that I can't even be bothered dealing with it all. Oh, and, no response to my refutal of Chomsky's article on Mexican farmers. I'd say that puts me at 4 and a half points vs his half a point, and even that's being generous.

xxxxliberal

Yeah, "scoring" yourself is always a good idea, Mandy. :)

Deal with the Obama thread and quit your huffing. You haven't got as far as scoring one point yet. Seeya

mandible claw

Posted by: xxxxliberal | August 01, 2008 at 12:11 AM

Yeah, "scoring" yourself is always a good idea, Mandy. :)

Deal with the Obama thread and quit your huffing. You haven't got as far as scoring one point yet. Seeya

It's fine if you're able to be honest about it, unlike you or kb. Obama thread's dealt with, done and gone til you lot inject something new into the discussion. No comment on Chomsky's Mexican farmers, Israeli/Palestinian relations and history, Castro etc. then?

xxxxliberal

Obama thread IS dealt with, done and dusted till YOU inject something new into the discussion, Mandy. I see you didn't even answer my last entry there. Which was a simple statement (in bold) that you couldn't refute.

"No comment on Chomsky's Mexican farmers, Israeli/Palestinian relations and history, Castro etc. then?"

No. I wasn't engaged in those discussions, and I'm not starting now. My intention was always to finish off the Obama thread and leave. And that's exactly what I'm doing.

mandible claw

Ya hear that, folks? It's the sound of silence... The lib-troll appears to have finally done the unthinkable - kept its promise and f*cked off..

kb

And? Why not discuss the places YOU have annexed? These are the ones YOU are responsible for. Jeez! For a group who likes to pretend that people should be responsible you folks sure have no idea how to do it.kb

"Yeah guys, let's have a brainstorm over all the different colonies of the AmeriKKKan empire we can think of. Lolz.."drool

Uhhh....Are you going to try and say there aren't any? Perhaps we need to define "colony". That being said, perhaps you really ARE from Australia, because ANY American would surely be aware of dozens of these. But then again being from Australia you should know that it, too, is a European colony stolen from it's inhabitants through the usual methods, though perhaps a little less bloody than usual. Not that those new "guests" weren't the bloody types to begin with. If you know what I mean.

Moving on............

"Let's see, kb's dropped the Israel argument entirely"drool

What Israel argument?

"is ignoring where I demonstrated irrefutably that he's wrong when he claims I don't understand his arguments"

Where? I've seen no evidence that you know the first thing about Israel. And you obviously do NOT understand my arguments because you don't even seem to be the least bit aware of what I'm discussing nmost of the time, as I've "irrefutably" demonstrated repeatedly.

"has no response to the info on Cuba from emigres that I posted"

Nothing to respond to. I can find thousands of Cuban emigres saying they're happy they escaped Cuba. So what? What does this have to do with anything I've been talking about, other than supporting everything I've said from the beginning regarding that to a large extent, perhaps entirely, YOU are the reson they've been put in the position of even needing to "escape Cuba". A small fact which the indoctrinated never cease to ignore, as I've already repeatedly reminded you. Once again, you are discussing effect. I'm discussing cause. Are you not aware of the strategy of purposely causing a poor country to suffer so as to thereby blame the victims of their suffering? This is VERY old, and VERY tried. The U.S. has a LOOOONG history of doing exactly this. Not even secret most of the time. And with regards to Cuba, the ONLY possible people who are clueless are the American population. Most of the rest of the planet knows quite well the history. Ask any elementary kid in Europe. Here's the picture: 1)Poor peasants reclaim the land from criminals supportd by U.S. 2)U.S. refuses to work with popular government preferring instead the criminal, as it has often done(Already given a list, but if you want another one...)3)Immediately starts international terrorism of every imaginable sort ((Books all over the place talking about this. Just finished reading one the other day.))4)Using the Soviet Union as an excuse to clamp down and make the already robbed and poor people suffer even more than already were doing 5)Blaming their suffering on the new popular government 6)Extending the suffering indefinitely so as to cause(CAUSE)many of the population to feel the need to escape, though I would bet about a million dollars that had the U.S. worked with Castro from the beginning, as he AND the Cuban population wanted, that not 20 people would have left. I mean, why the hell would they? Leave Cuba for Florida? Give me a break. That would be like leaving Hawaii for Detroit.
There are several other OBVIOUS areas which I skipped over which are even MORE damning regarding the U.S.'s terrorist and criminal behavior with regards to Cuba, but these most obvious ones are enough. I have a keen idea. Let's talk about the wonderful areas of the same region where the U.S. DID stay in control. Let's look at Guatemala under U.S. care:


Making Guatemala a Killing Field
Noam Chomsky


There was one place in Central America that did get some US media coverage before the Sandinista revolution, and that was Guatemala. In 1944, a revolution there overthrew a vicious tyrant, leading to the establishment of a democratic government that basically modeled itself on Roosevelt's New Deal. In the ten-year democratic interlude that followed, there were the beginnings of successful independent economic development.

That caused virtual hysteria in Washington. Eisenhower and Dulles warned that the "self defense and self-preservation" of the United States was at stake unless the virus was exterminated. US intelligence reports were very candid about the dangers posed by capitalist democracy in Guatemala.

A CIA memorandum of 1952 described the situation in Guatemala as "adverse to US interests" because of the "Communist influence... based on militant advocacy of social reforms and nationalistic policies." The memo warned that Guatemala "has recently stepped-up substantially its support of Communist and anti-American activities in other Central American countries." One prime example cited was an alleged gift of $300,000 to Jose Figueres.

As mentioned above, Jose Figueres was the founder of Costa Rican democracy and a leading democratic figure in Central America. Although he cooperated enthusiastically with the CIA, had called the United States "the standard-bearer of our cause" and was regarded by the US ambassador to Costa Rica as "the best advertising agency that the United Fruit Company could find in Latin America," Figueres had an independent streak and was therefore not considered as reliable as Somoza or other gangsters in our employ.

In the political rhetoric of the United States, this made him possibly a "Communist." So if Guatemala gave him money to help him win an election, that showed Guatemala supported Communists.


Worse yet, the same CIA memorandum continued, the "radical and nationalist policies" of the democratic capitalist government, including the "persecution of foreign economic interests, especially the United Fruit Company," had gained "the support or acquiescence of almost all Guatemalans." The government was proceeding "to mobilize the hitherto politically inert peasantry" while undermining the power of large landholders.

Furthermore, the 1944 revolution had aroused "a strong national movement to free Guatemala from the military dictatorship, social backwardness, and 'economic colonialism' which had been the pattern of the past," and "inspired the loyalty and conformed to the self interest of most politically conscious Guatemalans." Things became still worse after a successful land reform began to threaten "stability" in neighboring countries where suffering people did not fail to take notice.

In short, the situation was pretty awful. So the CIA carried out a successful coup. Guatemala was turned into the slaughterhouse it remains today, with regular US intervention whenever things threaten to get out of line.

By the late 1970s, atrocities were again mounting beyond the terrible norm, eliciting verbal protests. And yet, contrary to what many people believe, military aid to Guatemala continued at virtually the same level under the Carter "human rights" administration. Our allies have been enlisted in the cause as well- notably Israel, which is regarded as a "strategic asset" in part because of its success in guiding state terrorism.

Under Reagan, support for near-genocide in Guatemala became positively ecstatic. The most extreme of the Guatemalan Hitlers we've backed there, Rios Montt, was lauded by Reagan as a man totally dedicated to democracy. In the early 1980s, Washington's friends slaughtered tens of thousands of Guatemalans, mostly Indians in the highlands, with countless others tortured and raped. Large regions were decimated.

In 1988, a newly opened Guatemalan newspaper called La Epoca was blown up by government terrorists. At the time, the media here were very much exercised over the fact that the US-funded journal in Nicaragua, La Prensa, which was openly calling for the overthrow of the government and supporting the US-run terrorist army, had been forced to miss a couple of issues due to a shortage of newsprint. That led to a torrent of outrage and abuse, in the Washington Post and elsewhere, about Sandinista totalitarianism.

On the other hand, the destruction of La Epoca aroused no interest whatsoever and was not reported here, although it was well-known to US journalists. Naturally the US media couldn't be expected to notice that US-funded security forces had silenced the one, tiny independent voice that had tried, a few weeks earlier, to speak up in Guatemala.

A year later, a journalist from La Epoca, Julio Codoy, who had fled after the bombing, went back to Guatemala for a brief visit. When he returned to the US, he contrasted the situation in Central America with that in Eastern Europe. Eastern Europeans are "luckier than Central Americans," Godoy wrote, because while the Moscow-imposed government in Prague would degrade and humiliate reformers, the Washington-made government in Guatemala would kill them. It still does, in a virtual genocide that has taken more than 150,000 victims [in what Amnesty International calls] "a government program of political murder."

The press either conforms or, as in the case of La Epoca, disappears.

"One is tempted to believe," Godoy continued, "that some people in the White House worship Aztec gods-with the offering of Central American blood." And he quoted a Western European diplomat who said: "As long as the Americans don't change their attitude towards the region, there's no space here for the truth or for hope."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Guatemala.html

"and it's probably fair to say it's a stalemate on Chomsky - but only because he's effectively throwing out so much chaff to deflect the discussion that I can't even be bothered dealing with it all."drool

It's NOT a stalemate at all. You have nothing and it was demonstrated that you didn't. Period. In THIS sense it's stale. That's about it.

"Oh, and, no response to my refutal of Chomsky's article on Mexican farmers."drool

Didn't see what you had written. Where? I saw where you gave a few opinions which disagreed with what you "think" Chomsky says. This proves nothing at all other than you think something different. Doesn't come close to making you right or anything. This will need to be proven. Have seen nothing of the sort. Not on THIS blog anyway.

"I'd say that puts me at 4 and a half points vs his half a point, and even that's being generous."

I'd say that your math is about as good as that used in my analogies where you thought 2+2=54, too. You have not proved ONE thing regarding Chomsky as being incorrect yet. Nothing. But you've sure said you have.(Thinking that saying IS the same as doing)

I've already offered you a little "media business" work regarding Israel which you, like all the others, have ignored altogether. Haven't had a single response regarding the videos and have offered them several dozen times. Until you and the drool squad decide to respond to even ONE of the items we offer I don't really see you having much of a case to whine. Oh, and I offered this LONG before you mentioned Israel. So, here's what we will do. You watch MY information, and I will look at whatever YOU have to offer, and then we can compare, you know, like grownups. How about it? Here's what you must do. Go to youtube and look up 'Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land' ((The music at the intro is great as well. Peter Gabriel)) There are several parts so watch ALL of them so as to get a complete picture, and NOT just a partial picture. Try and make arguments when finished. But first it would be a good idea to show us that you've understood what you've heard. THIS initial step is rarely achieved, but go for it.

feelthelove

Your arguments about Cuba and the embargo against it are full of shit. Were that truly the case,
the lovely health care (that Micheal Moore enjoyed and touted in his film) at the one luxury hospital, not to mention the hospital itself, would not exist.

Castro does not subject himself to the health care he forces on his people. The embargo has not impoverished Cuba the way you think it has. Were it truly a case of humanitarian need, then the sanctions would have been lifted a long time ago.

Castro has forced his people to live and languish on a plantation of his making, not of the United States. Were he truly the leader he says he is, Cuba would be flourishing. Even Yugo Chava-ez isn't that stupid to totally socialize Venezuela...although nationalizing the oil companies is a start.
His own people rejected his ruler-for-life bid.

kb

feelthedrool said:

"Your arguments about Cuba and the embargo against it are full of shit."

Well, that's all the proof I needed. I mean, YOU said so. Great! Now, I can just believe whatever YOU tell me, do no research at all, don't ask where any of mine comes from, and just know it all. Why didn't you tell me? I like this rightwing drool style of education. It's much easier than all that damn reading, those damn difficult ideas, and having to actually live in the real world.

"Were that truly the case,"

It is. If you believe it isn't, then shut up and prove it.

"the lovely health care (that Micheal Moore enjoyed and touted in his film) at the one luxury hospital, not to mention the hospital itself, would not exist."

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....(snore). And THEN there were the free British hospitals, France's, etc....Moore offered NOTHING in his film which was the least bit controversial, or even remotely surprising to anyone other than the usual U.S. indocs who are still suffering from all those years of the fairy tale "red scare" propaganda.

"Castro does not subject himself to the health care he forces on his people."

Your evidence? But then again, I'm sure Bush doesn't either.((You know, having at least one doctor at his service 24 hours a day))

"The embargo has not impoverished Cuba the way you think it has."

Uhhh...You do NOT know they "way I think" anything, so quit pretending. That being said, YES it has. Oh, and I DO have my evidence, but see no reason in offering it here as you never do. I'll try YOUR style for a change and just SAY whatever I want without providing any evidence. I'm tired of being one of the few here who do.

"Were it truly a case of humanitarian need, then the sanctions would have been lifted a long time ago."

The U.S. prevented even shipment of food and medicine to Cuba which is illegal and criminal to boot, not they haven't managed without it at least well enough to be the envy of many of the surrounding countries. Basically, terroristic.

Cuba in the Cross-Hairs: A Near Half-Century of Terror
by Noam Chomsky

Now that the Bush administration, pursuing its "war against terrorism," has once again elevated Cuba into America's cross-hairs as a newly anointed member of the Axis of Evil, it seems like a good moment to consider the question of terrorism and Cuba. Noam Chomsky takes up this matter in his new book, 'Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance', and a long, chilling excerpt from that book is included below (with his kind permission). No one has written more powerfully or consistently on the subject of state violence and state terror or reminded us more powerfully or consistently that "terror" isn't primarily what small stateless bands of fanatics deliver to large and powerful states. History is, in a sense, a history of state terror and the United States has been a practitioner of the form, in the case of Cuba, as Chomsky shows, with unrelenting perseverance and relish for nearly half a century.
-- Tom Engelhardt

The Batista dictatorship was overthrown in January 1959 by Castro's guerrilla forces. In March, the National Security Council (NSC) considered means to institute regime change. In May, the CIA began to arm guerrillas inside Cuba. "During the Winter of 1959-1960, there was a significant increase in CIA-supervised bombing and incendiary raids piloted by exiled Cubans" based in the US. We need not tarry on what the US or its clients would do under such circumstances. Cuba, however, did not respond with violent actions within the United States for revenge or deterrence. Rather, it followed the procedure required by international law. In July 1960, Cuba called on the UN for help, providing the Security Council with records of some twenty bombings, including names of pilots, plane registration numbers, unexploded bombs, and other specific details, alleging considerable damage and casualties and calling for resolution of the conflict through diplomatic channels. US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge responded by giving his "assurance [that] the United States has no aggressive purpose against Cuba." Four months before, in March 1960, his government had made a formal decision in secret to overthrow the Castro government, and preparations for the Bay of Pigs invasion were well advanced.

Washington was concerned that Cubans might try to defend themselves. CIA chief Allen Dulles therefore urged Britain not to provide arms to Cuba. His "main reason," the British ambassador reported to London, "was that this might lead the Cubans to ask for Soviet or Soviet bloc arms," a move that "would have a tremendous effect," Dulles pointed out, allowing Washington to portray Cuba as a security threat to the hemisphere, following the script that had worked so well in Guatemala. Dulles was referring to Washington's successful demolition of Guatemala's first democratic experiment, a ten-year interlude of hope and progress, greatly feared in Washington because of the enormous popular support reported by US intelligence and the "demonstration effect" of social and economic measures to benefit the large majority. The Soviet threat was routinely invoked, abetted by Guatemala's appeal to the Soviet bloc for arms after the US had threatened attack and cut off other sources of supply. The result was a half-century of horror, even worse than the US-backed tyranny that came before.

For Cuba, the schemes devised by the doves were similar to those of CIA director Dulles. Warning President Kennedy about the "inevitable political and diplomatic fall-out" from the planned invasion of Cuba by a proxy army, Arthur Schlesinger suggested efforts to trap Castro in some action that could be used as a pretext for invasion: "One can conceive a black operation in, say, Haiti which might in time lure Castro into sending a few boatloads of men on to a Haitian beach in what could be portrayed as an effort to overthrow the Haitian regime, . . . then the moral issue would be clouded, and the anti-US campaign would be hobbled from the start." Reference is to the regime of the murderous dictator "Papa Doc" Duvalier, which was backed by the US (with some reservations), so that an effort to help Haitians overthrow it would be a crime.

Eisenhower's March 1960 plan called for the overthrow of Castro in favor of a regime "more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the U.S.," including support for "military operation on the island" and "development of an adequate paramilitary force outside of Cuba." Intelligence reported that popular support for Castro was high, but the US would determine the "true interests of the Cuban people." The regime change was to be carried out "in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of U.S. intervention," because of the anticipated reaction in Latin America and the problems of doctrinal management at home.

Operation Mongoose

The Bay of Pigs invasion came a year later, in April 1961, after Kennedy had taken office. It was authorized in an atmosphere of "hysteria" over Cuba in the White House, Robert McNamara later testified before the Senate's Church Committee. At the first cabinet meeting after the failed invasion, the atmosphere was "almost savage," Chester Bowles noted privately: "there was an almost frantic reaction for an action program." At an NSC meeting two days later, Bowles found the atmosphere "almost as emotional" and was struck by "the great lack of moral integrity" that prevailed. The mood was reflected in Kennedy's public pronouncements: "The complacent, the self-indulgent, the soft societies are about to be swept away with the debris of history. Only the strong . . . can possibly survive," he told the country, sounding a theme that would be used to good effect by the Reaganites during their own terrorist wars. Kennedy was aware that allies "think that we're slightly demented" on the subject of Cuba, a perception that persists to the present.

Kennedy implemented a crushing embargo that could scarcely be endured by a small country that had become a "virtual colony" of the US in the sixty years following its "liberation" from Spain. He also ordered an intensification of the terrorist campaign: "He asked his brother, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy, to lead the top-level interagency group that oversaw Operation Mongoose, a program of paramilitary operations, economic warfare, and sabotage he launched in late 1961 to visit the 'terrors of the earth' on Fidel Castro and, more prosaically, to topple him."

The terrorist campaign was "no laughing matter," Jorge Dominguez writes in a review of recently declassified materials on operations under Kennedy, materials that are "heavily sanitized" and "only the tip of the iceberg," Piero Gleijeses adds.

Operation Mongoose was "the centerpiece of American policy toward Cuba from late 1961 until the onset of the 1962 missile crisis," Mark White reports, the program on which the Kennedy brothers "came to pin their hopes." Robert Kennedy informed the CIA that the Cuban problem carries "the top priority in the United States Government -- all else is secondary -- no time, no effort, or manpower is to be spared" in the effort to overthrow the Castro regime. The chief of Mongoose operations, Edward Lansdale, provided a timetable leading to "open revolt and overthrow of the Communist regime" in October 1962. The "final definition" of the program recognized that "final success will require decisive U.S. military intervention," after terrorism and subversion had laid the basis. The implication is that US military intervention would take place in October 1962 -- when the missile crisis erupted.

In February 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a plan more extreme than Schlesinger's: to use "covert means . . . to lure or provoke Castro, or an uncontrollable subordinate, into an overt hostile reaction against the United States; a reaction which would in turn create the justification for the US to not only retaliate but destroy Castro with speed, force and determination." In March, at the request of the DOD Cuba Project, the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted a memorandum to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara outlining "pretexts which they would consider would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba." The plan would be undertaken if "a credible internal revolt is impossible of attainment during the next 9-10 months," but before Cuba could establish relations with Russia that might "directly involve the Soviet Union."

A prudent resort to terror should avoid risk to the perpetrator.

The March plan was to construct "seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and responsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the United States," placing the US "in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances [and developing] an international image of Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Proposed measures included blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay to create "a 'Remember the Maine' incident," publishing casualty lists in US newspapers to "cause a helpful wave of national indignation," portraying Cuban investigations as "fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack," developing a "Communist Cuban terror campaign [in Florida] and even in Washington," using Soviet bloc incendiaries for cane-burning raids in neighboring countries, shooting down a drone aircraft with a pretense that it was a charter flight carrying college students on a holiday, and other similarly ingenious schemes -- not implemented, but another sign of the "frantic" and "savage" atmosphere that prevailed.

On August 23 the president issued National Security Memorandum No. 181, "a directive to engineer an internal revolt that would be followed by U.S. military intervention," involving "significant U.S. military plans, maneuvers, and movement of forces and equipment" that were surely known to Cuba and Russia. Also in August, terrorist attacks were intensified, including speedboat strafing attacks on a Cuban seaside hotel "where Soviet military technicians were known to congregate, killing a score of Russians and Cubans"; attacks on British and Cuban cargo ships; the contamination of sugar shipments; and other atrocities and sabotage, mostly carried out by Cuban exile organizations permitted to operate freely in Florida. A few weeks later came "the most dangerous moment in human history."

"A bad press in some friendly countries"

Terrorist operations continued through the tensest moments of the missile crisis. They were formally canceled on October 30, several days after the Kennedy and Khrushchev agreement, but went on nonetheless. On November 8, "a Cuban covert action sabotage team dispatched from the United States successfully blew up a Cuban industrial facility," killing 400 workers, according to the Cuban government. Raymond Garthoff writes that "the Soviets could only see [the attack] as an effort to backpedal on what was, for them, the key question remaining: American assurances not to attack Cuba." These and other actions reveal again, he concludes, "that the risk and danger to both sides could have been extreme, and catastrophe not excluded."

After the crisis ended, Kennedy renewed the terrorist campaign. Ten days before his assassination he approved a CIA plan for "destruction operations" by US proxy forces "against a large oil refinery and storage facilities, a large electric plant, sugar refineries, railroad bridges, harbor facilities, and underwater demolition of docks and ships." A plot to kill Castro was initiated on the day of the Kennedy assassination. The campaign was called off in 1965, but "one of Nixon's first acts in office in 1969 was to direct the CIA to intensify covert operations against Cuba."

Of particular interest are the perceptions of the planners. In his review of recently released documents on Kennedy-era terror, Dominguez observes that "only once in these nearly thousand pages of documentation did a U.S. official raise something that resembled a faint moral objection to U.S.-government sponsored terrorism": a member of the NSC staff suggested that it might lead to some Russian reaction, and raids that are "haphazard and kill innocents . . . might mean a bad press in some friendly countries." The same attitudes prevail throughout the internal discussions, as when Robert Kennedy warned that a full-scale invasion of Cuba would "kill an awful lot of people, and we're going to take an awful lot of heat on it."

Terrorist activities continued under Nixon, peaking in the mid- 1970s, with attacks on fishing boats, embassies, and Cuban offices overseas, and the bombing of a Cubana airliner, killing all seventy-three passengers. These and subsequent terrorist operations were carried out from US territory, though by then they were regarded as criminal acts by the FBI.

So matters proceeded, while Castro was condemned by editors for maintaining an "armed camp, despite the security from attack promised by Washington in 1962." The promise should have sufficed, despite what followed; not to speak of the promises that preceded, by then well documented, along with information about how well they could be trusted: e.g., the "Lodge moment" of July 1960.

On the thirtieth anniversary of the missile crisis, Cuba protested a machine-gun attack against a Spanish-Cuban tourist hotel; responsibility was claimed by a group in Miami. Bombings in Cuba in 1997, which killed an Italian tourist, were traced back to Miami. The perpetrators were Salvadoran criminals operating under the direction of Luis Posada Carriles and financed in Miami. One of the most notorious international terrorists, Posada had escaped from a Venezuelan prison, where he had been held for the Cubana airliner bombing, with the aid of Jorge Mas Canosa, a Miami businessman who was the head of the tax-exempt Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF). Posada went from Venezuela to El Salvador, where he was put to work at the Ilopango military air base to help organize US terrorist attacks against Nicaragua under Oliver North's direction.

Posada has described in detail his terrorist activities and the funding for them from exiles and CANF in Miami, but felt secure that he would not be investigated by the FBI. He was a Bay of Pigs veteran, and his subsequent operations in the 1960s were directed by the CIA. When he later joined Venezuelan intelligence with CIA help, he was able to arrange for Orlando Bosch, an associate from his CIA days who had been convicted in the US for a bomb attack on a Cuba-bound freighter, to join him in Venezuela to organize further attacks against Cuba. An ex-CIA official familiar with the Cubana bombing identifies Posada and Bosch as the only suspects in the bombing, which Bosch defended as "a legitimate act of war." Generally considered the "mastermind" of the airline bombing, Bosch was responsible for thirty other acts of terrorism, according to the FBI. He was granted a presidential pardon in 1989 by the incoming Bush I administration after intense lobbying by Jeb Bush and South Florida Cuban-American leaders, overruling the Justice Department, which had found the conclusion "inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch [because] the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists."

Economic warfare

Cuban offers to cooperate in intelligence-sharing to prevent terrorist attacks have been rejected by Washington, though some did lead to US actions. "Senior members of the FBI visited Cuba in 1998 to meet their Cuban counterparts, who gave [the FBI] dossiers about what they suggested was a Miami-based terrorist network: information which had been compiled in part by Cubans who had infiltrated exile groups." Three months later the FBI arrested Cubans who had infiltrated the US-based terrorist groups. Five were sentenced to long terms in prison.

The national security pretext lost whatever shreds of credibility it might have had after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, though it was not until 1998 that US intelligence officially informed the country that Cuba no longer posed a threat to US national security. The Clinton administration, however, insisted that the military threat posed by Cuba be reduced to "negligible," but not completely removed. Even with this qualification, the intelligence assessment eliminated a danger that had been identified by the Mexican ambassador in 1961, when he rejected JFK's attempt to organize collective action against Cuba on the grounds that "if we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing."

In fairness, however, it should be recognized that missiles in Cuba did pose a threat. In private discussions the Kennedy brothers expressed their fears that the presence of Russian missiles in Cuba might deter a US invasion of Venezuela. So "the Bay of Pigs was really right," JFK concluded.

The Bush I administration reacted to the elimination of the security pretext by making the embargo much harsher, under pressure from Clinton, who outflanked Bush from the right during the 1992 election campaign. Economic warfare was made still more stringent in 1996, causing a furor even among the closest US allies. The embargo came under considerable domestic criticism as well, on the grounds that it harms US exporters and investors -- the embargo's only victims, according to the standard picture in the US; Cubans are unaffected. Investigations by US specialists tell a different story. Thus, a detailed study by the American Association for World Health concluded that the embargo had severe health effects, and only Cuba's remarkable health care system had prevented a "humanitarian catastrophe"; this has received virtually no mention in the US.

The embargo has effectively barred even food and medicine. In 1999 the Clinton administration eased such sanctions for all countries on the official list of "terrorist states," apart from Cuba, singled out for unique punishment. Nevertheless, Cuba is not entirely alone in this regard. After a hurricane devastated West Indian islands in August 1980, President Carter refused to allow any aid unless Grenada was excluded, as punishment for some unspecified initiatives of the reformist Maurice Bishop government. When the stricken countries refused to agree to Grenada's exclusion, having failed to perceive the threat to survival posed by the nutmeg capital of the world, Carter withheld all aid. Similarly, when Nicaragua was struck by a hurricane in October 1988, bringing starvation and causing severe ecological damage, the current incumbents in Washington recognized that their terrorist war could benefit from the disaster, and therefore refused aid, even to the Atlantic Coast area with close links to the US and deep resentment against the Sandinistas. They followed suit when a tidal wave wiped out Nicaraguan fishing villages, leaving hundreds dead and missing in September 1992. In this case, there was a show of aid, but hidden in the small print was the fact that apart from an impressive donation of $25,000, the aid was deducted from assistance already scheduled. Congress was assured, however, that the pittance of aid would not affect the administration's suspension of over $100 million of aid because the US-backed Nicaraguan government had failed to demonstrate a sufficient degree of subservience.

US economic warfare against Cuba has been strongly condemned in virtually every relevant international forum, even declared illegal by the Judicial Commission of the normally compliant Organization of American States. The European Union called on the World Trade Organization to condemn the embargo. The response of the Clinton administration was that "Europe is challenging 'three decades of American Cuba policy that goes back to the Kennedy Administration,' and is aimed entirely at forcing a change of government in Havana." The administration also declared that the WTO has no competence to rule on US national security or to compel the US to change its laws. Washington then withdrew from the proceedings, rendering the matter moot.

Successful defiance

The reasons for the international terrorist attacks against Cuba and the illegal economic embargo are spelled out in the internal record. And no one should be surprised to discover that they fit a familiar pattern -- that of Guatemala a few years earlier, for example.

From the timing alone, it is clear that concern over a Russian threat could not have been a major factor. The plans for forceful regime change were drawn up and implemented before there was any significant Russian connection, and punishment was intensified after the Russians disappeared from the scene. True, a Russian threat did develop, but that was more a consequence than a cause of US terrorism and economic warfare.

In July 1961 the CIA warned that "the extensive influence of 'Castroism' is not a function of Cuban power. . . . Castro's shadow looms large because social and economic conditions throughout Latin America invite opposition to ruling authority and encourage agitation for radical change," for which Castro's Cuba provided a model. Earlier, Arthur Schlesinger had transmitted to the incoming President Kennedy his Latin American Mission report, which warned of the susceptibility of Latin Americans to "the Castro idea of taking matters into one's own hands." The report did identify a Kremlin connection: the Soviet Union "hovers in the wings, flourishing large development loans and presenting itself as the model for achieving modernization in a single generation." The dangers of the "Castro idea" are particularly grave, Schlesinger later elaborated, when "the distribution of land and other forms of national wealth greatly favors the propertied classes" and "the poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living." Kennedy feared that Russian aid might make Cuba a "showcase" for development, giving the Soviets the upper hand throughout Latin America.

In early 1964, the State Department Policy Planning Council expanded on these concerns: "The primary danger we face in Castro is . . . in the impact the very existence of his regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American countries. . . . The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half." To put it simply, Thomas Paterson writes, "Cuba, as symbol and reality, challenged U.S. hegemony in Latin America." International terrorism and economic warfare to bring about regime change are justified not by what Cuba does, but by its "very existence," its "successful defiance" of the proper master of the hemisphere. Defiance may justify even more violent actions, as in Serbia, as quietly conceded after the fact; or Iraq, as also recognized when pretexts had collapsed.

Outrage over defiance goes far back in American history. Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson bitterly condemned France for its "attitude of defiance" in holding New Orleans, which he coveted. Jefferson warned that France's "character [is] placed in a point of eternal friction with our character, which though loving peace and the pursuit of wealth, is high-minded." France's "defiance [requires us to] marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation," Jefferson advised, reversing his earlier attitudes, which reflected France's crucial contribution to the liberation of the colonies from British rule. Thanks to Haiti's liberation struggle, unaided and almost universally opposed, France's defiance soon ended, but the guiding principles remain in force, determining friend and foe.

[Note that this passage (pages 80-90) is fully footnoted in Hegemony or Survival. Chomsky's discussion of the Cuban missile crisis itself can be found elsewhere in the same chapter of the book.]
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1024-06.htm

"Castro has forced his people to live and languish on a plantation of his making, not of the United States."

He forced his people to do nothing. Most WANTED to, as they already were, working on plantations, dumbass.

"Were he truly the leader he says he is, Cuba would be flourishing."

And again, looking at the effects and ignoring the cause i.e., to a great extent U.S. terrorism.

"Even Yugo Chava-ez isn't that stupid to totally socialize Venezuela...although nationalizing the oil companies is a start."

"Stupid to socialize"? What's THAT supposed to mean? What's stupid about socializing? That being said, yes, nationalizing the oil companies is a GOOD start. Now, the population of the country can begin to develop by using their own resources for themselves as opposed to some inefficient private criminal tyranny.

"His own people rejected his ruler-for-life bid."

Woulsn't have had to even be in that position in the first place had the U.S. not done everything in their power to make him stay in this position. YOU and U.S. policies ARE, to a LARGE extent, EXACTLY the reason he has stayed in power. ALready been through the reasons for this here. And they are reasons which any elementary child, not to mention adult, would have ANY difficulty immediately comprehending. NONE.

mandible claw

Wow, that's a.. um .. LOT of crap kb has posted. If it takes that much backup to justify belieeeeeving in Castro, wouldn't you think that indicates there's something wrong?

Posted by: kb | August 07, 2008 at 06:48 AM

And? Why not discuss the places YOU have annexed? These are the ones YOU are responsible for. Jeez! For a group who likes to pretend that people should be responsible you folks sure have no idea how to do it.kb

"Yeah guys, let's have a brainstorm over all the different colonies of the AmeriKKKan empire we can think of. Lolz.."drool

Uhhh....Are you going to try and say there aren't any?

First of all I'm going to point out your fundamental failure to grasp reality. You rattle on about the places "you" (ie. me) have annexed, in reference to supposed American colonies, apparently ignoring the fact that YOU are American and I'm not.

Besides that, I wonder if you could point out some of these colonies? You know, since you're always on about how hard it is to prove a negative.

Perhaps we need to define "colony".

You mean REdefine colony, to mean something that it doesn't mean, but that fits the way you want to use the word. Similarly to your "definition" of terrorism.

That being said, perhaps you really ARE from Australia, because ANY American would surely be aware of dozens of these.

You're hallucinating, again.

But then again being from Australia you should know that it, too, is a European colony stolen from it's inhabitants through the usual methods, though perhaps a little less bloody than usual.

Make that "was," several hundred years ago. And if you have a problem with that, you may want to consider taking it up with the British monarchy at the time.

Not that those new "guests" weren't the bloody types to begin with. If you know what I mean.

Yeah, all those bloodthirsty crooks who were sent there for stealing loaves of bread and such, how horrific.

Moving on............

...from the whole lot of nothing you just posted, thinking it was proving a point of some sort? I'd say good idea, but it pains me to think of what you will come up with next.

"Let's see, kb's dropped the Israel argument entirely"drool

What Israel argument?

The one you conveniently abandoned when I exposed you as ignorant, bigoted and psychotic.

"is ignoring where I demonstrated irrefutably that he's wrong when he claims I don't understand his arguments"

Where? I've seen no evidence that you know the first thing about Israel.

Bullshit. You've seen plenty of evidence. I handed your ass to you in your inaccuracies on reguee status and Israeli history. Pretending it never happened ain't gonna work.

And you obviously do NOT understand my arguments because you don't even seem to be the least bit aware of what I'm discussing nmost of the time, as I've "irrefutably" demonstrated repeatedly.

Bullshit. You've irrefutably demonstrated nothing but your own stubborn refusal to accept facts. I summarized the points of one of your satire dialogues with complete accuracy in one of these threads, and I know you saw it because I mentioned it to you dozens of times and you never claimed to have missed it. Plus, I know you read all of my posts addressed to you. You're flat out lying and STILL trying to push the ignorance angle despite the fact I've proven to you irrefutably that it's utterly false.

"has no response to the info on Cuba from emigres that I posted"

Nothing to respond to. I can find thousands of Cuban emigres saying they're happy they escaped Cuba. So what? What does this have to do with anything I've been talking about, other than supporting everything I've said from the beginning regarding that to a large extent,

Absolute bullshit. The Cuban emigres were referring to CASTRO, not Cuba. You haven't read the info - or you're pretending that it says something it doesn't.

...perhaps entirely, YOU are the reson they've been put in the position of even needing to "escape Cuba".

Read the freaking material before commenting on it, you bullshit artist. YOU'RE the one constantly harping on others' comments on Chomsky supposedly without knowing his work, yet you're more than happy to apply the EXACT same method yourself, and to far more grievous extent as you have come up with the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Cubans were saying. You're utterly full of shit.

A small fact which the indoctrinated never cease to ignore, as I've already repeatedly reminded you.

Fuck you, and fuck you again with your bullshit about "indoctrination" and your smarmy high-handededness, you fucking hypocrite. READ THE MATERIAL I GAVE YOU. THEN COMMENT ON IT. You're trying to assume intellectual superiority while betraying your own much-lauded principle, and in a far more egregious way than any of the supposed "droolers" that you criticize - since while they may not have every small nuance of Chomsky down verbatim, they are at least AWARE of which direction his political compass is pointing, and the ACTUAL TOPIC he's disserting on. You're nothing but a charlatan and a lying hypocrite.

Once again, you are discussing effect. I'm discussing cause.

The Cuban emigres ARE discussing cause, dipshit. That's why it might help if you actually read what they're saying. And guess what, their discussion of cause doesn't end up blaming the US. I'm not sure whether you are cognizant of this, and thus deliberately ignoring and mis-portraying it, or if you're so blinded by your own biassed stupidity that you actually think the emigres agree with you.

Are you not aware of the strategy of purposely causing a poor country to suffer so as to thereby blame the victims of their suffering?

I'm not blaming the victims for the suffering. No-one is. In fact the only person to have uttered a negative word about the victims is YOU. Me, the Cuban emigres, and every other person capable of rational thought, blames Castro. Or are you attempting to claim that this person, who has made BILLIONS of dollars and has ruled as the closest possible equivalent to a god on earth for five decades, is somehow a VICTIM?

This is VERY old, and VERY tried. The U.S. has a LOOOONG history of doing exactly this.

Bullshit. Absolute fucking bullshit.

Not even secret most of the time. And with regards to Cuba, the ONLY possible people who are clueless are the American population.

Oh, apparently you forgot to mention the Cuban emigres. Since they by and large AGREE with the anti-Castro Americans, I guess they must be ignorant of what is really going on in the country they risked their lives to escape.

Most of the rest of the planet knows quite well the history.

Bullshit. "Most of the rest of the planet" knows nothing of the sort. LIBERALS in the entire planet, just like yourself, naturally side with evil in any conflict, and invent rationale for doing so because they need SOMETHING to vaguely support their claims of humanitarian motivation. You're confusing lies with facts.

Ask any elementary kid in Europe. Here's the picture: 1)Poor peasants reclaim the land from criminals supportd by U.S.

Perhaps, since we're supposedly taking a look at history, you might want to add that the method for taking this land was via a COMMUNIST uprising. You know, since that itty bitty detail kinda puts into perspective the entire history of subsequent events.

2)U.S. refuses to work with popular government preferring instead the criminal,

The government that was SO popular it had to murder thousands of dissidents and then brutally subjugate the entire population for the next fifty years in order to stay in power? Somehow it seems that kind of thing makes the previous "criminals" look like two-bit amateurs, I mean, what did they ever accomplish on the magnitude of stealing an entire country and carrying out massacres of civilian populations?

as it has often done
...when the "criminal" in question has been the difference between a communist dictatorship and a troubled-but-free nation.

(Already given a list, but if you want another one...)

Put up as many lists as you like. Don't forget to include one showing what the alternatives were to all the "criminals" the US supported, though. I mean, we wouldn't want to be one-sided or biassed, or omit relevant historical fact, would we.

3)Immediately starts international terrorism of every imaginable sort ((Books all over the place talking about this. Just finished reading one the other day.))

Er... There you go again with that funky definition of "terrorism."

4)Using the Soviet Union as an excuse to clamp down and make the already robbed and poor people suffer even more than already were doing

B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. There are so many things wrong with that sentence it's bewildering even reading it. Firstly, "using the Soviet Union as an excuse." Hm, seems it couldn't really be classified as an "excuse" given the fact that its presence and support made it a legitimate reason for involvement. Or perhaps you think a Soviet satellite off the coast is a good idea? Perhaps you'd then support a US puppet regime in, I dunno, the Ukraine or somewhere? You know, for the children. Secondly, the people were being "robbed" to a far lesser extent than occurred under Castro. You see, they still had the chance to make a living for themselves back then, and to determine their own circumstances. Castro robbed them of freedom - in comparison to that, a few dodgy dealings here and there by some corrupt politicians and gangsters are chicken feed. Besides, that would've all been cleaned up long ago had it been allowed to happen. Proposing that things would still be the same today as before Castro took power, had he not done so, is ridiculous.

5)Blaming their suffering on the new popular government

You mean like the Cuban emigres also do? Which might just be, oh I don't know, because it's accurate?

6)Extending the suffering indefinitely

The US made Castro stay in power for fifty years? That's a novel concept. Points for effort, I guess.

so as to cause(CAUSE)many of the population to feel the need to escape,

Ah, no. Dead wrong, as you would know if you bothered reading ANY of the testimony from the people who actually LIVED THERE AND ESCAPED, instead of bullshit from collectivist ivory-tower academics. I suspect you know this, at least on some level, and I strongly suspect it's the reason you DELIBERATELY ignored the links I gave you - which only need a click from a mouse button - despite your constant urging of others including myself to make the effort and expense to obtain and read Chomsky books.

though I would bet about a million dollars that had the U.S. worked with Castro from the beginning, as he AND the Cuban population wanted, that not 20 people would have left.

The U.S. doesn't work with communists. Sorry, doesn't happen. Especially not when those communists are a Soviet outpost. Castro kept an iron grip on the country for fifty years and conditions there have never changed, even in the decades it's been since ANY sort of US action against his regime. The facts are right in front of your face and you ignore them - Castrto has had FIFTY YEARS to make good on his promises to the Cuban people, and he's NEVER done it. US action, no US action, Soviet backing, you name it, nothing has worked. And you're still harping on about a handful of VERY MINOR US actions decades ago that supposedly upset the appecart so badly it could only be righted by five decades of oppression - you're so full of shit it must be spilling out your ears.

I mean, why the hell would they?

I don't know, why don't you try listening to them when they tell you why they left? I gave you the information right above these posts and you ignored it. It's not hard to find, go look for it. They'll tell you right away why they left. You just don't want to accept the answer, because it proves you 100% COMPLETELY WRONG.

mandible claw

There are several other OBVIOUS areas which I skipped over which are even MORE damning regarding the U.S.'s terrorist and criminal behavior with regards to Cuba, but these most obvious ones are enough. I have a keen idea. Let's talk about the wonderful areas of the same region where the U.S. DID stay in control. Let's look at Guatemala under U.S. care:

IOW, "let's change the subject, cos I've shot my load with my handful of threadbare fallacies, and if we stay on Cuba for much longer people are going to start asking me why I deliberately ignore the testimonies of Cuban emigres - and I'd hate them to find out it's because they prove me 100% wrong."

Making Guatemala a Killing Field
Noam Chomsky

Um.. While I can't say I'm surprised to see either of these topics surface, I'm somewhat puzzled as to how they relate to Cuba and Castro. You know, since that is what we're talking about. You're not getting out of it by changing the subject, weasel.

"and it's probably fair to say it's a stalemate on Chomsky - but only because he's effectively throwing out so much chaff to deflect the discussion that I can't even be bothered dealing with it all."drool

It's NOT a stalemate at all. You have nothing and it was demonstrated that you didn't. Period.

It was demonstrated that your opinion was that there's nothing in the discussion. Loudly, clearly and repeatedly. In terms of facts or evidence you're a little light-on, though, having provided precisely zero in the way of either. I'm just going to leave the discussion as it is, since it demonstrates clearly your insanity in that you mistake your own personal opinion for debate-winning fact.

In THIS sense it's stale. That's about it.

Your constant mentions of a hanfful of topics, and condemnation exclusively reserved for the US and Israel, are far beyond stale.

"Oh, and, no response to my refutal of Chomsky's article on Mexican farmers."drool

Didn't see what you had written.

Bullshit. I posted the article along with the World Bank's report on the effects of NAFTA on Mexican maize farmers. The only way you "didn't see it" is if you didn't want to see it.

Where? I saw where you gave a few opinions which disagreed with what you "think" Chomsky says.

Ah, no. I provided a report by World Bank economists that completely refutes EXACTLY what Chomsky said in his article, that US corn farmers are benefiting from NAFTA at the expense of Mexican maize farmers.

This proves nothing at all other than you think something different.

No. It proves that the world's foremost multilateral lending institution disagrees with Chomsky. My opinion doesn't come into it. You're deliberately misrepresenting the issue and lying through your teeth to try and avoid admitting that I proved Chomsky wrong.

Doesn't come close to making you right or anything.

Hm, I have two World Bank economists backing my opinion, Chomsky has one no-name central American analyst who he no doubt fished out from somewhere because he wanted to stick it to the US.

This will need to be proven. Have seen nothing of the sort. Not on THIS blog anyway.

You're full of shit. Completely and entirely. First you claim to have not seen the post - then you claim to know what was in it - then you claim it doesn't exist. How dishonest can you be?

"I'd say that puts me at 4 and a half points vs his half a point, and even that's being generous."

I'd say that your math is about as good as that used in my analogies where you thought 2+2=54, too.

Er... Right, I guess self-referencing imaginary dialogues where you've already misrepresented the debate could sort of support your point, somehow, someway. Not quite seeing how, though. Not to mention that I completely debunked the idiotic logic fallacy in that dialogue to begin with.

You have not proved ONE thing regarding Chomsky as being incorrect yet. Nothing.

I provided a report from the world's premier multilateral financial institution that specfically addressed an argument that he had made, and said that it was incorrect, with facts to support its position. That's about as close to proving someone wrong as you can get, I'd think.

But you've sure said you have.(Thinking that saying IS the same as doing)

You'd know, I guess, since you're a master of wishful thinking. Wishing that your debates with me were the logical equivalent of debating the outcome of 2 plus 2, for one. Wishing away my World Bank evidence against Chomsky's NAFTA argument, for two.

I've already offered you a little "media business" work regarding Israel which you, like all the others, have ignored altogether. Haven't had a single response regarding the videos and have offered them several dozen times. Until you and the drool squad decide to respond to even ONE of the items we offer I don't really see you having much of a case to whine. Oh, and I offered this LONG before you mentioned Israel. So, here's what we will do. You watch MY information, and I will look at whatever YOU have to offer, and then we can compare, you know, like grownups. How about it? Here's what you must do. Go to youtube and look up 'Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land' ((The music at the intro is great as well. Peter Gabriel)) There are several parts so watch ALL of them so as to get a complete picture, and NOT just a partial picture. Try and make arguments when finished. But first it would be a good idea to show us that you've understood what you've heard. THIS initial step is rarely achieved, but go for it.

I'll go you one better, and provide you with media reports from the time of Israel's establishment and since. Media reports which you could search for for ten years and not find. Oh, and guess what, they support my position EXACTLY.

kb

"Wow, that's a.. um .. LOT of crap kb has posted. If it takes that much backup to justify belieeeeeving in Castro, wouldn't you think that indicates there's something wrong?"drool

Uhhh....Don't know what this is referring to. "Lot of crap"? Where? No evidence given of anything I've said being incorrect. And YOUR saying that something is "a lot of crap" hardly makes it so. But if you have any evidence, please let's have it.

"And? Why not discuss the places YOU have annexed? These are the ones YOU are responsible for. Jeez! For a group who likes to pretend that people should be responsible you folks sure have no idea how to do it.kb

""Yeah guys, let's have a brainstorm over all the different colonies of the AmeriKKKan empire we can think of. Lolz.."drool

"Uhhh....Are you going to try and say there aren't any?"kb

"First of all I'm going to point out your fundamental failure to grasp reality."drool

Uhhh....No, you are not. You haven't yet, and you will not now. But it will be amusing to watch you try. Sort of like asking Mike from Monster's Inc. say that he's going to tell me about reality. You know, from a created animation character.

"You rattle on about the places "you" (ie. me) have annexed"drool

You know what I mean. That being said, you annexed Australia if I remember correctly.

"in reference to supposed American colonies, apparently ignoring the fact that YOU are American and I'm not."drool

Why would I ignore this fact? Never for a second. ANd given that you're pretty much arguing the same line as any rightwing nutcase from the U.S. I will go ahead an assume that you will try and make the same dumbass arguments they would. Therefore, you ARE a U.S. drooler by proxy, if you don't mind, and I will refer to you as one if I so desire. You don't wish to be lumped together with them, and I sure as hell wouldn't, then quit acting like them and saying the same dumbass things. It's not all that difficult, unless of course your indoctrination prevents you from doing so.

"Besides that, I wonder if you could point out some of these colonies? You know, since you're always on about how hard it is to prove a negative."drool

Already have. They're all over the place. Iraq probably being the newest one. And don't you even thing for a second that when, or IF, we ever pull out, which I have said will be never, that this means that we're not still there for a reason. Sure the facade may appear as if someone else is n charge, this is where the term "puppet" comes from, but you can rest assured that the U.S. WILL probably be in control.

"Perhaps we need to define "colony"."kb

"You mean REdefine colony, to mean something that it doesn't mean"drool

No, or I would have said this. I mean define what colony means. You know, like Hawaii is a colony of the U.S.

"but that fits the way you want to use the word."drool

It fits because it is accurate. Has nothing to do with my "wanting" anything. STILL getting these things confused.

"Similarly to your "definition" of terrorism."drool

Don't know what you're referring to. I use the same definition of terrorism as Chomsky does, as Reagan did, and as the U.S. military has used. The only problem is that if we use these definitions that the U.S. ends up being one of the biggest terrorist countries in the world, as has been noted all over the place. Well, it would appear that YOU/U.S. government needs to sort of make a new definition whereby this inconvenient fact isn't so obvious.

"That being said, perhaps you really ARE from Australia, because ANY American would surely be aware of dozens of these."kb

"You're hallucinating, again."drool

No evidence. Just another gush of gas.

"But then again being from Australia you should know that it, too, is a European colony stolen from it's inhabitants through the usual methods, though perhaps a little less bloody than usual."kb

"Make that "was," several hundred years ago."drool

And? Out of the entire history of that land mass where Australia now sits, a couple of hundred years is nothing. But I'm sure most of the aboriginal people would agree with you and balk at what I'm putting forth, namely the truth, albeit ugly.

"And if you have a problem with that, you may want to consider taking it up with the British monarchy at the time."drool

Oh, I would. I do. Don't have much love for any monarchy. Don't believe in them. Never have, never will.

"Not that those new "guests" weren't the bloody types to begin with. If you know what I mean."kb

"Yeah, all those bloodthirsty crooks who were sent there for stealing loaves of bread and such, how horrific."drool

Uhhh...You know as well as I do this is not all who were sent there.

kb

drool


"...from the whole lot of nothing you just posted"

Don't know what you're referring to. I didn't see "nothing". I saw lots of something.

"thinking it was proving a point of some sort?"drool

Uhhh....Just because you don't understand points doesn't mean they're not there.

"I'd say good idea, but it pains me to think of what you will come up with next."drool

You didn't understand the first points, so it probably doesn't really matter.

"Let's see, kb's dropped the Israel argument entirely"drool

"What Israel argument?"kb

"The one you conveniently abandoned when I exposed you as ignorant, bigoted and psychotic."drool

Doesn't answer my question. Also has no basis in reality as youhave never exposed me as anything. Once again, gas. But if you have a single sentence demonstrating such fact, by all means, present it. Otherwise keep your pretentious drooling to yourself.

"is ignoring where I demonstrated irrefutably that he's wrong when he claims I don't understand his arguments"drool

"Where? I've seen no evidence that you know the first thing about Israel."kb

"Bullshit. You've seen plenty of evidence."drool

Once again, I have not seen a single sentence of evidence for anything you've tried to babble about. Nothing. I have presented you with MUCH on the other hand.

"I handed your ass to you in your inaccuracies on reguee status and Israeli history. Pretending it never happened ain't gonna work."drool

Huh? Where? You have NOT handed me anything other than a slew of nonsense easy enough for a kindergarten child to pick apart while half asleep and drunk.

"And you obviously do NOT understand my arguments because you don't even seem to be the least bit aware of what I'm discussing nmost of the time, as I've "irrefutably" demonstrated repeatedly."

Uhh....There is probably some truth to this. What you are referring to as "arguments" sort of don't really match what I would consider an argument. ANd you have irrefutably demonstrated nothing since I've been on this blog. Nothing.

"Bullshit. You've irrefutably demonstrated nothing but your own stubborn refusal to accept facts."drool

I have seen you present no facts. I have presented thousands. Your projection is just gushing out like green pea soup from Linda Blair's piehole.

"I summarized the points of one of your satire dialogues with complete accuracy"drool

You demonstrated that you weren't even remotely aware of what the satire was even about as I demonstrated. You thought they were about my thinking Chomsky was right and everyone else was wrong. Nothing of the sort. You're illiterate.

"in one of these threads, and I know you saw it because I mentioned it to you dozens of times and you never claimed to have missed it."drool

I've responded demonstrating each time that you have no idea what you were talking about. Period.

"Plus, I know you read all of my posts addressed to you. You're flat out lying and STILL trying to push the ignorance angle despite the fact I've proven to you irrefutably that it's utterly false."drool

Uhhh...If you can show a lie I've told, then do it. I can show MANY that you have. In fact, I just have again. You asserted that you did something regarding a Chomsky satire and you didn't. Nothing. You proved that you didn't understand the words. Sad. Really sad. But you're young. With a little shock therapy, a lobotomy, and a few weeks sitting in the middle of the freeway, you MAY be helped.

feelthelove

*snore*

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From