Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[caketastydelish]

Geez, how many times do I have to repeat myself? The US has never supported Fidel Castro, it was the Soviets that helped him gain power. He was a known communist from the day he began his revolution and the US hated him for it. They openly supported the Batista government in order to try and prevent having a communist nation at their doorstep. Read up on your history people before you make posts that are glaringly wrong and make you look foolish. Oh, and there was no democratically government in Iran to overthrow, and they certainly didn't help the Ayatollah gain power. Iran was ruled by a despot who was called the Shah of Iran and he certainly didn't gain power by democratic means.

Actually, it is the truth that United States supported him initially. If you want me to give you a source for that, I will.

Mosadegh was an Iranian Prime minister, that was very pro-democracy, for example. Look that up if you don't believe me.

Iran having a democracy meant gas prices would go up (which they eventually did anyways) and the US didn't want that. So they helped!

US also helped Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. And you know what? Now we're at war with Iraq! How stupid is that!

 

[Bonescorpion]

I have seen estimates of people killed under Saddam's rule to be anywhere between 300,000 and 1,000,000. Of course it is difficult to be sure because people just disappeared but I am sure that the number is somewhere inbetween. Currently the estimates from the Iraq war are less then 100,000 (probably getting close to that number). So currently Saddam is the bigger butcher. The problem does not lie in the US, but in that the insurgency stands to profit from destabilizing the country and targets civilians. People claim that there is business in the US's occupation of Iraq but the Muslims also stand to profit as well. People that have nothing will follow anybody, and at this point too many have nothing, and religion is a nice answer to their problems and fanatical leaders take advantage of that. Of course people can say that Bush used the same after 9/11 but he was already in office at that time, and in truth I have no faith what Al Gore would have done with 9/11, especially since he was part of the administration that allowed the Somalian warlords to reign and felt that a few cruise missles solve problems. I am not one of these people that feels that Clinton was to blame in letting Bin Laden get away, because nobody knew that he going to launch such a direct assault on my home, but intellegence knew that he was extremely dangerous and he was not pursued enough. The chances were there and armchair qb's can always say what ifs, but in this case it would have saved a lot of lives.

 

[Willem]

Actually, it is the truth that United States supported him initially. If you want me to give you a source for that, I will.

'
Go ahead. The United States government had always supported the Batista regime, from the day it took power. If Castro got help from the US, it was from private citizens, not the government.

Mosadegh was an Iranian Prime minister, that was very pro-democracy, for example. Look that up if you don't believe me.

He was not the countries head of state, the Shah was. And at the end of his reign the Shah had no democracy, he led by autocratic rule. He abolished all but his own political party and declared that anyone who was not a member was a traitor. He frequently used torture and oppression to maintain his rule over the country. He even went too far for the US to tolerate so they finally withdrew their support.

Iran having a democracy meant gas prices would go up (which they eventually did anyways) and the US didn't want that. So they helped!

The US stepped in because Mosadegh had nationalized the oil industry, which meant that American and British corporations could no longer make a profit, though it was the British who had controlled the oil there before. The US was still sympathetic however and would not accept any sort of nationalization scheme. It had nothing to do with whether there was a democracy. It was all about money.

PS: Besides all that, what is wrong with Castro anyway? He's done alot for the Cuban people, they're much better off than they ever have been. He's given them eduction, health care and a reasonable standard of living. Granted they have no political freedom, but either do the people in China and you don't see the US government vilifying them over that. Have they even made a single protest over the recent crackdown in Tibet? And why is that? Maybe because the Chinese have lots of money that the US government can borrow to prop up their own government and Cuba has none? Certainly a double-standard happening there.

 

[Comrade Alex]

No really, the Iraq invasion has cost far more lives than it has saved.

And i believe that an estimate of 300,000 is a little high.

The Lancet has interesting things to say about this whole subject, I believe the figure they gave was approx. 1,200,000 Iraqis killed as a result of the invasion, 600,000 directly by American troops.

 

[Comrade Alex]

America doesn't have friends, it only has interests.

Those words are truly immortal.

 

[caketastydelish]

'
Go ahead. The United States government had always supported the Batista regime, from the day it took power. If Castro got help from the US, it was from private citizens, not the government.



He was not the countries head of state, the Shah was. And at the end of his reign the Shah had no democracy, he led by autocratic rule. He abolished all but his own political party and declared that anyone who was not a member was a traitor. He frequently used torture and oppression to maintain his rule over the country. He even went too far for the US to tolerate so they finally withdrew their support.



The US stepped in because Mosadegh had nationalized the oil industry, which meant that American and British corporations could no longer make a profit, though it was the British who had controlled the oil there before. The US was still sympathetic however and would not accept any sort of nationalization scheme. It had nothing to do with whether there was a democracy. It was all about money.

PS: Besides all that, what is wrong with Castro anyway? He's done alot for the Cuban people, they're much better off than they ever have been. He's given them eduction, health care and a reasonable standard of living. Granted they have no political freedom, but either do the people in China and you don't see the US government vilifying them over that. Have they even made a single protest over the recent crackdown in Tibet? And why is that? Maybe because the Chinese have lots of money that the US government can borrow to prop up their own government and Cuba has none? Certainly a double-standard happening there.

I googled this: http://cloudworth.com/coldwar/fidel-castro-cuba.php

As for whats wrong with Castro? He is a communist! I would say more, but I have to go now...

 

[Comrade Alex]

Castro is pretty excellent. He's been brilliant for Cuba.

Except for that brief period in '73 when he experimented with locking up homosexuals.

 

[Willem]

I googled this: http://cloudworth.com/coldwar/fidel-castro-cuba.php

As for whats wrong with Castro? He is a communist! I would say more, but I have to go now...

OK, so you may have uncovered a little known fact that people aren't generally aware of. I'd prefer to see something more substantial than a single quote though. As for being communist, so are the Chinese. Yet they're now one the US's best trading buddies and the administration is bending over backwards not to offend them. And it's because the US government has been borrowing millions of dollars from them over the years. Yet it's perfectly OK to demonize the leader of a poor Caribbean nation who overall has done good things for his country. As long as there's money involved the US government is more than happy to look the other way when it comes to their so-called cherished issues of human rights and freedom.

 

[Comrade Alex]

Willem's got the right idea.

 

[Bonescorpion]

No really, the Iraq invasion has cost far more lives than it has saved.

And i believe that an estimate of 300,000 is a little high.

The Lancet has interesting things to say about this whole subject, I believe the figure they gave was approx. 1,200,000 Iraqis killed as a result of the invasion, 600,000 directly by American troops.

If you really think that 600,000 people have been DIRECTLY killed by US troops there is no point arguing with you. I have friends that have served in Iraq and we have had long discussions about attacking insurgents and making sure that they are enemies and not civilians. One of them is a 1st LT. and he will be the first to tell you that if you just open fire on anybody you will find yourself in a military prison for causing civilian deaths.

 

[WICKLC1]

If we were to leave Iraq now thousands of Iraqis would die and Iraq's government would fall in a few years, just like the southeastern Asian countries the US was supporting did when we left Vietnam. Also the people who we are now fighting in Iraq would be able to fight us in Afghanistan or even at home if we were to leave.

Amazing how off-topic this thread became after just a few days!

 

[Willem]

If we were to leave Iraq now thousands of Iraqis would die and Iraq's government would fall in a few years,

If you wouldn't have invaded in the first place, there would have been no danger of that. Kind of a circular argument there, you create the problem then use it to justify your continued actions.

just like the southeastern Asian countries the US was supporting did when we left Vietnam.

You didn't leave Vietnam, you were forced out. It's not like you had any choice in the matter, you got your butts kicked over there. And all you were doing was trying to prop up yet another corrupt and repressive regime that the ordinary citizen no longer had any faith in and didn't want in power. You were doomed to failure from the very beginning. And there was only the one country BTW, it's not like the entire region destabilized just because you lost the war.

Also the people who we are now fighting in Iraq would be able to fight us in Afghanistan or even at home if we were to leave.

They'd probably be too busy trying to get their own country back on it's feet to bother with any external conflicts for a long time. And you've only made things worse by pissing off so many people over there. I see that the Bush terrorism propaganda machine is working quite well, you seem to have bought right into his message.

 

[Event Horizon]

If you wouldn't have invaded in the first place, there would have been no danger of that.

Those exterminated by Saddam's regime would disagree.

Kind of a circular argument there.

 

[Willem]

Those exterminated by Saddam's regime would disagree.

Kind of a circular argument there.

I was refering to the possible collapse of the the country. He may have been a brutal tyrant but he did manage to hold Iraq together, something the US seems unable to do. And I'm guessing his death toll didn't run to 75,000 a year, which is about what the US occupation has managed to accomplish so far. Oh yes, Iraq is much better off now.

 

[WICKLC1]

If you wouldn't have invaded in the first place, there would have been no danger of that. Kind of a circular argument there, you create the problem then use it to justify your continued actions.

I admit that we should not have invaded in the first place, but leaving now would make things worse for everyone.

You didn't leave Vietnam, you were forced out. It's not like you had any choice in the matter, you got your butts kicked over there. And all you were doing was trying to prop up yet another corrupt and repressive regime that the ordinary citizen no longer had any faith in and didn't want in power. You were doomed to failure from the very beginning. And there was only the one country BTW, it's not like the entire region destabilized just because you lost the war.

We were not defeated by the North Vietnamese, it was the protesters back home that forced us to leave. Also, South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia all fell in 1975.

They'd probably be too busy trying to get their own country back on it's feet to bother with any external conflicts for a long time. And you've only made things worse by pissing off so many people over there. I see that the Bush terrorism propaganda machine is working quite well, you seem to have bought right into his message.

People don't seem to realize that Iraq and Afghanistan are now both part of the global war on terror, even if Iraq was not originally. We are now fighting a war against the entire radical islam ideology. They have declared Jihad on our way of life and what happens on one front of the war will affect the others.

 

[Willem]

I admit that we should not have invaded in the first place, but leaving now would make things worse for everyone.

Well yes, I would have to agree with you there. You've put yourself between a rock and a hard place.

We were not defeated by the North Vietnamese, it was the protesters back home that forced us to leave.

You've got to be kidding. They're still spouting that propaganda where you're from? The US army was totally incapable of dealing with a guerilla war and got their butts kicked repeatedly. The US never made any significant advances into Viet Cong territory in the 10 years they were there but were instead pushed back in several areas. It may not have been a loss in the strictest sense but it was certainly a stalemate, something the military and the public can't abide. Granted that the protestors had a lot to do with the withdrawal but they certainly weren't the only reason. It's ironic that a country that gained it's independence largely by using guerilla tactics has become so incapable of dealing with them today. You're having the same problem in Iraq.

Also, South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia all fell in 1975.

That had very little to do with the US withdrawal and would have happened regardless. In fact Cambodia was already in upheaval while the US was still there, thanks to Pol Pot.

People don't seem to realize that Iraq and Afghanistan are now both part of the global war on terror, even if Iraq was not originally. We are now fighting a war against the entire radical islam ideology. They have declared Jihad on our way of life and what happens on one front of the war will affect the others.

Mainly because you invaded Iraq. Again the circular argument. So much for Bush's war against terror, he's only succeeded in making things worse for you people.

 

[WICKLC1]

We prevented the North Vietnamese from taking over South Vietnam the whole time we were there. If the South Vietnamese had stepped up we would have won.

The war on terror did not begin with the invasion of Iraq. Its amazing how quickly people can forget the deaths of over 3,000 in New York, D.C., and Pennsylvania. The war on terror began with the rise of radical islam and will continue until it is defeated.

 

[Willem]

The war on terror did not begin with the invasion of Iraq. Its amazing how quickly people can forget the deaths of over 3,000 in New York, D.C., and Pennsylvania.

No one's forgotten. But invading Iraq has only succeeded in making things worse by angering the extremists even more.

The war on terror began with the rise of radical islam and will continue until it is defeated.

Well good luck on that one, especially with the tactics your government is using. It seems to me that with a philosophy that glorifies martyrdom, going around killing them is the wrong approach to take.

 

[caketastydelish]

OK, so you may have uncovered a little known fact that people aren't generally aware of. I'd prefer to see something more substantial than a single quote though. As for being communist, so are the Chinese. Yet they're now one the US's best trading buddies and the administration is bending over backwards not to offend them. And it's because the US government has been borrowing millions of dollars from them over the years. Yet it's perfectly OK to demonize the leader of a poor Caribbean nation who overall has done good things for his country. As long as there's money involved the US government is more than happy to look the other way when it comes to their so-called cherished issues of human rights and freedom.

First of all, what China is doing to Tibbet is very bad. You seem to think I think China=good Cuba=evil. This is not the case. I can give you more sources if that would make you happy. The current administration of the United States has no morals. Infact its not even like, they help there country, and the expense of morals and ethics. The bush administration has done all kinds of wrong things, and they have made the United States much worse off in the process.

And do you know why we were so sure we had weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq? Because we gave it to them under the table. In the Iran-Iraq war, the US supported Iraq. We gave them weapons of mass destruction secretly so they could beat Iran. What ended up happening, is they used it agaisnt the Kurds instead of the Iranians. But anyways, thats a different conversation...

Anyhow, I am not in any way defending the current foreign policies of the United States. I am defending what George Washington said, which is the exact opposite side of the coin as the United State's current policy.

Anyways, communism is bad because...

1. You get paid a certain amount, each year. Regardless of how hard you work. Will this motivate you to work very hard?

2. Free enterprise "wins itself out" to an extent. Lets use houses for examples. In Soviet Russia, there was a housing shortage. People did not have enough houses. In a free enterprise economy, that kind of thing would never happen. As the demand for housing was so high, people would decide to make more houses as it would be very profitable! But when the government controls everything, that dosen't work.

The reality is communism looks better than any other system of government on paper. Theoretically, it should work. But it just plain dosen't. Why does South Korea have just a better economy than the north? Why does Taiwan (proportianly) have a better economy than China? Why were we able to beat the Russians in the cold war? The answer is obvious. Free enterprise is a superior system of government than communism.

 

[WICKLC1]

Well good luck on that one, especially with the tactics your government is using. It seems to me that with a philosophy that glorifies martyrdom, going around killing them is the wrong approach to take.

What else are we going to do with them, have a nice civilized chat over tea and cookies with everyone airing their concerns and respecting each other's opinions?