Dru Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 happy anniversary! have a cigar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Â I HATE that bastard. Lets hope this is the last anniversary for that sorry fuck who has murdered over 20,000 'political' enemies. Â My heart rate just went from 68 to 110 you trolling canuk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 dru admires fidel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Viva la revolution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 5, 2004 Author Share Posted January 5, 2004 free cuba! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Fortunately for the world, Che currently resides in hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 The irony of Fairweather going ballistic over Che, but being nonplussed over the admittedly much smaller scall indefinite detention of political prisoners by the US in Cuba is interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 CJF, I don't know if "ironic" is the word for Fairweather's views - after all, he wrote on this board that he thought Chile's Pinochet acctually saved lives with his mass extermination of people who included communists who would almost certainly otherwise have gone on to kill more people than he did. His positions seem not so much ironic as explained by a simple formula: "our" guys and Right Wingers: good / "other guys:" bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Pinochet was indeed a bad guy, but a true lightweight in comparison to Stalin and Mao, who were at the helm of regimes responsible for something like 50-60 million deaths collectively, both of who enjoyed support from the far Left after both the nature and the scope of their crimes was both thoroughly documented and well known. You can find plenty of examples of selective outrage on both sides of the fence IMO. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Stalin and Mao, who were at the helm of regimes responsible for something like 50-60 million deaths collectively, both of who enjoyed support from the far Left after both the nature and the scope of their crimes was both thoroughly documented and well known. Eh? Stalin was dead before the true horrors of collectivisation were known. Khruschev was instrumental in exposing those (authorizing pub of "A Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich") The 30's were the big heyday of support for Stalin on the left - when the right in the US & UK spent their time approving and encouraging Hitler, Mussolini & fascism (after all they opposed communism) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 CJF, I don't know if "ironic" is the word for Fairweather's views - after all, he wrote on this board that he thought Chile's Pinochet acctually saved lives with his mass extermination of people who included communists who would almost certainly otherwise have gone on to kill more people than he did. His positions seem not so much ironic as explained by a simple formula: "our" guys and Right Wingers: good / "other guys:" bad.  You have it basically right, but my premise was based more on Peron than Pinochet. Simply look, for example, at the number of dead to date in Colombia at the hands of FARC. Taking action against the leaders of this group at its inception indeed would have saved over 50,000 innocent lives. Again, Peru's Fujimori took decisive action against Shining Path and saved countless lives.  Addressing the grievances of these groups would be a good start too, but I can't think of where this has placated any communist insurgency. Communists generally want one thing, to impose their ideology with a religious zeal.  What I do find ironic, is that those on the left like you Matt, are so horrified at right wing atrocity while you remain almost completely silent about the exponentially greater crimes and murder comited by socialist/communist systems.  Here is a little 'American' gem that I hope stays in the Peruvian hell hole she put herself into:  http://www.caretas.com.pe/1394/terror/12-1.jpeg  Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Maybe I need a history lesson, Fairweather, but I am not aware of any "lefties" for whom I have any great respect who have expressed any approval for any "exponentially greater crimes and murder comited by socialist/communist systems" the way you have for your right wing heroes, and I don't believe there is a great conspiracy among them to remain silent when great atrocities are being committed by the left. On the whole, I think, liberals have been far more consistent about decrying genocide, torture and general mayhem than have the right wingers -- that is why they are called "bleading hearts." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Maybe I need a history lesson, Fairweather, but I am not aware of any "lefties" for whom I have any great respect who have expressed any approval for any "exponentially greater crimes and murder comited by socialist/communist systems" the way you have for your right wing heroes, and I don't believe there is a great conspiracy among them to remain silent when great atrocities are being committed by the left. On the whole, I think, liberals have been far more consistent about decrying genocide, torture and general mayhem than have the right wingers -- that is why they are called "bleading hearts." Â I'm not quite certain but I thought that the identification of liberals as 'bleeding hearts' was a connotation of affinity with the image of Jesus as a social activist, peace-loving, mingler with the poor and other outcasts, etc. So, seemingly anti-capitalist (throwing out the money changers), seemingly communistic (share food etc), subvert the conservative order of authority, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 On the whole, I think, liberals have been far more consistent about decrying genocide, torture and general mayhem than have the right wingers ... Â Like they did in Iraq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 would[/i] have saved over 50,000 innocent lives. Columbia would have bloodshed, FARC or not. It's narcoterrorism. A nice by product of our futile war against drugs (funny that governments dominated by supplysiders don't seem to apply this to drugs) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 On the whole, I think, liberals have been far more consistent about decrying genocide, torture and general mayhem than have the right wingers ... Â Like they did in Iraq? Â or like in Kosovo where 100,000 killed turned into a few hundred. any difference in politicians is either facade or a perpetuation of the campaign tactics used to gain office. we may never know the real reason clinton encroached on yugoslav's soil. perhaps it was as the russians said ' a plot to undermine the progress of russia.' either way, it is difficult to understand where the liberal 'whistleblowers' were then. again, this just demonstrates the partisan pupetry that that has suckered you all in. coservatives (probably unwisely) support bush and lambast clinton. while the inverse is true for the liberals. anyone else see a pattern? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Again, maybe I need a history lesson here. Wasn't it our own CIA who investigated the gassing of the kurds and said it was Iran's gas, not Saddam's? Wasn't it BUSH I who promised to aid the rebellion of the Marsh Arabs and stood by when Saddam mowed them down? Didn't Reagan take Saddam off the list of states supporting terrorism in 1982, even though there was ample evidence that this was untrue? Under Reagan, diddn't we send them anthrax, e coli, etc.? Didn't Rumsfeld go over there to tell Saddam we wouldn't let him lose the war with Iraq? And I may have this confused with Iran, but didn't we provide Saddam with a list of people he should detain or kill shortly after he came to power? I'd say the tendency to ignore what was happening at the behest of Mr. Hussein was more rightward leaning than left, and it was the Republican administrations who actually facilitated his genocide, wasn't it? Â On the whole, I think, liberals have been far more consistent about decrying genocide, torture and general mayhem than have the right wingers ... Â Like they did in Iraq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 On the whole, I think, liberals have been far more consistent about decrying genocide, torture and general mayhem than have the right wingers  Like they did while trying to appease Hitler and keep Roosevelt from 'getting us involved' in Europe?  Like they did during Mao's 'cultural revolution'?  Like they did throughout the Cold War? Ignoring the crimes of our enemies in central america, the carribean, southeast asia, and all around the globe, while constantly decrying the (admitedly horrible) crimes of our proxies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 "On the other hand, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-NJ) said yesterday on CNN that if Milosevic doesn't sign the document written, apparently, by the United States and presented to him in Paris for his signature, the Clinton administration will "destroy his nation." Â Hmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Like they did while trying to appease Hitler and keep Roosevelt from 'getting us involved' in Europe? Good to see you believe in the current trend of Republican revisionism Fairweather!  "Only at the end of the 1930’s did a significant group inside the Republican Party take on the isolationists, nominating Wendell L. Willkie (1892-1944) in 1940."  There's a good reason it was called "Roosevelt's war"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Maybe I need a history lesson... Â Might I suggest "The Passing of an Illusion," by Francois Furet, "Communism" by Daniel Pipes, "The Opium of the Intellectuals," by Raymond Aron et al, "The Black Book of Communism" by Stephane Courtois et al, "The Great Terror," and "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" by Robert Conquest, and the last chapter of "Gulag: A History" by Anne Applebaum for starters. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 JayB- Are those books going to present a credible case that "liberals" (democrats is what I think Fairweather means) rather than conservatives sought to appease Hitler, tried to block out information about Mao's Cultural Revolution, actively ignored or concealed the crimes of our enemies in Central America, the Carribean, and Southeast Asia while pointing out those of our proxies in these regions during the cold war, or tried to ignore what Saddam was up to? I am sure some liberal did turn a blind eye to some atrocity somewhere, and I'm sure I have been blinded by my own enthusiasm for some "progressive" cause to at some point do the same. However, I don't think a credible case can be made that liberals have ignored genocide or opression while conservatives have not - again I ask: the opposite would be closer to the truth, would it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Like they did while trying to appease Hitler and keep Roosevelt from 'getting us involved' in Europe? Good to see you believe in the current trend of Republican revisionism Fairweather!  "Only at the end of the 1930’s did a significant group inside the Republican Party take on the isolationists, nominating Wendell L. Willkie (1892-1944) in 1940."  There's a good reason it was called "Roosevelt's war"!  I haven't tried to portray this issue as Democrat vs Republican. Now you have. The issue here is left versus right. The lines and party associations have changed back and forth over the last 150 years. In fact many great wartime presidents were big government/central control types such as Lincoln and FD Roosevelt. JFK was a great man who stood up to communism and paid with his life. Democrat.  Henry Jackson always comes to mind here, as does my congressman, Norm Dicks. Great men. Democrats with balls. Liebermann may have some too. But there aren't too many of 'em around these days.  Do you really believe that our government's policy toward Cuba and other communist regimes these past 60 years has been driven by Republicans alone? Perhaps it is you, CJ, that sees things through partisan glass.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Do you really believe that our government's policy toward Cuba and other communist regimes these past 60 years has been driven by Republicans alone? Â Fairweather- Â The US's policies towards Cuba have been dictated by one concern - the votes of Floridians. Â Right vs. Left, Dem vs. Rep it's all playing us off against each other to further enchain us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 "nonplussed" "enchained" Â Cj, Â You have an interesting lexicon....or a handy thesaurus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.