I am reminded of an anedote I was told; where castro recomended the russians set off a few nukes to make the americans back off, dude hadnt been told that nukes were bad even without the possibility of MAD.
Printable View
I am reminded of an anedote I was told; where castro recomended the russians set off a few nukes to make the americans back off, dude hadnt been told that nukes were bad even without the possibility of MAD.
Well as to the blockade of Cuba, that was simply illegal. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Cuba hasn't been blockaded in decades though. It's still under a US embargo, but there's nothing wrong with embargoes. Cuba can trade at will with whomever she likes, just not with the US. As for what happened in 1962, the question of legality kinda pales in comparison with how close we got to WW3. Cuba was blockaded, yes, and for a damn good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
thats kinda funny coming from the guy who's arguments were "How do you know?/Can you prove that?" from the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The burden of proof lies with the one making a statement. I am merely asking questions. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
You mean instead of starting WW3 the US decided to enact a blockade instead and now people should be thankful to the USA for not starting WW3?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Whatever floats your boat. Blame us or the commies, it's just a matter of preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The commies didn't threaten to start WW3 when you placed nukes in their backyard.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
When they placed nukes in your backyard in return, you did threaten to start WW3 as you just said.
It's not a matter of preference, it's a completely different reaction.
If you insist on thanking JFK for not destroying the world then go right ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Do you give up or do you simply not read the posts you reply to?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Let's just say that we're talking about slightly different things. You're focusing on a tit-for-tat nuclear missile placement in asserting the guilt. I'm focusing on the fact that both sides had major naval battlegroups around Cuba fully prepared for an engagement, just waiting for a final go-ahead. Either side could have lit up the tinderbox with a single spark. In this situation I find ascribing guilt or innocence to be a matter of personal preference. It was a different world back in 1962. There was us and there was them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
“The burden of proof lies with the one making a statement” says the one saying “the man was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had guillotined thousands of innocent people.”
“I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense” So, you will not read more to learn more.
Freedom starts by knowledge, why are you against freedom? Then, as you didn’t answer at all anyway, you didn’t waste much time. As much as information gathering, learning facts and thinking I supposed.
As Cuba is concerned, the assassination attempts and the Bay Pig landing were BEFORE the Cuban Missiles Crisis. Ad to have missile in US backdoor is a reason for WW3 when having US (nuclear) missiles in Turkey was not, missiles that JFK agreed to withdraw after negotiation with USSR.
These are the same kinds of arguments. Hitler did attack USSR BUT Stalin was ready to attack Germany. Commies are bad, so we can invade other countries and put dictatorships on others, all in the name of Freedom. Castro became bad so it was right to try to kill him before.
The fact that Communism is not illegal doesn’t appear as an obstacle for these freedom lovers.
.....Exept, of course that the embardo didn't start in 1962 or was related to the missile crisis. It was started in 1960 as a response to Cuba nationalization of the sugar industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Which, in turn, lead to Castro seeking closer relations to the USSR(he had to trade with someone), which lead to nukes placed on Cuba.
The iron law of unintended consequences strikes yet again.
Sure, and one of the contributing causes of Pearl Harbor was our refusal to sell oil to Imperial Japan. So what? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Well, my main point is that the cuban missile crisis was not the cause of US hostility, rather US hostility was the cause of the missile crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The second point, I guess, would be that the US created a Stalin instead of accepting a Tito. The US could have had a far more friendly Cuba than they got, and I do believe a friendly Cuba would be more beneficial to the US than a hostile Cuba.
Perhaps the causes of that hostility also need an evaluation. Eisenhower wouldn't embargo Cuba just for fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Hindsight.Quote:
The second point, I guess, would be that the US created a Stalin instead of accepting a Tito. The US could have had a far more friendly Cuba than they got, and I do believe a friendly Cuba would be more beneficial to the US than a hostile Cuba.
Already stated the reason: cuban nationalization of the sugar industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Of course, never claimed otherwise. "Law of unintended consequences" hints at hindsight, doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
There was more to it: Castro basically expropriated anything belonging to the Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Actually, that's only the end of the story. Castro imported crude oil from Soviet Union and US-owned refineries in Cuba refused to process it, under pressure from American government. Castro nationalized the refineries after that. US invoked sanctions on Cuban sugar, Castro nationalized the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Yeah, sounds like a perfectly logical causal chain almost leading to the Apocalypse. Cold War politics, gotta love 'em.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
In general I agree that many of these cases are terrible (though as Tincow pointed out, sometimes the definition of non-violent is stretched). It's a result, I think, of the whole 'tough on crime' attitude cultivated by both parties in the US for decades because that's what appeals to the voters. It's presented as a black and white issue that most voters don't see the wrong side of.
One thing I wanted to note, however, in response to a couple folks;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The privatized prison issue is a minor part of this overall. I think a bigger part (though not the main part) is the public employee unions, specifically those like the California Prison Guards Union:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3894490.html
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2...-prison-system
http://www.againstcronycapitalism.or...on-population/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41...vert-democracy
These are not corporate interests, nor should they be labeled as such. To say the unions are becoming corporate because they support more people in prison is disingenuous to me. It seems like a view that doesn't want to accept that unions can do wrong, or rather that 'unionism' or what have you is fundamentally good, while 'corporatism' is fundamentally bad.
The labels are important because you have to correctly identify the problem in order to solve it.
I think, of those tissues you stated, only the war on drugs is a main driver for an increasingly authoritarian state.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
CR
I agree. But I don't think unions acting as such are necessarily acting 'corporate' in that situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
CR
Life in jail for three counts of theft doesn't strike you as authoritarian? Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
There's nothing authoritarian about it. It might be unnecessarily harsh depending on the circumstances of the crime, but that doesn't have a thing to do with authoritarianism. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What? Unions don't lobby? How is there lobbying different from the lobbying other unions do (in terms of function if not results)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Other unions don't go to the hilt to prevent people from being fired? You talk about cooperation with the 'corporate' agenda (buying ammo & gear, etc., I assume), but I think that's minor overall.Quote:
Police unions are not so much unions as groups that seek to turn a delicate and important task like law enforcement into a self-perpetuating haven for unfirable incompetents with a power fetish. Unlike almost every other Union, their agenda is in line with a corporate agenda, minus the occasional pay squabble.
If you're talking about prison guard unions and cooperation with private prisons to push for more prisons & more prisoners, I still don't think that makes those unions corporate. Lots of unions have interests aligned with corporate interests; machinists unions for Boeing want more pork bills from the govt for building planes, construction unions want more money for infrastructure, dockworkers unions want more money for building up ports and increasing trade, etc.
Oh, certainly.Quote:
True police reform would hurt police unions HARD.
Come on now;Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I said it wasn't a cause for the state becoming increasingly authoritarian. It's more a result of the state becoming more authoritarian, I would say. The related cause for the whole 3 strikes thing would be the attitudes on crime and criminals that led to those laws being passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
CR
Well, these days it's more about keeping our head above the water, so to speak. Many of our harbors are overdue for much-needed maintenance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
At least the Harbor Fund has more money than the poor Waterways Fund. I think it was ~$120 billion we were losing yearly due to our ancient canals? Those things ought to have undergone major improvement before most of us were born! Let's go for the Kallanai limit, I suppose?
@Crazed Rabbit: Interesting links, I'll give them a more thorough read tomorrow - its an angle I never thought about before.
Although like you said to GC, there are probably wider trends which led to the three strikes law. I would hazard to guess that sensationalist media, urbanisation, and the development of a crime-dependent underclass has a lot to do with it.
At a glance... notice the amount of people in this list that are black. A lot of it comes down to race. If you look at the American "justice system" African Americans are more harshly punished than any other race. The American system is a farce. Its more luck of the draw than fare
Don't worry, the abusive machine is expanding every day to treat all people like slaves. Equal opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamakazi
Regarding police unions - it is a tough one. They clearly need a focused advocate. The life of a police officer in metropolitan areas is often in danger. Add to this that they are a constant beacon of political fury rightly or wrongly. They need a strong blue line to provide backup in a way that most other industries dont. Too often, this is used to evil and self serving ends.
You could make officers lives much safer if you stopped forcing them to rustle up trouble where there isnt much and breed criminals through the contempt that they build for "justice". You would also make them less numerous and less well paid.
Also notice their geographical location in the south.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamakazi