Printable View
All Hail!
The ACLU has released a report on 3278 prisoners with lifetime sentences for nonviolent crimes. If you don't feel like reading, have a handy interactive graphic.
These scum of the earth have committed such heinous crimes as stealing a wallet, a truck or selling 10g of pot. BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!
FYI Americans, this is why we Europeans consider you barbaric. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour. None.
Three times your out, does it says what the previous crimes were. And most won't die in prison, life in prison isn't life in prison in America. I admit it is a really harsh system, but over here people who have a criminal record the size of the bill of rights get away with everything every time, at a certain point they should be removed from society. Where that point should be laying I don't know.
3278. Out of millions. Not impressive at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Okay. No problem.Quote:
FYI Americans, this is why we Europeans consider you barbaric. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour. None.
The life time/capita number (50/100.000) in the US is about 60% of the total prisoners in the Netherlands (82/100.000). And the total number per capita is 9 times higher in the US (743/100.000), giving them about 25% of the prisoners in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I think that counts as going overboard.
And 3 times you're out is probably too few times for those who turn around after starting to commit crimes. It may take 2 or more times before the descision to change really comes.
The US seriously needs to remove corporate/private financial interests from where they don't belong. You should never have a situation where it is in the financial interests of the prison authorities to keep prisoners for as long as possible. Where judges have shares in those organizations!
1/4 of the world's prison population in the 'leader of the free world', lol. More blacks in prison today than there were slaves in 1850. And some of them on the sites of former plantations! If I was born black in America I would be doing everything I could to leave. I don't see how anybody can think this is a healthy situation.
Never mind that US prisons look a lot meaner than British ones. How can putting people in a state of perpetual race war, where petty criminals have to join brutal gangs possibly help to prepare people for re-integrate into society?
As a raw number it's not impressive, but what is it, 2% of all life-sentences? That's a bit more troubling; should be more like 0.1% in a properly-functioning system.Quote:
3278. Out of millions. Not impressive at all.
The USA is bigger. I am getting a bit tired of the US-bashing that mostly seems to come from Scandinavian countries. Oh so better. No you arent't, you are just being jerks. That arrogance doesn't look good on you. Especially since the rape-statistics of your lands of unicorns and rainbows would shame any third world country. Best to shut up before you point any fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Ah, good ol' mindless american nationalism...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
On some level it's good to know that it's not just some europeans who are stuck in a 1930's mindset, the same attitude exists over the pond as well.
And THAT is really bad. That is beyond being offensive, and I will just take it before our American posters do. How dare you, you Norwegians are known for euganics,nuntill 19300 and you still think you can judge others. You killed children that didn't have Nordic features.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That's your country. The country that could just as well could have organised a parade should the nazi's invade them another time, so easy
What's nationalism to some is just common sense to others. American justice is set up by us exclusively for us. We're not asking you to adopt our system, even though your treatment of Breivik is hair raising to many people here. Your country, your rules. Our country, our rules. Think what you will of this, it's not gonna matter to the way we do things here.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
America isn't Europe. America isn't trying to be Europe or even be like Europe. Is that really so unsettling for the Europeans?
Mindless nationalisms trademark #2:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Whenever someone from "the outside" offers a point of view, he's trying to force you to change. There can be no other purpose to his despicable attacks of the One Truth(which is "we're the best and you suck").
Do you honestly believe I have warm feelings for my country, or take any pride in my nation whatsoever, Fragolini?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
There's a difference between offering a point of view and repeating that point of view ad nauseum at every opportunity. You think America is backward and barbaric. Okay, got it. We've heard you and we don't care. Can we talk about something else now?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I do not, but I can see how a nationalist like you would think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Didn't you just say...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You're a European, no? Or you're not one of those Europeans?Quote:
...FYI Americans, this is why we Europeans consider you barbaric...
Mindless nationalism trademark #3: the tendency to take everything literally, especially when it's negative statements about ones country.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Perhaps you could provide the figurative meaning of your statement for this "mindless nationalist"? Or would this be considered a "Mindless nationalism trademark #4"?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Don't see much point in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Anyway, back to the topic:
Anyone else have thoughts on the three strike system, and/or on giving the most severe punishment for nonviolent crimes?
Right. Because there was no alternate figurative meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I just suspect some pride misgiven horrie. Scandinavians can really be jerks, and their confidence that they are holding the light is annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Scandinavia/America/United States of Whatever.
Nationality aside, some of those cases are appalling in how they are handled.
Life imprisonment for a Vicar borrowing a car from a friend to visit his family on Christmas. Seriously?
Points on licence, fining, community service. No one is saying he shouldn't be punished for driving an vehicle he is uninsured for. But life sentence without parole?
If you really can sit there and justify that sentencing, you really need to take a hard look at your life.
China is 4 times bigger. And is a dictorship. And has less prisoners. If you combine the prisoners and ‘detention centres’, then you get a similar size in numbers. So that's 1/4 of the number, with about 30% blatant political prisoners. UK is a western European anomaly with about 150.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It's not a US vs Scandinavia on this one, it's US stands out a lot compared to the rest of the world (presumably due to the war on drugs). Globally, the US is more normal on tax policies, gun control and police abuse/SWAT teams than on this.
Rape statistics contains an actual increase, but is also mostly a mixture of increased reporting (that or those immigrants doesn't ever do assult rapes) and changes in what constitutes rape instead of severe sexual harasment.
It's interesting that the majority of those sentenced to life without parole are Black and are located in the South and Midwest. This is a travesty of justice and to me constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment". The war on drugs needs to stop.
Interesting note: since prisons are so overcrowded, violent criminals are often remanded to local jails and just shuffled around from place to place until they can be fitted somewhere more long-term. So there are increased opportunities for this type to rub shoulders with 'lesser' criminals over extended periods.
Question: should the organization of the prison-system be changed (after everything is done with reducing overcrowding and rewriting the penal code on personal use of drugs/controlled substances) so that highly-recidivistic misdemeanants+minor felons are concentrated together in prisons (which also raises the question of whether misdemeanants should serve their sentences in jails in all cases) to isolate them from the rest of the short-sentence inmates? That is, if prisons are going to be 'crime schools', then maybe we should implicitly designate specific units of the system as such, rather than allowing the diffusion of criminal norms and techniques throughout the entire incarcerated population.
The (semi) privatizing of the penal system, declaring wars on social problems and the fallout from political blundering, and these human rights abusing three strike laws all lead to the US becoming an authoritarian police state.
How would you define an authoritarian police state? Specifically, what attributes would make a state authoritarian, and what attributes would classify it as a police state?Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Not for me. :wine:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Three strikes is an insane idea. It takes an extremely self-righteous person, or perhaps just a stupid one, to think that locking someone up for life for three petty convictions has anything to do with "justice".Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And it's bloody expensive as well - I wonder how many of its supporters are self-described "fiscal conservatives".
Three strike law states present a very weird mix of super-conservative (like Texas) and super-liberal (like Massachusetts) states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I'm a fair minded guy. Liberals can be imbeciles, too.
Come to Michigan then! It's a locally Red state that is almost completely Blue on the federal level. Heck, we don't even have the death penalty here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
One that has secret courts and spies on all its citizens foreign and a lot of their domestic communications would be one...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Oh that's another thread...
USA can do its own things in its own country. Just don't go touting 'We are the leaders of the free world' without the stats to back 'em up like voter particaption, life span, access to health, access to representation etc
If you can stop spouting that the POTUS is the leader of the free world then maybe the Vikings will stop stating the obvious that you aren't.
What exactly makes one a leader of the free world? And if we're not the leader, then who is? Not that leadership is a privilege or anything like that. It's a burden. I'd be happy to see us turn back to isolationism if that was a viable option, but alas. We're the leader alright, but all we have to show for it is a group of ungrateful do-nothing "allies" with the notable exception of the Brits. Leadership is overrated at least as far as its benefits go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Swords are not ploughs.
How good a life all the citizens lead within a country determines leadership within the free world. Not how many people can be stomped on.
That still doesn't answer the question of which country should take the torch of leadership in the free world. I'd venture a guess that there will be no takers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I'm not convinced that there can be a leadership position for freedom. It's certainly not attained by force of arms or spying on everyone. It is like leading a horse to water, sure you can get it there but you can't make it drink. Freedom is something people have to want and strive for at a grass root level. Freedom is a personal choice as much as an environmental one.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
If there is a leadership role for freedom it isn't based on force or arms but the quality of life of a countries citizens and the positive benefit the nation has on other people's lives.
That would work. In vacuum. Or in the land of the prancing ponies. The good old Earth however requires the ability to project deadly force in order to protect freedom. Freedom isn't free. It's not worth a plug nickel if it cannot stand up for itself and protect itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
“The good old Earth however requires the ability to project deadly force in order to protect freedom.”
Yeah, we had the phase in French Democracy development as well, few centuries ago… The Revolutionary’s armies freed Europe in the 18th Century of it Tyrants, proclaimed Republics everywhere they could. It was their duty and burden. However, someone (Robespierre) told: People don’t like armed prophets. He was absolutely right.
Apparently the French (Republican) idea of Freedom was not was the rest of Europe wanted. What a shame…
It took 7 coalitions and 20 years for Europeans Monarchies and Empires to destroy the idea and they re-installed a despot on the Throne of France (and this was their idea of freedom).
Back to the US leadership of the free world, as stated, it is more the right to do what they want freely than really defending freedom as concept. What get me is the US policy hard core supporter’s whinging. They want to roam the Earth freely as they pleased, but if someone kill them they don’t understand and complain than no one love them (ungrateful). At the time of Colonial Powers, the French crushed rebellions, but they never asked why the rebellions happened. They knew.
When you impose your laws and your interests upon populations there are backlashes. And yes, we were kicked out by the ungrateful leaders of these countries, men and women we educated in our schools. And they did it on the name of the values written in the French Constitution, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, because the French forgot what these concepts mean, and that they are Universal.
You're the leader of Americanism or the American empire perhaps, but not of the free world. With such a large prison system, surveillance programs, military occupations, torture programs and a "we're stronger, suck it up or try to fight us"-attitude you can hardly claim to be a leader in terms of freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The only freedom you protect is the freedom to be spied on universally and to have a government that is more influenced by corporate interest than the interest of the people it governs. And maybe the freedom of the USA to do whatever it wants with both allies and enemies. Why would anyone want to follow you other than because they want to be with the biggest bully rather than against him? Where is the freedom in that?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Leaving aside this strange concept of "freedom", the point is merely that most non-Americans do not share rvg's perspective: namely, that there is no reason for non-Americans to be upset when America imposes its agenda on them -
America is a (relatively)* benevolent master, after all...
So the problem is a lack of empathy. Whether or not it pushes decision-making into the realm of the gentle or sentimental, it is a good idea to at least recognize how people feel, how they have come to feel this way, and how natural such feelings are, if only to better effect your own hegemony. If you don't mind that others hate you, then prudence dictates that you take the precaution of working to maintain the sentiment at a substrate-level, and to do this you must first understand the sentiment on a more-than-surface level.
Or, you know, maybe let's leave it at 'everyone just hates America out of jealousy cuz America is rich and better than them'...
So keep in mind that, while the majority of states desperately want American support and attention, this is mostly due to the economic benefits such things entail, as well as the fact that a distant strong America is preferable for many to a nearby strong Russia or China. But geopolitical winds change, you know. If Russian and Chinese projection can/will fade in time, then so can/will the USA's...
*What is missed whenever America's relative benevolence is mentioned is the fact that the conditions that produce this historical benevolence are such that they automatically raise the bar for benevolence. Just keep in mind that ethical standards and contemporary (for any point) conditions are inextricably intertwined. Obviously, Romanesque expand-and-devastate (or vice-versa) would almost immediately precipitate both an American civil war and a World War.
Is it so hard to see the discrepancy between having freedom and having a master?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I don't think rvg wants the government to be his master, even if it were a benevolent master, but America being the master of the "free" world is fine. It's a bit like communist dictatorships calling themselves peoples' democracies...
What did Robespierre know about freedom? He was too busy harvesting heads. The man was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had guillotined thousands of innocent people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Things are rarely that black and white.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Okay, then who is the leader if not us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I sense someone's precious feeling being hurt. Everybody spies. We're no different from anyone else in that sense. As for why anyone would follow us, I don't know, some do it to save money on defense budget, others do it because our interests align. Can you speak for everyone?Quote:
The only freedom you protect is the freedom to be spied on universally and to have a government that is more influenced by corporate interest than the interest of the people it governs. And maybe the freedom of the USA to do whatever it wants with both allies and enemies. Why would anyone want to follow you other than because they want to be with the biggest bully rather than against him? Where is the freedom in that?
Noone. The UN was supposed to take a leading function among nations but nationalistic interests of the strongest nations at the time resulting in veto powers ruined it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Does the government always speak for everyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
How do you know my feelings are hurt? Do you work for the NSA or are you just trying to mock me?
Everybody spies but not everybody spies on friends and foes alike and not every population is willing to tolerate it.
It's just a cheap excuse that ignores the scale at which some nations do it and the fact that everybody doing something bad does not make it good.
I'd say Amnesty fits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Interesting. Remember our old pal Muammar? He didn't really bother anyone, all he wanted was to massacre a few dissenters in Benghazi. Easy-peasy, but no, the U.N. doesn't take very kindly at such action and passes a scary resolution. Muammar ratchets up the rate of killing. What does the U.N. do next? The U.N. looks at America and expects us to deal with Muammar. France and Italy would love the idea as well, but they themselves don't seem to be able to do it. Suddenly they realize that without proper logistics in place they can't do a thing to stop Muammar. French and Italian plans that can almost reach Muammar make him almost scared and force him to almost halt the drive towards Benghazi. So France and Italy also look at America and expect us to fix this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Our cruise missiles start flying and the rest is history. Moral of the story is that high ideals are worthless without the ability and the will to enforce them.
Not for everyone, but for the majority. Usually.Quote:
Does the government always speak for everyone?
Just a guess.Quote:
How do you know my feelings are hurt? Do you work for the NSA or are you just trying to mock me?
And you know this how?Quote:
Everybody spies but not everybody spies on friends and foes alike...
No one has respect for the law here. We just don't want to do hard time or lose rights, which is the consequence of an endless list of insignificant and non-violent errors. The government is a monster which must be overcome.
Too many people are persecuted for too little and it is not going unnoticed. The law protects established interests and intolerant curmudgeons and we are doing our best to unravel the legal system that we've (people who no one knows who lived many years ago who had a trivial understanding of reality) created. You know, except for nanny staters who seek to expand the list of nonviolent offences that put you in jail. Keeping property that you have owned legally, smoking plants in your own home, recording police betraying their oaths, etc
The US government and the legal system it supports is a global disgrace. It is a criminal enterprise which seeks to weaken free thought, free expression and free will while expanding draconian control over everyone and everything. The good news? So is every government out there. The beasts have taken the reigns, and it is time to wrest them back. The government can do good things if it remembers why it exists in the first place.
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You want to be the world police and other nations adapt to it. Then you have to be the world police and complain that other people use you as the world police. If you don't want to babysit European countries, you could start by leaving NATO and abandoning all your bases in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Completely different laws. We also have less CCTV than the British for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that high ideals cannot be implemented without someone having to do the dirty work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I would love to see us do that.Quote:
If you don't want to babysit European countries, you could start by leaving NATO and abandoning all your bases in Europe.
Laws? We're talking about spying here, it by definition runs contrary to laws.Quote:
Completely different laws. We also have less CCTV than the British for example.
The concept is Oxymoronic. America lead the Free World during the Cold War because of its overwhelming military might, having deliberately beggared Britain and France, undermined our economies, dismantled our Empires, bound us to you be debt. America was never the Good Guy - you were the Big Guy who was preferable to the Ruskies.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Now the ruskies are no longer such a terrible threat - we no longer need you to "lead us".
What, you thought it was a moral thing?
Is that a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Interesting. Did we provoke the entire African continent to start an independence movement? Was it us who stirred up India or Indochina? You bear the responsibility for losing your empires, we had no hand in that. We didn't stand to gain anything from your losses.Quote:
...having deliberately beggared Britain and France, undermined our economies, dismantled our Empires, bound us to you be debt.
WWI comes to mind. We joined in strictly to help out...Quote:
America was never the Good Guy - you were the Big Guy who was preferable to the Ruskies.
No problem, we are not holding anyone hostage.Quote:
Now the ruskies are no longer such a terrible threat - we no longer need you to "lead us".
you definitely had a hand in it, and so had russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
so russia wouldnt take it all :/Quote:
WWI comes to mind. We joined in strictly to help out...
you kinda are, although not at gunpoint.Quote:
No problem, we are not holding anyone hostage.
“What did Robespierre know about freedom? He was too busy harvesting heads. The man was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had guillotined thousands of innocent people.”: That is the story developed by his enemies and the reasons they gave to justify their actions. Unfortunately, it is the shared (by false) representation of his actions, Not that he didn’t killed (his policy) some people, but they were far from being innocents. But that is another debate.
“Was it us who stirred up India or Indochina? You bear the responsibility for losing your empires, we had no hand in that. We didn't stand to gain anything from your losses.” I don’t know for India but for Indochina I have some lights and, err, yes, USA wanted to make the pacific a big Mare Nostrum (and succeeded). Yes, USA did support Vietminh against the French until Korean War (Major Patty’s mission). As the matter of losing our Empires, that was a good thing, even if my father was one of the soldiers fighting to keep it.
“WWI comes to mind. We joined in strictly to help out...” Joining the winners…
“No problem, we are not holding anyone hostage”… Right… Asked Allende and several South American Countries their opinions about it… How many times did you try to kill Castro, and why do you still have an illegal blockade on Cuba?
“so russia wouldnt take it all” Not in WW1. Fear of Communism, not really at that time…
ah i missread. I thought he wrote ww2Quote:
“so russia wouldnt take it all” Not in WW1. Fear of Communism, not really at that time…
And you know this how exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
We only supported Vietminh in their struggle against the Japanese.Quote:
I don’t know for India but for Indochina I have some lights and, err, yes, USA wanted to make the pacific a big Mare Nostrum (and succeeded). Yes, USA did support Vietminh against the French until Korean War (Major Patty’s mission).
When we joined in 1917 the Entente bloc wasn't doing too well.Quote:
Joining the winners…
Allende was deposed by the local junta. If you think otherwise, prove it.Quote:
… Right… Asked Allende and several South American Countries their opinions about it…
It's called an embargo. We are not obligated to trade with anyone. As for trying to kill Castro, he deserve as much for conspiring with the commies and nearly causing the WW3.Quote:
How many times did you try to kill Castro, and why do you still have an illegal blockade on Cuba?
The have an interesting definition of "nonviolent". Here's one of the first descriptions I clicked on:
And another a few clicks later:Quote:
John Montgomery said that immediately before committing the armed burglary that led to his life without parole sentence, he was turned away from the hospital, where he sought treatment for his mental illness, because there was no room.
Last I checked, burglarizing a home while armed was a violent offense.Quote:
Alfonse Danner, a decorated U.S. Navy veteran, served in the Persian Gulf War. After that, “things went downhill for me,” he says. Danner will die behind bars for armed burglary and grand theft.
“And you know this how exactly?” Exactly in the same way you known he was a “bloody” dictator.
“We only supported Vietminh in their struggle against the Japanese” Read more.
“When we joined in 1917 the Entente bloc wasn't doing too well.” Read more : US army was not ready in 1917, so the only impact was psychological. Have to be equipped and trained by the English and the French. They were ready to take part in the last offensive in 1918 and their help, if not vital, was appreciated.
“Allende was deposed by the local junta. If you think otherwise, prove it.” Read on the subject. Operation Condor and Charlie.
“As for trying to kill Castro, he deserve as much for conspiring with the commies and nearly causing the WW3.” Yeah yeah yeah…Good old propaganda…
“We are not obligated to trade with anyone.” Ho? You don’t belong to the World Trade Organisation? Read about it, you really need to have your facts right.
It is amazing how you are unprepared for any debate, thinking that to be rude and offensive is enough…:bow:
Funny how it's "conspiring and nearly causing ww3" when the missiles were shipped to Cuba as a response to NATO nukes deployed near eastern europe(Italy and Turkey, iirc)... It wasn't to gain a nuclear advantage, it was to eliminate the nuclear advantage enjoyed by NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Also, Castro only turned to the USSR when it became obvious the US was and would remain hostile. He wasn't a soviet loyalist from the start.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Your "arguments" are a joke. I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense.
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