Senator Ted Kennedy Passes Away

[Kadagar_AV]

Still, he left her to die?

I dont care what else he might have done... a man who leaves a woman like that....

[Centurion1]

^ which is why he never had a strong case to run for president.

[Lemur]

Watching the Kennedys from afar, it always seemed like a version of The Godfather in which Sonny and Michael died early, and Fredo took over, with predictable results. Very sad.

[KukriKhan]

Watching the Kennedys from afar, it always seemed like a version of The Godfather in which Sonny and Michael died early, and Fredo took over, with predictable results. Very sad.

I never thought of it that way, but: yeah, astute observation.

I grew up in a "Kennedys are all Saints on Earth" household. Mom and Dad refused to believe the Kopechne story, insisting it was some kinda royalist/republican plot to smear the family. They died before the other stories of John F & Bobbie's sins became known. Had they not, those stories would surely have done it.

Chappaquiddick aside (and that's a huge aside) I admired Ted the politico for basic honesty. You knew where he stood, and didn't do much pandering for votes - 'course he had reelection confidently wrapped up all the time, so could afford to be forthright about his views and goals. I get the feeling that today's pollies don't bother with such trivialities as views or goals. Throw enough cash their way and they'll do anyone's bidding.

[Aemilius Paulus]

And then he went on to offer to aid and abet the Soviet Union in order to make things difficult for Reagan

I would be just as glad to dance on his grave, but only when my slander is justified. After reading that article, from a source biased towards the right as Forbes is, I would not particularly trust it to convey the truth. Especially when they re-affirmed that USSR was "an evil empire". I mean, sure, there is arguments for that. But the statements reeks of naivety, propaganda, hypocrisy and such. Not something I would put in a serious magazine.

What was US? It had evils of its own. Racism is one of them, not something that was stoked in USSR. Sure, we had ethnicities we did not like. But did we do anything notable about it? No. Stalin was notorious for his murders, but as I like to say, he was an "equal-opportunity oppressor/executioner". He killed those he deemed as rebellious, whether that was the reality or not. That did not make any better, but still, the truth is truth.

To call anything pure evil, especially an entire conglomerate of nations as large as USSR is strikingly juvenile behaviour. Even to declare Nazi Germany as "evil" is most certainly a brash thing to say, as there are far too many people, and even if what the country did was atrocious, that says nothing about it as a whole - given the right leader, perhaps even at a favourable time (time may even not be as necessary), any country could have carried out something similar to the Holocaust. And many did. Genocides are uncounted in quantity.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not to mention he was one of those Americans that like to think they're Irish and gave support to the likes of the IRA. Never mind connections with Gaddafi or the PLO when a brother of the leader of the free world funds those

So he supported terrorists and let a women drown in the bottom of a lake... yeah, top guy.

[Aemilius Paulus]

More hypocrisy, IMHO. Every American leader supported "terrorists" at one point or another. Especially Reagan: see Reagan Doctrine. The Taliban too was supported, most prominently, including Osama Bin Laden. America has created the very evil that attacked it.

At that time, the Taliban were portrayed as gallant "freedom fighters" back then - even Reagan called them exactly that. Or all those Hollywood films featuring them. Hehe, I do not think I even remember any Soviet propaganda that was as bad... Taliban was never subtle about what it stood for: a totalitarian Muslim-extremist theocracy which enslaved all women and kept the men in fear with violence. Really, very few regimes were as negative in the beginning in the Western eyes.

[Rhyfelwyr]

More hypocrisy, IMHO. Every American leader supported "terrorists" at one point or another. Especially Reagan: see Reagan Doctrine. The Taliban too was supported, most prominently, including Osama Bin Laden. America has created the very evil that attacked it.

These things happen when two superpowers are striving for dominance though. The only reasoning behind the decisions of certain Americans to fund the IRA seems to be they had a great-great-grandad called Paddy and decided they had something in common with the 'freedom fighters' oppressed by the British. The most ironic thing is a lot of the Americans that think they are Irish are in fact of Ulster-Scots and not Irish descent.

Anyway, supporting the Taliban was the usual global influence thing, not nice but that's how the big powers do things. With the IRA though it was completely pointless, they were supporting a terrorist campaign against their allies, with certain branches of the terrorists like the OIRA even stating that they take orders from Moscow!

[Aemilius Paulus]

These things happen when two superpowers are striving for dominance though. The only reasoning behind the decisions of certain Americans to fund the IRA seems to be they had a great-great-grandad called Paddy and decided they had something in common with the 'freedom fighters' oppressed by the British. The most ironic thing is a lot of the Americans that think they are Irish are in fact of Ulster-Scots and not Irish descent.

Anyway, supporting the Taliban was the usual global influence thing, not nice but that's how the big powers do things. With the IRA though it was completely pointless, they were supporting a terrorist campaign against their allies, with certain branches of the terrorists like the OIRA even stating that they take orders from Moscow!

Yeah, you have a point. Well, stupidity I suppose... That and misplaced nationalism. Really imbecilic it was though. Even if the Micks were morally right, I would rather be friends with an entity the likes of UK, and not a poor, uninfluencial start-up such as Ireland.

[Xiahou]

More hypocrisy, IMHO. Every American leader supported "terrorists" at one point or another. Especially Reagan: see Reagan Doctrine. The Taliban too was supported, most prominently, including Osama Bin Laden. America has created the very evil that attacked it.

At that time, the Taliban were portrayed as gallant "freedom fighters" back then - even Reagan called them exactly that. Or all those Hollywood films featuring them. Hehe, I do not think I even remember any Soviet propaganda that was as bad... Taliban was never subtle about what it stood for: a totalitarian Muslim-extremist theocracy which enslaved all women and kept the men in fear with violence. Really, very few regimes were as negative in the beginning in the Western eyes.

That's a little bit of an overstatement. The US supported many warlords and resistance groups during the Soviet invasion- but the Taliban didn't even exist yet. Further, it wasn't just a US enterprise, many countries were interested in seeing the Soviets fail. That's not to say you don't have some shred of a point there, but you're definitely overstating it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sure, we had ethnicities we did not like. But did we do anything notable about it? No. Stalin was notorious for his murders, but as I like to say, he was an "equal-opportunity oppressor/executioner".

Firstly, not we. You were born after the USSR fell, and you should be damned glad you did. Secondly, that's just not true. Stalin loved his minorities. Or, rather, loved to oppress them. Why do you think he is so much more hated in some places than others? Stalin was a xenophobe, and he did a lot more than anyone in America.

He killed those he deemed as rebellious, whether that was the reality or not. That did not make any better, but still, the truth is truth.

Ironic that they usually turned out to be ethnicities he disliked then.

To call anything pure evil, especially an entire conglomerate of nations as large as USSR is strikingly juvenile behaviour. Even to declare Nazi Germany as "evil" is most certainly a brash thing to say, as there are far too many people, and even if what the country did was atrocious, that says nothing about it as a whole - given the right leader, perhaps even at a favourable time (time may even not be as necessary), any country could have carried out something similar to the Holocaust. And many did. Genocides are uncounted in quantity.

It is true that no country was ever completely black or white, but some were certainly more evil than others. On a comparitive basis, the USSR was certainly much worse than America.

[Aemilius Paulus]

That's not to say you don't have some shred of a point there, but you're definitely overstating it.

I was never much of a subtle debater, nor do I particularly favour litotes. Overstatement is normally my first technique, which affects only the less-informed. Since I seemed to have stumbled on a wiser crowd, it is now necessary for me to switch tactics.

Firstly, not we. You were born after the USSR fell, and you should be damned glad you did.

I am a Russian, and USSR was Russian history. I consider that as my own. And you have no idea when I was born, any more than you know how old ACIN is.

Ironic that they usually turned out to be ethnicities he disliked then.

Call Stalin many things, but he was not a rabid racist a la Hitler. As the vast majority people of his (and our) time, he may have disliked certain minorities, but that was it. Or perhaps he even hated some, but from a political aspect, he certainly was a not that. And before you say Ukraine (keeping in mind my father is a Ukrainian), that was not minority oppression. Ukrainians are a majority in their own country, they were subjugated peoples altogether too predisposed towards rebellion, particularly in the form of clandestine partisan activities. His treatment of Ukrainians was not founded on prejudice, racism, pseudo-science, etc, but on political realities.

Ukrainians were not a historically ill-treated, and small-numbered community. That did not make them any different, but to call them as an ethnicity in the context of modern "racism/discrimination" concept is incorrect, for Ukrainians are not a single group of people, but a confluence of hundreds of minor groups. Stating Ukrainians are a single ethnic body is no different from declaring all French are of the same ethnicity or insisting that Russians are all a single group of people. In reality, the number of nuances is immense. A Ukrainian is citizen of Ukraine, and not so much a single coherent-in-any-manner collection of persons. To target a "Ukrainian" is to target a national of a specific political entity, and not an ethnic group.

Like any people proud or even merely mindful of their heritage, they yearned for independence, and Stalin, from a perverse, evil, but at the same time somewhat practical-for-USSR perspective, was correct to treat them as such. Since, unfortunately, he did not have the option of treating Ukrainians liberally for a smooth integration and allowing autonomy, Stalin resorted to the only other option - mass murder to force dread and fear through all strata of the society. Classic example of the totalitarian manner of dealing with internal dissent.

It is true that no country was ever completely black or white, but some were certainly more evil than others. On a comparitive basis, the USSR was certainly much worse than America.

In this I absolutely agree with you. But the underlined is all that I meant to convey through my previous posts. The rest is what I deemed as granted. To argue that USSR was no more evil than US is farce, and takes considerable academic insolence.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I am a Russian, and USSR was Russian history. I consider that as my own. And you have no idea when I was born, any more than you know how old ACIN is.

Yes, I do, since you mentioned this last time we discussed the topic.

Call Stalin many things, but he was not a rabid racist a la Hitler.

No, he wasn't. But he was a xenophobe, and he did kill people because he didn't like their ethnicities. It's true he often did this for "security concerns", but in reality, "security concerns" in the majority of cases were trumped up charges, or excuses, used to oppress and murder people. Nothing more.

[Aemilius Paulus]

No, he wasn't. But he was a xenophobe, and he did kill people because he didn't like their ethnicities. It's true he often did this for "security concerns", but in reality, "security concerns" in the majority of cases were trumped up charges, or excuses, used to oppress and murder people. Nothing more.

Hmm, interesting. No really, I am not being sarcastic. What were those ethnicities then? I doubt you can make a strong case for Ukrainians. They were mass-murdered with little discrimination - simply for the dread factor, to force others to keep their heads down and lips sealed.