And so Eki goes off on yet another totally irrelevant angle that has nothing to do with the Koreas even going back to pre WW2 since his position on the defence of Democratic South Korea is untenable.
Printable View
And so Eki goes off on yet another totally irrelevant angle that has nothing to do with the Koreas even going back to pre WW2 since his position on the defence of Democratic South Korea is untenable.
Tito wasn't much of a Communist. No one was forced to live in Yugoslavia and while the state ran a lot, there was a lot of capitalism there too. He also didn't play along with the USSR and their aims, and took a country with many factions and did his own thing. HE wasn't a saint, but he wasn't anti Capitalist or an threat to the west.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Castro? Good lord EKi, he is your hero. He had no interest in befriending the US. THe man didn't allow any dissent, didn't want anyone but a Castro in power, and basically had people willing to die on pieces of driftwood in shark infested waters to get away from his paradise. You want to say something more retarded? Volunteer to live in Cuba as a Cuban does....
Castro had NO intention of getting along with the US. If he did, there was ample opportunity over the years....and one has to only notice how any overtures from the US are often rebuffed. Read 1984 Eki, and learn how Big Brother always has to have a bogey man to keep the population united against someone else other than Big Brother. Castro is Big Brother and the USA has always been his Bogeyman, and you see Chavez playing to the same orchestra in Venezuela.
That's not what I've heard:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_C...olidates_power
Eisenhower had a window of opportunity but he wasted it. Khrushchev used it.Quote:
Between April 15 and April 26, Castro and a delegation of industrial and international representatives visited the U.S. as guests of the Press Club. Castro hired one of the best public relations firms in the United States for a charm offensive visit by Castro and his recently initiated government. Castro answered impertinent questions jokingly and ate hot dogs and hamburgers. His rumpled fatigues and scruffy beard cut a popular figure easily promoted as an authentic hero.[56] He was refused a meeting with President Eisenhower. After his visit to the United States, he would go on to join forces with the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev.[45]
Very nice selective picking. Too bad you didn't post more of the entry about the suppression of free speech and freedom of the people. Or the seizure of ppty. without compensation and the interference by armed force (invasion) in Africa.
Eki do you SERIOUSLY believe if Eisenhower had met with him he would have had elections and freedom for Cubans to come and go? I was born on a day Eki, not yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
There was ample evidence of what Castro was if you choose to dig to other places besides one part of Wikipedia. No serious historian with both oars in the water would EVER consider Castro a hero bent on democracy and then was so miffed, why he turned the country into a prison camp.
I don't know why bother, you don't want to see the truth, you just want to argue nonsense some days.
Castro was a Marxist from his days in Jesuit High School.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
No, but he would have cooperated with the US instead of the Soviet Union. The US have cooperated with right wing military juntas too, so obviously democracy and freedom have not been on top of their list. They also cooperated with Stalin until 1945 and with Saddam until 1989.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
By the way, the freedom to emigrate is overrated if there is no freedom to immigrate and no place to go. For example, Mexicans have the right to emigrate, but aren't there still illegal Mexican immigrants in the US.
The US Co-operated with the Junta's because they were seen as better alternatives to the Communists, which if you remember your history of the 50's ( and your Korea comments indicated you do not ) THAT was the big fear. Didn't say the US liked them, but as you keep pointing out...in your shrill little comments "the US shouldn't poke their nose into how other nations are run"...and they didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
They co-operated with Stalin because many on the left in the US were spending most of the 30's making excuses for his excesses and he was less a threat than Nazism. As for Saddam, again, less a problem in the 80's than the Iranians....
AS for your assertion the freedom to emigrate is overated if there is no place to go? Answer me this: Why would people putting boats to sea In Haiti to leave (being too poor to leave any other way) to sneak into another country not just scoot the 50 odd miles West to Cuba? No...they take their boats and whatever and go past the Turks and Caico's and Bahamas up to Florida? Gee....That US is such a NASTY place..why would they all go there eh?
The freedom to come and go means your nation isn't a prison camp!!! Even the Chicom's allow their people to come and go to an extent. Cuba? No...the old USSR? No.... Freedom isn't important to you because people died for it and you don't appreciate it. I can bet if the President of Finland told you and others there was no choice but to be stuck in Finland, and then ran the economy right into the toilet while paying you next to nothing, you might grasp the concept.
Cooperated with Stalin yes.
But there was a little something called WW2 going on.
Are you suggesting Eki that the US should have sided with Hitler?
It sure sounds like it.
What has Mexico got to do with anything?
But they can leave if they want to. I am sure Finland would welcome a couple of million with open arms.
The US like all free countries has restrictions on the number of immigrants allowed each year. But desparate people from Cuba and Mexico want into that terrible country the United States and funnily enough into the frozen north Canada.
Have you seen the documentary "The Soviet Story"?
Answer me this: Are they welcomed in Florida?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Finland returned those who illegally came from the Soviet Union and we still return those who illegally come from Russia, although they now have the freedom to leave Russia. It's sad, I know, but we can't afford to take everyone who wants to leave Russia.
For the most part those that have family here and want to become good, productive citizens are welcome here. Some of it is almost like a game. If they can make it to shore, they can stay by claiming asylum. If the Coast Guard stops the boat near the beach and everybody dives overboard and swims for the beach, those that make it to where they can stand with their heads above water win. Those that are plucked from the water still swimming lose and go back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The stories about George Bush modifying the Coast Guard boats to release up to 12 hungery sharks below the waterline are not true.
Why would anyone want to leave Russia?
I just read on a tabloid about an 81 year old Russian grandmother who's been living with her daughter for two years in Finland. The daughter has been living in Finland for almost 20 years and is married to a Finn. Now the Finnish authorities want to send the granny back to Russia for fear they'll have to pay for her care here in Finland. Apparently the granny doesn't have any relatives in Russia who could take care of her and the Russian care for the elderly isn't up at the same level it is in Finland. The Finnish son in law has returned his military passport in protest saying that if he's not capable of defending his family, he's not capable of defending his country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Then there was a Russian military conscript who had escaped his unit near the Finnish border to Finland with an assault rifle. He ended up shooting himself when the Finns tried to capture him.
Most Americans I have met understand the USA is the destination for a lot of oppressed people and poor from the less well off or badly run nations of the earth. Legitimate asylum, or economic refugee's who are absorbed legally are not the ones people in the USA get upset about. The Millions who just come in and start working under the table ARE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Of course, when stern people decide building a fence or putting more Border Patrol on the Mexican border is in order, the trendy chattering classes think it is horrible...but the fact is, a nation which does not control its borders is defined by many historical definations as not being sovereign. I wouldn't say the USA is THAT, but the tremendous strain on the social welfare system of the US is just one of the reasons the recession has kicked the crap out of the economy and one of the reasons why the reforms suggested for healthcare were so hotly contested.
Sounds familiar. Every once in a while we will read the story of someone who's visa has run out who has kids here in Canada, or someone who overstayed a VISA who seems like a sympathetic character is on the deportation list to a country that isn't very nice. We hear of this sort of thing all the time. What you describe Eki wouldn't happen here...so I guess Canada is MORE empthatic than Finland? Granny would be exempt here because the daughter would have gotten sponsorship for Granny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
You are probably cleaner and more polite too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
When I see the litter beside our roads, especially when the snow melts I doubt cleaner!
More polite, no idea.
Present company excluded. :p
I'm watching a documentary about China. It mentioned how Carter demanded from Deng Xiaoping that certain amount of Chinese should be allowed to leave China before the US can cooperate with China. Den Xiaoping answered, "Sure Chinese people can leave. How many do you want 40 million, 50 million?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Eki...things like that is why Jimmy Carter is a TOOL....Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Dealing with the PRC is pretty difficult, but you never help your cause by demanding things from them like that....
I was razzing you....we probably are NOT as clean, but we are famous for being polite. Except starting Friday...then the gloves are off....we were polite in Montreal in 76, and Calgary in 88, but this time we want the gold and we want it early and often!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Come on, Canadians are clean. They said so in "Canadian Bacon". They invaded Canada and when they saw Toronto, one of them said in awe "It's almost like Albany, only cleaner".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
************************************************** ******** I'm starting to appreciate President Ahmadinejad.
The little guy dresses like a middle-aged swinger trying to pick up young women in bars but he is the elected president of a sovereign nation.
He wants to develop nuclear power for his country and is doing so.
He wants to enrich his own uranium fuel and is doing so, as is his nation's right to as such.
He wants and is developing a space program.
He has seen the benefits and usefulness of drone aircraft and is now developing his own drones.
The fact that he expresses some rather odious views about other nations and races is his business as long as they remain oratory and do not become overt action on his part.
That the outside world may not approve of his criminal justice system doesn't bother him at all. If his citizens are so strongly opposed to it, let the revolution begin! After all, that's how Ahmadinejad's party got into power by replacing the Shah.
And what is he up against? Putin and Russia, who have offered to enrich the fuel for Iran and had their offer declined. You can bet Putin has made it clear to Ahmadinejad what will happen if even a whiff of weapons grade dust, traceable to Iran, ends up in Russia. Other than that, Putin doesn't care. China is a major business partner and won't do anything.
That leaves a small pack of western nations, most of whom have nukes, barking and yipping like the self-neutered dogs they are for "sanctions". The USA even has the complete lack of sense to send a woman (SoS Hillary Clinton) to an Islamic country to dictate terms to it. Really bad move there.
So there you have him, doing things he has the right to do within his country, regardless of who agrees with him and who does not. He is not hiding in a cave. He stands in the light of day telling the world they can just suck 'Ol Buck.
I wonder if his Feb 12th surprise is final proof, open to the world proof, that Obama is not legally qualified to be president of the USA. That would be a treat!
If I were Argentina, I'd be considering another run at the Falklands right about now.
Oh boy...lol...that would be rich. You are right tho...because I doubt Brown nor Cameron has half the cojones that Thatcher had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
I dunno Eki....you may have a point...but I am not always sure what it is...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Even if they did, the people they represent don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Or it could help Brown's reputation if he managed a successful campaign against the Argentinians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Argentinians Air Force has barely even recovered from the kick-in it got 28 years ago. Hasn't a load of oil been discovered around the Falklands?
There is oil damn near everywhere. We aren't close to using it all up. Actually some scientists are saying the earth is constantly producing it and it is not strictly a product of dead biomass. They have found mucho oil below the biomass levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
John, I doubt Brown would do it. Then again, I was shocked Blair tossed the UK's hat in the ring for Iraq, and hearing THAT is what made me initially support the war. If a moderate/left of center pol like Blair could go for it....well then there had to be something. Now many would argue otherwise, but in 2002 that was the reality.
Before 1982 barely any of the British public knew about the Falkland Islands. Now we look back at that campaign as a proud military victory which at the time the US Navy called 'a military impossibility'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Sure, if Brown was in charge in 1982 he probably wouldn't have made the same risk that Thatcher did. But if the Falklands were invaded for a 2nd time (unlikely as they are better defended now) then any government would be under enormous pressure to launch a counter attack. If they didn't then the 200+ Britons who lost their lives in the war would have been for nothing.
Even if we don't think we should be in Afghanistan or shouldn't have gone to Iraq the British public will always support its military.
That sentence sounds like Brown, Jon Brow has multiple personality disorder. Brown and Jon Brow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Jon is kind of a schizo? naah ...but I knew the difference...lol...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The Falklands proved the British Lion still had teeth and claws...and was something that had to be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
The British support their military, as does Canada ours, but in Afghanistan, both of us are there against some opposition at home. I suggest that the supporting of the troops is noble in theory, but if you want them home before they accomplish something then you are just telling them they failed....and that their sacrifices mean nothing also. It is delicate, because no one sane suggests Afghanistan will be a peaceful garden of eden now or a year from now, but I would like to see something concrete change there before the NATO troops pull out. The real issue is the gutless lack of participation on the part of the Germans, French and others who in theory back the operation, but wont put troops on the line to make the mission happen. The US, Dutch, UK and Canada have borne the brunt of the losses, most through IED's....not actual combat missions....and the people who want a better life there are waiting to see which side is more committed. THAT is the real issue with us being there. No one in the West has any patience for problems that are not easily fixed.