Yuk yuk. Anyway, thanks for helping my argument. The fact that you somehow feel that supporting terrorist groups with almost nil support in a country simply because they espouse (yet don’t adhere to, like many US-sponsored insurgencies, most notably the Mujahedeen) an ideology you agree with as a moral decision tells it all. In other words, it doesn’t matter what atrocities a group commits as long as they claim to support democracy and promise to assist US business interests. Basically, then, if Osama had attacked North Korean apartment buildings and offered to establish (rigged) elections afterwards that would be fine. And of course we’d have to assume that if the ignorant masses chose someone the US didn’t like we’d have to fund a revolution. Yeah, that pretty much spells out what I’ve been pointing out. This somehow isn’t the moral relativism you so strongly criticized before? :loco: Genital mutilation is terrible (even though we arguably do it to our own sons - there have been no studies proving male circumcision has significant medical benefits in modern times), but blowing up doctors, nurses and teachers, cutting off their breasts, raping their daughters, etc. are morally justifiable acts for the US government to uphold? I applaud you - it really takes balls to support such groups openly. :bravo:
Well since sbmoor cannot be bothered to come up with any statistics to support his claims how about these from Stanford University…
[quote]Tim Brown answers Hank Levin: "Professor Levin asks for some documentary evidence that Marxist ditatorships falsify literacy data. I suggest he look at Charles Stansifer, “The Nicaraguan National Literacy Campaign”, American Universities Field Staff reports, Hanover, Vt.1981. On page 12, Stansifer reports without criticism that literacy rates in Nicaragua by Department [province or state] had increased by up to 62.61% from October 1979 to August 1980, thanks to that revolution’s Lieracy Campaign. He reports that by August 1980 literacy had reached 95.85% in the Department of Esteli, 97.77% in Chinandega, 87.81% in Nueva Segovia, and 63.75% in Matagalpa. He fully accepts without wuestion that this miracle happened. These and comparable data were then routinely repeated throughout the Revolution by UN agencies, academics, and others.
Eleven years later, in 1991, the OAS and UN tested literacy rates in the rural areas of these same four Departments, Esteli, Chinandega, Nueva Segovia, Matagalpa, where 80% or more of their populations live. Literacy rates were found to be between 3% and 5% [illiteracy of 95% to 97%]. When Iooked at both Stansifer’s data and these later data while researching my book The Real Contra War, I was able independently to substantiate the UN/OAS data but not Stansifer’s, and could imagine only two possible explanations for the amazing difference between them. One, while about 90% the peasants in the Segovian mountains had, in fact, learned how to read and write during the initial nine months of the Revolution’s literacy campaigns, they had forgotten how by 1991; or, two, the data reported by Stansifer were at the very least wildly exaggerated and more probably had simply been invented by the revolutionary government. Regardless, I also found that even though these data were wrong, they were then repeated almost ad nauseam in subsequent publications by opponents of US policy toywards the Sandinista Revolution, by sympathizers of that movement, and by international organizations and academics even though they were based purely on unsubstantiated claims made by the Sandinista government in its reports.
On Cuba, I’m happy finally to learn what methodology UNESCO used, “testing across countries using a common methodology and standardized statistical tests of the results.” The only way to obtain entirely valid results by using this methodology is first fully to identify the entire universe to be tested [N], in the case of literacy that would be everyone in a country between the ages of 12 and 65 except the mentally incompetent, and then to test each individual in that universe. This is the only way to obtain statistically defensible results with almost no margin of error. Since this is usually prohibitively expensive and time-consuming when a universe is very large, the common approach is to use random sample surveying techniques to approximate a fully valid result within a mathematically quantifiable margin of error, in this case to approximate literacy levels within a stated percentage of probability of accuracy, say 3-5% one way or the other. To be valid, this also requires first obtaining a complete listing of everyone in the universe to be examined. Then one must assigning a number to each of them, determine how many need to be tested in order to draw statistically defensible conclusions, then generate a valid sampling set from among them using a random units table, then locating each person selected, and then testing only them. Unless the internal integrity and research independence of each of these steps is guaranteed, the results lose statistical integrity and more and more become simply approximations. The less freedom and independence the researcher has to identify, select, contact, and test all the subjects selected, the less defensible the results. It is still possible to manipulate the findings, but such manipulations become increasingly problematical the further they stray from the core data.
As far as I know the only complete lists of Cubans available are held by the government, especially its security services, and there is no way to determine whether those used to do the UNESCO study were partial or complete other than to depend on the government’s honesty. No independently held lists exist, and, even if it did, making direct contact with Cuban subjects for such a study without the prior knowledge, consent, and indeed cooperation of the government, would be illegal. And working exclusively, or even primarily, through the government immediately subjects any such research project to Potempkin Village manipulation by a regime that is expert at such things. Perhaps I am reading too much into Professor Levin’s short comment, but his description leads me to conclude that the UNESCO studies to which so many have made reference are probably not statistically defensible. That ia a conclusion based on an examination of the methodology reportedly used, not ideology.
This conclusion probably applies also to the results obtained in other Latin American countries as well, including some democratic ones, although to a lesser extent. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The literacy rates in many Latin American countries, and especially of dictatorial regimes such as those of Somoza, Stroessner, Trujillo, Sandinista Nicaragua, and apparently in Paul Simon’s China of today, have routinely been exaggerated by the ruling regime in order to enhance its prestige. What surprises me is that so many otherwise open-minded and objective professionals seem incapable of evn entertaining the possibility this could also be true of the Castro dictatorship. Could it be that ideology, interests, or just plain sympathies have not dimmed only my vision?
Ronald Hilton - 3/26/02 [/quote]
How so? Did you check out the Stanford stats on Nicaraguan and Cuban “literacy rates?” my little naif?
Let’s see. The contras were a small group with no support in Nicaragua but when it came time for elections, the groups that the contras were fighting for in fact won? So 50 plus percent is an anomaly? Or another statistical variance but if you have checked out the literacy stats that I have shown then you see the problem with depending too much on what communist governments tell you.
No one said this. If the Russians invade Afghanistan and we support the rebels, how does that equate with supporting terrorism? If we supported Stalin against Hitler were we also supporting Fascism. Big Ideas in a Complicated World. Might help to try to understand that.
How this is even relevant to what the US has done and is doing escapes me. Do you doubt the legitimacy of the elections in Afghanistan? Do you question the results of the election in Nicaragua where the Sandinistas were voted out of power? If so, prove that these elections are in fact illegitimate.
For someone who is so anti elitist you spend a lot of time scorning the ignornat masses.
I do not see that it is. I support fights against communism and Islamofascism. I support fights against terrorists. If we support groups that used unkind methods to kill the enemy in Afghanistan I am truly sorry but I cannot help but be elated that the Taliban are no longer in power and that elections were held for the first time in Afghanistan’s history. Perfect? No. Better? Hell yes. So if we use my objective standards for rating these kinds of conflicts while realizing that there are moral gray zones, we can also occasionally make mistakes and be wrong but what is the overall trendline from our actions? If it is good and leads to good then I think we have done good. Ditto for bad. Given that commumism has been an oppressive system that has lacked a free media and protection of basic rights, how can that system be something that is good? It may have potential to be good in some ways but overall, I think communism’s failure is a direct attestment to its lack of success. Seems logical no?
[quote]
Genital mutilation is terrible (even though we arguably do it to our own sons - there have been no studies proving male circumcision has significant medical benefits in modern times),[/quote]
Anyone want to equate female and male genital mutilation along with sbmoor here? haha right give me a break. Very big difference in the physical and psychological effects.
I am confused as to how the US sanctions or supports these kinds of activities. I believe that the US is against these kinds of actions and has frequently condemned them. Did the Contras do these kinds of things? Possibly but then how would we know? Oh I know, we should rely on the same information and stastics that were supplied to you by the Sandinistas, but unfortunately all those statistics seem to be total lies! NO! Not in a communist dictatorship! Say it isn’t so!
No it takes moral conviction and a rational logical view on the world and its problems. Given these two factors, I think most people will agree most of the time regarding the right course of action. I am sorry that you lack these two variables and your postings reflect that. Try to learn I guess and maybe you will have the morality and intelligence not to be made such a pasty by freshmen-level brainwashing as apparently occurred with you and your “internship” in Nicaragua. I mean come on. This is such a stereotypical joke these days that I cannot believe that you would actually admit to participating in such a program in Nicaragua. These “sessions” with the “people” would make you a total laughing stock in any intelligence or intelligent community. Sorry, but there you are.
[color=red]VIVA FIDEL! VIVA LA REVOLUCCION![/color]
BroonAristocrat
Broon Ale:
No no no. The communists are against the aristocracy get it?
Yes yes yes. It was a deliberate juxtaposition to see if you were still breathing.
Time to resurrect La Liga Penguinistas, methinks.
BroonA?
[quote=“fred smith”]Castro is evil because he arrests people without due process and does not respect human rights.
[/quote]
Is that bastard Castro behind the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay? Damn him! 
May I remind rooftop that those prisoners in Guantanamo were not in compliance with the Geneva Convention ergo they do not get the protections accorded to lawful combattants.
Who has gone to jail in the US because of the Patriot Act? What’s the big deal about this?
May I respectfully remind Frere Smite that the argument of the Geneva Conventions not applying to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was dreamed up by advisors to the current administration. Who else but stauch supporters of Bush believes this?
Certainly not the international community.
More here:
guardian.co.uk/comment/story … 92,00.html
[quote=“Guardian Article”]
The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not “prisoners of war”, but “unlawful combatants”. The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.
Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they “shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal”. But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light. [/quote]
My I remind my esteemed fellow poster Rooftop:
That the Guardian is routinely biased and anti American and that according to the original Geneva Convention, armed forces were required to be in uniform or clearly designated. As such, none of the prisoners in Guantanamo count. As such, the US forces in Iraq do, er, the uniforms again but in fact the insurgents in Iraq do not. Please read up on the original and see what it, rather than the Guardian’s interpretation of it says, sorry but I have no sympathy. Terrorist fighters, sabateurs, drug dealers and others of that ilk do not respect international law or the international system so why should they beseech it for its protections? No worse international offenders than Iraq, Iran and North Korea could be found but we have the world “community” up in arms about their rights under the international system. Why?
How many former Spanish or Portuguese colonies are NOT shitholes?[/quote]
Yup. In the Domenican Republic I have learned that saying “Columbus” is a curse there. All glorious Columbus brothers have worked together there to erase the native polulation. Was a 100% success.
So if Columbus was 100 percent successful at getting rid of the native population, why would the Europeans who came with him be cursing him? See what I mean? If some natives were left but their numbers were decimated by disease then there might actually be some people left from the Indian days? Could be? Maybe?
I am repeating this post since sbmoor has failed to answer my post.
Well since sbmoor cannot be bothered to come up with any statistics to support his claims how about these from Stanford University…
[quote]Tim Brown answers Hank Levin: "Professor Levin asks for some documentary evidence that Marxist ditatorships falsify literacy data. I suggest he look at Charles Stansifer, “The Nicaraguan National Literacy Campaign”, American Universities Field Staff reports, Hanover, Vt.1981. On page 12, Stansifer reports without criticism that literacy rates in Nicaragua by Department [province or state] had increased by up to 62.61% from October 1979 to August 1980, thanks to that revolution’s Lieracy Campaign. He reports that by August 1980 literacy had reached 95.85% in the Department of Esteli, 97.77% in Chinandega, 87.81% in Nueva Segovia, and 63.75% in Matagalpa. He fully accepts without wuestion that this miracle happened. These and comparable data were then routinely repeated throughout the Revolution by UN agencies, academics, and others.
Eleven years later, in 1991, the OAS and UN tested literacy rates in the rural areas of these same four Departments, Esteli, Chinandega, Nueva Segovia, Matagalpa, where 80% or more of their populations live. Literacy rates were found to be between 3% and 5% [illiteracy of 95% to 97%]. When Iooked at both Stansifer’s data and these later data while researching my book The Real Contra War, I was able independently to substantiate the UN/OAS data but not Stansifer’s, and could imagine only two possible explanations for the amazing difference between them. One, while about 90% the peasants in the Segovian mountains had, in fact, learned how to read and write during the initial nine months of the Revolution’s literacy campaigns, they had forgotten how by 1991; or, two, the data reported by Stansifer were at the very least wildly exaggerated and more probably had simply been invented by the revolutionary government. Regardless, I also found that even though these data were wrong, they were then repeated almost ad nauseam in subsequent publications by opponents of US policy toywards the Sandinista Revolution, by sympathizers of that movement, and by international organizations and academics even though they were based purely on unsubstantiated claims made by the Sandinista government in its reports.
On Cuba, I’m happy finally to learn what methodology UNESCO used, “testing across countries using a common methodology and standardized statistical tests of the results.” The only way to obtain entirely valid results by using this methodology is first fully to identify the entire universe to be tested [N], in the case of literacy that would be everyone in a country between the ages of 12 and 65 except the mentally incompetent, and then to test each individual in that universe. This is the only way to obtain statistically defensible results with almost no margin of error. Since this is usually prohibitively expensive and time-consuming when a universe is very large, the common approach is to use random sample surveying techniques to approximate a fully valid result within a mathematically quantifiable margin of error, in this case to approximate literacy levels within a stated percentage of probability of accuracy, say 3-5% one way or the other. To be valid, this also requires first obtaining a complete listing of everyone in the universe to be examined. Then one must assigning a number to each of them, determine how many need to be tested in order to draw statistically defensible conclusions, then generate a valid sampling set from among them using a random units table, then locating each person selected, and then testing only them. Unless the internal integrity and research independence of each of these steps is guaranteed, the results lose statistical integrity and more and more become simply approximations. The less freedom and independence the researcher has to identify, select, contact, and test all the subjects selected, the less defensible the results. It is still possible to manipulate the findings, but such manipulations become increasingly problematical the further they stray from the core data.
As far as I know the only complete lists of Cubans available are held by the government, especially its security services, and there is no way to determine whether those used to do the UNESCO study were partial or complete other than to depend on the government’s honesty. No independently held lists exist, and, even if it did, making direct contact with Cuban subjects for such a study without the prior knowledge, consent, and indeed cooperation of the government, would be illegal. And working exclusively, or even primarily, through the government immediately subjects any such research project to Potempkin Village manipulation by a regime that is expert at such things. Perhaps I am reading too much into Professor Levin’s short comment, but his description leads me to conclude that the UNESCO studies to which so many have made reference are probably not statistically defensible. That ia a conclusion based on an examination of the methodology reportedly used, not ideology.
This conclusion probably applies also to the results obtained in other Latin American countries as well, including some democratic ones, although to a lesser extent. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The literacy rates in many Latin American countries, and especially of dictatorial regimes such as those of Somoza, Stroessner, Trujillo, Sandinista Nicaragua, and apparently in Paul Simon’s China of today, have routinely been exaggerated by the ruling regime in order to enhance its prestige. What surprises me is that so many otherwise open-minded and objective professionals seem incapable of evn entertaining the possibility this could also be true of the Castro dictatorship. Could it be that ideology, interests, or just plain sympathies have not dimmed only my vision? [/quote]Ronald Hilton - 3/26/02
[quote=“fred smith”]May I remind rooftop that those prisoners in Guantanamo were not in compliance with the Geneva Convention ergo they do not get the protections accorded to lawful combattants.
Who has gone to jail in the US because of the Patriot Act? What’s the big deal about this?[/quote]
Maybe you might want to take a look at the actual geneva convention when making such bold statements. unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Specifically this particular section
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Most of the people in Gitmo were carrying arms. A uniform is not necessary to be considered a POW. All one has to do is take up arms to defend ones country(Afghanistan) from an invader(US).
Furthermore for the US to state that they did not contravene the convention would be to assume that they are trying to follow international law. That is noble but hypocritical when a year later they invade Iraq, which is a clear breech of international law.
[quote]Specifically this particular section
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. [/quote]
There should be a time limit on this surely. One to two years later is a bit rich isn’t it? What was the original intent and spirit of this clause?
Nice try but this is semantics. The fact is that the fighters you have mentioned do not fall under this category most naturally but the one wherein those NOT covered are described, including spies, saboteurs, etc.
How is Iraq a “clear” breach of international law? May I remind you that Kofi Annan sanctioned the US and UK actions in Kosovo despite there being no UN nor US congressional approval for the action with the statement that sometimes certain nations had to enforce UN resolutions. In a great fit of irony, he also noted that Milosevic had been given amble opportunities to prove that he was a good world citizen and failed and was therefore not going to be given the benefit of the doubt regarding any as of yet non proven atrocities against the Kosovars (exterminations, mass killings) so whoops, just what was that international law that you were talking about?
Yes, yes, we can all go to these clever leftwing sites and discover EUREKA that if we take a look at one sentence in isolation without looking and the letter and spirit of the document that we may find something that can be used to beat the US for its actions but the fact remains, those saboteurs, spies, insurgents (Resistance fighters in France) were never covered by the Geneva Convention. May I remind you that those caught in France were summarily interroraged (read tortured) and shot. They were NOT sent to POW camps. Please therefore explain to me why we should grant protections to al Qaeda, Taliban or Iraqi insurgent fighters when they are
a. fighting out of uniform.
b. not out of uniform because their actions were hastily arranged (this would mean during the onset of an invasion) not a year and a half later. I hear about slower paces of life in the warmer climates but this is a bit rich isn’t it?
c. respecting those same conventions themselves. When is the last time a US soldier was held in humane conditions or an Iraqi one for that matter by any of these groups? Do they torture and kill with impunity? Kidnap? Target civilians to maximize casualties? They are not covered under Geneva Convention.
So yes, we have seen these simplistic arguments trotted out before by better minds than yours and quite frankly the point remains the same. The Geneva Convention does not cover them, they do not respect international norms and can hardly run to them for protection and given that Iraq, Iran, North Korea, et al are nations that are “rogue” states who directly defy all international norms, laws and protections entailed therein, you can cry me a river but I don’t care when they get whacked.
And the US???
Well Banshette:
If you have some sort of proof on this, I would like to see it. Bring it on. Let’s have a look at what you “know.” Post the information here. I am not going to go by some conspiracy theories you heard from someone at some bar after having watched that Mel Gibson movie about smuggling drugs in Southeast Asia. Show me. Hell I should be from Missouri.
There is documentation that Oliver North was told Reagan’s terrorist ‘freedom fighters’ (he compared them to the Founding Fathers - the ultimate insult to our heritage) were selling cocaine to buy arms. This was happening when crack cocaine was destroying inner city neighborhoods.
www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NS … ebb2.htm#1
Somehow you feel the funding of fundamentalist, often terrorist, organizations isn’t shady so long as they fought against communists. Yet earlier you whined about moral relativism in terribly ‘multicultural’ societies. :boo-hoo:
Despite Bush’s moral posturing on ‘smoking out’ Saddam, the US had friendly ties with a number of brutal dictators over the years (including Idi Amin until CARTER cut ties, Somoza (whom Fred thinks was better for Nicaraguans than the Sandinistas), Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Jean Claude Duvalier (Baby Doc) in Haiti, etc. etc. Somehow support for these murderous dictators (in Republican words ‘democratic’) is not shady? Would anybody refute this? And people still wonder why the US’ reputation is not always assumed as noble? 
As for domestic shadiness…
Bush’s tax cuts primarily benefit the rich, with the richest sectors getting about $477 billion in tax breaks despite the fact that an incredibly expensive war is proving much more costly than expected and despite the fact that the value of the dollar is falling as a result (the Republicans deny this just as they used to deny global warming). :wanker:
ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
Bush’s plan to open drilling in Alaska is going as planned despite the fact that little to no funding has been put into developing alternate sources of energy to reduce US dependency on foreign oil, the greatest cause of anti-US terrorism (the cowboy mentality ignores subtleties such as ‘causes’ and ‘effects;’ there are only the bad guys in black hats to smoke out).
motherjones.com/news/dailymo … 2_505.html
All it takes is to open your eyes to find shadiness in US policy.
sbmoor:
Your inability to present a point coherently amazes me as does your inability to read.
Have I said that the US NEVER supported dictators? NO. What I said is that YES I think that Somoza was a bastard but he was better than a communist. Show me where communism has worked. I also notice that you do not even have the decency to admit that your “literacy” figures were deeply flawed and highly political. Do I think Batista was nice? No. Would I rather have him back than Castro? Yes. Wrap your mind around the concept that there is great difficulty in presenting the world in black and white terms. Ironically, this is what so many of you types criticize Bush for.
I know that you had a nice “coupla months” in Nicaragua but do you really think that you have the kind of critical reasoning that would have made it possible for you to shift through the propaganda of a communist regime? I don’t think so.
Given that Nicaragua under the Sandinistas and Cuba under Castro have failed to live up to any kind of reasonable expectations for economic and human development, I think that their systems were failures and that for all Pinochet’s flaws, he actually did a lot of good for Chile. After all, how many dissidents disappeared or were arrested under Castro? I bet more than the 3,000 that were whacked by Pinochet and Pinochet’s government eventually gave way to democracy and higher standards of living and economic development.
The only thing that people like you can point to is that somehow Cuba and Nicaragua had these much vaunted leaps in literacy and medical care, but that is only true if you accept the government statistics which have been proven to be questionable at best, deeply flawed at worst.
So when you can show me that supporting any of these communist “dictators” is better than supporting dictators of other stripes, then I will listen to you, but I have to say that it is very telling that you do not mention Castro and the Sandinistas as being equally dictatorial? Is that because you do not really think that they are dictators? This is a very sad testament to today’s left.
As to Banshette, when he shows me evidence of this drug dealing I will believe it. Oh. Right. Forgot you supplied a site as well. Let me go give it a “look.” I do not have high expectations given the past kind of “information” that you have supplied, but what the hell…
Looking back through your list of whiny statements about dictators that the US had relations with may I remind you that EVERY nation on the planet had diplomatic relations with Trujillo, Duvalier, Noriega as most do with Castro as most did with the Sandinistas as most do with Iran and Saudi Arabia so what is your point? That the US should have diplomatic relations only with nations who are democracies and have perfect human rights records?
Second, if this is such a moral issue for you, then you should be grateful that Bush is chaning this posture. Right? I mean you cannot bitch about past US support for dictators and then in the same breath say that Bush has no right to change policies to get rid of these dictators because we supported dictators in the past. Your logic would be that because you were against support for dictators in the past that we must continue to support them now in the interests of what? Consistency?!!! Do you see how ridiculous your whole moral posture on this is?