Mr He:
Pourquoi La France?
Entre nous, just curious.
That’s soooooo fresh!
Guanxi for you!
Blueface666 wrote:[quote]Assassinating Castro? What? Is he one of your heroes? He is a communist thug and the Soviets were using Cuba a base of operations against the US and countries in Latin and South America. Too bad the CIA didn’t kill him. [/quote]
You know, a lot of what the Soviets did was only in reaction to US policies in the first place.
eg. US, over objections of UK, USSR (as per Potsdam or the other one), renege on agreement to maintain 1 germany after the war
- Stalin retaliates and closes Berlin
- then US saves the day and airlifts supplies into the city
eg. US put nuclear missiles in W. Germany, and Turkey(virtually next door) aimed at USSR.
- Krushchev retaliates (i.e. maintains strategic symmetry) by trying to do the same in US’ “backyard” ie Cuba.
Let’s not forget that the US came up with the policy of brinkmanship (ok maybe not actually invented, but applied it to the Cold War) and the paranoid idea of dominos falling.
Not that I am a supporter of USSR (before you go accusing me), but I would say that a lot of US policies got USSR freaked out, and arguably instigated such reactions.
And arguably, at least from a Republican view as many of my such friends like to tell about their hero brave Ronald Reagan, the idea worked. every move by the US cost the USSR its own move and ended up bankrupting them in the arms race, and proxy-wars leading them to their fall blah blah.
And I don’t necessarily see Castro as a mere thug. Is it so wrong that he (ideally speaking) wanted Cuba for the Cubans and not for US businessess like the Fruit company. Shit, if my country was virtually run by Chevron or Nike, i’d be pissed off too. I think his cooperation with USSR was more one of convenience rather than ideology.
[ready for round 2?]
(cough) Riiiiiiiiight. Are you honestly equating US actions and policies with those of the USSR? If so, you’re insulting the memory of the 100 million plus murdered by the Communist butchers.
If you were ever on the border between East And West Germany, you might have noticed that the Berlin Wall, barbedwire fences, minefields, automated machineguns, guardtowers, attack dogs and armed guards were meant to keep people from escaping.
Just something to think about.
And of course the Soviets actions in the Ukraine were a result of US policy also, right?
Well, here’s some good news…but it doesn’t help the millions of dead Ukrainian kulaks too much.
N.Y. Times 1932 Pulitzer could be revoked
Amid a devastating reporting scandal in which two top editors have resigned, the New York Times faces the possible loss of its 1932 Pulitzer Prize, the Associated Press reported.
Times reporter Walter Duranty won the award more than 70 years ago for his reporting on the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin’s communist regime.
In April, however, a Pulitzer committee launched a review of Duranty’s work after Ukrainian groups worldwide complained he deliberately ignored the forced famine in the Ukraine that killed millions.
In the Pulitzer’s 86 years of existence, no prize has been revoked, the AP said. The Washington Post surrendered Janet Cooke’s 1991 award after she admitted fabricating stories.
Michael Sawkiw Jr., president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, said more than 15,000 postcards and thousands more letters and e-mails were sent to the Pulitzer Board.
“Exactly like Jayson Blair, the heart of all this is journalistic integrity and ethics,” said Sawkiw, referring to the Times reporter who falsified and plagiarized dozens of stories.
The AP said the Ukrainian effort coincided with the 70th anniversary of the famine, which Stalin created to force Ukrainian peasants into surrendering their land.
“Like any significant complaint, we take them seriously,” Sig Gissler, the Pulitzer board administrator, told the Associated Press. “They are under review by a board subcommittee, and all aspects and ramifications will be considered.”
The Times insists it has “reported often and thoroughly” on the problems with Duranty’s journalism “as viewed through the lens of later events,” according to its public relations director, Toby Usnik.
The newspaper displays Duranty’s Pulitzer with the caveat, “Other writers in the Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage.”
Duranty, who covered the Soviet Union for the paper from 1922 to 1941, drew acclaim for an exclusive 1929 interview with Stalin.
However, a 1990 book, “Stalin’s Apologist,” showed he reported the communist line and ignored the famine in order to maintain his access to Stalin.
The AP said the Pulitzer Board also reconsidered its award to Duranty in 1990 but decided to let it stand.
The four examples are simply historical evidence of US interference. Such interference has also occured in non-“Commie” countries: the US was active in propping up Macmillan’s government and exerted influence in at least one Italian election.
Blueface, Senator Joe McCarthy is long gone, and while you may wish to dwell in yours and his boys’ own history of the world where the evil communists are out to get the good capitalists, I do not. Nor do I believe that branding anyone who disagrees with you as a Commie constitutes a educated discussion. Your knee-jerk “Commie” branding is further evidence (did we need it?) that you are unable to do that.
But the US Govt was very busy at home haranguing blacks and “communists”. Perhaps they didn’t have time then to go and annoy people abroad. They do now. Can you go and sort out Robert Mugabe for us ?
[quote=“fred smith”]Mr He:
Pourquoi La France?
Entre nous, just curious.[/quote]
Because they are French.
Okay Mr. He. Let’s have a full description of any negative views you have of the French. It will titillate Blueface and get Juba and Mother Theresa on his case. 
[quote=“blueface666”][quote=“jackburton”]
You know, a lot of what the Soviets did was only in reaction to US policies in the first place.
[/quote]
quote Riiiiiiiiight. Are you honestly equating US actions and policies with those of the USSR? If so, you’re insulting the memory of the 100 million plus murdered by the Communist butchers.
And of course the Soviets actions in the Ukraine were a result of US policy also, right? [/quote][/quote]
I did not say every decision the Soviets made can be blamed on the US (not that I ever said it’s always the US’ fault and not the Soviets). Therefore, I do not believe I included Ukraine in my post. For that matter, there are a lot of things about the USSR I do not agree with (and I remember saying this in previous posts, though apparently not clearly enough). In fact, I have friends from Hungary(3), Lithuania(1), Ukraine(1), Estonia(3) and Finland(1) with whom I sympathise with regarding Soviet policy.
By the way, the anti-Kulak and Ukranian policies were conducted mostly between WWI and WWII. In my original post I was referring to post-WWII and Cold War stuff (I had hoped that needed no explanation).
My point was only to say that both the US and the Soviets are to blame for much of what happened. Furthermore, while we vilify the USSR, we seem to forget that the US was just as much the antagonizer if not more. Hence my example of US putting nuke missiles in Turkey right outside USSR’s door which then prompted USSR to reciprocate and nearly costing us a war, possibly one to end the world.
It’s fun to argue with you, but you seem to have a habit of not rebutting my points and just go for the cheap shots (C’mon, did I really say or infer or infer any condoning of Soviet policy towards Ukrainians?)
Why don’t you start by answering the Pershing(?) missiles in Turkey (and W.Germany too) by the US which escalated the cold war? Who’s the “bad guy” there? Who’s the bad guy in Cuba when Castro was a nobody? (Side argument: this is like our terrorist problem today. These terrorists, mostly educated middle-class people, didn’t wake up one day and decided to throw away their lives and attack the US. People in US especially after 911 were afraid to answer this question. Those who did were branded unamerican, unpatriotic by others perhaps like you.)
Since you mention the ‘communist butchers’ killing 100s of millions (which I never condoned and sure we could talk about the systematic destruction, forced relocation, etc of native americans), let’s bring on another side argument (no.2). Since the USSR/Russia and China are such bad guys (and again, I hereby declare I am not condoning their governments nor their policies, ok?), it should be no surprise that they continually violate human rights, have the highest incapacitation rates, and capital punishment rates. Then tell me why does the US, bastion of freedom and democracy, also share the infamous distinction with these governments of the above statistics (as one of the top 3 in the world) ?
and the berlin wall? ok so the soviets built it yes, but I did say that it was the US who reneged on the Potsdam or Yalta (I forget which) to keep a united Germany, over the objections of all the allies. So who really divided Germany?
Incidentally the Kulaks were supposedly a class of richer farmers and not ethnic Ukrainians. And more often than not, the victims were probably just farmers kulak or not. I think you may be referring to 2 different policies: one targeting Ukrainians and one targeting ‘kulaks’ (or whoever didn’t enjoy being collectivised), but then again who wasn’t targeted. Mind you, do not call me a supporter of Stalin. Check this article out about the Famine induced by Stalin: ralphmag.org/famineZO.html
bring it 
[eric cartman voice]
I will skip past Jack Burton’s horrendously loathsome moral equivalence in comparing various US administrations with Stalin and Mao.
I did however want to find out what people think of the protests in Iran and whether the US was “involved” or if the protests were in fact spontaneous.
Where will this go? How should the US react to the situation? and regardless of whether this works is it not in the US interests to keep Iran so busy at home that its leaders do not have time to harass US interests in Iraq and Afghanistan? And if the US does so, won’t Noam Chomsky have a whole new volume to write about how the US deliberately and in Machiavellian fashion exploits student protests to further its hideous goals of stable democratic regimes, even in the Middle East?
If nothing else, it should get the American leadership and French leadership in another cat fight which will provide all of us posters with some excitement.
The U.S. executes murderers and rapists, not political prisoners. As far as has ever been determined, the U.S. hasn’t executed a single person who was innocent since the death penalty was reinstated. A few on death row have been found to be innocent, and many have had their sentences reduced on technicalities (usually because a judge who got the case was an anti-death-penalty activist, not because the case had merit), but nobody – zero, nada, zip – of the actually croaked criminals have been found after the fact to have been innocent. Maybe you don’t like the philosophy of “an eye for an eye”, but most people think it’s just fine to kill someone who, say, raped and murdered an eighty-year-old woman in her house at night just for kicks.
The U.S. incarceration (not “incapacitation” 
) rate is so high because of the “War on Drugs”. There are a lot of stupid policies that contribute to the problem, but the main thing is that the U.S. simply isn’t serious. If simple possession got people seven years, as it apparently does in Taiwan, and if police and courts were serious about enforcing that, the drug usage rate would drop as people decided they didn’t want to risk it. Instead, the whole thing has become a running joke.
[quote=“fred smith”]I did however want to find out what people think of the protests in Iran and whether the US was “involved” or if the protests were in fact spontaneous.
Where will this go? How should the US react to the situation? and regardless of whether this works is it not in the US interests to keep Iran so busy at home that its leaders do not have time to harass US interests in Iraq and Afghanistan? And if the US does so, won’t Noam Chomsky have a whole new volume to write about how the US deliberately and in Machiavellian fashion exploits student protests to further its hideous goals of stable democratic regimes, even in the Middle East?[/quote]
This should really be split into another thread.
IMHO the U.S. is NOT involved, other than in encouraging the students through news statements. Most of the students are too young to remember the U.S.-backed Shah torturing their parents and grandparents, unfortunately; they just know that the mullahs are wrecking everyone’s lives (except the mullahs’, of course).
Chomsky will do it anyway, so the U.S. might as well get something out of it. I hope the students can throw out the mullahs (without letting the U.S. sneak a puppet or ten into place), but I doubt it will go anywhere. Odds are that this will fizzle just like all the previous protests and reform efforts. But anything that undermines the mullahs is arguably a good thing. . . .
[quote]
The U.S. executes murderers and rapists, not political prisoners. As far as has ever been determined, the U.S. hasn’t executed a single person who was innocent since the death penalty was reinstated. A few on death row have been found to be innocent, and many have had their sentences reduced on technicalities (usually because a judge who got the case was an anti-death-penalty activist, not because the case had merit), but nobody – zero, nada, zip – of the actually croaked criminals have been found after the fact to have been innocent. Maybe you don’t like the philosophy of “an eye for an eye”, but most people think it’s just fine to kill someone who, say, raped and murdered an eighty-year-old woman in her house at night just for kicks.[/quote]
my bad on ‘incapacitation’. i should proof-read more.
I dunno whether your statement about US not executing innocent people etc is correct. I disagree with your statement that those found innocent on death row were because of the merits of case or lack thereof. there is a project going on led by a famous litigator and law students getting people off death row. They have helped to re-open, and overturn rulings, and set folks free and not just on technicalities.
but of course you may think that sitting in jail for 15+ years, despite your innocence and having your constitutional rights violated, is alright. maybe you don’t think things like the fourth amendment aren’t necessary or something.
but we’re both veering off the point.
Actually what I said was Stalin and Mao were in fact both OSS agents dropped in to foment chaos. You see, Mao was actually OSS agent Matthew Jones out of Tennessee and Stalin was in fact Pete Grabowski from Three Rivers, Arizona. Currently, Bush is actually a resurrected voodoo zombie from Haiti whose former masters sold him to the Shining Path guerillas who then set him “free” as a “former hostage” and thus was able to enter the US, then killed the real Bush and took over his identity. This would explain his horrendous intellect (he is a zombie you know) and his poor geography skills (a zombie from Haiti. You would have bad geography too). Those fargun Peruvians. Just the facts, Jack.
and I’m also President of Jews for Jesus and a customer too!
[quote=“jackburton”][quote]
The U.S. executes murderers and rapists, not political prisoners. As far as has ever been determined, the U.S. hasn’t executed a single person who was innocent since the death penalty was reinstated. A few on death row have been found to be innocent, and many have had their sentences reduced on technicalities (usually because a judge who got the case was an anti-death-penalty activist, not because the case had merit), but nobody – zero, nada, zip – of the actually croaked criminals have been found after the fact to have been innocent. Maybe you don’t like the philosophy of “an eye for an eye”, but most people think it’s just fine to kill someone who, say, raped and murdered an eighty-year-old woman in her house at night just for kicks.[/quote]
my bad on ‘incapacitation’. I should proof-read more.
I dunno whether your statement about US not executing innocent people etc is correct. I disagree with your statement that those found innocent on death row were because of the merits of case or lack thereof. there is a project going on led by a famous litigator and law students getting people off death row. They have helped to re-open, and overturn rulings, and set folks free and not just on technicalities.
but of course you may think that sitting in jail for 15+ years, despite your innocence and having your constitutional rights violated, is alright. maybe you don’t think things like the fourth amendment aren’t necessary or something.
but we’re both veering off the point.[/quote]
Actually, no, you simply didn’t bother to read practically any of what I wrote. Or if you did, you must have been very drunk at the time, since you completely ignored nearly all of the points I made.
As I ever-so-carefully pointed out, some of the people on death row HAVE been found to be innocent – BEFORE they were executed. NOBODY has been found to be innocent AFTER being executed. And if even one had been, the anti-death-penalty crusaders would be trumpeting it at every execution.
As I also ever-so-carefully pointed out, NEARLY ALL of the sentences that have been reduced were changed because of judicial activism, NOT because of any particular case merit. Your evidence to the contrary? A general rant on Constitutional rights. Oooh.
As for those who sat on death row while innocent, their Constitutional rights WERE scrupulously upheld – the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to due process, not perfection. This is why there are reviews and safeguards – and it is why the governor of Illinois cleared out the state’s death row, after it was found that a majority of the people on it were actually innocent, largely because Chicago’s police department is corrupt beyond salvage.
Considering the rest of your post and the context in which you made the remark, I doubt that you even know what the Fourth Amendment is or means. (Be honest when you reply – did you have to look it up just now? 
)
Personally, I’m a lot more concerned with peoples’ Third Amendment rights. There are lots of safeguards around 4A rights, but who’s protecting our 3A rights?? Nobody, dammit! Nobody cares!
And finally, it should be pointed out that practically all of the criminals who ended up on death row are repeat offender criminals, not lamebrains who screwed up just once. The McVeighs are few and far between; it’s the Gacys who end up getting put to death.
[quote=“MaPoDoFu”]
[quote]Actually, no, you simply didn’t bother to read practically any of what I wrote. Or if you did, you must have been very drunk at the time, since you completely ignored nearly all of the points I made.
As I ever-so-carefully pointed out, some of the people on death row HAVE been found to be innocent – BEFORE they were executed. NOBODY has been found to be innocent AFTER being executed. And if even one had been, the anti-death-penalty crusaders would be trumpeting it at every execution.[/quote]
I didn’t disagree with the finer points of your statement. I just said I wouldn’t know the statistics on this (“I dunno…”) Does this make me drunk or ignorant? oh shit boss, ya gonna make me cry.
[quote]As I also ever-so-carefully pointed out, NEARLY ALL of the sentences that have been reduced were changed because of judicial activism, NOT because of any particular case merit. Your evidence to the contrary? A general rant on Constitutional rights. Oooh.[/quote] I will have to look up the “numbers” for us both, but I do recall in quite a few cases, folks were released, NOT because of judicial activism, but mostly because of evidentiary problems. ok so you said “nearly all.” and I’m saying “less than nearly all” blah blah
[quote]Considering the rest of your post and the context in which you made the remark, I doubt that you even know what the Fourth Amendment is or means. (Be honest when you reply – did you have to look it up just now? )
Personally, I’m a lot more concerned with peoples’ Third Amendment rights. There are lots of safeguards around 4A rights, but who’s protecting our 3A rights?? Nobody, dammit! Nobody cares![/quote][/quote]
gee wiz, Mistuh, wat is dat fourth ahmendamunt? i oughta find dat in sum book, boss? how’s about lexis-nexis, boss? why dont y’all tell me?
da third boss, wat about da turd? dez go’dam soldiers sleepin in my go’dam bed. but what about them penumbra of rights? an do i getta hold my go’dam rifle boy?
Last I heard 2 million Americans were behind bars. A lot of this is because of mandatory arrest for drug possession. What is the amount of drugs that needs to be “possessed” to get arrested? Is it a serious problem? or being hyped?
Second, 2 million is a hell of a lot of people. What’s up with this? Are they being rehabilitated or is this becoming a prison-industry complex as I heard it referred to a while back?
Is crime in America dependent on race? poverty? drugs? guns? lack of education? Is enforcement stronger because of race? What’s it called racial profiling?
[quote=“fred smith”]Last I heard 2 million Americans were behind bars. A lot of this is because of mandatory arrest for drug possession. What is the amount of drugs that needs to be “possessed” to get arrested? Is it a serious problem? or being hyped?
Second, 2 million is a hell of a lot of people. What’s up with this? Are they being rehabilitated or is this becoming a prison-industry complex as I heard it referred to a while back?
Is crime in America dependent on race? poverty? drugs? guns? lack of education? Is enforcement stronger because of race? What’s it called racial profiling?[/quote]
Yes, thank you! This was part of my question too! 2 million people for a nation with what, 300-350 million (last i heard ) is a lot compared to other countries. I heard that Drug possession also seems to get stiffer sentences than even some violent crimes. Of course, the other way of looking at the 2 million is that we have some really good cops and prosecutors. Or we just are a society that breeds lots more criminals than other societies. I don’t know. I also did read quite a few articles about the prison-industry being privatised which led to many more problems especially with the idea of ‘rehabilitation’. My friend in SJ DA agrees rehabilitation is a largely forgotten purpose in CA prisons generally speaking.
[quote]Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.[/quote] This is not what most would call judicial activism. and yes, the above could be possible violations of constitutional rights depending on the specifics.
[quote]His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA resumed executions in 1977. [/quote] 13 since 1977 in 1 state alone (and not even texas).
Cf. this with the above post.
[quote]As I ever-so-carefully pointed out, some of the people on death row HAVE been found to be innocent – BEFORE they were executed. NOBODY has been found to be innocent AFTER being executed. And if even one had been, the anti-death-penalty crusaders would be trumpeting it at every execution.
As I also ever-so-carefully pointed out, NEARLY ALL of the sentences that have been reduced were changed because of judicial activism, NOT because of any particular case merit. Your evidence to the contrary? A general rant on Constitutional rights. Oooh. [/quote] reduced due to judicial activism and exonerated due to wrongful conviction are clearly 2 different thing.
not that either of us had “evidence” in hand in the our previous posts anyways. we were both raving/ranting lunatics.
Oh I was wrong. highest execution rates weren’t China, Russia, and US. It was China, Iran, and US.
Of course, Amnesty International could be lying or wrong. but hey, why dont you show me why and how?