It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by WhatTheory
Originally posted by johnsky
There's you're problem... you don't think.
You're right.
Originally posted by Rapacity
America is the blue-eyed, chosen angel that must annihilate all ways of being other than its. Ah, no, wait a minute, there is no way but the American way
but your stance has remained constant throughout
you refuse to hear anything anyone has written that contradicts your learned/perceived thoughts about Cuba, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, the difference between an ideology and the administrator who implements his brand of it, and the difference between the people of a nation, its administration and its way of living. You have shown yourself to be deaf (I hope you're not mentally blind as well).
From the way you have purported to represent America you have done it a dis-service for you have demonstrated an unlearning, unforgiving national character.
Please remember that many of us come to ATS to learn, spread knowledge and discern truth from falsity. You don't seem to be teaching but attempting to brainwash by re-iterating the same argument of the "USA way is the only way."
And, I'm sorry to tell you this but the USA way is about to change to a more socialist way by process of capitalism's evolution (read my previous post).
Originally posted by johnsky
You can "know" all you want. In essence, all you're doing is blindly believing what your masters are telling you.
But calling an entire civilian population the "enemy" just because they are being oppressed by a communist government... sounds pretty stupid.
Go read a history book.
Originally posted by WhatTheory
Sorry, but I do my own research. Perhaps you should do the same instead of spewing the same old liberal talking points.
Apparently you are not reading because of course we are talking about the ideologies of governments and not the oppressed people.
I have read tons of history books, have you?
Originally posted by johnsky
I'm not a liberal.
But the fact that you assume I am because I disagree with you shows you're level of political comprehension.
If you fight a communist nation, it's not the government you fight, it's the people.
pay attention to those paragraphs that exist outside the pictures. You should try it.
Originally posted by Rapacity
Also, Capitalism will always end in Communism.
Originally posted by WhatTheory
Originally posted by Rapacity
Also, Capitalism will always end in Communism.
Ok, now that is just ludicrous. It sounds more like wishful thinking.
Some problems said to be associated with capitalism include: unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability. Critics have maintained that there is an inherent tendency towards oligolopolistic structures when laissez-faire is combined with capitalist private property. Because of this tendency either laissez-faire, or private property, or both, have drawn fire from critics who believe an essential aspect of economic freedom is the extension of the freedom to have meaningful decision-making control over productive resources to everyone. Economist Branko Horvat explains, "it is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom."[62]
Near the start of the 20th century, Vladimir Lenin claimed that state use of military power to defend capitalist interests abroad was an inevitable corollary of monopoly capitalism.[63] This concept of political economy concerning the relationship between economic and political power among and within states includes critics of capitalism who assign to it responsibility for not only economic exploitation, but imperialist, colonialist and counter-revolutionary wars, repressions of workers and trade unionists, genocides, massacres, and so on.
Cuba's proximity to the U.S. has been a powerful influence on its history. Throughout the 19th century, Southern politicians in the U.S. plotted the island's annexation as a means of strengthening the pro-slavery forces in the U.S., and there was usually a party in Cuba which supported such a policy. In 1848, a pro-annexation rebellion was defeated and there were several attempts by annexation forces to invade the island from Florida. There were also regular proposals in the U.S. to buy Cuba from Spain. During the summer of 1848, President James K. Polk quietly authorized his ambassador to Spain, Romulus Mitchell Saunders, to negotiate the purchase of Cuba and offer Spain up to $100 million. While an astonishing sum at the time for one territory, trade in sugar and molasses from Cuba exceeded $18,000,000 in 1838 alone.[16] Spain, however, refused to consider ceding one of its last possessions in the Americas.
Originally posted by WhatTheory
But the fact that you assume I am because I disagree with you shows you're level of political comprehension.
Oh, it's not because you disagree with me. I have seen enough of your posts on other threads regarding numerous different topics to know where you fall on the political spectrum.
If you fight a communist nation, it's not the government you fight, it's the people.
Ok, so am I supposed to let them roll over me and defeat me because people might get killed? Is this what you are saying?
Sorry, but your argument holds no water.
Originally posted by WhatTheory
Umm.....yes, that's right, so what point are you trying to make?
Don't you realize communism equals untrustworthy and all the other bad things associated with it? Thanks duuude!
Originally posted by WhatTheory
And not a very good answer either.
That would be incorrect. So you are saying that because Castro did not use chemical weapons on his own people that he was not just as ruthless nor a tyrant.
Besides, it makes no sense to even compare the two especially since Cuba is next door and Iraq was not a communist country. Your analogy makes no sense duuude.
"The war in Iraq is not the only war that the Bush Administration is involved in today and its plans for "regime change" are not limited to the Middle East. They might have caught Saddam, but there's another bearded "bad-guy" on the loose, and another nation, weak after years of U.S. sanctions, to be "liberated". There's nothing new about the war against Cuba, which started in May of 1961, only four months after the Revolution overthrew U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Forty-five years and over 600 assassination attempts later, the war against Cuba is now principally fought with weapons of economic destruction . The Bush Administration has intensified this economic war and made overthrowing the Cuban government a higher priority in this election year than in previous years. "
"Four years later, in another election year (1996), Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act. This Act included another series of harsh measures aimed at preventing non-U.S. firms from trading with Cuba by punishing those who engage in commercial dealings with Cuba. Under the Helms-Burton Act, any naturalized U.S. citizens whose Cuban property had been confiscated since the Revolution now had the right to sue, in U.S. courts, the foreign companies or individuals who they deem have gained from investments in those properties ."
Although the Bush administration claims that, "There is a growing international consensus on the nature of the Castro regime and the need for fundamental political and economic change on the island." for thirteen straight years, the U.N. General Assembly has voted to condemn the U.S. embargo against Cuba. On October 28, 2004, the U.N. General Assembly voted 179 to 4 with one abstention on a resolution condemning the U.S. economic embargo of Cuba. During these thirteen years, the margin in favor of Cuba has steadily increased. This year, only the United States, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands voted against a condemnation of the embargo. Is this the "coalition of the willing" who supports U.S. policies for "regime change" in Cuba? Just as in the current military war for "regime change" in Iraq, the U.S. government stands alone in its economic war against Cuba, supported only by a weak coalition of "allies" who cannot refuse.