11/21/24
December 25, 2005
Castro Cries Foul: Fidel Castro said Friday that the Bush administration was wrong to prohibit Cuba from sending a team to next year's World Baseball Classic.
posted by knuckleballer to baseball at 08:52 PM - 110 comments
Can they bring some cigars?
posted by yankee at 09:40 PM on December 25, 2005
Cuba has put out many great atheletes, baseball, basketball, boxing and so forth.It is a shame that politics plays a part in who is in or out. Shame on Bush for throwing his wieght around in such a scenario, yet the man is frickin idiot. The Cubans are condfident and playing for honor, screw the money, they wish to donate it to an American Disaster, something out own country was slow to respond to, and when it did, there were strings attached to it, help me out with math here
posted by Bradduh at 09:53 PM on December 25, 2005
Yes, the Bush administration (or probably more correctly, the branch of the government still essentially under the fading control of Jesse Helms) was wrong. I'm still confident they'll fix this up, and Cuba will send a team. Just don't tell Jesse. He doesn't have to know. Oh, and just to be clear: the Fidel Castro/minor league baseball story is false, false, false.
posted by chicobangs at 10:05 PM on December 25, 2005
Methinks some information deserves a good burial, and the Castro minor-league story is among them. Now, separating politics and sports is futile, because too many corrupt politicians exist and they will always try to do so. But to blame the Bush administration for the trade/communication embargo begun in the 1960s is absurd. As is calling Castro a great mind. Castro is to great mind what Robert Byrd is to being anti-racist. Castro is holding an entire nation in exile to keep them all from leaving his control, sports be damned. It may be true that Cuba has great players, but the best have escaped Castro and will not go back. If Castro wants to send a team, all he has to do is stop his 40+ year reign of control of a people who would rather not be under it.
posted by mrhockey at 08:18 AM on December 26, 2005
Comparing Byrd to Castro is ridiculous; Byrd has evolved over the years, Castro has not. There is no defense for Castro, but the bottom line is that the American policies towards Cuba over the last 45 years have clearly had the opposite effect of what was intended; the US has strengthened Castro's grip on Cuba. And we can't blame Bush administration for the embargo, but we can certainly blame them for tightening it. This case provides yet another example of the U.S. making Castro look good. Castro currently has significant influence in Latin America, and U.S. policy towards Cuba has given Castro that influence by creating a situation that looks like David vs. Goliath.
posted by spira at 09:48 AM on December 26, 2005
Overthrow Castro. End of embargo. End of problem. End of discussion.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 10:02 AM on December 26, 2005
Now if the US can start an embargo with the Dominican Republic, we can actually win this thing.
And yet it's not the end of the discussion. It never is. Funny, that, eh? I bet even you'll comment again. If overthrowing Fidel was so simple an endgame, it would have been done in 1961, or at any moment since then. Fact is, things are thawing as the principals in this drama get old and lose influence, effectiveness, power and perspective. Insofar as this tournament has any import, there are probably diplomats working both the baseball end and the politics ends, and they'll work something out. Everything else is just grandstanding, which is something everyone seems to be very good at. The grand gesture, the great fuck-you, the quarter-twist of the knife, some blooper videos of Fidel falling down, a little Elian, a little Canseco, maybe a smattering of Buena Vista Social Club for those willing to move on, it's what Cuba is to the few Americans who still buy into the embargo as an effective political tool.
posted by chicobangs at 10:23 AM on December 26, 2005
Yes, the Bush administration (or probably more correctly, the branch of the government still essentially under the fading control of Jesse Helms) was wrong. I'm still confident they'll fix this up, and Cuba will send a team. Just don't tell Jesse. He doesn't have to know. You seem to have more of a problem with Helms than Castro? And I wonder what your alternative solution would be to the embargo? Should there be no consequences for a ruthless dictator terrorizing his people 90 miles from our coast? A man who had no problem providing a launching pad for Soviet nukes capable of killing tens of millions of Americans. What message does that send? The leftists just never seem to get it.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 11:04 AM on December 26, 2005
The U.S. is PROHIBITING Cuba from sending a team to the WORLD games? What, did Cheney tap a Miami phone and find out who they were gonna get? And we wonder why we're viewed as the world's bullies. This administration has run more flea-flickers and misdirection plays than a high school team, in getting their way on EVERYTHING! And now, THIS... Simply, stay the hell out of sports and get back to the IMPORTANT matters...your next unannounced pay raise, you farging bastids!
posted by Thumper at 11:33 AM on December 26, 2005
it's baseball, not politics, another peabrain dicision by jr.
posted by reydeer at 11:34 AM on December 26, 2005
You seem to have more of a problem with Helms than Castro? Why, yes, in fact, I do. Cold War's over. Cuba is not the world's ruling empire. (Guess who is?) Any continued lionization of Fidel has nothing to do with his dictatorship or killing civilians or anything silly like that (we do business with bloody tyrants all over this big round world, so that can't be it), and everything to do with the fact that the incredibly powerful tobacco lobby (headed by the geriatric senator from North Carolina) doesn't want another big player in the American market. This discussion is beyond the scope of this sports site, though.
posted by chicobangs at 11:41 AM on December 26, 2005
Cold War's over. Cuba is not the world's ruling empire. (Guess who is?) This is a problem for you? ...has nothing to do with his dictatorship or killing civilians or anything silly like that This is silly to you? America is big, prosperous and powerful country, thus an easy target for those who wish this were not so. Some will always hate us. Sadly, some are even Americans.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 12:12 PM on December 26, 2005
You're choosing to ignore a lot of crucial world events, both historical and current, but this is a sports site, so I'll let that be the last word.
posted by chicobangs at 12:15 PM on December 26, 2005
You're choosing to ignore a lot of crucial world events, both historical and current, but this is a sports site, so I'll let that be the last word. I'm ignoring nothing. I simply won't join the America is what's wrong with this world crowd. And for every slam and dig you can serve up, there are a thousand positives. Of course we would never want to dwell on positives when so many negatives are ripe for picking.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 12:49 PM on December 26, 2005
What I doubt you can explain is why we should single out Castro from all the other "ruthless dictators" in the world these days. There are many countries we trade with that have far worse dictators than Castro. That does not mean we should excuse Castro's behavior one bit - but that has nothing to do with why we treat his country different than other countries run by even more brutal dictators. And why should we continue a policy that has done nothing but make his grip over Cuba even firmer, and made him look like such a hero to the people in other Latin American countries who want to elect his best friends as their country's leaders? Because it makes us feel good that we can have an embargo and thus "do something," even if that something actually helps Castro? Should the consequences of Castro's dictatorship lead to policies that ultimately make him more powerful? No, its the righties that don't get it. I'm well aware that Castro was far more enthusiastic about the nuclear weapons in Cuba than the Soviets ever were. I'm well aware that there is nothing more positive to say about Castro other than at least he's not killing off millions of his countrymen. But rewarding Castro as a means of punishing him is not my idea of making him face the consequences of his actions. What next? I bet that even if we found out that the death penalty sends everyone to paradise, we'd keep using the death penalty as punishment even though it would actually serve as a reward.
posted by spira at 01:29 PM on December 26, 2005
STLCardinalfan, this is the World Baseball Championships so how should the US be allowed to keep a team out for unilateral political reasons? Forget about Castro, America-hating and the rest. If it were another country hosting, say Venezuela, and they tried to block the US from participating the event would be moved faster than you can hit the Post button. But as for the politics, I think you're pretty sad for claiming that any disagreement (such as chicobangs' comment) means the speaker hates America. Last time I looked political debate is not only our right under the First Amendment but also good for keeping the democracy healthy in our little democratic republic.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:44 PM on December 26, 2005
The United States history with Cuba is interesting.I believe that it was the US who gave Cuba their soverienity from Spain.Even though there has been a "non-US" friendly leader since the early fifties, there is a US military base(Guantanamo)in Cuba.I personally find this mind boggling.Castro is one of only a few leaders who has refused to "play ball" with the United States over the years.Sadaam Hussein,who was hand picked by the western leadership,has been a much more affiable despot.Castro and Hussien do share the common respect of their given political cultures(latin communists & Arab states respectively)if not their proletariat.Though I am not a fan of the decision personally,it is one of the few policy consistant things that the Bush administration has done to date.
What I doubt you can explain is why we should single out Castro from all the other "ruthless dictators" in the world these days. Not singled out. The thread had to do with Castro/Cuba. But as for the politics, I think you're pretty sad for claiming that any disagreement (such as chicobangs' comment) means the speaker hates America. No such direct accusation was made. However if the shoe fits... Meanwhile, my comments stand. ...in our little democratic republic. Your use of the word "little" kinda sums it up for you doesn't it? And why should we continue a policy that has done nothing but make his grip over Cuba even firmer, and made him look like such a hero to the people in other Latin American countries who want to elect his best friends as their country's leaders? Times change and the embargo may have run out of its original usefulness. However without this embargo and with the aid of the willing Soviets, it's very possible that most of Latin America would be communists today. Impossible to know for sure but it's a good bet.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 02:32 PM on December 26, 2005
it's very possible that most of Latin America would be communists today. Isn't the idea of containment and rollback a little outdated. Terrorism is the new communism. Let Cuba play. Who's it really gonna hurt? Now if Saudi Arabia decided to field a team....
posted by HATER 187 at 02:52 PM on December 26, 2005
Isn't the idea of containment and rollback a little outdated. I don't think it was outdated in the cold war era. Who's it really gonna hurt? It hurts Castro. Castro loves baseball. Castro wants his stars to shine for propaganda purposes like Hitler wanted in 1936. It helps his image with his own people, at least the ones he hasn't murdered.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 03:10 PM on December 26, 2005
Good,they would probably win
posted by zomby_wolf at 03:21 PM on December 26, 2005
Hey, STLCardinalfan, just one question - have you ever been outside the US?
posted by owlhouse at 03:26 PM on December 26, 2005
Castro wants his stars to shine for propaganda purposes like Hitler wanted in 1936. It helps his image with his own people, at least the ones he hasn't murdered. ...aaaaand I'm out.
posted by chicobangs at 04:02 PM on December 26, 2005
Hey, STLCardinalfan, just one question - have you ever been outside the US? Oh, you mean where everybody hates us ugly Americans? Or at least until it's time to save their sorry asses. Of course after that they still hate us out of resentment because they needed us. France anyone? And to answer your question directly, yes many times including war.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 04:14 PM on December 26, 2005
...aaaaand I'm out. Godwin's law falls apart here since my invoking Hitler was not demonizing anyone, save perhaps Castro. Further, no comparisons or demonizations were made to any of your arguments. But if you still insist - Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact. The end
posted by STLCardinalfan at 04:37 PM on December 26, 2005
I don't think it was outdated in the cold war era. My initial reaction to this is, "No one's that thick", but are you? Someone suggests the Marshall Plan may no longer be applicable and your response is "It worked when it was supposed to." What are you trying to say? Are you unwilling to discuss the idea that ignoring Castro, instead of deiyfing him by giving him a Goliath to play David to, might work? Do you have an actual counter-argument or is it just that the idea was proposed by some sissy fags who hate Amerikkka?
posted by yerfatma at 04:47 PM on December 26, 2005
The real problem is that during the Cold War America believed that communism was entirly evil and sought to get rid of it everywhere. The result was maybe preserving "democracy" in some places, and alienating North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and other nations. Now, with that stupid embargo we can't watch some of the best baseball players in the world. While I don't think communism is good, nor Castro, it would be nice if our country let up a little with Cuba. Fire Millen.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:52 PM on December 26, 2005
Someone suggests the Marshall Plan may no longer be applicable and your response is "It worked when it was supposed to." Maybe I am thick because I agree with this! Now I'm scared. Do you have an actual counter-argument or is it just that the idea was proposed by some sissy fags who hate Amerikkka? Wow! Drinking today?
posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:05 PM on December 26, 2005
The real problem is that during the Cold War America believed that communism was entirly evil and sought to get rid of it everywhere. You say this was a "real problem"? Please tell me where communism was not evil and where we should have not sought to get rid of it.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:10 PM on December 26, 2005
and alienating North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and other nations. We sure wouldn't want to do this! Much better to pretend they are really nice guys who mean us no harm, nuke capabilities notwithstanding for one of the above. Maybe then we could have "peace in our time". (One runs the risk of violating Godwin's law with the lesson of Neville Chamberlain)
posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:32 PM on December 26, 2005
It's an exercise in futility for you to argue this, STLCardinalfan. Liberalism is a mental disorder, and a needless many people suffer it daily. Problem is, it's impossible to separate politics from sports, and separate communism from socialism, which a great many of today's politicians are. The imbecile who 'told' me before that Robert 'KKK' Byrd had evolved with age is full of the substance similar in color to her eyes. Today's liberal believes that the government SHOULD control everything, and that is explicit socialism. And apparantly we have too much of this mental disorder present here when we have people arguing FOR Fidel Castrated.
posted by mrhockey at 05:40 PM on December 26, 2005
Sorry, I meant Castro.
posted by mrhockey at 05:41 PM on December 26, 2005
Are you unwilling to discuss the idea that ignoring Castro, instead of deiyfing him by giving him a Goliath to play David to, might work? How better to ignore than to embargo? Almost by definition the ultimate in ignoring something is to embargo it.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:45 PM on December 26, 2005
It's an exercise in futility for you to argue this, STLCardinalfan. Liberalism is a mental disorder, and a needless many people suffer it daily. Problem is, it's impossible to separate politics from sports, and separate communism from socialism, which a great many of today's politicians are. The imbecile who 'told' me before that Robert 'KKK' Byrd had evolved with age is full of the substance similar in color to her eyes. Today's liberal believes that the government SHOULD control everything, and that is explicit socialism. And apparantly we have too much of this mental disorder present here when we have people arguing FOR Fidel Castrated. Well said. And it is interesting how Sheets Byrd has evolved alongside an evolving electorate.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:53 PM on December 26, 2005
Guys, Help me out here if you can.. I have obtained all my information about Cuba from two movies. The Godfather II shows the communists clearing the non-tax paying mob of organized crime out of Cuba. Not really a bad thing, depending on where and with whom you work. Scarface showed that the worst thing that Castro has done to the United States, which was release his criminals and insanity cases with the great Mariel boat excursion of 1979. Now I understand that there are people in Cuba who do not live a prosperous life. I believe we have that here ( USA ) as well. There are people in Cuba who have their freedoms restricted, but one of our most favored trading nations, Isreal has similar conditions. Cuba seems to be rich in sugar, tobacco and left-handed pitchers. I am not sure how the embargo benefits the US. It seems to be purely punative. The Marshall plan was conceived as the ground work for the US exploitation of the hemisphere which we occupy. It has worked great! We run the world. Cuba has been a hold out to US oppression. The embargo is retribution for that lack of cooperation. Social dictatorships don't work in prosperous countries. So it is a symbiotic relationship between Castros rule and the US embargo that keeps the Cuban people poor. However for some, prosperity and freedom are not the same thing. I believe the Cubans are one oil field away from true Iraqi-like liberation.
I went away to chainsaw some camphors and I have come back to this. I'm sorry you didn't like the rest of the world when you visited it, STLCardinalsfan. Many of us live and work there. Like chico, I'm out.
posted by owlhouse at 07:52 PM on December 26, 2005
I am disturb by the continued use of the term "Marshall Plan" when what everyone is referring to here is the Monroe Doctrine. The "Marshall Plan" was the Program to help rebuild Europe after WWII. Other than that, I give a crap about Castro or Selig's stupid World Baseball Classic. Baseball is played Internationally at the Olympics every 4 years. That's more then enough for me.
posted by skydivedad at 09:06 PM on December 26, 2005
Thank you! SkyDiveDad, I am glad somebody was paying attention. I was refering to the " Monroe Doctrine" when I incorrectly referenced the "Marshall Plan". I am not sure if the other members were mistaken in their choice of world shaping US policy documents. The Monroe Doctrine was a flag staking declaration. Where the Marshall Plan was more of a US led capitalist protectionism outline presented as a care package. It too worked well, but met with far more resistance, as Old Europe was really set in their respective ways. I would rather talk about sports. I am not sure what the other posts were really about.
Sorry, I always conflate the two as George Kennan kind of co-opted it:
"George Kennan, one of the leaders in developing the plan, was already predicting a bipolar division of the world. To him the Marshall Plan was the centrepiece of the new doctrine of containment."
posted by yerfatma at 05:19 AM on December 27, 2005
I tend to do the same yerfatma. The US tried implementing the same ideals in Latin America, but they did not have the basic structure of post-war Europe.So, it was left to the individual dictators who became " back-pocketed " by US dollars. I think the same thing has happened in North Africa. Although, They don't play baseball. They play soccer (and call it football ).
Liberalism is a mental disorder wow?! learn something new everyday, I guess.
posted by garfield at 10:34 AM on December 27, 2005
The trade embargo against Castro has nothing to do with controlling communism, nothing to do with projecting power, nothing to do with foreign policy at all any more. It is a domestic election-affecting policy that now happens to affect a small authoritarian nation off the coast of Florida. I'm sorry that STLCardinalfan and mrhockey think otherwise - but you're wrong. The embargo has failed on all accounts except this. Today's liberal believes that the government SHOULD control everything, and that is explicit socialism. And it seems that todays neo-con booster believes that the government should control all external markets and hold other nations under thumb through military power as some divine right - so that they can appear to have the opposite affect at home.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:56 AM on December 27, 2005
Please tell me where communism was not evil Oh no where I guess, lets gather up the troops and head to China. Who gives a damn that our economy will crash because we won't be able to manufacture anything. nuke capabilities notwithstanding for one of the above If we didn't make them hate us, maybe they wouldn't make nukes to use on us. Duh.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 11:19 AM on December 27, 2005
mrhockey - I feel sad for you; that's all I can say. I suggest you seek counseling. Look at the difference between your postings and Cardinalfan's postings if you don't understand why. SportingRhino - Castro was ready and willing to launch nuclear missles at the US during the Cuban Missle crisis. If the Soviets had finished installing them by then, he might very well have used them without Soviet approval. Fortunately, Kennedy's plan worked and the Soviets withdrew the missles from Cuba. Today Cuba is a better place than, say, Zimbabwe or North Korea. But Castro is still a dictator who limits the freedom of virtually everyone on the island. The comparison to Israel is ridiculous - Israel's citizens - Jewish, Christian and Muslim - have their freedom. The issues in Israel revolve around non-citizens. Times change and the embargo may have run out of its original usefulness. That was what this thread was about in the first place - whether it made sense for the US. to ban Cuba from playing in the tournament because of the embargo. We're not arguing about whether the embargo was a reasonable idea in 1965; of course it was. It hurts Castro. Castro loves baseball. Castro wants his stars to shine for propaganda purposes like Hitler wanted in 1936. It helps his image with his own people, at least the ones he hasn't murdered. But it doesn't hurt Castro. It helps Castro. There's no way Cuba will excel at the tournament. He'll probably be too afraid that his best players will defect to send them, and even those players are way overrated. It's a lose/lose situation for Castro - at least, until the administration decided to give Castro this gift. Please tell me where communism was not evil Communism itself was never evil. But it never existed anywhere but in books and minds. All attempts to institute communism failed because it's totally impractical, and all the supposedly communist state sended up with brutal, authoritarian regimes, some of which slaughtered tens of millions of people. Communism resulted in evil, but it wasn't evil in and of itself - just extraordinarily stupid.
posted by spira at 12:34 PM on December 27, 2005
And it seems that todays neo-con booster believes that the government should control all external markets and hold other nations under thumb through military power as some divine right - so that they can appear to have the opposite affect at home. Not so much all at once. You'll hurt somebody in here. spira, I'd disagree that communism was extraordinarily stupid. I'd tame down the characterization a bit to say it was the one step the age of reason shouldn't have taken; believing the intellect and reason would overpower instinct/passions/urges/desires/etc. Maybe overstepping the boundaries of nature was quite stupid, but nonetheless, admirable in its intent.
posted by garfield at 01:04 PM on December 27, 2005
stop talking cardinalfan, your making us 'righties' look bad. Godwin's law, he got you, it's over.
posted by tron7 at 01:27 PM on December 27, 2005
It was before I was born, but I don't think Castro ever lauched those missles. I would have heard about it. How about the recent Weapons of Mass Destruction "stuff" I heard about in the news...is that like the same thing?..All that I know is that if you have a righty on deck you better get your lefty warming up..Something about seeing the ball better.
All that I know is that if you have a righty on deck you better get your lefty warming up. Now, that's one hell of a multi - use statement, considering the nature of the conversation. Nicely done.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:10 AM on December 28, 2005
Two futile comments: 1) you expect to find a good definition of liberalism in a dictionary? Try asking someone with knowledge of how it works inside the court system and the ACLU. 2) spira, I might suggest the same thing for you. But counseling rarely solves problems, just merely suggests 'things that can help one to cope with their situation', which does little to help anything. Try a little of the knowledge that this country was founded on principles allowing everyone to express their opinion, whether or not it agrees with the sicko things universities teach today.
posted by mrhockey at 06:43 AM on December 28, 2005
you expect to find a good definition of liberalism in a dictionary? Well, yes. Otherwise it wouldn't be a dictionary, would it?
posted by yerfatma at 07:13 AM on December 28, 2005
Kennedy's plan worked It worked as in comparison to the "bay of pigs" but in and of itself, what was the plan again? There was no internet where people could challenge the reality of what was presented to the population as being truth. Maybe there never were any missles and it was just a massive PR/slander campaign. Remember those ariel photos of Sadaams chemical factories?..Are there any links to official Soviet documentation to this "event"? The comparison to Israel is ridiculous - Israel's citizens - Jewish, Christian and Muslim - have their freedom. The issues in Israel revolve around non-citizens. When you say "non-citizens", do you mean the "terrorists"?
Well, yes. Otherwise it wouldn't be a dictionary, would it? He doesn't need a dictionary, he's "someone with knowledge of how it works "
posted by tron7 at 10:27 AM on December 28, 2005
If we didn't make them hate us, maybe they wouldn't make nukes to use on us. Duh. Please! Did you really say this? Do you know nothing about the regime in North Korea? Communism itself was never evil. But it never existed anywhere but in books and minds. All attempts to institute communism failed because it's totally impractical, and all the supposedly communist state sended up with brutal, authoritarian regimes, some of which slaughtered tens of millions of people. Communism resulted in evil, but it wasn't evil in and of itself - just extraordinarily stupid. I tend to agree with your thoughtful analysis. I also agree that pure communism has never existed and never will so long as man continues to want more than his neighbors and is willing to work harder to get more. Maybe there never were any missles and it was just a massive PR/slander campaign. Remember those ariel photos of Sadaams chemical factories?..Are there any links to official Soviet documentation to this "event"? Are you serious? There are people in Cuba who have their freedoms restricted, but one of our most favored trading nations, Isreal has similar conditions. A bullit in the head will usually restrict a person's freedom. And comparing Cuba to Israel is quite ridiculous. The Monroe Doctrine was a flag staking declaration. Where the Marshall Plan was more of a US led capitalist protectionism outline presented as a care package. You obviously know the history of neither. The primary purpose of the Marshall plan was to avoid the conditions that existed after WW1 where Germany, in particular, was left for dead thus creating the conditions that led to WW11. The Monroe Doctrine's purpose was to keep European powers out of the Americas. If your teachers are filling your head with something different, I guess I'm not surprised. stop talking cardinalfan, your making us 'righties' look bad. Godwin's law, he got you, it's over. Because someone invokes some silly notion called "Godwin's Law" you run up the white flag? My reference to the 1936 Olympics was on target.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 10:47 AM on December 28, 2005
I tend to agree with your thoughtful analysis. I also agree that pure communism has never existed and never will so long as man continues to want more than his neighbors and is willing to work harder to get more. Or is willing to steal from others, or exploit others, or... Because someone invokes some silly notion called "Godwin's Law" you run up the white flag? You might want to look it up; it's a useful notion, not a silly one. Go have a read on it, then come back and explain why your use doesn't fall under Godwin's Law.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:49 PM on December 28, 2005
And comparing Cuba to Israel is quite ridiculous. Are you sure? Both are socialist countries with questionable records on human rights who are cornered by hostile nations. Israel would find it nearly impossible to exist without the support of the USA, just as Cuba's prospects are now pretty limited without the largesse of the Soviet Union. The key difference is a democratically elected government vs. a dictator, but there are enough similarities to make a comparison far from ridiculous.
posted by rocketman at 12:58 PM on December 28, 2005
Yes! We went from talking about baseball to having a heated political discussion! But Cardinalfan, I will admit, while Communism isn't actually bad, the regime that results usually is. In regards to the nuke thing, it doesn't apply to North Korea, however it could apply if a nation like Vietnam got nukes.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:59 PM on December 28, 2005
Hitler, on a semiotic level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used as a valid comparison to anything besides other despotic dictators. This is from the wikipedia link chico posted above. The despotic dictator part may give cardinalfan an out, but it's still a lazy arguement and a cheap way to sway people's feelings your way. Bad form. Because someone invokes some silly notion called "Godwin's Law" What makes this a silly notion? Is it because you didn't know about it first?
posted by tron7 at 02:07 PM on December 28, 2005
Or is willing to steal from others, or exploit others, or... A nice outlook on life you have. You might want to look it up; it's a useful notion, not a silly one. Go have a read on it, then come back and explain why your use doesn't fall under Godwin's Law. I read it a few days ago. Seems self serving for anyone who does not want to deal with the realities of Hitler/Nazis. In any case, even Godwin says the use is okay when used appropriately, as I did. Are you sure? Both are socialist countries with questionable records on human rights who are cornered by hostile nations. Israel would find it nearly impossible to exist without the support of the USA, just as Cuba's prospects are now pretty limited without the largesse of the Soviet Union. The key difference is a democratically elected government vs. a dictator, but there are enough similarities to make a comparison far from ridiculous. The comparison remains ridiculous just as if I would compare someone to an animal because they both eat meat. it doesn't apply to North Korea, Really? Been on another planet lately? This is from the wikipedia link chico posted above. The despotic dictator part may give cardinalfan an out, but it's still a lazy arguement and a cheap way to sway people's feelings your way. Bad form. I was comparing Hitler's desire to showcase his super race in the 1936 Olympics just as Castro sees a need to show off his super athletes. Both influence world opinion. By the way, would you prefer no references ever be made to Hitler and the Nazis? Or only if you approve of the context. Either way you promote a dangerous world that forgets/ignores the past.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 02:48 PM on December 28, 2005
it doesn't apply to North Korea I meant what I said about North Korea, not what you said...
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:13 PM on December 28, 2005
Some would view this as a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler as a well-known example of an extreme case that requires no explanation to prove that a generalization is not universally true. Some would argue, however, that Godwin's Law applies especially to the situation mentioned above, as it portrays an inevitable appeal to emotion as well as holding an implied ad hominem attack on the subject being compared, both of which are fallacious in irrelevant contexts. Are you sure you read it? Also, there's a big difference between forgetting Hitler and using the massive emotional response to your advantage in debate.
posted by tron7 at 03:34 PM on December 28, 2005
Seems self serving for anyone who does not want to deal with the realities of Hitler/Nazis. No. The point is that any debate on the Internet wherein one party compares something to the Nazis is immediately called on account of rain. If you can't explain your feelings without comparing someone to Hitler, it's not worth trying. And if you think Hitler::Castro is a viable statement, that's unfortunate. It's the kind of cultural relativism I thought conservatives fought against.
posted by yerfatma at 04:07 PM on December 28, 2005
me: Or is willing to steal from others, or exploit others, or... STLCardinalFan: A nice outlook on life you have. So it's your claim, then, that the only way that anyone ever gets more than anyone else is by "work[ing] harder to get more"? That there's no such thing as theft or exploitation? What color is the sky on your planet? me: You might want to look it up; it's a useful notion, not a silly one. Go have a read on it, then come back and explain why your use doesn't fall under Godwin's Law. STLwhatsis: I read it a few days ago. Seems self serving for anyone who does not want to deal with the realities of Hitler/Nazis. In any case, even Godwin says the use is okay when used appropriately, as I did. You have failed to describe how it is appropriate. Because both Hitler and Castro have used sporting events as political propaganda? So has George W. Bush. Thanks for playing, try again later, drink Coke.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:18 PM on December 28, 2005
Nice LBB I was gonna use the Bush example too but then I forgot when I actually posted.
posted by tron7 at 04:29 PM on December 28, 2005
Don't worry, STL, as long as you've got opinions and zeal, who needs facts, right? Remember, Rush Limbaugh succeeds because he appeals to those who would rather have someone else do their thinking for them.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:51 PM on December 28, 2005
So it's your claim, then, that the only way that anyone ever gets more than anyone else is by "work[ing] harder to get more"? That there's no such thing as theft or exploitation? What color is the sky on your planet? Your glass seems to be half empty. At least your view of the world is rather pathetic. No. The point is that any debate on the Internet wherein one party compares something to the Nazis is immediately called on account of rain. Internet rules? I wish there were some. I meant what I said about North Korea, not what you said... I'm lost... Are you sure you read it? Also, there's a big difference between forgetting Hitler and using the massive emotional response to your advantage in debate. Massive emotional response? What posts are you reading? And if you think Hitler::Castro is a viable statement, that's unfortunate. It's the kind of cultural relativism I thought conservatives fought against. I did not compare the two. I pointed to one activity that was comparable. However, given the same relative circumstances and military power, do you suppose Castro would not rise to the same level of evil? And/or, do you think he would never have launched missles at the U.S. assuming he had the control over them to do so? You have failed to describe how it is appropriate. Because both Hitler and Castro have used sporting events as political propaganda? So has George W. Bush. If you wait long enough, the libs will always get around to including Bush alongside the likes of the Hitlers and Castros. Maybe we need a Godwin-like rule here? But then you would scream foul!
posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:02 PM on December 28, 2005
Remember, Rush Limbaugh succeeds because he appeals to those who would rather have someone else do their thinking for them. No, he succeeds because thankfully, there are millions who happen to disagree with you. Don't worry, STL, as long as you've got opinions and zeal, who needs facts, right? Please point to the facts I have in error. Your turn. Nice LBB I was gonna use the Bush example too but then I forgot when I actually posted. But of course you were.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:09 PM on December 28, 2005
me: So it's your claim, then, that the only way that anyone ever gets more than anyone else is by "work[ing] harder to get more"? That there's no such thing as theft or exploitation? What color is the sky on your planet? STLwhatever: Your glass seems to be half empty. At least your view of the world is rather pathetic. No, your view of the world is deeply deluded. But maybe you've been busy, and haven't had time to read the news today. me: You have failed to describe how it is appropriate. Because both Hitler and Castro have used sporting events as political propaganda? So has George W. Bush. STLwhatsis: If you wait long enough, the libs will always get around to including Bush alongside the likes of the Hitlers and Castros. Maybe we need a Godwin-like rule here? But then you would scream foul! Hmm. Perhaps the problem here is that you're an exceptionally precocious three-year-old, and thus weren't around for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Bottom line: you don't have the first, faintest hint of a clue about any of these subjects on which you're proclaiming. You make assertions based on nothing, and when others refute them with facts, you trot out some silly, tired, irrelevant stereotype or strawman to try to cover up the egg on your face. We've all seen it by now, though, so best quit now before you get even further behind.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:26 PM on December 28, 2005
do you suppose Castro would not rise to the same level of evil? No. No I don't. Unless you're saying, "Put inside the exact situation Hitler was in in Germany in the early 1930s, would he do the same things", at which point I have no answers for you because I don't know what is in the heart of a man. All that to one side, my problem is that you belittle an awful time in human history by using it as a plaything to compare whatever pet peeve is bothering you at this moment. If you want to say the wrongs of the Castro dictatorship are comparable to what . . . y'know what, fuck it. Enjoy your echo chamber. You've shown 0 interest in conversing with anyone, so I'll leave you alone.
posted by yerfatma at 05:38 PM on December 28, 2005
No, your view of the world is deeply deluded. But maybe you've been busy, and haven't had time to read the news today. Did you ever think that a couple of good things happened in the world today too? If I'm deluded you are the classic pessimist. Hmm. Perhaps the problem here is that you're an exceptionally precocious three-year-old, and thus weren't around for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Or maybe you're a lib and I made my point too well? Bottom line: you don't have the first, faintest hint of a clue about any of these subjects on which you're proclaiming. You make assertions based on nothing, and when others refute them with facts, you trot out some silly, tired, irrelevant stereotype or strawman to try to cover up the egg on your face. We've all seen it by now, though, so best quit now before you get even further behind. Put your big, wide brush down and please note the subjects where you think me clueless. Or maybe it's that I'm clueless because I don't share your world view? Thought so. No. No I don't. Unless you're saying, "Put inside the exact situation Hitler was in in Germany in the early 1930s, would he do the same things", at which point I have no answers for you because I don't know what is in the heart of a man. If I'm not mistaken, he begged Khrushchev to dig his heals in and launch the missles if all else failed. To his credit, he knew Castro to be the maniac he was/is. All that to one side, my problem is that you belittle an awful time in human history by using it as a plaything to compare whatever pet peeve is bothering you at this moment. You're getting a little carried away aren't you? The 1936 Olympics were by no means as awful a time in history as the years that followed. In fact, the irony of Jessie Owens made this one of the few bright spots of the 30's. You've shown 0 interest in conversing with anyone, so I'll leave you alone. Rather, the real problem here is that a conservative dares to speak out instead of letting the same, tired and predictable rants go unchallenged.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 06:45 PM on December 28, 2005
Rather, the real problem here is that a conservative dares to speak out instead of letting the same, tired and predictable rants go unchallenged. You haven't "dared to speak out". You haven't said anything. All you've done is repeat platitudes and stereotypes. Come back when you've got some substance.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:19 PM on December 28, 2005
That's my problem, I don't see how you're speaking out. You seem to feel you're doing some sort of truth telling, but I have no idea what you're saying. Why should we prevent Cuban athletes from playing in a world event again? What possible benefit is there?
posted by yerfatma at 07:39 PM on December 28, 2005
For those of you who think Castro is just skippy, you're backing a guy who conservatively murdered between 5,000-12,000 of his countrymen shortly after taking power and in 2003 put a ton of journalists and librarians in prison. Yes, we have dealt with (and continue to deal with) some murderous thugs ... and it should stop. It doesn't mean we should open up the doors for Castro either -- I mean, for God's sake, who puts librarians in prison? Is there a benefit to keeping the Cubans out of the tournament? Perhaps not. Is this tournament a good enough reason to lift the embargo? No, it isn't. Oh, and the Godwin thing is just fucking ridiculous. There are clear parallels between Hitler's use of German athletes in the '36 Olympics and Castro's dogged determination to use Cubans to further his regime, in the same way you can blast Bush for showing up at sporting events everywhere after 9/11 to further his own agenda. A true Godwin is just applying the Hitler tag to someone, not using history to make a comparison. Pick up the flag and play on.
posted by wfrazerjr at 07:41 PM on December 28, 2005
You haven't "dared to speak out". You haven't said anything. All you've done is repeat platitudes and stereotypes. Come back when you've got some substance. Be honest, it's not that I haven't said anything, you just don't like it. Clearly you can't stand it when someone disagrees with you thus the name-calling (3 year old) in your earlier post. This is the consequence of ones argument falling apart. And I keep asking, point to my fact errors. Alas, no takers.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 07:53 PM on December 28, 2005
Why should we prevent Cuban athletes from playing in a world event again? What possible benefit is there? Once again, because Castro wants it! Let his players and people get mad enough to rise up and throw the dictator out. Do not give him a stage of any kind, period. Get it now?
posted by STLCardinalfan at 07:56 PM on December 28, 2005
Maybe there never were any missles and it was just a massive PR/slander campaign. Remember those ariel photos of Sadaams chemical factories?..Are there any links to official Soviet documentation to this "event"? Are you serious? STLcardinalfan(scf) Your question is abit difficult to answer as my premise begins with the word "maybe". I would hotlink this word to a dictionary site, but that would seem petty. Your question is presented as the supposition that my scenerio is presented as the opposition to a proven fact. It is not. I was asking you to consider the possibility that based upon the current situation in the great hunt for WMD's in Iraq, that would an equally assertive search in Cuba, have netted any more weapons then what have so far been found in either country? I was serious about seeing some Soviet sourced coverage of the same events (missle crisis). However, I have never taken myself as a serious person, thanks for asking.
For those of you who think Castro is just skippy Granted, I haven't read this entire trainwreck of a thread, but has anyone really said as much? I doubt any sane person that has even a bit of knowledge about Cuba thinks Castro is just skippy. That said, anyone that thinks the US blackball of Cuba is just skippy is just as naive. It's an antiquated piece of legislature from the 60's and Cold War that is entirely non-effective, and likely downright harmful to the everyday Cubans, be it baseball or Grammys. It's easy to focus on Cuba due to history's big red scare, but it's just as easy to gloss over the fact that the US has a history of supporting and helping other unsavory regimes in Latin America. The fact that the majority of the major players in Nicaragua, Chile, etc. walk free to this day yet we can't permit people paying taxes to our own Federal system that are of Cuban descent represent their own country is not just shameful, it's hypocritical. Once again, because Castro wants it! Let his players and people get mad enough to rise up and throw the dictator out. Do not give him a stage of any kind, period. Get it now? Honestly, who really gives a flying flip what Castro wants? Do we not have larger geopolitical issues to deal with than someone who presents no larger threat to our country than, say, Mighty Mouse? Additionally, citizens of other countries that are economically and politically akin to Cuba (albeit under the "umbrella of Democracy") are no better or worse off than the Cubans are today, yet the US constantly fights to "help" them via trade agreements (see CAFTA) that do little if anything to help the workers daily lives. Again, the embargo against Cuba doesn't harm Castro, it harms Cuban citizens.
posted by Ufez Jones at 08:33 PM on December 28, 2005
Be honest, it's not that I haven't said anything, you just don't like it. You. Haven't. Said. Anything. You haven't made any arguments. You've made assertions; when those are refuted, you've babbled about liberals and Hitler and other irrelevencies. All you're doing at this point is putting your hands over your eyes and saying "la la la la I am not listening" and refusing to look at what's right up there in the comments. You're in deep denial, and I'm done wasting bytes on you.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:45 PM on December 28, 2005
There are people in Cuba who have their freedoms restricted, but one of our most favored trading nations, Isreal has similar conditions. A bullit in the head will usually restrict a person's freedom. And comparing Cuba to Israel is quite ridiculous. Well, I guess you have point there. I really should just keep my opinions to myself......Hey wait a minute...I just remembered that there is this web site were you can see people, from both Cuba and Isreal, with" bullets in their heads"., it's a little obscure oh yeah its....CNN,Yahoo,google,ad on infinum. So based upon your rather cryptic reply, which took me a bit to decifer, you would agree that there is a certain simularity( not an exact clone) to the restricted freedoms( as defined by your" bullet in the head" theory ) in both Cuba and Isreal So ofcourse to bring this full circle: the embargo on Cuba can not be completely based upon human rights violations. There by confirming my theory that baseball is more fun than politics. Thank you for your time. ...just a foot note you were refering to a "bullet"- a small projectile usually made of metal and fired from a gun. Not, "Bullit" the movie with Steve Mcqueen, right?
thank you, ufez, for spending your hard earned free-time to respond to the above. I couldn't bring myself to do it. And you definitely said it better than I would have.
posted by garfield at 08:49 PM on December 28, 2005
The Monroe Doctrine was a flag staking declaration. Where the Marshall Plan was more of a US led capitalist protectionism outline presented as a care package. You obviously know the history of neither. The primary purpose of the Marshall plan was to avoid the conditions that existed after WW1 where Germany, in particular, was left for dead thus creating the conditions that led to WW11. The Monroe Doctrine's purpose was to keep European powers out of the Americas. If your teachers are filling your head with something different, I guess I'm not surprised. This of course is a matter of opinion and is open for conjecture. Today in class Miss Jones taugh us about "revisionist history" I did not pay real good attention because the girl in front of me got her braces off to day and she was real cute..oh but again I digress, so I think the gist of what the teacher had to say was; The winners write history. How do you think 1930's Germany got to their retched state? They lost the previous war. They were forced in to unfair reparations,taxations and embargos. Their dire economic state allowed Hitler rise to power because the people were desperate. Now back to the winners, they impliment their plans as divine right. The key to an effective colonization is to destroy the history and culture of the defeated peoples. Then you can build the emerging culture as your own costruction( the US was a major investor in Germany after both world wars) . Which then can be replicated for many generations of happy consumers. One world, One store,One bank.One consumer culture. This is not a "bad" thing as long as "bad" people don't control it. I am not sure what Miss Jones has been filling our heads with...but even she would never make reference to "WW 11(eleven)". Unless that...,she really is a robot from the future! SCF if you know about WW !! then you too could be a ...Robot from the future! Either that or you are getting you info from Wikipedia". You know they don't edit that stuff right? If the Marshall plan was so great, then why are there no great "german" baseball players?
My head hurts...
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:47 AM on December 29, 2005
meNice LBB I was gonna use the Bush example too but then I forgot when I actually posted. STL But of course you were. Now your just being a jerk. I just wanted to compliment lbb on a point that I wished I would have made. Are you attacking me because I mentioned Bush? And I keep asking, point to my fact errors. Alas, no takers. Fact Errors? Nobody said anything about fact ERRORS, they said no facts. You should resurrect some of your facts because there buried in a pile of ridiculousness, maybe then you'll get some takers.
posted by tron7 at 08:57 AM on December 29, 2005
STLCardinalfan, not everybody who disagrees with you is a "liberal." Some of us are Republicans who are tired of watching the G.O.P. hijacked by a bunch of Goldwater-esque, half-bright thugs intent on inventing a new Cold War so that the 21st century can be more like the 20th. Much like a newborn establishes a nearly unbreakable bond with it's mother because she is the first thing they see after birth, in the United States, when folks like STLCardinalfan opened their eyes for the first time after September 11, 2001, they saw G.W. Bush, and they have identified so strongly with him that reality is now a painful, frightening concept to them. It's a shame, because some of them, like STLCardinalfan, seem to have at least a glimmer of individual thought still shining within them, but they dare not allow it to flourish, because what would Ann Coulter think of that? I love my country. I am proud of my country. I am an American, have been all my life, and will be until the day I die. At the same time, I realize that there is a big, diverse world out there, with about 5 billion people who are just as fiercely proud of their homelands as I am of mine. They might not worship the same way I do, or believe in the same type of government that I do, or follow the same sports that I do, but that doesn't make them less of a human being than me, nor does it give me or any other American the right to arbitrarily kill them or destroy their homes. Does this mean I don't believe in defending my country? Contrary to what you might believe, no, it does not. Will I defend my country if called upon? Damn right I will. Show me a real enemy and I'll follow you over the hill and into the fray. Otherwise, don't lie to me, tell me a sand berm is a missile silo, and expect me to drink the koolaid with you. Happy New Year.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 10:38 AM on December 29, 2005
Your question is abit difficult to answer as my premise begins with the word "maybe". I would hotlink this word to a dictionary site, but that would seem petty. Your question is presented as the supposition that my scenerio is presented as the opposition to a proven fact. It is not. I was asking you to consider the possibility that based upon the current situation in the great hunt for WMD's in Iraq, that would an equally assertive search in Cuba, have netted any more weapons then what have so far been found in either country? I was serious about seeing some Soviet sourced coverage of the same events (missle crisis). However, I have never taken myself as a serious person, thanks for asking. Maybe I'm a bit slow but it sounds like you're saying the Cuban missles were unproven? If this is correct I say again, are you serious? Again, the embargo against Cuba doesn't harm Castro, it harms Cuban citizens. The original intent was to punish a communist nation in this hemisphere and set an example. I have already conceded that the embargo has run its course but that doesn't mean it didn't work. The soviets did everything possible to install communist governments south of our border and they failed. ...just a foot note you were refering to a "bullet"- a small projectile usually made of metal and fired from a gun. Not, "Bullit" the movie with Steve Mcqueen, right? Thank you. So based upon your rather cryptic reply, which took me a bit to decifer, you would agree that there is a certain simularity( not an exact clone) to the restricted freedoms( as defined by your" bullet in the head" theory ) in both Cuba and Isreal Comparing thousands of Cubans murdered by Castro to Israel (you can use some spelling help also) and that country's fight to merely exist in a land where everyone wants them dead, remains ridiculous. Just my opinion. Fact Errors? Nobody said anything about fact ERRORS, they said no facts. You should resurrect some of your facts because there buried in a pile of ridiculousness, maybe then you'll get some takers. I'm confused. Which nonexistent facts are buried in the pile? This of course is a matter of opinion and is open for conjecture. Today in class Miss Jones taugh us about "revisionist history" I did not pay real good attention because the girl in front of me got her braces off to day and she was real cute..oh but again I digress, so I think the gist of what the teacher had to say was; The winners write history. How do you think 1930's Germany got to their retched state? They lost the previous war. They were forced in to unfair reparations,taxations and embargos. Their dire economic state allowed Hitler rise to power because the people were desperate. Now back to the winners, they impliment their plans as divine right. The key to an effective colonization is to destroy the history and culture of the defeated peoples. Then you can build the emerging culture as your own costruction( the US was a major investor in Germany after both world wars) . Which then can be replicated for many generations of happy consumers. One world, One store,One bank.One consumer culture. This is not a "bad" thing as long as "bad" people don't control it. I am not sure what Miss Jones has been filling our heads with...but even she would never make reference to "WW 11(eleven)". Unless that...,she really is a robot from the future! SCF if you know about WW !! then you too could be a ...Robot from the future! Either that or you are getting you info from Wikipedia". You know they don't edit that stuff right? If the Marshall plan was so great, then why are there no great "german" baseball players? I'm not sure where to begin with this. You seem to think the Marshall Plan was a bad thing and that we wanted Germany (and Japan?) as a colony? I kinda got lost there. I guess if you're saying we had an interest in the future of Germany and Europe for that matter, you are correct. Were our reasons selfish? Of course they were! Why shouldn't they be. These interests included avoiding the conditions (you noted these well) that allowed Hitler to come to power in 1933 and just as importantly, keeping Stalin at bay. Without this we could have had World War one hundred eleven, oops, WWIII back to back with WWII. As for the winners implementing their plans and direction after war, this has been and always will be the case. Give your country some credit though, our demands after victory pale in any historical comparisons. By contrast and after Europe was carved up at Yalta, the Soviets got the countries behind what was later named by Churchill as the iron curtain and they ruled those countries with an iron hand. The only land we got were a few plots to bury our dead.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 10:53 AM on December 29, 2005
STLCardinalfan, not everybody who disagrees with you is a "liberal." Some of us are Republicans who are tired of watching the G.O.P. hijacked by a bunch of Goldwater-esque, half-bright thugs intent on inventing a new Cold War so that the 21st century can be more like the 20th. Much like a newborn establishes a nearly unbreakable bond with it's mother because she is the first thing they see after birth, in the United States, when folks like STLCardinalfan opened their eyes for the first time after September 11, 2001, they saw G.W. Bush, and they have identified so strongly with him that reality is now a painful, frightening concept to them. It's a shame, because some of them, like STLCardinalfan, seem to have at least a glimmer of individual thought still shining within them, but they dare not allow it to flourish, because what would Ann Coulter think of that? I love my country. I am proud of my country. I am an American, have been all my life, and will be until the day I die. At the same time, I realize that there is a big, diverse world out there, with about 5 billion people who are just as fiercely proud of their homelands as I am of mine. They might not worship the same way I do, or believe in the same type of government that I do, or follow the same sports that I do, but that doesn't make them less of a human being than me, nor does it give me or any other American the right to arbitrarily kill them or destroy their homes. Does this mean I don't believe in defending my country? Contrary to what you might believe, no, it does not. Will I defend my country if called upon? Damn right I will. Show me a real enemy and I'll follow you over the hill and into the fray. Otherwise, don't lie to me, tell me a sand berm is a missile silo, and expect me to drink the koolaid with you. If I understand your well written comment, your biggest problem seems to be the WMD issue. Let's just agree to disagree here. There were numerous reasons we invaded Iraq. Yes, WMD was one of them. Without the WMD issue however, the reasons were still justified. Koolaid? No. My opinion, yes.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 11:05 AM on December 29, 2005
STLCardinalfan, not everybody who disagrees with you is a "liberal." Some of us are Republicans who are tired of watching the G.O.P. hijacked by a bunch of Goldwater-esque, half-bright thugs Whoa, TBH. I was about to start nodding in assent until you lumped Barry Goldwater in with the current group of Conservatives. For shame. I've think of myself as a Goldwater Republican (albeit one born years after the concept mattered) who had his party move out from under him.
posted by yerfatma at 11:22 AM on December 29, 2005
Cardinal fan why don't you stop responding to quotes and actually post something with substance. Or, to keep your repuatation, find some bullshit to say after you quote my post.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 11:31 AM on December 29, 2005
Fact Errors? Nobody said anything about fact ERRORS, they said no facts. You should resurrect some of your facts because there buried in a pile of ridiculousness, maybe then you'll get some takers. I'm confused. Which nonexistent facts are buried in the pile? Are you really that obtuse or are you skirting the issue? Where are your nonexistent facts? That is what everyone is asking YOU.
posted by tron7 at 12:28 PM on December 29, 2005
Jesus - I am getting tired of this: STLCardinalfan - What is the tacit benefit of the continued embargo of Cuba? What makes it so righteous? I believe, very strongly, that all it has to do with any policy anymore is the fact that Florida is a swing state and that Virginia tabacco growers don't want any competition. Ironically, Cuba is nothing without the US embargoing it. The embargo makes Castro a martyr and gives communism the underdog role that appeals to other poorer nations. The embargo has been propping Castro up for decades. It's such a freaking joke that Castro gets to come to Presidential funerals. I'm sorry, you need to open your eyes. It's just a big strong nation bullying a small insignificant one. And the whole "make an example" arguement is terrible. It's a self-righteous stance that staggers me in its arrogance and short-sightedness.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:30 PM on December 29, 2005
Sorry, yerfatma, the man was indeed multi-dimensional, and I tarred him with the "extremism in the defense of liberty" brush, just because that quote always kind of creeped me out, and because it reminds me indirectly of the Bush administration's mindset, not just here, but abroad. No offense intended.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 02:54 PM on December 29, 2005
I wasn't really offended. In your guts, you know he's nuts.
posted by yerfatma at 03:03 PM on December 29, 2005
That's why the "extremism" quote has always creeped me out, because after he said that line at the '64 Republican Convention, he could've pointed out anybody on the floor, accused them of being a Communist, and told the crowd to stomp them to death, and they probably would have. To his credit, though, he did believe in fiscal intelligence, something we haven't seen out of the NeoCon administration yet; he also called Lyndon Johnson the most dishonest President we ever had, and he tarred the hell out of Tricky Dick Nixon, too.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:17 PM on December 29, 2005
Are you really that obtuse or are you skirting the issue? Where are your nonexistent facts? That is what everyone is asking YOU. Obtuse, dumb, confused and maybe just plain stupid but I'm still trying to figure out which facts you are talking about. Sorry if I'm slow. Help me out here. STLCardinalfan - What is the tacit benefit of the continued embargo of Cuba? What makes it so righteous? For I think the third time now I will repeat that the embargo has probably run its course of usefullness. This is mostly because of the absence of a Soviet Union that supported Castro since 1959 with designs of gaining an advantage in this hemisphere. Still, it's probably better to wait for Castro to die than to hand him any victories. It's just a big strong nation bullying a small insignificant one. Okay Toronto. Nothing I say will sway your feelings about your neighbor to the south.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 03:37 PM on December 29, 2005
Actually, we had to write a stupid essay for our states standerdized tests in eighth grade (only two years ago) about the benefits and consquences of the embargo. Through this embargo the USA has greatly hurt Cuba's economy while also hurting theirs, and Cuba is vastly below standards on medical care mainly because we supply them with nothing. While I'm sorry I can't name many facts (we have to wake up so damn early nothing stays in your mind) ,what I've gathered is that this embargo has done a lot more harm then good. On an on topic note (meaning what the link is about)- Sporting events are meant to be politically free zones and while that hasn't always happened in the past, we shouldn't permit a foolish foreign policy to prevent some of the world's best baseball players from participating. Congrats knuckleballer, you created an amazing thread. I vote you get an award.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:47 PM on December 29, 2005
STLCardinalfan - What is the tacit benefit of the continued embargo of Cuba? What makes it so righteous? So weedy, let me see if I've got this right. Trying to curb communisn in Vietnam, China and North Korea is OK, but trying to curb it 70 miles off of Florida is somehow preposterous! Ya know, I'll betcha Cuba's army could take over Canada, if not for it's fear of interferance from Canada's neighbor to the south.
posted by drevl at 06:19 PM on December 29, 2005
what I've gathered is that this embargo has done a lot more harm then good. If you were in 8th grade two years ago you can't remember much about the Soviet Union and their quest for world domination. The threat was real and backed up by 10,000+ nuclear weapons complete with delivery systems ready and waiting. At around your age I was practicing diving under my desk in school in case of a nuclear strike. (A lot of good that would have done!) The Soviet strategy for the Americas was to first establish a foothold in Cuba where a willing Castro would help them spread communism throughout the hemisphere. One response we had was the embargo. It made a lot of sense then and certainly more sense than pulling the big trigger. We can argue about the embargo today with what I think are good arguments on both sides. Again, I prefer to wait until Castro is dead. Maybe that is a throwback response to the cold war era on my part. Similarily, I do not want to recognize the government of Viet Nam. I fought there for 13 months. It will happen one day and no doubt the reasons will be justified. Just let it happen after I'm gone.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 06:49 PM on December 29, 2005
Cuba is vastly below standards on medical care mainly because we supply them with nothing. Of all the things you could accuse Cuba of, this is the silliest. Their medical care is the one area in which they excell. They send medical care to more third-world countries then the US does. They don't have the money to spend on medical research, but they spare no expense in helping the ill wherever they can. I was never a fan of Cuba exporting mercinariy soldiers around the world, but I've never complained about their exporting doctors and nurses all around the globe.
posted by drevl at 07:19 PM on December 29, 2005
Trying to curb communisn in Vietnam, China and North Korea is OK, but trying to curb it 70 miles off of Florida is somehow preposterous! Huh? We were trying to starve the USSR of allies, not fight an ideology wherever we found it. OTOH, good call on the medical thing. That was my first thought as well. It's that or baseball for what Cuba does best.
posted by yerfatma at 08:50 PM on December 29, 2005
Maybe I'm a bit slow but it sounds like you're saying the Cuban missles were unproven? If this is correct I say again, are you serious? STl, your use of the word "maybe" implies some understanding of the word itself. However your assuptions of my intent belies the actual meaning of the word in it's given context. I hope that my statements don't cause you any further issues with your dogmatic reality. I had only hoped to inspire some discussion(ie thought) as to the reality of a punitive embargo. I wanted to establish that political "ends" are often established by illogical '"means". The denial of a friendly baseball tornament because of an embargo which is based upon a supposed ideological indifference or an idle threat(idle because the technology of ICBM's make Cuba the strategical equivilent of the moon.) I do agree my spelling is suspect at best. I seem to spell Israel as Isreal as a hideous inside joke ( like i can't beleive that this place isreal ) This is a cheap and somewhat tawdry way of drawing attention to a somewhat tawdry political situation( or should I say "state"). you are correct: Israel is fighting for its existence( with some help from the USA ) That is because it's existance is political. The State of Israel was established, much like the UN to serve a political agenda. Which is in stark contrast to Cuba which was fought for in a standard winner( Castro ) takes all historical sense. Now as to question of my "seriousness". I will leave that for you to decide. I am not sure what your level of understanding of Russian or Cryllic language you have achieved. So, if you do get the chance to review the UN tape s of the Kennedy/Kruschev debate. You known ."... Mr. Kruschev will you remove your missles..." Kruschev actually replies by asking Kennedy if he was in fact a "Donut", what kind would he be? Kennedy refused to answer so, Kruschev stormed out. Cuba has never fired an "official" shot on American troops, Israel sunk one of our destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin(1967). They said it was an accident. It amazes me that we can show that kind of resilience when one of our ships is attacked and our soliders are killed, but yet won't allow a baseball game to be played because of an embargo which ceases to have relevence in the modern global economy. The continuence of the Cuban embargo seems a bit too much "buisness as usual". It just lends itself to ridicule when compared part and parcel to the whole world of bad guys agenda(Iraq,Iran,North Korea) While China and Israel run unfettered.This fact is especially embarissing, when you acknowled their total lack of a quality baseball product!
The USA and others really messed up when they took the Palestinians land away and gave it to the Jews so they could have their own state called Israel. Why the United States supports freedom but then takes it away and supports the people who fight against the freedom-fighters (Palestinians) is beyond me. While I don't approve of their tactics, I do believe in their fight.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:18 PM on December 29, 2005
It's easy to focus on Cuba due to history's big red scare, but it's just as easy to gloss over the fact that the US has a history of supporting and helping other unsavory regimes in Latin America. Completely agreed. So why help Cuba now? Has its leadership improved to the point where we should be openly dealing with it? For me, it's not a matter of dealing or not dealing with Cuba. It's a matter of doing no business with anyone with the same track record as Castro.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:34 PM on December 29, 2005
I'm not sure where to begin with this. You seem to think the Marshall Plan was a bad thing and that we wanted Germany (and Japan?) as a colony? I kinda got lost there. I guess if you're saying we had an interest in the future of Germany and Europe for that matter, you are correct. Were our reasons selfish? STL,you have correctly begun at the beginning(well done sir!) I did not intended to imply a polarizing qualifier( good/bad) in my review of the Marshall Plan. I had only hoped to show it as the template for American style consumer culture. Which as you well know has its quirks( Paris Hilton,homeless people ) As for the winners implementing their plans and direction after war, this has been and always will be the case. Good then you agree! Your agreement is both refreshing and disturbing. I will always give my country credit where credit is do. There has never been a better designed government. The founders of our constitution were able to rise above their own deverisiveness and prejudices to create some of the most inspiring documents ever created! This country is governed by the words";. of the people, by the people. for the people.The true strength of this government is the ability of its members to challenge any short sightedness. The weakness is it is only as strong as the people who oppose its totalitarianism. I am curious your statement was phrased in the second person( Give "your" country some credit..) are you not a US citizen?
The State of Israel was established, much like the UN to serve a political agenda. Which is in stark contrast to Cuba which was fought for in a standard winner( Castro ) takes all historical sense. I disagree with the stark contrast between Israel and Cuba relative to their respective struggles. Both wanted to achieve political ends. Castro sought to overthrow Batista for political reasons. He used bullets. Israel sought their own state so 6 million of them could no longer be rounded up and slaughtered. They used UN charters. I guess what I'm saying is everything is political. are you not a US citizen? Yes I am. Good then you agree! Now I'm worried. The USA and others really messed up when they took the Palestinians land away and gave it to the Jews so they could have their own state called Israel. Why the United States supports freedom but then takes it away and supports the people who fight against the freedom-fighters (Palestinians) is beyond me. It was just three short years after the holocaust and the cry among the Jews was "Never Again". Can you really blame them for wanting a homeland where they could better defend themselves? If you were a Jew who survived the holocaust, living in 1948, wouldn't you want the same thing? I'm not a Jew but I understand their desire to have a few crappy square miles carved out for them where they can feel secure given the events that took place in the 40's.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 10:52 AM on December 30, 2005
few crappy square miles carved out for them where they can feel secure I understand why they gave them the land but it isn't very safe at the moment is it? The entire region hates them and suicide bombers blow stuff up daily. The Palestinians need an independent state to help sort this conflict out but that doesn't look like its going to happen.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 11:30 AM on December 30, 2005
Glad that's settled. Why don't you drop them a note?
posted by yerfatma at 11:51 AM on December 30, 2005
The Palestinians need an independent state to help sort this conflict out but that doesn't look like its going to happen. It would happen if Jordan or another nearby country gave them the land. But even then, they would still want Israel.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 12:09 PM on December 30, 2005
Glad that's settled. Why don't you drop them a note? Sure, should I send it by email or UPS?
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:57 PM on December 30, 2005
Go with DHL. The French subsidize it. Castro would appreciate that. Plus if the plane gets hijacked it'll be fun to watch.
posted by yerfatma at 09:22 PM on December 30, 2005
sports & politics mix - as do my opinions here. A). Unfortunately we alienated a great mind in the 50's 60's - did you know he played minor league baseball here too? - and he wanted American affiliation -but nothing will be resolved politically until his death & the totalitarianism of Fidel is challenged. B). The politics of Florida is highly based on Cuban heritage (anti Castro) & it’s a proven "swing" state. But can we really blame Bush for the long-standing following of government embargo policy. (if you like the policy or not)- the donation to Katrina victims is very nice! C. El Duque, Jose Contreras, et al. - they deserve the global forum, but will be left out. Not Fair! D). I hold dear the Olympic ideals of coming together on the field of play, ready to set aside all but the spirit of fair competition - & the Cubans should not be denied - as the "amateur" champs of non MLB competition. Even over those twerp Valentine’s boys! E). I have agreed with little that Bud S. has done- however – the WCB tourney on a 4 year basis – after 2009 will lead to the globalization of baseball & I find that he must have stumbled on a great idea!!!!!!!! F). I t will make for great Baseball – and the team that is that first to figure out that team effort can beat a group of individuals will excel. The democratization of the game has begun!!!