Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[stokes234]

2. How does one construct a "real argument" against a lot of reality-challenged, opinionated, bitch-ass Chomskyite mumbo-jumbo? Ridicule is the best "argument" against that.

You could try explaining why the human rights abuses committed by cuba justify a trade embargo, while saudi arabia for example doesn't even get sanctions.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Let's see:

- Trying to impose sanctions on SA would be like trying to impose sanctions on China (i.e., everyone will suffer and is not in the US's interests. SA will just give the US and Western Europe the finger and say "no oil for you" and everyone will blame the US for trying to RP a Paladin, while China would say "I'm calling in your debt", and lo and behold, Great Depression 2.0)

 

[stokes234]

Let's see:

- Trying to impose sanctions on SA would be like trying to impose sanctions on China (i.e., everyone will suffer and is not in the US's interests. SA will just give the US and Western Europe the finger and say "no oil for you" and everyone will blame the US for trying to RP a Paladin, while China would say "I'm calling in your debt", and lo and behold, Great Depression 2.0)

Well, if you're going to play the "i'm sure they'd like to but its not possible because of resources" card - explain egypt, yemen, bahrain, argentina and brazil during the junta years, indonesia under sukarno/suharto, chile under pinochet (military sanctions towards the end of the dictatorship, no embargo), bolivia, south africa (never had a full embargo, and reagan tried to veto the arms sanctions), etc etc etc.

When it comes down to it, human rights abuses don't explain the position. The only explanation is that the US is trying to dictate to cuba their economic system.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

A lot of relationships with less than savoury regimes was due to both a desire for stability and Cold War realpolitik. Say what you like about Kissinger, but you have to give him credit for realising that RPing a paladin in a grey and grey world gets your country nowhere. They propped up Egypt because the alternaive was the ME turning into glass.

And a lot of the Cuba sanctions are probably due to the fact that they were within inches of annihilating much of the US in 1962, as well as a personal grudge against the Castro brothers.

 

[stokes234]

A lot of relationships with less than savoury regimes was due to both a desire for stability and Cold War realpolitik. Say what you like about Kissinger, but you have to give him credit for realising that RPing a paladin in a grey and grey world gets your country nowhere.

And a lot of the Cuba sanctions are probably due to the fact that they were within inches of annihilating much of the US in 1962, as well as a personal grudge against the Castro brothers.

No, they weren't. They were in inches of having nuclear missiles capable of striking as many US cities as america was already capable of striking russian cities from it's bases in Turkey.

The cold war excuse doesnt explain the south american countries listed and doesn't explain the lack of trade embargos against middle eastern countries since the fall of the berlin wall.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

What you fail to mention is that the Jupiter missiles in turkey were going to be removed anyway, and that the Cuban missiles could reach Washington DC as well as wipe out much of the Southeast US in a first strike. As well as that, the Jupiter IRBMs didn't have the same reach across the USSR as the Soviet missiles in Cuba could reach the US.

And as for Latin America, the US didn't want to put their hands in a beehive by trying to be a Paladin, and the Middle East was LatAm x100.

 

[Mycroft]

I am not splitting hairs, I was discussing exactly what he posted. His first sentence in fact. Hence me asking you to read it again. You are obviously confused on what part of his post I was saying was disgusting.

No, I'm not confused. He said, "It's absolutely justified when they are not the targets." "They" meaning hypothetical children casualties who might die if the IDF returned fire from a mortar position Hamas set up on a hypothetical apartment building.

I'm sorry that upsets you, but in that scenario it's Hamas that's responsible for their deaths, not Israel.

I gave you the chance and you kept on digging.

A chance at what? Your approval? You need to have mine first before yours becomes important to me.

 

[stokes234]

What you fail to mention is that the Jupiter missiles in turkey were going to be removed anyway, and that the Cuban missiles could reach Washington DC as well as wipe out much of the Southeast US in a first strike. As well as that, the Jupiter IRBMs didn't have the same reach across the USSR as the Soviet missiles in Cuba could reach the US.

The Jupiter missiles covered most of the west of the USSR. And remember, nobody at all lives in the east of russia. The place is a wasteland. For all intents and purposes, the turkish missile bases could have wiped out the USSR, and the deployment of nukes in cuba would only have served to rebalance the situation. Claiming that cuba came "within inches of destroying the US" is just not true.

And as for them being withdrawn - did they announce this to the USSR prior to the cuban missile crisis?

And as for Latin America, the US didn't want to put their hands in a beehive by trying to be a Paladin, and the Middle East was LatAm x100.

If the US didn't want to put it's hands in the beehive of latin america, why did they support pinochet? That sounds alot like putting their hands in it. And if the US doesn't like putting their hands in the 100xbeehive that is the middle east, why did they invade iraq?

It's obvious that the only real reason the embargo is carried out against cuba but nowhere else is because of cuba's internal economic policy, which is none of america's business.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

how were the US suppporting Pinochet when they slapped arms embargoes on him (why couldn't they get the F-16 until 1990?), and outside of loony sources such as prisonplanet, no-one seriously believes tha the US instigated the 1973 coup in Chile, as there is no evidence for it. As for Iraq, there was a lot of bad blood between the US and Saddam that was inevitably going to boil over. Oh wait, it was AmeriKKKan Racism and a desire to plunder oil .

As for the Jupiter missiles, the US were planning to remove them anyway, but didn't want to anger Turkey (they had a maximum effective range of 1,500-2,000 Nautical miles). And Soviet Missiles in Cuba could hit as far as Washington DC, so so much for the "they couldn't destroy the us" meme, and were only "rebalancing the situtation", so they were justified in nearly bringing about the apocalypse.

And another crucial difference between Turkey and Cuba was that Turkey was a logn standing member of NATO, while Cuba was a relative newcomer, and if they merely sought to "rebalance the situation", why wait unti 1962. As well as that, there were only 72 missiles in Turkey (an a fraction of those were in service), while there were more missiles in Cuba with a far longer reach. And finally, the Jupiter missiles were ordered to be retired in 1961 by President Kennedy.

 

[UWdude]

I told UWdude I'd respond to his post if he apologized to everyone for accusing me of racism and the JREF of being "packed with bigots and racists" in that horrid exchange that ended up in AAH earlier. For some reason he simply replied with "Go have fun with yourself" (the mean way) I thought it was a very noble gesture on my part, really. Meh...

Yeah. You mischaracterize what I say, link to AAH, PM me, tell me to grovel and apologize, and wonder why I don't appreciate your "noble" gestures. You are as delusional about that as you are about why Iraqis and Afghans don't appreciate our bombing of their countries.

Nice try at the us against themism, but:

the JREF of being "packed with bigots and racists"

my full statement:

Nothing special about JREF, it's packed with a bunch of bigots and racists who claim not to be, like every other board and boardroom.

And you wonder why I don't appreciate your false maturity?

 

[stokes234]

how were the US suppporting Pinochet when they slapped arms embargoes on him (why couldn't they get the F-16 until 1990?),

"Operating guidance issued to CIA operatives in Chile on 16 October 1970 explicitly stated US aims:

"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date""

Does that not sound to you like america "putting their hands in the beehive" of latin america? How about when they tried to stop him getting elected in the first place? Looks to me like the US are perfectly happy to "stick their hands in the beehive" so long as it's to further right-wing economics. Doesn't seem to be particularly related to humanitarian issues.

and outside of loony sources such as prisonplanet, no-one seriously believes tha the US instigated the 1973 coup in Chile, as there is no evidence for it.

They didn't instigate it, but they supported it. From the cia website - "CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende". Sounds like more beehive fumblings, but not humanitarian ones.

As for Iraq, there was a lot of bad blood between the US and Saddam that was inevitably going to boil over. Oh wait, it was AmeriKKKan Racism and a desire to plunder oil .

I've never accused america of being a racist state, so don't attack that strawman in a response to my posts. I do believe oil was one of the motivations, but we can agree to disagree on that. As to "bad blood" - you're saying that the US can't impose economic sanctions on brutal regimes like yemen and bahrain because it would be meddling, but they can send in two hundred thousand troops to overthrow a regime and that's fine because they had a grudge?

As for the Jupiter missiles, the US were planning to remove them anyway, but didn't want to anger Turkey (they had a maximum effective range of 1,500-2,000 Nautical miles).

That's enough to destroy most of populated russia from turkey, as well as almost all of the eastern bloc. And they had more missiles in Italy.

And Soviet Missiles in Cuba could hit as far as Washington DC, so so much for the "they couldn't destroy the us" meme,

Who said this? Why does Washington DC matter? Turkish missiles could hit Moscow way before the cuban missile crisis.

and were only "rebalancing the situtation", so they were justified in nearly bringing about the apocalypse.

How was deploying nuclear missiles in cuba any closer to "nearly bringing about the apocalypse" than america deploying them in Turkey?

And another crucial difference between Turkey and Cuba was that Turkey was a logn standing member of NATO, while Cuba was a relative newcomer, and if they merely sought to "rebalance the situation", why wait unti 1962. As well as that, there were only 72 missiles in Turkey (an a fraction of those were in service), while there were more missiles in Cuba with a far longer reach. And finally, the Jupiter missiles were ordered to be retired in 1961 by President Kennedy.

Why does any of that matter?

 

[UWdude]

no-one seriously believes tha the US instigated the 1973 coup in Chile, as there is no evidence for it.

Project FUBELT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_FUBELT

the Chicago Boys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys


You are in denial.

 

[angrysoba]

and outside of loony sources such as prisonplanet, no-one seriously believes tha the US instigated the 1973 coup in Chile, as there is no evidence for it.

Well, this claim rests on certain details such as "just as the CIA's team of goons were about to whack Rene Schneider another gang of goons who were somewhat more tangentially related to the CIA killed him first." Ergo, it wasn't the CIA guv!

And yes, the CIA were working hard to make sure that Allende never got elected in the first place because as an elder statesman of the US observed at the time there was no need to stand idly by and watch a country go Marxist due to the irresponsibility of its voters.

Say what you like about Kissinger...

...he didn't even get the trains running on time.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

UWdude, FUBELT was terminated as a failure in the 1970s.

and the "chicago boys" link doesn't state that they instigated the 1973 coup.

Stokes,

A lot of US support for the Juntas came from a Rousseaun perspective that a harsh government was preferable to disorder. And there was a very palpable fear that Allende was linked to the USSR (they did NOT want another Cuba which could cause trouble in that region).

As for Iraq, Saddam had been an active irritant in the region for decades, and was inflaming relations with the US to the extent that the US decided "**** it!" and remove saddam. I don't recall the US actuvely saughtering 200k iraqis in cold blood like they were the SS on the Eastern front. Most of those deaths were due to the "freedom fighters" that were blowing up marketplaces and mosques.

As for the Jupiter Missiles, They were being wound up by the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. (only a fraction of 72 missiles were active, and the Jupiter Silos could be easily intercepted by soviet fighter bombers). It does matter because the US WERE going to remove the missiles anyway, and they were aleady obsolete. Whereas much of the East Coast could be destroyed by the Russian nukes in Cuba's IRBM arsenal. Here's an image which illustrates what I am trying to say about Cuba.

In conclusion, the USSR were being actively provocative and trying to play brinksmanship to its limits.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Well, this claim rests on certain details such as "just as the CIA's team of goons were about to whack Rene Schneider another gang of goons who were somewhat more tangentially related to the CIA killed him first." Ergo, it wasn't the CIA guv!

And yes, the CIA were working hard to make sure that Allende never got elected in the first place because as an elder statesman of the US observed at the time there was no need to stand idly by and watch a country go Marxist due to the irresponsibility of its voters.



...he didn't even get the trains running on time.

Just because the CIA was trying to derail Allende in 1970 doesn't mean that they plotted his overthrow in 1973.

 

[stokes234]

Stokes,

A lot of US support for the Juntas came from a Rousseaun perspective that a harsh government was preferable to disorder. And there was a very palpable fear that Allende was linked to the USSR (they did NOT want another Cuba which could cause trouble in that region).

As for Iraq, Saddam had been an active irritant in the region for decades, and was inflaming relations with the US to the extent that the US decided "**** it!" and remove saddam. I don't recall the US actuvely saughtering 200k iraqis in cold blood like they were the SS on the Eastern front. Most of those deaths were due to the "freedom fighters" that were blowing up marketplaces and mosques.

We could easily get bogged down in details here, but none of this refutes my overriding point which is that the US is perfectly happy to intervene on the pretence of "its for their own good", but in reality this only corresponds with the US' interests. The US has no interest in preventing the repression in yemen and bahrain, preventing the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of tortures under pinochet, preventing the brutal repression under sukarno and suharto etc because it has nothing to gain, and because those countries weren't practicing left-wing economics. But compare to cuba, and suddenly repression justifies a full-blown trade embargo and sanctions against anyone that does trade with cuba.

As for the Jupiter Missiles, They were being wound up by the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. (only a fraction of 72 missiles were active, and the Jupiter Silos could be easily intercepted by soviet fighter bombers). It does matter because the US WERE going to remove the missiles anyway, and they were aleady obsolete.

No, it only matters that the US were going to remove them anyway if they had announced this to the USSR. If the USSR didn't have a guarantee that the missiles were to be removed, then the USSR was only redressing the imbalance by stationing missiles in cuba.

Whereas much of the East Coast could be destroyed by the Russian nukes in Cuba's IRBM arsenal. Here's an image which illustrates what I am trying to say about Cuba.

I know the range. The turkish missiles covered most of populated russia and could easily have ended the USSR, if not the world through a nuclear winter. It doesn't matter that the cuban missiles covered more land.

In conclusion, the USSR were being actively provocative and trying to play brinksmanship to its limits.

This isn't a valid conclusion until you explain how "gaining the ability to destroy the US" is any worse than the US already having the ability to destroy the USSR. Was the US being "actively provocative and trying to play brinksmanship to its limits" when they installed the Turkish missiles?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The US supported Suharto/Sukarno not because of economics, but because of realpolitik. Leaning on Yemen and Bahrain would lead SA to cut off its oil (RPing a Paladin isn't the best idea at all in executing foreign policy), the same way leaning on China would lead them to call in their debts.

how could 12 nukes (not all fired at once, it is important to remember that. even if a nuke got off, by the time a second one launched, the Soviets would have destroyed the sites) destroy the USSR? And you SERIOUSLY believe that 12 nukes with a total max yield of 12 MT could cause a nuclear winter? You need something on the level of the Chicxulub impact (the dino killer that hit earth 65 mya) to do that.

And the US didn't tell the USSR that they were shutting them down because of national security reasons. You seem to assume that the US had the diplomatic sensibilities of 2011 in 1962, but they were afraid that the USSR could have taken advantage of the decommissioning of the Jupiters.

There is no equivalence between Turkey and Cuba, as the US were already drawing down there as early as 1961 (The Soviets had already known about them for years) while Cuba on the Other Hand was almost encountered by the US in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop. The IRBMS could have hit as far as san Fancisco, and hit numerous industrial targets in between Havana and there. As well as that, at least 50% of them were active, or IOW ready to launch.

 

[stokes234]

Just because the CIA was trying to derail Allende in 1970 doesn't mean that they plotted his overthrow in 1973.

The quotes I provided were from 1973, not from 1970.

You also ignore the effect the CIA had in creating a climate under which a coup could occur. September 27, 1970, the cia sent their "Blueprint for creating a coup climate" from cia headquarters.

They provided funding to the National Association of Manufacturers, which decided in a meeting of business leaders in 1971 that "Allende's government was incompatible with freedom and with the existence of private enterprise, and that the only way to avoid the end was to overthrow the government." The NAM also set up links with the army to "prepare specific alternatives to government programs that would systematically be passed on to the Armed Forces."

A later US Senate Committee came to the conclusion that "CIA collaborators were involved in creating an initial overall economic plan which has served as the basis for the Junta's most important economic decisions."

And according to Orlando Letelier, Chilean ambassador to Washington at the time, "The Chicago Boys... convinced the generals that they were prepared to supplement the brutality, which the military possessed, with the intellectual assets that it lacked."

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The 1970 coup attempt was terminated and written off as a failure by the CIA. Besides, the Church committee had encounterd NO evidence whatsoever that the CIA was behind the 1973 coup, otherwise they would have stated as such.

As for the chicago boys and economic plans, they came AFTER the 1973 coup, not before it.

 

[stokes234]

The US supported Suharto/Sukarno not because of economics, but because of realpolitik. Leaning on Yemen and Bahrain would lead SA to cut off its oil (RPing a Paladin isn't the best idea at all in executing foreign policy), the same way leaning on China would lead them to call in their debts.

"Realpolitik" sounds like a nice handy excuse for completely ignoring human rights violations, until they coincide with economic policy that you disagree with. The reality is that cuba isn't under an embargo because of human rights violations, it is under an embargo because of economic decisions that should be no business of the US.

how could 12 nukes (not all fired at once, it is important to remember that. even if a nuke got off, by the time a second one launched, the Soviets would have destroyed the sites) destroy the USSR?

How exactly would the USSR have done this? See the attached picture to show that the bases were not actually on the soviet border. And then look at Italy to see the overlap that would have allowed more missiles to be launched from Italy. Take out 8 major cities from the USSR and the economy, population, government etc is all just dead. There would be no coming back from that.

And you SERIOUSLY believe that 12 nukes with a total max yield of 12 MT could cause a nuclear winter? You need something on the level of the Chicxulub impact (the dino killer that hit earth 65 mya) to do that.

No, probably not. But combined with the retaliation from the USSR towards turkey, italy, west germany, maybe the UK, maybe japan, depending all on just how crazy the USSR was feeling at the time probably would have had a devastating effect of the earth's biosphere and the human population.

And the US didn't tell the USSR that they were shutting them down because of national security reasons. You seem to assume that the US had the diplomatic sensibilities of 2011 in 1962, but they were afraid that the USSR could have taken advantage of the decommissioning of the Jupiters.

So if the USSR didn't know they were to be decommisioned, why does the fact that they were have any bearing whatsoever on the motivation behind balancing power out by putting more missiles in cuba?

There is no equivalence between Turkey and Cuba, as the US were already drawing down there as early as 1961 (The Soviets had already known about them for years) while Cuba on the Other Hand was almost encountered by the US in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop. The IRBMS could have hit as far as san Fancisco, and hit numerous industrial targets in between Havana and there. As well as that, at least 50% of them were active, or IOW ready to launch.

Again, why does this matter? Both countries could have been wiped out by the other. This was nothing more than a balancing of power.