Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

NWO Sentryman said:
It was pat of Khrushchev's policy to try and test President Kennedy because he thought that he was naive, and sought to push him further and further. First with the Berlin Wall and then with Cuba in 1962.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

NWO Sentryman said:
Oh wait, they were justified in threatening to annihilate the US because of economic policy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I never made that claim.

NWO Sentryman said:
And the US was only using Project Emily as a contingency should the USSR cross the Fulda Gap. If it were intended to be a first strike mechanism, they would have used them, along with the missiles across NATO, in 1962.
Click to expand...

If the Cuban missiles were intended as a first strike mechanism, surely they would have used them during the cuban missile crisis?

NWO Sentryman said:
And you forget that the Cuban exile lobby can be VERY vocal, which is what matters at the end of the day in politics.
Click to expand...

Apparently not that vocal, considering I just showed that cuban americans actually oppose the trade embargo.

NWO Sentryman said:
And if internal economic policy was the sole factor for US foreign policy, then the world would be glass.
Click to expand...

I have never claimed that internal economic policy is the sole factor for US foreign policy. You keep arguing with people that aren't me. My claim is that the only outlying factor explaining the cuban trade embargo is cuba's internal economic policy - everything else is or has been replicated elsewhere without the same response of a trade embargo.
 
Khrushchev was very provocative towards President Kennedy, stating that he wanted to proverbially put a "hedgehog in America's pants". He decided to try and put nukes on Cuba and was romantically enthralled with the idea of the cuban revolution to the extent that he risked the whole world.

The fact that Khrushchev went out of his way to put missiles on Cuba (and thus dangerously close to America - far more so that nukes in Italy) and deliberately try to play the stakes closer to the brink than ever before shows that they were indeed first strike weapons. As well as that, many of the NATO missiles were in underground silos, closed, while the Soviet nukes were ready to go.

What about North Korea, Libya or Zimbabwe? They're under similar sanctions and embargos as Cuba.

Antoher key difference between US and Russian nukes is the fact that the Russian nukes were aimed directly at the US, while the US nukes were meant for battlefield deployments and meant to be a force multiplier.
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
Khrushchev was very provocative towards President Kennedy, stating that he wanted to proverbially put a "hedgehog in America's pants". He decided to try and put nukes on Cuba and was romantically enthralled with the idea of the cuban revolution to the extent that he risked the whole world.
Click to expand...

How did he risk the world any more than america risked the world by installing nukes in a position from which they could reach most of populated russia?

NWO Sentryman said:
The fact that Khrushchev went out of his way to put missiles on Cuba (and thus dangerously close to America - far more so that nukes in Italy)
Click to expand...

Distance doesn't matter, whether or not they were in range matters. America had missiles in range of russia before russia tried to put missiles in range of america.

NWO Sentryman said:
and deliberately try to play the stakes closer to the brink than ever before shows that they were indeed first strike weapons.
Click to expand...

How?

NWO Sentryman said:
As well as that, many of the NATO missiles were in underground silos, closed, while the Soviet nukes were ready to go.
Click to expand...

Prove it, and even if you can, explain why it matters.

NWO Sentryman said:
What about North Korea, Libya or Zimbabwe? They're under similar sanctions and embargos as Cuba.
Click to expand...

North Korea are not embargoed, they are under sanctions, and they are also actively hostile to other countries. This is not true of Cuba. Sanctions were only levied against Libya when Ghadaffi started actively attacking his population, something not true of Cuba. The same case in Zimbabwe. When these countries were repressing their populations without actively attacking them, they were allowed to continue trading with whoever, with occasional arms sanctions. This is not true of Cuba.

NWO Sentryman said:
Antoher key difference between US and Russian nukes is the fact that the Russian nukes were aimed directly at the US, while the US nukes were meant for battlefield deployments and meant to be a force multiplier.
Click to expand...

How exactly do you aim a tube in the ground that points directly upwards? Still, if you can prove it, feel free to.
 
Last edited:
stokes234 said:
How did he risk the world any more than america risked the world by installing nukes in a position from which they could reach most of populated russia?



Distance doesn't matter, whether or not they were in range matters. America had missiles in range of russia before russia tried to put missiles in range of america.



How?



Prove it, and even if you can, explain why it matters.



North Korea are not embargoed, they are under sanctions, and they are also actively hostile to other countries. This is not true of Cuba. Sanctions were only levied against Libya when Ghadaffi started actively attacking his population, something not true of Cuba. The same case in Zimbabwe. When these countries were repressing their populations without actively attacking them, they were allowed to continue trading with whoever, with occasional arms sanctions. This is not true of Cuba.



How exactly do you aim a tube in the ground that points directly upwards? Still, if you can prove it, feel free to.
Click to expand...

america is a 'do as i say, not as i do' kinda nation.
double standards abound.

america has nukes in eastern europe, and have had for decades.
 
At the end of the day, it was a war and Communism lost. Aren't we all glad Communism lost?
 
Virus said:
At the end of the day, it was a war and Communism lost. Aren't we all glad Communism lost?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that knowledge would be a huge tasty bowl of comfort to the tens of thousands of people who democratically voted for Allende, and then got tortured in prisons by Pinochet.
 
Are you aware that Allende planned to outright steal several copper mines worth billions of dollars? Democratically elected or not when you plan to do things like that you'd better think the country that represents their owners are going to become your enemies.
 
Travis said:
Are you aware that Allende planned to outright steal several copper mines worth billions of dollars? Democratically elected or not when you plan to do things like that you'd better think the country that represents their owners are going to become your enemies.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the fact that multinational corporations were protected and the money was prevented from being transferred to average workers is a great comfort to Pinochet's torture victims.
 
The Communists killed a hell of a lot more people than the South American juntas did.
 
Travis said:
Are you aware that Allende planned to outright steal several copper mines worth billions of dollars? Democratically elected or not when you plan to do things like that you'd better think the country that represents their owners are going to become your enemies.
Click to expand...

resources belong to the people.
he was not planning on 'stealing' anything.
nationalizing resources is the first logical step of a socialist government.
surely the 'owners' of the mines had made their fortunes,
and since the government is going to need experienced people to best manage the resource for the people,
the former 'owners' would be the likely choice.
 
"Make love not war". Please go and tell the Islamic jihadists who started the War on Terror that.
 
That would be irrelevant. Since those things were not literal wars.
 
stokes234 said:
I'm sure the fact that multinational corporations were protected and the money was prevented from being transferred to average workers is a great comfort to Pinochet's torture victims.
Click to expand...

Anaconda had invested billions of dollars into making those mines viable. They had to construct railroads, dams and aqueducts in the middle of the Atacama Desert. After they had spent all that money to get at the copper Allende wanted to seize them without compensating them.

But you think this is alright because they were a huge company? So it's okay to just steal the fruits of their investment?
 
Travis said:
Anaconda had invested billions of dollars into making those mines viable. They had to construct railroads, dams and aqueducts in the middle of the Atacama Desert. After they had spent all that money to get at the copper Allende wanted to seize them without compensating them.

But you think this is alright because they were a huge company? So it's okay to just steal the fruits of their investment?
Click to expand...

As far as i'm concerned, buildings and infrastructure within a country are the property of that country. Maybe with the exception of embassies. According to the wiki, Allende's position on nationalising the mines wasn't a fringe position, he ran with it as part of his manifesto in the 1970 election (as did the CDP), and the vote on making it law passed unanimously through the chilean congress.

To me, that's slightly dodgy, but my utilitarian side allows me to say that on balance, the good that will have come from the transfer of wealth from rich american businessmen to poor chilean workers outweighs any qualms I have about the theft by a government of infrastructure within it's own borders. Now, you may disagree, but you're going to have a hell of a job if you want to convince me that the chilean nationalisation of copper justified helping to foment a military coup that resulted in, as mentioned previously, thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of people tortured, and hundreds of thousands arrested.

Of course, Allende didn't have a leg to stand on if he wanted to complain about lack of foreign investment in chile afterwards, but he took that risk and as the elected president with popular support behind the policy, that was his right.
 
Last edited:
Allende chose to go Commie, which was a stupid idea knowing that the US had a policy of containment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom