Jump to content

#trudeaueulogies


Life
 Share

Recommended Posts

Fundamental difference-the dronebomb targets, although still a crime, are not US citizens. Castro made life hell for quite a considerable number of Cuban citizens.

So a crime is less abhorrent if it's being commited against the people of other countries. Gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So a crime is less abhorrent if it's being commited against the people of other countries. Gotcha.

Not less abhorrent, but rather, the difference between an evil person that however acts as a functional leader for his people; and a tyrant that opresses the people he's ruling over. The former is a monster that is doing his job and as such can be considered a 'good leader' (if a terrible person), while the latter can and should be condemned in both aspects.

Its the same reasoning under which I classify Genghis Khan as a great leader for his people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama's job is to murder civilians in Pakistan and Jemen?

No but his job isn't to care about them more than the American people or even on the same level.

This is going to sound cold and callous but if murdering citizens in Pakistan meant protecting basic human freedoms in America, then there is a (weak) moral justification for doing so as President of the United States. That's obviously not ideal but any leader should put their own sovereign nation before anyone else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murdering civilians in Pakistan does not protect basic human rights in the USA.

If those civilians in Pakistan wanted to spread an ideology to the USA which would be inherently at odds with rights like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, then yes. Murdering Pakistanis would then protect basic freedoms in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not the case so the murder of those civilians achieves nothing.

Therefore it's pointless killing of innocent people [assuming something like a 'good' or 'right' way of killing people even exists].

Therefore <insert random post WWII - US presditent> is guilty of massmurder.

Therefore they've commited crimes comparable to, if not worse, than Castro's.

Therefore none of them deserves any praise whatsoever upon their death.

Therefore singling out Trudeau, thought technicall not wrong, is rather lame or unconvincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right that it would be impossible, whether it be in the past or present. However, I have no qualms about disliking Castro because of what he did. Imagine how much it would suck if you had to censor yourself, on pain of death.

I can probably do that after some searching, but there sure as hell are world leaders that violate human rights less than Castro. Some human rights are actually important, some aren't. Freedom of movement, which all world leaders violate because you can't go to Syria? Unimportant. Freedom of thought? Less so.

do you think i like castro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you think i like castro

Is your name Justin Trudeau?

If you answered no to the above question, then no, we don't. But we also think that it is disingenuous to handwave Castro's crimes in his own country "in retrospect to other leaders".

There is a reason why people don't debate who was the less terrible ruler between Pol Pot or Nero (for example). It doesn't achieve anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If those civilians in Pakistan wanted to spread an ideology to the USA which would be inherently at odds with rights like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, then yes. Murdering Pakistanis would then protect basic freedoms in the USA.

They don't. What are you rambling about this time?

If any of them, the ones that leave don't want to do this, because they want to escape from the bullshit that is Pakistani politics. You're overestimating the effect that civilians in a third world nation would have on freedom of speech and religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

castro revolutionized medicine, education (he basically made cuba literate), and other social policies that cuba desperately needed. his pre-revolution actions are very worth reading into and mostly why myself (and my friend) can sympathize with castro (but absolutely not support him). castro throwing freedom of speech to the wind and murdering his political opponents was seen as necessary to him, as his revolution couldn't have happened otherwise. the united states put far too much pressure on the cuban state. the united states really was a huge asshole to the rest of the world in a lot of ways (especially latin america and asia) in the cold war.

Have you ever talked to anyone who lived in Castro's Cuba? Why do you think there are so many people who risk their lives running from there?

Actually, I'm not even talking about emigrating to a first world country like the USA. Here in Brazil we have a medical exchange program with Cuba. You know what's the biggest fear of most Cubans taking part in it? Being forced to go back to Cuba. This is Brazil. Not the USA, not the UK, not Australia, not Sweden, not France. I repeat. Brazil. There are plenty of Cubans that came here and are terrified of going to back their socialist paradise and would rather stay in this third world country in deep recession. And don't think they're being well paid. They're underpaid compared to brazilian physicians and most of their salary stays with the Cuban government. They're not sent to big cities or the richest part of Brazil either. Those are people who work in the poor interior of the Northeast or in the middle of the Amazon rainforest. Yet, they'd still take that over the socialist paradise without thinking twice.

BTW, Cuba, like any other dictatorship is famous for their make up. Of course someone who goes to Cuba as a tourist only sees what the government wants them to see.

I don't know why so many leftists feel the need to sugarcoat Cuba. You can defend what you believe in without needing to praise a failed State or saying that an awful, oppressive dictator is "not that bad".

As we can see, there are plenty of people in the USA who are willing to claim Castro was not "that bad". A total ZERO of them are Cuban Americans.

You're a smart dude, I honestly expected more from you, seriously.

Edited by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't. What are you rambling about this time?If any of them, the ones that leave don't want to do this, because they want to escape from the bullshit that is Pakistani politics. You're overestimating the effect that civilians in a third world nation would have on freedom of speech and religion.

I was making a point through hyperbole.

The point is that it is not the job of the leader of the US to put the citizens of any other country above his own or to even equalize them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not whataboutism. i think castro is a fascinating ruler to look at (in addition to genghis khan, actually), and writing him off as just another crazy is a disservice to history itself. he's one of those people where understanding why he made the decisions he did matters. i don't think castro is 100% bad. more like 90-95%, making the 5-10% very interesting. i don't know much about nero, admittedly, but castro, i think, is different from "known evils" like pol pot, stalin, hitler, zedong, etc. i would say lenin is different from the rest of the pack too.

the united states fought for the silencing of leftist ideologies in various forms for decades, and had two distinct red-hunt events in its history. a history ridden with secret missions and assassination attempts to silence world leaders. the concept of manifest destiny, in retrospect, is disgusting. why don't we see jackson as a monster? or do we?

Edited by Phoenix Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not whataboutism. i think castro is a fascinating ruler to look at (in addition to genghis khan, actually), and writing him off as just another crazy is a disservice to history itself. he's one of those people where understanding why he made the decisions he did matters. i don't think castro is 100% bad. more like 90-95%, making the 5-10% very interesting. i don't know much about nero, admittedly, but castro, i think, is different from "known evils" like pol pot, stalin, hitler, zedong, etc. i would say lenin is different from the rest of the pack too.

the united states fought for the silencing of leftist ideologies in various forms for decades, and had two distinct red-hunt events in its history. a history ridden with secret missions and assassination attempts to silence world leaders. the concept of manifest destiny, in retrospect, is disgusting. why don't we see jackson as a monster? or do we?

For your last question, I think Jackson was a bad person. His history speaks for himself.

But to say "the United States has fought to silence leftist ideologies" is disingenuous when those leftist ideologies are fascism and communism. If the US was trying to silence leftists, why haven't they silenced Canada?

Probably because Canada didn't attempt to nuke the USA a mere four years after a violent revolution.

Edit: Meant four.

Castro is fascinating to look at. So is Pol Pot and Mussolini. I say that complete honestly. But you can't attempt to sweep their brutal regimes under the rug.

Edited by Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For your last question, I think Jackson was a bad person. His history speaks for himself.

But to say "the United States has fought to silence leftist ideologies" is disingenuous when those leftist ideologies are fascism and communism. If the US was trying to silence leftists, why haven't they silenced Canada?

Probably because Canada didn't attempt to nuke the USA a mere two years after a violent revolution.

The US has overthrown many democratically elected peaceful governments and installed and backed fascist (not a leftist ideology, whatever that means lmao, especially funny if you're talking about that dogshit horseshoe theory silliness redditors like to bring up) dictatorships that have executed tens of thousands of people for opposing the regime in South and Central America.

I'm just gonna ignore the Canada comments since that's just plain ridiculous.

edit: you really seem to like reducing historical complexity to inane hyperbolic dichotomies. As one sweaty, coked up slovenian man would say: mein gott... PURE IDEOLOGY...

edit 2: to be fair i wouldn't be surprised if you only selectively cared about the mass execution of political dissenters considering you're our very own resident genocidal maniac though

Edited by fuccboi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For your last question, I think Jackson was a bad person. His history speaks for himself.

But to say "the United States has fought to silence leftist ideologies" is disingenuous when those leftist ideologies are fascism and communism. If the US was trying to silence leftists, why haven't they silenced Canada?

Probably because Canada didn't attempt to nuke the USA a mere four years after a violent revolution.

Edit: Meant four.

Castro is fascinating to look at. So is Pol Pot and Mussolini. I say that complete honestly. But you can't attempt to sweep their brutal regimes under the rug.

Related to what Fuccboi said, you could also look at the treatment of it's own citizens i.e. all the shitty things the FBI did to MLK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not whataboutism. i think castro is a fascinating ruler to look at (in addition to genghis khan, actually), and writing him off as just another crazy is a disservice to history itself. he's one of those people where understanding why he made the decisions he did matters. i don't think castro is 100% bad. more like 90-95%, making the 5-10% very interesting. i don't know much about nero, admittedly, but castro, i think, is different from "known evils" like pol pot, stalin, hitler, zedong, etc. i would say lenin is different from the rest of the pack too.

the united states fought for the silencing of leftist ideologies in various forms for decades, and had two distinct red-hunt events in its history. a history ridden with secret missions and assassination attempts to silence world leaders. the concept of manifest destiny, in retrospect, is disgusting. why don't we see jackson as a monster? or do we?

I think a lot of what separates Castro and other modern dictators from historical figures like Nero or Ghengis Khan is that there's still people around who were directly affected by their rule.

It's hard to have an objective discussion on the pros and cons of regimes like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, because even though it will soon no longer be the case, there are still people around today who had to live through it and are sensitive to any attempt to put anything they did in a positive light. My experience is limited, but I've never met a single Cuban who had anything positive to say about Castro. Healthcare is the "trains on time" claim for Cuba, and sacrificing freedom of speech and protest is a heavy price to pay for healthcare, which is even a thing most other countries do better than Cuba without the totalitarianism. For all the things Putin has done, at least he's popular with Russians. There are far better examples of left leaning countries and trying to put Cuba in the same box as the Nordic countries makes everybody on the left look bad.

I understand what you mean by trying to be strictly objective in your analysis, and there may be some 5% good part to Castro, but you sometimes have to pick your battles, and he was so overwhelmingly a tyrant that any attempts to put him in a good light just makes it harder when you want to be subjective on someone who is legitimately a bit more on the gray side of history. Perhaps 20 or 30 years from now, we could have a truly objective discussion on Castro, once the Cuban expatriates are done celebrating his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not just MLK, but the entire black population was treated like hell for most of the 20th century for the purpose of furthering political agenda, and to some extent still is, but this thread really isn't about race relations in the us lol.

It was less about race relations and more about opposition to left-leaning movements (Civil Rights) and treatment of it's own citizens. I could also bring up Japanese Internment Camps, Snowden/NSA Monitoring ETC.

There's also this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to say "the United States has fought to silence leftist ideologies" is disingenuous when those leftist ideologies are fascism and communism. If the US was trying to silence leftists, why haven't they silenced Canada?

Edit: Meant four.

Castro is fascinating to look at. So is Pol Pot and Mussolini. I say that complete honestly. But you can't attempt to sweep their brutal regimes under the rug.

fascism isn't a leftist ideology.

i'm not sweeping any regimes under the rug lol.

The US has overthrown many democratically elected peaceful governments and installed and backed fascist (not a leftist ideology, whatever that means lmao, especially funny if you're talking about that dogshit horseshoe theory silliness redditors like to bring up) dictatorships that have executed tens of thousands of people for opposing the regime in South and Central America.

I'm just gonna ignore the Canada comments since that's just plain ridiculous.

edit: you really seem to like reducing historical complexity to inane hyperbolic dichotomies. As one sweaty, coked up slovenian man would say: mein gott... PURE IDEOLOGY...

edit 2: to be fair i wouldn't be surprised if you only selectively cared about the mass execution of political dissenters considering you're our very own resident genocidal maniac though

confusingly, by leftist ideology, i mean socialism, communism, marxism, etc. i should have said so.

I think a lot of what separates Castro and other modern dictators from historical figures like Nero or Ghengis Khan is that there's still people around who were directly affected by their rule.

It's hard to have an objective discussion on the pros and cons of regimes like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, because even though it will soon no longer be the case, there are still people around today who had to live through it and are sensitive to any attempt to put anything they did in a positive light. My experience is limited, but I've never met a single Cuban who had anything positive to say about Castro. Healthcare is the "trains on time" claim for Cuba, and sacrificing freedom of speech and protest is a heavy price to pay for healthcare, which is even a thing most other countries do better than Cuba without the totalitarianism. For all the things Putin has done, at least he's popular with Russians. There are far better examples of left leaning countries and trying to put Cuba in the same box as the Nordic countries makes everybody on the left look bad.

I understand what you mean by trying to be strictly objective in your analysis, and there may be some 5% good part to Castro, but you sometimes have to pick your battles, and he was so overwhelmingly a tyrant that any attempts to put him in a good light just makes it harder when you want to be subjective on someone who is legitimately a bit more on the gray side of history. Perhaps 20 or 30 years from now, we could have a truly objective discussion on Castro, once the Cuban expatriates are done celebrating his death.

good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not whataboutism. i think castro is a fascinating ruler to look at (in addition to genghis khan, actually), and writing him off as just another crazy is a disservice to history itself. he's one of those people where understanding why he made the decisions he did matters. i don't think castro is 100% bad. more like 90-95%, making the 5-10% very interesting. i don't know much about nero, admittedly, but castro, i think, is different from "known evils" like pol pot, stalin, hitler, zedong, etc. i would say lenin is different from the rest of the pack too.

the united states fought for the silencing of leftist ideologies in various forms for decades, and had two distinct red-hunt events in its history. a history ridden with secret missions and assassination attempts to silence world leaders. the concept of manifest destiny, in retrospect, is disgusting. why don't we see jackson as a monster? or do we?

After really taking a look at what you are saying, I think you need to fight your arguments better. You aren't explaining what you are meaning at all. From the point of view of quite a few of us here, yes it seems like you love Castro. But that isn't true. What you are saying is it's interesting to look at Castro and that you believe that the terrible things and just how evil the man was overshadows some of the more interesting aspects of him. Ok, cool. I can see that. Even terrible people like Hitler are interesting to look at.

Your problem with your argument is you have been brushing off Castro's acts as nothing, when, I think, that isn't what you are intending at all. So tip for the future, make it a bit more clear what you are intending.

And on the subject of Andrew Jackson. Many people see Jackson as terrible. I am a conservative leaning independent, and I think Andrew Jackson is one of our worst presidents, the guy was a total dumbass. I also believe General Patton was terrible, the man was completely psycho and tried killing his own troops multiple times, let alone the fact that he wasn't nearly the tactical mind people say he was. At least MacArthur was a great tactician, even though he was an egotistical maniac. America is by far not perfect, but we are 10x better than places like Cuba or North Korea, and to act like we are no better only stomps on the sacrifices that people have made for this country all the way back to the founding fathers. Hell, even our founding father's weren't shining beacons of humanity and greatness, but nobody is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever talked to anyone who lived in Castro's Cuba? Why do you think there are so many people who risk their lives running from there?

Actually, I'm not even talking about emigrating to a first world country like the USA. Here in Brazil we have a medical exchange program with Cuba. You know what's the biggest fear of most Cubans taking part in it? Being forced to go back to Cuba. This is Brazil. Not the USA, not the UK, not Australia, not Sweden, not France. I repeat. Brazil. There are plenty of Cubans that came here and are terrified of going to back their socialist paradise and would rather stay in this third world country in deep recession. And don't think they're being well paid. They're underpaid compared to brazilian physicians and most of their salary stays with the Cuban government. They're not sent to big cities or the richest part of Brazil either. Those are people who work in the poor interior of the Northeast or in the middle of the Amazon rainforest. Yet, they'd still take that over the socialist paradise without thinking twice.

BTW, Cuba, like any other dictatorship is famous for their make up. Of course someone who goes to Cuba as a tourist only sees what the government wants them to see.

I don't know why so many leftists feel the need to sugarcoat Cuba. You can defend what you believe in without needing to praise a failed State or saying that an awful, oppressive dictator is "not that bad".

As we can see, there are plenty of people in the USA who are willing to claim Castro was not "that bad". A total ZERO of them are Cuban Americans.

You're a smart dude, I honestly expected more from you, seriously.

You can blame US embargo for all of this, it's not totally Fidel Castro's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can blame US embargo for all of this, it's not totally Fidel Castro's fault.

The embargo was a bad policy, but it's not all the embargo's fault. State abolishing private property and controlling all the production has systematically led to shortages and the exact sort of economic problems Cuba faces.

Also, as far as I know, the embargo didn't force Fidel Castro to control the island with an iron fist, neither did it force him to suppress anyone who voices any dissidence. It didn't force him to forbid any sort of free media. It didn't prevent him from organizing free elections, which he never did.

The embargo was actually a much needed scapegoat for Fidel Castro to pretend the misery Cuba goes through wasn't his fault. It was such a bad policy.

Edited by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...