• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Chavez gets huge applause in Copehagen

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
I want to point out what I think is important to remember in this.

The problem isn't the bailouts, once the choice was between bailout or financial collapse.

The government did what it had to do.

The problem is the Reagan, Clinton, Bush policies of doing what Wall Street wanted, of de-regulation, that allowed the nation to get in the situation of having to choose bailout or collapse.

Our nation should have not let Wall Street run government policy, and had government representing the public interest, by regulating Wall Street so its activities were within boundaries and not 'too big to fail'.

Had we done that, Wall Street would have had the role it has in the past and that it should have, of greasing the wheels of the economy and making 10% of the nation's profits.

Looking at the bailouts as the problem is lilke studying Hitler's mistakes starting when the allies entered Berlin.
I don't agree. The terrorism that banks did back in 08' "pay us or else" should have been meet with a 100% take over of their assets and companies like "Prompt Corrective Action" law demands not bailing out. Prison for fraud for it's executives in stead of financial rewards and appointments. Rewarding failure is a sure fire way to get more failure and there is quite contrary opinion whether economic doomsday would have happened anyway. We are far from out of the woods yet and these companies are just as leveraged and pulling similar shenanigans as before. I think after 2010 is done you will have a very different view that they were too big to fail as they will fail anyway.

I agree with sensible regulation born out of the great depression and wiped out with 40 years of crony capitalism aka fascism. Until those measures are fully implemented again money is not used/directed in optimum way hurting economic production, tax payers will continue being on the hook for investment bank speculation gone awry (privatizing gains socialising loses), and economy can not recover.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Roosevelt: "We will not get involved in Europes war"

Day after Germany declared war on you, what the fuck were you sissy twats going to do? Say no thank you mein shöne Hitler? Well, you did that before but then the Japanese bombed you so...

Saved our arse? Not bloody likely, you were under attack and declared war upon, that is the ONLY reason you ever got involved, it wasn't to save anyone and the Jews were not even allowed to leave the boats at harbour in the US (thank god or i'd be an American Jew who needs a loaded gun to go grocery shopping).

Again, you are living evidence of why people outside the US view US citisens as morons.

It might work in the movies and please feel free to join me in Afghanistan on the 10'th.

Naturally, you are like the rest of your kind, comfy at your computer and happy that other men do the job you never had the guts to do.
JoS, most of these comments are not to your post, most of which has valid points I picked it as one of several on the topic.

One reminder for our post, it wasn't just the US, all of Europe ws refusing to take Jews. Hitler's initial plan, and his policy for some time early on, was to deport them; it was when no one would take more Jews that the Holocaust began as the next 'deportation'. Obviously, this does not let Hitler off the hook in any way for the Holocaust, it just notes that you singled out the US on that issue for something everyone did.

To support yuour other point, the US public was strongly against entry into the war before Pearl Harbor. There's good and bad to that.

Right when the public had learned a lot of good lessons about war finally, how corrupt it generally is and not to let the fat cats pursue unjust war, along comes someone who demands just war, Hitler.

The US has never really recovered - it's been a more millitarized nation ever since, where pretty much any war has been sold somewhat like a repeat of war against Hitler.

Indeed in one case, very explicitly so - Clinton's Bosnian war in which a US ad agency was hired by Croatia to build public support for the war and they did so by portraying Milosevich as Hitler and his Muslim victims as the Jews, and the Muslims there had a policy to attack soft targets like police to try to prompt a big reaction by Milosevich that could be pointed to to say "see, he's a monster!" And it worked just as they wanted.

Funny enough, that's why bin Laden did 9/11 - it wasn't about hurting the US, it was about wanting to get Muslikms united against the US by baiting the US into invading a Muslim nation, which bin Laden was convinced would create massive unity among Muslims against the west and help his tiny irrelevant group get a lot of power. Bush of course accomodated him not only with Afganistan the world was ok with, but Iraq.

To bring it full circle, that was really the policy of the FDR government too, they hoped Japan would fire the first shot to give the US something to change public opinion on - but they thought that would be some minor attack across the ocean (much like Lincoln used the small battle he triggered to get the South to attck first at Fort Sumter), they never considered the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor. I could quote confidential documents at the time showing this, but for now I'll just state it.

(Interesting book if anyone wants to read for themselves: "For the President's Eyes Only" is a book covering the history of how secret information has infuenced policy for the whole US history, using de-classified documents to shed new light on why president after president did what they did. It has quite a few mistakes by FDR including falling for big lies by you sonofabitch Brits you are no doubt proud of).:)

It'sd absurd to try to debate which economic system is better by looking at roles in WWII. Germany was highly capitalist - many of the biggest capitalists were quite friendly with fascism, and one of the major things blocking US war with Germany was the big trade US companies did with Germany, including war supplies well into the war. Man big capitalists went so far as to praise Hitler; right-wing figure Charles Lindbergh was over in Germany getting Nazi medals for his support. Leading US capitalist Joseph Kennedy's political career ended as ambassador to England when he said Hitler would rule Englad, get used to the idea.

Ford is a good example, where US law finally forced Ford to divest its German subsidiary - which continued to support the Nazis and there was some secret coordination between the US and German branches.

Anyway, our ally and the nation who did the most to beat Germany, suffering 65% of casualties compared to 2-3% each for US, England and France, was the communist USSR. Communists in Germany were the first big enemies of Hitler, and some of his first victims that eventually included communists, Gypsies, gays (ironic given the homosexuality in his early brown shirts organization before he had them killed) and Jews.

Capitaliist leaders in the US also conspired to overthrow FDR because they didn't like his policies (see "It can't happen here" for a book on the topic of how easily fascism could reach fro Germany to the US capitalist class; the plot against FDR was thwarted because one of the invited conspirators, General Smedley Butler, exposed the plot).

China was a corrupt dictatorship I hesitate to label. Japan was a sort of capitalist authoritarian economy. It's just nonsense the debate trying to say 'WWII proves capitalism is great.'

Your comments about the US not saving Britain are partly correct but give too little credit to FDR's efforts to help England against the public's wishes. You are right to say the US public had little interest in joining the war to save England. On the other hand, though, I seem to recall the US gouging England for helping - do you recall the money England had to pay the US, I recall the discussion was along the lines of 'how much gold do you have?

The US got in the war years after Hitler was conquering Europe with pretty much only England left. Once in, the US and England delayed invading Europe - D-Day - for two years after Stalin thought they'd agreed to do so, as he felt, and it seems with justification, that the other allies were happy to let the USSR suffer the big costs against Hitler during that period. The US views D-Day as American leadership coming in to save the world, the Russians have another view more about finally coming in to grab the land at the end after they lost, what, over 15 million, with their allies already treating them like a coming enemy late in the war.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Dude.. he's an Admin in this forum.. WTF.. :sneaky:
I thought he was speaking of TheRedUnderURBed. Either way, hopefully people don't get banned just because someone thinks he/she is a moron. I doubt there are many people here that someone doesn't think is a moron.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
I don't agree. The terrorism that banks did back in 08' "pay us or else" should have been meet with a 100% take over of their assets and companies like "Prompt Corrective Action" law demands not bailing out. Prison for fraud for it's executives in stead of financial rewards and appointments. Rewarding failure is a sure fire way to get more failure and there is quite contrary opinion whether economic doomsday would have happened anyway. We are far from out of the woods yet and these companies are just as leveraged and pulling similar shenanigans as before. I think after 2010 is done you will have a very different view that they were too big to fail as they will fail anyway.

I agree with sensible regulation born out of the great depression and wiped out with 40 years of crony capitalism aka fascism. Until those measures are fully implemented again money is not used/directed in optimum way hurting economic production, tax payers will continue being on the hook for investment bank speculation gone awry (privatizing gains socialising loses), and economy can not recover.
You need to be clearer on what you disagree about, since you mainly say things I agree with.

I could make that clearer by pointing out what you say you disagree with when you disagree with my post: soy, you think there's no problem with the policies and actions by government and the finance industry before 2008, the entire problem just appeared out of nowhere, and the whole problem was the government bailing out the industry, because the government's correct response was to not bailiout and have the economyh collapse?

I don't think that's what you meant to say but it's what you said by just saying you disagree.

You probably need to read my post again and understand what I'm saying.

Let's try a simplstic analogy to help: say the govenment relaxed the rules on these nuts taking guns to presidential events, to the point they could freely do so, and after a period of militias showing up as units with rifles, finally a group aimed their rifles at Obama and took him hostage demanding ransom, and the government paid them.

My post would point at the history of allowing these people to bring guns as the problem, not paying the ransom once Obama was a hostage - and you are looking only at 'but the hostage takers are criminal'.

I'm all for criminal investigation and prosecution of the wrongdoing but remember, the industry was using its clout mainly to *legalize* its bad behavior so the criminal issue is secondary.

I am suspicious about the blackmail issue with the bailouts - but I think there was some legitimaticy to the danger that wasn't cooked up on the spot but real because of the years of bad policy where these firms got too big and their insolvency threatened the nation. That comes from years of the nation not paying any attention to how excessive these firms got and how bad their behavior - they just put their money in and didn't care. 'No regulation equals freedom for the industry to compete globally and make the public richer' was the mantra.

The problem was the failure of our government to properly regulate. The formula of ideology thinking the markets would self-regulate, blind greed, the ignorance by the public and politicians were all factors in allowing the situation to deteriorate - bubbles are fun while they're inflating. Common sense would suggest alarm as the finance industry share of profits exploded from 10-15% to 41% for an 'overhwad' industry, but where was public opinion and poliiticians' positions on massivly regulating the industry before the crash?

That's the problem. You only lookk at the bailouts, and you miss the important problem. What was the government's great decision then? If they did as you seem to suggest, you stilll destroy the economy.

We need to recognize that our system - public opinion, politicians, good ol boy network at the Fed with Wall street, free market ideology and so on - did not work, if we're going to prevent the next crash.

Look at the documnetar on the lone regulator who cried wolf and got swhut down and ignored a decade before the crash - we need next time for her to get followed. How do we do that?

IMO, new regulation and systemic reform for there to be regulators who will reach concluions like she did and have power, not get shut down by the people too cozy with Wall Street.

Obama is not doing those reforms.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
You have to read this while playing "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes" by The Platters.

http://www.ilike.com/artist/The+Platters/track/Smoke+Gets+In+Your+Eyes

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580503,00.html

Venezuela's Chavez 'Still' Smells Sulfur After Obama Speech
FOX NEWS
Friday, December 18, 2009

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said he 'still' smelled satanic sulfur after President Obama spoke at the Copenhagen climate conference Friday.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said he "still" smelled sulfur after President Obama made a keynote speech at the Copenhagen climate conference Friday, accusing the American president of carrying same satanic Chavez believes followed Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush.

Chavez, who was not included on the original list of speakers for the final day of the summit, ended the proceedings with bitter references to the Peace Prize-winning Obama as the "Nobel Prize of War."

"The Nobel Prize of War just finished saying here that he is here to act. Well, show it sir. Don't leave by the back door," he said.

Three years after Chavez likened Bush to the devil during a speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the socialist strongman tore into Obama, claiming Friday that "it still smells like sulfur in the world."

Assembled world leaders cheered on Chavez Wednesday during his first, scheduled speech, a ringing attack on all things capitalist that earned him standing ovations from leaders of the Third World.

Chavez berated developed nations for creating an "imperial dictatorship" that rules the world and urging his audience to "fight against capitalism," the "silent and terrible ghost" that was haunting the elegant conference chambers in the Danish capital.

"I promise I won't talk more than others have talked this afternoon," he said at the start of a rambling, 25-minute diatribe that outshot other speakers by a full 20 minutes. In the wide-ranging speech, he called capitalism the "road to hell" responsible for poverty, murder, AIDS — and even unfair climate agreements, the Toronto Star reported.

Calling on spiritual leaders as varied as Jesus, Muhammad and Karl Marx, Chavez bellowed that climate discussions were going on behind closed doors and draft agreements remained "top secret."

"The text presented is not democratic or inclusive," said Chavez, who has made it a practice in his native Venezuela to close opposition newspapers, radio stations and TV networks, and jails dissident politicians on spurious charges.

"It's not democratic, it's not inclusive. Well, ladies and gentlemen, isn't that the reality of the world? Are we really in a democratic world?"

Chavez regularly regales a captive audience of millions of Venezuelans on his weekly "Alo Presidente" talk shows, the marathon TV and radio sessions that give him space to rail against the bourgeoisie, excoriate the U.S. and even sing a ballad when the mood strikes.

By comparison, his Copenhagen screeds were brief, but were certainly gobbled up by many delegates in attendance who let out a nervous laugh as he attacked President Obama.

"I think Obama isn't here yet," he said Wednesday. "He got the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day as he sent 30,000 soldiers off to kill innocent people in Afghanistan.

But the commandante did manage to address climate change itself, warning of the dangers posed by the failure to rein in carbon emissions and give aid to the Third World.

"If we don't do this, then the great creation of our planet — humans — will disappear," he said. "It doesn't need us, but we can't exist without it. We're destroying it," he said — destroying mother earth."

Obama arrived in Copenhagen Friday with a large American delegation in tow, hoping to pressure China and other nations into accepting a global framework for combating climate change.

Obama and an estimated 120 world leaders converged on the city in hopes of saving the long-awaited summit from ruin by hammering out a framework deal in its closing hours. But the stormy two-week conference was marred to the end by flare-ups between the developed world and developing nations.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Let's not forget Fidel Castro, who is still not dead it seems.

I guess that Hope and Change are not working out for him either.

I can't think of a better song for this story than Herman's Hermits
”The Man With The Cigar”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k1Xzn2xRy4

Direct from the talking (?) head of the Cuban Communist Party -

http://www.escambray.cu/Eng/Special/fidel091218920

An American summary -

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b906163662d9b06fc3c89eb53b5da4fe.831&show_article=1

Castro mocks Obama visit to Copenhagen
AFP
Dec 18 03:38 PM US/Eastern

Veteran Cuban leader Fidel Castro on Friday dismissed US President Barack Obama's trip to UN climate change talks in Copenhagen as a "show," and complained that the world's poor will shoulder the burden of any summit agreement.

Castro's opinion article, titled "The Moment of Truth," also criticizes the "fascist methods" used by Danish police to put down protesting environmental activists.

"It is already evident that a great catastrophe threatens our species," wrote Castro, 82.

Perhaps the worst part of the summit "is blind selfishness of a rich and privileged minority that intents to impose the bulk of the necessary sacrifices on the immense majority of planet inhabitants," Castro wrote.

He opined that "for the chiefs of the empire (the United States), despite their maneuvers and cynical lies, the moment of truth is arriving. Their own allies believe them less and less."

In the article, which appeared in government-run media, Castro quotes at length leftist Bolivian President Evo Morales and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who both spoke at the summit.

The former Cuban president, who still leads the Cuban Communist Party, earlier criticized Obama for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and lashed out at his climate policies, accusing the US president of not fighting the "oligarchy of irresponsibly" who are opposing change.

"Obama is not ignorant. Like (Al) Gore, he knows the grave danger that threatens everyone, but he vacillates and is weak in the face of a blind and irresponsible oligarchy in that country," Castro wrote in an editorial published December 9.

Castro has not appeared in public since he underwent major intestinal surgery more than three years ago. His brother Raul became interim president in 2006, and took over the presidency in February 2008.
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
0
0
Darn it, PJABBER beat me to both Chavez still smelling sulfur after Obama and Castro being none too happy with Obama. :(:p
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
You need to be clearer on what you disagree about, since you mainly say things I agree with.

I could make that clearer by pointing out what you say you disagree with when you disagree with my post: soy, you think there's no problem with the policies and actions by government and the finance industry before 2008, the entire problem just appeared out of nowhere, and the whole problem was the government bailing out the industry, because the government's correct response was to not bailiout and have the economyh collapse?

I don't think that's what you meant to say but it's what you said by just saying you disagree.

You probably need to read my post again and understand what I'm saying.

Let's try a simplstic analogy to help: say the govenment relaxed the rules on these nuts taking guns to presidential events, to the point they could freely do so, and after a period of militias showing up as units with rifles, finally a group aimed their rifles at Obama and took him hostage demanding ransom, and the government paid them.

My post would point at the history of allowing these people to bring guns as the problem, not paying the ransom once Obama was a hostage - and you are looking only at 'but the hostage takers are criminal'.

I'm all for criminal investigation and prosecution of the wrongdoing but remember, the industry was using its clout mainly to *legalize* its bad behavior so the criminal issue is secondary.

I am suspicious about the blackmail issue with the bailouts - but I think there was some legitimaticy to the danger that wasn't cooked up on the spot but real because of the years of bad policy where these firms got too big and their insolvency threatened the nation. That comes from years of the nation not paying any attention to how excessive these firms got and how bad their behavior - they just put their money in and didn't care. 'No regulation equals freedom for the industry to compete globally and make the public richer' was the mantra.

The problem was the failure of our government to properly regulate. The formula of ideology thinking the markets would self-regulate, blind greed, the ignorance by the public and politicians were all factors in allowing the situation to deteriorate - bubbles are fun while they're inflating. Common sense would suggest alarm as the finance industry share of profits exploded from 10-15% to 41% for an 'overhwad' industry, but where was public opinion and poliiticians' positions on massivly regulating the industry before the crash?

That's the problem. You only lookk at the bailouts, and you miss the important problem. What was the government's great decision then? If they did as you seem to suggest, you stilll destroy the economy.

We need to recognize that our system - public opinion, politicians, good ol boy network at the Fed with Wall street, free market ideology and so on - did not work, if we're going to prevent the next crash.

Look at the documnetar on the lone regulator who cried wolf and got swhut down and ignored a decade before the crash - we need next time for her to get followed. How do we do that?

IMO, new regulation and systemic reform for there to be regulators who will reach concluions like she did and have power, not get shut down by the people too cozy with Wall Street.

Obama is not doing those reforms.
Craig - I meant to say I disagree with the point you made about bailouts being necessary during the banking hostage crisis. I know our mainstream economists said it was, the same mainstreamers that fought for years of deregulation, outsourceing and pretty much anything else that benefited stock price and corp bottom lines, but consider the source!

What was interesting at the time was that it was economists from the left and right who were saying bad idea, while it was the 'moderate mainstream economists' who wanted to rescue the banks. I'm always quite sure it's good sign when both extremes agree.
 
Last edited:

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,703
49
91
no surprise. the eco-KOOKS hate capitalism and love dictators and "presidents for life" like chavez and castro,Idi Amin,baby doc duvalier. name any dictator or president for life and the eco-KOOKS will be on their knees mesmerized.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I have just tuned up both my cross country and my downhill skis and unpacked my brand new parka in anticipation of the worst snow dump Washington DC has seen in years.

I warned y'all months ago that this AGW is worth less than a bucket of warm spit. I told you to get ready for a real Winter. Did you listen? Noooooo!

While the eco-kooks in the West and the Mid-West got their share of some nice powder (hell, you could ski the drifts!) likely as a result of all the hot air originating there, it is now the Mid-Atlantic's turn to enjoy all of this anthropogenic global cooling, er, I mean warming! The 14-16 inch snow dump forecast for this weekend coupled with no snow removal capacity whatsoever will lock this city up for the next four or five days at least. And maybe, just maybe, keep Obama in Copenhagen and send Congress home as well for an early Christmas present to the nation.

I'm planning to Jeep it up to the PA ski slopes, if they're open, for some half pipe. If not, my family and I are taking cross country skis (and two flasks of the Martell Cordon Bleu the wife has been saving up) down Pennsylvania Avenue. I hope they will have power to light up the National Christmas Tree as I especially love night skiing in blizzards and that will be a sight to see.
 
Last edited:

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
no surprise. the eco-KOOKS hate capitalism and love dictators and "presidents for life" like chavez and castro,Idi Amin,baby doc duvalier. name any dictator or president for life and the eco-KOOKS will be on their knees mesmerized.

You should work for Fox news you are so full of it. The main supporters of dictators have been the right wing. Stroessner, Marcos, Pinochet, China, etc.. all supported by Republican administrations.
----------------------
I have a vision. On the day that Ronald Reagan's remains are transported from the U.S. Capitol to the National Cathedral for the funeral services, the hearse will pass 800 black crosses.

Each cross will represent one of the men, women and children who were killed by the Salvadoran military in the village of El Mozote in December 1981. Each would be a reminder that the dead man now celebrated in the media as a lover of freedom and democracy oversaw a foreign policy that empowered and enabled murderous brutes and thugs in the name of anti-Sovietism. Many innocents in other lands paid dearly for Reagan’s crusade.

Throughout his presidency, Reagan made nice with dictators—no matter how nefarious—as long as they parroted his opposition to communism. As soon as he entered the White House, his administration tried to normalize relations with Augusto Pinochet, the dictator of Chile, who was responsible for a bloody coup that overthrew a democratically elected (but socialist) government. The Reaganites also cozied up to the fascistic and anti-Semitic junta of Argentina, which tortured, slaughtered and disappeared its political opponents. And don’t forget Reagan’s attempt to woo Saddam Hussein, even after it was known that Hussein had used chemical weapons. (Reagan assigned this task to Donald Rumsfeld.)

Reagan may have pushed for democracy and human rights in the Soviet bloc, but he cared little for these values elsewhere. He dramatically urged the destruction of the Berlin Wall and supported the Solidarity movement in Poland. But he sent money and assistance to regimes that repressed and murdered their people. While visiting Ferdinand Marcos, the Filipino dictator, Reagan’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, toasted Marcos' "adherence to democratic principles." People lost their freedom or died because Reagan and his lieutenants could not see beyond their ideological blinders and cut deals with miscreants who shared their anti-Moscow mantra. Not only did Reagan embolden torturers and murders, but the CIA—following his order to support the contra rebels in Nicaragua (who were trying to oust the socialist Sandinistas)—worked with suspected drug traffickers. Who said so? Not conspiracy-theory nuts, but the inspector general of the CIA. Years after the contra war, the agency’s IG produced two reports that conceded the CIA had enlisted the assistance of alleged drug runners. At the same time Nancy Reagan was preaching “Just Say No” to drugs.

As I noted in this column a few months ago—when there was a media hullabaloo over a schlocky biopic of Reagan—Reagan was AWOL on one of the important battles for freedom and democracy in the 1980s: South Africa. He defended the racist apartheid government there and claimed—as wrongly as could be—that South Africa had "eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country." And when Republicans and Democrats joined together in Congress to impose economic sanctions on the government of South Africa, Reagan vetoed the measure. In response to that veto, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a leader of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, said, "Apartheid will be dismantled, and its victims will remember those who helped to destroy this evil system. And President Reagan will be judged harshly by history." Not this week.

The El Mozote episode is, sadly, only one example of violence borne of Reagan’s foreign policy. The troops that did the killing were supported by his administration because they were fighting leftist rebels. A 1992 report produced by a UN-sanctioned truth commission described the awful event:

"On 10 December 1981, in the village of El Mozote in the Department of Morazan, units of the Atlacatl Battalion detained, without resistance, all the men, women and children who were in the place…. Early next morning, 11 December, the soldiers reassembled the entire population in the square. They separated the men from the women and children and locked everyone up in different groups in the church, the convent and various houses."


"During the morning, they proceeded to interrogate, torture and execute the men in various locations. Around noon, they began taking the women in groups, separating them from their children and machine-gunning them. Finally, they killed the children. A group of children who had been locked in the convent were machine-gunned through the windows. After exterminating the entire population, the soldiers set fire to the buildings."

The report noted that "the Atlacatl Battalion was a ‘Rapid Deployment Infantry Battalion’ or BIRI,’ that is, a unit specially trained for ‘counter-insurgency’ warfare. It was the first unit of its kind in the [El Salvadoran] armed forces and had completed its training under the supervision of United States military advisors, at the beginning of that year, 1981."

When two reporters—Raymond Bonner of The New York Times and Alma Guillermoprieto of The Washington Post —reported the massacre in January 1982, the Reagan administration denied it had occurred. Reagan’s point-man on Latin America, Elliott Abrams, told Congress that these reports were no more than commie propaganda. That is, he lied. (Today, Abrams, that lover of truth and human rights, is a staff member on Bush’s National Security Council responsible for Middle East matters.) A forensic investigation conducted in the early 1990s proved that the massacre had happened. And the truth commission’s report noted that "two hundred forty-five cartridge cases recovered from the El Mozote site were studied. Of these, 184 had discernable headstamps, identifying the ammunition as having been manufactured for the United States Government at Lake City, Missouri. ...All of the projectiles except one appear to have been fired from United States-manufactured M-16 rifles."

Thanks to Ronald Reagan, American tax dollars supported the murder of hundreds of El Salvadoran villagers. And the UN-backed commission, after examining 22,000 atrocities that occurred during the 12-year civil war in El Salvador, attributed 85 percent of the abuses to the Reagan-assisted right-wing military and its death-squad allies. Similar patterns transpired in Guatemala and Honduras in the 1980s.

The El Mozote massacre, though perhaps the largest massacre in modern Latin American history, is a minor footnote in the history of the Cold War, but it is, as writer Mark Danner, author of The Massacre at El Mozote , observed, "a central parable of the Cold War." It is also a telling tale of Reaganism. The lives of the people butchered in this small village by U.S.-trained troops were worth as much of that of the man whose body now lays in a casket draped with the Stars and Stripes. Media commentators have been hailing Reagan as heroic, iconic, patriotic and optimistic figure who led an "American life." It was indeed an American life, but one with lethal consequences for others. That is as important a piece of the Reagan story—if not more so—as his oh-so-sunny and cheery outlook.

I doubt the villagers of El Mozote were thinking about Reagan’s wonderful disposition when made-in-the-USA bullets supplied to their killers by the U.S. government, in accordance with Reagan’s foreign policy, were piercing their bodies and ending their non-American lives.


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reagans_bloody_legacy.php
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Roosevelt: "We will not get involved in Europes war"

Day after Germany declared war on you, what the fuck were you sissy twats going to do? Say no thank you mein shöne Hitler? Well, you did that before but then the Japanese bombed you so...

Saved our arse? Not bloody likely, you were under attack and declared war upon, that is the ONLY reason you ever got involved, it wasn't to save anyone and the Jews were not even allowed to leave the boats at harbour in the US (thank god or i'd be an American Jew who needs a loaded gun to go grocery shopping).

Again, you are living evidence of why people outside the US view US citisens as morons.

It might work in the movies and please feel free to join me in Afghanistan on the 10'th.

Naturally, you are like the rest of your kind, comfy at your computer and happy that other men do the job you never had the guts to do.
Such is the price of our isolationist policy.

For whatever reasons we went to war, we saved your asses.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
You should work for Fox news you are so full of it. The main supporters of dictators have been the right wing. Stroessner, Marcos, Pinochet, China, etc.. all supported by Republican administrations.
----------------------
I have a vision. On the day that Ronald Reagan's remains are transported from the U.S. Capitol to the National Cathedral for the funeral services, the hearse will pass 800 black crosses.

SNIP

I doubt the villagers of El Mozote were thinking about Reagan’s wonderful disposition when made-in-the-USA bullets supplied to their killers by the U.S. government, in accordance with Reagan’s foreign policy, were piercing their bodies and ending their non-American lives.


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reagans_bloody_legacy.php
We get it, you hate Republicans, conservatives, and everyone else not batshit crazy left. But even you would have to admit that the innocents murdered by right wing leaders is but a fraction of those killed by left wing leaders. Stalin and Mao (that favorite "philosopher" of White House czars) alone each murdered more people than all right wing leaders combined.

By the way, that lovely rant was penned by David Corn, as left wing a comrade as you'd ever hope (or fear) to encounter, as Reagan was dying. Pretty much demonstrates his class, I'd say.
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,613
18
81
I am stunned by this.

By chance, does this mean that Copenhagen may just be filled with Western hating, globalists/socialists just looking to beat up on capitalism while pimping their old hat failed in the 70's and 80's policies.

No way that could be true, I thought that they were there for the polar bears - and to pay $10,000 to get a picture of Al Gore in from of their private jets. Or to propose global taxes and transfers of wealth. Whatever the case, I am absolutely stunned that this group of rational people would support a known dictator...
obama will feel right at home :thumbsdown:
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
We get it, you hate Republicans, conservatives, and everyone else not batshit crazy left. But even you would have to admit that the innocents murdered by right wing leaders is but a fraction of those killed by left wing leaders. Stalin and Mao (that favorite "philosopher" of White House czars) alone each murdered more people than all right wing leaders combined.

By the way, that lovely rant was penned by David Corn, as left wing a comrade as you'd ever hope (or fear) to encounter, as Reagan was dying. Pretty much demonstrates his class, I'd say.
I'm not aware of the american left actively supporting Stalin and Mao, as opposed to the American govt supporting right wing dictators such as Stroessner, Marcos and Pinochet.
Did American lefties supply Mao and Stalin with weapons and intelligence?

Did I insult your hero? Sometimes the truth hurts.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
I'm not aware of the american left actively supporting Stalin and Mao, as opposed to the American govt supporting right wing dictators such as Stroessner, Marcos and Pinochet.
Did American lefties supply Mao and Stalin with weapons and intelligence?

Did I insult your hero? Sometimes the truth hurts.
Well, we now have a president who has appointed several people who quote Mao as a "great philosopher", you figure it out. As for supporting Stalin and Mao, the American left has continuously taken their side to make sure that they could compete with the USA and to make sure that, when those countries supplied weapons to the left wing groups in Africa and South America, the American government was unable to send weapons to those right wing groups opposing them. Is that support, helping the USSR and the ChiComms obtain their goals? Sure seems so to me.

Just for grins and giggles, research Henry Wallace and the Venona papers. The American left came within a year and one sick, crippled man's heartbeat of ceding all of Europe to the Soviets, and probably happily bringing America along for the ride into Communism and slavery. Thanks to Wallace, Stalin (and often Hitler) knew American orders before they made their way down to the commanders in the field.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Well, we now have a president who has appointed several people who quote Mao as a "great philosopher", you figure it out. As for supporting Stalin and Mao, the American left has continuously taken their side to make sure that they could compete with the USA and to make sure that, when those countries supplied weapons to the left wing groups in Africa and South America, the American government was unable to send weapons to those right wing groups opposing them. Is that support, helping the USSR and the ChiComms obtain their goals? Sure seems so to me.

Just for grins and giggles, research Henry Wallace and the Venona papers. The American left came within a year and one sick, crippled man's heartbeat of ceding all of Europe to the Soviets, and probably happily bringing America along for the ride into Communism and slavery. Thanks to Wallace, Stalin (and often Hitler) knew American orders before they made their way down to the commanders in the field.
Thanks for bringing up crap from before I was born. Righties didn't want to enter WW2 and would have let Hitler take over Europe. In my lifetime, it is right wingers supporting Dictators with arms and intelligence. In Africa , you had U.S. funded terrorists attacking oil facilities guarded by marxists.

You need to quit watching Fox Noise.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Thanks for bringing up crap from before I was born. Righties didn't want to enter WW2 and would have let Hitler take over Europe. In my lifetime, it is right wingers supporting Dictators with arms and intelligence. In Africa , you had U.S. funded terrorists attacking oil facilities guarded by marxists.

You need to quit watching Fox Noise.
You did say you were unaware of the left supporting Stalin and Mao, so I assumed you had some vague idea of when they lived. My bad. You might also want to research FDR and his struggle (right or wrong) to keep the USA out of "Europe's war." Remember the New Deal? Doubtless another "rightie". Hang onto that ignorance, though, even government can't take that away from you.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I'm not aware of the american left actively supporting Stalin and Mao, as opposed to the American govt supporting right wing dictators such as Stroessner, Marcos and Pinochet.
Did American lefties supply Mao and Stalin with weapons and intelligence?

Did I insult your hero? Sometimes the truth hurts.
Are you actually that ignorant? The American Left - Communists, Socialists, New Dealers - were avid ideological supporters of the Soviets and later Mao. And the history is clear that there was quite a bit of spying done by Americans for the Soviets. Do some research on "Communist Party USA."

As far as material support goes, Americans, outside of the labor unions and academia, were generally more focused on doing business than following political distinctions. Consider that Henry Ford built a huge auto plant in Nizhni Novgorod, a deal worth a staggering forty million dollars - 1930s millions paid for in gold at the height of the Depression. No other firm in the United States or even in the world conducted as much business with Joseph Stalin than the Ford Motor Company between 1929 and 1936. But, then again, Ford and the Nazis were mutual admirers, so who knows how the politics played out in the background.

In 1941, before the United States entered the war, President Roosevelt sent $11.3 billion worth of U.S. military aid to the Soviets under the Lend-Lease program. And he did the same kind of deal with China, when the Communists and the rest of the factions were somewhat united against common enemies.

That there was little material support of Mao initially by Americans is more a case that there was no clear understanding of what was going on in the Chinese civil war and who the players might become. A bit more on the complications can be found here -

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/chinese-civil-war.htm

Subsequently, China was isolationist and there was little more than a lot of hot air and propaganda by lefties that, in fact, knew nothing about what was actually happening in China, including the joys of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. So, technically, you are right in that no arms or material support went from the American left to Mao, just propaganda support by lefties, who seem to absolutely love all sorts of mass murderers.

Lots of complications in the history and it takes a lot of reading to get understanding. I can suggest reading some books on what life was like then and who was sleeping with whom and the consequences that resulted. The first book studies the Left's historical adoption of all the wrong choices for liberty and democracy, the rest are specific to the Stalinist period and last one with a definitive history of Mao.

United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror
by Jamie Glazov

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935071602

Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million
by Martin Amis

http://www.amazon.com/Koba-Dread-Lau.../dp/1400032202

The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia
by Tim Tzouliadis

http://www.amazon.com/Forsaken-Ameri.../dp/1594201684

Mao: The Unknown Story
by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday

http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Story-Jung.../dp/0679746323
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
You did say you were unaware of the left supporting Stalin and Mao, so I assumed you had some vague idea of when they lived. My bad. You might also want to research FDR and his struggle (right or wrong) to keep the USA out of "Europe's war." Remember the New Deal? Doubtless another "rightie". Hang onto that ignorance, though, even government can't take that away from you.
He is right about the repubs back then. I wouldn't go so far as to say they were sympathetic to Hitler but they did not distance themselves and even embraced radio personalities and the typical talking points they spewed that did. (whats new?)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY