Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beyelzu · 05-19-2003, 02:46 PM

Gurdur,

I find the whole article to be so much speculation, and snide comments about the administration. I discussed the issue of invasion of cuba which I veiw to be unlikely. The article itself is hardly worth mentioning.

beyelzu · 05-19-2003, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
Well, yes, and Pope John Paul II might be a Catholic.
It has now been outlawed in the USA --- but only after 20 years' of effort by a Congresswoman. LOL, Beyelzu.
Allow me to make a colour-coded schemata of this thread, OK ?

Red for statements of fact
Blue for mordant witticisms

Gurdur opens the thread with a post linking to a news article, which discusses among other things the comments of the Cuban head of mission in the US, Dagoberto Rodriguez.

You have the choice of believing or not whether or not Gurdur cunningly did not actually breach copyright by reproducing the whole news article in order to provoke the coming train-wreck

No-one reads the article, except maybe Iamthebeerking, who objects to the source.

Just which source Iamthebeerking was objecting to is not clear. Perhaps he has something against The Guardian ?
Rodriguez ?
Simon Tisdall ?

But at least we learn Iamthebeerking has a velvet picture of a crying clown, which may or may not explain things.

zamboniavenger objects to the idea that the USA will immediately invade Cuba
because
"what would the USA get out of invading Cuba ?"

Gurdur points out that the USA has already supported an invasion of Cuba
and
much later on, Martin Buber points out that the USA made a direct invasion of Cuba way before

Beyelzu brings up the Cold War.
The charitable interpretation of Beyelzu's remark would be that the USA only promoted the Bay Of Pigs because of the Cold War, and that therefore the USA is not all that nasty, and wouldn't simply go around intervening willy-nilly in small Central American countries.

Gurdur points out Grenada, Panama etc.
i.e. the USA does go around intervening willy-nilly in small Central (and South) American countries.

zamboniavenger comes back to say that the main enemy of the USA is Islamic terrorists these days, and therefore Cuba wouldn't be intervened in.

Gurdur mentions Venezuala

At this point, we begin to notice a sad development.
Given the choice between patiently explaining things or simply giving up, suddenly Gurdur gets his evil twin to do the typing.

Gurdur plays unfair and brings up the ACTUAL ARTICLE AND WHAT IT SAYS, though sneakily Gurdur does not actually say what it says, but instead simply leaves it as a link.

At this point, we have A TRAP CLEARLY MARKED IN BRIGHT NEON ANNOUNCING "HEFFALUMP TRAP"

The first falls in; Slept2long says he really doesn't think a direct immediate invasion is likely.

Gurdur's Evil Twin plays very unfair, and points out that the article does not state an immediate invasion is likely --- in fact the article specifically states it is unlikely --- but that if Bush does go all gungho on Cuba, it might lead to a runaway process eventually leading possibly to a direct intervention sometime in the future.

There is some other little incidents along the path, but the path is clear.
Or ?

You're not being serious, are you ?

alternately, another way of looking at it is that gurdur made the highly suspect argument that the US invaded cuba once so it might do it again. I countered this argument with the fact that conditions have changed and there is no current Cuban Missile Crisis. Gurdur inserted a strawman for my own argument brought up noriega and proceeded on the 12 step ridicule your opposition plan that he is the master of:notworthy

But hey, I could be wrong.

Gurdur · 05-19-2003, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
.....
I find the whole article to be so much speculation, and snide comments about the administration.

So much for all my colour-coding.

Quote:

I discussed the issue of invasion of cuba which I veiw to be unlikely.

Do you actually have any reason to believe an eventual invasion of Cuba to be unlikely ?

A reason not already raised and refuted ?
:banghead:

Quote:

The article itself is hardly worth mentioning.

The article is mentioned in the OP title and OP, and therefore by your own rule that is what this thread is about, and therefore HOW CAN YOU BE ON THIS THREAD WHICH IS ABOUT THE POINTS RAISED IN THE ARTICLE YET THINK THE ARTICLE NOT WORTH MENTIONING ?

For some reason, I keep think Little Bighorn to myself as I happily charge around firing arrows.

beyelzu · 05-19-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
So much for all my colour-coding.

Do you actually have any reason to believe an eventual invasion of Cuba to be unlikely ?

A reason not already raised and refuted ?
:banghead:
The article is mentioned in the OP title and OP, and therefore by your own rule that is what this thread is about, and therefore HOW CAN YOU BE ON THIS THREAD WHICH IS ABOUT THE POINTS RAISED IN THE ARTICLE YET THINK THE ARTICLE NOT WORTH MENTIONING ?

For some reason, I keep think Little Bighorn to myself as I happily charge around firing arrows.

I dont see invading cuba as being in the us's national interest. What would be the point of the invasion?

just voters in florida?

I dont think the article made a rational argument just as you havent. there is no argument on the table that rationally argues that we are going to invade cuba. I must of missed that. I was engaged in the arguments concerning invading cuba. Or why I felt that was unlikely.

ultimately you linked to an editorial that is long on bullshit and short on facts. I am sorry if you found the editorial to be informative.

Gurdur · 05-19-2003, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu

alternately, another way of looking at it is that gurdur made the highly suspect argument that the US invaded cuba once so it might do it again.

But so sneakily did Gurdur's Evil Twin also mention Grenada, Panama and Venezula !
The unmitigated evil of Gurdur's Evil Twin is without parallel !

Quote:

I countered this argument with the fact that conditions have changed and there is no current Cuban Missile Crisis.

And Gurdur said, (in effect)
"So the big what ?
The USA likes intervening in small countries. The nearer to home the better !
It doesn't matter whether they're capitalist, socialist or whatever !
The USA is An Equal-Opportunity Intervener !"

Quote:

Gurdur inserted a strawman for my own argument brought up noriega and proceeded on the 12 step ridicule your opposition plan that he is the master of:notworthy

No, no, no; rather than thinking that normally rational people would SUDDENLY BEHAVE LIKE SEX-CRAZED RACOONS TRAPPED IN A BRIAR PATCH IN THE DELUSION THAT A BRAMBLE-BUSH MAKES A GOOD SEX-PARTNER,
which is highly unlikely,
it is much more likely that several people got together and said between themselves,
"Hey, what can we do for Gurdur ? Let's do something nice for Gurdur"
and then someone said,
"I know! Let's finally have an argument and let Gurdur win !
The poor dear is looking so frustrated these days !
and everyone replied,
"Great idea ! But we musn't let him know it's a fall-job, we must keep Gurdur under the illusion that he --- no matter how ludicrously unbelievable --- actually won an argument under his own steam !"
and everyone said "Wow ! Great idea!"

I prefer my own interpretation, but hey, I could be wrong.

Gurdur · 05-19-2003, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu

I dont see invading cuba as being in the us's national interest. What would be the point of the invasion?

Nope, sorry; this argument has already been raised and refuted.

Quote:

just voters in florida?

What do you mean, "just" ?
Florida voters are very important to the USA political system.

Plus of course THE ARTICLE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THERE WAS ANOTHER MARIANA (sp. ?), ANOTHER FLOOD OF REFUGEES.

Of course, the fact that the USA maintains Guatamano Bay (guess where that is ?) MIGHT have something to do with the fact that the USA regards Cuba as being a national security problem of its own.
National interest ?
BAY OF PIGS, DECADES OF SANCTIONS. WHY ?

Quote:

I dont think the article made a rational argument just as you havent. there is no argument on the table that rationally argues that we are going to invade cuba. I must of missed that.

Of course, I've also missed the rational reasons for invading Iraq, but hey, that's life.

Quote:

.... I am sorry if you found the editorial to be informative.

It's OK, I'm not picky. We think differently.

Ab_Normal · 05-19-2003, 04:02 PM

Just for you, Gurdur, I read the article.

Quote:

Democrats in Congress who this week proposed a bill easing some US sanctions know the truth of this. They argue that more American contact - at every level - with Cuba, and more exposure of Cubans to Americans can only benefit the country in terms of its economy and political culture. This is also the approach of Britain and the European Union, who argue that engagement, not confrontation, represents the best hope of rapprochement, reform, and the non-violent evolution of democratic governance on the island.

I'm with them. Sanctions hurt only the civilians, not the ones in power.

I have been waiting for the anti-Castro Cuban refugees in the US to start saying that he's got WMD and Osama bin Laden. And here it is from the Guardian (emphasis added):

Quote:

How seriously should such fears be taken? Probably not too seriously at present. Even though some US officials have accused Castro of links with terrorism and even of trying to acquire unconventional weapons, there are lots of good reasons why Bush, and the Pentagon, and the American public, are not really up for another war right now. Enough conquering already.

All the same, there is a nagging worry here. As election year approaches, and Bush gears up for a second-term campaign, there is no doubt that Florida will once again be a key swing state. Without question, as in the past, Florida's Cuban-Americans will form a key voting bloc. They comprise 7% of the state's electorate - far more than the narrow, disputed but winning margin in 2000. And there is no doubt, on past experience, that a tougher line on Cuba will help Bush and his governor brother push a few hanging chads their way.

Are those the hoofbeats of the Rough Riders I hear?

beyelzu · 05-19-2003, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur

Plus of course THE ARTICLE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THERE WAS ANOTHER MARIANA (sp. ?), ANOTHER FLOOD OF REFUGEES.

Of course, the fact that the USA maintains Guatamano Bay (guess where that is ?) MIGHT have something to do with the fact that the USA regards Cuba as being a national security problem of its own.
National interest ?
BAY OF PIGS, DECADES OF SANCTIONS. WHY ?

I can only say that I would become a vocal dissenter of the current presidency in the case of war with cuba. I do not support sanctions against cuba. I think that they made alot more sense during the cold war. I have veiwed sanctions against cuba as a hold over from the cold war, it just hasnt been gotten rid of. I do think that cubans in florida expatriates are the reason that sanctions have not been lifted. I do not think that we will go to war with cuba. I do not believe that the us is evil.

I suppose only time will tell, right.

Gurdur · 05-19-2003, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
.....
I suppose only time will tell, right.

We can agree fully on that statement !

Now let's discuss soccer. Or darts. Or canoing.
______________________

---> Ab_Normal:

You will get your own flower soon.

John Hancock · 05-19-2003, 08:07 PM

Gurdur

Your presumptuous .No-one reads the article, except maybe Iamthebeerking, who objects to the source. I read the article (only thought was hope there's no call for diplomacy cause the Bush administration doesn't do diplomacy).

My only reason for touching on Teddy's grab was to emphasize the lack of benefits for the residents of Cuba that Machiavelli had touched on but had not really emphasized. In that post I mention that it wasn't a first the US has a record of interference in the Caribbean and South America that extends back 180 years (give or take 3).

Beyelzu

Before you were born there were some missiles deployed in Cuba (liked to scare the shit out of me). That was long ago and is not relevant now

Martin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-19-2003, 02:46 PM	#41
beyelzu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist Posts: 2,869	Gurdur, I find the whole article to be so much speculation, and snide comments about the administration. I discussed the issue of invasion of cuba which I veiw to be unlikely. The article itself is hardly worth mentioning.

05-19-2003, 08:07 PM	#50
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	Gurdur Your presumptuous .No-one reads the article, except maybe Iamthebeerking, who objects to the source. I read the article (only thought was hope there's no call for diplomacy cause the Bush administration doesn't do diplomacy). My only reason for touching on Teddy's grab was to emphasize the lack of benefits for the residents of Cuba that Machiavelli had touched on but had not really emphasized. In that post I mention that it wasn't a first the US has a record of interference in the Caribbean and South America that extends back 180 years (give or take 3). Beyelzu Before you were born there were some missiles deployed in Cuba (liked to scare the shit out of me). That was long ago and is not relevant now Martin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.