NationStates Jolt Archive

bump

Usama bin Ladin? The Talibans? Sadam? Pinochet?

I think the list becomes to long. ;)

bump (again)

bump (again)

...

How do you claim Lenin - Putin beeing created by America? Same goes for Castro and Hitler.

And those two with Asian names, who are they?

Just to clarify things, by 'American-made' I do not mean American-supported.

Ho Chi Mihn is in no way a monster he was a very intelligent and reasonable man (and come one hitler thats streching it a bit i mean american isnt the only one who created the treaty of versille(sorry if i spelled it wrong) and how did we make lenin and putin?

How do you claim Lenin - Putin beeing created by America? Same goes for Castro and Hitler.

And those two with Asian names, who are they?

Ho Chi Minh was a mass-murdering North Vietnamese dictator. Ngo Dinh Diem was a repressive South Vietnamese dictator installed by the Americans.

For Lenin-Putin read 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,' 'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development,' 'National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union,' and 'The Best Enemy Money Can Buy,' all by Antony Sutton.

For Castro, read 'Cuba Betrayed,' by Fulgencio Batista, 'The Fourth Floor,' by Earl E.T. Smith, and 'Red Star Over Cuba' (don't remember the author).

For Hitler, read 'Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler,' by Antony Sutton.

Ho Chi Mihn is in no way a monster he was a very intelligent and reasonable man (and come one hitler thats streching it a bit i mean american isnt the only one who created the treaty of versille(sorry if i spelled it wrong) and how did we make lenin and putin?

Ho Chi Minh was a monster. He massacred hundreds of thousands or even millions of Vietnamese, presided over a totalitarian dictatorship, and supported terrorists and revolutionaries throughout the rest of Asia.

I'd say the giant radiated rabbits from Night of the Lepus. Murderous rabbits, just look at those teeth!

I'm missing Bush II. as the "Dumbest and Worst American Monster IN the US"!

I'm missing Bush II. as the "Dumbest and Worst American Monster IN the US"!

I'm talking about foreign dictators/terrorists made by the U.S.

The American version of Godzilla?

Ho Chi Minh was a mass-murdering North Vietnamese dictator. Ngo Dinh Diem was a repressive South Vietnamese dictator installed by the Americans.

For Lenin-Putin read 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,' 'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development,' 'National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union,' and 'The Best Enemy Money Can Buy,' all by Antony Sutton.

For Castro, read 'Cuba Betrayed,' by Fulgencio Batista, 'The Fourth Floor,' by Earl E.T. Smith, and 'Red Star Over Cuba' (don't remember the author).

For Hitler, read 'Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler,' by Antony Sutton.

How do you take claim for Ho Chi Minh then?

Also, sum it up for me instead. I really can't be arsed to read several books to find it out.

Btw, why isn't there any leaders from Middle and South America that has been lead to power by the US and not been to nice?

This one is pretty easy: Pol Pot. That demon never would have come to power without the machinations of Kissinger. (Hence the reason why Kissinger is wanted for war crimes in many countries, yet is somehow a "respected elder statesman" here in the US.)

Ho Chi Minh was a monster. He massacred hundreds of thousands or even millions of Vietnamese, presided over a totalitarian dictatorship, and supported terrorists and revolutionaries throughout the rest of Asia.

I never read seen or heard anything that backs that up any info may get me to change my look a ho

This one is pretty easy: Pol Pot. That demon never would have come to power without the machinations of Kissinger. (Hence the reason why Kissinger is wanted for war crimes in many countries, yet is somehow a "respected elder statesman" here in the US.)

You are correct, and I seriously considered putting P.P. on the list, but I decided to stick with directly-created dictators/terrorists, rather than indirectly created ones.

I never read seen or heard anything that backs that up any info may get me to change my look a ho

Yes, he was a monster. Read, for example, 'Death by Government' by R.J. Rummel (an excellent, meticulously researched book that examines all major 20th century dictators, on both the right and left), 'Deliver Us From Evil' by Thomas Dooley (which graphically describes some of Ho's atrocities), etc.

I'm talking about foreign dictators/terrorists made by the U.S.

Revoke(correct word) Bush II's citizenship in the US and kick him out so he can be in the topic then!!!

Also, make it fair to the conservatives(bleh bleh, spelling?) by doing the same with Kerry. ;)

How do you take claim for Ho Chi Minh then?

Also, sum it up for me instead. I really can't be arsed to read several books to find it out.

Btw, why isn't there any leaders from Middle and South America that has been lead to power by the US and not been to nice?

During World War II, the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), the CIA's predecessor, showered Ho and his flunkies with millions of dollars, weapons, information, food, etc., even though Ho wasn't actually fighting the Japanese (he was, instead, busy slaughtering thousands of political rivals and consolidating his power, while selling out genuine nationalists to the Japanese in exchange for gold), and during the French-Indochina War, the U.S. aided both sides. U.S. aid and trade with North Vietnam did not end until 1964.

The worst American-made monster? Barney. He's now pow-wowing with Osama in Pakistan under the alias B'Harni.

In answer to La La Land's question about Middle and South American dictators, the answer is, there are waaaaaay too many to put in one poll!

The worst American-made monster? Barney. He's now pow-wowing with Osama in Pakistan under the alias B'Harni.

I appreciate the comic relief, but let's try to keep this thread serious, please.

Oki, still miss sump ups about Hitler, Castro, and Lenin-Putin.

I'm thinking King Kong. He was a pretty kick ass monster. Him or Jennifer Lopez.

How do you claim Lenin - Putin beeing created by America? Same goes for Castro and Hitler.

And those two with Asian names, who are they?
Castro = same story as Saddam to start off.

Btw, why isn't there any leaders from Middle and South America that has been lead to power by the US and not been to nice?

Ever heard of Manuel Noriega? Ol' Pineapple face.

For those of you who don't know, he was a CIA stooge we put into power of Panama and bit us in the arse a few years later.

I'm thinking King Kong. He was a pretty kick ass monster. Him or Jennifer Lopez.

For the last time, people, please cut the comedy. This is meant to be a serious thread.

Ever heard of Manuel Noriega? Ol' Pineapple face.

But was he American-made?

Castro = same story as Saddam to start off.

Oki, but he hasn't been that bad to my knowledge. Except beeing communistic dictator.

King Kong,
Sorry but this guys IS a monster.
President Bush

Er, edited my post at the same time you asked that. Didn't think I made it clear the first time so I added a bit...

Oki, but he hasn't been that bad to my knowledge. Except beeing communistic dictator.
Oh, I didn't say that. I'm just saying that when he escaped to Mexico to get away from the dictatorship in Cuba, then decided he wanted to go back and take over Cuba and supposedly install a republic, he got help from the CIA...and then the CIA tried taking him out when he turned to communism...

Oki, but he hasn't been that bad to my knowledge. Except beeing communistic dictator.

Granted, Castro is pretty tame compared to, say, Hitler or Stalin, but he did kill 30,000-50,000 people, imprison hundreds of thousands more, and he is also a drug traffiker (sp?), Christian persecutor, and routinely uses some of the most abominable types of torture against his opponents. Not to mention has helped lots of Third World thugs come to power.

Oh, I didn't say that. I'm just saying that when he escaped to Mexico to get away from the dictatorship in Cuba, then decided he wanted to go back and take over Cuba and supposedly install a republic, he got help from the CIA...and then the CIA tried taking him out when he turned to communism...

The American government knew he was communist all along. They had ample warnings, from people like Ezra Taft Benson (Ike's Secretary of Agriculture), Robert Welch, and Earl E.T. Smith (who was ambassador to Cuba at the time).

Oh, I didn't say that. I'm just saying that when he escaped to Mexico to get away from the dictatorship in Cuba, then decided he wanted to go back and take over Cuba and supposedly install a republic, he got help from the CIA...and then the CIA tried taking him out when he turned to communism...

was really just kind of talking out loud ;)

Pol Pot
General Suharto
Ferdinand Marcos
Augusto Pinochet
Anastasio Somoza
Efrain Rios Montt
Fulgencio Batista

People, please stop saying George W. Bush, King Kong, etc. I mean REAL monsters, that were created by the U.S. and I meant foreign terrorists/dictators, not American ones.

Castro only turned communist after the U.S. wouldn't help or recognize his takeover of Cuba. Once he gave up trying to get the Yanquis to help him, he asked the USSR. Things would have gone much differently if we had just accepted his rule of the country at the begining.

Granted, Castro is pretty tame compared to, say, Hitler or Stalin, but he did kill 30,000-50,000 people, imprison hundreds of thousands more, and he is also a drug traffiker (sp?), Christian persecutor, and routinely uses some of the most abominable types of torture against his opponents. Not to mention has helped lots of Third World thugs come to power. AND WORST OF ALL, HE'S A COMMUNIST!

:rolleyes:

If Castro was a right-wing capitalist, you'd love him.....

Pol Pot
General Suharto
Ferdinand Marcos
Augusto Pinochet
Anastasio Somoza
Efrain Rios Montt
Fulgencio Batista

Not bad choices, but some of them seem to have been American-supported, rather than American-made. Also, why aren't people like Castro, Lenin, Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, etc. on your list?

AND WORST OF ALL, HE'S A COMMUNIST!

:rolleyes:

If Castro was a right-wing capitalist, you'd love him.....

No, I wouldn't. Keep your smart-ass comments to yourself or get the hell out of this thread. I've had it up to here with your rudeness, sarcasm, and other crap.

Castro only turned communist after the U.S. wouldn't help or recognize his takeover of Cuba. Once he gave up trying to get the Yanquis to help him, he asked the USSR. Things would have gone much differently if we had just accepted his rule of the country at the begining.

Castro was always a communist. Read my above-mentioned books for more details.

Castro only turned communist after the U.S. wouldn't help or recognize his takeover of Cuba. Once he gave up trying to get the Yanquis to help him, he asked the USSR. Things would have gone much differently if we had just accepted his rule of the country at the begining. Actually, Castro turned to the USSR for help after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Maybe the US should have helped Castro instead. His government was far better than the corrupt mafia regime run by Fulgencio Batista.

Actually, Castro turned to the USSR for help after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Maybe the US should have helped Castro instead. His government was far better than the corrupt mafia regime run by Fulgencio Batista.

They were both pretty bad.

Granted, Castro is pretty tame compared to, say, Hitler or Stalin, but he did kill 30,000-50,000 people, imprison hundreds of thousands more, and he is also a drug traffiker (sp?), Christian persecutor, and routinely uses some of the most abominable types of torture against his opponents. Not to mention has helped lots of Third World thugs come to power.

Not meant as disrespecting anyone who have died to terroristactions or know someone who has, but...

That makes Osama bin Laden even more tame imo. Eventho he would seem crueler to us since we are closer to his victims then we are to most others. Hitler is prolly the only other exception from that. But our lifes really doesn't have a higher value then someone in a third world country. Altho, I must say I rather let some poor guy down there die rather then someone of my loved ones. But I think that is kind of natural... Enough of that ranting, getting a lill bit out of topic.

Castro was always a communist. Read my above-mentioned books for more details. A book written by a bitter former dictator of Cuba?

I think any sane person would pass....

For Castro, read 'Cuba Betrayed,' by Fulgencio Batista
Do you realize that Batista was an oppressive mass-murdering dictator? Do you also realize that he was the guy who was overthrown by Castro?

Somehow, he doesn't seem like a particularly credible source to me... in fact, since he was backed openly by the US, you might consider putting him on your monster list.

The American version of Godzilla?
dammit that was *MY* answer!

I think the best for domestic monster would be senator Joe McCarthy through his ludacris Red Scare or gay FBI directer John Hoover with his secret files on innocent citizens. however foreign monsters there are so many options. Pol Pot and his camps were evil, but then again so was the Iran Iraq war. Im not sure if this is the direction you were going for but how about the columbian drug cartels? they kept columbia in fear with thier power and no politician could stand up against them. although the US govt' did not put them in power it was the american populace and thier desire for cocaine. In the end there is a point at which a person becomes a monster and cant do much worse to humanity of people. most of these men fit into that category. except for fidel. he is not the best leader a country has ever seen but hes not a monster

I think the best for domestic monster would be senator Joe McCarthy through his ludacris Red Scare or gay FBI directer John Hoover with his secret files on innocent citizens. however foreign monsters there are so many options. Pol Pot and his camps were evil, but then again so was the Iran Iraq war. Im not sure if this is the direction you were going for but how about the columbian drug cartels? they kept columbia in fear with thier power and no politician could stand up against them. although the US govt' did not put them in power it was the american populace and thier desire for cocaine. In the end there is a point at which a person becomes a monster and cant do much worse to humanity of people. most of these men fit into that category. except for fidel. he is not the best leader a country has ever seen but hes not a monster

McCarthy wanted to get communists and security risks out of the government. What's wrong with that?

Not bad choices, but some of them seem to have been American-supported, rather than American-made. Also, why aren't people like Castro, Lenin, Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, etc. on your list? Castro is not American made, nor is he a monster. Ho Chi Minh? I don't know enough about him to make that judgement.

A book written by a bitter former dictator of Cuba?

I think any sane person would pass....

Who better to tell Batista's story than the man himself?

I somehow doubt that a book written by Batista about Castro counts as a credible source. It just seems somewhat... biased. I'm sticking to my answer that Casto went commie after we refused to recognize him because he lead a rebellion.

Castro is not American made, nor is he a monster. Ho Chi Minh? I don't know enough about him to make that judgement.

Yes, Castro was American-made. Why not try reading the books before slamming them? And yes, Castro was a monster. Granted, so was Batista, but Castro is a monster, too. He killed thousands of people, imprisoned hundreds of thousands more, is a sponsor of terrorism and revolution around the world, etc. How is he NOT a monster?

Who better to tell Batista's story than the man himself?

I'd say that his view of what happened and why would be slightly biased. ;)

I somehow doubt that a book written by Batista about Castro counts as a credible source. It just seems somewhat... biased. I'm sticking to my answer that Casto went commie after we refused to recognize him because he lead a rebellion.

Castro was always a communist. And the book was not actually about Castro, but about how the U.S. turned its back on Batista (Whether that's a good or bad thing, though, is up to your discretion).

Yes, Castro was American-made. Why not try reading the books before slamming them? And yes, Castro was a monster. Granted, so was Batista, but Castro is a monster, too. He killed thousands of people, imprisoned hundreds of thousands more, is a sponsor of terrorism and revolution around the world, etc. How is he NOT a monster?

Actually, are revulutions that bad? It was afterall due to a revolution US became free. ;)

I'd say that his view of what happened and why would be slightly biased. ;)

Unless you're in south Florida, where he is refered to as St. Batista.

I'd say that his view of what happened and why would be slightly biased. ;)

Probably, but that's inevitable. I've never in my life encountered a history/biography/political/etc. book that wasn't at least a LITTLE biased.

He killed thousands of people, imprisoned hundreds of thousands more, is a sponsor of terrorism and revolution around the world, etc. How is he NOT a monster? Various US Presidents have done the exact same things. Are they monsters too?

Adolf Hitler was created by the whole world, not by the U.S. single-handedly


That...Treaty of Versiles (sp?). Is what did it.

Actually, are revulutions that bad? It was afterall due to a revolution US became free. ;)

I never said revolutions were bad. However, the ones Castro supported were violent ones that led to dictatorial rule of those countries.

Various US Presidents have done the exact same things. Are they monsters too?

Yes.

Drabikstan, sorry for my flaming back there. :(

By the way, you didn't answer my question. Were the people on your list American-made, or just American-supported?

Probably, but that's inevitable. I've never in my life encountered a history/biography/political/etc. book that wasn't at least a LITTLE biased. Maybe you should read some of Saddam's books while you're at it.

Maybe you should read some of Saddam's books while you're at it.

Please, please, lose the sarcasm.

Maybe you should read some of Saddam's books while you're at it.
He's writing poetry now, isn't he?

Read Saddam's poetry! :)

Adolf Hitler was created by the whole world, not by the U.S. single-handedly


That...Treaty of Versiles (sp?). Is what did it.

Read 'Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler,' by Antony Sutton.

He's writing poetry now, isn't he?

Read Saddam's poetry! :)

Saddam...writing POETRY? :eek: Please tell me you're joking.

I voted other. The Hollywood version of Godzilla. Worst american monster ever! Truly an insult to the Japanese original.

And yes, I don't see how Hitler is "American-made". As Colodia said, it was the Treaty of Versailles. That was the Allied forces, not America single handedly. Also, the European powers ignored Woodrow Wilson's advice and placed the harsh penalties on Germany.

By the way, you didn't answer my question. Were the people on your list American-made, or just American-supported? Depends.

If a dictator is American-supported, it's the same thing in my opinion as the US helped keep the tyrant in power.

Pinochet was American created as were the military dictatorships in South Korea and South Vietnam.

I voted other. The Hollywood version of Godzilla. Worst american monster ever! Truly an insult to the Japanese original.

And yes, I don't see how Hitler is "American-made". As Colodia said, it was the Treaty of Versailles. That was the Allied forces, not America single handedly. Also, the European powers ignored Woodrow Wilson's advice and placed the harsh penalties on Germany.

For the last time, I meant REAL monsters. I wish people would stop joking around saying 'Godzilla!' or 'King Kong!' etc. As for Wilson, he completely agreed with the harsh penalties on Germany. As for Hitler being American-made, see my post above.

Depends.

If a dictator is American-supported, it's the same thing in my opinion as the US helped keep the tyrant in power.

Pinochet was American created as were the military dictatorships in South Korea and South Vietnam.

Good points, but I meant American-created only, not American-supported (hence the reason Suharto, Batista, and some others failed to make the list).

Just naming books and forgetting about it isn't gonna cut it. I'm sure it's possible to find a hundred books blaming the U.S. for creating Hitler and a hundred books blaming eveyone else.

I personally believe that no one thing creates a revolution or dictator, it is the combination of events and circumstances that does. U.S. Isolationism combined with the treaty of Versailles created hitler. The U.S. abandoning Batista in Cuba lead to Castro's Revolution, and the U.S.'s refusal to recognize and help Castro lead him to seek help from the Soviets.

Please, please, lose the sarcasm. What's the difference between Batista and Saddam?

And yes, I don't see how Hitler is "American-made". As Colodia said, it was the Treaty of Versailles. That was the Allied forces, not America single handedly. Also, the European powers ignored Woodrow Wilson's advice and placed the harsh penalties on Germany.

Yeah, Hitler was mostly French-made. Signing the Treaty of Versailles was basically a contract for another war within a few decades-- its entire purpose was to break the German people. So I'd go with that problem being much more French-created than American-created (despite all the hype about IBM, BASF, and other American corporations).

In fact, so was Ho Chi Minh. If it weren't for the horrendous things the French had done in French Indochina, there wouldn't have been any need for a leftist to come to power (albeit through bloody means).

I'd highly recommend the Sutton books for anyone curious. His books are meticulously and exhaustively researched, and he draws from countless sources, including the ones who gave the aid to said-dictator. His books are full of all the right information, plus information you didn't need to know (like serial numbers on the items we sold to said-dictators).

The U.S. abandoning Batista in Cuba lead to Castro's Revolution, and the U.S.'s refusal to recognize and help Castro lead him to seek help from the Soviets. Ahh....but Batista's treatment of the Cuban people led to Castro's revolution.

I'd highly recommend the Sutton books for anyone curious. His books are meticulously and exhaustively researched, and he draws from countless sources, including the ones who gave the aid to said-dictator. His books are full of all the right information, plus information you didn't need to know (like serial numbers on the items we sold to said-dictators).

Yes, exhaustive research is usually quite exhausting to read, as well. ;)

What's the difference between Batista and Saddam?

Let's see...one was pro-US, one wasn't. One killed far more than the other did. One committed genocide, one didn't. One invaded another country, one didn't. But they were both military dictators supported by the U.S.

Saddam...writing POETRY? :eek: Please tell me you're joking.
I swear he did.

They said his first one was about one of the Bush's....

There's a difference between supporting someone that turns out to be a monster, and making the monster.

We should rememeber that fighting someone is the last sollution. First you have to try to cooperate. And it's impossible to predict who will turn on you later.

Ahh....but Batista's treatment of the Cuban people led to Castro's revolution.

Agreed. The same thing applies to every other revolution in history.

Yes, exhaustive research is usually quite exhausting to read, as well. ;)

Yeah, but in this case, well worth it.

I swear he did.

They said his first one was about one of the Bush's....

:D

bump

Take Hitler down, Woodrow Wilson opposed the harsh treatment of the Germans after WW1.

Take Hitler down, Woodrow Wilson opposed the harsh treatment of the Germans after WW1.

No, he didn't. And as for Hitler, I already mentioned a credible source proving he was American-made.

This one is pretty easy: Pol Pot. That demon never would have come to power without the machinations of Kissinger. (Hence the reason why Kissinger is wanted for war crimes in many countries, yet is somehow a "respected elder statesman" here in the US.)

Beat me to it. Pol Pot is often overlooked. He is the cruelest man, evne worst then Hitler and the rest. He killed a greated % of him people then everyone else, including all the educated.

Beat me to it. Pol Pot is often overlooked. He is the cruelest man, evne worst then Hitler and the rest. He killed a greated % of him people then everyone else, including all the educated.

He was an indirectly-created monster, though, not a directly-created one. By the way, here are some good books to read if you want to learn about Pol Pot.

Children of Cambodia's Killing Fields
Surviving the Killing Fields
Brother Number One
Death by Government (even though it ain't just about P.P.)

Out of curiosity, how did America directly support Hitler's rise?

I never said revolutions were bad. However, the ones Castro supported were violent ones that led to dictatorial rule of those countries.
You seem to ignore the fact that they overthrew and replaced even worse dictatorial regimes.

Among other things, Fidel Castro's revolutions helped bring about the end of the racist Apartheid regime in South Africa (by defeating the South African army that was rolling into Angola, thus weakening the power of the South African government).

Read "How far we slaves have come!" by Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro.

Oh, and by the way, Cuba during Batista's reign was known as "America's whore"... Pretty much the entire economy (including sugar plantations, the country's most important source of income) was owned by American corporations.

And please do tell how exactly is Castro "persecuting" Christians. Last time I checked, the Pope himself visited Cuba a few years ago - and Castro has publicly stated that he draws a lot of his moral values from Christianity.

Oh, and by the way, Cuba during Batista's reign was known as "America's whore"... Pretty much the entire economy (including sugar plantations, the country's most important source of income) was owned by American corporations.

And please do tell how exactly is Castro "persecuting" Christians. Last time I checked, the Pope himself visited Cuba a few years ago - and Castro has publicly stated that he draws a lot of his moral values from Christianity.

You are correct about Batista.

As for Castro persecuting Christians, there are plenty of books on the subject, more than I can name. Regrettably, I can't name any off the top of my head, but I'll happily look some of them up.

You seem to ignore the fact that they overthrew and replaced even worse dictatorial regimes.

Among other things, Fidel Castro's revolutions helped bring about the end of the racist Apartheid regime in South Africa (by defeating the South African army that was rolling into Angola, thus weakening the power of the South African government).

Read "How far we slaves have come!" by Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro.

Most revolutions actually led to far worse dictatorships. Examples: Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Souphanouvang, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Ahmed Ben Bella, Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, and various African dictators, from countries such as Mozambique, Angola, etc., whose names I can't think of off the top of my head. Mind you, I am NOT defending any of the individuals the above-mentioned dictators overthrew. As for Castro being better or worse than Batista, I am in no position to agree or argue, as I have yet to see an estimated death toll for Batista's regime.

biggity-bump

worst american made monster? barney

Out of curiosity, how did America directly support Hitler's rise?

Early on, many of the huge billionaire tax-empt foundations provided him with enormous financial aid. Read all about it in 'Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler' by Antony Sutton.

worst american made monster? barney

Agreed, but I meant foreign dictators/terrorists.

TAKE THIS, BARNEY!!!!! :sniper: :upyours: :upyours: :sniper:


:headbang: Man, Barney drives me insane!

How about Worst Genocides commited by Europe?

Ho Chi Minh was a really great, smart guy. That's why the Viet Cong lasted so long in the Vietnam war. He was by no means an american made monster.

Ho Chi Minh was a really great, smart guy. That's why the Viet Cong lasted so long in the Vietnam war. He was by no means an american made monster.

Please, tell me you're joking. Ho Chi Minh was a tyrant, a genocidal murderer, and a terrorist, as were the Viet Cong.

Saddam...writing POETRY? :eek: Please tell me you're joking.
im pretty sure that saddam wrote a couple of romance novels too. published under a nom de plume. they were HUGE sellers in iraq. go figure

im pretty sure that saddam wrote a couple of romance novels too. published under a nom de plume. they were HUGE sellers in iraq. go figure

Oh, man, I think I'm gonna be sick...Saddam, writing ROMANCE NOVELS? What is this world coming to? :headbang:

I wonder if it had any references to the beloved as a gazelle.

Ya habeebi, you are like a gazelle coming down off the mountain.

--Saddam.

For Castro, read 'Cuba Betrayed,' by Fulgencio Batista,

Yes, I've always believed that if you want a good objective view of things, you should go and read what an ousted dictator has to say... :rolleyes:

Yes, I've always believed that if you want a good objective view of things, you should go and read what an ousted dictator has to say... :rolleyes:

Well, who better to tell Batista's story than the man himself?

Saddam...writing POETRY? :eek: Please tell me you're joking.

No it's true!

Or atleast, media reports it. Wasn't it erotic poetry?

No it's true!

Or atleast, media reports it. Wasn't it erotic poetry?

Oh, God, somebody bring me a bucket!

As for Hitler being American-made, see my post above.

please sumarize it. I really can't be arsed to read a whole book about it.

Early on, many of the huge billionaire tax-empt foundations provided him with enormous financial aid. Read all about it in 'Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler' by Antony Sutton.

That's about it in a nutshell.

We made Godzilla hahahaha

We made Godzilla hahahaha

This is supposed to be a serious thread, so let's keep it that way, please.

This is supposed to be a serious thread, so let's keep it that way, please.


Sorry Roach Busters :) Just wasy tension. The worst american made monster.... hmmm that is really a loaded question. I would have to say Stalin. For all the support we gave him during WWII enabled him to kill so many more after the war. Hey but by him gutting the officer corps. He made Russia the laughing stock it still is today.

Adolf Hitler was created by the whole world, not by the U.S. single-handedly


That...Treaty of Versiles (sp?). Is what did it.

Yup the Versailles Treaty, basically created Adolf Hitler as we know him.
He was created by allied countries that fought in WW1, not really by the whole world.
Though even before the war, Hitler was fiercely nationalist and had kinda similar ideas than later on.

That's about it in a nutshell.

Hadn't come so long in the thread, sorry.

Anyway, how do you reckon this is making him rather then supporting him?

Also, mind summing up how america can take credit for Lenin - Putin?

Well, who better to tell Batista's story than the man himself?

An unbiased source, like Batista is going to convey a formal review of the events without any bias whatsoever.

Yup the Versailles Treaty, basically created Adolf Hitler as we know him.
He was created by allied countries that fought in WW1, not really by the whole world.
Though even before the war, Hitler was fiercely nationalist and had kinda similar ideas than later on.

It basically created Nazi Germany as we know it, Hitler was an anti-semetic and ultra-nationlistic believer before 1918. Germany's defeat and the Treaty gave him the catalyst to realize that he could swoon large crowds with his voice. The Depression gave him the support of the masses in the face of the Red Front, and a terrorist burning the Reichstag (an attack he may have known about and done nothing purposely), gave him the unbridled power of the government.

Please, tell me you're joking. Ho Chi Minh was a tyrant, a genocidal murderer, and a terrorist, as were the Viet Cong.
And the US in Vietnam weren't?

As for the question, I'd say Hitler, Pol Pot, Pinochet and the South Vietnamese regime under Diem (and his awful wife).

I have a few questions.

1: How did the U.S. help Vladimir Illitch Ulianov (That was Lenin's real name) come to power?!

2: How is 'Lenin' a monster? Lenin beileved in the right of the workers and the right of the people. He wasn't rascist, he wasn't sexist, hell he even had nothing agains't the jews. Not only that but he beileved in democracy, but he died before he could create a full democracy. Read the book "Ten Days That Shook World" by John Reed. John Reed was an American who was there when the revolution happened, it will give you good idea of who Lenin really was.

3: Why is Vladimir Putin on the list? How is he an American-made monster?

4: Why isn't the Shah of Iran on the list? Now he was an American-made monster!

2: How is 'Lenin' a monster? Lenin beileved in the right of the workers and the right of the people. He wasn't rascist, he wasn't sexist, hell he even had nothing agains't the jews. Not only that but he beileved in democracy, but he died before he could create a full democracy. Read the book "Ten Days That Shook World" by John Reed. John Reed was an American who was there when the revolution happened, it will give you good idea of who Lenin really was.

Didn't he sacrifice quite a few in his try to reach what he believed would be the perfect government?

And the US in Vietnam weren't?

As for the question, I'd say Hitler, Pol Pot, Pinochet and the South Vietnamese regime under Diem (and his awful wife).

Diem was a bachelor. I think you mean the First Lady (who was his brother's wife). And most Vietnam veterans were not killers. However, all or most VC were.

I have a few questions.

1: How did the U.S. help Vladimir Illitch Ulianov (That was Lenin's real name) come to power?!

2: How is 'Lenin' a monster? Lenin beileved in the right of the workers and the right of the people. He wasn't rascist, he wasn't sexist, hell he even had nothing agains't the jews. Not only that but he beileved in democracy, but he died before he could create a full democracy. Read the book "Ten Days That Shook World" by John Reed. John Reed was an American who was there when the revolution happened, it will give you good idea of who Lenin really was.

3: Why is Vladimir Putin on the list? How is he an American-made monster?

4: Why isn't the Shah of Iran on the list? Now he was an American-made monster!

1: Read 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution' by V.I. Lenin/Ulyanov.

2: Yes, Lenin had plenty against Jews and Christians. He persecuted both groups in spades. Granted, the tsars were bad-ass tyrants, but Lenin makes them look like Mother Teresa wanna-bes. Lenin's regime executed tens or hundreds of thousands of 'enemies of the state,' supported terrorism in other parts of the world, incarcerated thousands in concentration camps, and starved to death millions of people.

3: Because Lenin through Putin were all U.S. supported.

4: The Shah is, I think, a mixed bag. Yeah, he was authoritarian and repressive toward his opposition, but he wasn't all bad. He did do wonders for Iran's economy, and some aspects of civil rights in Iran were very good (women's rights, for isntance).

By the way, thanks for asking those questions without flaming. I know a lot of people who'd say, "[insert name here]? Are you f****** sick or what?" or "You're stupid," or "blah blah blah." You asked the questions in a civil manner, for which you have my respect, and again, my thanks.

Didn't he sacrifice quite a few in his try to reach what he believed would be the perfect government?

You are correct.

I'm surprised you admitted that the US has supported so many dictators, RB.

Why?

bush is the biggest monster :mad:

bush is the biggest monster :mad:

I was talking about foreign dictators/terrorists that were made by the USA.

1: Read 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution' by V.I. Lenin/Ulyanov.

2: Yes, Lenin had plenty against Jews and Christians. He persecuted both groups in spades. Granted, the tsars were bad-ass tyrants, but Lenin makes them look like Mother Teresa wanna-bes. Lenin's regime executed tens or hundreds of thousands of 'enemies of the state,' supported terrorism in other parts of the world, incarcerated thousands in concentration camps, and starved to death millions of people.

3: Because Lenin through Putin were all U.S. supported.

4: The Shah is, I think, a mixed bag. Yeah, he was authoritarian and repressive toward his opposition, but he wasn't all bad. He did do wonders for Iran's economy, and some aspects of civil rights in Iran were very good (women's rights, for isntance).

By the way, thanks for asking those questions without flaming. I know a lot of people who'd say, "[insert name here]? Are you f****** sick or what?" or "You're stupid," or "blah blah blah." You asked the questions in a civil manner, for which you have my respect, and again, my thanks.

1. Alright I will search for the book and read it.

2. Actaully Lenin himself had nothing agains't the Jews or Christians, also it was the Tsars that always blamed the jews for the problems in Russia. And it was the Tsar that ignored the complaints of the people. Now moving on, I do know that many people were executed during his rule (1917-1924), but many of them were unknown to Lenin and were carried out by other members of the party, also many people who were executed in this period of time were killed by the Whites (Anti-communists) as well. As for the camps, well I never heard of Lenin ordering the creation of concentration camps (although Stalin did), I know some prisoner camps existed and were used in Siberia, but these were not bad places. You were kept in a area and you were not allowed to leave, but you can do whatever you liked in that area. Finally the millions of people that starved were not on purpose. Lenin would have never, and never did, order the halt of food shipments to starve people to death. Most of the starvation deaths were because of internal problems (with the Civil War and all), but they were not ordered by Lenin, or anyone else as far as I know.

3. I don't think all the Russian leaders from Lenin to Putin were U.S. supported.

4. Did the ecomony really do well under his rule? I thought it suffered 'cause he stole all the money and kept it to himself?..

And thank you for answering my questions without resorting to flames as well.

1. Alright I will search for the book and read it.

2. Actaully Lenin himself had nothing agains't the Jews or Christians, also it was the Tsars that always blamed the jews for the problems in Russia. And it was the Tsar that ignored the complaints of the people. Now moving on, I do know that many people were executed during his rule (1917-1924), but many of them were unknown to Lenin and were carried out by other members of the party, also many people who were executed in this period of time were killed by the Whites (Anti-communists) as well. As for the camps, well I never heard of Lenin ordering the creation of concentration camps (although Stalin did), I know some prisoner camps existed and were used in Siberia, but these were not bad places. You were kept in a area and you were not allowed to leave, but you can do whatever you liked in that area. Finally the millions of people that starved were not on purpose. Lenin would have never, and never did, order the halt of food shipments to starve people to death. Most of the starvation deaths were because of internal problems (with the Civil War and all), but they were not ordered by Lenin, or anyone else as far as I know.

3. I don't think all the Russian leaders from Lenin to Putin were U.S. supported.

4. Did the ecomony really do well under his rule? I thought it suffered 'cause he stole all the money and kept it to himself?..

And thank you for answering my questions without resorting to flames as well.

You're welcome.

3. They all were. Some excellent sources are 'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development,' 'National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union,' and 'The Best Enemy Money Can Buy,' all by Antony Sutton.

4. Yes, he was corrupt and probably stashed a lot of the cash in his pockets, but he did turn Iran from a backwards nation into an economic and military superpower.

LOL, did America invent AIDS,and Ringworm too? im telling you,this far left selfhating American BS is lothesome.

I hope this was posted by some 13 year old who does not know better, or one of Noam Chomski's robots

I love America very much. However, it has in the past (and does now) support some very nasty people.

Hitler of course.

McCarthy wanted to get communists and security risks out of the government. What's wrong with that?

I have a little black book here, in this book there are 30 names of communists.
*10 days later* in this black book here i have the names of 45 enemies of the government. rinse and repeat but change the number a few times.

he was a nightmare among both parties. but he had power of terror on his side and if he mentioned your name it quiet often ment political death. his career as a wisconsin senator was going no where. then he said hey the state department is overrun. after the state dept was exonerated by Tydings he started it up again. this time however it was with TV and radio. then he became chairmen of the senate subcommitee for government operations. so thats whats wrong with that.

LOL, did America invent AIDS,and Ringworm too? im telling you,this far left selfhating American BS is lothesome.

I hope this was posted by some 13 year old who does not know better, or one of Noam Chomski's robots

It was posted by a far right wing conservative, actually.

Of Course some "Intelligent, Raitional" human being had to come in here and mention the president as being a monster. Please..

It was posted by a far right wing conservative, actually.

:D

Of Course some "Intelligent, Raitional" human being had to come in here and mention the president as being a monster. Please..

I think it's been done a few times, and I believe the thread is for foreign leaders.

McCarthy wanted to get communists and security risks out of the government. What's wrong with that?

Well, according to the last thread we had where we discussed McCarthy you admitted that the rationale behind his actions, as you understood it, was deeply flawed... remember?

I have a little black book here, in this book there are 30 names of communists.
*10 days later* in this black book here i have the names of 45 enemies of the government. rinse and repeat but change the number a few times.

he was a nightmare among both parties. but he had power of terror on his side and if he mentioned your name it quiet often ment political death. his career as a wisconsin senator was going no where. then he said hey the state department is overrun. after the state dept was exonerated by Tydings he started it up again. this time however it was with TV and radio. then he became chairmen of the senate subcommitee for government operations. so thats whats wrong with that.

Thanks for answering without a single flame; however, that wasn't how McCarthy was at all. As for his number juggling, there is an explanation. In the Wheeling speech, McCarthy referred to a letter that Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. In that letter, Byrnes said that State Department security investigators had declared 284 persons unfit to hold jobs in the department because of communist connections and other reasons, but that only 79 had been discharged, leaving 205 still on the State Department's payroll. McCarthy told his Wheeling audience that while he did not have the names of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter, he did have the names of 57 who were either members of or loyal to the Communist Party. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate information about 81 individuals - the 57 referred to at Wheeling and 24 others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less conclusive. And the average American did not fear McCarthy. In 1954, he was listed fourth on a Gallup Poll's list of most admired men. Also contrary to popular belief, McCarthy did not say there were communists just to advance his political career. He had speaking out against communism for years before that, since he first ran for Senator in 1946.

Well, according to the last thread we had where we discussed McCarthy you admitted that the rationale behind his actions, as you understood it, was deeply flawed... remember?

When did I say that? All I said was not all communists wanted to overthrow the government, that was all.

Sorry Roach Busters :) Just wasy tension. The worst american made monster.... hmmm that is really a loaded question. I would have to say Stalin. For all the support we gave him during WWII enabled him to kill so many more after the war. Hey but by him gutting the officer corps. He made Russia the laughing stock it still is today.

Im not going to agree with you there. Russia was decades behind other countries militaritly. thats because his generals had no vision. the Romans did something similar to what stalin did as well. I forget the details hopefully someone else can fill the blanks in. the romans before a big battle lined up all thier men, and killed every 10th soldier. what better way to make someone fight harder then to show them that if you dont preform then your gonna die. this is exactly what stalin did with his military. they went from a country of farmers to an army that knew the only way they would live is if they kept pushing. its not western thinking but it got the job done correct with what they had, correct?

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I could be), but didn't McCarthy accuse, and ruin the career of many people that weren't communists, "In the name of preserving democracy?"

Why do you say the US made those people?"

When did I say that? All I said was not all communists wanted to overthrow the government, that was all.

No, you said that McCarthy's campaign was based on denouncing all who had been communists or members of the American Communsit Party because they were 'traitors', and that this justified his action, you then conceded that not all communists or members of the CP could legitimately be described as 'traitors' - thus your justification for McCarthy's actions was shown to be deeply problematic.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I could be), but didn't McCarthy accuse, and ruin the career of many people that weren't communists, "In the name of preserving democracy?"

No. Each of the people McCarthy accused were either communists, pro-communists, or at the very least, security risks. The people that critics refer to when they mention the people McCarthy 'ruined' are mostly people who were never even investigated by McCarthy.

Why do you say the US made those people?"

Because American aid either helped bring them to power or at least helped them consolidate their power.

No, you said that McCarthy's campaign was based on denouncing all who had been communists or members of the American Communsit Party because they were 'traitors', and that this justified his action, you then conceded that not all communists or members of the CP could legitimately be described as 'traitors' - thus your justification for McCarthy's actions was shown to be deeply problematic.

I never said that. I said that every person McCarthy accused of being a communist was one, or at the very least was pro-communist.

No. Each of the people McCarthy accused were either communists, pro-communists, or at the very least, security risks.

He also accused people who had left the Communist Party after a youthful dalliance with its ideas, and for whom there was absolutely no supporting evidence that they still believed in any of the values of Communism, people who were employed in occupations which cannot be described as being any kind of security risk.

The reason the author is saying the US "made" these monsters, and I somewhat agree, is because at one point the US supported either militarily or politically these individuals; or the actions of the US, (opinions mostly but...), led to the creation of these people. Many times these people began saying positive things about "change" but then after they got the support, they up and changed. ( Sadaam-Rumsfeld). Although it's not fair to blame the US.

No. Each of the people McCarthy accused were either communists, pro-communists, or at the very least, security risks. The people that critics refer to when they mention the people McCarthy 'ruined' are mostly people who were never even investigated by McCarthy.

Okay, thanx.

I never said that. I said that every person McCarthy accused of being a communist was one, or at the very least was pro-communist.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346155&page=6&pp=20

Posts 110 through 124.

I'll leave it for the denizens of General to make up their own minds.

LOL, did America invent AIDS,and Ringworm too? im telling you,this far left selfhating American BS is lothesome.


american haters? thats a harsh term. but americas has a shady underbelly along with all countrys.

1932 The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated
1940 Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to
combat the disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.
1945 "Program F" is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb production. One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride, it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous system but much of the information is squelched in the name of national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs.
1947 The CIA begins its study of LSD as a potential weapon for use by American intelligence. Human subjects (both civilian and military) are used with and without their knowledge.
1986 A report to Congress reveals that the U.S. Government's current generation of biological agents includes: modified viruses, naturally occurring toxins, and agents that are altered through genetic engineering to change immunological character and prevent treatment by all existing vaccines.
1990 More than 1500 six-month old black and hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.

thats all for now. sort of scary because its all documented. just think about what they arent telling you now. sleep tight dont let the bed bugs bite :D

For those who really want to know about McCarthy, I'd highly recommend the following sources:

1.McCarthy (by Roy Cohn)
2.The Assassination of Joe McCarthy (by Medford Evans)
3.McCarthy and his Enemies (by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell)
4.Who Killed Joe McCarthy? (by William Bragg Ewald, Jr.)
5.The Lattimore Story (by John Flynn)
6.Who Promoted Peress? (by Lionel Likos)
7.Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-1951
8.McCarthyism: The Fight for America (by Joseph McCarthy)
9.America's Retreat From Victory (by Joseph McCarthy)
10.Joseph Raymond McCarthy, Late a Senator From Wisconsin, Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress
11.Joseph McCarthy: Re-examining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator (by Arthur Herman)
12.The article "What is Senator McCarthy Really Trying to Do?" (by John Flynn)

Okay, thanx.

You're welcome.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346155&page=6&pp=20

Posts 110 through 124.

I'll leave it for the denizens of General to make up their own minds.

Fat chance of that. I'll bet not 1 person in 1,000 knows diddly-squat about McCarthy.

bump

For those who really want to know about McCarthy, I'd highly recommend the following sources:

1.McCarthy (by Roy Cohn)
2.The Assassination of Joe McCarthy (by Medford Evans)
3.McCarthy and his Enemies (by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell)
4.Who Killed Joe McCarthy? (by William Bragg Ewald, Jr.)
5.The Lattimore Story (by John Flynn)
6.Who Promoted Peress? (by Lionel Likos)
7.Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-1951
8.McCarthyism: The Fight for America (by Joseph McCarthy)
9.America's Retreat From Victory (by Joseph McCarthy)


Is it a mere conincidence that titles 1 through 9 are also given in exactly (with the exception of #4) that same order on this web page? -

http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/mccarth5.htm

and also here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7f91723a2b.htm

Are we to assume that you haven't actually read those books yourself, and just cut and pasted them from a Joe McCarthy FAQ? That you 'highly recommend' them without having familiarised yourself with their contents? Or just that an astronomical fluke occured which lead to those nine books being listed in the same order in your post?

Fat chance of that. I'll bet not 1 person in 1,000 knows diddly-squat about McCarthy.

The issue at hand is that your justification for McCarthy's actions - that he was denouncing traitors - was admitted by yourself to be not the case: that either you or he were somehow mistaken.

Is it a mere conincidence that titles 1 through 9 are also given in exactly that same order on this web page? -

http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/mccarth5.htm

and also here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7f91723a2b.htm

Are we to assume that you haven't actually read those books yourself, and just cut and pasted them from a Joe McCarthy FAQ? That you 'highly recommend' them without having familiarised yourself with their contents? Or just that an astronomical fluke occured which lead to those nine books being listed in the same order in your post?

Yes, I read them all. Some of them more than once. In fact, I own "America's Retreat From Victory." Damn good book, too. I should add that, of the twenty sources McCarthy drew from, at least nineteen of the twenty were sources friendly to George Marshall (who the book was about). The only source that may not have been friendly was 'Hinge of Fate,' by Winston Churchill.

Yes, I read them all.

A remarkable fluke then.

Is it a mere conincidence that titles 1 through 9 are also given in exactly (with the exception of #4) that same order on this web page? -

http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/mccarth5.htm

and also here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7f91723a2b.htm

Are we to assume that you haven't actually read those books yourself, and just cut and pasted them from a Joe McCarthy FAQ? That you 'highly recommend' them without having familiarised yourself with their contents? Or just that an astronomical fluke occured which lead to those nine books being listed in the same order in your post?

I've never heard of either website. I did hear of most of the books from A website (but not either of those two), but as I said, I read them all.

A remarkable fluke then.

I swear to God, I've never been to either of those two websites.

I swear to God, I've never been to either of those two websites.
knology is a local cable company where i live and freerepublic is an anti-kerry site

knology is a local cable company where i live and freerepublic is an anti-kerry site

Thanks.

By the way, sorry for flaming at you the other day. :(

The only source that may not have been friendly was 'Hinge of Fate,' by Winston Churchill.

What did Churchill have to say about McCarthy in his book published in 1950 that could be described as 'unfriendly'?

What did Churchill have to say about McCarthy in his book published in 1950 that could be described as 'unfriendly'?

Never read the Churchill book. Sorry. :( Just read ARFV.

He said nothing about McCarthy. As I said, ARFV was about George Marshall. All twenty sources McCarthy consulted were pro-Marshall, with the possible exception of Churchill.

He said nothing about McCarthy. As I said, ARFV was about George Marshall.

Ah, my misunderstanding. I misconstured your earlier post (taking the Churchill book to be a source on McCarthy rather than Marshall).

4. Yes, he was corrupt and probably stashed a lot of the cash in his pockets, but he did turn Iran from a backwards nation into an economic and military superpower.

That really can't have lasted for that long. Or are you exederating a lill?

I hope this was posted by some 13 year old who does not know better, or one of Noam Chomski's robots

Believing that the US has nothing to do with any of these mentioned dictators in terms of supporting them or so would be very naive.

I never said revolutions were bad. However, the ones Castro supported were violent ones that led to dictatorial rule of those countries. Which countries exactly?

Nicaragua? Cuban-backed Ortega was a saint compared to the previous Somoza regime (the mass murderer you recommend books by).

Angola? It was Cuba (with Soviet help) that defended newly-independent Angola from invasion by apartheid South Africa.

As for Castro himself, Cuba's human rights record is significantly better than that of many other countries in the Caribbean/Latin America region (I don't see you complaining about the US-backed thugs ruling Haiti at the moment). It is still much better than the Batista regime which Castro replaced. Cuba also still faces a very real and proven threat from the United States.

Free education and health care are available to all, even those living in the remotest corners of the island. UNESCO statistics confirm that Cuba's rate of basic literacy is now among the highest in Latin America. Few Cuban children live on the streets - unlike in many neighbouring countries. Infant mortality rates are the lowest in the region (and slightly lower that those in the United States) and the nation has an excellent Health care system.

It basically created Nazi Germany as we know it, Hitler was an anti-semetic and ultra-nationlistic believer before 1918.
Not really hitler was a devout christian and ulta-nationalistic, but not anti-semitic. Ironically he had Jewish friend before the war.
It's likely that Hitler's anti-semitism was result of the war, as Jews were blamed to be reason why the war was lost. Not to mention that anti-semitism was common in that time all over the world.
That was on a BBC(?) documentary focusing on the life of Hitler.
I recommed anyone interested in WW2 to watch it.

I would have to say Barney! As an American, I apologise to the world for him.

Maybe celine dion.....Hey wait! She's Canadian! Sounds like a reason for war! ;)

Which countries exactly?

Nicaragua? Cuban-backed Ortega was a saint compared to the previous Somoza regime (the mass murderer you recommend books by).

Angola? It was Cuba (with Soviet help) that defended newly-independent Angola from invasion by apartheid South Africa.

As for Castro himself, Cuba's human rights record is significantly better than that of many other countries in the Caribbean/Latin America region (I don't see you complaining about the US-backed thugs ruling Haiti at the moment). It is still much better than the Batista regime which Castro replaced. Cuba also still faces a very real and proven threat from the United States.

Free education and health care are available to all, even those living in the remotest corners of the island. UNESCO statistics confirm that Cuba's rate of basic literacy is now among the highest in Latin America. Few Cuban children live on the streets - unlike in many neighbouring countries. Infant mortality rates are the lowest in the region (and slightly lower that those in the United States) and the nation has an excellent Health care system.

Well, thanks for at least disagreeing without flaming. However, there was a hint of sarcasm (or at least, that's how I interpreted it; if I misinterpreted it, I apologize) in your Somoza comment that I didn't like. And of course I'm not complaining about Haiti, I don't know jack about it, except that Papa Doc and Baby Doc were very, very nasty guys.

And no offense, but I don't see how you can denounce Pinochet (who allegedly killed around 3,000 people) and defend Castro (who killed at least ten times that number).

This is so easy to answer... Arm fall off boy from the legion of super heros!! Whos only power is that his arms fall off. Or how about every monster in scooby doo?? NO NO WAIT the monter from the village deffinetly.

Not really hitler was a devout christian and ulta-nationalistic, but not anti-semitic. Ironically he had Jewish friend before the war.
It's likely that Hitler's anti-semitism was result of the war, as Jews were blamed to be reason why the war was lost. Not to mention that anti-semitism was common in that time all over the world.
That was on a BBC(?) documentary focusing on the life of Hitler.
I recommed anyone interested in WW2 to watch it.

Hitler was not a Christian. It was Hitler who said, "One is either a German or a Christian. You cannot be both. The religions are all the same, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future- certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the church. So shall I. Why not? That won't prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch- and annihilating it in Germany."

Quoted in the book Therefore, Stand.

Hitler considered himself christian but so did alot of others like the KKK. In the christs religion your supposed to let god take out evil doers. People rarely ever do things or celebrate there religion correctly.

I didn't say Hitler was a christian after world war one, but i'm pretty sure he was before the war. I don't remember though, i have ever heard that Hitler himself said he was christian. One interesting thing is that when his friend asked him if he'd like to go in red-light disctrict. Hitler refused and started to lecture his friend about the evils of prostitution in christian sense. He was in the church choir too, when he was young. Therefore my opnion is that Hitler was a christian before the war. It doesn't make christians evil or Hitler a good-guy. However it's useless to argue about this, as this cannot proven or disproven.