|
| Thread: Poll: Cuba Libre |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted December 22, 2004 03:28 AM |
|
|
What?!
And I suppose your Tito dwarfs even the great Napolean when compared to his relationship with his comrades in arms. And he probably has more military genius than Alexander the Great or Hannibal? Perhaps even more shrewd political tact than Julius Caesar among slithering Yugoslavian senators? Right you are! If only he'd had his own navy then he could give General Douglas MacArthur and Sir Francis Drake a run for their money!
Good God I simply can't swallow this any longer!
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
posted December 22, 2004 03:40 AM |
|
|
The problem with both sides in this current argument you're having is that both of you see your leaders as saints. Neither Lincoln, Lenin, Tito or Castro weren't heroes or saints. They were politicians, and that means liars. Their popularity is mostly because of propaganda and the weak minds of the people.
That is not to say that I have something against either leader, but both of you are just so carried away with your praises that it gets funny but in a sad way.
____________
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
posted December 22, 2004 08:40 AM |
|
|
Consis:
Quote:
And I suppose your Tito dwarfs even the great Napolean when compared to his relationship with his comrades in arms...
No, he doesn't. 
Svarog had something else in mind. Please re-read his posts. I could kick his ass now  , but that was not my point. However, when it comes to this topic, you cannot.
Simply, Consis, you should not talk about the things you know little about.
Quote:
I understand. It comes as no surprise that you would commonly disagree with someone born and raised in a capitolist democracy.
I grew up in former Yugoslavia, but I consider myself a pro-European democrat. Unlike Svarog, I'm not pro-communist (or WHATever!)... I guess I'm an anarcho-liberal capitalist ! LOL
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted December 22, 2004 03:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Neither Lincoln, Lenin, Tito or Castro weren't heroes or saints. They were politicians, and that means liars. Their popularity is mostly because of propaganda and the weak minds of the people.
Exactly. I'm not having a problem with this.
Vlaad gets me. We may not agree on how we merit Tito's political role, but the impact he had on whole Balkan nations is enormous, both emotional and factual.
And if you go back in the thread a little, you'll notice why I even brought up this point in the first place. Khayman asked why do Cubans still consider Castro an outstanding leader instead of disposing him, faced with the failing standards of living, and thats why I refered to his historical greatness, something that cant be entirely grasped from the Western point of view. In the same way, if Tito was still in power, Yugolavia will have hardly fallen apart. Only 1 man makes a difference, but what a truly great man.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 10, 2005 04:06 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 10 Mar 2005
|
Two Things:
1. I recently learned that Mexico actually abolished slavery even before the United States in 1829 shortly after gaining independence from Spain. I also learned that this was one of the many reasons the battle of the Alamo was fought over; in addition to civil unrest and foreign invading settlers. I learned that col. Travis was actually a slave owner who supported slavery as staunchly as did many other southern Confederates(not yet called). I'm from Texas and so I was interested in learning more about all the stories I'd heard growing up as a kid.
But anyway my point is that I had it in my mind that Lincoln was the first in the world to abolish slavery. I was wrong. I did not know Mexico had done so before America.
2. Vlaad,
I'm sure you're very busy in real life. I was hoping you'd enlighten me on your own personal political opinions. You mentioned something about considering yourself a european democratic liberal. Whenever it suits you, if you have the time, if you would kindly post a description of what that means? I know sometimes making long posts can be irritating and sometimes very time-consuming but if you would please help me understand you better I would be very greatful. I would read every word with eager anticipation. As you said, rather correctly, I talk about things I know very little about. I'm hoping you would help me know more about yourself and your part of the world. If you don't want to then that's ok too.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 10, 2005 06:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But anyway my point is that I had it in my mind that Lincoln was the first in the world to abolish slavery.
Oh my god. But he was almost the last one to do it. Slavery has been abolished in all of Europe (i think Asia too) ever since Roman Times.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted March 11, 2005 02:39 AM |
|
|
Well, the European Powers abolished slavery at the Congress of Aix-la-Capelle (or Aachen, in mordern-day Germany) in 1818:
Quote:
Concretely, the Congress addressed itself to the problems of the Atlantic slave trade and the recurring nuisance of the Barbary pirates. It was unanimously agreed that both should be suppressed. To suppress themrequired naval forces, which only the British possessed in adequate amount, and it meant also that naval captains must be authorized to stop and search vessels at sea. The continental states, always touchy on the subject of British sea power, refused to countenance any such uses of the British fleet. They feared for the freedom of the seas. As for the British, they would not even discuss placing British warships in an international naval pool or putting British squadrons under the authority of an international body. Nothing therefore was done; the slave trade continued, booming illicitly with the endless demand for cotton; and the Barbary pirates were not disposed of until the French occupied and annexed Algeria some years later. The growth of international institutions was blocked by the separate interests of sovereign states.
As for slavery being abolihed in Europe since Ancient times, I wouldn't agree with you entirely there, Svarog.
Yes, there were extremely few (if any) slaves on the European Continent (not counting serfs of course) after the collapse of the Roman Empire, but almost every nation in Europe had a finger in the Atlantic slave trade until it was abolished some years later (was it during the 1850's?); even the tiny monarchy of Denmark-Norway possessed slave trading ships (which really isn't that weird, considering their vast merchant fleet).
Sorry for the total off-topicness, but all this stuff about slaves just triggered something I read last week.
Oh, and read the bolded part at the end of the quote. Kinda reminds me of someting... 
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 11, 2005 03:21 AM |
|
|
I meant there was no slavery in Europe. So, legally it was abolished there. Although morally u're right; they all sold slaves to the American states who demanded them. I shouldnt have dignified them that much, sorry.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted March 11, 2005 03:23 AM |
|
|
|
Hehe, I understood what you meant; I just had to, ummm, what's it called? Split hairs?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted March 18, 2005 04:59 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 18 Mar 2005
|
Fidel Castro Richer than Queen Elizabeth?
CNN's website published a small article about Fidel Castro:
Quote:
On Tuesday Forbes published a story on the fortunes of the world's richest rulers and heads of state, including Castro, Britain's Queen Elizabeth and the Sultan of Brunei, saying none were "exemplars of capitalism" and did not qualify for the world billionaires list. Cuban President Fidel Castro has a net worth of $550 million. It was the second straight year Castro has appeared on the Forbes list. Last year, the magazine put his worth at $150 million.
Forbes magazine said, in the past, they have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. They also explained that this year, they've used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. The magazine continued by saying that Castro derived his fortune from a web of state-owned companies that include retail conglomerate CIMEX, pharmaceutical company Medicuba and a convention center near Havana.
Edit: can't seem to find the current list....hmm
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted March 18, 2005 05:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Forbes magazine said, in the past, they have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. They also explained that this year, they've used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies.
This quote doesn't really make me trust their methods of estimation...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 18, 2005 05:21 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 18 May 2005
|
Yeah
I'm still looking to corroborate the info. I can't seem to find reliable references at the moment.
Edit: 17 May 05
~I read an article about Luis Posada. According to the information given, he is considered a terrorist by Venezuela and Cuba. He is apparently accused of killing innocent people in his efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro. The article also says he worked for both the Venezuelan intelligence and U.S. C.I.A.. He is 70 now. Hmm...
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
| |
|
|
