The Bay of Pigs, we're led to believe by Castro and his dutiful media/academic minions, was Fidel and Che's crowning glory. "Imperialism's First Defeat!" as the Castroite press crows to high heavens. Yet in their recent movie, so closely mentored by Castro's propaganda ministry, Steven Soderbergh and Benicio del Toro somehow "overlooked" Che's glorious role in the epic victory. Hummmm...?
The Bay of Pigs invasion plan included a CIA squad dispatching three rowboats off the coast of western Cuba (350 miles from the true invasion site) loaded with time-release Roman candles, bottle rockets, mirrors, and a tape recording of battle.
The wily Comandante Che immediately deciphered the Yankee-Imperialist scheme! That little feint three hundred miles away at the Bay of Pigs was a transparent ruse! The real invasion was coming here in Pinar Del Rio! Che stormed over with several thousand troops, dug in, locked, loaded, and waited for the "Yankee/mercenary" attack. They braced themselves as the sparklers, smoke bombs, and mirrors did their stuff just offshore.
Three days later, the (literal) smoke-and-mirror show expended itself, so Che and his troops marched back eastward, where Che could taunt the (safely captured and disarmed) freedom-fighters. Freedom-fighter Manel Menendez parachuted into the inferno of Soviet firepower known as the Bay of Pigs and ripped into the Communists to his very last bullet, like his entire band of freedom-fighting brothers who inflicted casualties of 20-1 against their Soviet-led and -armed enemies.
Castro rules today primarily for one reason: The Knights of Camelot cut off the bullet supply to Manel and his freedom-fighting Band of Brothers. During dinner with your humble servant here many years later, Manel described Che's visit. "We'd all run out of ammo and been captured and herded into an enclosure," he recalls. "And so here comes Che, strutting and sneering as usual. He strutted up and looked around with that famous sneer of his. Then he started snickering. Many of us were wounded, but one of our guys faced him down and said, "Well I guess you'll send us all to the paredón (firing squad) now, right, Che?"
"No," Che snapped. "No paredón. We're gonna hang all of you, slowly! The firing squad's too good for you."
Not surprisingly, in his heated battle with a tape recorder and roman candles, the masterful Comandante had managed to wound himself. The bullet pierced Che's chin and exited above his temple, just missing his brain. The scar is visible in all post-April '61 pictures of the gallant Che (the picture we see on posters and T-shirts was shot a year earlier).
.... Che stood atop a tank turret and turned to his men. "Let's wipe 'em out!" he yelled, while waving his pistol overhead in the manner of Clevon Little in Blazing Saddles.
Then he managed to shoot himself through the chin.
Idiot communist hero.
Liberal actually should(!) mean free, free of ideology/religion. A true liberal is not following any ideology, therefore also not communism. Unfortunately many people that call themselves liberals are not.
Skipjack wrote:Idiot communist hero.
Liberal actually should(!) mean free, free of ideology/religion. A true liberal is not following any ideology, therefore also not communism. Unfortunately many people that call themselves liberals are not.
The first casualty of war is the truth. As one pundit mentioned, nowadays the only thing "liberals" are liberal about is people bringing their genitals into contact with each other.
You are referring to Classical Liberalism, and no, they don't resemble that in the slightest.
It is odd, that those who are harking back to the age of Classical Liberalism are referred to as "Conservatives."
It is odd, that those who are harking back to the age of Classical Liberalism are referred to as "Conservatives."
That depends on the conservative. I cant refer to a christian conservative as a classic liberal, since he clearly is the follower of an ideology (Christian religion).
It is odd, that those who are harking back to the age of Classical Liberalism are referred to as "Conservatives."
That depends on the conservative. I cant refer to a christian conservative as a classic liberal, since he clearly is the follower of an ideology (Christian religion).
Quite right. A classical liberal is a libertarian. Christian conservatives are merely closet inquisitors with a persecution complex.
It is odd, that those who are harking back to the age of Classical Liberalism are referred to as "Conservatives."
Oh. They are progressive enough these "Conservatives". It is just that they want to be moral progressives without being too much economic progressives.
You realize that these progressives of the left and right brought us alcohol prohibition. The height of moral socialism in America.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
It is odd, that those who are harking back to the age of Classical Liberalism are referred to as "Conservatives."
Oh. They are progressive enough these "Conservatives". It is just that they want to be moral progressives without being too much economic progressives.
You realize that these progressives of the left and right brought us alcohol prohibition. The height of moral socialism in America.
Not sure about that, the prohibition movement in the US was always a christian based movement. When you travel around the midwest and southwest you'll find its the biggest bible thumping counties that are the dry ones, still to this day. Thats hardly progressive, any more than the Taliban are progressive.
Prohibition champion Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive.
In fact Mike Huckabee is a relic from the days of Progressive Conservatives.
Although it was highly controversial, Prohibition was widely supported by diverse groups. Progressives believed that it would improve society as generally did women, southerners, those living in rural areas and African-Americans.
Progressivism in that day had its moral socialism and its economic socialism combined. Now there has been a split and we have the Democrat economic progressives and the Republican moral progressives.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
It is odd, that those who are harking back to the age of Classical Liberalism are referred to as "Conservatives."
That depends on the conservative. I cant refer to a christian conservative as a classic liberal, since he clearly is the follower of an ideology (Christian religion).
What a non sequitur ! Obviously none of the Classic Liberals were Christians!
I dare say that is entirely the result of Christianity that Classical Liberalism ever came about at all.
This is just another example of people criticizing the farmer with their mouth full.
It is odd, that those who are harking back to the age of Classical Liberalism are referred to as "Conservatives."
That depends on the conservative. I cant refer to a christian conservative as a classic liberal, since he clearly is the follower of an ideology (Christian religion).
Quite right. A classical liberal is a libertarian. Christian conservatives are merely closet inquisitors with a persecution complex.
It is odd, that those who are harking back to the age of Classical Liberalism are referred to as "Conservatives."
Oh. They are progressive enough these "Conservatives". It is just that they want to be moral progressives without being too much economic progressives.
You realize that these progressives of the left and right brought us alcohol prohibition. The height of moral socialism in America.
The Religious nuts Abolished Slavery and Abortion and Alcohol.
MSimon wrote:Prohibition champion Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive.
In fact Mike Huckabee is a relic from the days of Progressive Conservatives.
Although it was highly controversial, Prohibition was widely supported by diverse groups. Progressives believed that it would improve society as generally did women, southerners, those living in rural areas and African-Americans.
Progressivism in that day had its moral socialism and its economic socialism combined. Now there has been a split and we have the Democrat economic progressives and the Republican moral progressives.
Economic socialists are those who Make everyone equally poor by spreading money. (Except for the Aristocrats running the show.)
What you are constantly referring to as "Moral Socialism" must mean those who want to make everyone equally rich by spreading morals.
D@mn those vile bastards!
I'm sure you would categorize it differently, and in any case it is a gross oversimplification.
Whether any of you like it, (or even understand it) or not, Civil society must have rules that everyone respects. The rules of Successful (relatively) societies are based on the virtually unchanging constant of human nature.
Without a widespread acceptance of ideas such as "thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal " etc. There can be no civil society.
People nowadays like to chop into the social timber which holds up society. (Our common moral ideas.) If they should ever succeed in achieving their goal, they will certainly regret the outcome.
It's not that thou shalt not kill, but that if you would there would be consequences. No one is bound by any law except the laws of nature. Physics, cause and effect.
There are genetically predetermined behaviours that is true. Their presence makes sense from an evolutionary POV.
These behaviours also do result in some very basic rules and a very basic understanding of morale.
Society then takes those rules and refines them. What is stealing? When is something theft and when is it not? That is what makes laws. There is a difference between laws and morale. Of course laws should so that they dont contradict the understanding of morale that most people have, but there are fine differences and they usually exist for a reason.
Our (western) legal systems are currently at a very refined point already with differences only in the details and the actual punishment (e.g. most European countries dont have the death penalty anymore, but the US still has it).
