6 ms·

Maduro, Castro, and Saddam Hussein are/were bad. Castro and Hussein, at least, committed murders to maintain power and Maduro pulled a coup after he lost an ele

Maduro, Castro, and Saddam Hussein are/were bad. Castro and Hussein, at least, committed murders to maintain power and Maduro pulled a coup after he lost an election. Whether they were worth removing is another question, but if you could flip a switch and magically replace them with something better (with no cost and a guarantee the replacement would not be a murderous authoritarian) you would of course do it.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
jmyeet 11mo ago
In 1988, Saddam Hussein dropped nerve gas on Kurds. Saddam was then a US ally and a foil against Iran. The US had propped up that war killing millions of Iraqis and Iranians for almost a decade for basically a net zero outcome. Why was Iran an enemy? Because the US deposed the democratically elected government in 1953 becasue they threatened to nationalize their own oil reserves. Do you see a pattern here? Like at all? The key point is that Saddam could drop nerve gas on Iraqi citizens and it still didn't change him being a US ally (and puppet). We don't care about someone being "bad". We never have. Saddam only ceased to become an ally when he invaded Kuwait and threatened our truly regional ally, Saudi Arabia. All Castro did was overthrow Batisa, another US ally, and nationalize Cuban assets. Hungary is a member of NATO and a US ally despite Viktor Orban essentially overthrowing democracy and genuinely being bad. We helped overthrow Basher Al-Asaad. The al-asaads were former US allies too by the way. Why? Because now they were bad. Who is the new Syrian president? A man by the name of Ahmed al-Sharaa. Who is that you might ask? A former al-Qaeda leader, you know the guys were the Big Bad [tm] for 9/11. But that's OK, he (allegedly) cut ties with al-Aqeda in 2016 so all is forgiven. Let's not look too deeply into 15 or the 19 9/11 hijackers being Saudi. Here's the lesson: whenever the US says someone is being punished, bombed, sanctioned, invaded or whatever because they're "bad" know that it's a lie. I mean they might be bad. But that's never the reason for whatever the latest punitive action is. Always, always, always the reason is become the interests of US foreign policy or Western companies is being threatened.
- terio 11mo ago
  > All Castro did was overthrow Batisa, another US ally, and nationalize Cuban assets. That's not all. Castro also executed thousands creating a terror regime, nationalized American assets, funded and aided guerrillas in Latin America and Africa, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and caused the Missiles Crisis. He replaced a brutal dictatorship with another brutal dictatorship, a communist one, and ran the Cuban economy into the ground.
  - jmyeet 11mo ago
    You don't know history. The so-called Cuban Missile Crisis didn't begin on October 16, 1962. Nor did it begin when the Soviet Union put missiles on Cuban territory. It began when the US put nuclear missiles (Jupiter MRBMs) in Turkey, mere hundreds of miles from Moscow. Those were quietly removed months after the crisis because of a secret agreement between JFK and Khrushchev. And yes, Cuba nationalized assets. As I said. You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is the US doing colonialism and imperialism a good thing that needs to be defended exactly? And let's say Batista and Castro were both brutal dictatorships (which is what you said), why is one bad and one good? Why is one an ally and another a mortal enemy? You're making my point: the US does not and never has cared about people being bad or doing bad things. It's purely about economic interests. That's it. Oh and Castro's involvement in Latin America? I'm sorry, what? From overthrowing the government in Guatemala in 1954 at the behest of a US fruit company to propping up Pinochet in Chile to Noriega in Nicaragua to El Salvador to Columbia and so on, let's compare Castro's impact and legacy to that of the US and see who has done the most harm, shall we? The Cuban economy suffered because the US starved it. But of course Castro gets the blame for that too.
    - Aloisius 11mo ago
      > In Turkey, mere hundreds of miles from Moscow. They were over 1200 miles away from Moscow, near Izmir, Turkey. That's a couple hundred miles closer to Moscow than the Thor missiles that were in England.
  - xg15 11mo ago
    > Castro also executed thousands creating a terror regime ...so naturally, the solution is to make the life of the people under that regime even worse by sanctioning the country? > nationalized American assets, funded and aided guerrillas in Latin America and Africa, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and caused the Missiles Crisis. in other words, did things that threatened American interests.
xg15 11mo ago
Yes, but the point is that sanctions don't get rid of those people, they're just collective punishment on the population. (Plus are used for propaganda if the blame for an economic crisis in a country is put entirely on its regime or economic system and the fact that the country is currently under sanctions is conveniently omitted. See again: Cuba, Venezuela) At the end of the day the purpose of sanctions is to deliberately worsen the quality of life of the population in the sanctioned country. That can't be a tool for good.
charlescearl 11mo ago
The uncritical, unfounded, white supremacist equivalence of the names of Global South heads of state that share nothing other than their inclusion in the never-ending spectacle of a collapsing and always fascist empire’s hitlist. I’m reminded of how this abomination of a country relentlessly linked Marcus Garvey (Black nationalist and Capitalist) and W.E.B. DuBois (Black pan-Africanist and eventually communist) both with the label “Bolshevik” and “Communist threat” as justification for surveillance, incarceration. This “dictator” meme, played out for the last 100 plus years is tired and tiring especially in a place that has a higher incarceration rate than USSR in the 1930s ( or Cuba ) and is currently snatching up folk for the crime of speaking Spanish, while US Southern Command blows up Venezuelan fisherman for the crime of feeding their families.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

jmyeet 11mo ago

In 1988, Saddam Hussein dropped nerve gas on Kurds. Saddam was then a US ally and a foil against Iran. The US had propped up that war killing millions of Iraqis and Iranians for almost a decade for basically a net zero outcome. Why was Iran an enemy? Because the US deposed the democratically elected government in 1953 becasue they threatened to nationalize their own oil reserves. Do you see a pattern here? Like at all? The key point is that Saddam could drop nerve gas on Iraqi citizens and it still didn't change him being a US ally (and puppet). We don't care about someone being "bad". We never have. Saddam only ceased to become an ally when he invaded Kuwait and threatened our truly regional ally, Saudi Arabia. All Castro did was overthrow Batisa, another US ally, and nationalize Cuban assets. Hungary is a member of NATO and a US ally despite Viktor Orban essentially overthrowing democracy and genuinely being bad. We helped overthrow Basher Al-Asaad. The al-asaads were former US allies too by the way. Why? Because now they were bad. Who is the new Syrian president? A man by the name of Ahmed al-Sharaa. Who is that you might ask? A former al-Qaeda leader, you know the guys were the Big Bad [tm] for 9/11. But that's OK, he (allegedly) cut ties with al-Aqeda in 2016 so all is forgiven. Let's not look too deeply into 15 or the 19 9/11 hijackers being Saudi. Here's the lesson: whenever the US says someone is being punished, bombed, sanctioned, invaded or whatever because they're "bad" know that it's a lie. I mean they might be bad. But that's never the reason for whatever the latest punitive action is. Always, always, always the reason is become the interests of US foreign policy or Western companies is being threatened.

terio 11mo ago
> All Castro did was overthrow Batisa, another US ally, and nationalize Cuban assets. That's not all. Castro also executed thousands creating a terror regime, nationalized American assets, funded and aided guerrillas in Latin America and Africa, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and caused the Missiles Crisis. He replaced a brutal dictatorship with another brutal dictatorship, a communist one, and ran the Cuban economy into the ground.
- jmyeet 11mo ago
  You don't know history. The so-called Cuban Missile Crisis didn't begin on October 16, 1962. Nor did it begin when the Soviet Union put missiles on Cuban territory. It began when the US put nuclear missiles (Jupiter MRBMs) in Turkey, mere hundreds of miles from Moscow. Those were quietly removed months after the crisis because of a secret agreement between JFK and Khrushchev. And yes, Cuba nationalized assets. As I said. You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is the US doing colonialism and imperialism a good thing that needs to be defended exactly? And let's say Batista and Castro were both brutal dictatorships (which is what you said), why is one bad and one good? Why is one an ally and another a mortal enemy? You're making my point: the US does not and never has cared about people being bad or doing bad things. It's purely about economic interests. That's it. Oh and Castro's involvement in Latin America? I'm sorry, what? From overthrowing the government in Guatemala in 1954 at the behest of a US fruit company to propping up Pinochet in Chile to Noriega in Nicaragua to El Salvador to Columbia and so on, let's compare Castro's impact and legacy to that of the US and see who has done the most harm, shall we? The Cuban economy suffered because the US starved it. But of course Castro gets the blame for that too.
  - Aloisius 11mo ago
    > In Turkey, mere hundreds of miles from Moscow. They were over 1200 miles away from Moscow, near Izmir, Turkey. That's a couple hundred miles closer to Moscow than the Thor missiles that were in England.
- xg15 11mo ago
  > Castro also executed thousands creating a terror regime ...so naturally, the solution is to make the life of the people under that regime even worse by sanctioning the country? > nationalized American assets, funded and aided guerrillas in Latin America and Africa, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and caused the Missiles Crisis. in other words, did things that threatened American interests.

xg15 11mo ago

Yes, but the point is that sanctions don't get rid of those people, they're just collective punishment on the population. (Plus are used for propaganda if the blame for an economic crisis in a country is put entirely on its regime or economic system and the fact that the country is currently under sanctions is conveniently omitted. See again: Cuba, Venezuela) At the end of the day the purpose of sanctions is to deliberately worsen the quality of life of the population in the sanctioned country. That can't be a tool for good.

charlescearl 11mo ago

The uncritical, unfounded, white supremacist equivalence of the names of Global South heads of state that share nothing other than their inclusion in the never-ending spectacle of a collapsing and always fascist empire’s hitlist. I’m reminded of how this abomination of a country relentlessly linked Marcus Garvey (Black nationalist and Capitalist) and W.E.B. DuBois (Black pan-Africanist and eventually communist) both with the label “Bolshevik” and “Communist threat” as justification for surveillance, incarceration. This “dictator” meme, played out for the last 100 plus years is tired and tiring especially in a place that has a higher incarceration rate than USSR in the 1930s ( or Cuba ) and is currently snatching up folk for the crime of speaking Spanish, while US Southern Command blows up Venezuelan fisherman for the crime of feeding their families.