[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by bmxmon

When talking about the cuban missle crisis, there is one thing I feel has been left out. The United States had Nuclear missle silos in Turkey(im pretty sure that is where they were), aimed at the USSR. Yes, turkey is farther away from the USSR than Cuba is from the US, but the threat is still there to the USSR and they naturally wanted to counter that threat.

The missiles in Turkey were due to be removed anyway. They were simply a bargaining chip that the U.S. was able to use to end the crisis. To assume that the Soviet Union's placement of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba, aimed at the United States, was 'only countering the threat' is naive, in my opinion. It was a calculated, direct provocation.

Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev, a tough old communist, had met the youthful and urbane President John F. Kennedy and decided he was a lightweight, scared of a nuclear or any other kind of confrontation with the U.S.S.R. After the wimpy way that Kennedy had called off U.S. air support and effectively yanked the rug out from under the Cuban rebels that had massed at the Pay of Pigs to invade and hopefully, reclaim Cuba in the spring of 1961, Khrushchev was certain that JFK was a wimp and he could do what he pleased with only a tepid response from JFK. Khrushchev miscalculated. He was 'asked' to resign his post as Communist Party Secretary in 1964. He did, and left the Kremlin quietly. Many considered Khrushchev's miscalculation and the global perception that the U.S.S.R. had backed down in a confrontation with the United States to be his undoing and the cause of his subsequent fall from power.

I dont get how we justify Guantanamo Bay prison, as we are using it as a loophole for our own laws. I feel that if we want the terrorists to give in and agree to our way of thinking, we need to treat them they way our laws are written.

I hate to use the word 'naive' once again to describe your views on the Guantanamo Bay detention center but I have to, because that is what they are. However, you are still in the educational process and can learn. Guantanamo is used as a 'loophole for our own laws"? Hardly.

The terrorists that are captured and placed in the Gitmo facility in Cuba are not representing a nation and are not part of any national military force. They have no uniforms and no code of conduct. They do not qualify for status as POW's or rate Geneva Accord treatment. They are not common criminals that can be afforded the luxury of the U.S. Justice system with it's rights, lawyers and courts, a system they claim to despise. They are terrorists. They are held for whatever information we can glean from them (a lot, in some cases, little, in others) and to keep them out of circulation. Some terrorists who have been released from Gitmo have turned up back in the middle east, fighting American soldiers.

The touching but misguided view thatwe can we can: "get the terrorists to give in and agree to our way of thinking" is simply wrong. The radical Islamofascists that comprise the membership in terrorist groups spread out over the globe with intent to do harm to democratic interests, specifically the United States are implaccable and are not open to discussion, persuasion or negotiation. They will not 'give in to our way of thinking'. Ever. They have repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that tolerance, diversity and especially, democracy are antithetical to Islam and their stated goal of a global caliphate under Muslim law. They will not be swayed by kid-gloves treatment when they are captured trying to kill Americans. While terrorist suspects are not 'tortured', as has been falsely claimed - with the definition of 'torture' being stretched to it's limit - they are not afforded the constitutional rights that Americans receive, for good reason. They are not Americans, POW's or soldiers of any kind. They are terrorists. They made that decision, not us.

Im not exactly sure though that Castro would exactly do anything to hurt us, because otherwise why would he let an American Naval base go on existing in Cuba without constant attack (not formally, more like terrorist things, to protect him from going to war with the US)

You really need to do a little more study on Casto's history as dictator of Cuba and how he has exported terrorism and fomented communist revolution throughout Latin America over the past 45 years. His support of anti-American guerrillas and terrorists in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, his military involvement with - and support for - anti-American regimes and groups in Africa and the Middle East in the 1970s and 1980s, and his constant denunciations of "U.S. imperialism," "capitalism," and "neo-liberalism" in international organizations and forums speak to his determination and consistency as an enemy of the United States of America

As for Guantanamo base, that has been a part of Cuba for 100 or more years and while it's legality has been in dispute almost as long, Castro receives rent from the U.S. (he has only cashed one check) and is not stupid enough to try any overt action against the well-armed base, which does not threaten him. In short: Casto leaves us alone on the base (it has it's own water and electrical supply, apart freom Cuba's) and we leave Castro alone. It's worked that way since 1959.

I do not see that people are open to new ideas other than christianity a bad thing. The only reason most people are christians is because that is what their parents were, and they have never questioned it. I feel that everybody should take a step back and take a look at their religion and other religions out there, and decide which one fits them or makes the most sense to them.

You are making huge and erroneous assumptions as to why a billion or more people, worldwide, are Christians.

However, I agree that everyone should 'stand back' and look at what they believe, spiritually, and why. I honestly believe that if you read and study the bible and then honestly compare both it and the founder and author of Christianity, Jesus Christ, to any of the worlds religions and their founders, you wiil see Christianity as the logical spiritual choice. However, if you refuse to do so or simply dismiss all 'religion' out of hand, as some do, then you will do that, instead. It's called 'atheism'.

Whatever spiritual path we follow in life - or if we follow none at all, is a very serious, personal choice. I am a Christian and have seen tons of counter-arguments against Christianity but have not been persuaded in the least, by any of them. However, while I value and cherish my spiritual faith I also respect the right of others to disagee and/or find another way. I just think those people are wrong.

As for the political parties being almost the same, I partly agree. For most people who dont take a great deal of interest in politics, picking the major canidate from either party will probably not affect them. As for those who are interested in politics, they see the major differences in the parties and also notice the effects of each decision made by a politician more.

That is correct - but the person who sits in the White House and the party in power in the congress will affect even those who don't vote or care. These people set tax rates, draw up regulations and make laws that we all have to live under, whether we voted for them or not. Apathy is not an option for me, but it seems to be for many Americans, to their ultimate loss.

I dont know if it was brought up or not, but i dont believe that slavery is completely a racial "thing". Back when GB and the US were in the slave trade, there is absolutely no way they could have gotten slaves from africa without the permission of the Kings of the different African tribes. These kings didnt care what color the person they were selling into slavery was, just as long as they either got their money or got rid of an opposing tribe. Of course, after the boats left africa and headed to their destination, it was completely a racial "thing." People have always been after money, which I would say is a leading cause of slavery. The Childrens crusade, for example, was comprised of many europeans, and when they got down to the Mediterrian sea, they loaded boats to go to the middle east and fight their "holy war." Most of the boats didnt go their, instead they went other places(most) where the children were sold into slavery.

Slavery is as old as man and is still practiced in a few forsaken places, such as the Sudan. It is still wrong - no matter who is the master and who is the slave. The only difference is in your perspective.