Originally posted by Fil2: So Zabbs has learnt nothing.
No surprise there.
Still using American abuses to excuse Castro.
US refusal to allow human rights inspectors into Guantanamo does not excuse Castro's refusal to allow them into Cuba which in any case goes back to 1984. Long before Guantanamo became a concentration camp. Accusing Amnesty, HRW and the ICRC of spying for the Americans won't stand scrutiny and is really the last refuge of the desperate.
Cracks me up when you guys claim you don't support Castro then produce such stupid arguments to justify his oppression.
You are still ignoring big abuses and focussing on the fact that Cubans can afford to get ill where as in the USA Americans are not even at liberty to get a disease. You then tried prisoners of conscience but the USA outdid you there too. You tried anti-trade laws but the USA have the most communist rules there too. AS for the USA using the UN as spies, it is well documented way back in 1998. I will state it again that whilst I do not support Castro and his regime as it could be far better I will not condemn it on the basis of lies!
You should start your own thread on the USA. Every time I come in on a thread to read about either galloway, castro or it could be trapped kittens, your response sidetracks to the USA.
Are you comparing the situation in the UK 1939-45 with modern Cuba? There's no comparison at all. Despite what you might think Cuba isn't under imminent threat of invasion, there's no shortage of food, no rationing, no bombing and they're not involved in total war. Besides Castro's restrictions on personal and political freedoms go much further than anything imposed in the UK which did manage to hold an election, a proper multi-party, multi-candidate election, before the war ended and whilst the nation was still suffering rationing and with the economy and infrastructure quite literally in ruins.
There is every comparison; War time Britain faced a powerful enemy across a few miles of sea, that was threatening to invade, and doing all it could to cause harm, using spys/agents to spread sedition, causing sabotage, using a blockade etc. Cuba faces a super powerful enemy across a few miles of sea, that has attempted an invasion, and could easily try again as it’s record both in the immediate region as well as thousands of miles away readily proves. The US has sponsored spys/agents to spread sedition, has sponsored both acts of sabotage & terrorism, engaged in numerous assassination plots, causes shortages of food & other vital commodities through it’s blockade etc. Further you are wrong both about the restrictions on British civil freedoms during WW2, and about the election, which only occurred after VE day. Regarding the political restriction during the war;
Regulations issued under The Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, did not require parliamentary approval. This Act also allowed that 'Any Act of Parliament may beamended, suspended or applied with or without modification.' The Act was only repealed in 1959.
During the Second World War, just under two thousand British citizens (and many more “foreign aliens”) were detained without charge, trial, or term set, under Regulation 18B of the wartime Defence Regulations.
Much of what was done was kept secret at the time, and even today the authorities continue to refuse access to many of the papers which have escaped deliberate destruction.
Under the legislation the Home Secretary of the day - initially Sir John Anderson, subsequently Herbert Morrison - was free to detain and imprison as he saw fit anyone against whom evidence of potential disloyalty, untested by legal process, was presented by the security services. The normal safeguards against abuse of executive power traditionally available to British citizens, such as the provisions of Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus and trial by jury, were effectively suspended.
The regulation remained in use long after it became clear that no organised Fifth Column existed in Britain.
Although a Home Office Advisory Committee was set up to oversee internment, individuals once arrested had little chance of redress, and could be kept in prison indefinitely with no attempt to charge or try them with any offence. The evidence on which they were arrested was secret and sometimes of dubious accuracy.
Some individual detainees undertook legal action in the courts against the Home Secretary under Habeas Corpus or for wrongful imprisonment, but such actions almost invariably failed. (See Professor Simpson´s book `In the highest degree odious”. The title uses the words of Winston Churchill who, originally a strong supporter of the regulation, came later to recognise its danger to democratic freedom.)
Strong pressure was applied subsequently by political opponents to maintain internment even after the danger of invasion had long receded, whilst some in government sought to prolong its use even after the end of the war, though in the event it was abolished the day after VE day.
As to freedom of speech, this may best be summed up by the words of the Chief Constable of the Middlesborough Police regarding protests at the treatment of four members of the Young Communist League 'that free speech was still allowed in this Country, provided a person chose rather carefully what he said.' (Letter, 21 August 1940).
(Your attempt to ridicule Galloway because of Big Brother is truly pitiful, even beyond sad & desperate now, but also ridiculously funny, so please carry on !) )
Interment is different from arrest and single party politics was not introduced in the UK during the war years but then as I said the two situations are not remotely similar. The US is not preparing to invade Cuba although it might please Castro to pretend so.
The point about the Galloway link, which you missed, was that whilst he was making a fool of himself on BB he was not serving his constituents and missed an important vote in the House. I've no need to ridicule Galloway over his embarrassing behavior, he did it all himself and I'm not surprised you don't like to be reminded of it.
Originally posted by Fil2: Interment is different from arrest and single party politics was not introduced in the UK during the war years but then as I said the two situations are not remotely similar. The US is not preparing to invade Cuba although it might please Castro to pretend so.
The point about the Galloway link, which you missed, was that whilst he was making a fool of himself on BB he was not serving his constituents and missed an important vote in the House. I've no need to ridicule Galloway over his embarrassing behavior, he did it all himself and I'm not surprised you don't like to be reminded of it.
I think you'll find that Tony Blair actually gets the gold medal for missing the most important vote, and who encouraged him to do so, and just go home - Hilary Armstrong. And who is Hilary Armstrong, the person who made all the hue and cry about George Galloway being in BB! A beautiful own goal by Ms Armstrong.
But it was in February of this year that she really made the headlines when she lost the government a crucial vote on plans to introduce a new offence of inciting religious hatred.
The vote was lost by one - that of Prime Minister Tony Blair who she had "allowed" to miss the vote.
I guess Tony Blair turned up to represent his constituents every week from wherever he was in the world, and no doubt shuttled home every time to vote, from what you're saying.
that's the best you can do is it? He's not as bad as Blair so that makes it all right?
Blair does have a poor voting record but how does that excuse the Hon Member for Bethnal and Bow? You also have to agree that Blair was fooled by a pretty simple Tory stratagem on that particular vote. Blair does have the excuse that his job as PM did require him to travel a lot and so stopped him visiting his constituency as often as he should. Galloway has no such excuse except his radio show and other ego inflating exercises.
Since 1997 he's barely voted in 30% of debates, last year that dropped to 10%; he spoke in just 4 debates and submitted 5 written questions. All well below average.
To believe that this situation has not play the most single decisive factor is shaping every aspects of Cuban society, including the short comings in personal & political freedoms, is being dishonestly unrealistic.
Well at least we've got you up to admitting there ARE shortcomings in Cuba's human rights. That's a step forward. Now if we can only get you to understand that sanctions don't automatically require a nation to impose a one party state, arrest without trial etc on its people your education will be much advanced. As it is you're just making excuses for a dictator.
It doesn't take a dictatorship, or sanctions, to bring in "arrest without trial". It's happened in both the US and UK, both of whom pride themselves on being democracies. There's lots of people in Belmarsh and Guantanamo who are testimony to that.
How very true, as exemplified by the U.K's wonderful record in that regard in Northern Ireland - where it resulted in massive recruitment for the 'enemy' it was trying to control.
Originally posted by dandini: Blair made decisions as a leader that were not popular but he stayed with the programme.
... "not popular" I think might just be the understatement of the century... You seem to be suggesting that staying with a decision that caused millions of citizens in countries throughout the world to unite in condemnation of it, led to over 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths, and led to the UK being looked upon as a mere underling of its US masters (Yo, Blair!)as somehow an honourable, rather than a stupid, thing to do.
For all the Castro haters, perhaps you can lobby the Beeb to show this docu , then you can relive all those fail assassination attempts, and reflect if this was all down to his spooky good luck, or perhaps divine protection ? !
Apparently a lot of the fail assassins were attractive women, because he was supposed to be a bit of a lady's man, yet when they got close up & personal, instead of doing the dirty deed, they did dirty deeds !!
Apparently a lot of the fail assassins were attractive women, because he was supposed to be a bit of a lady's man, yet when they got close up & personal, instead of doing the dirty deed, they did dirty deeds !!
Well having seen the picture of Castro in his youth, who wouldn't.
Originally posted by Turk123: Take it from me, you will always blow it as an undercover agent, so find something else to do under your covers ! Anyway consider it payback for feeling you had to explain to a certain Poster why he was wrong in thinking that I was getting emotional !
I know, i'm so sorry, i realised after posting. I promise to be careful in future.
I know, i'm so sorry, i realised after posting. Disappointed I promise to be careful in future.
Just as well I'm all heart & forgiving ! But also frivolous & mischievous !, so if you had a choice would you make it up to me, or would you prefer to take a little light punishment ?
Originally posted by Turk123: Just as well I'm all heart & forgiving ! But also frivolous & mischievous !, so if you had a choice would you make it up to me, or would you prefer to take a little light punishment ?
You always do this with a few minutes to go, but i would have to make it up to you after my punishment.
)
I promise to be careful in future.