Who's the greater threat, Saddam or Castro

I still think Castro is somewhat of a threat even though he hasn't really attempted anything that we're aware of since the 60's. He does have WMD's and as long as he has possession of them, he does remain a small threat though I wouldn't put him in the same league as Sadaam.

tc and PotC-If the actions of GW scare you so much, just how would you propose the situation be handled. While I think some of his actions are a bit extreme and he should cool off, I don't believe we can sit idly by.

 

Lissie did you read my initial post? It has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with a dictatorship with WOMD. You're basing your belief that Castro isn't a threat like most of the public based on a report made by a spy for Castro to spread disinformation and ease spying so he can carry out operations without our knowledge. He's allegedly trading biolgical weapon secrets with rouge nations like Iraq etc, and has the ability to produce high grade anthrax like the ones found after Sept 11. Terrorists can safely use Cuba as a stop off point and gain access if need be. If there was going to be a nuke brought into the US it would be by boat and the safest place to do that would be through Cuba.

As a threat to the US, Cuba poses more of a threat (not militarily but in all aspects) than Iraq. Saddam's only way to hurt the US is through oil. Militarily Saddam only has a couple thousand of loyal elite troops, the rest are underpaid and demoralized, and their equipment is in disrepair and outdated. If he were to gain nuclear capability he still lacks the capability to fire upon the US. I'm not saying he's not a threat to be dealt with, but we've got blinders on focusing on him when you've got someone closer to home that actually can deliver WOMD onto our shores, combine that with Castro's hatred of us and that he's essentially being ignored and you've got a greater threat. Unless you think a loss of money is more dangerous than a loss of life.

 

tc and PotC-If the actions of GW scare you so much, just how would you propose the situation be handled. While I think some of his actions are a bit extreme and he should cool off, I don't believe we can sit idly by.

Well, I still hold that if Bush had not had pulled out of the middle east conference pre Sep11th much of what transpired would not have....

Either way though what is Bush doing now? he is talking about arming and training neighbouring countries to fight these 'terroristic' countries. {that are generally defined no more then that...}
This is the same policy that armed and trained Afghanistan years ago.
We should leaarn from our mistakes, not repeat them ad-infinitum. Then again, what is best for the world is not always what is best for just America....

 

Chretien. - PROPHEToftheCOUNCIL

LOL!!!

Actually, I think he's a bigger threat to Canadians than he is to Americans.

Senile Chretien: Eh.... what does this button do?
Aide: Mr. Prime Minister, that is the phone with the direct link to the office of Fidel Castro.
Senile Chretien: Oh... <picks up phone> Hello, Kremlin? Is my porrage ready?
Castro: What's that, old man?
Senile Chretien: You young people these days! Useless! Why, back in the day, in the late 1880s, we could count on the youth of the world!

In all seriousness, I don't think either dicator poses much of a threat to the United States, but Saddam poses a marginally greater risk (ie. slightly greater than 0) to his neighbours. I don't think Bush should invade Iraq, but it's up to him. If he wants to send American soldiers to their death in a war that doesn't need to be fought, then that's his (and your) problem.

 

tc-You bring up a very good point about the training and arming of other countries. The US has seen that come around and bite us in the rear more than once with Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq. They get the weapons and technology from the US and then they turn. I think could possibly happen with Afghanistan again. We'll just have to see.
I don't think Bush not pulling out of that middle east conference would have prevented any of the current events. Many of those countries and many of those people have a deep hatred for the United States and while that didn't help the relationship at all I don't think remaining at the conference would have helped much more.

 

tc you're ignoring some important facts.
1. The events of Sept 11th were put into place years ago. Or have you forgotten that Osama tried to blow it up with explosives several years back? If anyone is to blame its Clinton, but I don't blame him despite the fact that everyone entered the country, trained and planned while he was in office. But it wasn't his fault for many reasons, but using your logic it was, so you know, whatever.

2. We trained rebels that weren't apart of any organized government, and those rebels actually organized a very stable and sympathetic government up until just a couple of years ago when the Taliban took over and gave Osama safe haven. So the government of Afganistan prior to the Taliban were the ones to benifit the most for the US's training, but the Pashtuns are the ethnic majority there and weren't represented enough which is why the Taliban was able to come to power.

But other than ignoring those two minor facts your dead on there.

 

What in god's name would Castro achieve by committing any "attack" on the US? He's not stupid...aiding terrorists would just give the US reason to take direct action against him. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it's Mañana is good enough for me! in Cuba, more than ever.

US corporations are patiently waiting for him to kick the bucket so they can buy beachfront property and build sweatshops.

 

I agree that Saddam's much much more of a threat than Castro. Tensions with Castro have cooled off alot, we sent back Elian, the O's played the Cubans in a baseball series, I mean as soon as we normalize relations Havana will have a Major League team.

Saddam, on the other hand, is an absolute monster, and is radically more anti american, and more anti western than Castro ever could be.

 

I patiently read this whole thread, waiting for the punchline, but apparently the joke's on me, because some americans really do think Castro poses some sort of threat to the US.
Anyone who seriously believes Castro is sitting in Havana, plotting a nuclear strike, or devestating terrorist attack on the US, is quite clearly off their head, and I would seriously suggest they go and lie down, or see a therapist.
This has to be the best example of double-think since Orwell coined the phrase. Consistently over the past 40 years, and in fact for a considerable period before that, dating back to the Spanish/American war, Cuba has been on the receiving end of US greed, and gunboat diplomacy. It's a classic example of the bully blaming the victim.

 

This is post-9/11 America, people. We Americans have enemies throughout the world eager to see our wonderful Utopia crumble in a cloud of ionized dust particles. Anyone who does not believe what we believe is suspect! We must act now to irradicate any threat to the American way of life.

I say, Way to go, Mr. Bush! We need to invade Iraq and finish what your daddy started. Then we should move through to Saudi Arabia, because they wear the same kind of clothes as Iraqians, so they must hate us just as much. All of the Middle East will be invaded by us, to save our way of life. Then we need to take a strong look at all of those countries that have criticized us! We will liberate Europe from its oppressive, critical governments and create a world filled with only lovers of America! If that means that America can be the only country in the world, then so be it! We must preserve Truth, Justice, and the American Way!!

Oh, yeah, we'll deal with Castro on our way back from "Liberating" Europe, just before we move our Armed Forces south to South america so that we can deal with all those Drug lords and...(is handed a note) what..? Oh, right... Yeah, we'll leave South America alone for right now... (talking to someone off camera) They make THAT much money off that stuff?!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
All I'm saying is, paranoia can go too far...
Give it a rest, finish your cheerios, and enjoy life. (I'm also saying that the "War on Terror" is too ambiguous, and may sadly go on for decades with no definitive "enemy". THAT scares me more than anything Castro or Saddam could ever do to us.)

 

In my opinion, Saddam is the bigger threat. Sure, Castro has his bombs in close proximity to us, but Cuba and the USA are on better terms than Saddam with his long range nuclear missiles.

 

^ What he said.
|
|
|

 

Saddam.

He has far greater resources. Castro has been hobbled by the fall of the USSR, but Saddam sits on tons of oil whose money can fund whatever he pleases.

Despite america's efforts, there are simply too many people who sympathize with him, and have defeated enough of the embargo for him to continue his WOMD program.

I don't see a simple solution here. If the US topples Saddam, it will further polarize the 'arab street' which already dislikes american actions in the region. It may even generate a wave of popular support for al-Qaeda, who is just waiting for the right moment to strike again. If they move from the fringe to the mainstream, the US may be facing the prospect of a third world war which its allies may just not be willing to fight.

Saddam would use whatever he has in a heartbeat. I have no doubt of that. Castro has an agenda I'm sure, but his teeth are nowhere near as sharp, IMHO.

Peace,

V-03

 

I can't believe a comparison is even being made. Castro's never been a threat, and as far as dictators go, hes a good man.

the only reason America has ever seen Castro as a threat is because hes a communist and he let Russia place their missiles on Cuba during the cold war. If you really think Castro has any intention of atttacking America, you must be severely deluded.
Castro isn't stupid. Regardless of the embargo, Cuba makes a lot of money with illegal trade with the US. Lets not forget the links with the mafia either.

Fact is, Castro worries about nothing other than his own dometic problems. As I said, although he is a dictator, hes as benevolent as they come. I saw a documentary about this the other day and they said that, if Cuba was a democracy, it would be suffering form famine, terrible unemployment and poor healthcare. Instead, thanks to Castro, famine has been totally illiminated, employment is high, and the Cuban medical program is making incredible achievments, including the vaccin for Meningitis (can't remember which form of it, C or B?).

Don't ever compare Castro to Hussein again. Hussein has done nothing good for his people. Nothing at all. Hussein deserves to die, Castro is the best thing which could happen to Cuba. I'd hate to see what CUba will become upon his death.

 

Sodomy or castration?
Both are terrible threats.

 

So Saddam has long range nuclear weapons now






Oh - Tennorjedi, the people in Afghanistan that the US and Britain trained, the rebels who set up the government - they ARE the taliban. We gave them banana's they tallied them man.

As for the events of Sep11th being planned for a long time - yes - they were. One thing that hcan be seen fromthe UK / IRA terrorist history though is that terrorist organisations will have cells that frequently plan and train for attacks - which often never come. I believe Clinton done a good job of keeping the tensions in order - a very delicate operation. Bush storms in {or rather out} and tacitly supports genocide in the area by doing so - this could well have led to the final 'go' order being given for the terrorist attacks on Sep 11th.

 

Last time this thread was on page one i said i didn't really see Saddam or Castro as a threat to America.

I still don't.However since then,the person who i see as the greater threat to America is George Bush !!!

 

TC, your analysis in support of Clinton mysteriously 'keeping tensions balenced' is as much wishful thinking as the zealots who blame the whole mess on him. Very weak.


Not to give it too much thought, it appears you are pointing to Israel as the major catalyst for the terrorists, when that clearly not the case. Bush may have abandoned the peace process (without getting into the question of right or wrong), but Clinton made several direct attacks on bin LAdin's group and was a hawk when it came to Iraq; Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the group's own exisitence rank as higher priorities. Which is NOT to say that clinton is somehow fully culpable...just that I see no legitimacy that he mysteriously kept 'tensions in balence' in regards to the terrorists.

*who* was in office has bollocks all to do with the timing, and people should stop attempting to grind their own political axes in a vain attempt to argue such.



But, it's all off topic.



As for Saddam, the amount of WOMD and launch vehicles he was confirmed to have even before he chucked the weapons inspectors in '97 is scary enoug, without even interpolating the last 5 years of unobserved development. Claiming 'long range nukes' is a bit absurd, given the lack of nuclear and missle tests, but his regime is still a SERIOUS problem in terms of worldwide non-proliferation precedent setting; especially given that he has a track record that suggests he won't be too timid to use them. Laughing at the problem is to put forced cynicism above reason.


EDIT: Lav, that's nice. Here's a biscuit.

 

humm,

Well lets see how many more people hate America when the Cowboys finished and how many more enemies America will have.Alot more than before is term IMO.

And no thankyou,i don't care very much for biscuits !!!

 

Don't ever compare Hussein with Castro again.....Castro is the best thing that could have happened to Cuba.

First off, who are you to decide what is discussed in a thread, SidiousDragon? I see no moderator title under your name; this is a free board (within reason).

Secondly, Castro is a DICTATOR. I don't care if he built gold palaces for every man, woman and child on that island, if you say anything against the man you get dragged off to prison. Real great things he's done for Cuba. I'd be just delighted to live there .

Going by your argument, then Hitler did great things for Germany. He turned the economy around, ended unemployment, and gave a demoralized nation a purpose. But would anybody disagree with me that the man was a sick piece of (insert expletive here), that whatever 'good' he might have done was entirely misplaced on a terrible cause. No.

Third, what will happen on Castro's death? There will be a power struggle. No elections, no choice, no opportunity for the people to be heard. Several individuals who think that they should have all the guns will duke it out for absolute power-exactly what Castro has ruled Cuba with.

So on the whole, I think they both suck. It's just different degrees of vacuum force

Peace,

V-03

 

Of course the fact that hes a dictator doens't make him a nice guy, all I'm saying is that theres a major difference between Castor and hussein. Castro is not a fascist murderer. Castro did not murder all his opponents. In fact Castro didn't even want to becoem a dictator, much like Lenin, he was forced due to the unrest which held sway over Cuba. Unfortunately, like Lenin, hes grown accustomed to being a dictator and won't give up power (power corrupts).

My point was, Castro doesn't have any intwention to fight America, and as far as dictators go, hes done very good things for his country. Hussein, however, is no better than Hitler.

Btw, when I said, "Id hate to see what happens upon his death", I meant that it would turn into a power struggle, as you said and that Cuba would probably fall to a far worse dictator.

 

SidiousDragon-

I understand the historical precedent you are citing with Lenin, who even wrote privately that Stalin should never become the leader of the USSR, but I don't think democracy was ever on his agenda. By the time of Lenin's death, the Soviet Union was firmly established and there was no need for dictatorship.

Same for Castro's Cuba. There was no need for it-but you're right, power corrupts.

Peace,

V-03

 

To reply to toochilled, yes. Iraq has long range nuclear missiles. Why, just the Soviet-made SS-N-20 NATO codenamed "Sturgeon", has a range of at lease 5,000 miles. Those missiles were made in the 80's, so I am sure they have weapons that will travel much farther. And even if their weapons can't hit us, they could still hit strategic targets in Russia and England

 

I see Fidel Castro as a little threat, if any, compared to Saddam Hussein.