# Castro steps down.



## Purple (19 Feb 2008)

Fidel Castro, the totalitarian dictator of Cuba, has stepped down. The secret police and other apparatus of his oppressive police state are still in place. There is still no freedom of the press and people are still afraid to publicly criticise their glorious government.
I was in Cuba a few years ago and underneath the smiles and the sunshine there was an undercurrent of real fear. It was next to impossible to engage people in conversation about their past and their concerns for the future. The few people who did speak did so in hushed tones in quite corners.
So why is it that this morning on RTE, and I am sure it's the same in the rest of the left wing media, Castro was referred to as the Cuban President and the Cuban head of state? Why was he not referred to as one of the last Marxist dictators? Why was nothing said about his oppressive regime? I know that RTE in particular and the Irish media in general are very anti-American but there is no excuse for the way in which they hero worship this violent and oppressive man.


----------



## z103 (19 Feb 2008)

News reporting should be neutral (as possible), just reporting the facts.


----------



## stir crazy (19 Feb 2008)

Its probably 'cute hoor fence' sitting in order to confuse everyone.
This country could never be accused of being anti American. Look at the reality. Without America the economy would be totally different and also without American help from relatives who made their fortunes there we possibly still would be a colonial backwater (sorry not a rant but just a background commentary).
Now look at the present reality of American army planes that are landing in Ireland. If the media throws out the odd smokescreen in the interests of free interpretation then who cares ?  I am sure its politically motivated. Why make an enemy of a country by disrespecting their leaders? Its' none of our business what kind of government anyone else has. Even if they were a democracy we still wouldn't have a vote over there. Its' only words. Actions are the only thing that counts. If we have friendly relations with Cuba and this is how they wish to be addressed then why cause problems for ourselves or them?  Being a small country ourselves our best international role is to be the friend of everyone and encourage more openness and communication between more powerful countries. Start namecalling the respected leaders of other countries and then governments will start to mistrust each other, our citizens will be less safe while abroad and the world will start to close up. Given our reputation for friendliness , if a country wont talk with the Irish then theres no hope for them to talk with anyone else. Thats my view anyway.


----------



## shanegl (19 Feb 2008)

Heads of State are usually given their proper title in the media. 'President' Musharraf for example.


----------



## rabbit (19 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> Fidel Castor, the totalitarian dictator of Cuba, has stepped down. The secret police and other apparatus of his oppressive police state are still in place. There is still no freedom of the press and people are still afraid to publicly criticise their glorious government.
> I was in Cuba a few years ago and underneath the smiles and the sunshine there was an undercurrent of real fear. It was next to impossible to engage people in conversation about their past and their concerns for the future. The few people who did speak did so in hushed tones in quite corners.
> So why is it that this morning on RTE, and I am sure it's the same in the rest of the left wing media, Castro was referred to as the Cuban President and the Cuban head of state? Why was he not referred to as one of the last Marxist dictators? Why was nothing said about his oppressive regime? I know that RTE in particular and the Irish media in general are very anti-American but there is no excuse for the way in which they hero worship this violent and oppressive man.


 
Well said.   What else would you expect from the left-wing RTE though ?


----------



## csirl (19 Feb 2008)

Musharraf & Castro gone.........bad day for dictators. Good ridance to bad rubbish.


----------



## Pique318 (19 Feb 2008)

yup...Bertie's next


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2008)

Pique318 said:


> yup...Bertie's next



Yea, as long as we don't get comrade Gilmore next!


----------



## Caveat (19 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> So why is it that this morning on RTE, and I am sure it's the same in the rest of the left wing media, Castro was referred to as the Cuban President and the Cuban head of state? Why was he not referred to as one of the last Marxist dictators? Why was nothing said about his oppressive regime?


 
Whilst I certainly have no admiration or respect for Castro, I agree that heads of state should be given their "functioning" title (whether it's deserved or not) - it's just a convention that gives at least the semblance of balanced reporting.



> I know that RTE in particular and the Irish media in general are very anti-American but there is no excuse for the way in which they hero worship this violent and oppressive man


 
I agree that RTE tend towards anti American sentiment - but hero worship?! I''ve never seen or heard anything that would come even close to this.


----------



## MOB (19 Feb 2008)

I am no expert on Cuba.  However, their statistics for literacy, medical care, life expectancy and infant mortality are impressive  and the oppression and censorship do, I suppose, need to be viewed in the context of this being a country which has, in essence, been on a war footing for more than 40 years.

I rather hope that the significant achievements in education will, in and of themselves, ultimately be the biggest factor in moving Cuba toward and open and participatory democracy.   I think Cuba is right to mistrust the US.  I think that increased US cultural, political and economic influence is one of the biggest hazards which Cuban society faces in the years ahead.   This is not particularly a criticism of the US (though some of its policies and actions in relation to Cuba and indeed much of Latin America are certainly open to criticism).  Rather, it reflects my view that it is very difficult indeed for any small country to deal with a large and powerful neighbour on terms other than those dictated by the neighbour, which is entirely what one would expect given the disparity in size and power.   It goes without saying (but perhaps I had better say it, just the same!) that there are likewise countries who have to deal on very unequal terms with Russia and China.   

If I had to live in a country a big powerful neighbour, I would still pick the US over the other two.  I rather suspect that some in our media might indeed choose otherwise - or worse, that - if push came to shove  - they would choose the US for themselves, and yet voice the opinion that it is the worst option for Cubans.


----------



## Pique318 (19 Feb 2008)

If and when Cuba becomes 'open' to Americans (and Americans are no longer treated with suspicion because of a Cuban stamp on their passport) I think there will be an influx of relatively rich Americans buying up property in Cuba for pittance and becoming rather like the Costas in Spain. 
Not a good thought.


----------



## shnaek (19 Feb 2008)

If the US get control of the entire island of Cuba then they'd be able to increase the size of Guantánamo and put all the worlds terrorists in there. Yay!


----------



## Sherman (19 Feb 2008)

MOB said:


> I am no expert on Cuba. However, their statistics for literacy, medical care, life expectancy and infant mortality are impressive .


 
I wouldn't exactly trust statistics provided by a Communist regime - they haven't been known for accuracy in their statistical reporting in other places around the world...



MOB said:


> the oppression and censorship do, I suppose, need to be viewed in the context of this being a country which has, in essence, been on a war footing for more than 40 years.


 
South Korea has been on a war footing for the last 50 years and yet does not oppress and censor. West Germany was on a war footing for 45 years and never felt the need to oppress and censor. Taiwan is still on a war footing and does not censor or oppress. Yet strangely their respective Communist enemies felt and feel the need, for 'security reasons' to oppress and censor...



MOB said:


> I rather hope that the significant achievements in education will, in and of themselves, ultimately be the biggest factor in moving Cuba toward and open and participatory democracy.


 
If they are so well educated how come they haven't managed to lift themselves out of poverty in the last half-century? 



MOB said:


> I think Cuba is right to mistrust the US. I think that increased US cultural, political and economic influence is one of the biggest hazards which Cuban society faces in the years ahead.


 
Far from American cultural and economic influence being the biggest threat to Cuba in the future, I would have thought a bigger threat by far was the lack of basic human rights, extreme poverty, grinding malnutrition, and lack of democracy. Cuba undoubtedly needs more, not less, American cultural and economic influence.



MOB said:


> If I had to live in a country a big powerful neighbour, I would still pick the US over the other two.


 
Ditto.


----------



## csirl (19 Feb 2008)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MOB* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=580653#post580653
> _I am no expert on Cuba. However, their statistics for literacy, medical care, life expectancy and infant mortality are impressive ._
> 
> I wouldn't exactly trust statistics provided by a Communist regime - they haven't been known for accuracy in their statistical reporting in other places around the world...


 
Fully agree, doesnt add up considering the dire poverty most of its inhabitants live in. I'd put these claims in the same category as North Korea claiming that alls its inhabitants are well fed and happy.


----------



## z103 (19 Feb 2008)

> I wouldn't exactly trust statistics provided by a Communist regime - they haven't been known for accuracy in their statistical reporting in other places around the world...


Do you trust information provided by a capitalist regime?


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> Do you trust information provided by a capitalist regime?


It's not about Communist or capitalist, it's communist or free. There are no free communist countries and there never have been. Communism is a totalitarian doctrine, capitalism is an economic system.


----------



## z103 (19 Feb 2008)

> It's not about Communist or capitalist, it's communist or free.


True freedom is anarchy. 
Tell all the wage slaves that they are free (and they'll probably believe you).


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> True freedom is anarchy.
> Tell all the wage slaves that they are free (and they'll probably believe you).



That's a childish argument. The "wage slaves" are free to choose how they live their life. This is not the case in a communist country.


----------



## z103 (19 Feb 2008)

> That's a childish argument. The "wage slaves" are free to choose how they live their life.



In a free society, people are free to live their lives however they like. Unfortunately, other people will always interfere and want more than their fair share. This results in some people impinging on the rights of others.

My point is that there is no true free society, capitalist, or communist. The 'wage slaves' in my example above might like (for example) to run their own company, but they mightn't be clever enough, or know the 'right' people, or have enough money etc. In other words, they are far from free.

Society has many mechanisms to promote the illusion of freedom.


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> In a free society, people are free to live their lives however they like. Unfortunately, other people will always interfere and want more than their fair share. This results in some people impinging on the rights of others.
> 
> My point is that there is no true free society, capitalist, or communist.


 OK but in a liberal democracy with small government is the model that offers the maximum freedom.




leghorn said:


> The 'wage slaves' in my example above might like (for example) to run their own company, but they mightn't be clever enough, or know the 'right' people, or have enough money etc. In other words, they are far from free.
> 
> Society has many mechanisms to promote the illusion of freedom.


 No, they are still free. The only limit they have is their own ability (or lack of).


----------



## diarmuidc (19 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> Fidel Castor, the totalitarian dictator of Cuba, has stepped down.


In fairness, the black and white picture you paint puts him on the same level as Stalin, Mao, Hitler et al. I would have to disagree and point out that the history of Cuba (+ Castro) is far more involved  than your summary suggests (you can start by looking at the swell guy he overthrew).


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2008)

I agree that Batista was just as bad, or worse, than Castro but Castro has had nearly 40 years to do the right thing and he hasn't.


----------



## ivuernis (20 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> I agree that Batista was just as bad, or worse, than Castro but Castro has had nearly 40 years to do the right thing and he hasn't.



Castro and Cuba haven't been helped by the fact the United States has had a complete economic embargo on it during that time has no doubt impinged on Cuba's economic prospects since 1962. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 Cuba lost its remaining ally but the economic cold war waged on it by the United States continued unabated. 

If one were to remove the United States' access to imported oil (almost 60% of it's total consumption) I doubt it would remain a bastion of free market capitalism for very long. One can hypothesize the effects this would also have on its democratic system. Also, I imagine we would see large numbers of US citizens looking for economic refuge north of the border in Canada.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

ivuernis said:


> Castro and Cuba haven't been helped by the fact the United States has had a complete economic embargo on it during that time has no doubt impinged on Cuba's economic prospects since 1962. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 Cuba lost its remaining ally but the economic cold war waged on it by the United States continued unabated.
> 
> If one were to remove the United States' access to imported oil (almost 60% of it's total consumption) I doubt it would remain a bastion of free market capitalism for very long. One can hypothesize the effects this would also have on its democratic system. Also, I imagine we would see large numbers of US citizens looking for economic refuge north of the border in Canada.


 All Castro had to do was free his people. He hardly held the high moral ground on that one.


----------



## ivuernis (20 Feb 2008)

Yorky said:


> Castro handled Cuba's 'Peak Oil' crisis very well indeed when the Soviet Union collapsed and their cheap oil, fertilizer, pesticide imports virtually dried up overnight.



You're absolutely correct, I was going to mention PO but it's a bit off topic, but as you brought it up, Cuba has indeed been mentioned as a case in how to manage peaking and declining oil & gas supplies. 



Yorky said:


> The fact that Cuban land was mainly state owned meant that it was swiftly appropriated for organic food production which would not have happened in a 'free' market economy such as Ireland.



Cuba also initiated a large scale wind and solar energy programme. Recent drilling off Cuba has uncovered large potential oil reserves. 



Yorky said:


> I dread to think what will happen when we in Ireland hit peak oil as so little is grown here....famine?



We have a relatively small population and plenty of good farming land so we'll feed ourselves fine.


----------



## ivuernis (20 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> All Castro had to do was free his people. He hardly held the high moral ground on that one.



All America had to do was call an end to their economic embargo which then that might have lead to some form of a successful socialist society in Cuba but I guess that would be something that America would find hard to live with, ergo punitive embargoes remain in place.


----------



## Sherman (20 Feb 2008)

ivuernis said:


> Cuba has indeed been mentioned as a case in how to manage peaking and declining oil & gas supplies.


 
Cuba also has virtually no industry, proportionally very few cars, and little of the energy demands of a modern thriving economy, so you're hardly comparing like with like.


----------



## ivuernis (20 Feb 2008)

Sherman said:


> Cuba also has virtually no industry, proportionally very few cars, and little of the energy demands of a modern thriving economy, so you're hardly comparing like with like.



So? It still went from a period of energy availability relative to its then economic output (pre- Soviet collapse in '91) to a period (post '91) where the energy availability was drastically reduced with a corresponding drop in economic output. Do you think an industrialized nation if it were to undergo a similar reduction would far any better relatively speaking?


----------



## ivuernis (20 Feb 2008)

Yorky said:


> Finally just seal the borders to stop the hungry millions making their way to this land of 'relatively small population and plenty of good farming land'.



Can't do that as we're part of the EU, free movement within member states, etc. See any potential problems there down the line?!?


----------



## z103 (20 Feb 2008)

> All Castro had to do was free his people.


What do you mean by 'free'?


----------



## werner (20 Feb 2008)

He stood up to American bullying, and he did it with flair and intelligence. Who does not admire the little guy who stands up to bullying?

American interests in Cuba had been to a great extent gambling, nightclubs, prostitution, and other dark activities. Castro did largely end this, making an enemy of the American Mafia interests who owned what had been goldmines.He rescued his nation from being an off-shore dyonisian playground where US citizens from the bible belt states could hide their sins from their neighbours. Walking off a ship in Havana now, one no longer has to run the gauntlet of a long avenue of brothels. It remains to be seen if his brother Raul can set his free people from himself whilst keeping them from being enslaved (again) by US dollars.
Castro did genuinely try to help his people, and he did some very worthwhile things. 

In Cuba, a poor country, the average 8th grader is better educated, by far, than he or she is in the United States. Tests and observations have shown this many times. His health care system and medical training were remarkable achievements. Both recognised by the UN and the World BAnk.

He resisted numerous murder attempts by the CIA and its agents, he resisted an invasion, and he withstood a senseless embargo. 

These facts tell us something about Castro not widely appreciated in the U.S. and some countries in Europe. He was a popular figure despite having opponents just as all politicians do.

Castro's only flaw was that of all dictators, he wouldn't hand over power. Like most "communist" dictators he found out that the latter part of Marxism, the withering away of the power of the state, will never happen in human society.


----------



## Sherman (20 Feb 2008)

The defence of Castro in this thread is really amusing - thanks for brightening my day with some good laughs guys 

I'll finish my involvement in what is certain to be a never-ending thread by asking this:

if Cuba is so wonderful, and the US so dreadful, how come I've never heard of Americans fleeing to Cuba in the dead of night on a homemade raft across shark infested waters?  Maybe Americans, with their inferior education, don't know how to make homemade rafts?


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> What do you mean by 'free'?


 The right to self-determination. Democracy.


----------



## MrMan (20 Feb 2008)

> Maybe Americans, with their inferior education, don't know how to make homemade rafts?



Or maybe it's because they are unaware that life exists outside of America.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

MrMan said:


> Or maybe it's because they are unaware that life exists outside of America.


No, it's not that. 

Given the choice how many people would choose to live in a prosperous free and democratic country or a totalitarian communist dictatorship?
Before choosing remember that if you don't like it in the democratic country you can leave but if the commies are not for you it's tough, you are stuck there.


----------



## diarmuidc (20 Feb 2008)

Yorky said:


> I'd prefer to be a 'poor' Cuban leading a largely self-sufficient lifestyle than a 'rich' Westerner totally dependant on oil and the flawed economic growth model that it feeds.


I'll take the latter thanks, and work on the problem of weaning myself off the oil dependence.


----------



## MrMan (20 Feb 2008)

I was missing a smiley there, I don't know much on the Cuban debate to provide any quality input, but it is interesting reading.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

MrMan said:


> I was missing a smiley there, I don't know much on the Cuban debate to provide any quality input, but it is interesting reading.


 Apologies.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

Yorky said:


> I'd prefer to be a 'poor' Cuban leading a largely self-sufficient lifestyle than a 'rich' Westerner totally dependant on oil and the flawed economic growth model that it feeds.


 Would you take their political system as well?


----------



## z103 (20 Feb 2008)

> The right to self-determination. Democracy.


Ah! - you're referring to elections?
Where once every few years, people vote bertie back in again, or once in a while give fine gael a go (who are pretty much the same). I would hardly call that self-determination. Of course it suits the political parties.

TDs are generally voted in on the following grounds;
- Who people think are going to win. Everyone likes to back a winner.
- Which election posters look nicest.
- Whoever their parents vote(d) for.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> Ah! - you're referring to elections?
> Where once every few years, people vote bertie back in again, or once in a while give fine gael a go (who are pretty much the same). I would hardly call that self-determination. Of course it suits the political parties.
> 
> TDs are generally voted in on the following grounds;
> ...


So what alternative do you propose?


----------



## z103 (20 Feb 2008)

> So what alternative do you propose?


I'm not proposing any alternative (although I do have an idea in mind).


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> I'm not proposing any alternative (although I do have an idea in mind).



Ahhhh go on, go on, go on.


----------



## z103 (20 Feb 2008)

Well I don't want to go off topic, but than again I wouldn't mind a critique on the idea.

People are 'elected' to posts because of their proven skills and track record. Replace government with an academia style institution. Any one is free to enrol, and the cream make it to the top.

For example;
Joe wants to study transport to become a transport minister. He leaves school and enrols in the institution. There are seven or eight other people in his class. He spends 3 or 4 years learning all about transport policies, and what other countries have done and what was successful etc. He develops a passion for transport. When he reaches the final year, he can be voted to 'power' by his peers. Throughout his term, he draws idea and direction from his past classmates.

This will ensure that we get the best people for the job, and not some clown that looks good in election posters. Do this for every government department.

Referendums should still be held for certain issues.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

In the USA the president often appoints heads of departments from academia or industry who have an expertise or track record in that area. They spend a few years in public service and then they go back to their old life. I think it's a great idea.
Ministers don’t have to be TD’s in Ireland Senators can be appointed. Since Bertie can appoint Senators he could pick anyone from any walk of life, make him a Senator and then a minister. Garret Fitzgerald did just that when he was in Bertie’s shoes.


----------



## z103 (20 Feb 2008)

The problem with that is we are still stuck with dead wood at the top.

If a decision is made, I'd like to know there was a good reason behind it. eg, "We are not integrating public transport in Dublin because it was tried in hungary in 1982 and blah... blah... " not "We are not integrating public transport because of <insert some self-serving crap>"


----------



## diarmuidc (21 Feb 2008)

Yorky said:


> On the subject of sustainability, the least 'developed' countries of the world are all much better placed for long-term survival as they use so little fossil fuels.



Really? So say Ireland was truly self sufficient and we lived off the food produced in the country what happens when our main crop fails for a number of years?

In fact having mutual dependencies between countries is a good thing. You are less likely to attack you neighbour if you are dependent on him for a vital need and visa versa.



> Replace government with an academia style institution. Any one is free to enrol, and the cream make it to the top.


And they are answerable to whom? And how?


----------



## z103 (21 Feb 2008)

> And they are answerable to whom? And how?


They can be judged by their successes (or failures).
Who are the current government answerable to? - all we seem to hear about is tribunals and corruption etc.


----------



## Purple (21 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> Who are the current government answerable to?


 The people.


----------



## shnaek (21 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> The people.



Where are they? Everyone I meet denies voting for Fianna Fail. I am convinced 'The People' is the name of an old man living out in Kerry.


----------



## MrMan (21 Feb 2008)

> Everyone I meet denies voting for Fianna Fail



Probably with it being a secret ballot and all they want to keep those details to themselves.


----------



## truthseeker (21 Feb 2008)

shnaek said:


> Where are they? Everyone I meet denies voting for Fianna Fail. I am convinced 'The People' is the name of an old man living out in Kerry.


 
Clearly youve met all my friends, family, co-workers and woman i chatted to at the bus stop so


----------



## RMCF (21 Feb 2008)

I was in Cuba for a holiday last summer, and have to say that it was my best holiday ever.

I loved the country, its history, its people, its weather, the vibe, the music etc, and appreciate how good a health system and education system they have, but I'm not sure I'd want to live there.


----------



## Purple (21 Feb 2008)

werner said:


> He stood up to American bullying, and he did it with flair and intelligence.


 Kim Jong-il also stood up to American “bullying”. Do you admire him as well?



werner said:


> American interests in Cuba had been to a great extent gambling, nightclubs, prostitution, and other dark activities. Castro did largely end this, making an enemy of the American Mafia interests who owned what had been goldmines. He rescued his nation from being an off-shore dyonisian playground where US citizens from the bible belt states could hide their sins from their neighbours. Walking off a ship in Havana now, one no longer has to run the gauntlet of a long avenue of brothels. It remains to be seen if his brother Raul can set his free people from himself whilst keeping them from being enslaved (again) by US dollars.


 So if a communist dictator took over Ibiza you would be cool with that too, since it’s just as Dionysian as Cuba was?


werner said:


> Castro did genuinely try to help his people, and he did some very worthwhile things.


 By depriving them of their freedom? Other countries in Europe did great things like drain marshes and building motorways when they did the same thing. Worthwhile things can be achieved without taking away peoples freedom.



werner said:


> In Cuba, a poor country, the average 8th grader is better educated, by far, than he or she is in the United States. Tests and observations have shown this many times. His health care system and medical training were remarkable achievements. Both recognised by the UN and the World BAnk.


 So why is the USA so much richer and more successful? With all those smart people how come the country is so poor? Or are the evil Americans to blame for that as well?



werner said:


> He resisted numerous murder attempts by the CIA and its agents, he resisted an invasion, and he withstood a senseless embargo.


 Opposing a totalitarian dictator is not senseless.



werner said:


> These facts tell us something about Castro not widely appreciated in the U.S. and some countries in Europe. He was a popular figure despite having opponents just as all politicians do.


 If he’s that popular why the secret police, why the oppression and why no democracy? How popular do you think he would have been if there was freedom of the press in Cuba for the last 40 odd years?



werner said:


> Castro's only flaw was that of all dictators, he wouldn't hand over power. Like most "communist" dictators he found out that the latter part of Marxism, the withering away of the power of the state, will never happen in human society.


 His only flaw? So being a dictator is not a flaw, it’s just the not handing over power to another dictator that you have a problem with?

Personally I’d prefer to live in a country that allows self-determination and freedom of expression. I’d prefer to be free than be rich. I’d prefer to have liberty than a good health service.


----------



## stir crazy (21 Feb 2008)

Interesting thread.. which strayed from the original questioning of the attitude of RTE...

Was Bush really democratically elected when he first got into power ?

Why is it that to get real justice in a lot of situations anywhere in the west you need the money to pay for the right (or any) lawyers ?


----------



## z103 (21 Feb 2008)

> By depriving them of their freedom? Other countries in Europe did great things like drain marshes and building motorways when they did the same thing. Worthwhile things can be achieved without taking away peoples freedom.


All governments, deny people's freedoms. Governments, govern, and you can't have this without loss of freedom. No matter how many times you imply we're free, it doesn't make it so.

The birds are free.


----------



## Purple (22 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> All governments, deny people's freedoms. Governments, govern, and you can't have this without loss of freedom. No matter how many times you imply we're free, it doesn't make it so.
> 
> The birds are free.


Communal living and civilisation necessitate that we give up some freedoms. For example we do not have the freedom to steal, the freedom to kill or the freedom to rape. To suggest that these limits and others, which are necessary in order to make a free and democratic society work, are somehow comparable to totalitarian dictatorship is absurd.


----------



## room305 (22 Feb 2008)

werner said:


> In Cuba, a poor country, the average 8th grader is better educated, by far, than he or she is in the United States. Tests and observations have shown this many times. His health care system and medical training were remarkable achievements. Both recognised by the UN and the World BAnk.


 
It's very easy to have committed doctors who work for a pittance when you hold their family to ransom. Kids are likely to excel in state exams when there is a possibility their parents will disappear if they don't.



Yorky said:


> Yes indeed - I think they are by far better placed for sustaining themselves than we in the West are. If the long term survival of my family and I meant that I lived in a Socialist state then I'd be happy to live there. Thinking on, they have possibly the best healthcare and education systems in the world and I can't think what I do in my life here would not be permitted there.


 
The long term survival of your family usually depends on them having enough food to stave off starvation. This is not something that is assured in Cuba's miracle economy.



Yorky said:


> On the subject of sustainability, the least 'developed' countries of the world are all much better placed for long-term survival as they use so little fossil fuels. We have spolied ourselves rotten and are almost totally self-insufficient and dependant on others for our day-to-day survival.


 
This is nonsense. The most efficient users of fuel in the entire world are the United States, Germany and Japan. The least efficient are Russia, India and China. If any countries is going to adapt well to fossil fuel shortages it will be those that are technologically advanced and have fostered a culture of innovation rather than state dependency.



Yorky said:


> Take oil away form us and we revert to the pre-stoneage.


 
So if you can't fill your car with petrol some morning you're likely to start hunting for Mastadon?



leghorn said:


> All governments, deny people's freedoms. Governments, govern, and you can't have this without loss of freedom. No matter how many times you imply we're free, it doesn't make it so.


 
This is an embarrassingly trite statement. Like suggesting there was no point abolishing slavery because the descendants of slaves still need to work for a living.

All governments _by necessity _impinge on our freedoms. The trick is to push for the form of government that restricts freedoms the least and newsflash, that ain't Marxism.


----------



## z101 (23 Feb 2008)

Objective history will show what a great man Castro was. He will be seen for what he achieved rather than the spin of those who disliked him.

He was not perfect in his decisions but either is America and they supported some of the worst despots that ever existed.


----------



## Purple (24 Feb 2008)

Ceatharlach said:


> Objective history will show what a great man Castro was. He will be seen for what he achieved rather than the spin of those who disliked him.


 What about the other communist dictators from the last 70 years, are you a big fan of those "great men" as well?


----------



## shnaek (6 Mar 2008)

Luckily the land of freedom has our backs on this one, and has gone so far as to even shut down websites which promote tourism to Cuba. 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/05/us_kills_european_based_cuba_websites/

They lead the way in showing us what it means to be free. Praise them.


----------



## rabbit (6 Mar 2008)

shnaek said:


> They lead the way in showing us what it means to be free. Praise them.


 
Agreed.     If it was not for uncle Sam, ( and their colleagues over the past few generations , the British ) , we would be speaking German or Russian now ( those of us not in concentration camps or Gulags ).  The US ( or the UK ) are not perfect, but a lot more people escaped from Cuba to the "west"  rather than the other way around.


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2008)

rabbit said:


> Agreed.     If it was not for uncle Sam, ( and their colleagues over the past few generations , the British ) , we would be speaking German or Russian now ( those of us not in concentration camps or Gulags ).  The US ( or the UK ) are not perfect, but a lot more people escaped from Cuba to the "west"  rather than the other way around.



How dare you not jump onto the soft-headed anti-American Band Wagon!
Next you will be thanking the Americans for all the jobs they provide!


----------



## shnaek (6 Mar 2008)

rabbit said:


> Agreed.     If it was not for uncle Sam, ( and their colleagues over the past few generations , the British ) , we would be speaking German or Russian now.



So you mean we could have endured decades (perhaps centuries) under the rule of another nation, and could be speaking a language other than our native Irish language?


----------



## z103 (6 Mar 2008)

> Next you will be thanking the Americans for all the jobs they provide!


The Americans are here because of tax reasons (or sometimes IDA bribes), not for charity. Did you not know that?
There's no need to thank them. If EU tax harmonisation kicks in, they'll soon start leaving.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> The Americans are here because of tax reasons (or sometimes IDA bribes), not for charity. Did you not know that?
> There's no need to thank them. If EU tax harmonisation kicks in, they'll soon start leaving.



I was not aware that the IDA gave bribes. That's a serious accusation, you should back it up.
US companies came here for a number of reasons, mainly low taxes and the fact that we speak English. Never the less they were/are still a major factor in our economic success over the last 15 years. 
The fact that they are now leaving more often than arriving is down to our high wages, bad infrastructure and low skill level. That's down to us, not them. If we want to keep them here we need wage moderation and a few third level bodies that are even close to international standards.  
It would also be good if we worked as hard or as smart as Americans.


----------



## MOB (7 Mar 2008)

"It would also be good if we worked as hard or as smart as Americans"

In fairness, I think we probably do.   Longer holidays perhaps, but our productivity is right up there.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

MOB said:


> "It would also be good if we worked as hard or as smart as Americans"
> 
> In fairness, I think we probably do.   Longer holidays perhaps, but our productivity is right up there.


I can only speak from personal experience over the last 10 years dealing with customers in the USA, Europe, the UK, Asia and Ireland but I have found Americans to be efficient and technically knowledgeable but the thing that really differentiates them from us is their clarity of thought and ability to make decisions quickly. They are also far more honourable in their dealing than Irish people and well stick to their word.
Basically they can make clear business focused decisions faster and better than their Irish counterparts.
They also have a far better technical and commercial understanding of what they are doing. In my experience the only other country that is at their level is Holland.


----------



## rabbit (7 Mar 2008)

shnaek said:


> So you mean we could have endured decades (perhaps centuries) under the rule of another nation /quote]
> If the Nazis or Russians overun these islands only a generation or two ago, yes.  The nazi plan - in the event of a complete German victory in Europe - was for the men from these islands to be used to build an Autobahn to India.  ie useful extermination.      If you have ever been to places like Dachau or Auchwitz,  you will see how they treated minorities from many different countries.     Talking of India incidentally, a full 25% of the British administration in India comprised of Irishmen.
> 
> To get back to the subject, America was and is not perfect, but it provided a lot more jobs to Irish people than Cuba ever did.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> I was not aware that the IDA gave bribes. That's a serious accusation, you should back it up.


A 'serious accusation'? - it's freely available for anyone to see on their website;
[broken link removed]
It is under 'Financial Incentives'

this is certainly a bribe, [broken link removed]


> *1. * Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.



Did you not know the IDA did this?


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> A 'serious accusation'? - it's freely available for anyone to see on their website;
> [broken link removed]
> It is under 'Financial Incentives'
> 
> ...



_brib·ing. 
–noun 1. money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person._ from dictionary.com


The implication is that brides are illegal payments to the individual. IDA grants (Financial Incentives) are linked to targets such as employment levels etc. If these targets are not met the grants are repaid. Your implication is insulting to the people who work in the IDA and to those companies who avail of these incentives. Using your logic a research grant is a bribe.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> The implication is that brides are illegal payments to the individual.


Where did I imply that the process was illegal? I would certainly question the ethical implications, but I never implied anything _illegal_ was going on.



> _ –noun 1. money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person._


A bribe doesn't have to be illegal, and the way the IDA operates certainly fits your definition of _bribing_, above.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> and the way the IDA operates certainly fits your definition of _bribing_, above.


I think you should consider your posts a bit more on a public forum. If you made that accusation about a private company they would be well within their rights to sue you (or Brendan as the owner of AAM).


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> I think you should consider your posts a bit more on a public forum. If you made that accusation about a private company they would be well within their rights to sue you (or Brendan as the owner of AAM).


Did you even read my posts? (BTW, When quoting, please include all the relevent text. Otherwise it can be quite misleading)

Can the IDA not sue people? What grounds would they be suing me, or Brendan, the owner of AAM?

You jumped to the conclusion that I was suggesting the IDA was acting illegally, which was not the case.



> I can only speak from personal experience over the last 10 years dealing with customers in the USA, Europe, the UK, Asia and Ireland but I have found Americans to be efficient and technically knowledgeable but the thing that really differentiates them from us is their clarity of thought and ability to make decisions quickly. They are also far more honourable in their dealing than Irish people and well stick to their word.
> Basically they can make clear business focused decisions faster and better than their Irish counterparts.


Maybe all the 'dishonourable Irish' should sue you!


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> Did you even read my posts?


Yes.



leghorn said:


> You jumped to the conclusion that I was suggesting the IDA was acting illegally, which was not the case.


 You said; 


leghorn said:


> and the way the IDA operates certainly fits your definition of bribing, above.


The definition that I posted was; 


> –noun 1. money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person.


 My conclusion was based on this. In what way is it inaccurate? 




leghorn said:


> Maybe all the 'dishonourable Irish' should sue you!


 I did not say that the Irish were dishonourable, I said that Americans were, in my experience, more honourable. Did you even read my post?


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> Originally Posted by *leghorn* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=591734#post591734
> _You jumped to the conclusion that I was suggesting the IDA was acting illegally, which was not the case._
> You said;
> Quote:
> ...


This is not acting illegally.
(I'm sure I've made this point already...)


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *leghorn* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=591734#post591734
> _Maybe all the 'dishonourable Irish' should sue you!_
> 
> I did not say that the Irish were dishonourable, I said that Americans were, in my experience, more honourable. Did you even read my post?


Yes, I read your post. It was quite an offensive sweeping generalisation, based soley on nationality. I would also say that to be honourable is an absolute.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> This is not acting illegally.
> (I'm sure I've made this point already...)


 We have had anit-bribery laws in Ireland since 2001. Making a counter claim does not change this, no matter how often it is made.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> I would also say that to be honourable is an absolute.


 I agree. That's why I said "more honourable", thus making it relative.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> We have had anit-bribery laws in Ireland since 2001. Making a counter claim does not change this, no matter how often it is made.


Now post the source, so I can see how these particular laws are phrased. Maybe the IDA are acting illegally after all.




> _ I would also say that to be honourable is an absolute._
> I agree. That's why I said "more honourable", thus making it relative.


How can something be both absolute, and relative? - are we getting into quantum theory here?


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

Knock yourself out


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

Thanks for the link.

It would take me some time to read through the whole act, and interpret what is says. However, if the following also applies to organisations, 


> *4.*—(1) Where in any proceedings against a person referred to in subsection (5)(_b_) of section 1 (inserted by _section 2_ of this Act) of the Act of 1906 for an offence under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, as amended, or the Act of 1906, as amended, it is proved that—
> 
> (_a_) any gift, consideration or advantage has been given to or received by a person,
> 
> ...



then It is my opinion that the IDA is acting contrary to this act, and offering such bribes is indeed illegal. However, I'm not a legal expert.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> Thanks for the link.


 No problem.



leghorn said:


> It would take me some time to read through the whole act, and interpret what is says. However, if the following also applies to organisations,
> then It is my opinion that the IDA is acting contrary to this act, and offering such bribes is indeed illegal. However, I'm not a legal expert.


 You may be right but you may not be. At the moment you are making anonymous accusations on a website which provides a free public service. The owner of this website will be liable if you are wrong and those you accused take umbrage. I suggest you take this into account when posting, that's all.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> I can only speak from personal experience over the last 10 years dealing with customers in the USA, Europe, the UK, Asia and Ireland but I have found Americans to be efficient and technically knowledgeable but the thing that really differentiates them from us is their clarity of thought and ability to make decisions quickly. They are also far more honourable in their dealing than Irish people and well stick to their word.
> Basically they can make clear business focused decisions faster and better than their Irish counterparts.
> They also have a far better technical and commercial understanding of what they are doing. In my experience the only other country that is at their level is Holland.



You can't see any problem with the above? You're basing judgement on nationality. My post was about one organisation, backed up by proof, which you found questionable. Your post was about every single company with Irish employees! I strongly disagree with your comments, and believe it presents my own business in a negative light. Your comments are particulary damaging since we compete with American and Dutch companies. Should I take Brendan to court?

Maybe you should consider such ramifications before posting on a public forum etc, etc...


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> You can't see any problem with the above? You're basing judgement on nationality. My post was about one organisation, backed up by proof, which you found questionable. Your post was about every single company with Irish employees! I strongly disagree with your comments, and believe it presents my own business in a negative light. Your comments are particulary damaging since we compete with American and Dutch companies. Should I take Brendan to court?
> 
> Maybe you should consider such ramifications before posting on a public forum etc, etc...


I offered personal opinion and did not accuse anybody of illegal activities. If you cannot see the distinction then you should read back over the thread.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> I offered personal opinion and did not accuse anybody of illegal activities. If you cannot see the distinction then you should read back over the thread.


Your published, personal opinion;
 - Irish people are 'less honourable' than American people.
- Americans can make clear business focused decisions faster and better than their Irish counterparts.
- Americans have a far better technical and commercial understanding of what they are doing. 

(Which are simply outrageous comments to make.)

I would like to draw your attention to section 19 of the defamation act, 1961
http://tinyurl.com/3ajjzz


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> Your published, personal opinion;
> - Irish people are 'less honourable' than American people.
> - Americans can make clear business focused decisions faster and better than their Irish counterparts.
> - Americans have a far better technical and commercial understanding of what they are doing.
> ...


No, I related personal experience of doing business with both American and Irish people. I did not defame anyone or accuse them of illegal activity.


----------



## room305 (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> I would like to draw your attention to section 19 of the defamation act, 1961


 
You're talking out of your cakehole. The defamation act can only apply to an individual or specific entities. You could no more take a defamation case against AAM for a generalisation made about the Irish people, than an An Post worker could sue me personally because I frequently accuse them of providing a shoddy service.

Ever had a rant about the inefficient public sector? The poor health service? Poor transport? Bad planning? Heavy traffic? Overpriced goods? Looks like you'll be spending an awful long time in court. Best not complain about the legal system though, lest some judge takes umbrage and brings yet another defamation case against you.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> No, I related personal experience of doing business with both American and Irish people. I did not defame anyone or accuse them of illegal activity.


Can you not see that you have defamed all Irish people?

From dictionary.com (source you used earlier)


> *Defame* To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel.



Your sweeping comments certainly damage the reputation, character and good name of *all* Irish people. Furthermore, you're discriminating solely based on Nationality.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> The defamation act can only apply to an individual or specific entities.


Would you be able to interpret the act that Purple posted earlier and see if I was breaking any laws by this comment;


> The Americans are here because of tax reasons (or sometimes IDA bribes), not for charity.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> Can you not see that you have defamed all Irish people?



It is not possible to defame an entire nation of people. You are being ridiculous. There are plenty of posters on AAM that I disagree with and have entertaining and colourful discussions with, (Rainyday, aircobra19 etc ) but I still respect their opinion and have a high opinion of them.

This is not one of those threads.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> The Americans are here because of tax reasons (or sometimes IDA bribes), not for charity.


 The IDA is a state body. It interacts with corporations, and individuals within those corporations, in order to secure investment in this country. You made the assertion that the IDA used bribes to secure that investment. This is an illegal act. You then read the statute on Bribery and again made the claim that the IDA did indeed use bribes while conducting its business. 

We are going around in circles here.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> It is not possible to defame an entire nation of people. You are being ridiculous.


Really? - read the first two lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defame



> There are plenty of posters on AAM that I disagree with and have entertaining and colourful discussions with, (Rainyday, aircobra19 etc ) but I still respect their opinion and have a high opinion of them.
> This is not one of those threads.


Of what relevance is this?



> The IDA is a state body. It interacts with corporations, and individuals within those corporations, in order to secure investment in this country. You made the assertion that the IDA used bribes to secure that investment. This is an illegal act. You then read the statute on Bribery and again made the claim that the IDA did indeed use bribes while conducting its business.



We haven't determined whether the IDA is acting illegally by bribing companies.


----------



## room305 (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> Would you be able to interpret the act that Purple posted earlier and see if I was breaking any laws by this comment;
> The Americans are here because of tax reasons (or sometimes IDA bribes), not for charity.


 
I don't know if you're breaking any laws per se, I'm an engineer not a lawyer. However, I do know that accusing the IDA of bribing American companies pointlessly exposes the site to at least the possibility of a libel action.

You seem to be getting bogged down in semantics of what is and isn't a bribe. I'd imagine that most people reading the site would interpret such an accusation as involving bundles of taxpayer cash transferred to the accounts of senior US executives, rather than say - reduced ground rent in return for employing people from an impoverished area or some such.

I once received a research grant from the government which was designed to encourage people to perform high level academic research in Ireland rather than doing so abroad. I'd find it a little strange if someone were to suggest I was bribed not to leave the country, unless they intended it to be derogatory.

As to what a judge will say? Who knows, but why bother taking that chance unless you genuinely did intend people to interpret the IDA's actions as being somewhat sinister.


----------



## room305 (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> Really? - read the first two lines.


 
This would imply that only the government (acting on behalf of the Irish people) could bring such a defamation case against Purple.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> This would imply that only the government (acting on behalf of the Irish people) could bring such a defamation case against Purple.


So it would seem that in your opinion, Purple is pointlessly exposing the site to at least the possibility of a libel action.

(Note, the IDA is an Irish Government Agency)

The main difference between what I've posted and what Purple has posted, is that the IDA is actually giving financial assistance for companies to locate in Ireland. Purple, on the other hand has nothing to back up his comments about Irish people, apart from it being his personal opinion.


----------



## room305 (7 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> So it would seem that in your opinion, Purple is pointlessly exposing the site to at least the possibility of a libel action.


 
*sigh* You think the government could _really_ launch a libel action against a website for defamation of the Irish people? Might AAM and/or Purple not be entitled to ask why the Irish people feel so aggrieved about his comments (despite his prefacing them with the statement that they his own personal opinion) when sites like  go unchallenged? Do you think the government that did this would last very long?



leghorn said:


> (Note, the IDA is an Irish Government Agency)


 
Which is very distinct from an _entire nation of people_.



leghorn said:


> (The main difference between what I've posted and what Purple has posted, is that the IDA is actually giving financial assistance for companies to locate in Ireland.


 
Yes, _financial assistance_ not bribes. If you have a very deep desire to argue the relative differences between the two in front of a judge I might suggest doing so on your own site.



leghorn said:


> (Purple, on the other hand has nothing to back up his comments about Irish people, apart from it being his personal opinion.


 
Which is his defence also. If I stated that I'd only ever encountered ugly Bulgarian women in my lifetime, could I be sued by an aggrieved Bulgarian? What kind of bizarre fantasy land world do you live in? Seriously, grow up.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

> What kind of bizarre fantasy land world do you live in? Seriously, grow up.


Please lay off the personal attacks.



> *sigh* You think the government could _really_ launch a libel action against a website for defamation of the Irish people?


It's as likely as the IDA launching legal action against AAM for my comments. If you read back through the thread, it was Purple that first mentioned legal action.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2008)

Room305, thanks for the laugh.
Leghorn, you're not worth the effort. You refuse to see the distinction between accusing people in a state agency of breaking the law and an opinion expressed about business experiences.


----------



## z103 (7 Mar 2008)

Purple, you really believe that these comments are acceptable?
 - Irish people are 'less honourable' than American people.
- Americans can make clear business focused decisions faster and better than their Irish counterparts.
- Americans have a far better technical and commercial understanding of what they are doing. 

If you don't understand what is wrong with them, try replacing 'Irish' with 'Black', or 'Jew' etc.

I don't think it's a laughing matter either.



> accusing people in a state agency of breaking the law


You know this for a fact now, do you?


----------



## stir crazy (8 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> I can only speak from personal experience over the last 10 years dealing with customers in the USA, Europe, the UK, Asia and Ireland



Are you now talking about customers or the business people  or a nation of people on a personal level or governments in particular or what ? Each particular case, whichever you choose can be examined in the light of day and I would think be easily refuted  Stereotyping a diverse group as a solution  is always the easy way out.




Purple said:


> They are also far more honourable in their dealing than Irish people and well stick to their word.
> Basically they can make clear business focused decisions faster and better than their Irish counterparts.
> They also have a far better technical and commercial understanding of what they are doing. In my experience the only other country that is at their level is Holland.



I have to put my hand on my heart here. I think that whole paragraph is a rather arrogant statement.
Way to go stereotyping a whole diverse nation of people! Cheers!


----------



## room305 (8 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> Purple, you really believe that these comments are acceptable?
> - Irish people are 'less honourable' than American people.
> - Americans can make clear business focused decisions faster and better than their Irish counterparts.
> - Americans have a far better technical and commercial understanding of what they are doing.


 
I wouldn't defend Purple if he made the claim that _all_ Irish people are less honourable than _all _Americans but he should be perfectly entitled to relate his own personal experience of dealing with companies from both countries. On a personal level I've found most Iranians I've had dealings with to be quite arrogant but usually extremely well educated and quite charming for all that. But then I've only met six (all men of course) so I'm hardly dealing with the representative majority of the country (as they are mostly British-educated ex-pats). All the same, let's hope I haven't offended Mr. Ahmadinejad enough to take a defamation case ...

Purple's comments can be viewed in a similar light - he's dealing with American businesses and Irish businesses, possibly within one industry. Those representing Irish businesses he finds to be generally less honourable than their American counterparts. Frankly, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest - ever tried to buy a house in the last few years? Take a taxi when you didn't know the way? God forbid you should ever call a plumber ...



leghorn said:


> If you don't understand what is wrong with them, try replacing 'Irish' with 'Black', or 'Jew' etc.


 
Your willingness to plumb new depths is so edacious it's almost admirable. All that's needed now to shut down the debate entirely is for someone to mention this guy.

This isn't communist Cuba. People generally don't end up in court for expressing a personal opinion. The same cannot be said for people who accuse others of engaging in illegal activity.


----------



## Purple (8 Mar 2008)

stir crazy said:


> Are you now talking about customers or the business people  or a nation of people on a personal level or governments in particular or what ? Each particular case, whichever you choose can be examined in the light of day and I would think be easily refuted  Stereotyping a diverse group as a solution  is always the easy way out.


I related my experience as an Irish person doing business in Ireland and abroad. That's all.
It was not my intent to offend so apologies if I did but it still does not change my experience. I didn’t say that Irish people were not honourable; I merely related that in my experience in business Americans have been more honourable. That is not in indictment of the Irish people just as saying that one member of a family is very clever does not mean that the rest of the family are stupid.





stir crazy said:


> I have to put my hand on my heart here. I think that whole paragraph is a rather arrogant statement.
> Way to go stereotyping a whole diverse nation of people! Cheers!


 I am Irish, how can that statement be arrogant?


----------



## Purple (8 Mar 2008)

leghorn said:


> Purple, you really believe that these comments are acceptable?
> - Irish people are 'less honourable' than American people.
> - Americans can make clear business focused decisions faster and better than their Irish counterparts.
> - Americans have a far better technical and commercial understanding of what they are doing.


 I didn't say any of those things. You are being disingenuous. I’ll try to explain this again; I expressed a personal opinion of people that I have met and/or talked to. I did not offer judgement on a nation or race. 
Feel free to put forward the same nonsensical arguments, I will continue to re-state the facts, but don’t expect me to take your points seriously while I’m doing it.


----------



## stir crazy (8 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> I am Irish, how can that statement be arrogant?



I am sure you didnt intend to offend however I found the statement to be arrogant no matter who would say it, as it is (apart from your saving claim of personal experience) a contempt for the facts.





Purple said:


> I didn't say any of those things. You are being disingenuous. I’ll try to explain this again; I expressed a personal opinion of people that I have met and/or talked to. I did not offer judgement on a nation or race.
> Feel free to put forward the same nonsensical arguments, I will continue to re-state the facts, but don’t expect me to take your points seriously while I’m doing it.



In no way do I want to troll or flame anyone; it's just what I see; but I can understand leghorns' point in the following fashion. Suppose someone posted :' I'm not prejudiced but all the blacks/Irish/Jews (insert label) I ever met in my life (personal experience  justification/rationalisation) were inferior (insert negative label).'

Ok so now how does that sound ?

Ok if It's personal experience then thats just an unlucky experience but theres really no call to post something like that as it doesn't really help anyone. Far better in my view to highlight specific business practices which can be changed for the better and keep any personal element out of it instead of attaching a sweeping statement to something highly personal (and unchangeable too) for a lot of people.


----------



## Purple (10 Mar 2008)

It's funny how people are so sensitive about comments that can be taken to be negative about Irish people (especially if they are positive about Americans). I don't think I would have had the same heat if I said that in my experience restaurants are better in France.  That would not mean that I am arrogant (since I am not French this would have been impossible) it would simply have been a statement of opinion based on my own experience. 
The same goes for my experience in business. I have found that Irish people, in general (in business), are better than some but not as good as Americans of Dutch people. 
To suggest that this opinion is in some way racist is stupid and to suggest that it is arrogant is to misunderstand the definition of the word since arrogance requires a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others. Since the opinion I expressed was not about myself, my business or my country (or anything that I can claim an association with) then it cannot be arrogant.


----------



## room305 (10 Mar 2008)

stir crazy said:


> Far better in my view to highlight specific business practices which can be changed for the better and keep any personal element out of it instead of attaching a sweeping statement to something highly personal (and unchangeable too) for a lot of people.


 
For all that I don't see Purple getting the same response if he posted a statement that in his dealings with British companies he found them to be generally less technically-adept than Irish companies.


----------



## stir crazy (13 Mar 2008)

room305 said:


> For all that I don't see Purple getting the same response if he posted a statement that in his dealings with British companies he found them to be generally less technically-adept than Irish companies.



Attempting to shift the focus of blame for a fallacious sweeping statement without substance about Irish people was a good try but I'm not buying it and I don't believe anyone else will either. If anyone has posted an inaccuracy about Britain it should be challenged. It does not do to avoid the issue of the fallacious statement and start posting more sweeping narrow opinions.
Purple posted something and got a suitable response from the subjects of his sweeping statements.
Most people worth talking to are interested in the facts and truth. Therefore posting a statement and not backing it up with fact was the first mistake.


----------



## Caveat (13 Mar 2008)

So, this Castro guy then...


----------



## oopsbuddy (13 Mar 2008)

Caveat said:


> So, this Castro guy then...



Very good!


----------



## room305 (13 Mar 2008)

stir crazy said:


> Most people worth talking to are interested in the facts and truth. Therefore posting a statement and not backing it up with fact was the first mistake.


 
Ah come on, he wasn't presenting evidence at a judicial hearing, he cleared stated that this was his _opinion_ based on _personal experience_. 

Imagine somebody told you that in their opinion French wine (and therefore French winemakers) was superior to its Australian counterparts. Would you demand they retract their statement, claiming it to be both arrogant, fallacious and possibly hinting at some sort of underlying Oceanian racism?

By all means deride the authenticity of Purple's opinion, but let's not attack someone just because they have one.


----------



## stir crazy (13 Mar 2008)

room305 said:


> By all means deride the authenticity of Purple's opinion, but let's not attack someone just because they have one.



How is anyone being attacked personally apart from a group of Irish professionals who would be proud of their work and hurt by an insinuation of widespread unprofessionalism ? But if you want to go there, then whats' the quote below all about ?  




room305 said:


> For all that I don't see Purple getting the same response if he posted a statement that in his dealings with British companies



I think the track record of this country over the last 10 years, progressing both socially and in business is far more informative about us than an unsubstantiated posting on a internet forum such as that.




Caveat said:


> So, this Castro guy then...



A very interesting guy. Does anyone recommend a biography or book about Castro ?


----------



## EvilDoctorK (14 Mar 2008)

To drag this back on topic a bit .. I loved this story from RTE News about life in cuba - no toasters allowed until 2010 !

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0313/cuba.html

I read some interesing bits and pieces recently about oft quoted comparisons about how Cuba is so much better in terms of Human development than X other poor countries like Guatemala, Haiti etc.

While this may be true (and it's open to debate on some points ... you can likely but a toaster in Guatemala!) the killer point for me is that before Castro came along Cuba was as well off as Portugal & richer parts of Mexico amongst other places ... it's fallen so far behind these places that it's now compared it to countries that 40 years ago it was much more developed than in order to prove the success of the revolution etc.  ... which seems to me a bit wrong.


----------



## Purple (15 Mar 2008)

stir crazy said:


> Attempting to shift the focus of blame for a fallacious sweeping statement without substance about Irish people was a good try but I'm not buying it and I don't believe anyone else will either.


There's no need to project your insecurities onto "everyone else".
The comparison with an opinion on French wine is accurate. You cannot know if my opinion is fallacious or not as you don't know me or the extent of my experiences in business which informs my opinion. My comment was clearly framed and expresses as an opinion based on personal experience, therefore it was not sweeping and, as an opinion, did not need substantiation beyond my own experience. Please choose your words more carefully in future. 



stir crazy said:


> If anyone has posted an inaccuracy about Britain it should be challenged. It does not do to avoid the issue of the fallacious statement and start posting more sweeping narrow opinions.
> Purple posted something and got a suitable response from the subjects of his sweeping statements.


  My opinion is based on my experiences over many years. This may not tally with your own insecurities and bias about Americans but it is neither fallacious nor sweeping. As you do not know me you are not in a position to make such comments. 


stir crazy said:


> Most people worth talking to are interested in the facts and truth. Therefore posting a statement and not backing it up with fact was the first mistake.


 Most people worth talking to do not insult other posters when they disagree with an opinion which has been expressed. My first mistake was engaging with someone who was not willing or able to make a distinction between expressing an opinion and making a statement of fact.


----------



## Purple (15 Mar 2008)

EvilDoctorK said:


> To drag this back on topic a bit .. I loved this story from RTE News about life in cuba - no toasters allowed until 2010 !
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0313/cuba.html
> 
> ...



Good post. The bottom line is that Cuba is under the heel of a totalitarian dictatorship. Even if they did have a good economy this would be no substitute for freedom.
We in Ireland generally take freedom for granted; most of the world doesn’t have that luxury.


----------



## z103 (15 Mar 2008)

> Good post. The bottom line is that Cuba is under the heel of a totalitarian dictatorship. Even if they did have a good economy this would be no substitute for freedom.
> We in Ireland generally take freedom for granted; most of the world doesn’t have that luxury.


wrt 'freedom', please refer to;
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=582548&postcount=60


----------



## stir crazy (15 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> There's no need to project your insecurities onto "everyone else".



Wishful thinking on your part. Whatever my psychological health you still fail to back up your statements with any facts whatsoever and until then I am entitled to disagree with them. Attempting to artificially create some slur that I lack self confidence is pathetic in my view.
Please choose your words more carefully in future. 





Purple said:


> bias about Americans but it is neither fallacious nor sweeping.



To try to suggest I have any bias against Americans is laughable. I consider Americans as equals with similar values to ourselves.  This is not even relevant to your fallacious ideas unsupported by any fact whatsoever.
I consider any suggestion that I do not like America to be Muck Slinging. You have no concept of the depth of my relationship with America and with Americans at all levels of society including friends who are serving in Iraq right now 'burning poop' (look it up). Like the ideal America my personal ideals are of truth ,justice, freedom and fairness.
Muck Slinging will not advance any of the fallacious arguments which you have failed to back up with any facts whatsoever. You have failed to advance your narrow unsupported views and I find stooping to that level quite disappointing. As you do not know me you are not in a position to make such comments. 



Purple said:


> My first mistake was engaging with someone who was not willing or able to make a distinction between expressing an opinion and making a statement of fact.



If I was you I would respect someones right to a counter opinion without stooping to insults and unfounded accusations about where someones loyalties and sentiments lie.
You say your opinion is based on your experiences over many years, yet you seem to have created  some ridiculous biased opinion of me over a miniscule length of time which will not distract an intelligent reader from the facts. If you wish to win over the lower IQ (Jerry Springer) section of the audience then good luck.


Now lets get back to Castro please.


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2008)

stir crazy said:


> Wishful thinking on your part. Whatever my psychological health you still fail to back up your statements with any facts whatsoever and until then I am entitled to disagree with them. Attempting to artificially create some slur that I lack self confidence is pathetic in my view.
> Please choose your words more carefully in future.
> 
> 
> ...



It should be obvious to you that, for many obvious reasons, I will not be relating experiences I have had with customers and suppliers over the last number of years. If you don’t get that then you need to ask a few friends to read this thread and explain it to you.
 Your entire contribution to this thread has been an attack on an opinion that I have which you, for no logical reason, seem to think should be backed up by facts. You fail to understand the difference between facts and opinions and in failing you have, in a ham-fisted way, thrown insults and accusations which are entirely groundless. 
When I question your motives for this you throw a tantrum...

Let's get back to Castro.


----------



## stir crazy (16 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> When I question your motives for this you throw a tantrum...
> 
> Let's get back to Castro.



It's gone far beyond your original groundless opinion. When you started saying I was biased in some way against America you went too far and labored in some way to throw muck at my character to distract from the actual issue of your groundless opinion. Then you quote my own plea asking to get back to Castro. Smooth indeed ! Everyone knows that a person is entitled to an opinion but you throw a tantrum whenever your opinion is challenged. I have a problem with all of this.

Lets indeed get back to Castro


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2008)

stir crazy said:


> It's gone far beyond your original groundless opinion.


My opinion is based on 10-15 years experience dealing with Irish, American and other European countries. Therefore it is not groundless. Your experience may differ but they may also not be groundless. I think the core problem may be a lack of understanding of language on your part. Opinion and fact are not the same thing. At no time did I present my opinion as fact.


----------



## stir crazy (16 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> My opinion is based on 10-15 years experience dealing with Irish, American and other European countries. Therefore it is not groundless. Your experience may differ but they may also not be groundless. I think the core problem may be a lack of understanding of language on your part. Opinion and fact are not the same thing. At no time did I present my opinion as fact.



My understanding is *************************. I see a bunch of fallacious statements on your part. That is all. You left the issues long ago to call me biased or anti American for example which is ridiculous, wrong and a distraction from the topic issue. You are sadly still are in denial about whats going on here.


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2008)

stir crazy said:


> My understanding is *************************. You left the issues long ago to call me biased or anti American for example which is ridiculous. You are sadly still are in denial about whats going on here.




Do you want to edit that?
While you are at it try addressing the issues you raised.


----------



## stir crazy (16 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> While you are at it try addressing the issues you raised.



It is your responsibility to address the issues YOU have raised and which have been raised against YOU. Instead you make some childish mockery of the whole debate process.


----------



## Purple (17 Mar 2008)

stir crazy said:


> It is your responsibility to address the issues YOU have raised and which have been raised against YOU. Instead you make some childish mockery of the whole debate process.



I have addressed the issues raised, explained why I hold my opinion and pointed out that you don't understand what is being said. You continue to accuse me of fallacious statements, I have explained that I expressed opinions and did not make statements of fact. A fallacious statement is one containing or involving a mistaken belief or idea. I related my personal experiences, nothing more; therefore your assertion of fallaciousness is not correct. You need to buy yourself a dictionary. 

So let's recap; I expressed personal experiences and you threw your toys out of the pram because for some reason you think that I am not entitled to express them (even though you do not know me or anything about me). Well the big news for you my friend is that not everyone has the same experiences. I think the rest of us, even the ones with the lower IQ, figured that out before they were 6.


----------



## stir crazy (17 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> I have addressed the issues raised,



No you havent. You raised your own issues.


Such as quoted below:



Purple said:


> your own insecurities and bias about Americans



Once the credibility of your posts was undermined, you immediately start going off on some 'reds under the bed' paranoid rant which has nothing to do with either Castro or your previously expressed opinion (telling us how the cow ate the cabbage). Then you inform us of the difference between an opinion and  a fact (eh we already know how the cow ate the cabbage)... the difference is an opinion can very well be wrong, for example YOUR opinion. lol.


----------



## Purple (17 Mar 2008)

stir crazy said:


> Once the credibility of your posts was undermined, you immediately start going off on some 'reds under the bed' paranoid rant


 Rubbish


stir crazy said:


> the difference is an opinion can very well be wrong, for example YOUR opinion. lol.


 It can be but you are in no position to judge since you do not know me or the experiences which have informed that opinion.
Anyway, I'm finished here. You're not worth the effort.


----------



## stir crazy (17 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> It can be but you are in no position to judge since you do not know me or the experiences which have informed that opinion.



Likewise. I expressed no fixed opinions. I merely exposed yours.




Purple said:


> Rubbish



Exactly. Thats why I want to end this rubbish you started and get back to Castro and have repeatedly requested this politely. Thank you.


----------

