Leon Panetta as head of CIA????

[Mr. Shaman]

Now, when they participate, willingly or otherwise to do the bidding of BigOil at the demise of the USA, aiding in the suppression of alternative technologies for decades, keeping us dependant on foreign oil, turning our economy upside down, lying to Congress, instigating illegal wars...they no longer are serving Objective #1 are they?

Now you're blaming the CIA for the demise of our economy? Tell me if this isn't communist rethoric?

What....the CIA was (somehow) "gagged"....and, wasn't "allowed" to state the REALITY-of-the-situation; pre-Iraq-War???? ​

It sounds like your liberal (communist) values have a problem accepting the role of this department.

Yeah....they're regular Saints.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You never have any support for you claims. If asked what you have "seen" to support your views, you never provide anything.

Kinda like lookin'-in-a-mirror, huh? ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Then go to Cuba! Go see how they live there!

Yeah.....things were much-better (i.e. NeoCon-style), in Cuba, when the capitalists were runnin'-the-show. ​

"Batista was well liked by American interests, who feared Grau's liberal social and economic revolution and saw him as a stabilizing force with respect for American interests. It was in this time period that Batista formed a renowned friendship and business relationship with gangster Meyer Lansky that lasted over three decades.

Through Lansky, the mafia knew they had a friend in Cuba. Gangster Lucky Luciano, after being deported to Italy in 1946, went to Havana with a false passport. A summit at Havana's Hotel Nacional, with mobsters such as Frank Costello, Vito Genovese, Santo Trafficante Jr., Moe Dalitz and others, confirmed Luciano's authority over the U.S. mob, and coincided with Frank Sinatra's singing debut in Havana. It was here that Lansky gave permission to kill Bugsy Siegel for skimming construction money from the Flamingo in Las Vegas.

On March 10 1952, almost twenty years after the Revolt of the Sergeants, Batista took over the government once more, this time against elected Cuban president Carlos Prío Socorras. The coup took place three months before the upcoming elections that he was sure to loose. Also running in that election (for a different office) was a young, energetic lawyer named Fidel Castro. On March 27 Batista's government was formally recognized by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Shortly after this recognition, Batista declared that, although he was completely loyal to Cuba's constitution of 1940, constitutional guarantees would have to be temporarily suspended, as well as the right to strike. In April, writes Hugh Thomas in The Cuban Revolution, "Batista proclaimed a new constitutional code of 275 articles, claiming that the 'democratic and progressive essence' of the 1940 Constitution was preserved in the new law."

Batista opened the way for large-scale gambling in Havana, and he reorganized the Cuban state so that he and his political appointees could harvest the nation's riches. He announced that his government would match, dollar for dollar, any hotel investment over $1 million, which would include a casino license, and Lansky became the center of the entire Cuban gambling operation.

Under Batista, Cuba became profitable for American business and organized crime. Havana became the "Latin Las Vegas," a playground of choice for wealthy gamblers, and very little was said about democracy, or the rights of the average Cuban. Opposition was swiftly and violently crushed, and many began to fear the new government."

You're not a big fan of History, huh?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The only people who don't care about Communism, are those who are communists themselves.

That's the talk on the playground, huh, Skippy?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I can understand where ruthless and unethical are descriptive terms that can apply to either a capitalist, communist, or dictator. I don't believe that a person who functions in a particular economic system is condemned to being good or bad. I can could cite examples of both a ruthless capitalist, and a ruthless communist.

Then, maybe those fans of unfettered-capitalism need to cut-back on the whole God Is On Our Side horsesh!t-rhetoric.​

 

[Sihouette]

I think you need to more specific with your adjectives. Murderous and deceptive are criminal activities. I suppose you could find people in all walks of life that are capable of committing these crimes - certainly not exclusive to capitalists.

I can understand where ruthless and unethical are descriptive terms that can apply to either a capitalist, communist, or dictator. I don't believe that a person who functions in a particular economic system is condemned to being good or bad. I can could cite examples of both a ruthless capitalist, and a ruthless communist. Just because I can find an anecdotal example of one unethical person does not condemn the entire group~Hobo

Good points. I should have clarified. Let me do so here.

Human waste is human waste and decent beings are decent beings, no matter what the political beliefs. So why then attach such diabolical attributes to communists? See, it works both ways..

That being said, if you really think about what communism actually is, instead of some draconian 1950s scare-tactic buzzword, you realize in its true meaning, it is about distributing wealth more fairly. Or as the christians like to call it "being thy brother's keeper".

Capitalism (nowadays) on the other hand is literally the opposite. It is paying so much attention to profit, hoarding and the bottom line, that thy brother is not only ignored more often than not, but also exploited in the name of profiteering.

Now, the only thing that makes capitalism palitable was that in the old days people still had moral scruples. In other words, they went to church and didn't just warm the pew...they reinvested in their communities, they gave to charity. In that sense capitialism is the greatest thing ever.

But we don't see that so much nowadays do we? Capitalism has divorced itself from morality. And when that happens, ruthlessness sets in and all manner of evil is propogated in the name of "the bottom line".

That is why this depression will be much much worse...the very cause of it is ruthless capitalism on crack.. Sheister investing practices, outsourcing american jobs to foreign slave-factories...all for the paramount of ideals: the bottom line. So the system, predictably, without morality, has folded in on itself. The dragon has finally finished the last of its tail. And this depression will be bad because in the other big one, people still went to church, believed in a God and had basic compassion for their fellows. My own grandfather worked three jobs, had very little for his own family but still managed to feed the Hobos (ironic that that is your name) that would stop by the door asking for a piece of bread or some soup.

That isn't likely to be the case with the "bottom-line" generation I'm afraid..and there are so very much more of us nowadays thinking like this. Also, people back then knew how to grow food, or at least their brother or father or mother did. Ever butchered your own chicken or ground your own cornmeal? No? That is what wil be the horror of horrors this time around...the inability to care for oneself, even the most basic necessities of providing food for the table.

Bedlam awaits in the cities if things really go south.. There are only so many meals of alley (or neighbor's) cat stew per person before they start turning on each other. Hopefully it won't come to that. Let's hear it for capitalism without morality!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Human waste is human waste and decent beings are decent beings, no matter what the political beliefs. So why then attach such diabolical attributes to communists?

'Cause, it's an old "con$ervative"-tactic that's always worked!!!! ​

"In 1944, the people of Guatemala overthrew the right-wing dictator then in power, Jorge Ubico. Guatemala held its first true elections in history. They elected Dr. Juan Jose Arevalo Bermej to the presidency. A new constitution was drawn up, based on the U.S. Constitution. Arevalo was a socialist and an educator who built over 6,000 schools in Guatemala and made great progress in education and health care.

At this time in Guatemala, just 2.2 percent of the population owned over 70 percent of the country's land. Only 10 percent of the land was available for 90 percent of the population, most of whom were Indians. Most of the land held by the large landowners was unused. Arevalo was succeeded in another free election by Jacobo Arbenz who continued the reform process begun under Arevalo. Arbenz proposed to redistribute some of the unused land and make it available for the 90 percent to farm. Here is where the problem arose: United Fruit was one of the big holders of unused land in Guatemala. The pressure mounted against UFCO and finally the company complained to the many friends it had within the U.S. government including President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, saying that Guatemala had turned communist.

The U.S. State Department and United Fruit embarked on a major public relations campaign to convince the American people and the rest of the U.S. government that Guatemala was a Soviet "satellite.

The U.S. replaced the freely elected government of Guatemala with another right-wing dictatorship that would again bend to UFCO's will."

 

[XCALIDEM]

Yeah.....things were much-better (i.e. NeoCon-style), in Cuba, when the capitalists were runnin'-the-show.



You're not a big fan of History, huh?

​

Don't let the door hit ya shaman! Go catch the next flight to Cuba!!!

 

[XCALIDEM]

'Cause, it's an old "con$ervative"-tactic that's always worked!!!! ​

Great site to get your info Shaman! Banana republic...? hmmm

Thanks for hijacking the thread...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Great site to get your info Shaman! Banana republic...? hmmm

Like I said....it's called History (not exactly a Bush-fan's favorite-subject....running a close-second to Basic English).​

Thanks for hijacking the thread...

Hey....Thank YOU!!! (...For well-representing the losing-side o' the argument.)

You make my job MUCH-too-easy!!!

​

 

[Bunz]

Re: Panetta's accomplishments

So how do you figure we've been dealing with them lately?

Largely ignoring them, as has been the case with many of the people who we have differences with under the Bush Administration.

Ever since the cold war was declared over, we began providing Russia with billions of $$. Their economy was in the shiit hole after the soviet union fell apart and all we did was to bail them out...

Bailing them out is not the right term, more like establishing thier markets. Which has been critical to this point in avoiding conflict with a still very large nuclear power that Russia is. We were/are trying to support trade and democracy in Russia. Without our help, Russia would have largely fell to anarchy, which considering Russia's size, and military ability was the right thing to go.

Now that their oil production is surging, they feel that they have the power and are planning on taking some of those soviet union countries back.

As Obama said in the debate of Hillary, this is exactly what NATO was created for.

Besides, my understanding of the CIA is that it is based on intelligence, Spionage, Covert operations...

It is, but I think you are failing to note that the Director of the CIA is subservent to the DNI, which is likely to be filled by Adm. Blair.

Do you think Mr. Panetta knows about running an institution like this?

So far yes(but my opinion might change) in the past, the DCIA has been the balancing factor between the DDO and DDI, the deputy director of the two often competing branches of the CIA, operations and intelligence. There needs to be a strong leader there, and one who is competent in managing a large organization and securing the necessary funds for its operations.

Either way, Panetta is confirmed as the Director of the CIA will be answered to the intel Czar which as I mentioned before is likely to be Adm. Blair.

 

[Phoenix68]

I am not a Democrat and not easily impressed by people from the former Clinton Administration. However, I remember hearing Leon Panetta speak numerous times both formally and on news programs. He always impressed me as an open minding and very analytical person. He also seemed to command the respect from the people who worked for him.

I do believe the best person to head any government agency should be a good manager and leader, first and foremost. It is not his job to understand the intricacies of the CIA - his job to control and organize the managers who are professional spooks and answer to him.

I was surprised, but pleased to see his name back in the national arena again. He's a good man.

.

.

.

​