O'Reilly vs. Moore video

[Eric5273]

Socialist countries will never compete successfully with capitalist countries, and the more socialist they are, the more doomed to failure they are. The former Soviet Union is the poster child for this.

I can see why you do not understand socialism. The goal of a socialist country is not to compete with anybody, but to do the best for themselves. In case you did not realize, in life you can win without someone else losing. What if there was enough wealth to go around so that everyone could drive an NSX? I'm guessing you would probably no longer want one. Would it only make you happy to be rich if others were poor? What if everyone was "rich"? It sounds like your whole motivation for living is to be better than other people. If that is the case, then you are a lost cause.

Success and Money do not have to coincide. Did you ever play high school sports? Did they pay you? Did you still try to do well? If so, then why? Is it conceivable to you that in certain cultures around the world, "success" is not defined by how much money you have but by how happy you are, or what kind of family you have, or what you have achieved at your job, not salary-wise, but actual accomplishments on the job.

Socialism is where people work together for a common good instead of trying to cut eachothers throats. In certain aspects of an economy, competition is good. In things such as sports, or in areas such as consumer goods, competition helps people come up with new ideas for the common good.

But in other areas, such as health care, medicine, and even technology, competition is bad. The best way is to work together. You mention the Soviet Union. How do you explain this timeline:

1) Until 1880, Russians lived in feudalism, much like medieval Europe -- a system with serfs (slaves), manors, feudal lords, etc.

2) Russia was a third world country until after 1900 & did not go through an industrial revolution until the 1930s, about 50-100 years after the US and Western Europe.

3) Then less than 10 years later, they are involuntarily drawn into WWII, a war in which all their major cities are burned to the ground and they lose over 25 million people, approximately 15% of their entire population -- the worst loss by any country in any war in the history of the world.

4) Yet after this terrible war, within 10 years they launch the first satellite into outer space and less than 8 years after that they launch the first man into outer space.

Were they just lucky or is this not proof that their system of research was superior to ours, since they had much fewer resources and much less time, yet they developed technology at a much faster rate than we did?

Here is another example, Cuba:

1) In 1955, they are a third world country on par with Haiti & the Dominican Republic, one of the poorest and most uneducated countries in the world

2) Today, 50 years later, have the highest literacy rate of any country in the world

3) They have lowest HIV/AIDS rate of any country in the world

4) They have easily the best health care system in the world -- so good that their leader won the Noble Peace Prize two years ago for their excellent work in exporting their doctors all around the world to third world countries in need. (I would guess you did not hear about that on the fair & balanced Fox News Network?). They have the most doctors per capita, and their medical schools are free for all who are accepted, even foreign students including several American students each year.

The problem with capitalism in certain areas, is that money corrupts. The primary goal of any private business is to make money. And in many cases, the best product is not the one that will make the most money. For example, a drug company would rather develop a drug to treat a disease than to cure the disease, as this would obviously make more money in the long run.

If a doctor's primary concern is to make money, he would not have any interest in telling his patients how they can prevent illness, since this would detract from the number of times they get sick and come to see him. I'm sure it must make you feel confident in your doctor when you know that he gets a kickback from the drug companies for each prescription he writes -- did you know that? And is this practice illegal? Of course not, and its common practice (a friend of mine is a sales rep for a drug company).

Perhaps the NYPD should be privatized. What if your local police were paid based on how many people they arrested or how many tickets they gave out? Would that be better than the current "socialized" government-run police system? What if the fire department was privatized and they got paid based on how many fires they put out? Do you think they would go around teaching fire safety and how to prevent fires? Doubtful. You might even have corruption where people are paid to go around starting fires just so they can come put them out and get paid.

 

[dave22]

Poor Michigan State

 

[saxonsaxon]

I will always be anti-left, based on their socialist beliefs alone. Why should my house, car, yard, bike etc all be the same size, color, and quality as my slacker neighbor when I work 3 times as hard? <----that is socialism. If I work harder at everything life throws at me, than my neighbor, I DESERVE to have a BMW while the slacker gets a GEO.

P.S. My real neighbor isn't a slacker.

I am sure Bush II worked for everything he got right. He was admitted to ivy league school basd on his outstanding grades and knowledge and the tuition was paid by him. He sure looks like a guy who works three times as hard as the fella next door to get his stuff, talk about having it easy. He desreve all that based on what????????????

 

[saxonsaxon]

Its not his point of veiw I have a problem with.
you said it ;
"I personally don't like Moore, because he distorts facts sometimes to try to make his point, which takes away any credibility from any valid points he may have."

People out there actually believe his "distortions"


Ok I take it back He's not a moron He's an F-in fat assh@le. That should cover it.

Paul M

He is fat and unfortunately in that sense he resembles a lot of people from the states. So what, does it make him less credible or is that the only thing you are able to attack that is coming from Moorre's side????? I dare you to post a picture of yourself on this page. Let's see how you look and have a good llaugh.

 

[RP-Motorsports]

I am sure Bush II worked for everything he got right. He was admitted to ivy league school basd on his outstanding grades and knowledge and the tuition was paid by him. He sure looks like a guy who works three times as hard as the fella next door to get his stuff, talk about having it easy. He desreve all that based on what????????????

So what. Someone prior worked their ass off to accumulate that wealth. Instead of blowing it themselves, they saved and invested and decided to hand it down within the family. Those that hate the receiver are just envious fools. Stop your leftist whining. I say more power to them.

 

[RP-Motorsports]

I met a woman (with children) who just was transferred to Neenah WI from England because of a job. She had a socialist medical system there, and she said her medical coverage increased 10 fold here in the US over her coverage in England. She actually gets to "pick" her doctor now, she can get in the same day, and doesn't have to get on a 6 month waiting list to have a surgery.

 

[RP-Motorsports]

Success and Money do not have to coincide. Did you ever play high school sports? Did they pay you? Did you still try to do well? If so, then why?

The first statement is correct as written, BUT in your (left) view, you want it to read "Success and money cannot coincide" that is the problem that I have with the Liberal view. Big difference between "do not have to" and "cannot"

Also I went out for sports to get the girls, and to gain self esteem. That was my payment.

If a medical researcher would not make a lot of money doing what he does, the # of researchers would drop at least 50%, therefore a 50% reduction in finding medical breakthroughs. Yes there are many great unselfish people in this world, but they are still a minority. Money makes the world-go-round. Most of these unselfish people who donate their time and energy for free, are usually well-off financially in the first place.

Since I am the "lost cause" as you say, I will keep my NSX, why not donate yours to auction, and save the world.

OK we need to get this thread back on topic. M. Moore I actually want to see his movie, so I can learn more about the enemy!

 

[KGP]

Here is another example, Cuba:

1) In 1955, they are a third world country on par with Haiti & the Dominican Republic, one of the poorest and most uneducated countries in the world

2) Today, 50 years later, have the highest literacy rate of any country in the world

3) They have lowest HIV/AIDS rate of any country in the world

4) They have easily the best health care system in the world -- so good that their leader won the Noble Peace Prize...

Sounds like a wonderful place. No wonder so many U.S. citizens have died trying to reach their shores by raft.

they have the most doctors per capita...

I guess I have missed the part about them being the best doctors, and having the best medical research.

And in many cases, the best product is not the one that will make the most money. For example, a drug company would rather develop a drug to treat a disease than to cure the disease, as this would obviously make more money in the long run.

Another conspiracy, ey.

 

[Eric5273]

Sounds like a wonderful place. No wonder so many U.S. citizens have died trying to reach their shores by raft.

No, Americans that go to Cuba can just go and they will be allowed to enter Cuba with no problems. A friend of mine went to Havana on his honeymoon. He had to take a flight from Toronto, but there were no problems.

If the US would just open their borders to Cubans, then Cubans who wanted to enter the US could just book a flight on Cubana De Aviacion (Cuban Airlines).

These people who end up taking boats or rafts across the channel could instead take a flight to Toronto (http://www.cubana.cu/espanol/destino/destinos.htm) or even Montreal or somewhere in Mexico, but they would be stopped by US authorities when trying to enter the US. So their only possibility for success is to try to sneak in here.

Sounds like you did not know that. Sounds like you thought they were actually trying to sneak out of their country, as if they would not be allowed to leave for some reason...LOL. Cuban people go on vacation just like Americans do and they travel all around the world. Your implication is laughable. I hope you were just horsing around and weren't really seriously implying that, but given the immense propoganda in the US media about Cuba, I would not be shocked that someone could be so brainwashed about it.

 

[PAUL M]

He is fat and unfortunately in that sense he resembles a lot of people from the states. So what, does it make him less credible or is that the only thing you are able to attack that is coming from Moorre's side????? I dare you to post a picture of yourself on this page. Let's see how you look and have a good llaugh.

Here's my picture.
Watch this.
http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/moore.htm
And I reiterate Your boy Michael Moore is a f**king FAT asshole.

 

[nkb]

That’s OK, you’re just confused. As a matter of fact, I have lived a total of four years in two different foreign countries (one Asian, one European). I have also traveled extensively, mostly throughout Europe. There is absolutely no doubt that the United States is the greatest country that has ever existed in the history of humankind. Of course there are many other present-day countries that also have vibrant economies, free and open societies, and a high standard of living, but every single one of them owes their economic successes and freedoms to the U.S., either directly or indirectly.

Whether a country owes its prosperity to the US or not is irrelevant in this case. We're not talking about the why a country is prosperous or not, but whether they are, and how they compare.

Having lived half my life in Germany, and spent a fair amount of time all over the world, I can tell you that the standard of living is higher in Germany than it is here, and some other European countries compare favorably.
Speaking for Germany, the big negative is high taxes. However, that is easily outweighed by the positives, such as excellent health care (for everyone), lower crime rates (especially violent crime), more vacation time, etc. (And let's not forget the Autobahn )

It is precisely this that breeds resentment of the U.S., particularly in Europe. To put it simply, their nationalistic egos are bruised by our political and cultural dominance.

That is not even close. The resentment has built over the decades by the USA's heavy-handed foreign policies, the general attitude of "our way or the highway". Even former staunch allies have been alienated over the years.

And along that same line, your comments beg the usual question: If you know of a better country on the face of the Earth in which to live, why are you still living in the United States? As a U.S. citizen, you have the rare privilege of not only expressing your opinions publicly but also of leaving your country anytime you feel like it.

That is a standard knee-jerk reaction. I have my personal reasons for living here, and I am fully aware of my ability to live where I choose. But, what is wrong with recognizing faults, and trying to correct them? Are you saying that this country is perfect? Should we just leave it alone, even if we feel life can be improved? If you are satisfied that this is it, that's fine, but I am willing to try some changes.

You must be joking. There was a time not that long ago when most people were of the opinion that the Earth was flat. Were they wrong? You're confusing the right to hold an opinion with the accuracy of the opinion.

You are confusing opinions with theories and facts. It was a scientific and religious fact at that time that the Earth was flat. It was not an opinion. People believed it because the scientists told them so.
At one point, scientists said it was the nature of the apple to fall, that's why it fell to the ground, until Newton came up with a better theory. Again, these were not opinions, but accepted scientific facts (as wrong as they may have been).

You're also confusing opinions on subjective matters (e.g. "That painting is beautiful") with opinions on objective matters (e.g. Michael Moore's assertion that life for the Iraqi people was just great under Saddam Hussein's rule). The first can never be proven nor disproven by facts. The second most certainly can.

Based on the anti-Moore link posted above, a lot of the statements attributed to Moore (this is obviously a biased site, so I will take it with a grain of salt) are opinions. Please go through that website, and tell me which of his quotes can be disputed with facts.
You may not like what he states (especially when he calls Americans stupid), but those are his opinions. I don't agree with a lot of his comments either, but I can't say he's wrong.

Wrong. Socialism is also essentially an economic system

Absolutely correct. I need to stop smoking crack.

Socialist countries will never compete successfully with capitalist countries, and the more socialist they are, the more doomed to failure they are. The former Soviet Union is the poster child for this.

Actually, the Soviet Union was a terrible example of a socialist system. They missed the theory of Communism by a mile. Karl Marx was surely spinning in his grave at what was being called Communism.

It is an indisputable fact that tax cuts stimulate the economy.

First of all, it is not a fact, otherwise all economists would agree. There are far too many factors in what makes an economy tick to boil it down to a simplistic view such as this.

And Bush’s tax cuts were not exclusively for the rich as you imply – they were across the board.

The token tax cuts that sub $200K a year people received were insignificant. I would gladly give up my tax cuts (along with everyone else's, of course) for a more fiscally responsible government.

The WMD issue is nothing more than a straw man created and promoted by the Democrats as a way of attacking President Bush in this election. You have to be naive (or living in a cave for the past 13 years) to buy into it, but apparently there are plenty of people who are (or have).

Yes, I must be naive, because I am not smart enough to see through this silly ruse. So, let me understand: The Democrats hid the WMD, so Bush could be embarrassed? The Democrats are misquoting Bush, who never really made the assertion that Iraq had WMD, and that was why we needed to go to war? Which part is the straw man?

 

[nkb]

Sounds like you did not know that. Sounds like you thought they were actually trying to sneak out of their country, as if they would not be allowed to leave for some reason...LOL. Cuban people go on vacation just like Americans do and they travel all around the world. Your implication is laughable. I hope you were just horsing around and weren't really seriously implying that, but given the immense propoganda in the US media about Cuba, I would not be shocked that someone could be so brainwashed about it.

Eric, I think you are way off on this one.

Are you saying that Cubans are risking their lives in barely sea-worthy boats, to get to the USA, even though they could easily go to Canada on a plane? Their preference of the US over Canada is THAT strong? Common sense alone tells me that can't be right.

The reason they are coming here is that we are geographically the closest prosperous country. If Canada was closer, they would go there.

I'm not sure which propaganda you are listening to. I'm sure Cuba will claim that everyone is a free citizen, and can come and go as they please. But, is that reality? First of all, does the common citizen have the means to buy a plane ticket? Do they have to apply for a visa to leave the country, and what kind of repercussions does that entail? The Cubans that you are saying travel around the world, are they common workers, or the privileged few?

This reminds me of the way the former Soviet Union handled their citizens. You could travel anywhere you wanted (officially), but you had to apply for a visa. Typically, visas were denied for anywhere except other Communist countries.
The official stance (to the rest of the world) was that Soviet citizens were free to travel or leave the country, but had no desire to.
Is it that much of a stretch to think that Cuba may have a similar policy in effect?

 

[Eric5273]

Eric, I think you are way off on this one.

Are you saying that Cubans are risking their lives in barely sea-worthy boats, to get to the USA, even though they could easily go to Canada on a plane? Their preference of the US over Canada is THAT strong? Common sense alone tells me that can't be right.

The reason they are coming here is that we are geographically the closest prosperous country. If Canada was closer, they would go there.

I'm not sure which propaganda you are listening to. I'm sure Cuba will claim that everyone is a free citizen, and can come and go as they please. But, is that reality? First of all, does the common citizen have the means to buy a plane ticket? Do they have to apply for a visa to leave the country, and what kind of repercussions does that entail? The Cubans that you are saying travel around the world, are they common workers, or the privileged few?

Well, it is true that the average person in Cuba has a much lower standard of living than the average American. But that is not a result of failed economic policies. You cannot compare Cuba to the United States. Cuba would be better compared to countries like Haiti, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Costa Rica -- and compared to those countries, Cuba has the highest standard of living by far, along with the best education system, highest literacy rates, lowest infant mortality rates, etc.

So to answer your questions -- No, most Cubans do not have enough money to buy a plane ticket to travel on a regular basis, but neither does the average person in Haiti, Jamaica, or Mexico. But the average Cuban does make enough money to save up and buy a single plane ticket to leave the country. And there are no restrictions on Cubans as far as where they can travel.

Flights run on a regular basis between Cuba and other countries such as Canada, Mexico, most Latin American countries and many European countries. Havana is the most visited city in the entire Carribean and is a very popular vacation spot for non-Americans.

As far as people trying to cross the channel on rafts or small boats, you are talking about such a small number of people. According to the CIA Fact Book:

Cubans attempt to depart the island and enter the US using homemade rafts, alien smugglers, direct flights, or falsified visas; some 2,500 Cubans took to the Straits of Florida in 2002; the US Coast Guard interdicted about 60% of these migrants; Cubans also use non-maritime routes to enter the US; some 1,500 Cubans arrived overland via the southwest border and direct flights to Miami in 2002

Sounds no different than the way Mexicans try to sneak into this country -- they are not sneaking out of Mexico, but rather sneaking into the United States. Why don't Mexicans just buy a plane ticket as well??

Also, notice that it says "some 1,500 Cubans arrived overland via the southwest border and direct flights to Miami in 2002". Flights to Miami? I wonder how they managed that. Perhaps they passed through another country like Canada or Mexico? I wonder how they managed to get there? (sarcasm)

Either way, 4,000 people per year attempting to enter the United States (with 1500 of them being caught by the Coast Guard and being sent back) surely is not a representative average of a country with 11 million people. I would guess way more Cubans move to other countries per year, and probably way more than 4,000 come to Cuba to live from elsewhere each year. 4,000 people is approximately 0.036% of their population. Here in the US, we have a higher percentage of our population in prison having been found guilty of murder.

 

[nsxr1]

I can see why you do not understand socialism. The goal of a socialist country is not to compete with anybody, but to do the best for themselves. In case you did not realize, in life you can win without someone else losing. What if there was enough wealth to go around so that everyone could drive an NSX? I'm guessing you would probably no longer want one. Would it only make you happy to be rich if others were poor? What if everyone was "rich"? It sounds like your whole motivation for living is to be better than other people. If that is the case, then you are a lost cause.

Success and Money do not have to coincide. Did you ever play high school sports? Did they pay you? Did you still try to do well? If so, then why? Is it conceivable to you that in certain cultures around the world, "success" is not defined by how much money you have but by how happy you are, or what kind of family you have, or what you have achieved at your job, not salary-wise, but actual accomplishments on the job.

I can see why you do not understand reality. In typical liberal fashion, you make feel-good Polyanna-ish assertions that superficially seem to make sense, but collapse when faced with the real world. The simple fact is that there are not enough resources on this Earth for everyone to be “rich”, as you put it. Competition for limited resources is the bedrock of natural selection and evolution. Competition is the reason that you are sitting at a computer instead of swinging through the trees somewhere in the tropics. The ability and NEED to compete is at the core of humanity, engrained in all of us by natural selection over millennia (you do believe in natural selection, don’t you??). So engrained, in fact, that human beings are compelled to compete in all areas of life (including high school sports). This will never change.

Focusing solely on the money aspect is another tried and true liberal tactic, but it again misses the point. The goal of human competition is to achieve or gain something that would otherwise be unattainable. For virtually everyone, money (i.e. wealth) is the goal only insofar as it can buy a better life – better food/shelter, more comforts and luxuries, etc.

Socialism is where people work together for a common good instead of trying to cut eachothers throats. In certain aspects of an economy, competition is good. In things such as sports, or in areas such as consumer goods, competition helps people come up with new ideas for the common good.

But in other areas, such as health care, medicine, and even technology, competition is bad. The best way is to work together.

Competition is ALWAYS good. It’s good in nature because it results in survival of the fittest and improvement of the gene pool. It’s good in human society for the exact same reasons. And again you are setting up a false premise – that competition and cooperation are mutually exclusive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most advances in technology and medicine, for example, are achieved through the efforts of many people working together within an organization and towards a common goal. However, little would happen without competition. And nothing spurs competition like a capitalist free market. Organizations compete for profits. Employees compete for promotions, higher salaries, bonuses, etc. Motivation is everything, and far and away the most effective motivator for human beings is the idea of “getting ahead”. Pie-in-the-sky liberals love to believe that altruism is an alternative motivator, but it seldom even comes close.

You mention the Soviet Union. How do you explain this timeline:

1) Until 1880, Russians lived in feudalism, much like medieval Europe -- a system with serfs (slaves), manors, feudal lords, etc.

2) Russia was a third world country until after 1900 & did not go through an industrial revolution until the 1930s, about 50-100 years after the US and Western Europe.

3) Then less than 10 years later, they are involuntarily drawn into WWII, a war in which all their major cities are burned to the ground and they lose over 25 million people, approximately 15% of their entire population -- the worst loss by any country in any war in the history of the world.

4) Yet after this terrible war, within 10 years they launch the first satellite into outer space and less than 8 years after that they launch the first man into outer space.

Were they just lucky or is this not proof that their system of research was superior to ours, since they had much fewer resources and much less time, yet they developed technology at a much faster rate than we did?

If you honestly believe that, you really have a lot to learn. The only way the Soviets achieved anything was by pumping a grossly high percentage of their resources into a small number of selected areas, such as military arms, space technology and athletics. The choice few who were lucky enough and/or talented enough to participate in these endeavors were rewarded handsomely – just as they would be in a capitalist system (surprise, surprise!). Meanwhile, the other 98% of the Soviet population endured a miserable and meager existence with little or no hope for a better future. The result was an unmotivated populace and an anemic, stagnant economy This is precisely why Soviet communism collapsed. In order to try and keep up with the U.S. in the arms and space race, the communist leadership (who ironically rewarded themselves with a Western lifestyle) bled the Soviet Union dry at the expense of its people. The fact is that free market capitalism is far superior to socialism, as evidenced by our continued success and prosperity and the Soviet’s demise.

As far as the space race goes, you really need to brush up on your history. The Soviets placed the first human being into Earth’s orbit on April 12, 1961. In May of that year, President Kennedy established the specific goal of placing an American man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth before the end of the decade. The Soviets were working towards the same goal, and – as you glowingly pointed out – with a head start to boot. As one would expect (or in your case, not expect), U.S. scientists, engineers and workers met the challenge and far outdistanced their communist counterparts. It’s safe to assume that both sides had more or less equal pools of human talent. So it follows that our open, free-market system was a superior environment for technological achievement as compared to the closed, socialist system of the Soviets. Everything that has transpired since then in science and technology bears this out.

Here is another example, Cuba:

1) In 1955, they are a third world country on par with Haiti & the Dominican Republic, one of the poorest and most uneducated countries in the world

2) Today, 50 years later, have the highest literacy rate of any country in the world

3) They have lowest HIV/AIDS rate of any country in the world

4) They have easily the best health care system in the world -- so good that their leader won the Noble Peace Prize two years ago for their excellent work in exporting their doctors all around the world to third world countries in need. (I would guess you did not hear about that on the fair & balanced Fox News Network?). They have the most doctors per capita, and their medical schools are free for all who are accepted, even foreign students including several American students each year.

Gee, I wonder what you would do in the unfortunate event that you or one of your loved ones were in need of serious medical attention? Would you seek medical attention in Cuba since their health care system is “easily the best” in the world? I’m sure Fidel would welcome you with open arms so he could use you for pro-communism propaganda purposes. That’s absolutely laughable.

The simple, unimpeachable fact is that some Cubans literally risk their lives to make it to our shores, fueled only by the hope of taking part in the American dream. NO ONE voluntarily chooses to move to Cuba to grab a piece of Fidel’s communist nightmare. This speaks volumes and easily trumps any isolated examples of communist successes that you are able to dig up. The vast majority of Cuban people live in squalor and under the thumb of Fidel’s regime. They cannot speak their minds for fear of being imprisoned. Most dream of the day when Castro drops dead and they can finally begin the process of rebuilding their country. Lucky for them, that day is very near.

This is what makes the America bashers like Michael Moore so pathetic and comical – while they lament and wail about what a horrible country the U.S. is, people from all corners of the globe are going to unbelievable lengths to become Americans. This happens in no other country to anywhere near the degree that it happens here. They are able to recognize what too many Americans take for granted – the unparalleled freedoms and opportunities that U.S. citizens enjoy.

 

[Malibu Rapper]

Everyone should go out and buy this movie:

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

 

[Eric5273]

The vast majority of Cuban people live in squalor and under the thumb of Fidel’s regime. They cannot speak their minds for fear of being imprisoned. Most dream of the day when Castro drops dead and they can finally begin the process of rebuilding their country. Lucky for them, that day is very near.

And you know this how? Because Fox News said so? Have you ever been there? I know several people who have travelled there and one of them, who went there with an international aid group, lived there for several months.

Castro is a hero there and enjoys popularity unlike any US president since John Kennedy. And yes, people do speak their minds. Just last year there were major protests over a propsed bill called the "Varela Project". An opposition group collected over 14,000 signatures for this bill that Castro opposed which would call for various reforms in their election system. But according to the Cuban Constitution, there must be a vote by the National Assembly (parlament) on any bill which receives over 10,000 signatures, so they had a vote and are since adopting some of the requested changes.

These people who signed the petition are not in jail, and the leader who organized the petition, Oswaldo Paya, has not been jailed either and he has since been working on organizing more petitions for other things.

The Varela Project was even discussed in Barbara Walters' interview with Castro last year. She asked him about this, and he did not want to discuss the details. It would be like asking George Bush why there were no WMD's in Iraq.

In Cuba, the president has much less power than does the president here in the US. Most of the power lies with the National Assembly. When Castro dies, nothing at all will change, except a new leader will be elected and life will continue as is.

On a side note, too bad our system has no such law where I could collect 10,000 signatures calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and then Congress would be required to vote on this. No such luck. I cannot even vote for a candidate who supports such an action, as both of them are pro-war. Perhaps we need some political reforms as well.