Havana: A Film That Spits In The Face Of History

[Tommy Tainant]

You have to be a moron if you consider a movie to be history. You can see aspects of history in a film but back in real life history is far too disjointed to be packaged into a 2 hour film.

Im sure that there are films which are historically accurate but I am struggling to think of one at the moment.

But if you want a left of centre movie about US involvement in other countries I suggest Missing with Jack Lemmon. Its a great movie that shows the contrast between decent Americans and their less than decent government.

But is it history ?

"You have to be a moron if you consider a movie to be history."

Speaking of morons, lots of same take their 'knowledge' of history from films, Comedy Central, CNN.....


They are called Democrat voters.

"The allure of history movies​

Fact-based or fictional, realistic or fantastic, history movies shape the way people think about the past. In a study of how 15 families discussed historical understanding of the Vietnam War era, kids and parents both spontaneously drew on memories of movies. “Forrest Gump,” in particular, was referenced by both generations."

Are movies a good way to learn history?

History movies may have Oscar potential, but their educational potential is more complicated. Should teachers use Hollywood to teach?

theconversation.com

In your face, boooooooooyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

Babe, your link pretty much agrees with me. Is there something else ?

Wrong.


'Wrong' appears to by your métier.

You must have misread my post or the article. Is English your first language ?

 

[Flopper]

History is what you make it when it comes to the Cuban Revolution. By all accounts it goes down as another failure of the CIA. The U.S. Eisenhower administration supported the Castro insurgency but wouldn't you know Castro turned out to be a Marxist dictator. Along comes JFK who appoints his own brother as AG and Bobby spends his time scheming ways to overthrow Castro. The comedy circus in the CIA supports an illegal invasion of Cuba and we end up in Devcon 3.

Just six days after the fall of Batista, U.S. officials recognize Castro's government. Despite fears that Fidel Castro, whose rebel army helped to overthrow Batista, might have communist leanings, the U.S. government believed that it could work with the new regime and protect American interests in Cuba which was their primary concern. In early 1959, Castro came to the US. He received a warm welcome on the Jack Park show and on the Ed Sullivan show he was compared to George Washington. The Eisenhower administration was divided on the question of what to do about Castro. However within a few weeks there was no doubt that Castro was not going to play ball with the US government and Cuba was not going to be controlled by Washington.

See if you can understand the similarity between the support of Castro and the same of Khomeini.


The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” A Monarch Dethroned



"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108



And it has been ever so.



Eisenhower is famous for saying "Public opinion wins wars."

And it is function of the Left to make certain that public opinion favors communism and communists.


You are a perfect example of how successful it has been.



See if this resonates:

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

How about listing what you believe to be the similarities between the Iranian Revolution and the Cuban Revolution without the diatribe against against liberals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

History is what you make it when it comes to the Cuban Revolution. By all accounts it goes down as another failure of the CIA. The U.S. Eisenhower administration supported the Castro insurgency but wouldn't you know Castro turned out to be a Marxist dictator. Along comes JFK who appoints his own brother as AG and Bobby spends his time scheming ways to overthrow Castro. The comedy circus in the CIA supports an illegal invasion of Cuba and we end up in Devcon 3.

Just six days after the fall of Batista, U.S. officials recognize Castro's government. Despite fears that Fidel Castro, whose rebel army helped to overthrow Batista, might have communist leanings, the U.S. government believed that it could work with the new regime and protect American interests in Cuba which was their primary concern. In early 1959, Castro came to the US. He received a warm welcome on the Jack Park show and on the Ed Sullivan show he was compared to George Washington. The Eisenhower administration was divided on the question of what to do about Castro. However within a few weeks there was no doubt that Castro was not going to play ball with the US government and Cuba was not going to be controlled by Washington.

See if you can understand the similarity between the support of Castro and the same of Khomeini.


The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” A Monarch Dethroned



"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108



And it has been ever so.



Eisenhower is famous for saying "Public opinion wins wars."

And it is function of the Left to make certain that public opinion favors communism and communists.


You are a perfect example of how successful it has been.



See if this resonates:

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

How about listing what you believe to be the similarities between the Iranian Revolution and the Cuban Revolution without the diatribe against against liberals.

"...without the diatribe against against liberals."


Gettin' a little too warm for you?



Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve.




Cuba and Iran: see post #11

 

[Flopper]

History is what you make it when it comes to the Cuban Revolution. By all accounts it goes down as another failure of the CIA. The U.S. Eisenhower administration supported the Castro insurgency but wouldn't you know Castro turned out to be a Marxist dictator. Along comes JFK who appoints his own brother as AG and Bobby spends his time scheming ways to overthrow Castro. The comedy circus in the CIA supports an illegal invasion of Cuba and we end up in Devcon 3.

Just six days after the fall of Batista, U.S. officials recognize Castro's government. Despite fears that Fidel Castro, whose rebel army helped to overthrow Batista, might have communist leanings, the U.S. government believed that it could work with the new regime and protect American interests in Cuba which was their primary concern. In early 1959, Castro came to the US. He received a warm welcome on the Jack Park show and on the Ed Sullivan show he was compared to George Washington. The Eisenhower administration was divided on the question of what to do about Castro. However within a few weeks there was no doubt that Castro was not going to play ball with the US government and Cuba was not going to be controlled by Washington.

See if you can understand the similarity between the support of Castro and the same of Khomeini.


The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” A Monarch Dethroned



"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108



And it has been ever so.



Eisenhower is famous for saying "Public opinion wins wars."

And it is function of the Left to make certain that public opinion favors communism and communists.


You are a perfect example of how successful it has been.



See if this resonates:

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

How about listing what you believe to be the similarities between the Iranian Revolution and the Cuban Revolution without the diatribe against against liberals.

"...without the diatribe against against liberals."


Gettin' a little too warm for you?



Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve.




Cuba and Iran: see post #11

There is practically no similarity at all between the revolution under Castro and Khomeini. Castro came to power under Eisenhower a republican and Khomeini came to power under Cartier, a democrat. Castro was born a Catholic but claimed later to be an atheist while Khomeini was an Islamic cleric. Castro was a communist and Khomeini believe Islam was an alternative to Communism. Even the purpose of the revolutions were totally difference. The purpose of the Cuban revolution was to oust Batista and create a socialist atheist state while the purpose of the Islamic Revolution was to oust the Shah and create and Islamic Republic. In the Cuban revolution less than 2,000 died while over 60,000 died in the Islamic revolution. About the only similarity was both countries were ruled by strong arm dictators allied to with the US.

 

[PoliticalChic]

History is what you make it when it comes to the Cuban Revolution. By all accounts it goes down as another failure of the CIA. The U.S. Eisenhower administration supported the Castro insurgency but wouldn't you know Castro turned out to be a Marxist dictator. Along comes JFK who appoints his own brother as AG and Bobby spends his time scheming ways to overthrow Castro. The comedy circus in the CIA supports an illegal invasion of Cuba and we end up in Devcon 3.

Just six days after the fall of Batista, U.S. officials recognize Castro's government. Despite fears that Fidel Castro, whose rebel army helped to overthrow Batista, might have communist leanings, the U.S. government believed that it could work with the new regime and protect American interests in Cuba which was their primary concern. In early 1959, Castro came to the US. He received a warm welcome on the Jack Park show and on the Ed Sullivan show he was compared to George Washington. The Eisenhower administration was divided on the question of what to do about Castro. However within a few weeks there was no doubt that Castro was not going to play ball with the US government and Cuba was not going to be controlled by Washington.

See if you can understand the similarity between the support of Castro and the same of Khomeini.


The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” A Monarch Dethroned



"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108



And it has been ever so.



Eisenhower is famous for saying "Public opinion wins wars."

And it is function of the Left to make certain that public opinion favors communism and communists.


You are a perfect example of how successful it has been.



See if this resonates:

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

How about listing what you believe to be the similarities between the Iranian Revolution and the Cuban Revolution without the diatribe against against liberals.

"...without the diatribe against against liberals."


Gettin' a little too warm for you?



Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve.




Cuba and Iran: see post #11

There is practically no similarity at all between the revolution under Castro and Khomeini. Castro came to power under Eisenhower a republican and Khomeini came to power under Cartier, a democrat. Castro was born a Catholic but claimed later to be an atheist while Khomeini was an Islamic cleric. Castro was a communist and Khomeini believe Islam was an alternative to Communism. Even the purpose of the revolutions were totally difference. The purpose of the Cuban revolution was to oust Batista and create a socialist atheist state while the purpose of the Islamic Revolution was to oust the Shah and create and Islamic Republic. In the Cuban revolution less than 2,000 died while over 60,000 died in the Islamic revolution. About the only similarity was both countries were ruled by strong arm dictators allied to with the US.

Spoken like a Good German.....er, good Liberal.

Now don't forget to write out your check to Planned Slaughterhood, too!!!

 

[Flopper]

History is what you make it when it comes to the Cuban Revolution. By all accounts it goes down as another failure of the CIA. The U.S. Eisenhower administration supported the Castro insurgency but wouldn't you know Castro turned out to be a Marxist dictator. Along comes JFK who appoints his own brother as AG and Bobby spends his time scheming ways to overthrow Castro. The comedy circus in the CIA supports an illegal invasion of Cuba and we end up in Devcon 3.

Just six days after the fall of Batista, U.S. officials recognize Castro's government. Despite fears that Fidel Castro, whose rebel army helped to overthrow Batista, might have communist leanings, the U.S. government believed that it could work with the new regime and protect American interests in Cuba which was their primary concern. In early 1959, Castro came to the US. He received a warm welcome on the Jack Park show and on the Ed Sullivan show he was compared to George Washington. The Eisenhower administration was divided on the question of what to do about Castro. However within a few weeks there was no doubt that Castro was not going to play ball with the US government and Cuba was not going to be controlled by Washington.

See if you can understand the similarity between the support of Castro and the same of Khomeini.


The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” A Monarch Dethroned



"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108



And it has been ever so.



Eisenhower is famous for saying "Public opinion wins wars."

And it is function of the Left to make certain that public opinion favors communism and communists.


You are a perfect example of how successful it has been.



See if this resonates:

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

How about listing what you believe to be the similarities between the Iranian Revolution and the Cuban Revolution without the diatribe against against liberals.

"...without the diatribe against against liberals."


Gettin' a little too warm for you?



Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve.




Cuba and Iran: see post #11

There is practically no similarity at all between the revolution under Castro and Khomeini. Castro came to power under Eisenhower a republican and Khomeini came to power under Cartier, a democrat. Castro was born a Catholic but claimed later to be an atheist while Khomeini was an Islamic cleric. Castro was a communist and Khomeini believe Islam was an alternative to Communism. Even the purpose of the revolutions were totally difference. The purpose of the Cuban revolution was to oust Batista and create a socialist atheist state while the purpose of the Islamic Revolution was to oust the Shah and create and Islamic Republic. In the Cuban revolution less than 2,000 died while over 60,000 died in the Islamic revolution. About the only similarity was both countries were ruled by strong arm dictators allied to with the US.

Spoken like a Good German.....er, good Liberal.

Now don't forget to write out your check to Planned Slaughterhood, too!!!

More irrelevant comments

 

[PoliticalChic]

History is what you make it when it comes to the Cuban Revolution. By all accounts it goes down as another failure of the CIA. The U.S. Eisenhower administration supported the Castro insurgency but wouldn't you know Castro turned out to be a Marxist dictator. Along comes JFK who appoints his own brother as AG and Bobby spends his time scheming ways to overthrow Castro. The comedy circus in the CIA supports an illegal invasion of Cuba and we end up in Devcon 3.

Just six days after the fall of Batista, U.S. officials recognize Castro's government. Despite fears that Fidel Castro, whose rebel army helped to overthrow Batista, might have communist leanings, the U.S. government believed that it could work with the new regime and protect American interests in Cuba which was their primary concern. In early 1959, Castro came to the US. He received a warm welcome on the Jack Park show and on the Ed Sullivan show he was compared to George Washington. The Eisenhower administration was divided on the question of what to do about Castro. However within a few weeks there was no doubt that Castro was not going to play ball with the US government and Cuba was not going to be controlled by Washington.

See if you can understand the similarity between the support of Castro and the same of Khomeini.


The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” A Monarch Dethroned



"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108



And it has been ever so.



Eisenhower is famous for saying "Public opinion wins wars."

And it is function of the Left to make certain that public opinion favors communism and communists.


You are a perfect example of how successful it has been.



See if this resonates:

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

How about listing what you believe to be the similarities between the Iranian Revolution and the Cuban Revolution without the diatribe against against liberals.

"...without the diatribe against against liberals."


Gettin' a little too warm for you?



Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve.




Cuba and Iran: see post #11

There is practically no similarity at all between the revolution under Castro and Khomeini. Castro came to power under Eisenhower a republican and Khomeini came to power under Cartier, a democrat. Castro was born a Catholic but claimed later to be an atheist while Khomeini was an Islamic cleric. Castro was a communist and Khomeini believe Islam was an alternative to Communism. Even the purpose of the revolutions were totally difference. The purpose of the Cuban revolution was to oust Batista and create a socialist atheist state while the purpose of the Islamic Revolution was to oust the Shah and create and Islamic Republic. In the Cuban revolution less than 2,000 died while over 60,000 died in the Islamic revolution. About the only similarity was both countries were ruled by strong arm dictators allied to with the US.

I

The two things that we have learned about you are that you don't understand what is relevant, and that you can't handle more than one thought at a time.

 

[Flopper]

History is what you make it when it comes to the Cuban Revolution. By all accounts it goes down as another failure of the CIA. The U.S. Eisenhower administration supported the Castro insurgency but wouldn't you know Castro turned out to be a Marxist dictator. Along comes JFK who appoints his own brother as AG and Bobby spends his time scheming ways to overthrow Castro. The comedy circus in the CIA supports an illegal invasion of Cuba and we end up in Devcon 3.

Just six days after the fall of Batista, U.S. officials recognize Castro's government. Despite fears that Fidel Castro, whose rebel army helped to overthrow Batista, might have communist leanings, the U.S. government believed that it could work with the new regime and protect American interests in Cuba which was their primary concern. In early 1959, Castro came to the US. He received a warm welcome on the Jack Park show and on the Ed Sullivan show he was compared to George Washington. The Eisenhower administration was divided on the question of what to do about Castro. However within a few weeks there was no doubt that Castro was not going to play ball with the US government and Cuba was not going to be controlled by Washington.

See if you can understand the similarity between the support of Castro and the same of Khomeini.


The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” A Monarch Dethroned



"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108



And it has been ever so.



Eisenhower is famous for saying "Public opinion wins wars."

And it is function of the Left to make certain that public opinion favors communism and communists.


You are a perfect example of how successful it has been.



See if this resonates:

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

How about listing what you believe to be the similarities between the Iranian Revolution and the Cuban Revolution without the diatribe against against liberals.

"...without the diatribe against against liberals."


Gettin' a little too warm for you?



Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve.




Cuba and Iran: see post #11

There is practically no similarity at all between the revolution under Castro and Khomeini. Castro came to power under Eisenhower a republican and Khomeini came to power under Cartier, a democrat. Castro was born a Catholic but claimed later to be an atheist while Khomeini was an Islamic cleric. Castro was a communist and Khomeini believe Islam was an alternative to Communism. Even the purpose of the revolutions were totally difference. The purpose of the Cuban revolution was to oust Batista and create a socialist atheist state while the purpose of the Islamic Revolution was to oust the Shah and create and Islamic Republic. In the Cuban revolution less than 2,000 died while over 60,000 died in the Islamic revolution. About the only similarity was both countries were ruled by strong arm dictators allied to with the US.

I

The two things that we have learned about you are that you don't understand what is relevant, and that you can't handle more than one thought at a time.

What you think of me is totally irrelevant. The topic of discussion you stared is the historical accuracy of the film Havana. If you can't managed to post relevant messages on your own topic, there is no point continuing. I do not participate in flame wars, naming calling, and character assassination of members.

Have Nice Day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

History is what you make it when it comes to the Cuban Revolution. By all accounts it goes down as another failure of the CIA. The U.S. Eisenhower administration supported the Castro insurgency but wouldn't you know Castro turned out to be a Marxist dictator. Along comes JFK who appoints his own brother as AG and Bobby spends his time scheming ways to overthrow Castro. The comedy circus in the CIA supports an illegal invasion of Cuba and we end up in Devcon 3.

Just six days after the fall of Batista, U.S. officials recognize Castro's government. Despite fears that Fidel Castro, whose rebel army helped to overthrow Batista, might have communist leanings, the U.S. government believed that it could work with the new regime and protect American interests in Cuba which was their primary concern. In early 1959, Castro came to the US. He received a warm welcome on the Jack Park show and on the Ed Sullivan show he was compared to George Washington. The Eisenhower administration was divided on the question of what to do about Castro. However within a few weeks there was no doubt that Castro was not going to play ball with the US government and Cuba was not going to be controlled by Washington.

See if you can understand the similarity between the support of Castro and the same of Khomeini.


The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” A Monarch Dethroned



"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108



And it has been ever so.



Eisenhower is famous for saying "Public opinion wins wars."

And it is function of the Left to make certain that public opinion favors communism and communists.


You are a perfect example of how successful it has been.



See if this resonates:

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

How about listing what you believe to be the similarities between the Iranian Revolution and the Cuban Revolution without the diatribe against against liberals.

"...without the diatribe against against liberals."


Gettin' a little too warm for you?



Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve.




Cuba and Iran: see post #11

There is practically no similarity at all between the revolution under Castro and Khomeini. Castro came to power under Eisenhower a republican and Khomeini came to power under Cartier, a democrat. Castro was born a Catholic but claimed later to be an atheist while Khomeini was an Islamic cleric. Castro was a communist and Khomeini believe Islam was an alternative to Communism. Even the purpose of the revolutions were totally difference. The purpose of the Cuban revolution was to oust Batista and create a socialist atheist state while the purpose of the Islamic Revolution was to oust the Shah and create and Islamic Republic. In the Cuban revolution less than 2,000 died while over 60,000 died in the Islamic revolution. About the only similarity was both countries were ruled by strong arm dictators allied to with the US.

I

The two things that we have learned about you are that you don't understand what is relevant, and that you can't handle more than one thought at a time.T

What you think of me is totally irrelevant. The topic of discussion you stared is the historical accuracy of the film Havana. If you can't managed to post relevant messages on your own topic, there is no point continuing. I do not participate in flame wars, naming calling, and character assassination of members.

Have Nice Day.

I can't tell you how pleased I am that you feel the need to deny the obvious truth I provided.....that your Leftist Hollywood attempted to leave viewers with a totally false perception about the Marxists who defeated Batista.

When I get under the scales of your sort of apologists for Democrats/Marxists,....I consider it a thread worth posting.

 

[BlackSand]

1. This weekend, I had the opportunity to see the film “Havana” (1990), a re-association of Sidney Pollack and Robert Redford. I liked the film, but as usual, I am never able to apply a willing suspension of disbelief. Knowledge and education prevent absorbing the Hollywood versions of history.



2. The film, with a theme taken liberally from the 1943 blockbuster, Casablanca, has Redford opposite the beautiful Lena Olin, and she a freedom fighter of the Ingrid Bergman mold, opposing not the Nazis, but a modern version of same, the Batista secret police. But Pollack cleans up Castro and his psychopaths as the anti-Nazi resistance fighters.

That’s not just a mistake…..it is Hollywood’s indoctrination of an ignorant public.



3. The correct historic perspective would be to have the conflict in Cube mirror Hitler’s Nazis versus Stalin’s Communists, after all the characteristics of the combatants mirror the previous pair, and with the very same outcome….Communists with the aid of American Liberals/Democrats, victorious. Both cases, a terrible mistake.



4. The great lesson of modern history is that Liberals/Progressives/Democrats don’t learn the great lessons of modern history.

Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"




5. Perhaps, in support of art, we should forgive Pollack et al., for cleaning up the Castor/Che rebels, and hiding what murdering thugs…Marxists… they were?

Forgivable? Not when Castro took over in 1959, and the film was made released in 1990, well past when this was known:

“Cuba's dictator, Fidel Castro, never lets anyone get off his island if he can find a way to kill them. His gunboats are not used to defend the island from attack. Their machine guns are used to kill people trying to escape his island Hell.”
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/elian.htm



Castro’s death cult, in which executions are uncountable, like other leftist ideologies believes that human blood purifies the earth, and since manifestations of grief affirm the reality of the individual, and thus are anathema to the totality, the collective, - mourning for the departed is strictly forbidden. Castro’s Cuba warned family members of murdered dissidents not to cry at their funerals. Valladares, ‘Against All Hope,” p. 378.





So…..see “Havana,” but don’t be taken in by the subtext.

It’s a lie.

.
The picture Havana, is no different than other efforts at rewriting history through a romanticized fiction.

The rewriting of history is how one of the easiest ways to come across a picture of Chez Guevara, is on a t-shirt sold at the GAP.
The people wearing it don't understand how obscene that would be towards his efforts against raw capitalism.

In the long-run, that poor bastard just missed the boat ...

.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. This weekend, I had the opportunity to see the film “Havana” (1990), a re-association of Sidney Pollack and Robert Redford. I liked the film, but as usual, I am never able to apply a willing suspension of disbelief. Knowledge and education prevent absorbing the Hollywood versions of history.



2. The film, with a theme taken liberally from the 1943 blockbuster, Casablanca, has Redford opposite the beautiful Lena Olin, and she a freedom fighter of the Ingrid Bergman mold, opposing not the Nazis, but a modern version of same, the Batista secret police. But Pollack cleans up Castro and his psychopaths as the anti-Nazi resistance fighters.

That’s not just a mistake…..it is Hollywood’s indoctrination of an ignorant public.



3. The correct historic perspective would be to have the conflict in Cube mirror Hitler’s Nazis versus Stalin’s Communists, after all the characteristics of the combatants mirror the previous pair, and with the very same outcome….Communists with the aid of American Liberals/Democrats, victorious. Both cases, a terrible mistake.



4. The great lesson of modern history is that Liberals/Progressives/Democrats don’t learn the great lessons of modern history.

Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"




5. Perhaps, in support of art, we should forgive Pollack et al., for cleaning up the Castor/Che rebels, and hiding what murdering thugs…Marxists… they were?

Forgivable? Not when Castro took over in 1959, and the film was made released in 1990, well past when this was known:

“Cuba's dictator, Fidel Castro, never lets anyone get off his island if he can find a way to kill them. His gunboats are not used to defend the island from attack. Their machine guns are used to kill people trying to escape his island Hell.”
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/elian.htm



Castro’s death cult, in which executions are uncountable, like other leftist ideologies believes that human blood purifies the earth, and since manifestations of grief affirm the reality of the individual, and thus are anathema to the totality, the collective, - mourning for the departed is strictly forbidden. Castro’s Cuba warned family members of murdered dissidents not to cry at their funerals. Valladares, ‘Against All Hope,” p. 378.





So…..see “Havana,” but don’t be taken in by the subtext.

It’s a lie.

.
The picture Havana, is no different than other efforts at rewriting history.
The rewriting of history is how one of the easiest ways to come across a picture of Chez Guevara, is on a t-shirt sold at the GAP.

In the long-run, that poor bastard just missed the boat ...

.​

The saddest part of the indoctrination by Leftist Hollywood is that government school leaves the theatre-goers unequipped to judge what they are seeing, and the lies being told.

"Learn World History Through Movies. Historical Movies. American History in Movies. European History in Movies. Asian History in Movies. Indian History in Movies. Chinese History in Movies. Prehistoric Times in Movies. Chronological Timeline​

by KyaBakwaasHai | created - 21 Dec 2015 | updated - 13 Aug 2016 | Public
Learn World History Through Movies. Historical Movies. American History in Movies. European History in Movies. Asian History in Movies. Indian History in Movies. Chinese History in Movies. Prehistoric Times in Movies. Chronological Timeline."

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls031345840/

Yikes!!!!

 

[BlackSand]

The saddest part of the indoctrination by Leftist Hollywood is that government school leaves the theatre-goers unequipped to judge what they are seeing, and the lies being told.

"Learn World History Through Movies. Historical Movies. American History in Movies. European History in Movies. Asian History in Movies. Indian History in Movies. Chinese History in Movies. Prehistoric Times in Movies. Chronological Timeline​

by KyaBakwaasHai | created - 21 Dec 2015 | updated - 13 Aug 2016 | Public
Learn World History Through Movies. Historical Movies. American History in Movies. European History in Movies. Asian History in Movies. Indian History in Movies. Chinese History in Movies. Prehistoric Times in Movies. Chronological Timeline."

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls031345840/

Yikes!!!!

.

Well ... How the hell else would they get to a point where Representative Ocasio-Cortez could help finance her campaign ...
By selling sweatshirts that say "Tax The Rich", and cost $12 to make ... For $60 on her website?

Trying to apply reason to any of their crap is a fruitless endeavor ...
Some idiot is going to pay for it, and think they look smart.

.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

15. As everyone should have learned form the Wuhan Hoax, no area of life can escape the effects of politics. And nowhere is that more clear than in the film industry, where Hollywood set the tone for Marxism’s victories.

Sidney Pollack inserted the Leftist view of the psychopaths Castro and Che in his film, Havana.

From this obituary ….

“Born to Russian-Jewish parents ….Pollack moved to New York City in the early 1950s to pursue an acting career.

In New York theater in the early 1950s Pollack would have entered a generally left-wing artistic world that was reeling or retreating from the anticommunist witch-hunting. Later, as an actor in television in the mid-1950s, he would have encountered numerous writers who were in exile from the Hollywood blacklist.

In a film industry purged of left-wing elements, however, searching social criticism that could have helped make sense of these developments was in short supply. Various brands of Democratic Party liberalism were the best that was readily available to Pollack and others. To what extent the filmmaker came into contact with more radical trends during the heady days of the late 1960s and early 1970s is not clear.



Nonetheless, the emergence of social upheavals in the late 1960s obligated the more thoughtful elements within American filmmaking to question the supposed solidity and near invincibility of US capitalism.



There is no doubt a sociological significance to the fact that a film whose central female protagonist is an unrepentant Communist Party member (Barbra Streisand as Katie) was a box office success …. One of those pressures is the blacklist and Katie’s vocal opposition to McCarthyism,…



… in Havana (1990), a film set on the eve of the Cuban revolution in 1959. The work seems to be a response to the Reagan-Bush years and in particular Washington’s machinations against the Sandinistas and other Central American guerrilla movements; it is surprisingly sympathetic to the revolution. It is one of Pollack’s most ‘left’ films, and convincing in many of its details.” American filmmaker Sydney Pollack (1934-2008)