You have to know how to read facts.

I am quite experienced with repressive regimes, as I grew up in West-Berlin, surrounded by an repressive regime in East-Germany.

What you saw with your own eyes was that the Cuban regime is not oppressing tourists. But I don't think anybody ever claimed they did, so you saw the facts and you would be right to make the claim that the Cuban regime does not oppress tourists. And I, who was never there and did not know (but I guessed it) that the regime was friendly to tourists will accept your word for it.

It is ironic, but one of the signs for an oppressive regime is that you don't see any signs. The more you see, the less well does it work. Kurdistan today is filled with security guards at every street corner. Yet it is less oppressive than it was back in the day when people tended to vanish without a trace.

That anecdote is evidence for the fact that quiet corners existed in WW2. And if I had never seen evidence to the contrary I would indeed assume that the entire war was quiet, just like I assume that Iraq was an ally of Russia but not the US because I saw evidence only for the first, not the second.

As for WW2, I now know your story but I also know other stories. For example my father told me that somebody threw a bomb on his family's house in WW2. Thence I conclude, with the evidence I have from you and my dad, that WW2 had quiet and not-so-quiet corners.

We are getting there. But there is still a difference between how we read evidence.

I read evidence as proving one aspect of the lot and I induce that the whole is like the aspects I know if I see nothing to the contrary.

You read evidence as proving one aspect of the lot and then apply the claim that that cannot be all and hence the whole must be different.

So if we have a situation X and see the evidence X1 and X2 but we know that there is also X3 and X4 which we do not see, I conclude from X1 and X2, not knowing X3 and X4, that X is probably like X1 and X2. You conclude from X1 and X2 that X is whatever you want it to be and claim that X3 and X4 COULD confirm that if we only find them.

But there are three principles that make your method wrong (or impractical). The first is In Dubio Pro Reo, which means that we have to assume the innocence of the accused until we have proof for his guilt. This means that unless we find real evidence for a claim against some party, we have to assume it is wrong. The second is the laws of physics. If a claim contradicts the laws of physics (like the idea that tens of thousands of bodies can vanish without a trace and without furnaces or mass graves), it is wrong also, regardless of whether evidence X3 and X4 are still unknown. And the third principle is simply inductive logic.

The tale of your father's friend is evidence, as is your tale of Cuba.

But the tale of your father's friend is not the sole evidence I have for WW2 so I _know_ that the conclusion "All of WW2 was like your father's friend's story" is wrong. (If I had no other evidence for WW2 it would be wise to conclude that the story is representative until I have more evidence.)

And your story of Cuba is not about what Cuba does to Cubans, only what it does to tourists. It confirms what I thought: tourists are treated nicely.

You can have positions, but you cannot claim that the position constitutes a fact, even if other people have the same position.

Personal experience is not the only evidence I can use. But it's evidence. Claims made by people, regardless of how many other people they quote, are not evidence.

Fair enough, but seeing as we had a rental car and were able to tootle around freely (no government "tourist industry" escort or any such nonsense), no restrictions on where we could go) we did get a good look at much of Cuba off the beaten path. As I said, I'm not disputing the fact that it was at one time a VERY repressive regime (and may be today still in some capacities) but the fact that average folks there had no problem launching into scathing criticism of their leadership in open daylight, that's a good sign!

This is true. Claims need to be backed up and supported. I believe that in the case of the U.S going to war in Iraq, the claims that there was not a legitimate threat posed by Iraq and therefore the invasion was based more on geo-political chess than any pressing need, have been backed up and supported.

I've got two more sources that I like to draw on, in fact I highly recommend you take a toodle of this fellow's books-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Taylor_(journalist)

This fellow has been to Iraq over 20 times, he was present for the 1991 fighting, the 2003 invasion and made subsequent trips during the occupation. In 2004, he was kidnapped by Iraqi police and handed over to AQ in Iraq (ansar al islam) in Tal Afar. They held him hostage for 5 days and the only reason he lived was partially because he was able to prove he was a non-U.S, non-Jewish foreign journalist (they repeatedly accused him of being a Mossad agent as is standard practice) but he lived mostly because Turkish Intelligence got wind of the kidnapping and was able to negotiate for his release.

Anywho. This fellow has put forth claims, backed up by his personal evidence, that indeed the war against Iraq was based more on opportunism and was in no way necessary as we were lead to believe. Furthermore, he also provides a pretty compelling case for the systematic practice of supporting a monster so long as it's convenient, then tossing him when the benefits dry up.

Namely, in this case the conflict with Serbia in 1999 (this is all news to me which I just recently learned)

Did you know that just months before the KLA started it's big campaign in Kosovo with NATO air support and U.S arms, that they were classified as a terrorist group by the state department?

So, one day they're terrorists, then the next they have our full support and blessing to raise holy hell. Also of interest, is the leader of the KLA who we openly supported was Agim Ceku, a fellow who was documented by UN peacekeepers as the commander of uniformed forces that committed ethnic cleansing of Serbians in the Medak region in the early 90's.

So, in the case of the Serbia 1999 war, we took a fellow and a group made up of monsters very similar to Saddam and openly supported them, because it was convenient for us and no one really cared about what Agim Ceku had done earlier, just as in the mid-80's no one really cared that Saddam was killing Kurds (I did some checking and there was a UN resolution tabled to denounce Saddam's use of chemical weapons, but it was indeed blocked by the U.S veto!)

Another interesting source is a fellow named Scott Ritter-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

He served as an Intelligence Office in the marine corps for 12 years and was the head of the UN weapons inspection program until 1998. On every point he's made about the war, he was right and the official party line from Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz (and Bush) was wrong. He also states his case that the war against Iraq was unnecessary, and again, more about the politicking of removing a former compliant dictator who no longer provides any benefits.

So, who do I believe? Both of the fellows above have extensive experience, background, and good evidence to boot. Do they qualify as loony liberal sources too???

Wikipeadia...great source!!!

Well, in this case it is as it's got links to other sources.... one of which being the magazine he started in the 80's

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/