Castro Retires

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They just know not to bother with a totalitarian government in charge.

“Not to bother”? Do you realize kids are dying because of the embargo?

sooo we can’t police the world but you want us to rescue every starving person in the world?

So let me get this straight. We get involved and it’s our fault, we do nothing and it’s our fault. Got it, so it’s always our fault whenever something bad happens, why didn’t I think of that before?[/quote]

Right - review the hypocrisy.

The US trades with other countries ----> we are exploiting them via trade, getting rich while keeping our trade partners poor, despairing, and with low standards of living

The US doesn’t trade with other countries ----> we are denying them their “right” to our trade and thus complicit in their poverty, despair, and low standard of living

Ignore Lixy. Even the left-wingers around here see through him.

22

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What is the point of the embargo, again? [/quote]

It was meant as a collective punishment against the Cuban people for having the audacity to challenge Batista and his backers. It’s the most enduring trade embargo in modern history.

In 1994, for the 3rd year in a row, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for a measure to end the U.S. Embargo of Cuba. The vote was 101-2 (only Israel voted with the U.S.)

There is no real point to it now, but the Florida crowd will continue to resist any normalization out of guttural hatred for Castro.

23

Nothing has really changed in Cuba. Raul was the one who was responsible for running all the show trials and executions for Fidel. If Fidel is Hitler, Raul is Himmler.

The point of the embargo is: Fidel tried to help Kruschev start world war three and almost succeeded. Cuba was starting wars in other countries. Fidel’s ambitions needed to be kept in check.

24

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The US trades with other countries ----> we are exploiting them via trade, getting rich while keeping our trade partners poor, despairing, and with low standards of living [/quote]

Trade? The country was run by Batista and the mob. How’s that trade?

25

Here’s an insightful /. post I ran across:

[i]Don’t, mistake official explanations with the real reasons. The US has being trying to control Cuba since the 1800s but the British Navy was an obstacle for a long time. John Quincy Adams noted that “the laws of political gravitation” would bring Cuba into the hands of the U.S.

Eventually the US saw an opportunity when Cuba was striving for independence from Spain. The resistance in Cuba was wary of US offers of help because they were worried that once in, the US would never leave. However, the US gave assurances that would not be the case (e.g. Teller Amendment) and went in to help the resistance. Once the Spanish-controlled government was overthrown, the US (predictably) refused to leave. General Samuel B.M. Young expressed the opinion… “a lot of degenerates…no more capable of self-government than the savages of Africa,”.

Eventually US forces did leave, but they laid down conditions for withdrawal, known as the Platt Amendment. The Cubans had to agree to a US Naval Base (the now infamous Guantanamo Bay) and to never transfer any Cuban land to a power other than the US. The terms also allowed the US to intervene in Cuban affairs when the US deemed necessary. Under US pressure, the terms were even embedded into the Cuban constitution. Eventually this repressive and imperialistic amendment was repealed in 1934 under Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbour policy” but the US refused to give up Guantanamo bay and it can only be removed with the consent of both parties (an unlikely occurrence to say the least). Of course, it was ok for the US to give up these powers in 1934 because Fulgencio Batista was already the de facto ruler of Cuba. With this US-backed dictator in place, the Platt Amendment wasn’t really necessary.

Eventually this nice little arrangement ended in 1959 when Castro toppled Batista. That is the source of US anger ever since. It is the anger of losing control of Cuba. All the rest of it is just excuses. It was the fear of invasion from the US (which was being planned) that drove Castro into an alliance with the USSR. Eventually there was an invasion attempt (bay of Pigs) but fortunately for Castro it was totally pathetic, possibly bordering on a US attempt at humour.

Although there was no successful invasion, the US conducted a long terrorist campaign against Cuba including the destruction of crops and what we would regard today as Al Qaeda-style bombings. Right now the US is harbouring Possada Carriles who is widely believed to have been behind the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 that killed 73 people. The US denies involvement in the bombing, but refuses to extradite him to Venezuela citing fears that he might be tortured. Since the US government does not believe that waterboarding is torture, I can only assume they fear he may be subjected to something worse than waterboarding.

The US government will always claim that hostility towards Cuba is for one reason or another but the truth is that it wants control of Cuba and always has. Being a democracy is no guarantee that the US will leave you alone as the case of Venezuela amply demonstrates. The US teaches some unfortunate lessons. It teaches that if you have an open democracy, and you are not a government liked by the US (e.g. a socialist one), the US will use that openness against you, even going as far as coup attempts as was the case in Venezuela, Guatemala etc. If some future leader of Cuba does want to make a transition to democracy, he will no doubt have second thoughts after looking at US subversion in Venezuela and elsewhere.[/i]

26

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The US trades with other countries ----> we are exploiting them via trade, getting rich while keeping our trade partners poor, despairing, and with low standards of living

Trade? The country was run by Batista and the mob. How’s that trade? [/quote]

Still waiting on you to back up your statements. I guess you can’t back up lies, huh?

Under Batista - get this - people could actually own property. That fucker.

27

[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s an insightful /. post I ran across:

[/quote]

I guess, if you are a communist/terrorist sympathizer. How about a link to it? Not that I don’t trust you, but don’t exactly embody honesty.

28

[quote]lixy wrote:

Trade? The country was run by Batista and the mob. How’s that trade? [/quote]

You’ll note I was responding to Crew Pierce’s comments and offering the general critique of trade, as evidenced by you.

Wow - you really are this bad, aren’t you?

29

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What is the point of the embargo, again?

It was meant as a collective punishment against the Cuban people for having the audacity to challenge Batista and his backers. It’s the most enduring trade embargo in modern history.

In 1994, for the 3rd year in a row, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for a measure to end the U.S. Embargo of Cuba. The vote was 101-2 (only Israel voted with the U.S.)

There is no real point to it now, but the Florida crowd will continue to resist any normalization out of guttural hatred for Castro.[/quote]

The embargo actually came into effect after the Cuban missile crisis. It was a measure not really to punish but to weaken the regime. Needless to say it did not work, it actually served to make it stronger by creating a full dependency on the government. A toxic mixture of the having the hand that feeds you, bite you as well.

There are no freedoms what so ever in Cuba. There is no freedom of religion, up until 1999 Christmas was just completely banned. You could be jailed for practicing up until that point; now it’s allowed on a limited basis. There is no freedom of speech, no suffrage at all, no private ownership, etc. The government controls all aspects of life and they enforce with secret police and paid informants.

You never know when you are being watched so you never can even try to take what you don’t have the freedom to do. Your neighbor can be an informant and your ass will be hauled off to Cuban prison. That is why that “crowd” in Florida, the ones who courageously fled tyranny knowing if they were to be caught they would be killed, have an unfettered hatred for Castro. He stole their country for them.

Bautisa was no choir boy, but he didn’t fuck with the common man. There is not one cuban alive that wouldn’t rather have bautista over castro any day of the week, any week of the year.

Now the embargo is little more than chess game and bargaining tool. Fidel would have hated if the embargo were to be lifted. It would have eroded his power. That’s why he never asked it be removed.

I think we should have done it to get as much U.S. influence on the soil of Cuba as possible. I guess they are afraid of what might happen if we do.

30

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The US trades with other countries ----> we are exploiting them via trade, getting rich while keeping our trade partners poor, despairing, and with low standards of living

Trade? The country was run by Batista and the mob. How’s that trade?

Still waiting on you to back up your statements. I guess you can’t back up lies, huh? [/quote]

What statement? That was a question.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s an insightful /. post I ran across:

I guess, if you are a communist/terrorist sympathizer. How about a link to it? Not that I don’t trust you, but don’t exactly embody honesty.[/quote]

31

[quote]pat wrote:
…
[/quote]

Nowhere in your rant does the sovereignty of the Cuban people come into the equation. I stand by the assertion that Castro wouldn’t turned into that big an SOB if it weren’t for the Bay of Pigs and the repeated US attempts to put yet another puppet at the head of Cuba.

Imagine for a second what would have happened if Cuba had oil on tap Iraq-style.

32

[quote]lixy wrote:

Nowhere in your rant does the sovereignty of the Cuban people come into the equation. I stand by the assertion that Castro wouldn’t turned into that big an SOB if it weren’t for the Bay of Pigs and the repeated US attempts to put yet another puppet at the head of Cuba.

Imagine for a second what would have happened if Cuba had oil on tap Iraq-style.[/quote]

Imagine that - Lixy goes on record as describing one of the 20th century’s most enduring dictators as “not that bad”, and as a corollary, whatever “bad” Castro was, the “bad” wasn’t his fault - someone drove him to it.

Every time, every dictator.

33

Yay! JFK won after all!

Wait… there’s another Castro? :frowning:

34

Personally, I have no question about Castro. He’s an oppresive pinko dictator. But, again, why the embargo? I notice certain other countries we do a good amount of business with. Some as oppresive, if not more so. And some of those, much more dangerous. I’m not talking about selling Castro arms, either folks.

Why not try a different schtick? Why not let free markets do the work?

35

[quote]lixy wrote:
Imagine for a second what would have happened if Cuba had oil on tap Iraq-style.[/quote]

They do. They just don’t have the money to buy a tap. that’s why the Chinese made a deal with them.

36

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

Nowhere in your rant does the sovereignty of the Cuban people come into the equation. I stand by the assertion that Castro wouldn’t turned into that big an SOB if it weren’t for the Bay of Pigs and the repeated US attempts to put yet another puppet at the head of Cuba.

Imagine for a second what would have happened if Cuba had oil on tap Iraq-style.

Imagine that - Lixy goes on record as describing one of the 20th century’s most enduring dictators as “not that bad”, and as a corollary, whatever “bad” Castro was, the “bad” wasn’t his fault - someone drove him to it.

Every time, every dictator. [/quote]

Don’t be an idiot. What he did was evidently his fault. But his legitimate fear of being overthrown by Washington has probably caused him to crack more heads than needed and naturally pushed Cuba further into the Russian and Chinese camp.

Stop thinking in terms of black and white. Actions have consequences, and a superpower meddling with the internal affairs of sovereign states is bound to have an effect. If you want to delude yourself into thinking Castro’s human rights record would have been as extensive even without the US’ repeated attempt to install a puppet regime there, I have no problem with that. But do not twist my words.

37

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Imagine for a second what would have happened if Cuba had oil on tap Iraq-style.

They do. They just don’t have the money to buy a tap. that’s why the Chinese made a deal with them. [/quote]

I meant “on tap” as in Iraq. Deep-water reserves are not exactly as easy nor as cheap.

And I wrote “had” as in known reserves since the 60s.

Also, if I have been following this correctly, I believe India and Canada had the lion share - not China.

38

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Imagine for a second what would have happened if Cuba had oil on tap Iraq-style.

They do. They just don’t have the money to buy a tap. that’s why the Chinese made a deal with them.

I meant “on tap” as in Iraq. Deep-water reserves are not exactly as easy nor as cheap.

And I wrote “had” as in known reserves since the 60s.

Also, if I have been following this correctly, I believe India and Canada had the lion share - not China.[/quote]

Your back pedaling is humorous, if not pathetic.

39

[quote]lixy wrote:

Don’t be an idiot. What he did was evidently his fault. But his legitimate fear of being overthrown by Washington has probably caused him to crack more heads than needed and naturally pushed Cuba further into the Russian and Chinese camp.

Stop thinking in terms of black and white. Actions have consequences, and a superpower meddling with the internal affairs of sovereign states is bound to have an effect. If you want to delude yourself into thinking Castro’s human rights record would have been as extensive even without the US’ repeated attempt to install a puppet regime there, I have no problem with that. But do not twist my words.[/quote]

Nonsense - there isn’t a left-wing dictator you haven’t been an apologist for.

Every communist dictator in history has the blood of his people on his hands - including the ones he claimed to have saved. Castro is no different - and totalitarian regimes can’t be maintained without the police state apparatus that his “legitimate fear” is supposed to have created.

You offer this up every time - the classic “the evil they do is because someone makes them do it” is your signature move. It is universal - except, of course, when it comes to the crimes of people you don’t like (non-left wingers) - in which case, whatever “evil” they do is always on them as a matter of direct culpability…no one ever “makes” non-left wing politicians you don’t like do bad things in their name.

Enough. No amount of obfuscation can save this clumsy approach you have - your “cause and effect” explanations only work to absolve political causes you are sympathetic to that come under fire of responsibility for their atrocities. Conveniently, the “cause and effect” never applies to political causes you don’t favor. It’s obvious, we see it, and there is no amount of weaseling that can correct your irrational bias you are passing off as objective analysis.

Western politicians = all acts are acts of original, selfish evil, never a “reaction” to some other force making them do it

Left-wing, or otherwise non-Western politicians = no matter how heinous the act, responsibility is always reduced by the fact that the acts could never be acts of original, selfish evil, but are instead results of someone else “causing” them, forcing a reaction

It’s demonstrably false - and if you have tried to sell it too many times. The taxonomy only works for politicians you like - and your transparency is obvious.

40

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The US trades with other countries ----> we are exploiting them via trade, getting rich while keeping our trade partners poor, despairing, and with low standards of living

Trade? The country was run by Batista and the mob. How’s that trade? [/quote]

Once again. Damned everything we do.

It’s not like the US is the only country in the world. Doesn’t Cuba trade with other countries?

Funny, the countries who DO trade with Cuba are not held responcible for keeping them poor.