Good article on the consequences of Obama’s Castroism:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[/quote]
Only that’s not true. It was the Soviet Union and despotic Marxist regimes who “fucked over the poor”. Without the West the third world wouldn’t have hospitals or schools or even running water for that matter; something the Greeks and Romans mastered but most the third world never did. Everything the third world has is because of the West and to a lesser extent advanced Eastern civilisations. The West brought immense prosperity to the third world, cured them of disease - literally saving billions of lives - created the conditions for commerce and education and healthcare and a civil society. The only reason they have any of that is because of us. There are places on earth where the wheel was never invented; indeed, there are places and people who never even learned how to create fire. White Man’s Burden has been to civilise the ones that can be civilised and throw aid at the rest. We’re now the ones being screwed over by corrupt despotic native regimes that replaced largely honest colonialist civil services and institutions. Your narrative about the third world being exploited by Western investors is nonsense. Where regimes were replaced it was because they were radical, anti-Western Marxist regimes.
[quote]
There is no doubt that good capitalism helps poor people and increases general wealth. But it is also a fiction and basically a lie to claim that some bad U.S. policies didn’t help push workers into the the arms of marxist revolutionaries in the development of latin America during the 19th century. E.g.:
One way to help defeat marxists is to refrain from participating in the slaughter of workers striking over what are objectively hideous working conditions.
^^ Because the Colombian Army killed 47 people during a strike in 1928? That’s why they hate America? Come on man, that’s a stretch.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Because the Colombian Army killed 47 people during a strike in 1928? That’s why they hate America? Come on man, that’s a stretch.[/quote]
No, my basic point is the history of the region is complicated. I think U.S. interests in the region are sometimes better served using carrots and a little diplomacy rather than big sticks. For a long time the sides were basically aligned between right-wing death squads and left-wing marxist revolutionaries, with stacks of peasants stuck in the middle. I don’t have the time to go get all the links, but we both know the U.S. provided lots of support for an extremely-heavy handed approach to labor issues in the entire region and did so for a very long time to protect U.S. business interests in ways that would be almost unthinkable now. Sometimes being too heavy-handed can benefit Marxists who play off the imperial model. That’s all I’m saying.
Remember what I said once about the Russians having an ally in our hemisphere, so they should not be angry at us moving close to their borders? After what happened with Russia and Ukraine, this might be our way of giving Russia a big FU.
Just a thought.
This is an awful betrayal of the Cuban people. But not a surprise with a Marxist sympathizer President. The policy of containment has been in place for fifty years for good reason. Cuba is a threat to freedom in this hemisphere. It has only been a couple of months since we had mass protests in Venezuela that were violently put down by government troops who were led by Cubans. These are current events, not old history. One would have to be a complete idiot then to believe what Obama said that the policy is “outdated”.
We are near the end of a process that has taken fifty years to complete in our favor. The biological clock of the Castro regime is finally running out. We haven’t heard or seen Fidel in a while and Raul isn’t much younger. What Obama is doing is throwing the Castro’s successors a lifeline that will help them to consolidate power when the Castro’s are gone.
This is the tyranny that Obama is assisting.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Because the Colombian Army killed 47 people during a strike in 1928? That’s why they hate America? Come on man, that’s a stretch.[/quote]
No, my basic point is the history of the region is complicated. I think U.S. interests in the region are sometimes better served using carrots and a little diplomacy rather than big sticks. For a long time the sides were basically aligned between right-wing death squads and left-wing marxist revolutionaries, with stacks of peasants stuck in the middle. I don’t have the time to go get all the links, but we both know the U.S. provided lots of support for an extremely-heavy handed approach to labor issues in the entire region and did so for a very long time to protect U.S. business interests in ways that would be almost unthinkable now. Sometimes being too heavy-handed can benefit Marxists who play off the imperial model. That’s all I’m saying.
[/quote]
Yep, this is really the more broad idea, but when you get into specifics it all of a sudden turns into your a sick commie sob. And, largely that is how these things end up being boiled down because the nature was indeed as you explain in general… But when you bring in specifics of the names of the groups it starts to become personal.
I think the reality is like I said. If you were a poor person working in a mine, Che was your hero, and the U.S./ capitalism was your oppressor, because that was your actual reality.
If you had influence as a result of American influence, Che was your butcher. Nothing was black and white back then because it was the cold war and the objective was resource control. Ethics took a back seat. And, yes Pope JP II totally turned his back on Oscar Romero, and now it’s taking this Pope to undo the damage he did by not just exposing and talking about this situation for what it is. Pope JP II took the side of the West instead of ignoring the cold war and taking the side of the poor.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Because the Colombian Army killed 47 people during a strike in 1928? That’s why they hate America? Come on man, that’s a stretch.[/quote]
No, my basic point is the history of the region is complicated. I think U.S. interests in the region are sometimes better served using carrots and a little diplomacy rather than big sticks. For a long time the sides were basically aligned between right-wing death squads and left-wing marxist revolutionaries, with stacks of peasants stuck in the middle. I don’t have the time to go get all the links, but we both know the U.S. provided lots of support for an extremely-heavy handed approach to labor issues in the entire region and did so for a very long time to protect U.S. business interests in ways that would be almost unthinkable now. Sometimes being too heavy-handed can benefit Marxists who play off the imperial model. That’s all I’m saying.
[/quote]
I don’t know what that has got to do with what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the Communist regime in Cuba and the embargo. The US actually helped liberate Cuba from the Spanish and then allowed them independence.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Because the Colombian Army killed 47 people during a strike in 1928? That’s why they hate America? Come on man, that’s a stretch.[/quote]
No, my basic point is the history of the region is complicated. I think U.S. interests in the region are sometimes better served using carrots and a little diplomacy rather than big sticks. For a long time the sides were basically aligned between right-wing death squads and left-wing marxist revolutionaries, with stacks of peasants stuck in the middle. I don’t have the time to go get all the links, but we both know the U.S. provided lots of support for an extremely-heavy handed approach to labor issues in the entire region and did so for a very long time to protect U.S. business interests in ways that would be almost unthinkable now. Sometimes being too heavy-handed can benefit Marxists who play off the imperial model. That’s all I’m saying.
[/quote]
Yep, this is really the more broad idea, but when you get into specifics it all of a sudden turns into your a sick commie sob. And, largely that is how these things end up being boiled down because the nature was indeed as you explain in general… But when you bring in specifics of the names of the groups it starts to become personal.
I think the reality is like I said. If you were a poor person working in a mine, Che was your hero, and the U.S./ capitalism was your oppressor, because that was your actual reality.
If you had influence as a result of American influence, Che was your butcher. Nothing was black and white back then because it was the cold war and the objective was resource control. Ethics took a back seat. And, yes Pope JP II totally turned his back on Oscar Romero, and now it’s taking this Pope to undo the damage he did by not just exposing and talking about this situation for what it is. Pope JP II took the side of the West instead of ignoring the cold war and taking the side of the poor. [/quote]
I called you a Commie because you were attacking John Paul II of all people for opposing Communist tyranny. And I have no idea what you’re talking about with Oscar Romero. What did John Paul II do to him?
Of course, Rand Paul has come out strongly in support of Obama’s appeasement of Cuba:
And Marco Rubio sets him straight. Rubio gave a good interview on the Mark Levin Show on Friday, explaining the consequences of Obama’s policy with Cuba. There are no private companies in Cuba so every cent that goes into the country ends up in the state owned holding company. The Castro regime is closely aligned with terrorist groups throughout the world and has been directly involved in attacks on US citizens.
http://www.edition.cnn.com/US/9602/cuba_shootdown/25/
Cuban jets shoot down civilian aircraft in international waters killing US civilians. The Cuban government were directly implicated. Obama had the perpetrators, Cuban intelligence agents plotting the murder of US civilians on US soil, released:
Cuba is the third largest state espionage actor against the US and they have stepped up their activities rapidly in recent years:
Cuban Intelligence Aggressively Courting the Left - http://www.drudgetrend.com/item/11201
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Because the Colombian Army killed 47 people during a strike in 1928? That’s why they hate America? Come on man, that’s a stretch.[/quote]
No, my basic point is the history of the region is complicated. I think U.S. interests in the region are sometimes better served using carrots and a little diplomacy rather than big sticks. For a long time the sides were basically aligned between right-wing death squads and left-wing marxist revolutionaries, with stacks of peasants stuck in the middle. I don’t have the time to go get all the links, but we both know the U.S. provided lots of support for an extremely-heavy handed approach to labor issues in the entire region and did so for a very long time to protect U.S. business interests in ways that would be almost unthinkable now. Sometimes being too heavy-handed can benefit Marxists who play off the imperial model. That’s all I’m saying.
[/quote]
Yep, this is really the more broad idea, but when you get into specifics it all of a sudden turns into your a sick commie sob. And, largely that is how these things end up being boiled down because the nature was indeed as you explain in general… But when you bring in specifics of the names of the groups it starts to become personal.
I think the reality is like I said. If you were a poor person working in a mine, Che was your hero, and the U.S./ capitalism was your oppressor, because that was your actual reality.
If you had influence as a result of American influence, Che was your butcher. Nothing was black and white back then because it was the cold war and the objective was resource control. Ethics took a back seat. And, yes Pope JP II totally turned his back on Oscar Romero, and now it’s taking this Pope to undo the damage he did by not just exposing and talking about this situation for what it is. Pope JP II took the side of the West instead of ignoring the cold war and taking the side of the poor. [/quote]
I called you a Commie because you were attacking John Paul II of all people for opposing Communist tyranny. And I have no idea what you’re talking about with Oscar Romero. What did John Paul II do to him?[/quote]
It’s your faith, not mine. I’m just calling it how it is.
He found himself between the Vatican and the Medellin, who do you think killed him? I’m not saying the Vatican itself did it, but the Medellin certainly didn’t. He spoke out for the people, which is exactly who Pope JPII abandoned because he was pretty clueless about the real situation from the peoples perspective in El Salvador, so he never even understood Romero’s position.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Because the Colombian Army killed 47 people during a strike in 1928? That’s why they hate America? Come on man, that’s a stretch.[/quote]
No, my basic point is the history of the region is complicated. I think U.S. interests in the region are sometimes better served using carrots and a little diplomacy rather than big sticks. For a long time the sides were basically aligned between right-wing death squads and left-wing marxist revolutionaries, with stacks of peasants stuck in the middle. I don’t have the time to go get all the links, but we both know the U.S. provided lots of support for an extremely-heavy handed approach to labor issues in the entire region and did so for a very long time to protect U.S. business interests in ways that would be almost unthinkable now. Sometimes being too heavy-handed can benefit Marxists who play off the imperial model. That’s all I’m saying.
[/quote]
Yep, this is really the more broad idea, but when you get into specifics it all of a sudden turns into your a sick commie sob. And, largely that is how these things end up being boiled down because the nature was indeed as you explain in general… But when you bring in specifics of the names of the groups it starts to become personal.
I think the reality is like I said. If you were a poor person working in a mine, Che was your hero, and the U.S./ capitalism was your oppressor, because that was your actual reality.
If you had influence as a result of American influence, Che was your butcher. Nothing was black and white back then because it was the cold war and the objective was resource control. Ethics took a back seat. And, yes Pope JP II totally turned his back on Oscar Romero, and now it’s taking this Pope to undo the damage he did by not just exposing and talking about this situation for what it is. Pope JP II took the side of the West instead of ignoring the cold war and taking the side of the poor. [/quote]
I called you a Commie because you were attacking John Paul II of all people for opposing Communist tyranny. And I have no idea what you’re talking about with Oscar Romero. What did John Paul II do to him?[/quote]
It’s your faith, not mine. I’m just calling it how it is.
He found himself between the Vatican and the Medellin, who do you think killed him? I’m not saying the Vatican itself did it, but the Medellin certainly didn’t. He spoke out for the people, which is exactly who Pope JPII abandoned because he was pretty clueless about the real situation from the peoples perspective in El Salvador, so he never even understood Romero’s position. [/quote]
I asked you specifically how John Paul “turned his back” on Oscar Romero. He was appointed Archbishop of San Salvador and John Paul opened the way for his beatification after he was assassinated. You provide no evidence at all or even explain what you mean by “turned his back on” him, now you’re hinting that the Vatican had him assassinated? You’re a real piece of work you know that?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Because the Colombian Army killed 47 people during a strike in 1928? That’s why they hate America? Come on man, that’s a stretch.[/quote]
No, my basic point is the history of the region is complicated. I think U.S. interests in the region are sometimes better served using carrots and a little diplomacy rather than big sticks. For a long time the sides were basically aligned between right-wing death squads and left-wing marxist revolutionaries, with stacks of peasants stuck in the middle. I don’t have the time to go get all the links, but we both know the U.S. provided lots of support for an extremely-heavy handed approach to labor issues in the entire region and did so for a very long time to protect U.S. business interests in ways that would be almost unthinkable now. Sometimes being too heavy-handed can benefit Marxists who play off the imperial model. That’s all I’m saying.
[/quote]
Yep, this is really the more broad idea, but when you get into specifics it all of a sudden turns into your a sick commie sob. And, largely that is how these things end up being boiled down because the nature was indeed as you explain in general… But when you bring in specifics of the names of the groups it starts to become personal.
I think the reality is like I said. If you were a poor person working in a mine, Che was your hero, and the U.S./ capitalism was your oppressor, because that was your actual reality.
If you had influence as a result of American influence, Che was your butcher. Nothing was black and white back then because it was the cold war and the objective was resource control. Ethics took a back seat. And, yes Pope JP II totally turned his back on Oscar Romero, and now it’s taking this Pope to undo the damage he did by not just exposing and talking about this situation for what it is. Pope JP II took the side of the West instead of ignoring the cold war and taking the side of the poor. [/quote]
I called you a Commie because you were attacking John Paul II of all people for opposing Communist tyranny. And I have no idea what you’re talking about with Oscar Romero. What did John Paul II do to him?[/quote]
It’s your faith, not mine. I’m just calling it how it is.
He found himself between the Vatican and the Medellin, who do you think killed him? I’m not saying the Vatican itself did it, but the Medellin certainly didn’t. He spoke out for the people, which is exactly who Pope JPII abandoned because he was pretty clueless about the real situation from the peoples perspective in El Salvador, so he never even understood Romero’s position. [/quote]
I asked you specifically how John Paul “turned his back” on Oscar Romero. He was appointed Archbishop of San Salvador and John Paul opened the way for his beatification after he was assassinated. You provide no evidence at all or even explain what you mean by “turned his back on” him, now you’re hinting that the Vatican had him assassinated? You’re a real piece of work you know that?[/quote]
If you bothered to read A FUCKING THING, you would have read in there that he was assassinated likely by SOA/ School of the Americas. You are a know nothing.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Because the Colombian Army killed 47 people during a strike in 1928? That’s why they hate America? Come on man, that’s a stretch.[/quote]
No, my basic point is the history of the region is complicated. I think U.S. interests in the region are sometimes better served using carrots and a little diplomacy rather than big sticks. For a long time the sides were basically aligned between right-wing death squads and left-wing marxist revolutionaries, with stacks of peasants stuck in the middle. I don’t have the time to go get all the links, but we both know the U.S. provided lots of support for an extremely-heavy handed approach to labor issues in the entire region and did so for a very long time to protect U.S. business interests in ways that would be almost unthinkable now. Sometimes being too heavy-handed can benefit Marxists who play off the imperial model. That’s all I’m saying.
[/quote]
I don’t know what that has got to do with what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the Communist regime in Cuba and the embargo. The US actually helped liberate Cuba from the Spanish and then allowed them independence. [/quote]
You are conveniently forgetting the general state of affairs back then and it was well before America put on the “liberator” hat. That was Teddy Roosevelt’s America and the causes of the conflict can be debated, but not many would argue the position of Cuban independence.
It was the twilight of the colonialism era where fighting wars for territory and resources were perfectly natural things for countries to do. It was even before the Russian revolution and the rise of communism.
Smedley Butler said:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902â??1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
It’s all very simple and forgoing any psuedo-religious lexicon, it’s karma, the law of cause and effect. All that stuff from the past effects today, including US activities in the cold war.
As sooner as people can say OK things have changed, and greatly, the world can start preparing for future threats and start cleaning up all the bad blood and poor relations from its history. Part of that is looking back, and there’s nothing wrong with revisionism as long as people are mindful that in hindsight everything is 20/20.
Most of the accusations here are vague with threats to “look things up” to find some historical incidents that will somehow prove the US owes Cuba or something or some “karma” is due for some unspecified grievances. I’m not American so I have no dog in this fight. I have some criticisms of certain US foreign policies but this is not one of them. The US owes Cuba nothing; indeed, as I said the US helped Cuba gain its independence from Spain. If the US owes any debt it’s too the Cuban exile community and a commitment to bring down the tyrannical Castro regime.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Most of the accusations here are vague with threats to “look things up” to find some historical incidents that will somehow prove the US owes Cuba or something or some “karma” is due for some unspecified grievances. I’m not American so I have no dog in this fight. I have some criticisms of certain US foreign policies but this is not one of them. The US owes Cuba nothing; indeed, as I said the US helped Cuba gain its independence from Spain. If the US owes any debt it’s too the Cuban exile community and a commitment to bring down the tyrannical Castro regime.[/quote]
Whats the point in any of these discussions though? Few here are open to discussion and having their minds changed. It’s not like we don’t exchange information from various websites to site our arguments. The thing is if we cannot even entertain other perspectives that are offered, or we scoff at them and dismiss them, how is our understanding and perspective supposed to grow/change/adapt?
The Castro/ US debacle is a convoluted one where there were no good guys, not the Pope, not the various U.S. Presidents, not Che, not Castro. The hearts and minds of the people everyone was supposedly fighting for got fucked because we were really always fighting for the land resources, and the references are there for you to read. You just have a hardened view, and when someone gives you a different lens to peer through you get upset at your own eyes.
So, what’s the point? The perspective that the U.S. was right is the hegemonical perspective from the U.S. The perspective that Castro and Che are heroes is the other hegemonical perspective, they are both fucking retarded.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If the US owes any debt it’s too the Cuban exile community and a commitment to bring down the tyrannical Castro regime.[/quote]
This is where our primary disagreements stem, the US doesn’t owe anybody anything!
What you have now, in terms of global geopolitics, is old conflicts with a lot of bad blood going back almost 70 years in the case of Cuba. Yes people died and people sacrificed, on both sides.
Some of these conflicts are still still important for US national security and some are actually counter-productive to it.
Cuba and Nicaragua are prime examples as it deals with a conflict loser going from ruling class to exile.
Were these exiles American ally’s? Would they have been if America was not involved in aiding them in reclaiming their lost positions? Does continued support them actually benefit American interests? Do you expect American soldiers to sacrifice and die for them?
So capitulating to communist murderers should come to no surprise.
So do free-market murderers draw your ire as well?