 |
|
Transcend
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, USA
Apr 1999
time: 22:17
|
|
Amnesty International is an annoying organizatio that tries to impose its euro-leftist ideology everwhere, and likes to stick its nose everywhere. But against the really evil guys like Al-Qaeda, they suddenly become silent.
I'm actually against economic embargos. They are ineffective, deprive us the means to intervene in the particular country, give dictators a common enemy for their people, and hurt our international reputation. In places where we didn't impose economic sanctions, such as Eastern Europe, former USSR, and China, the regimes have either already fallen or have moved into a direction more acceptable to us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The saddest part about the Cuba situation is that Castro was more a nationalist than a communist and when he took power he made overtures to the United States, including visiting the country. Unfortunately, people like VP Nixon and Edgar Hoover branded him a communist and a threat to the United States. This drove him into the arms of the Soviets. |
Castro was a dedicated commie from the get-go, and Raul Castro and Guevara even moreso than Fidel, who was the more "flexible" of the three. However, given that the commie-hating red under every bed mainstream American media of the 1950's questioned what the hell we were doing in bed with the Bautista regime, the US blew an opportunity to have more influence in Cuba, because a lot of US businesses liked the old system and the old way of doing business.
BD - why should Castro "restore" seized property when that property was used in criminal acts by it's US corporate owners? It's well known, even beyond contradiction, that Fulgencio Bautista would sell any national resource or make any deal, so long as he and his designees received the appropriate kickbacks.
Bribery is a violation of US law, and the US takes the position that it's citizens, including corporations, are subject to US law regardless of their location.
So what if Castro's a dictator and a thug? So was Papa Doc Duvalier, Anastasio Somoza, Alfredo Stroessner, and a host of other Latinamerican leaders the US had never had any qualms dealing with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by axi
For starters, Cuba does not bomb countries halfway around the globe.
Even when Castro dies, the political education of Cubans will keep them tied to socialism.
In fact, the whole Latin America is turning socialist and there's nothing you can do, apart from planting a new round of dictatorships. |
but the us is tuning socialist too
we are just doing it better and slower
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plan Austral
|
 |
Poster Formerly known as Kublai-Khan. Buenos Aires - Argentina.
Oct 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
If Lula Da Silva wins in Brasil, many countries in Latin America will turn to the left, that doesnt means socialist, it means a populist anti-globalization leader democratically elected very much like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (very similar to Peron and her wife Evita in Argentina and with a little bit of Castro  ).
If Lula doesnt wins, the situation will remain the same, the usa and some big economical powers doesnt wants Lula to win, and some weird things had happened, one of the principal collaborators of lula was killed, and they are telling to the people to not vote Lula because if lula wins the country will enter into chaos.
Right now, our new president is a peronist, he seems to be very moderate but if Lula wins he will feel free to be as populist as he wants, so you will have argentina, brasil and venezuela with populist gobernments, and that is almost all latin america.
This is really complex and i could be talking much longer, but i am on vacations and i dont have enough money to pay for more time in the internet.
The thing is that the USA doesnt like the situation and Argentina is in a big economical crisis, so they promise us all the money in the world if we continue being alleys of the usa and if we make them some little favours like voting against cuba in the un and allowing them to build military bases in argentina.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GeneralTacticus
|
 |
of Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2001
time: 15:17
|
|
quote:
quote:
2)Castro almost brought us to WW3. We can never forgive him for doing this.
Nope, we did that ourselves. The Cuban missile crisis was a direct response to the US putting missile batteries in Turkey pointed right at the underbelly of the USSR. Khrushchev decided to return the favor.
|
The US definitely did not cause the Cuban Missile Crisis. Krushchev was pissed that US had more nuke firepower than he did, so he decided to redress this by placing nukes on Cuba. The thing about US missiles in Turkey was just a demand that Krushchev made to humiliate the US (the missiles were due to be pulled out anyway, but if they were withdrawn because the Soviets wanted them to be, that would be tantamount to the US admiting the Soviets were stronger than they were).
As far as the embargo is concerned, I think that if it's helping the US, it should be kept, if not, it should be dropped. Period. Castro IS a tyrant, and if Cuba can do just fine with the embargo, then good for them. If they can survive with it, why do they need it dropped?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
If Lula Da Silva wins in Brasil, many countries in Latin America will turn to the left, that doesnt means socialist, it means a populist anti-globalization leader democratically elected very much like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (very similar to Peron and her wife Evita in Argentina and with a little bit of Castro ).
If Lula doesnt wins, the situation will remain the same, the usa and some big economical powers doesnt wants Lula to win, and some weird things had happened, one of the principal collaborators of lula was killed, and they are telling to the people to not vote Lula because if lula wins the country will enter into chaos.
Right now, our new president is a peronist, he seems to be very moderate but if Lula wins he will feel free to be as populist as he wants, so you will have argentina, brasil and venezuela with populist gobernments, and that is almost all latin america. |
It's almost all of South America population wise perhaps, but saying that it's almost all of Latin America is an overstatement. Good luck with that populism by the way, I'm sure your economy will recover within 20 years, and under new leadership.
quote:
Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
This is really complex and i could be talking much longer, but i am on vacations and i dont have enough money to pay for more time in the internet.
The thing is that the USA doesnt like the situation and Argentina is in a big economical crisis, so they promise us all the money in the world if we continue being alleys of the usa and if we make them some little favours like voting against cuba in the un and allowing them to build military bases in argentina. |
What the hell are we going to do with military bases in Argentina? Check your source on this information, it sounds unlikely in the extreme. We have enough trouble in the rest of the world without expanding our military involvement into southern South America.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The US position with regard to the embargo has nothing to do with ideology; the fawning over China indicates that. Beyond China, the US has gleefully supported much worse regimes than Castro's, and right in our own back yard (Guatamala, El Salvador, Chile). The embargo is rank hypocrisy as well as rank idiocy. |
I'm no fan of the embargo either, but I don't think the U.S. 'gleefully' supported those regimes. It was always an embarassment. I would rather live in Chile than Cuba anyday. At least Pinochet knew when it was time to leave, and he didn't destroy his country to save his regime. The same can't be said for Castro, who will never let go.
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Hell, it's probably actually been good for Cuba: shielded from US free market ideology and the malevolent interest of transnational corporations, Cuba has produced a society with the best health and education systems anywhere in Latin America. IIRC, their infant mortality rate is actually lower than the US's. |
I hear this a lot, but what the hell has Cuba done? They don't produce much more than sugar, cigars, athletes and prostitutes. With all of that education where are the great artists and thinkers? While the regime has produced some statistics, the cultural reality is that the vibrant soul of Cuba lives in a prison. Would you want to live in a country where there is a block captain to keep an eye out for political dissent on every block?
Cuba probably isn't as bad as our propoganda has made it out to be, but let's not get carried away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shai-Hulud
|
|
Finland
Jan 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
If trading between US and Cuba successes to introduce capitalism into Cuba - democracy will soon follow. I think it's the best US can do to bring democracy into Cuba. Trade embargo hasn't accomplished anything and there seems to be no real reasons to continue it. Cuba is a small country and trade with USA would mean a lot to its economy, that's why capitalization could overthrow dictatorian regime. One could say it's even working in China, "market socialism", and if it turns into more capitalist system...there goes dictatorship.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
I'm no fan of the embargo either, but I don't think the U.S. 'gleefully' supported those regimes. It was always an embarassment. I would rather live in Chile than Cuba anyday. At least Pinochet knew when it was time to leave, and he didn't destroy his country to save his regime. The same can't be said for Castro, who will never let go. |
Always an embarrassment? Hardly. Remeber, we actually put both Pinochet and Armas in power (overthrowing democratic governments in the process -- and we might as well add Somoza to this list), and then touted them as model leaders.
quote:
I hear this a lot, but what the hell has Cuba done? They don't produce much more than sugar, cigars, athletes and prostitutes. With all of that education where are the great artists and thinkers? While the regime has produced some statistics, the cultural reality is that the vibrant soul of Cuba lives in a prison. Would you want to live in a country where there is a block captain to keep an eye out for political dissent on every block?
Cuba probably isn't as bad as our propoganda has made it out to be, but let's not get carried away. |
I'm not begging to live there, either, but this needs to be comparative. Cuba has done materially very well by its citizens when compared to other caribbean islands. The political repression is reprehensible, but I'd still rather raise my child there than in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or even Jamaica (assuming I was a native of each place, rather than a privileged white American). And given how delightful free-market capitalism has been for countries like Brazil and Argentina (to say nothing of Colombia, who's Medellin cartel offers capitalism taken to its logical extreme), you can hardly blame them for clinging to socialism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Always an embarrassment? Hardly. Remeber, we actually put both Pinochet and Armas in power (overthrowing democratic governments in the process -- and we might as well add Somoza to this list), and then touted them as model leaders. |
I think you are overstating your case here. Firstly, giving the thumbs up to Pinochet is not the same thing as putting him in power. Secondly, I don't ever remember anyone (U.S. officials) holding up any of these guys as model leaders, certainly not to a domestic audience. They were always viewed with varying levels of disdain publicly in my lifetime, and no U.S. President looked forward to a photo op with them.
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I'm not begging to live there, either, but this needs to be comparative. Cuba has done materially very well by its citizens when compared to other caribbean islands. The political repression is reprehensible, but I'd still rather raise my child there than in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or even Jamaica (assuming I was a native of each place, rather than a privileged white American). And given how delightful free-market capitalism has been for countries like Brazil and Argentina (to say nothing of Colombia, who's Medellin cartel offers capitalism taken to its logical extreme), you can hardly blame them for clinging to socialism. |
Well, Cuba started out a lot wealthier than Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and has a lot more to work with resource wise. I'm not as well-versed on the history of Jamaica, but it sounds pretty crime ridden.
Brazil and Argentina can blame their more socialist / populist governments for some of their woes, though in the big picture even with the current troubles they haven't done that badly by Latin American standards, and by African standards they are veritable miracles of productivity. Columbia could use another dictator (well perhaps strongman is a better term) to get control of the country and institute some order. Just as you believe (and I am certainly open to the idea) that not all states are prepared to successfully operate a free market economy, I believe that even fewer states are prepared to successfully institute democracy. The best that can be hoped for is that the level of force used to maintain order is is minimal, and that the country makes strides in law and education so that it can move to gentler forms of government as soon as possible. This is one of the reasons that Cuba is a disappointment like Chile before it. As a well educated country it should be in the vanguard of the democratization that has been occurring in Latin America for the last two decades. Perhaps once the Castro brothers die their cult of personality will wither and leave the floor open for reforms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
"It's well known, even beyond contradiction, that Fulgencio Bautista would sell any national resource or make any deal, so long as he and his designees received the appropriate kickbacks. "
If we were to use this as an excuse for tolerating nationalizaiton of US property, I wonder how much more of our property would suddenly be siezed by countries who claimed they took it illegaly?
In any case, do you want our businesses to be able to deal with non-democratic countries or not? Do you want the US government to try to supervise every deal that is mase in those cases?
"Bribery is a violation of US law, and the US takes the position that it's citizens, including corporations, are subject to US law regardless of their location."
So I take it our corporations are paying their overseas workers the US legal minimum wage?
"So what if Castro's a dictator and a thug? So was Papa Doc Duvalier, Anastasio Somoza, Alfredo Stroessner, and a host of other Latinamerican leaders the US had never had any qualms dealing with."
Well, if we are dealing with dictators, we are doing so out of self-interest. Working with pro-US dictators has been in US interests in the past. Working with Fidel Castro, a communist, is not in US self interest. (Didn't you side with me in a thread about trading with China in opposing additional free trade in that it would help a US rival) As has been mentioned, he has been expansionist. Furthermore, not that this is a very good reason, but the richer Cuba becomes, the stronger of an example it might be for other Latin American nations.
"Better than the US?"
 Oh well, if he dismiss to ignore plainly stated facts if they don't fit his ideology, that's his business.
"For starters, Cuba does not bomb countries halfway around the globe."
That's right, they don't go around liberating people from opressive regimes such as the Taliban. I am sure they would be more assertive if they had the military power.
"Even when Castro dies, the political education of Cubans will keep them tied to socialism."
That and brutal repression of all dissent.
"
In fact, the whole Latin America is turning socialist and there's nothing you can do, apart from planting a new round of dictatorships."
Uh huh. Hey MtG, remember his last post about Mexican election and the Zapatistas(sp?)? That big offensive never really happened, did it axi?
"If trading between US and Cuba successes to introduce capitalism into Cuba - democracy will soon follow."
Why are you so sure? European and Canadian coroporations have been there for a long time already I don't see any democracy there yet?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
it's abvious we don't agree.
however I have a question: is the US the only country to have this truely devastating embargo on the cuban people?
Also does the EU has it too or not?
anyone knows?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Sikander,
about countries not being able to sustain democracy, this largely depends.
for example Latin American people would live much better if they had socialism.
to riot in order to establish what the people want is not to overthrow democracy. it's what democracy is all about.
and if they riot is because there was not democracy to begin with.
every people uprising is justified by default.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
ok. EU does not have a trade embargo with Cuba.
it's a bit old but valid
But trade with individual European countries remains strong, particularly as the US embargo on Cuba leaves the market free from American rivals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wo...000/1689710.stm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shai-Hulud
|
|
Finland
Jan 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
The best that can be hoped for is that the level of force used to maintain order is is minimal, and that the country makes strides in law and education so that it can move to gentler forms of government as soon as possible |
So, you hope these strongmen are going to make things right? Let's oppress a little bit to get things going and then step down to make country democratic? This might have worked in ancient Greece, or Rome, but it certainly isn't working nowadays. Although I agree that, even for the people, dictatorship is often better than anarchy, it's still no solution.
quote:
but the richer Cuba becomes, the stronger of an example it might be for other Latin American nations. |
That's right. Only way to get really rich is to get capitalist, works for both individuals and nations  . I haven't really seen rich socialist countries so far.
quote:
Why are you so sure? European and Canadian coroporations have been there for a long time already I don't see any democracy there yet? |
True. It's not that simple. But I believe that free trade will eventually introduce capitalism into any country. Of course it's not enough that transnational corporations profit from Cuba. The society itself must transform into more capitalist, this is a trap we can lure dictators into, capitalization. China is doing it, even though it's still a strong dictatorship. Capitalism, when established, will bring democracy. It's the prerequisite of democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
Why do people think that you can just hand a country "capitalism" (by which, these days, we means free tade capitalism) and everything will get better? Even the western nations at the top of the food chain went through centuries of merchantilism before opening thei trade -- and in those centuries developed the societies, values, and institutions that made capitalism's nastier components (and they are quite nasty) bearable. By contrast, countries that just have capitalism thrust upon them don't just magically turn into the West; Latin America as a whole is exhibit A, but we might also look to Eastern Europe, especially Romania and the Ukraine. Cuba is a politically wretched place, but its poor are materially better off than the poor of most Latin capitalist nations; we should acknowledge that and think about what it means, not ignore it or blindly condemn it on ideological grounds. A future Cuba policy which would make Cuba's poor poorer, less healthy, less well-educated, or more subject to crime is a policy we should not be advocating, because it is literally inhumane -- and imposing capitalism on a society unprepared for it is just such a policy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-02-2002 06:21
|