DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6874|Finland

The topic title is a direct quote of George W. Bush from last Tuesday. (Source)

As we know, Cuban leader (I will not refer to him as "dictator" - You may all form your own opinions on whether he is or not) Fidel Castro's condition is getting worse by the day.

We know also that his brother Raul will probably take over after Fidel's death, since he is Vice President. This doesn't change the fact that at the point of an "immortal" leader, there will be confusion among the Cubans. The People of Cuba would maybe elect a new vice president at that point from the rows of the Communist Party of Cuba PCC.

Immediately when information arose that Castro was in weak condition, Bush stated that the U.S. is willing to help Cuba achieve democracy. Cuba will never be the same after Fidel, but does it mean that the system should fail after his death? What does the immediate response from Bush mean in practice? Cuba has a parliament whose members are elected by the people. Why can't the people elect a new leader (or vice president, since Raul as current vice will take over)?

IMHO, the biggest thing that has made Cubans "not free" is the embargo put up by the U.S., then strengthened further by the Helms-Burton Act.

What does it mean, "to free the Cuban people", when we during the last few decades have witnessed these "liberations"?

Discuss.

Last edited by DonFck (2006-08-04 02:26:10)

I need around tree fiddy.
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6962|California

f*ck the Cubans, they can deal with their own fucking problems.

for once i want the US to not do a goddamn thing
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6886|Seattle, WA
So you don't consider someone, from the military, staging basically a coup, a dictator, that banned elections in 1961......Ok interesting "opinion".  However Castro is very complex, you can't just call him a straight up socialist, (because he is one anyway)......Take a trip to Cuba, see just how "wonderful" their healthcare system is, than report back and tell me how Socialism > Capitalism.
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6874|Finland

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

So you don't consider someone, from the military, staging basically a coup, a dictator, that banned elections in 1961......Ok interesting "opinion".  However Castro is very complex, you can't just call him a straight up socialist, (because he is one anyway)......Take a trip to Cuba, see just how "wonderful" their health care system is, than report back and tell me how Socialism > Capitalism.
That was off topic, but thank you for your opinion. This, however doesn't change that of mine, which btw you don't have to put in quotation marks, as it actually IS my opinion.

Yes, Castro and his actions have been controversial to say the least, and I would gladly make that trip to Cuba in order to see how it really is (just need the financing for the trip halfway round the globe).

He might be a dictator, a militant leader and president all at once. Castro leads the nation in a controversial way maybe because unlike other leaders of the world, he really isn't a politician at heart, but rather a Guerrilla leader. Ernesto "Che" Guevara (as some of you might know now from another topic as "a sadist murderer") suffered from the same problem; he was a minister in the first Cuban parliament, but decided later on to fight wars instead. He had this choice. Castro, on the other hand needed as the guerrilla leader to stay with a liberated (yes, I said liberated; Batista was a horrible dictator) country to govern.

There are several things that Castro has done, that I condemn personally, but somehow the actions of "free democratic nations" have caused me more nausea than Cuba.

But the actual question in this topic was: What did Bush mean, "to free the Cuban people", when we during the last few decades have witnessed these "liberations"? Possible scenarios of the future, discussion over how justified different approaches are etc.

(I doubt Lisik will join this conversation, so I'm hoping for some actual debate )

Last edited by DonFck (2006-08-04 03:29:12)

I need around tree fiddy.
JahManRed
wank
+646|6870|IRELAND

stryyker wrote:

f*ck the Cubans, they can deal with their own fucking problems.

for once i want the US to not do a goddamn thing
But they are doing something. Economic/trade/military embargo's? For what? Being Communist? From what I see, the particular form of capitalism peddled by our government is failing. So why is this failing system being forced on other countries? If they want to be commies, let them be commies. The cold war is over ffs!!! They have a higher life expectancy that USA. One Doctor assigned to 500ppl to keep them healthy. Even if you don't go see the Doctor, he/she comes to you once a year to talk to you about eating health etc. The US embargo has had some good side effects though. Junk food doesn't exist. No new cars, means most ppl walk everywhere, making them a healthy nation. Like the Iranians, there engineers are the most skilled in the world, reproducing complex mechanical parts using far more primitive tools than intended. Because they can't get the tools or parts to say, fix a hospital machine, civilian aircraft etc they make them themselves.  It costs $200 000 to put someone through medical school in the USA, so you have poor American citizens now going to Cuba for a free education on the condition they give 7 working years to the Cuban national health systems earning $40 a month.
Obviously Cuba, like all Communist countries restricts the movements of its ppl. I can see why. Us humans run to bright lights, excess, junk food etc, blinded by consumerism, always wanting more. I am abit of a Communist at heart. At least I think it should have been allowed to work without constant interference from capitalist countries trying to ensure free trade and the continuing rise and dominance of cooperations and globalization.

Edit to answer question.
Considering the "Liberations" of other south american countries have been over throwing elected governments and en-stowing privatization happy governments I can understand why Cuba embraced Communism. I think Castro's movement was also looking for protection from the Motherland (Russia & China). They probably seen it as Capitalism or Communism at the time. So bu liberalizing them Bush infarct means opening up free trade with American cooperations allowing the resources and ppl's of Cuba to be opened up to exploitation by American companies. Only when Nike factories, star bucks McDonald's etc are open in Havana will Cuba truly be saved in the eyes of America. Then Bush can expel all the "terrorists" he harbors/funds/trains in Miami back over there again.

Last edited by JahManRed (2006-08-04 04:09:02)

Sambuccashake
Member
+126|6853|Sweden
Slight deviation from thread but, can someone tell my why the US emposes embargoes upon the Cuban people?
As JahManRed said, the Cold War is over and I doubt Cuba will ever be a hostile "missile base" again.

Just curious.
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6874|Finland

Sambuccashake wrote:

Slight deviation from thread but, can someone tell my why the US emposes embargoes upon the Cuban people?
As JahManRed said, the Cold War is over and I doubt Cuba will ever be a hostile "missile base" again.

Just curious.
Clickety click!
I need around tree fiddy.
Sambuccashake
Member
+126|6853|Sweden

DonFck wrote:

Sambuccashake wrote:

Slight deviation from thread but, can someone tell my why the US emposes embargoes upon the Cuban people?
As JahManRed said, the Cold War is over and I doubt Cuba will ever be a hostile "missile base" again.

Just curious.
Clickety click!
Thanks!
Disturbing reading...
On February 4, 2003, the United Nations voted for an end to the forty-one-year-old blockade against Cuba. Only three nations—the U.S., Israel, and the Marshall Islands—voted against the motion. Again, on November 8, 2005 the United Nations voted[1] on a resolution to end the embargo, with the margin of 182 for the resolution and 4 against (The U.S., Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands).
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6874|Finland

Sambuccashake wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Sambuccashake wrote:

Slight deviation from thread but, can someone tell my why the US emposes embargoes upon the Cuban people?
As JahManRed said, the Cold War is over and I doubt Cuba will ever be a hostile "missile base" again.

Just curious.
Clickety click!
Thanks!
Disturbing reading...
On February 4, 2003, the United Nations voted for an end to the forty-one-year-old blockade against Cuba. Only three nations—the U.S., Israel, and the Marshall Islands—voted against the motion. Again, on November 8, 2005 the United Nations voted[1] on a resolution to end the embargo, with the margin of 182 for the resolution and 4 against (The U.S., Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands).
Pretty rough, eh..

Feel "enlightened"?

Last edited by DonFck (2006-08-04 05:01:46)

I need around tree fiddy.
BVC
Member
+325|6938
The only reason the US doesn't like cuba is because cuba was a soviet missile base in the 60s, WW3 was more of a possibility than it is now, and old grudges die HARD...thing is an old grudge could die very soon and pave the way for improved relations with what would otherwise be an island state that would barely get a mention on the world stage.

My parents, relatives, teachers who were in school at the time have all told me how their classes were interrupted so they could be informed of how serious the situation was when America found out...schoolkids, 10 year olds and shit being told they could die soon...

Theres no real economic incentive to help Cuba, yet the offer is there.  I never thought I'd see myself writing this, but good on GWB.....*shudders*...I think I just died a little inside

Last edited by Pubic (2006-08-04 07:51:11)

WilhelmSissener
Banned
+557|6975|Oslo, Norway
gee all you guys saying fidel's a dictar, i can on almost the same bass say that GWB is a dictator, noobs
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6791|Southeastern USA
^^^^^

/lose
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6771|Global Command
I think the U.S. needs to just let them be free and leave them alone.
The long term embargo is rather embarrassing imop.
FlashHeart
Member
+4|6749|Chatham, UK
I visited Cuba last year, and found it a very interesting place. It's health and education systems are excellent, but many people are exceedingly poor, and those that I talked to wanted reform with more freedom, but without being consumed by the US and losing their identity.
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6959|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX
Interesting...if Cuba is such a great nation then could one of you please explain to me why Cubans are risking their lives daily to try to reach the US on makeshift rafts?  Or why so many of the Cuban exiles who have made it to the US are waiting for Castro to die so they can go back to Cuba and make sure that another dictator doesn't rise to power?

Last edited by mcgid1 (2006-08-04 08:15:46)

Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6977|California

WilhelmSissener wrote:

gee all you guys saying fidel's a dictar, i can on almost the same bass say that GWB is a dictator, noobs
Other than the fact that he was voted into office, sure.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

POTUS was refering to financing democracy groups in Cuba I believe.
JahManRed
wank
+646|6870|IRELAND

Erkut.hv wrote:

Other than the fact that he was voted into office, sure.
Bush wasnt voted into office. The votting "anomaly's" are well documented.


The missiles were partly placed in Cuba as a deterrent to the imminent invasion that the US had on its books. No different than the current nuclear determent policies used today. Also, in 1961, the U.S. started deploying 15 Jupiter IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) nuclear missiles near İzmir, Turkey, which directly threatened cities in the western sections of the Soviet Union. The deployment of missiles in Cuba — the first time Soviet missiles were moved outside the USSR  is commonly seen as Russia's direct response to the Turkish missiles.

The missiles were only put within striking distance of America after America strong armed Turkey into allowing US missiles placed their, within striking distance of the USSR first. Its like chess. When the US agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey, the Russians did like wize. Also at the time the USA had a considerable advantage in the Cold war,  at the time of the missile crises the United States had a dramatic advantage in nuclear weapons with more than 300 land-based intercontinental missiles and a fleet of Polaris missile submarines. The Soviet Union for its part had only four to six land-based ICBMs in 1962, and about 100 short-range V-1 type missiles that could be launched from surface submarines.

These facts are constantly blown over by Western media and culture. To yet again paint Comunisim as the great evil.
Its good to see we have moved on................................... Now the commies have been replaced with Muslims.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6927|United States of America
That's a shame. A few more weeks and Castro would have made communism work

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard