Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Neither Trujillo nor Noreiga was much into killing their opponents. They would, however, get beaten, possibly tortured, have their lives disrupted. Occassionally people would be killed. Remember, 90% of the population lived in the Canal Zone, under U.S. administration. That couldn't act too outrageously. It's one thing to murder all leftists and those who associate with them in Argentina or Uruguay and Brazil with the CIA looking over their shoulder and telling them how its done. It's another thing altogether to do it where the U.S. is legally in charge (not that the media would have paid much attention).

Actually Che, the US did not administer the population of Panama: few Panamanians were allowed to live in the Canal Zone at all, most Panamanians commuted into it for menial jobs, or to work on the Canal. Noriega had the run of the place. You are correct that there were no "death squads:, and in fact, there was a very famous case of spadaforra, a political enemy of Noriega that disappeared in the early 80's and was leter found beheaded, that was the most blantant killing Noriega took until late '89, with the guys who tried to oevrthrow him in a coup in October. He also set the "dignity batallions" (paramilitaries recruited from poor neighborhoods) to attack the winners of the may '89 election (this is were the famous pics of the First Vicepresidential candidate walking around, with his white shirt stained with blood)

[GePap]

Ned, is your contention that it is illegal to immigrate form cuba based on anything other than conjecture? it is not illegal to immigrate from China or Vietnam, both of which are communist dictatorships? So why should Cuba be like East Germany? It makes no sense. Most people are to poor to emmigrate, that certrainly is true, and it is true of many, many countries.

Pedro: violence was different in each Latin American country. The reality of one does not equate it to another. For example, no state in Lstin America has had the same crap as Colombia, which from 1946 to the mid 1960's was convulsed by horrible violence that killed over 100,000 people. The Army in El Salvador did not carry out the same type of scorched earth campaing as the Guatemalan army, even if both were fighting leftist rebels. Both commited acts against civlians, but of different kinds and scales. Costa Rica has been, since the 1940's, extremely quiet and safe, poltically speaking..the difference go on and on.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Ned, is your contention that it is illegal to immigrate form cuba based on anything other than conjecture? it is not illegal to immigrate from China or Vietnam, both of which are communist dictatorships? So why should Cuba be like East Germany? It makes no sense. Most people are to poor to emmigrate, that certrainly is true, and it is true of many, many countries.

Pedro: violence was different in each Latin American country. The reality of one does not equate it to another. For example, no state in Lstin America has had the same crap as Colombia, which from 1946 to the mid 1960's was convulsed by horrible violence that killed over 100,000 people. The Army in El Salvador did not carry out the same type of scorched earth campaing as the Guatemalan army, even if both were fighting leftist rebels. Both commited acts against civlians, but of different kinds and scales. Costa Rica has been, since the 1940's, extremely quiet and safe, poltically speaking..the difference go on and on.

I don't know the details. But it is clear that there are a lot of good Cuban baseball players who cannot emigrate to the United States.

I believe China is more flexible. I don't know about Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma and North Korea.

[GePap]

I don't know the details. But it is clear that there are a lot of good Cuban baseball players who cannot emigrate to the United States.

And you extrapolate from baseball players to suger farmers and mechanics? Maybe Castro whishes to keep his investment vis a vi training the players.

To emmigrate, you not only have to follow the laws of your own country, but the country you want to immigrate to..the US has a visa station in Cuba, and they are well overbooked. I don't know how the Europeans are, or the rest of Latin America.

[Nubclear]

Re: Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

Originally posted by Ned
George Bush, go to hell.

I never thought I'd see this from ned EVER!!!

[Velociryx]

Meldor, all of what you are saying is true. Yes there ARE bigger fish to fry out there. There are worse regiemes (by far) than Castro's.

But tell me this: How many deaths does it take before it's wrong? Before it's a problem?

If ten people disappear in the night and are never heard from again, that's okay, right?

How many does it take to be an affront? How much blood has to be spilled, and how many people have to be denied their freedom before it's wrong?

Five hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?

* If it's wrong for ten thousand, then it's wrong for five.

* If our current policy toward the oppressors of the world has fundamentally changed, then WE, as a nation, need to get serious about it.

* What would it have cost us to let the boat continue to the shore? Would it have cost more than the two American lives lost in yesterday's continuing crusade to "liberate the Iraqis?" - I think not.

But we turned them away.

The alternative is that the current administration is attempting to blow a large, billowing mass of smoke up our asses, in which case, the sooner they are OUT of office, the better.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

We only care about the liberty of the oppressed if they stay where they belong, and that place happens to either (a) be geopolitically useful, or (b) have resources we want, and (c) has a ruler who isn't our boy.

Castro was an improvement over his predecessor, who we happily supported as long as our politically connected companies (good ol' United Fruit, M. A. Hanna and others) got good deals on those resource contracts courtesy of Sr. and Sra. Batista.

See, Michael, you are agreeing with us. Soon you will be a member of the CPA.

*waits for predictable sarcastic reply*

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's why I say I'm a centrist. I piss off the right and the left with about equal frequency.

[GePap]

You haven't answered the question Vel: do you support sending US combat forces into Liberia? And then anywhere else dmeocracy is not in place?

[Velociryx]

GePap: I haven't answered the question because I'm not the one setting US Policy. The current US Policy toward the dictators of the world has been to put them "on notice" (per at least three key speeches delivered by the White House), and to engage in "Liberation campaigns" and "Regieme Changes," in the name of liberating the oppressed peoples of those countries (again, this per our beloved White House).

Given that, why turn the boat around?

-=Vel=-

PS: And for the record, yes....as part of a UN peace keeping force or with broad coalition support, I would certainly support our troops in any of the places you named, WITH the proviso that if we are going to do it, then BY GOD, let's get in there, kick some ass, and stay till the people we came to rescue have what we promised.

[GePap]

Sorry Vel, but the Bush admin. has NOT put dictators "on notice" He has put proliferators and supporters of terrorism "on notice", but the autocratic and dictatorial rulers of Egypt, SA, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Morocco, the Gulf States and any others who back Us policy are not in any sort of list.

As I said before, you seemt o ignore (or actively forgett) the greap leaps by which the admin. explained that Iraq was special, and that liberating Iraq did not mean the US was on some humanitarian policy of using force to "free people".

At least get those facts straight.

And we turn the boats back cause we turn all the boats back, as meldor said. If you trully fear political reprecussions ask for asylum right then and there.

[Velociryx]

You know, GePap....for someone who is the self-proclaimed "keeper of the facts" you have a wonderfully selective memory.

Remember the big speech made by the President of the United States (some guy named George W. Bush....perhaps you've seen him on the tele?) where he outlined the new "pre-emptive stance" of American foriegn policy? The one where he said that the USA had the right (and in fact, the duty) to pre-emptively hit ANYONE, anywhere in the world who we deemed a threat to us and our beliefs (and one of our beliefs, even if you don't particularly want to acknowledge it, is liberty). 'member that?

Remember later in that same speech when he told rival nations "not even to try" to catch the USA in terms of her military arsenal.

To whom do you suppose, was he speaking?

The Russians? Hardly....they can't even afford pellet guns and coon skin caps for their regulars these days.

Europe perhaps? Nope....they're our allies, and we'd actually like for them to pick up some of the slack.

Oh!@ I know! Lybia! Riiiiight. It'd be a Lybian wet dream to be able to out-spend the US in military toys.

India then? Nope...allies.

But there is ONE nation to whom that comment was addressed in particular. She's big, and she's red, and she has more people and as many resources as we do.

Three guesses there?

And ::gasp!:: Not EVEN a member of the Axis of Evil, per your earlier comment!

But we didn't put the world on notice.

Nosir. T'wasn't so.



-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
That's why I say I'm a centrist. I piss off the right and the left with about equal frequency.

You know, in the Analects Confucius said, "He who sits astride a fence shall surely suffer sore testicles".

[GePap]

This is your rebutal?

So when is the invasion of Syria? wait, there is none planned, nor of Iran, or Lybia..wow, Bush must be backing away...

Newsflash Vel: the US doe not have a policy of humanitarian invasions. Pre-meption is meant to deal with threats that are pssobile (like the non-WMD's of Iraq and its non-connections to Al qaeda were supposed to be). The US government does not give a rats ass about how many of your people you kill as long as you back US policy.

As for your China comment. A policy of trying to permamently maintain military superiority is a long term policy goal (one we probably can not keep), and in no way threatens the soverign right of the Chinese leadership to be a bastard to its people.

So your notion that the Us has, by invading Iraq, somehow stated itself to be the campion of democrqacy across the globe in anything more than empty words is absurd.

[Velociryx]

Hey, you don't have to believe me, G. Just listen to the White House spin machine and read the speeches. It's their message, not mine.

-=Vel=-