Bush Unveils Measures to Weaken Cuba's Castro

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Thier sugar industry is near collapse. Last year half of thier sugar mills were shut down leaving about 100k workers jobless. The tourist industry is also in a slump as a result of 9/11. The creeping dollarization of the island has made survival on a salary paid in local currency almost impossible. Hospitals are decrepit. Basic medicine is only available in foreigner only pharmacies and schools only serve to indoctrinate rather than teach.

And this has nothing to do with the embargo? I think the health system runs very well in spite of it.

[Ned]

And for all you lovers of Cuban "democracy," why do the poor of Latin America flee to the United States for a better life rather than to the socialist paradise of communist Cuba where least they speak Spanish? Why do not the boats flow in an Armada across the Caribbean in the direction of the glorious communist paradise? Why?

[Agathon]

And another question. If the United States is so concerned about Cuba's record on human rights and the embargo is in place for that reason, why does the US not place an embargo on China which has conducted massacres of its own citizens captured on television?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
And this has nothing to do with the embargo?

It has to do with your statement that everything is fine in Cuba, Fez.

Says the country that imprisons people without trial, imprisons them for petty offences like drug use; and has by far the highest rate of imprisonment in the Western world.

Now you remind me of UR at this point. Is the issue of Cuba and human rights one in which it won't be possible to get a reasoned debate with you?

Ned: And for all you lovers of Cuban "democracy," why do the poor of Latin America flee to the United States for a better life rather than to the socialist paradise of communist Cuba where least they speak Spanish?

Because Cuba is poor and the US isn't.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned
And for all you lovers of Cuban "democracy," why do the poor of Latin America flee to the United States for a better life rather than to the socialist paradise of communist Cuba where least they speak Spanish? Why do not the boats flow in an Armada across the Caribbean in the direction of the glorious communist paradise? Why?

Because the US is richer.

No one is saying that Cuba is an island paradise. All I'm prepared to claim is that it is better than other Latin American countries. Compare Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua and other places that have suffered US involvement to restore freedom.

Now would you rather be poor here, or poor in Cuba?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It has to do with your statement that everything is fine in Cuba, Fez.

Did I say that? No. I'd like to see Cuba without the embargo.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Did I say that? No.

Yes. Wasn't that what your idiotic post quoting some mystery website was all about?

[DanielXY]

So is Cuba (the average citizen) better off than most other Caribean or Latin American Countrys or not?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DanielXY
So is Cuba (the average citizen) better off than most other Caribean or Latin American Countrys or not?

They certainly aren't subject to the crime and poverty that the poor in countries like Brazil are. Have you ever seen pics of those shanty towns?

[JCG]

Well, if the US stops hassling him Castro would have no reason to be so paranoid and his record would surely improve.

Perhaps so....but well, all those "horrible, horrible" regimes in past and present South America would surely improve if the local communists and foreign lefties would stop hassling them, since they would have no reason to be so paronoid, no? Same line of thought.

There are millions of street children in the world - not one of them is Cuban.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that "not one of them is Cuban", but you're right in the sense that their number is probably insignificant.

That is one of the good things of Castro's Cuba, surely, but then again, managing an island nation is so much easier, and more so if the government is totalitarian.

Yes, the average Cuban is probably better off than the average Latin American, but then again, it's a much smaller and controlled environment. Even an enlightened monarch could do the same, given those conditions.

. If you removed the threat of a hostile superpower I think you would find that Cuba would become a more liberal place quite quickly

Pretty much, it's true that the embargo's not helping any, though that doesn't mean we have to "applaud" and quietly accept the "errors" that Castro's doing in the meanwhile.

The point of these movements is to overthrow repressive US dominated regimes which impoverish their citizens

Those movements appeared in a wide range of countries with totally different situations and specific conditions, can't put them all in the same bag, as both their opponents, methods and goals differed.

And in any case, this is just another example that shows that the ends do not justify the means.

If they did, then all the US involvement in Latin America (military, economic and otherwise; plus going into Irak, Afghanistan, et al) has just been looking out for its own interests and prosperity, nothing wrong with that. That end perfectly justifies the temporary "collateral damage" to foreign nations and peoples, from a US-centric perspective.

No, can't agree with that. Neither with the equivalent reasoning used by many of you communists.

Of course put this besides the US record of sponsoring murder and terror in Latin America, Fidel looks like a saint.

So just because the US is a bigger bully then we are to ignore or forgive Castro's offenses, even if they are lesser?

They should be critized according to their own weight, which is arguably smaller, but definitely not something that can be conveniently "forgotten".

Castro's better than Batista? Yes. But far from perfect. And doing some reforms now wouldn't necessarily lead back to Batista's times.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
But the vast majority of Cubans genuinely love the guy. You can go there and see for yourself.

In 1984, the VAST majority of people genuinely loved Big Brother... see how "Orwellian" fits?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
They aren't that stupid.

So Americans are the only ones that stupid? We have Fox, they have Castro.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Now would you rather be poor here, or poor in Cuba?

Here.

[Kuciwalker]

JGG

[Agathon]

Originally posted by JCG

Perhaps so....but well, all those "horrible, horrible" regimes in past and present South America would surely improve if the local communists and foreign lefties would stop hassling them, since they would have no reason to be so paronoid, no? Same line of thought.

Hardly. They are worse as is proved by the cases of Nicaragua and Guatemala.

That is one of the good things of Castro's Cuba, surely, but then again, managing an island nation is so much easier, and more so if the government is totalitarian.

But it doesn't make that much of a difference.

Yes, the average Cuban is probably better off than the average Latin American, but then again, it's a much smaller and controlled environment. Even an enlightened monarch could do the same, given those conditions.

The reason the average Cuban is better off is the revolution. Guatemalan peasants would have been better off if the Arbenz government had not been overthrown. The real truth here is that regimes that serve the interests of the US over their own people do not provide well.

Pretty much, it's true that the embargo's not helping any, though that doesn't mean we have to "applaud" and quietly accept the "errors" that Castro's doing in the meanwhile.

My point is that these are chicken feed and are caused largely by Castro having to protect the revolution against a neighbouring superpower that has tried to kill him and subvert it numerous times.

Those movements appeared in a wide range of countries with totally different situations and specific conditions, can't put them all in the same bag, as both their opponents, methods and goals differed.

That's not true. In almost all cases the idea was to overthrow a corrupt and pro US government which was impoverishing its own citizens in favour of foreign interests.

And in any case, this is just another example that shows that the ends do not justify the means.

What justifies any means, if not an end?

If they did, then all the US involvement in Latin America (military, economic and otherwise; plus going into Irak, Afghanistan, et al) has just been looking out for its own interests and prosperity, nothing wrong with that. That end perfectly justifies the temporary "collateral damage" to foreign nations and peoples, from a US-centric perspective.

If you think that killing people is OK because it serves US interests then 9/11 is OK because it served Al Quaeda's interests.

If you really think that it's OK for a country to commit mass human rights violations against other countries in order to look out for its own bottom line, then you don't strike me as understanding what "human rights" means.

No, can't agree with that. Neither with the equivalent reasoning used by many of you communists.

Not much of an argument.

So just because the US is a bigger bully then we are to ignore or forgive Castro's offenses, even if they are lesser?

Because Castro's hand is forced by the US. If the US wasn't determined to oust him, presumably he wouldn't need to crack down on fifth columnists.

Castro's better than Batista? Yes. But far from perfect. And doing some reforms now wouldn't necessarily lead back to Batista's times.

Who do you think the Miami Cubans are, if not the pro-Batista folk who fled Cuba?