Bush Unveils Measures to Weaken Cuba's Castro

[JCG]

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

They might be worse off, granted, but how does their example apply to that hypothetical, then? They seem to be quite different situations from what I was referring to....

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

That may be true in Cuba, but not all communist revolutions have wielded similar results in practice, and one of the things (but evidently not the only one) that sets the Cuban case apart is its scale.

While I agree with you that governments should not look after US interests over those of their own people, as many in South America have done/still do, just merely being anti-US doesn't always constitute "good government", just as merely being pro-US isn't always a mortal sin.

There's a finer line there, which you commies tend to overlook in your (over-)generalizations.

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

At least initially that could be argued, but surely relations with the US have not been ice-cold all these years?

In any case, if gradual reforms were made, and a moderate US administration (probably not Bush, of course) was in power at the time, a peaceful transition could have resulted, and even that "chicken feed" (for you, but not for the victims of it) wouldn't be necessary.

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

That's the "idea", of course. But there you go again, and labeled all those places as equally "pro-US" (which they all weren't, and certainly not in the same amount), and equally "impoverishing" (which they weren't in the same degrees). Heck, not even all of them were dictatorships.

Was that necessary in the case of Venezuela, were income from oil had allowed some social reforms to be made? Or in the case of Bolivia, were a land reform had already happened? What about Mexico? Etc. (of course, anybody can easily make a long list of specific countries where it seemed much more necessary, I know that, but what do you think about these particular cases?).

In fact, if anything, the existance of the revolutionary challenge actually *made* many governments even more corrupt, produced several dictatorships, and temporarily alligned them much closer to the US (all with the excuse of fighting those rebels, "by any means necessary"....). A bad situation was made even worse.

Even so, that generation of rebels almost entirely failed and now, several countries are moving on their own towards a better place (away from the US, more concerned about social reform, etc.), and they are doing it relatively peacefully (at least more peacefully than your machiavellian revolutions pretended, since for them "the ends justify *any* means"...).

What justifies any means, if not an end?

But it doesn't justify using *any* means to reach that end, even if it *seems* to be all-good and utopian....

Not if in the meanwhile, in the real world, even more innocent people have to suffer for that "greater good". It can (and has been, mostly) counter-productive.

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

That's precisely the type of reasoning that I'm critizing.

Guess what. It also applies to your "beloved" rebel movements. It cuts both ways.

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.

You misunderstood: my point was, that it is totally wrong to do that.

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

And surely take down a number of innocent people in the process too.

[devilsadvocate] If Bush's hand hadn't been forced by Al Qaeda, who have murdered and are determined to murder more American citizens, presumably he wouldn't need to crack down on fifth columnists using the Patriot Act et al.[/devilsadvocate]

In both cases, an attack/aggression was received which does not justify using any means against the real/perceived threat, and criticism shouldn't be suspended/overlooked just because of that.

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

So making some reforms would automatically launch all of them to power (let's also remember the fact that as time goes by, less and less of those original pro-Batista folk are alive, and the sins of the fathers do not necessarily transmit to their children and grand-children) ?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't have to. Castro's own actions speak louder than I ever could.

Snooze.

Read the question again.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JCG
They might be worse off, granted, but how does their example apply to that hypothetical, then? They seem to be quite different situations from what I was referring to....

Boosh wants you to believe that the removal of Castro and communism will be a boon to the Cuban people. However, this lie has already been shattered by the existence of counterexamples.

[JCG]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Boosh wants you to believe that the removal of Castro and communism will be a boon to the Cuban people.

No, not necessarily. I don't believe everything Bush says, less so on this matter. Still, neither has communism been a perfect paradise, and it could still be improved upon, to put it lightly.

However, this lie has already been shattered by the existence of counterexamples.

While that might be so, strictly speaking, the fact is that "removal" isn't equal to "making some reforms". And just making some reforms won't always lead into those counterexamples. Less so if they were done willingly and gradually.

Heck, as far as I'm concerned, they don't even have to totally renounce communism, just modify certain aspects here and there, and curb a few abuses (basically address most of the issues already mentioned). That might even lessen the anti-Cuba paranoia in the US, and at least during a different administration, lead to the lifting of the embargo.

Anything horribly wrong with doing that?

[Pax]

Legitimacy-
As a noncommunist pro democracy American I would have to say that there is no way for the U.S. to speak so fervently for the so called liberation of Cuba.

1. Our country was founded on the will of the people to overthrow tyrants. That is just what the Cubans did in their revolution.

2. It's obvious that the people who left are the ones who don't like what is going on their. So if we canvas them, I would be surprised to find Castro supporters. We had the same situation when we polled Iraqi's living in America.

3. If the people of Cuba revolted from their current government then asked for help that would be a different story.

4. The U.S. does not have nor has it ever sustained a favorable record when it comes to human rights or voter rights. Guantanamo Bay, jim crow laws, linching, segragation, and etc.

5. Our embargos are weapons of economic destruction. We could cripple economies of free market democratically elected countries with it. It's one of the reasons Japan attacked us in WW2.

6. If you read history then you would know that many of Cubas problems come from being governed by Spain and the U.S., just like many of the middle easts problems came from being governed by the Europeans. The best way for a country to fix its problems is for a government by the people for the people. Not by the U.S. for the U.S.

7. Why are we so worried if Castro is murderous bastard? Has he killed more people than the Bush family? Has he killed more people than the french in algeria, the British in Africa, the Germans in WW2(holocaust), the allies in WW2(aerial bombing of civillian targets, and etc. The list goes on. In some of these incidents there are people involved who are heroes to us. Aren't all of these people murderous bastards.

The U.S. does not have the moral high ground nor does any country, race, or group of people that I have ever encountered.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Read the question again.

Do you believe that tyrants should be praised and defended as you are doing simply because you are afraid of the alternative?

[Drake Tungsten]

In UR's defense, the Chinese are trained from birth to praise and defend tyrants. It's not his fault.

[JCG]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you believe that tyrants should be praised and defended as you are doing simply because you are afraid of the alternative?

Pretty much what I'd answer to Pax Africanus, with the added point that even if the US has a "bad" record, that doesn't mean that anyone with a "less bad" one is totally exempt from criticism.

So, Pax Africanus...

The U.S. does not have the moral high ground nor does any country, race, or group of people that I have ever encountered.

...then why complain about dictatorships, "tyrants", heck, even anything/one at all? You also don't have such a "moral high ground" either (and, going by your standards, nobody from Earth).

[MrFun]

Re: Bush Unveils Measures to Weaken Cuba's Castro

Originally posted by SlowwHand


In May 2002, Bush said he would be willing to ease American sanctions on the communist-run country if the government took steps toward democracy such as offering "free and fair elections" and if it worked toward opening its economy to free-market changes.

free market, as in working Cubans in American overseas companies for starvation wages


cool

[Ned]

Bush, more than any president in memory, is a man of his word. He said that "Cuba will soon be free." So, there is no doubt that Cuba in fact shall "soon" be "free."

But, how soon?

And, by what means?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you believe that tyrants should be praised and defended as you are doing simply because you are afraid of the alternative?

Still not answering the question DD. Go play your game of evasion somewhere else.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Bush, more than any president in memory, is a man of his word.

He is?

Where's all that evidence for Iraqi BCN weapons?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Still not answering the question DD.

I feel no need to deal seriously with false delimas, UR. Sue me.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
Bush, more than any president in memory, is a man of his word. He said that "Cuba will soon be free." So, there is no doubt that Cuba in fact shall "soon" be "free."

But, how soon?

And, by what means?

Well, if I've been following the Bush track-record correctly, he means "Cuba will soon descend into a bloody, anarchic chaos." Gracias, Senor Shrub!

[GePap]

Threads like this always collapse.

First to Skywalker: the notion that Cubans live in some totalitarian 1984 system is absurd. They very well know what goes on in the outside world-they keep in conact with family in the US that send them large amounts of money. They know their economy is in a rut, they know all about their regime (much better than you for sure), and they know about the conditions of other Latin American states. They also don't love Castro out of brainwashing..I doubt many do love him as people loved Stalin. People in Cuba respect him (not the same as love), or at least do think of him as a totally familiar precense, like an uncle who has always been there, and for many of them he has.

To Ned: Bush is hardly a man of his word...his record with the truth is questionable. And he will not d anymore to free cuba than the 8 other men before him who held the precidency while Castro has been in power.

To DD: the embargo does play a significant role in the backwardness of Cuba's economy. As for how represive castro is, in terms of Latin American dictators he comes ou tops in longevity, but nowhere near the top in terms of viciousness, or economic missmanaguement.

To Agathon: the picture you paint of Castro and Cuba is almost as absurd as kywalkers, only in the other end of the spectrum. Cuba's economy is in a rut, and while the embargo has a great deal to do with it, Castro has not ever even begun to try the sort of reforms he does need to undertake the improve the lot of the common Cuban. As for the revolution..;it has NOT been threated for more than a decade form the outside. For all of the US's anti-Cuban stand, actually attacking Cuba is a viable alternative only in the deluded mnds of a few in Miami, and even then, that does not legitimize Castro's closed political system. If Castro trully whishes to save the accomplishments of the revolution then he needs to start democratic reforms so that the end of the revolutionary period becomes a system thjat perpetuates it and gives it final dmeocratic legitimacy..because as of now, when he dies the system dies with him, and then there will be a huge influx of the Miami people and who knows what will happen. The fact is that, as i told ky, Cubans do NOT love Castro. They respect him, not the same thing. When he dies their will be grief and a sense of dread, given that the King of the last 40 years is dead...but as is, his ystem will not outlast him, if it shall be based slely on his legitimacy. It needs democratic reform to survive: at this point, every day Castro stays in power without democratic reform is a day he undermines the acomplishments of the Cuban revolution.