Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Wait....to put Castro (a nutjob a scant 90 miles from the USA, with weapons that could reach out and touch US cities if he wanted to pick a fight)....but it's silly to compare him to a bunch of LUNATICS ruling a land-locked country ten thousand miles from us that have no weapons that can reach us?
-=Vel=-

You call Castro a nut job? What has he done that was crazy? He may not be the greatest person in the world, but he isn't crazy. Jong-Ill is crazy, Saddam's son were psychopathic, Fidel is neither.

Cuba has WMD, he doesn't have missles that can deliever them to the US in any quantity. His military is in worse shape than Iraqs was. He has nothing to get hard cash from to update his pencil sharpener much less his war machine. He has made no direct threats against the US in years. The worst he has done (That I am aware of) is to call every President since JFK liars, nothing worse than we do, and he was probably right at least some of the time.

I won't agrue the merits of invading Iraq in this thread. It isn't for that purpose. I will just repeat, that if you can show any threat from Cuba in the last 15-20 years (other than unloading his prisons to save money). Put it forth.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Velociryx
they're asking for political asylum, not insta-citizenship. But again, there's nothing in Cuba we want, so of course we can't be arsed to give a damn, right?

There's plenty in Cuba that the US wants. This explains nearly 200 years worth of policy in the region. US policy in the region has for the most part been to support repressive elites in exchange for US friendly policy: perhaps the best example of this is the US undermining of the Guatemalan reformist movement in the 50s. Of course this was aimed at "communists" but in context that really means "social democratic nationalists" or "anyone who wants to change policy in favour of their own citizens rather than the US".

Anyone who paints Fidel Castro as some sort of satanist is an idiot pure and simple. Fidel is probably the most popular political leader in the world. You can't understand Cuba unless you understand that the vast majority of Cubans really love the guy. I wish I had a dollar for every travel writer without a political agenda who's been to Cuba and been astonished by this fact.

Cuba represents a major policy blunder by the US. All Fidel really wanted was to free Cuba from foreign (read US) domination. He'd wanted this long before he became a communist and was laying plans well before Che Guevara (who was a real hard line communist) convinced him that communism was the answer. Nevertheless, communism for Fidel is a means to an end, which is political independence. The scum in Miami are the remnants of the various criminals that flourished under the Batista government (which was actually massacring people).

If the US Government wanted him onside all they had to do was recognize his government and trade with him. But they were afraid of the threat of a good example: if the Cubans could run their own country then the rest of Latin America might start getting funny ideas. I mean, how dare they want to run their own countries? The impudence of it.

That's why the embargo is still in place, even though communism is no longer a great threat to the world in the eyes of the US. Get rid of that and treat Cuba as an independent state and you'd see the kind of changes that people want in Cuba. One reason for political detentions is that Cuba is under constant threat from the US. Remove that, and you remove the necessity for such actions. But that is unthinkable for the US since it would make manifest the threat of a good example.

The Cubans aren't stupid, they know this: that's why they support Fidel. And that's why I do.

[GePap]

One would think that, having an active anti-Castro press in Maimi, if the situtation you seem to imagine is the case in Cuba were true, that it would be all over the news (at least spanish psekaing news) all the time.

Sorry, but you imagination about the level of political repression in Cuba is gettign away from you. This is a state were political dissidents (these are peoiple who acitvely speak out against the gov) get 28-30 years in prison, not a trip to a detention camp. Again, when 3 hijackers of a boat were sentenced to death and executed, there was a huge outcry...3 executions of people who had commited an act of terrorism (as define here) brings a huge press outcry, yet you imagine people disappearing at night....

Reality check is in order.

[Ned]

To those who insist this is a "law" and not an executive department policy, here is a story that says it a policy, set down only a few years ago by Bill Clinton.

Bush has not reversed it. He is just as wrong as Clinton.

http://www.truckflix.com/news_article.php?newsid=165

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Ned
Meldor, Ike pulled the plug on Batista and allowed Castro to win. Castro was the darling of the US at the time, even though members of his guerilla band were communists. Ike was even going to meet with Castro when he visited, but he didn't. Why? It wasn't because he was a communist. It was because he began summary executions of a large number of the former regime.

Also, IIRC, Castro confiscated a large amount of US property without compensation. Then he allied himself with the USSR. Then he allowed the Russians to station nuclear missiles in Cuba.

There are good reasons for the cold relations between Castro and the United States.

I know full well the history of Cuba and Castro. I lived through it. My father was whisked away to Florida when we were but hours away from invading. It was a scary time, but as much as Cuba was a threat then, they are not a threat now.

Castro has held no pruges in the last 20 years. He doesn't kill them in mass, he let's them build rafts and ships them here.

The bigest obstruction to better relations with Cuba is their natioanlization of a lot of US owned property. A lot of Cuban Americans today still have claims. But a lot of other countries also have done the same thing and we still trade with them. Mexico tool its oil national, so did several South American Countries. Do we still hold it agianst them?

I am not here to defend Castro, I would as soon see him gone, but rather I am here to defend against them misstatements that seem to expand here, such as...

"This is a Bush policy"...its been in place forever...
"Castro is a dangerous nutjub"...he is no Stalin or Jong-Ill.
"Cubans are treated differently"... not the case.
"Returned Cubans are killed or jailed"...well, a lot of them do go to jail for some period of time, but Castro can't afford to feed them for free for long. The only ones in recent memory who were killed where the idiots trying to take a short haul ferry across the gulf. They would have most likely killed themselves and most of the people on board by taking that ferry out on the open seas. Did that merit death, that we can debate, but it isn't my country or laws. I will even allow that they probably got the death sentence for embarrassing the government.

Now, I have argued against Castro on other threads and I am not going to defend him here, I just think it silly to compare him to folks a whole lot worse. If he was the most evil dictator in the world right now, I would be happy to sing in his parade.

[Ned]

Meldor, check out the link in the post just prior to yours. The policy of returning Cuban refugees is a Bush policy, not the law.

[Agathon]

This guy has it right

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...009384,00.html

[Dom Pedro II]

GePap - I think you misunderstand... we're not talking about whats in the papers here.

In a supposedly Democratic country, do you know what my uncle did for a living?

He tortured people. He was the Chief of Police of Joao Pessoa... the same man who used to come home at night and kiss my grandmother... the man who bought me my first prostitute... used to put men in tires and light them on fire...

My father once, almost was killed because he was on a bus during a police check point and he was carrying a Luger. But since the cops knew him, they didn't hassle him. If they had searched him, and found the gun, he never would have left their custody alive.

We have a press in Brazil... why wasn't this kind of brutality reported? Why didn't anybody make a stink about the 10,000 people who disappeared in the middle of the night during the 1970s?! By comparison to Cuba, Brazil's government was LAX....

Even today! Even today people are murdered in back allies by the police for stealing fvcking bread! And nobody knows because for the most part... nobody cares... do you think the media is keeping tabs on these people who are sent back to Cuba??

Don't feed me this horseshit... you know goddamn well that plenty goes on behind the scenes..

And not that it matters by this point, but I was being facetious about the bullets thing... and you say that they don't even spend a few days in prison? then you proved my initial point... they aren't really a drain on Castro's resources.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Ned
To those who insist this is a "law" and not an executive department policy, here is a story that says it a policy, set down only a few years ago by Bill Clinton.

Bush has not reversed it. He is just as wrong as Clinton.

http://www.truckflix.com/news_article.php?newsid=165

Yes, before they were all returned unless they could prove political reason to stay. The policy that Clinton set forth and that Bush has allowed to stand actually allows more Cubans to stay here than used to be allowed. Yet another spin that gets it wrong. BTW here is the statement:

Under a policy established during the Clinton administration, if Cuban refugees make it to American soil, they are allowed to stay. If caught on the ocean, they are returned to Cuba.

This doesn't say what the policy was prior to Clintons order (which was to make most of those that reached American soil go back as well).

[EDIT] Am I the only one old enough to remember the flap when Clinton set this policy? Come on I know some of you have dry ears...

[Dom Pedro II]

Killing escapees doesn't have to be official policy for it to still happen.

[Velociryx]

Meldor, et al.

Good. I’m glad you’re not trying to defend Castro. He is unworthy of such defense.

The point…the ONLY point I have been trying to ram through thick, bony skull in this forum has NOTHING to do with comparing Castro to other dictators ‘round the world (which everyone SEEMS to be missing), it has to do with the US administration.

The President of the USA has gone on national television and said that one of the (implied main, major) reasons for the war was the liberation of the Iraqi people.

That’s the WhiteHouse position. Believe it, don’t believe it. I don’t really care. That’s the White House position.

And BECAUSE that is the official position, it is disingenuous in the EXTREME to send Americans to fight and die for Iraqi liberty, but to send oppressed Cubans back to their homeland.

This suggests then, that the official White House position is….bullshite.

Not that that’s news to anybody, but it underscores the point.

IF we were really in it for liberty for the oppressed, then the boat would not have been turned ‘round.

Gods....it’s like pulling teeth sometimes.

-=Vel=-

PS: And the numbers argument is a very poor one. Just because Castro isn’t in the big leagues as far as mass killings go….just because whole towns do not disappear in the night doesn’t make him ANY less wrong.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Unless I missed it here in the various postings I see no disconnect in the policy enforced and the reasons/motives for war 'gainst Iraq.

Both are reinforced by the events of 9/11.

Illegal immigration has been a constant source of concern in the security sector. The INS has been repeated lambasted for their lack of control over borders and policing of illegals.

Obviously (IMO) the war in Iraq revolves around either the direct ability to remove WoMD from an obvious enemy to the US or to send a message to the leaders of Islamic nations harboring terrorists that the US takes seriously its war on terrorism. (Other's of a more cynical frame of mind will obviously say that the war in IRaq was simply a means to secure future oil, which prolly also played a role but not a primary one IMO)

Seen through the eyes of a security paranoia the two events do not seem disconnected at all to me.

[GePap]

Dom Pedro: reality in Brazil proves nothing. I ived in a non0democratic regime, and the few people who disapeared were important dissidents, and that only happend a few times. Mostly, you ended up in prison (a horrible prison, yes) .

The crux of your agurmenet, is that because in Brazil you have violent politics, well, ditto everywhere else in Latin America...well, that is not true.

And BECAUSE that is the official position, it is disingenuous in the EXTREME to send Americans to fight and die for Iraqi liberty, but to send oppressed Cubans back to their homeland.

And the same people who "cried" when Iraq was liberated don;t want to "get into another mess in Africa". We send oppresed Chinese back, and we trade with China. China is a communist dictatorship. I really do fail to see the fine distinction some try to make.'

As for the numbers bit: Castro is run of the mill repression, and the US has never done **** about run of the mill repression (specially if we benefit from it, as in the case of a place like Uzbekistan).

[Velociryx]

Og, I would agree with that statement in general, except that we have always made a special case for people fleeing from oppressive regiemes.

Given the Shrub's new, tougher stance, and the fact that he's put dictators "on notice" around the globe, and that he has used the "liberation" card in Iraq, it only paints him to be that much more of a phony when he ships other oppressed folks back home.

And let's face it, we like ingenuity in this country. Anybody who can take a beat up Chevy truck and make a working boat out of it deserves to stay!

But, Castro's been laying low, and Cuba doesn't have oil, so....

They got kicked to the curb.

And the fact that they got kicked to the curb only underscores the lie that the Bush administration really ISN"T in it to liberate anybody....unless it coincides with something else they want.

[Velociryx]

GePap....why does that not surprise me?

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Meldor, et al.


The President of the USA has gone on national television and said that one of the (implied main, major) reasons for the war was the liberation of the Iraqi people.

That’s the WhiteHouse position. Believe it, don’t believe it. I don’t really care. That’s the White House position.

And BECAUSE that is the official position, it is disingenuous in the EXTREME to send Americans to fight and die for Iraqi liberty, but to send oppressed Cubans back to their homeland.

This suggests then, that the official White House position is….bullshite.

As you indicate the premise for invasion for liberation puts the US in a delicate position. Failing finding WoMD which prior to invasion was the most cited reasons for military action. Rumsfeld made it perfectly clear in his list of objecties that finding WoMD was paramount and that failure to abide by UN resolutions were the primary reasons and that liberation was almost a side objective.

The fact that the message has now become one of liberating Iraqi's is a very questionable one and wasn't what was originally portrayed as the message was one revolving around security to the US and not human rights policing.

Regardless if you beleive the original message and beleive teh intentions were to either eliminate ability for terrorists to aquire WoMD or moreover send a message to the local governements that the US will take action then the two actions (war and refusal to take illegals) are not in direct opposition to each other.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Og, I would agree with that statement in general, except that we have always made a special case for people fleeing from oppressive regiemes.

Not jews fleeing from Nazi germany, or people fleeing from right-wong dictatorships in Central and South America, or people fleeing communist dictators in China..but besides the yeah, everyone.

Given the Shrub's new, tougher stance, and the fact that he's put dictators "on notice" around the globe, and that he has used the "liberation" card in Iraq, it only paints him to be that much more of a phony when he ships other oppressed folks back home.

He put the "azxis of evil" on notice. You seem to forget the acrtobatics this admin. went thorugh pointing out why Iraq was a special case, and that war in Iraq did not mean war anywhere else.

And let's face it, we like ingenuity in this country. Anybody who can take a beat up Chevy truck and make a working boat out of it deserves to stay!

Nope, it does not.

And the fact that they got kicked to the curb only underscores the lie that the Bush administration really ISN"T in it to liberate anybody....unless it coincides with something else they want.

The only things I agree with,

GePap....why does that not surprise me?

Becuase you need to be reminded of the facts every so often?

[Ned]

If Castro is so popular in Cuba, presumably he would have no fear of elections. This is the primary demand the US today has regarding normalization. I also presume normalization will have to depend upon compensation for confiscated US property. However, if the Cuban regime truly became democratic, undoubtedly, the US would provide significant economic aid to undo the damage of 45 years of Castro.

[Velociryx]

Yep....that's just exactly it....and we all know that GePap is the keeper of all those impossibly complex facts...

Og: I agree with you on that....the White House initially played the liberation aspect down, but having come up empty handed in the search for weapons and such, they switch-hit and used liberation as the trump card.

Now, if they meant it (which of course, we all know they don't), then in this new era of boldly sending Americans to fight and die for the liberation of other countries, then it would be perfectly in keeping with that new mindset and admin. policy to let the Cubans come.

But of course, that's not what happened, and it underscores the point.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Oh...GePap...I didn't realize that China was a member of the Axis of Evil.

Nor Afghanistan, for that matter.

Perhaps they missed that fact....send them a memo and remind them, will you?

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Shrub's actions are wrong in this case, just as they are wrong when immigration authorities turn back people from places like Haiti or the Dominican Republic or Jamaica. Immigration barriers are unjustifiable assaults on fundamental human rights, and ought to be abolished.

It's important to note that outside of dealing with Cubans, our asylum policy is absolutely awful. Not only do we tend to outright dismiss asylum applicants during genuine humanitarian crises (i.e. Haitian immigrants in '91), we tend to subject them to detention for long periods of time - years even - while the INS bureaucracy sorts everything out (and for 33 countries, this detention is automatically mandated by the Justice Dept.).

[Dom Pedro II]

GePap,

So you're saying that this sort of stuff doesn't happen elsewhere in Latin America?

That Brazil is this barbarian society while Cuba on the other hand is the wonderland of honesty and integrity? A Shangri La of the Caribbean??

Please, if those people were poor enough to flee for economic reasons, then they're poor enough to be killed without anyone knowing or caring...

Can you prove to me that they are alive and well? I doubt it... nor can I prove that they've been shot.

But not a single word you've said should lead me to believe that things are ANY different in Cuba than they are in Brazil.

It wasn't policy to do what was done people who were arrested.

And trust me, if these sort of things happened in Cuba before the Revolution... and after the Revolution... and ten years after the Revolution... you can be sure that even if it isn't official policy, it is STILL going on there.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
If Castro is so popular in Cuba, presumably he would have no fear of elections.

They have elections. You just have to be a Communist to stand in them about the local level and no one bothers to run against Castro because it would just be a waste of time. Castro's just gonna win.

Dom Pedro, you talk about Brazil being a democracy in the 1970s. That's not true. Between 1965 and 1985, it was a military dictatorship. There was no democracy. Brazil wasn't the worst country in the Southern cone, but it sure tried.

There is a world of difference between the military dictaorships sponsored by the US in Latin America and the political dictatorship of Cuba. No one except rabid anti-Castroists accuses Cuba of having death squads, at least not since 1959, when about 500 murderers and torturers got their just rewards. The death penalty is rarely applied in Cuba, and only in very special circumstances, like when a general was caught smuggling drugs through Cuba into the US. Even the U.S. State Department under Reagan didn't claim Cuba was killing its own people. Nor do the claim it today.

South of Canada, there is only one country that hasn't had death squad activity since the 1950s, and that Cuba. Even the U.S. had death squads in the 70s and 80s, though in the 70s it was only in the Indian resverations, and in the 80s it was only in Puerto Rico. There were reports that Guatemala and El Salvador sent death squads to Los Angeles in the 80s to get political refugees, and we know Pinochet sent a death squad to kill the former Chilean ambassador in Washington, D.C. in 1976.

[Dom Pedro II]

Look at the thousands killed under Pinochet.... Columbia... Haiti... Dominican Republic... Central America...

If you don't think people were dying around you in Panama, it was probably because you weren't looking. Or maybe Panama was lucky. I don't know.

But what I do know is that very few (if any) Latin American countries can claim that they have only a moderately corrupt military or police force.

I see no reason to see Cuba as different.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
It wasn't policy to do what was done people who were arrested.

Actually it was.

[Dom Pedro II]

Chegitz, I garbled a few things in that...


Yes, the military dictatorship came to power in 1964, and it did not return to a democracy until after we had left in 1985... we left just as the transition was being made.

But the anonymous killings by police continue under the democracy.

And even in the 1970s, we didn't elect the President, but we did elect Senators and representatives to our Congress. We did elect local representatives, which is much more than you can say for Cuba.

[Dom Pedro II]

Actually it was.

Condoned, yes. But official policy, no.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
If you don't think people were dying around you in Panama, it was probably because you weren't looking. Or maybe Panama was lucky. I don't know..

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).

[Ned]

You know, Che, if Castro really wanted to normalize relations with the US, all he would have to do is set Cuba free. Is this asking too much, given, as you say, the fact that Castro would be elected in a free, multi-party election?

[Dom Pedro II]

I'm not talking about slaughtering dissidents...


What I'm talking about is what happens to people when they are taken into custody... the top leaders don't order it, but sh*t happens... people get hurt. Killed sometimes.