Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty - Page 6

chequita guevara · July 31, 2003, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Condoned, yes. But official policy, no.

It was and apparently continues to be an unwritten policy (thus giving them "lpausible" deniability. These days, my understanding is that the police are murdering street children. I expect the police and military aren't too happy about Lula's election and he probably won't have any better luck reigning them in.

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 18:25

Actually, its been getting better. No where near perfect, but it IS getting better.

The reason being that Brazil's media is much much more powerful than it was in 1985.

Every time I go to Brazil, I see big differences. We are changing for the better. Slowly but surely...

Btw, if you want to see an absolutely awesome (and sad) move about life on Brazilian streets, see Cidade do Deus. City of God. GREAT MOVIE.

chequita guevara · July 31, 2003, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by 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?

Look, I don't condone everything Castro does. I'd personally like to see elections opened up to other socialist and communist groups. But free elections has never been a litmous test of whether or not the U.S. will have normal relations with you.

Despite the fact that nearly every country/NGO/group that monitored the Nicaraguan elections of 1984 said they were fere and fair, the U.S. continued to wage war on it for six more years and claimed the elections were fraudulent. Yes, when the Sandanistas lost in 1990, they looted the government, but before that, they were definately one of the least corrupt and freeest governments in Latin America and did more than any coutry but Cuba to help educate, feed, clothe, and house their people, not to mention the massive increase in health care. All of that is now gone.

I suspect that free elections don't take place in Cuba because Cuba doesn't think there's any point. If the Communists win, the U.S. will simply denounce the elections as a fraud. If they should lose, then it would be a disaster for the country as the new government would dismantle everything and sell it off or give it to the old owners of Cuba. Furthermore, the U.S. would probably give millions of dollars to anyone running to the right of the Communists, as the did in Nicaragua. What's fair about that, especially when it's illegal for foreign governments to spend money in our elections?

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 18:45

Quote:

I suspect that free elections don't take place in Cuba because Cuba doesn't think there's any point.

So the only point to allowing the people to elect their leaders would be to placate the U.S.???

Here's another point, che, that I never really understood, but since you are much more knowledgable about the subject then perhaps you can explain it... (this is a genuine question)

If they have (or were to have) a Constitution like we do (albeit for a Communist country it would have to be a MUCH larger body since it would have to have stipulations for government control of this that and the other), why would they need to be worried about deconstruction of their current system if they lose? I mean, in theory now, shouldn't there be different "Communist" parties working within the confines of a Communist system that cannot be altered because of its Constitution, in the same way that there are "Capitalist" parties in capitalist countries that work within a certain set of boundaries? Why must there be ONE Communist party, and only one Communist party, and they have to maintain a vice-like grip on power in order to keep the system intact?

chequita guevara · July 31, 2003, 18:52

A Constitution is just a scrap of paper. It's only useful as long as the government agrees to abide by it. The USSR has one of the best constitutions in the world, but it didn't amount to much under Stalin. Cuba's got a constitution, I think the newest one was adopted in 1975.

The reason there is only one Communist Party is basically bureaucratic BS. After all, there can only be one truth, right?

Heck, it wouldn't be all that bad if the party had competing factions inside it, but I don't know if the Cuban CP does.

Like I said, I don't justify everything they do, but I can see some of their reasoning. If the most pwerful country in the world is your neighbor and it wants to destroy you, you're going to take what measures you can to prevent that.

I do know that the people of Cuba have a very large degree of access to Castro and don't feel afraid to tell him to his face what they think is wrong with the country, the government, etc. I have never seen anywhere a president get lectured by regular people, and him to reply, you're absolutely right, and I don't think you've criticized me enough . . .

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 19:10

Ok, but you don't think that they could maintain a Communist country even with a Communist Constitution?

I mean, in theory, if they had an election, even if several "capitalist" parties won seats (and probably it would more likely be degrees of Communism) it wouldn't necessarily mean that they'd have the power to sweep away the entire old Constitution, or even part of it.

But on the other hand, if they people elected, across the board, politicians who were intent on tearing down the old structure, wouldn't that be indicative of something?

And as far as American money buying out the elections... if the Cuban government controls the television and radio, and you have a set of rules guiding elections and equal-distribution of air time, how are the U.S.-backed candidates going to get more air time?

Not for anything, but the American Presidents used to have regular people come and see them too. Right up until Lincoln got shot basically. That, coupled with the Gilded Age, put a stop to that. *shrugs* Different times...

Imran Siddiqui · July 31, 2003, 19:12

Castro sucks... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't lift the embargo

.

Maybe that could encourage more democracy in the country.

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 19:15

Quote:

Maybe that could encourage more democracy in the country.

That's what I was saying... not like it was my idea, but I made reference to that earlier.

Imran Siddiqui · July 31, 2003, 19:16

Well it isn't the only reason, but elimination of the embargo would be better for both countries. More openness in Cuba can only be a good thing, right?

Of course any person that does this has to make sure they don't need Florida or New Jersey to win the election for President

.

Sprayber · July 31, 2003, 19:20

Listen folks. For me it doesn't matter if the people are coming from Cuba or Canada, as long as it's done within the law and it's fair to others that want in. If there is a case for political assylum then fine, present it to the authorities. But this crap about sneaking into the country is bullshit. Period. It takes away from the millions that have come to this country legally and to those that are still trying to get it. Those are the people that I want to help.

Agathon · July 31, 2003, 19:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II

Btw, if you want to see an absolutely awesome (and sad) move about life on Brazilian streets, see Cidade do Deus. City of God. GREAT MOVIE.

YES. I've been raving about this one to everyone I meet. Film of the year - no contest.

And that girl is real hot too.

MichaeltheGreat · July 31, 2003, 20:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Meldor
[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...

Yeah, I remember. It was a coupla shades quieter than the yowling about Carter and Mariel, but only a coupla shades.

Presidents have also set blanket policies (through orders to DoJ/INS) allowing different criteria to be used for asylum applications, depending on the nation. For example, under Reagan, any Nicaraguan (unfriendly murderous thug government) petition for asylum was considered, but for Guatamalans or Salvadorans (friendly murderous thug government), the asylum applicant had to show that he or she personally, or immediate family members in the same household were personally threatened with bodily harm for political reasons.

A much tougher standard to meet, and it led to a lot more summary rejections and deportations for the Guatamalans and Salvadorans, while the Nicaraguans could appeal, make an appeal bond, then apply for green cards through connection to family members.

MichaeltheGreat · July 31, 2003, 20:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Meldor, et al.
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=-

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Ned · July 31, 2003, 21:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber
Listen folks. For me it doesn't matter if the people are coming from Cuba or Canada, as long as it's done within the law and it's fair to others that want in. If there is a case for political assylum then fine, present it to the authorities. But this crap about sneaking into the country is bullshit. Period. It takes away from the millions that have come to this country legally and to those that are still trying to get it. Those are the people that I want to help.

The problem I have with this is that most countries allow free emmigration that permits an orderly, legal process, for US immigration. Not so communist countries, like Fidel's paradise. The people who escape these countries must do it by running through minefields, dodging machinegun fire aimed at their backs, or, in the case of Cuba, traverse 90 miles of open ocean in makeshift boats while avoiding the navies of both Cuba and its seems the United States.

We never, not once, returned a refugee to the communists in Europe. Doing so in the case of Cuban refugees is unbelieveable.

It this truly is a law that Bush cannot waive, the Congress needs to act to reverse it.

Meldor · July 31, 2003, 21:33

The question really is "Do we treat Cubans, detained on the open seas, any differently than we do any one from any other country.

The answer is plainly, no. We don't treat them any differently. We do treat them differently when they step onto American soil (as long as they violate no laws to do so such as hijacking a plane).

There are any number of places in which people are treated a lot worse than the are in Cuba. There are places where people are much more repressed than the Cubans are today. There are Latin American countries in which the plight of the people is much worse than it is in Cuba. I don't care for Castro. I hope that the current Cuban government doesn't last another year. But, it isn't something that is likely to cause me concern. Right now there is more threat coming from the middle east and the situations there. The President is addressing that problem area and if needed will handle others as well. As far as I could tell, none of the 16 hijackers IDed came from Cuba, or had funding from Cuba. While the Cuban government may sell arms and do silly things like jam satellites to gain oil from Iran, there is no direct threat from Cuba at this time.

Summary:
Cuba isn't a threat.
Cubans aren't treated any differently than any one else coming from any number of nasty places.
There are bigger things to worry about than this silliness.

However, if it really makes you feel better to gripe about it then go ahead. It begins to reach the point of diminishing returns.

GePap · July 31, 2003, 21:40

Quote:

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 · July 31, 2003, 21:47

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 · July 31, 2003, 21:57

Quote:

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 · July 31, 2003, 22:03

Quote:

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 · July 31, 2003, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
George Bush, go to hell.

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

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 22:19

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 · July 31, 2003, 22:25

Quote:

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 · July 31, 2003, 22:28

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

GePap · July 31, 2003, 22:28

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 · July 31, 2003, 22:32

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 · July 31, 2003, 22:37

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 · July 31, 2003, 22:43

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 · July 31, 2003, 22:46

Quote:

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 · July 31, 2003, 22:52

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 · July 31, 2003, 22:55

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=-