Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Batista was a corrupt president that had no intention whatsoever of being eternal, he knew that eventually he would end in his house in West Palm Beach or in Madrid. Not the first time he stepped into Cuban politics.
Castro, on the other hand, wanted to be the eternal dictator of Cuba, and he knew that the ONLY way of becoming a eternal dictator was to become a pawn of the USSR. In fact, he was not a communist, but his brother and Guevara convinced him (while in Mexico) that it was the only way.
Your beloved Chavez is trying to imitate Castro, but he's a waif and there's no Cold War anymore and Venezuelans have the example of Cuba, so he won't last much, as Raul Castro stated.
I said the unilateral stance by the US and its influence over its allies to sanction North Korea was arbitrary, was politically motivated, it disregarded the wellbeing of the Korean people, and was a material factor in NK's economic development. If you disagree with that, offer citations or references to the contrary.
Ok, 2 points there. One, is the stance against NK unilateral and two...does it matter that much?
1) The US stance towards Cuba is unilateral and generally ignored by most other nations. (See Canada). For *some* reason most countries in the world have a problem with NK and have joined in sanctions against them.
They are also an isolationist regime (Juiche) and I 100% agree with you that thier political decisions have limited thier trade partners but it's hard to lay that one solely at the feet of the US.
I've made this point several times and it remains unaddressed but why does Canada trade with Cuba and not NK then if it's some unilateral US action?
2) Even with *somewhat* limited trade they still have trade with the greatest trading nation in the world right now (China).
They have enough trade to develop a nuclear wheapons program but they can't grow even 1/2 the amount of food internally that they were able to grow in 1990?
This is intentional and I have cited thier "military first" policy and nuclear wheapons programs as clear state policies of where they are devoting their economic interests.
In summary, NK is a country that is just choosing other priorities and I fully believe that if they were devoting their efforts towards agriculture they'd at least be back up closer to the 10million metric tons they once produced and not hovering below 5 and thus subject to the whims of mother nature.
Side Note: They have again run into another food crisis and are asking for food aid. It's been 14 years since the famine that killed millions....they have nukes and can't grow enough food internally to feed their population.
Batista was a corrupt president that had no intention whatsoever of being eternal, he knew that eventually he would end in his house in West Palm Beach or in Madrid. Not the first time he stepped into Cuban politics.
Castro, on the other hand, wanted to be the eternal dictator of Cuba, and he knew that the ONLY way of becoming a eternal dictator was to become a pawn of the USSR. In fact, he was not a communist, but his brother and Guevara convinced him (while in Mexico) that it was the only way.
Your beloved Chavez is trying to imitate Castro, but he's a waif and there's no Cold War anymore and Venezuelans have the example of Cuba, so he won't last much, as Raul Castro stated.
I personally wish we'd dropped all of the "symbolic" embargos on Cuba decades ago. Castro has used the US as his personal boogeyman (and rightfully so during the cold war) but anymore it's almost a joke since the US only pays lip service to Cuba.
Cuba is about as communist as parts of Europe anymore lol and we have dictators the same as Fidel as "close allies". The cold war is over, let it go.
In summary, NK is a country that is just choosing other priorities and I fully believe that if they were devoting their efforts towards agriculture they'd at least be back up closer to the 10million metric tons they once produced and not hovering below 5 and thus subject to the whims of mother nature.
They can't have everything, so they drew up their list of priorities. It was not unreasonable 20 years ago for NK to consider its food production to be adequate, and to choose additional avenues of development. Since the USA was sanctioning them, they could not depend on oil imports, so they directed their attention to nuclear energy. They are also a major producer and exporter of small arms, so have some knowledge and expertise in the arms industry. As a result, it was an easy step from nuclear energy to nuclear weaponry, which they can also potentially sell on the global market. It might be pointed out that if there are 25,000 well-armed and -trained troops from the most powerful military in the world looking at you through iron sights, defense is not an illogical priority. How much does the US squander on "defense", when we don't even have anyone massed on our borders or genuinely threatening us?
If NK did not have a potential for nuclear retaliation, the US would have crushed them a long time ago, exactly as they did to Iraq, and we're also too chicken to even ruffle Iran's feathers. NK knows the US is nothing but a big rich fat bully kid, and never picks on anybody who can fight back. The US picks on countries that can be defeated by weekend reserves. You can accuse NK of a lot of things, but being that stupid and short-sighted is not one of them.
We didn't blink an eye when Pol Pot was utilizing the killing fields to expunge a couple million citizens. It wasn't a matter of bad luck, bad weather, bad agriculture.....it was outright deliberate murder. Mao killed tens of millions while 'Citizen' Rockefeller applauded him.
Google *used* to show that N Korea has a large amount of oil reserves in the northern seas of its coastline. It is also a strategic location for trade between China and S Korea.
We just killed at least a million citizen Iraqi's and Afgani's. Saying that we are interested in N Korea for humanitarian reasons has lost its lustre in the eyes of those who know some history.
We are interested in N Korea alright. Government is an alpha predator that doesn't blink at killing millions. Doesn't matter whose government. All of mans greatest genocides of the past several hundred
years have been government sanctioned.
They can't have everything, so they drew up their list of priorities. It was not unreasonable 20 years ago for NK to consider its food production to be adequate, and to choose additional avenues of development. Since the USA was sanctioning them, they could not depend on oil imports, so they directed their attention to nuclear energy. They are also a major producer and exporter of small arms, so have some knowledge and expertise in the arms industry. As a result, it was an easy step from nuclear energy to nuclear weaponry, which they can also potentially sell on the global market. It might be pointed out that if there are 25,000 well-armed and -trained troops from the most powerful military in the world looking at you through iron sights, defense is not an illogical priority. How much does the US squander on "defense", when we don't even have anyone massed on our borders or genuinely threatening us?
If NK did not have a potential for nuclear retaliation, the US would have crushed them a long time ago, exactly as they did to Iraq, and we're also too chicken to even ruffle Iran's feathers. NK knows the US is nothing but a big rich fat bully kid, and never picks on anybody who can fight back. The US picks on countries that can be defeated by weekend reserves. You can accuse NK of a lot of things, but being that stupid and short-sighted is not one of them.
That's the decision that is up to NK to make with regards to it's own peoples and sovereignty. You might note that I'm not saying they don't have that right, I'm merely saying that it's an intentional bad decision leading to the occasional mass starvation.
Personally, if I'm running NK I already know the US can't make a move without SK being behind it AND everyone knows that given the location of Seoul that any conflict will kill hundreds of thousands of SK citizens. Like you said, they aren't stupid.
I would also point out that there was plenty of opportunity to go after them in the 90's if the US had wanted to. Even as they developed nukes we knew there was nothing we could do....they knew it too and still do as evidenced by recent military actions.
It's much easier to control the population when under constant threat from "the enemy". The US isn't the only government in the world to use that old trick. Let's face it, the US does bad things that many citizens are clueless about. However, we have a segment around here that knee-jerk react that they will defend equally bad (or worse) governments just because the US has a beef with them.
Global politics is like the movie Unforgiven. There aren't good guys and bad guys. It's just curious how many, in reaction no doubt to mainstream uneducated US sentiment, wind up defending the equally indefensible.
Heck we just had a poster wander in, ramble something about the US being responsible for Mao and Pol Pot....perhaps even killing the dinosaurs and then pop back out after other cryptic statements.
I've been trying to follow this thread being a part time history buff. I am generally distracted due to other projects that I work on....between posts.
Who holds the US responsible for Mao and Pol Pot? I have never seen that argument in my immediate recollection. Or....maybe there is a hazy memory somewhere.
That's the decision that is up to NK to make with regards to it's own peoples and sovereignty. You might note that I'm not saying they don't have that right, I'm merely saying that it's an intentional bad decision leading to the occasional mass starvation.
The operative word there is "intentional", and that is what places it in the relevance of this topic. I'd like to see what evidence you have that Kim wanted to reduce his nation's population through starvation or malnutrition, and set about on a policy that was designed to accomplish that goal. That would be quite a turnabout, because a couple of decades ago, NK's government "intentionally" made NK a surplus food producer.
My objection to the inclusion of Kim in the list of "mass murderers" is that I can see no evidence that he, at any time, ever executed a policy that was intended to cause the deaths of any of his general population, or that he was ever uncaring about the general wellbeing of his citizens.
In fact, every American who has ever died prematurely as a result of inaccess to adequate medical care could then be placed at the doorstep of every American government that has obstructed the comprehensive health care access that this nation could so easily afford if we abandoned our own swaggering military prioritization at the expense of health care. I don't think you want to call that "mass killings" when the shoe is on a foot that you walk around on.
I personally wish we'd dropped all of the "symbolic" embargos on Cuba decades ago. Castro has used the US as his personal boogeyman (and rightfully so during the cold war) but anymore it's almost a joke since the US only pays lip service to Cuba.
Cuba is about as communist as parts of Europe anymore lol and we have dictators the same as Fidel as "close allies". The cold war is over, let it go.
------
Wrong.
Cuba is a communist country. Not similar to any European country, not even similar to Belraus.
Wrong.
Cuba is a communist country. Not similar to any European country, not even similar to Belraus.
Is this to imply that genocide is taking place there?
"Communism" means that the resources and means of production are owned by the state. That continues to be largely true in Cuba, but not in any European country, but there is no relevance in that fact to this thread topic.
Because communism replaced other forms of autocratic tyranny in most cases, there is always a necessity to quell potential uprisings from unsupportive factions. Since the official line of the USA is to be in opposition to communist economies, such overt actions have become synonymous with communism in the American journalist lore and official jingoism.
The number of civilians indiscriminately killed or abused in recent decades is no higher in countries with communist economies, than in dozens of free-market economies, such as Zaire, Chile,Nicaragua, Iran, Philippines, wherever the US forcibly imposed, armed and endorsed the dictatorships of our friendly puppets. In either case, opposition is brutally crushed if necessary. All of the Islamic republics, for example, are wonderfully capitalist and free-market, without a tinge of communism. (Although there have been a few Islamic Socialist experiments, like Algeria.)
It is amazing how many people start out their study of history predicated axiomatically on the definition of a "communist" as a man whose only goal is to indiscriminately slaughter women and children, and the definition of liberty is the freedom to import Marlboros, and then refuse to allow any alternative view of historical dynamics.
Last edited by jtur88; 01-14-2011 at 08:01 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
