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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeDog
Problems with Saudis? It is a brutal dictatorship. There is NO due process. Suspected criminals are not allowed representation. Torture of prisonsers. Amputations for stealing-which is especially harsh in light of no representation. Stonings/beheadings. Lashes for sexual "crimes". Repression of religious minorities- non-Muslims cannot testify in court. Women are not allowed to testify against men in court. Women cannot drive or ride bicycles in cities. Women are but barred from most forms of employment. Gays are lashed, deported, and sometimes executed. Any dissent form the dictatorship is prohibited, and political enemies regularly "disappear". No freedom of press/speech. Jewish/Christian houses of prayer are not allowed.
Saudi Arabia is one of the worst dictatorships in the world. Far worse than Cuba.
Castro's biggest failing is he doesn't have oil, if he did he'd be a regular diner at White House State Dinners.
Why is it our business to shove our form of government down another country's throat?
If a country wants to be communist, let them be communist, or socialist, or tribal or anything else. Could you imagine a world where everyone was just like us? Everyone in the world should be the same?
The one area where we do have a right to step in is genocide, but beyond that, we need to stop going around the world trying to impose our belief systems onto other cultures.
With the current leader, democracy has become a form of religion, and he a crusader. Could you imagine if I walked into your home, and told you and your family that starting today you had to be Catholic, or Jewish, or whatever it is that I am?
Many have died, we and our children will be footing the bill, and for what? So that people thousands of miles away can live in a democratic society? Just like us.
I don't think live and let live is a swell, or ignorant thought. It actually takes guts to be able to think that way. I don't see other countries trying to impose their systems on ours, so why should we on theirs?
Where did all of this begin, and when and where will it end?
Why did terrorism begin? I sincerely am asking that. Who did what to who, that made the other react? Did it start when we began having an interest in middle east oil? Or was it before that?
Let other countries live their lives, and if they are commiting genocide, step in, or give aid, or show them how to help themselves, but we have got to stop thinking that this country is in charge of the world.
I agree with you (though I guess I shouldn't) and this is what me and others have been trying to say before in other threads.
We actually had a discussion about this problem just two days ago during a Swedish lesson (we have written reports, and are now going through them and discussing each other's reports one by one) and came up with just about the same conclusions and thought as the ones of old biddie above.
I believe that much of the problems Cuba faces is due the fact that the US decided to isolate the country. Castro was not a communist, but just a "simple" socialist when he came to power, before any embargo was put into action against the country. Socialism works well in many western countries, many of them are among the richest in the world, so socialism isn't a ideology that automatically makes a people/country poor. Isolation does.
What right did the US really have to want to over throw a country leader when he had just come to power of his own country? It was immediately assumed that just because some people disliked him, and his politics didn't go well with the American, that the Cuban people did not like him either. Hence the Bay of Pigs attack.
It didn't work, because the people supported Castro. But did it stop there, when it had been proven that the people was content with their new leader and that a "liberation" was not needed? No. Instead, there was an import stop of sugar from Cuba, Cuba's main export product. So Cuba had only one thing to do, and turned to Sovjet who saw its chance. Things happen, and Castro becomes communist, and Cuba becomes poor.
The "liberation"-attempt did not work, but made it worse for the people of the country it was going to save.
Why not just leave Cuba alone? It hasn't done anything wrong to any other country, so I think the world should respect it as any other country and leave it to recover and save itself first, before any more attempts are made to "save it from itself". A people need to make the first steps in order to really make it. Let people make the first steps, and then we, outsiders, can step in and help them.
Castro had the nerve to throw the Criminal mobsters out of Havana after the revolution. All of our silly posturing, embargos and failed invasions stem from the mobs eviction. The mob has never forgotten the huge loss of revenue, power or prestige
I believe that much of the problems Cuba faces is due the fact that the US decided to isolate the country. Castro was not a communist, but just a "simple" socialist when he came to power, before any embargo was put into action against the country. Socialism works well in many western countries, many of them are among the richest in the world, so socialism isn't a ideology that automatically makes a people/country poor. Isolation does.
What right did the US really have to want to over throw a country leader when he had just come to power of his own country?
As always, your historical perspective is a bit off, Sweden.
The US actually got along fairly well with Castro in the very beginning. He made a very productive visit here which included laying a wreath at the Lincoln Memorial and a friendly chat with then Vice President Richard Nixon.
What began to sour things was his nationalization of American and other holdings, not a few of which were probably Swedish. Perfectly legal if the country gives fair compensation, which he did not. That is theft and indeed you could say that it was Castro who began the Embargo. Add to that scores of summary executions and you had the basis for bad feelings.
Then Cuba threw its lot in with the USSR and you could hardly expect The US and the rest of the West to favor that. Of course you would be correct that this led to a lot of less than savory acts on our part including the aforementioned Bay of Pigs.
Presently, the Cuba situation is actually a Havana vs Miami conflict. Its the continuation of the Cuban civil war between those two with the rest of us just watching and shaking our heads.
As always, your historical perspective is a bit off, Sweden.
The US actually got along fairly well with Castro in the very beginning. He made a very productive visit here which included laying a wreath at the Lincoln Memorial and a friendly chat with then Vice President Richard Nixon.
What began to sour things was his nationalization of American and other holdings, not a few of which were probably Swedish. Perfectly legal if the country gives fair compensation, which he did not. That is theft and indeed you could say that it was Castro who began the Embargo. Add to that scores of summary executions and you had the basis for bad feelings.
Then Cuba threw its lot in with the USSR and you could hardly expect The US and the rest of the West to favor that. Of course you would be correct that this led to a lot of less than savory acts on our part including the aforementioned Bay of Pigs.
Presently, the Cuba situation is actually a Havana vs Miami conflict. Its the continuation of the Cuban civil war between those two with the rest of us just watching and shaking our heads.
Moth, actually you're off, in 1959 when the Batista government fell the US Government immediately recognized the Castro Government however, relations began to sour when the Castro government implemented land reform and US industrial, commercial and agricultural interests in Cuba were nationalized. Then in 1960 Cuba turned to the Soviet Union for aid and support. The US responded by terminating purchases of Cuban sugar and ceasing oil deliveries. Covert operations were coordinated (by the CIA) and also included paramilitary forces of ousted Cubans, who's plan was to invade the island and overthrow Castro.
Last edited by ayannaaaliyah; 10-25-2007 at 09:41 AM..
Reason: spelling/wording
Moth, actually you're off, in 1959 when the Batista government fell the US Government immediately recognized the Castro Government however, relations began to sour when the Castro government implemented land reform and US industrial, commercial and agricultural interests in Cuba were nationalized. Then in 1960 Cuba turned to the Soviet Union for aid and support. The US responded by terminating purchases of Cuban sugar and ceasing oil deliveries. Covert operations were coordinated (by the CIA) and also included paramilitary forces of ousted Cubans, who's plan was to invade the island and overthrow Castro.
Ummm...actually that is what I said, albeit with slightly less detail. We are in agreement so you can reholster that sabre.
Ummm...actually that is what I said, albeit with slightly less detail. We are in agreement so you can reholster that sabre.
Which is also what I said, with slightly less details. We all agree, so let's stop acting as if we didn't.
Taken from Wikipedia (the Swedish version since the English version was a bit more difficult to find the "summarised" facts. It is in the English version too, but this is translated from the Swedish)
"The revolution was not a communistic revolution from the beginning, but had as a primary goal to overthrow Baptista's government. In an interview with New York Times during his time as a guerilla leader, Castro swore that his goal was not to seaze power, but to give Cuba its constitution back. During this time, Castro had a strong support among big parts of the Cuban population, who saw it as a possitive change to replace Baptista's rule. Even the US government thought that Cuba was in need of a change and was at the beginning positive about Castro. When the revolution had prevailed and it was clear that Castro himself took power, instead of re-establishing the democratic constitution, the attitude towards Castro cooled down, to become even more negative after American property on Cuba was nationalized.
From having first been slightly positive towards Castro, the attitude in the US turned into a period of indifference about what happened on Cuba. Then, USA started taking actions that were supposed to stop the development of the new, hostile state. USA initiated its embargo politics and tried to surpress Cuba through economical sanctions. The politics were designed to stop all export to Cuba, and two years later, 1962, to also stop all export from Cuba.
The economical development was made difficult for Cuba, but hardly surprising. Cuba was forced to seek help else where. The choice fell on the other super power at this time: the Sovjet union.
The Cuban traid that had once been dominated by USA shifted. /.../
This forced development resulted in that Cuba started having a more and more communistic politics. One went further and further down the communistic line than had been planned originally./.../"
Fidel Castro - Wikipedia, den fria encyklopedin
So, Cuba was not communistic until it had to turn to the Soviet union due to the US sanctions (because Cuba made its own soil to be owned by the country's own citizens/habitants in order to bring them a chance to make their lives better instead of letting other countries own the land. Was it wrong not to give any money back for it? Sure. But was it really much better to make it harder for an entire people due to the governments mistakes?).
Which is what I said, which is what was also said after me, but in other ways with different facts brought in. So we all agree.
I still think that any people, if it wants to be "saved" or "liberated" should take the first step to do so, and it's not until then that any other country should step in. More intelligence should have to be considered before, accurate intelligence, and people should not draw preconceived judgements based on own interests in the matter. Help from the outside should be aid, not "liberating", and it should be asked to be given. E.g. I don't like my government, and according to recent polls, less than 50% of the population does, but eventhough we would want it replaced somehow, we would not like it if another country stepped in an tried to overthrow it. If we asked for it, and it was evident that the government was downright bad for us, then we would like it, but not otherwise.
It is like advices: no one likes being given an advice when it is not asked for, but loves to hear one when it's needed.
Last edited by Sweden; 10-25-2007 at 11:00 AM..
Reason: added link
Moth, actually you're off, in 1959 when the Batista government fell the US Government immediately recognized the Castro Government however, relations began to sour when the Castro government implemented land reform and US industrial, commercial and agricultural interests in Cuba were nationalized. Then in 1960 Cuba turned to the Soviet Union for aid and support. The US responded by terminating purchases of Cuban sugar and ceasing oil deliveries. Covert operations were coordinated (by the CIA) and also included paramilitary forces of ousted Cubans, who's plan was to invade the island and overthrow Castro.
Much truth in your words. I worked for Domino Sugar from 1969-73. They still had their nose in a sling over losing sugar cane plantations to Castro's land reforms. The Dept of State recognized a $90M claim that Domino had vs the Castro government. IMO, Castro was right in taking back his country from outsiders who appropriated that land for themselves or that 'bought' the land from illegitimate puppet governments/dictators backed up by US firepower.
The legitimacy of those sugar fields as "private property" of US corporations is dubious, no doubt set up as part of our colonial era and banana republic mentality towards our darker skinned neighbors to the south.
I have no gripe with Castro, the cold war is over, let's all move forward and learn how to live as equals and neighbors.
Castro had the nerve to throw the Criminal mobsters out of Havana after the revolution. All of our silly posturing, embargos and failed invasions stem from the mobs eviction. The mob has never forgotten the huge loss of revenue, power or prestige
Agree. I tend to think that when JFK had the CIA make a deal with the Mob to kill Castro, and failed, that either Castro or the Mob then killed JFK. One dead mobster was later found floating in an oil drum off of Miami - killed by?? The Mob was pissed that JFK didn't get Cuba back for the Mob to run. Castro had to be pissed that both the Mob and JFK tried to rub him out. Either way, both groups were pissed and I think one of those two entities killed JFK.
We have made SCORES of attempts on Castro's life, all have failed. No doubt he has a pretty good set of spies of his own.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 10-25-2007 at 01:47 PM..
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.
) and this is what me and others have been trying to say before in other threads. 
