From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 15:43:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Dec26.034506.21651@vlsi.polymtl.ca> by d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens):

> Christopher Morton (cmort@NCoast.ORG) wrote:
> : As quoted from by d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens):
> : > 
> : > All attacks where originally to get to the bases of those that attacked
> : > them (ANC), there was no initial design on the countries around them,
> : > their involvment in Angola started the same way.
> : > 
> : I'm sure that that is a HIGHLY relevant distinction to both the Angolans and
> : the Lebanese.  Think the Lebanese don't miss the "security zone" because of
> : Israel's security needs?
> 
> But it does answer the fact that you said they wanted to expand when in
> fact there involvment in neighbouring countries was linked to the
> attacks by the ANC from those countries. I didn`t say it was a Good thing;

But they CAN expand, and any time they want to.  In such circumstances such a
country usually WILL.  Why do you think that South Africa has as much territory
as it DOES?  The Boers expanded until they ran into the Zulus.  They functioned
as a check on each other.

> I`ll add that Israels treatment of the palestinians and their abuse 
> of international law has not lead to a real reaction of the US against it 
> for political reasons : the jewish diaspora in the US has a lot 
> of political clout. 

1. In comparison to the rest of the states in the area, Israel on its worst
day, generally looks better than its neighbors on their worst.  That's not a
pro-Israeli statement, it's a mere statement of fact.  Most of the regimes in
the area are of dubious legitimacy and some are downright odious.  When Israel
looks bad it's generally in situations where it appears to be emulating its
neighbors.

2. The Arab-Americans are gaining on the Jewish-Americans in lobbying power.
There are now always pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian spokesmen to comment on
significant events.  This was very evident during the Gulf War.
> 
> Mussolini took power in 1922 and his followers
> didn't just materialize so fascism is not a German institution. If you 
> are talking about the pure race thing, that originated in the mid 
> 19th century from the theories of some german scientists and were used
> later by the Nazis. 
> 
Like I said, do some reading on the subject.

> :  And I'm still waiting to hear the "fascist"
> : doctrines espoused by South Africa prior to the establishment of either the
> : Italian or German fascist states.
> 
> The south africans were certainly corporatist, espoused patriotic exaltation,
> ( white race and all), and a kind of dictatorship ( one party always win ) and
> no votes to the majority. In following this definition it espoused some kind 
> of semi-fascist ( the semi is to prevent nit picking) regime. 

1. Please provide a time frame for this assertion.

2. Please provide a source.

> Besides, we are way off the initial subject of the necessity or not of the
> cuban embargo.
> 
No we aren't, we're talking about justifications for intervention.

> : Don't change the subject.  Was it a "PRIVATE" matter to RSAF's neighbors?
> 
> I didn't change the subject at all, when I was talking about private I
> was talking about racism, I even put it between brackets so I wouldn't
> be misunderstood, but you choose to see what you wanted to see. To fight
> communism was more important to the US than fighting racism ( maybe because
> for a long time there was segregation at home also ). The main problem
> here is internal (PRIVATE), it is the cause of all those excursions in
> neighbouring countries, institutionalized racism is a private matter that
> has repercussions in the region. Fighting the excursions would be useless,
> the solution to this problem is internal and those who suffer the most
> are the inhabitants of the country.
> 
Since apartheid is a GOVERNMENT policy, it is NOT a "private" matter.  The 
state policy of the RSAF was based on apartheid.  It's foreign relations were
calculated to support that policy.

> : Feel free to point out a counterexample in the REAL world.
> 
> The counterexample is that Canada treats Cuba and China in the same way,
> in THE REAL WORLD not in fantasyland. But we do curtail 
> our foreign aid to any country that has a bad human rights record
> which the US does not.          

You only make my point for me.  Canada has no CHOICE.  It's UNABLE to do 
anything else.  The Canadian military would do well to CONTAIN a Russian
attack from the west, much less successfully intervene anywhere.

> : No, I expect you to conclude that that is why the embargo is POSSIBLE, not why
> : it's good.
> 
> But that was the question, is it still necessary, what are talking about then?
> 
It depends.  If you see Stalinist dictatorship in Cuba as a good thing, then
it's NOT necessary.   But then that raises other issues, such as whether ALL
embargoes are wrong, or just those against Stalinist states.  In many cases,
the latter is the REAL agenda.

> : > It is by their shear numbers that they overwealmed Germany not by some token
> : > piece of machinery.
> : Any claim to the contrary is fantasy.  Some of them are still on display at
> : military museums in Russia and elsewhere.
> 
> Of course I should have put a smiley there, this help helped somewhat but
> was not the main reason they were capable of fighting of the germans.
> 
Lend Lease from Britain and the US got the Russians over some VERY bad spots 
indeed.  When you pick up most of your industrial base and move it, it's kind
of hard to turn out tanks, trucks, boots and planes while the machines are on
the rail cars.  That's one reason why the Red Army Airforce had the opportunity
to find out the benefits of the P-63 as a ground attack aircraft.  They'd
already LOST a large portion of the domestic product on the ground.

> : It's the reply that your comment merited.  Your's was not grounded in reality.
> : Mine WAS.
> 
> The problem I have with your comments is that they are always (supposedly) 
> dipped in absolute reality. I don't claim to be god, the US has done some 
> stupid things but they also did some good things, but we are talking 
> about one of those non sensical decisions : the continuing cuban embargo.

There's nothing nonsensical about it.  It depends upon whether Stalinism 
imposed upon a population bothers you as much as apartheid does.

> Read the other comments in this tread and you will see that they are not as
> categorical on the subject as you are : americans can be wrong, and it 
> is *almost certainly* the case here.
> 
Of course we can.  We just AREN'T with respect to the embargo.  It's another
strawman.

> : > At least the USSR was consistent internally with its external actions
> : > which is not the case of the US. It is this discrepancy that I abhore.
> : "Consistent"?  So I suppose that a consistent rapist is better than an 
> : inconsistent philanthropist....
> 
> Please, we have enough baggage without bringing criminal law or 
> psychology in the picture. If you give with one hand and club someone
> with the other, I guess there is no real differences between the two; well,
> maybe the philantropist (sic) is a bit more twisted :-).
> 
Your concession is noted....

> : > That doesn't compare especially when the true nature of Stalin's
> : > reign wasn't know during the war.
> : > 
> : That is outright nonsense.  The nature of Stalin's regime had been known since
> : BEFORE the great purge.  People KNEW what had happened in the Ukraine.  People
> : KNEW about the mass executions and deportations.
> 
> So I admit to being wrong on that point, I should have said they didn't know
> the whole truth, which was even more horrible than the one they knew about.
> Still you seam to condone the help the useful dictator doctrine which I
> don't, this is a philosophical divergence that can't be easily debated for
> it is entrenched.
> 
They knew very nearly the whole truth.  They just chose to IGNORE it.  And as
I said, we helped Stalin to get rid of Hitler.  If you can think of a BETTER
idea, please submit it.  I doubt that any such idea could be grounded in 
historical fact or logic.

> : Instead, leftists in the
> : West chose to pretend that it wasn't happening and parrot the lies of 
> : prostitutes like Walter Duranty.
> 
> Why just the leftist, do you have a negative bias towards the leftist,
> a lot of people sat on there ass then, not just them. 
> 
Because the leftists were the cheerleading squad for Stalin.  There was a 
well organized movement in the West, which was extremely pro-Soviet.  By the
early '30s that meant pro-STALIN.  The Soviet government was VERY adept at
manipulating that movement, even to the point of causing it to commit 
suicide as in the case of the German Communist Party.  

> : > Distorted logic again? They are *still* killing themselves 
> : > and Russia is not involved, they are still selling opium and they were
> : > selling it before 1979, what escuse did they have then for selling it 
> : > and why are they stabbing themselves in the back now.
> : > 
> : The former Soviets are still killing THEMSELVES and the Germans have been gone
> : since '44.  What's your point?
> 
> Please read your own posts, you were saying that the reason they sold drugs
> was that they were bombed out which is definitely not true; and I added 
> that you couldn't say that it was the russians that bombed them now. I answered
> your allegations , how can I not have a point then. 
> 
Lest there be any confusion, I'm challenging your "logic".  It appears quite
faulty as demonstrated above.

> First of all you are going *around* my arguments not through them by always
> dragging new things into the picture, secondly I *didn't* say it was okay for
> them do do such things but that we should expect better from the hollier than
> thou united states of america, land of the free, etc.
> 
And I continue to say that that's an anti-rational attitude.  It's the kind of
attitude that one sees in somebody who watches passively as somebody is robbed,
then condemns the victim for shooting the robber.  You have an inbuilt bias in
favor of the robber and of Castro.  Under those circumstances they have NO
incentive to modify their behavior.  And why should they?  They've got somebody
to make excuses for them.

> Yes the I don't have time routine, very convenient, this list was factual
> look at it again.
> 
You should have figured out the deal from the ones I DID address.  I doubt 
that you would have liked the others.  Be glad I didn't address them.

> : Nice strawman.  Feel free to QUOTE where I said that Cuba was the "most evil
> : country on the planet".  What's that, you CAN'T...?
> 
> Of course you didn't say it, ever hear of irony, I think not. 

I've heard of irony.  I just haven't seen any of the INTENTIONAL variety in
your posts.

> : > I didn't say that they didn't do anything, almost every country including
> : Obviously the "right perspective" has a blind spot EXACTLY the size of Cuba.
> 
> Maybe you think I am a communist of some kind, I don't have that blind
> spot towards Cuba, I just don't see more than what is there. And there is

No, I just think you're gullible and enjoy beating up on the US because it 
let's you enjoy the illusion of moral superiority that physical powerlessness
often conveys.

> a nasty anti cuban propoganda in the US, just look up the story about the
> pilot that was able to get his familly out of Cuba. Bush said that the
> communists had destroyed familly values there, but it is a fact that 
> the cuban familly unit is still very strong. The pilot also said that his
> familly could now exist, that children couldn't celebrate christmas there
> ( very nauseating display of propaganda). I can almost see Castro as the
> Grinch who stole christmas. 
> 
Well, CAN they celebrate Christmas there?

> : > You must then live in a very cynical world, when not applied to the whole
> : Yes, it's called EARTH.
> 
> But this can change, it is not fate, decision that were bad can be 
> reneged on.
> 
Yes, it CAN change.  All you have to do is wipe out mankind....

> [ accidentally deleted something about comparing Batista and Castro 
> was like comparing apple and oranges. ]
> 
Oh, yeah.  One of those "accidents" like the one that Stalin arranged for
Kirov's bodyguard.... :)

> It was the results that I compared, not the regime. 
> The Batista regime was a puppet of the US and was democratic only for

Well that's their REAL crime.  Obviously once Cuba became a puppet of the
Soviet Union, all was goodness and light....

> there was a reason why he was overthrown by the then much less
> communist Castro. Most cubans don't remember how bad it was before,
> some were rich but most were poor. Cuba was *almost* a colony
> of the US. Castro did enjoy a popular support when he overthrew Batista, 
> and it is only when the US became overtly hostile towards his *socialist*
> policies that he turned towards the USSR for help (becoming a communist 
> in the process).  
> 
Hitler enjoyed popular support as well....

> : I'd call drug dealing and shooting your erstwhile accomplices in the same, 
> : MILDLY corrupt....
> 
> The important thing is that the people are better educated, richer
> on the average (could be better without the embargo), in better health
> and was did they loose, a semblance of democracy and the crumbs of liberty.

Yeah, who needs that democracy and liberty stuff.  Those crybabies in South
Africa and El Salvador are always whining about that too.  If the Boers built
a few more health care centers, Nelson Mandela would just shut up and go home,
wouldn't he...?

> When you are very poor liberty is having enough to live on, other 
> philosophical considerations are not as relevant. Batista's regime was 

And when you live under a Stalinist regime liberty is being ALIVE.

> terrible for the average cuban and that is the thruth, the rising 
> opposition to Castro's regime comes from the fact that once there basic
> needs are catered to they want more: liberty as defined by us becomes the 
> next objective and Castro's regime can't give it in its current form.
> Someone in this thread said that the best way to change a country is
> by *not* closing all lines to them and that is why China will probably
> become a democracy faster than Cuba; democracy is more contagious than 

China will become a democracy faster than Cuba (maybe) because they have
already realized that a Marxist economy is a JOKE.  The inevitable contact
with the outside world has changed China.  That's why Castro is vehement in
his public determination to run the Cuban economy into the ground.  He doesn't
want trade, he wants SUBSIDIES.  If that WASN'T the case, why didn't the 
Cuban economy PROSPER when it had the ENTIRE communist bloc to trade with?
For the SAME reason that exists NOW.  They have NOTHING to trade, and NOTHING
to PAY with.  I'm sorry, the US government is NOT going to pay cocaine prices
for Cuban sugar.  Has it escaped your attention that the Russians won't any
longer EITHER?  Captain Fidel "Hazelwood" is steering the Exxon Havana 
straight for the rocks.  He doesn't have any choice... not if he wants to 
remain caudillo.

> that the US wants without resulting in the violent revolution that the 
> current policy seams to be leading to. Gradual change is preferable to 
> bloody and unpredictable change. That means that the policy that the US

Would you have been in favor of "gradual change" in nazi Germany?



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc