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: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 14:53:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Dec24.214945.10656@vlsi.polymtl.ca> by d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens):

> Christopher Morton (cmort@NCoast.ORG) wrote:
> : by d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens):
> : > such an arrogant argumentation , taking my post and changing selective
> : > words to proove a point, won't sway me that's for sure.
> : > 
> : I figured it wouldn't sway you.  I didn't think you'd like it either.  Of 
> : course I don't have any obligation to post things that you LIKE.  That you
> : were SOOOO agitated by it certainly indicates that it got to you.  Good.
> 
> What is the point then, If it just to iritate me, why do you bother 
> posting at all, this is supposed to be a place to convince people 
> of your point not just throwing them catch phrases and hoping it will
> make a sentence.
> 
Obviously you still think that the point of this group is for people to agree
with you.  You're mistaken.  The fact that you are SOOOO put out by 
disagreement points up a certain self-perceived weakness in your argument.

> : > Fascism existed in south africa before Hitler, Germany didn't invent it. 
> : > As for the spread of apartheid , apartheid is a homegrown solution and
> : > there wasn't : > any reason for it to spread, where could it go.
> : 
> : Really?  The borders of RSAF can expand as far as they have men and materiel
> : to expand them.
> 
> 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. Their is a parallel
> here between the way they treated surrounding countries and the way
> Israel treats surrounding countries. 
> 
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?

> : "Fascism" existed in South Africa before Hitler?  How about describing this
> : "fascism"?  The antecedents of NAZISM originated in Austria.
> 
> You are wrong, fascism is not a thing that crawled out of the bush suddenly,
> this is the dictionary definition (traduction for French) :
> 
> Fascism : Regime established in Italy from 1922 to 1945 based on dictatorship,
> patriotic exaltation and corporatism.
> 
> You see that Hitler didn't invent it, the word first stuck to 
> Mussolini, the word is of italian origin, but there existed countries
> like south africa that espoused fascist doctrines before they were 
> named as such.             
> 
I suggest that you do more than read ONE dictionary entry.  I suggest that you
read some history of the nazi and fascist movements.  You don't appear to have
much background in this area.  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.

> : > You are confusing the fact that before 
> : > the last few years there was a clear distinction between private 
> : > matters (racism) and global matters (communism) the latter 
> : > upstaging the former by far. 
> : 
> : "PRIVATE"?  RSAF's neighbors didn't think it was so "private", especially
> : when SADF personnel were wandering back and forth across their borders at 
> : will, KILLING people.
> 
> I said that before the 80's, those events where not considered important
> when compared to the cold war and communism. Is is not my policy but
> the US's policy in that period, the south african's were decidedly
> anti communist and their racism was a price the US was willing to pay.
> 
Don't change the subject.  Was it a "PRIVATE" matter to RSAF's neighbors?

> : China has nuclear weapons.  If Cuba did, we'd be nicer to them too.
> 
> You didn't put a smiley so I have to conclude that you find this normal,
> you then I have the same twisted sense of what is right as the 
> american leaders of now an yesterday. From what you say only those
> can defend themselves have earned their right to a dictatorship.

It's always sad when reality intrudes on a pleasant fantasy, but that's the
way life is.  Feel free to point out a counterexample in the REAL world.

> And you expect me to conclude that it is a good reason to continue 
> the embargo on Cuba. Really ?
> 
No, I expect you to conclude that that is why the embargo is POSSIBLE, not why
it's good.

> : > First , the US didn't really help the USSR during WWII, they had begun
> : > to fight back the germans before D-day. I submit that if D-day hadn't
> : 
> : Then the Soviets built all of those P-39s, P-40s, P-47s, White halftracks, 
> : etc, etc, etc. themselves?  Lend Lease was just a myth?  Buy a history book,
> : you might enjoy it.
> 
> Go get yourself your own, that was pitance compared to what they needed,
> the US didn't save Europe, most of the damage done to the German's was 
> done on the eastern front which was some sort of hell to them. It is by
> their shear numbers that they overwealmed Germany not by some token
> piece of machinery.
> 
"Token piece of machinery"?  I see you haven't gotten that history book yet.
The Red Army used everything from boots to bombers imported from the West.
Any claim to the contrary is fantasy.  Some of them are still on display at
military museums in Russia and elsewhere.

> : > come, the russians would have beaten the germans by themselves. The Russians
> : > were asking for a second front since 1942, but by the time they got it
> : > in June 1944 it was no longer absolutly necessary. At the end of the war,
> : > the americans wanted as much to beat the germans as to prevent the
> : > russians from taking all germany. So again their motives were not
> : > pure in their *help* of the russians. 
> : > 
> : Can you name somebody with "pure" motives?  I didn't think so.
> 
> What kind of reply is that, you tell me that the US helped Russia and
> when I show you that it is at best a half truth, you tell me 
> that that was expected. At least be consistent. 
> 
It's the reply that your comment merited.  Your's was not grounded in reality.
Mine WAS.

> : > The US did not have and still does not have to urge to get rid of every 
> : > fascist country, only those that cross its path. There are numerous 
> : > examples troughout the 20th century :
> : > 
> : Yes, and?  I suppose we invaded Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, 
> : Afghanistan, Poland and Czechoslovakia too....
> 
> Lets see, first of all Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czechoslovakia and
> Poland. They were all traded off at Yalta I think, Rosevelt did 
> a very bad deal then. They were all under control of a local communist
> party that was manned by local despots, only if they wandered from
> the true faith did they suffer ( Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 ).
> They were on the USSR's leach, but should you really be comparing the 
> actions of a totalitarian regime with that of a democracy, I think
> not, the results are not very flatering for the democracy. 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.
> 
I see you REALLY need that history book.   TWO countries invaded Poland in
1939.  Can you name them?  The Baltic countries and Finland were invaded by
a neighbor BEFORE the Germans attacked the USSR.  Can you name that country?

"Consistent"?  So I suppose that a consistent rapist is better than an 
inconsistent philanthropist....

> : > - Iraq , Sadaam was a good guy (sic) until he attacked the oil fieilds
> : >   of Koweit, the US supported him during the Iran-Iraq war; 
> : 
> : Just like Stalin was temporarily a "good guy" as long as he was fighting the
> : Germans.  Think we should have left him to the Germans?  Maybe we would have
> : had "pure motives" then....
> 
> Your kind of logic is hard to follow, the Iran-Iraq war declared by Irak
> unlike Russia who was attacked by Germany, still because the US tought they
> could gain some advantage by destroying muslim fundamentalism they supported
> Sadaam. That doesn't compare especially when the true nature of Stalin's
> reign wasn't know during the war and as to being left to the german's
> this would have been as I said earlier to Stalin's advantage because
> he would had won in the end.  
> 
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.  Instead, leftists in the
West chose to pretend that it wasn't happening and parrot the lies of 
prostitutes like Walter Duranty.

> : > - Afghanistan , the Moujahadine are not saints, they are now fighting
> : >   themselves and they grew and still grow opium for the heroin market;.
> : 
> : Let's bomb your hometown flat, torture your parents and rape your sister, then
> : see what YOU are willing to sell....
> 
> 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?

> : > None of these involvments were justified locally, but what's good 
> : > for the US is good for the world :-| so they were still done.
> : 
> : I'd list ALL of the dictators that the Soviets and Chinese and CUBANS have
> : supported, but I have to be someplace in an hour....
> 
> Again you are comparing a democracy with totalitarian regimes, this is
> not something you should do unless you want to have heavy remorses on
> your conscience. And for every evolvment all of those countries have
> done the US has replied, it has even added its own involvments just to
> make sure that it held the first rank in the list of countries that 
> put their nose in everybody's business. 
> 
Again I'm knocking holes in your "argument" and it's annoying you.  Apparently,
it's ok to repress, starve, torture, and execute millions so long as you're 
upfront about it.  Unfortunately the Soviet Union and its clones were never
upfront about it either.

> I see that you didn't explain the rest of my list, there are no 
> explanations that can be found. They where absolute unwaranted 
> involvments in other peoples affairs.
> 
I didn't have TIME.  As I said, I had to be someplace in an hour.  Pointing out
all of the logical and factual flaws in your argument would have kept me there
for hours.

> : > it is to be meaningfull. Compared to the other countries
> : > that the US has associated itself with, the cuban's human rights
> : > record is not even close to being the worse. Hypocrisy is
> : 
> : I have friends whose relatives became fertilizer on the Isle of Pines who
> : disagree.
> 
> Knowing somebody like that is not the proof that it is the most evil country
> on the planet, of course it is a very emotional example that is often
> used to justify an action when presented to the media's.      

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...?

> I didn't say that they didn't do anything, almost every country including
> the US has some blemishes on their record, but you have to keep it 
> in perspective, they are not close to being the worse. Besides, the cuban 
> americans have for years been doing a very nasty propoganda bit against
> Cuba so it is difficult to know what is true from what is not. 
> 
Obviously the "right perspective" has a blind spot EXACTLY the size of Cuba.

> : > That's what the US does on a regular basis, selective moral comtempt.
> : > if the cuban embargo was based on a true altruistic do good attitude
> : > it would be applied consistently against all those countries that
> : > infrindge international law, if it is not so it must be a purely
> : > political decision. 
> : > 
> : I'll be damned if I can name ANYTHING based on "true altruism" which has
> : caused less harm than good.
> 
> You must then live in a very cynical world, when not applied to the whole

Yes, it's called EARTH.

> world altruism can do good. The problem is that the altruism used in
> international politics is tainted with all sort of hidden agendas
> that twist it around and gives its not so benign nature.
> 
That's the altruism you're talking about.   It's like a model T.  You can
get any kind of international altruism you want... so long as it's the kind
you already see.

> : > we do not support the cuban embargo though, we can travel
> : > to Cuba without hastle and their goods are readily available here.
> : 
> : Wrong kind of dictatorship I guess....
> 
> If you remember what preceded Castro, you would see that he has not
> been such a bad *dude*, the preceding regime led to poverty, 

Oh my... you seem to be comparing apples and oranges.  How can you POSSIBLY
compare Batista and Castro.  After all, those were entirely DIFFERENT forms
of government.  The next thing you know, you'll be comparing the US and the
Soviet Union....

> a very decadent atmosphere (HAVANA in the 40's an 50's look it up) ,
> little education and health care, american companies took all and
> gave nothing back. That corrupted regime was supported by the 
> americans, Is Cuba worse of now, if it were not for the embargo 
> it would in great economical shape. Again we don't support an embargo
> on Cuba because it is not necessary, let history run its course don't
> try to help it by twisting an arm.
> 
I'd call drug dealing and shooting your erstwhile accomplices in the same, 
MILDLY corrupt....


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65197 ca.politics:10487 ba.politics:7883