From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:55:04 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Christopher Morton (cmort@NCoast.ORG) wrote:
: As quoted from by d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens):
: 
: But they CAN expand, and any time they want to.

But you said that they had in the last decade an expansionist policy,
the US can blow up the whole planet but that doesn`t me that they have a 
policy to that affect. At least I hope so :-). Having the ressources to
do something doesn`t mean you will do it.

: When Israel looks bad it's generally in situations where it appears to be
: emulating its neighbors.

Again we are talking a different language, I can`t accept this they are 
relatively civilized thing. Israel has a very bad human rights record
and there is even a couple of UN resolutions against it, why then is there
no sanctions and no embargo, being a democracy must give permissions that
I am not aware of...                                                                                                              
: 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.

Don`t even get me started on the gulf war, if you want to know how much 
propaganda is shoved down americas throat, try seeing the Emmy winning 
documentary "selling a war" made by the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation) .  You will see how congress and the american public was
manipulated by the Bush team and the Koweitis in supporting the war.
Very disturbing.

: 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.

The racist view that support the government is a private matter,
implimenting it has led to the current system. Initially I wanted to make
the point that there are things that have most of its impacts inside the
countries thus private and those that have international ramifications,
communism, and that the latter erased the former from the medias eye
and of the worlds agenda for decades. The cold war made nations sell
their souls to combat communism :-).
 
: 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.

We do have a choice, we participated in embargos against Haiti, Irak, and
many others. Russians attacking from the west... Wouldn't they have to go
through Alaska first :-), anyway who would be stupid enough to attack through
Siberia, Alaska, Yukon or the North West territories, Imagine how vulnerable
their supply line would be. Is that what its all about, we have the might 
and we may as well use it now that we don't have the Russians to worry about. 
Saber rattling is a game to noisy for my taste.

: It depends.  If you see Stalinist dictatorship in Cuba as a good thing, then
: it's NOT necessary.

I didn't imply that it was good, but that it wasn't that bad. There is
the question of degree and of equal response to equal foes that doesn't
seem to enter your equation. 

: 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.

Yes this is the issue , you think communist countries are worse by definition,
and I think they are no worse, an embargo existing mainly because
of *ideological* differences shouldn't be allowed to exist. If an anonymous
dictator espousing a capitalist doctrine controlled Cuba, all would then 
be fine for the US's state department, no doubt about that.

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

Your use of stanilism is to strong to describe Castro's regime, no
deed of Castro can match the mass brutality, torture and killing and
the plain criminal negligence of Stalin, even the communists disavowed him.
The thing is that the ideology seems to be the main contentious point,
the whole thing makes sense only if *communism* is the *bad* thing not 
the regimes wrong doing. So the real question is, are you bothered more
by a communist dictator than by a capitalist one, I already know the US's
answer.

: > 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. 

If they can be wrong, I would certainly not get any examples from you. 
If you do offer examples, you would certainly had found some rebuttle to
the same argument coming from me , isn't that strange :-).

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

What... I conceided something! The brutal philantropist clubs with one hand
and gives with the other; the other , the true criminal (sic), is contented
by beating, no one is better but one definetly has a more twisted 
personnality than the other. 

: > Still you seam to condone the help the useful dictator doctrine which I
: > don't.
: 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.

Another attack from the man with two (sic) brains. I wasn't
just talking of the Stalin case, helping dictators is almost never
justified and history prooves just that, again justify Pinochet and Marco .

: > 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.

The question came from the fact that in the US "leftist" is definitely not
the same thing as in Canada and in Europe, all the parties in Quebec
have no real mainstream equivalent in the US: they would be considered 
quite to the left (socialist) there. 

: Lest there be any confusion, I'm challenging your "logic".  It appears quite
: faulty as demonstrated above.

On that particular point, I was right , saying I have faulty logic or facts
doesn't make it so. 

: > secondly I *didn't* say it was okay fo
: > them do do such things but that we should expect better from the hollier tha
: > thou united states of america, land of the free, etc.

: 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.

It depends on the circumstances, nobody would jump on somebody with a gun, 
did the robbed one shoot on sight. Besides why do you drag in this example when
by your own saying the way international politics go has nothing to do with
the way normal people should behave. All equal before the law definetely 
does not apply to countries, for almost every one of them, some more than
others, would be on trial now. 

: 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 somebod to make excuses for them.

Please don't make me cry with your sniveling remarks.
Mister no bias, your bias against Cuba is a good counterpart to my supposedly
overly apologetic attitude towards it. Open your own shutters, and let the
light inside, so much rightousness must be hard to bear. There are other
solutions to the "cuban problem" (sic) , the embargo is not the only one.

: 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.

Oh, you didn't explain Pinochet to me, that should make an interesting 
conversation ...

: 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.

Again innuendos keep rolling in.  I enjoy beating up on my own country
as much as on the US ( in soc.culture.canada), these are the two that I know
the most about; most canadians are much more cynical towards governments
than americans. 

To have force and to know how to use it is not the same thing.
Canada is a heavy backer of the UN in money (pays big dues for its size),
peacekeepers ~8000 in 30 countries ( Lester B Pearson got the Nobel for his
founding of the peacekeeping force), policy (presents resolution that
wouldn't be accepted if they came from the US), structural collaboration
( canadians are present in high numbers troughout the organisation).
This is probably the only thing Canada can really boast about. The US who
likes to use the UN for its own purpose hasn't payed its dues in two years.

: Well, CAN they celebrate Christmas there?

Yes they can, maybe not the NINTENDO style, plastic christmas tree quality,
lights galore, shop till you drop one, but they can.

: > 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....

Au contraire, there was no differences they were both not to good in their 
own way, but the US did act differently.

: > 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....

Situations are not all identical, you will admit a difference between Hitler's
Germany and Castro's regime I hope, or is everything black or white to you. 

: Yeah, who needs that democracy and liberty stuff. : If the Boers built
: a few more health care centers, Nelson Mandela would just shut up and go home,
: wouldn't he...?

Crumbs and semblance are terms that usually mean that they are left with
nearly nothing, crumbs of democracy does not equal democracy. Communist
regimes espouse equality of all, so the black south africans would be
better off under a communist dictatorship than under the actual racist
regime as deplorable as that may be.

: > 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.

You may be right, lets see the health care system is universal and
not to bad (The US embargo makes it hard to get curency to buy medication),
overall poverty is way down from 30 years ago and finally the life expectancy
has risen dramatically. Now lets see how many people died of crime related,
corruption related, police related crime during Batista's regime and Castro's 
regime; i'll venture a guess, that can be substantified if needed, that it
comes about equal. Now, how many people were saved, lets count them up,
I guess Castro's regime is great then :-) cause there are a lot more people
ALIVE than if Batista's regime had continued. 

: > 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.

They were forced to laugh at it because they know that it is only by
keeping the economy strong and the people content that they can keep
communism going. But as I already said, the first things you want is your basic needs, those needs can be fulfilled by communism more readily than capitalism,
but the other needs liberty, leisure, etc, cannot. So at first, when the 
country is poor, communism is an attractive solution because it promises  
fast results, building a capitalist economy is harder because most of
it is built on trust which is hard to earn. 

: The inevitable contact with the outside world has changed China.

Not inevitable, it happened because policies towards it were softer than
towards Cuba.

: If that WASN'T the case, why didn't the Cuban economy PROSPER when it had
: the ENTIRE communist bloc to trade with?

The natural trading partner of Cuba is the US, just like us , trading
with a neighbourg entails less costs, better turnovers, better marketing;
the USSR is on the other side of the world which is not condusive to 
good trade.  The COMECON bloc was an artificially maintained apparatus
that lead all its members to ruin. Trading between the communist countries
was not very profitable, you exchanged goods for other goods you didn't
produce. 

: 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.

They do have something of great value, TOURISM, cuba could easily beat out
the bahamas, jamaica, and all those surrounding islands that make a great 
living out of tourism. They have the best beaches in the carabean, ask
anyone who has visited a couple of them, a rich cultural history (oldest
cities in america 1514), rich aquatic and land wildlife, lively peoples, 
cheap prices, corral reafs all around. If Cuba was opened up
to american tourism they could make a bundle, Havana alone would be worth
the price of the plane ticket (I know, I have been there).             
As for the sugar cane, they didn't have any incentive to modernize under the
COMECON trading bloc, I have also been into a East German Kombinat (gigantic
production complex that is totally self sufficient with all the shortcomings
that that entails) and you don't want to know how inefficient
they were (GASP!). I like to travel, that should be obvious.              
Anyway, if the US market opens they will have to adapt to the prices there.
No one will be shoving anything, cocaine or sugar cane :-), down anyones throat.

: > 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?

Again abusive matching (Nazi Germany - Cuba), these are not two bird
of a feather. The amounts of change needed in germany were gigantic, those
needed in Cuba are much less ingrained and can be done gradually. A violent
revolution leads to the unknown and not necessarily to a good stable
democracy; but I guess the US prefers any dictator that isn't a communist to
the present situation. 

BTW : I'll have to trim down the discussion (post) the next time,
15K responses are a bit bothersome when you have a life , some email 
to answer and ongoing discussions in 4 other groups :-). 

--
SEIZE THE DAY, MAKE YOUR LIFE EXTRAORDINARY .  "Dead Poets Society"

Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique      | 
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Can | To indeed be a god ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------