From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 1 Jan 93 14:57:06 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):
: 
: > Christopher Morton (cmort@NCoast.ORG) wrote:
: > : As quoted from by d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens):
: > : 

: 1. Compared to their neighbors, the Israelis are sweetness and light.
: I don't think they're angels either, but I try to keep these things in
: perspective.

Now you have perspective (sic) (can't believe that one), If you would have any
perspective at all you would see that Cuba isn't much worse than Israel,
Israel has not only infridge on the rights of the palestinians, they 
have also infridged international law many times. And are currently doing
so right now. Like somebody said in another thread "the palestinian
who is gutshot by a Jew doesn`t really care to know if one he as been shot
by a democrat (sic) or by a dictator backed henchman".

: 2. Apparently, anti-democratic conferred latitude is ok, but democratic
: conferred latitude is not.  I detect a bias here.

I have ***always*** said that they are no worse, not *ok*, if you are 
to argue at least use what I said not what you would have wanted me to say.

[ deleted, many examples of propaganda throughout the ages including
the sad song sung to Sadaam ]

They invented facts, many facts, were not just talking *sad songs* 
here, the Koweitis that went before congress and the american people
who were suppose to be witnesses of crimes done by the Irakis 
were in fact members of the *ruling familly*, the infamous killing
of the babies in the incubator was a total fraud. The government knew
they where lying, they were lying themselves by doctoring aerial photos
so there seamed to be more irakis in Koweit that there actually were. 
Look at the documentary and see if you find such a propaganda normal (sic).
For Bush lying to congress is not a problem, so I understand that 
this kind of abuse is completely in his league. 

: The cold war made nations do what was necessary to not become communist
: nations.  It worked too.

I was saying that all along, they and especially the US did stupid things
to other countries so *they* would not become communist. Any means are
justified then to stop communism Mr Morton, plain dictatorship or 
democracy gone awry doesn't merit similar scrutiny though, strange things
happen in your mind :-).

: > We do have a choice, we participated in embargos against Haiti, Irak, and
: Your choice was that or NOTHING.  You don't have the ABILITY to make other
: choices.  Supply lines are only vulnerable if the other side has the ability
: to attack them.

This is nonsense, Canada posseses more than 100 F18 that could menace
easily any fool who would want to attack in the great north, you have never
been there obviously so you don't know how impossible such a thing is. 

: I think that dictatorships are bad by definition.  You apparently think that
: some dictatorships are better than others.  An identified Stalinist dictator
: already controls Cuba and you don't think he's such a bad guy.

I think they are *equal* in their badness but the US doesn't treat them
equally, that is the point I am defending, some were and are still treated
like friends.

: > 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.
: 
: I don't recall Castro ever having condemned Stalin.  Do you have
: a quote?  Stalinism is EXACTLY the way to describe the Cuban system, if ONLY
: for the PERVASIVE system of surveillance and personal control.

Give me a break, Castro came to power when Kroushtchev was in power and
already they were backtracking on Stalins policies; he didn't need to
say anyting, just not to do the same things. I can accept stanilism applied
to Cuba if you don't imply with it the same barbarism done by Stalin's regime.
 
: > 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.
: > 
: I don't speak for the US.  I speak for ME.  I don't like dictatorships PERIOD.
: In practical terms, a Stalinist and a fascist are identical.  Both destroy
: the individual in the name of an illusory ideology.  Unlike you, I'm not
: trying to justify one of them.

Being against this embargo, doesn't mean I condone them, who as tunnel vision
here, you want to pin a label on me very badly... It is the opinion of
the US I am interested in, and as I said, I am sure they wouldn't be so
pissed off at a capitalist dictator in Cuba. 

: Want an example of a bad US policy?  Sure.  Our policy toward Haiti is stupid
: and futile.  Of course the European flauting of the OAS embargo doesn't
: make THEM look good either.  By the way, how well is CANADA abiding by the
: embargo?

We have been the first supporter
of the embargo, even before the US got involved, as you may know the OAS
is not very fond of the US for historical reasons, so it is by Canada`s
implication that the embargo was accepted by the OAS. The only problem
with it is that it isn`t tight enough, vilain Cuba :-) is under a much
tighter guard from the US. The US involvment in haiti as been ambivalent
because they *almost* prefer the current dictators to Bertrand Aristides
socialist leaning government. This policy is bad because it was applied 
halfheartedly. Beware if you venture in a discussion
in this erea, I live in Montreal where there is a 100000 strong haitian
community, a lot of them of the intellectual elite ( engineers, teachers, etc),
the haitian cultural center is 2min from my home. I am sure to find
someone to refute any drivel you may commit on this subject :-).                    
: > If you do offer examples, you would certainly had found some rebuttle to
: > the same argument coming from me , isn't that strange :-).
: > 
: Strange but true, huh?  Like I said, I don't have "favorite" types of 
: dictatorship.  I dislike them all... unlike you.

Notice that you finish every phrase with a totally gratuitous insult.
You may dislike both, but the US really dislikes one, the 
communist dictator, and it is that contradiction that I am putting
forward; this contradiction takes away any moral credibility of the US
in this matter and then leaves open only one reason for the embargo :
petty politics. Saying that Cuba is no worse than the multitude 
of dictators the US has supported is only showing the hole in their 
whole official argumentation of the embargo, not a support of Cuba
itself, if petty politics is a reasonable reason to do an embargo
then tell me now and I will finish this discussion. Because for me
this is not an acceptable reason although it seems to be for some, I will
then be prooven right (because of my beliefs) and the others will also
think they are right (because of their own beliefs). So we can be both
right if we don`t discuss the basis of the conclusion, petty politics as
reason for international actions.

: > : > : "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. 
: > 
: So it's better to be a consistent thief?  That's what I thought you'd say.

What horrifies people most : the gentle familly man who kills once in a
while. Because it boggles the mind that a man could kiss is children goodnight
and then kill in cold blood in the same night; also it strike home the message
that appearances may hide an ugly thruth. If you see it in this light
my conclusion is not aberant, consistency is what would be expected from
the US, applying abroad the principles they hold dear at home.

: Just answer the question.  Are you afraid to?  Should we have helped Stalin
: against Hitler, YES or NO?

Talk about babbling, I answer almost everything you put on screen while
you avoid almost everything I say by always diverting the
subject towards your fixations. Ok I`ll answer the damn question. Yes 
I would help, but I would have done it differently,
they should had asked concessions from the start. It was to late in Yalta
when Russia was in a position of force in east Europe and on the offensive,
to try to get back the countries that were invaded : Yalta was such a bad
deal because they could no longer cut any other deal. A deal in 1942 
would have been very different, a different world would have ensued.
Now can I ask you about Marco and Pinochet, go get you book of autorised
lies and give me your best shot...

: Nor does the contrary.  The weight lies with the facts.  Your argument is
: to say the least slim.

Slim if you are the ALL KNOWING you claim to be even if the evidence against
you holding such a title is stagering :-). 

: > : > secondly I *didn't* say it was okay fo
: > : > them do do such things but that we should expect better from the hollier
: > : > 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. 
: > 
: 1. Could you rephrase this so that I can understand what you mean?
: 
: 2. My comment stands.

Your comment there stands as a monument to your colossal arrogance.

Lets see your train of thoughts : 
- I don`t understand what he said;
- I am all knowing so this must be giberish;
- If it is giberish, it means he can`t answer intelligently;
- if he is dumbfounded, I am prooven right (as I believed all along).

Get yourself a clue, and maybe, you will be able to understand the 
paragraph: it is written using plain english. The first sentence reads
like this ( the rest is left as an exercice for your feable mind): 

You ask question ( read it again )

I answer : It depends on the circumstances 
Examples of those circumstances  
	1. nobody jumps on someone with a gun 
	2. did the robbed one shoot on sight  
translation for the obtuse
	   did the one who was robbed shoot the robber on sight.

: I'm biased against Cuba AND South Africa.  You're only biased against ONE.

I would say that position follows that of Canada in that matter, are you
saying that our politicians ( all commie lovers are they )
are all biased that way. The entire political spectrum of most of the
country of the world have acted in a similar way ( again they are commie
loving fools ), isn`t it peculiar that somehow only the US has seen the
evil that lies there in Cuba. A country with a substantial very anti-communist
community that hates Castro with a fervor is the only one to be
on the right path, biased with reason (sic) against Cuba. I believe in no
such coincidences, internal politics plays a major role here in the final
decision to continue the embargo. 

: No problem.  You enjoy beating up on anybody but dictators, for whom you have
: a ready stock of excuses.  If Canada became a Stalinist dictatorship you
: would have more excuses....

Go get yourself reading glasses, you vision must be blurred to answer
such drivel to my frank assertion that I attack what I think is wrong
anywhere, even in my own country. 

: > 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).
: 
: Keeping a lot of peace in Bosnia, are they?

Your fowl mouth is becoming a drag, they were sent there to help the food
shipments and the situation there is a lot more difficult than the 
Somalia cakewalk (we also have 1000 troops there). there is a reason that
Mr. Bush doesn`t want to commit ground troups n Bosnia : it is a stategic
nightmare. It would probably take 150000 troups just to put down the
serb militia, if the serbian federal army gets involved this could
jump to 400000; the casualty rates would be high.

: The US stopped paying its dues because they were being misused and skimmed.
: The last I heard we were planning to catch up again.

You eat up the official policy that`s for sure, no proofs exist of such
a thing, the fact is that the US didn`t like the way the UN was run
(not just economically) and cut of the tap. The US tought they mismanaged
their money, but who are they to judge when the american finances are
such a mess; the UN was a easy target for politically motivated
recession time cuts in the budget. The US tought they were too left-wing
oriented, that was even the official reason they had for cutting their
cotisation to one of the UN`s main agency UNESCO about a year before they 
stopped all UN payments. They said that the director of this agency
had to leave if they where to resume the payments ( it was one
of the conditions). This and other things have been done but still
the US is denying payments even though the UN is almost bankrupt.

: > Yes they can, maybe not the NINTENDO style, plastic christmas tree quality,
: > lights galore, shop till you drop one, but they can.
: > 
: In other words, they CAN'T celebrate it, except in Stalinist government
: approved ways.  What do YOU celebrate?  Describe proper limits on your
: ability to celebrate it.

Christmas is still celebrated in poor countries, the restriction to the
celebration in CUBA is economical not imposed by the state. If you think
you need to consume in great quantity to celebrate christmas, or enjoy it,
your vision of life is deeply warped; they still have familly reunions,
artisanal toys that children can love has much as the most sophisticated
presents.   

: > Au contraire, there was no differences they were both not to good in their 
: > own way, but the US did act differently.
: > 
: Oh, "differently".  Not WORSE, just "differently"....

Play idiot if you like, you know that I have a point and that this 
difference was an extremelly negative reaction to Cuba from the onset.
Castro was ready to have more relaxed relations with the US but was
turned back flatly, remember the paranoid 50`s where the commie were evil
incarnate, he then radicalized his position (from pure socialism to communism) 
and turned towards the USSR.

: > : > 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 expectanc
: > has risen dramatically. Now lets see how many people died of crime related,
: > 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. 
: > 
: The WORTHLESS Cuban economy makes it difficult to get currency to buy
: medication.  Or do they just deserve a handout?

The stupid US embargo makes it difficult to get foreign currencies necessary
to buy medication, your one track mind is showing right through (you seam to
have a fixation with the word handout), you totally ignored my answer there.
On both counts, number of people alive and average standard of living the
current regime is better than the one that preceeded that was US backed.
This is a relative thing considering how awfull Batista`s regime was, but
still shows the US`s hypocrisy.

: "Natural trading partner"?  So, Cuba can ONLY trade with the US?  I don't 
: think so.  What you are admitting is that they had NOTHING TO OFFER.  *I*
: have no desire to subsidize a Stalinist dictatorship in Cuba than I do to
: subsidize a fascist on in Haiti.

Again the handout fixation... This argument is a bit tedious and vacuous in 
light of what I said but that didn`t seem to stop you before and I guess
you will continue rambling. Get any economist and he will
tell you that Cuba and the US are natural trading partners, mainly because
they are close to one another. Just like the US and Canada are each others
main trading partners, proximity in economy plays a very important role
in the formation of partnerships. I hope you can comprehend that cutting
off Cuba from the biggest world market just at its feet can cause some
harm. As for the nothing to offer, I showed that tourism would bring in
a lot of money if the embargo was lifted.

: In other words that industry will collapse.  I think all of your roads lead
: to handouts.  No handouts for dictatorships, right OR left.

Isn't collapse what your looking for anyway with the embargo, what is the
problem then. Anyway, without the embargo, TOURISM could easily support
Cuba. Sorry to break your delusions, there wouldn't be any handouts 

: They're both brutal dictatorships.  The difference is in resources and the 
: justification for murder.  YOU choose dictators.  I choose none of the above.

I am wondering if it is any use of continuing this in light of this post,
your replies are mechanicals, you answer to almost nothing of what I say
and demand for an answer to ALL of what you say (and I do just that). 
You have showed your bad faith all trough this post with the handout thing
pitched at me 4 times no matter what the premise of my response was. And
also answered 5 times that I like dictators and you didn`t (in many forms) 
even if my reponses were qualified enough to make clear that this wasn`t
so : my opposition to the embargo was on another level. Your answers
are simplistic, I am quite sure that you take no more than 5 minutes to
answer my posts.  

--
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 ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65166 alt.conspiracy:13360