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: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:40:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Dec29.015504.20810@vlsi.polymtl.ca> by d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens):

> 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.

1. You must have missed the part where they ALREADY expanded to what they
have.

2. They effectively exercise control over their neighbors by their total 
willingness to use armed force, both overt and covert in their neighbors'
territory.

> : 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...                                                                                                              
1. Compared to their neighbors, the Israelis are sweetness and light.  I 
don't think you'll find a Hama in Israel's history.  I don't think they're 
angels either, but I try to keep these things in perspective.

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

> : 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.
> 
LOTS of propaganda was tossed around, including pro-Iraqi propaganda.  I 
remember Chomsky playing a sad song on NPR for Saddam Hussein the night the
air war started.  Once again, it appears that "propaganda" is ok, just so 
long as it's YOUR propaganda.

The Spanish Republicans flooded western Europe and North America with 
anti-Franco PROPAGANDA.  Were they wrong to do so?  The Chinese disseminated
anti-Japanese propaganda.  Were they wrong?  Jews disseminated anti-Nazi
propaganda.  Were they wrong?  The idea that somebody would be surprised
that the victims of an invasion would whip up support to have that invasion
reversed is indicative of a bit of tunnel vision.  Doubtless you were 
incensed by pro-Sandinista propaganda during the Contra War....

> : 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,

That makes no sense whatsoever.  By this "standard", government control of
the means of production is ALSO a private view, implementation of which has
led to the present Cuban system.

> 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 :-).
>  
Anti-semitism was an internal German policy.  Try explaining that to a Polish
Jew... if you can FIND one.  The cold war made nations do what was necessary
to not become communist nations.  It worked too.

> : 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. 

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.

> Saber rattling is a game to noisy for my taste.
> 
Especially when you don't HAVE a saber TO rattle.... :)

> : 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. 
> 
If you're not a Jew or a Gypsy, Nazism isn't all that bad.  Ask Albert Speer.

> : 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.
> 
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.

> : 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 communists?  Not the North Koreans.  Not the Albanians.  Not Sendero
Luminoso.  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.

> 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.
> 
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.

> : > 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. 

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?

> 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.

> : > : "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.

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

> : > 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. 
> 
By evasion, I presume that you intend admission.  You certainly didn't refute
my statement.

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

> : > 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. 
> 
1. Could you rephrase this so that I can understand what you mean?

2. My comment stands.

> : 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.

Please don't cry sniveling about my 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.
> 
I'm biased against Cuba AND South Africa.  You're only biased against 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 ...
> 
Try answering some of the other questions you evaded first.

> : 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. 
> 
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....

> To have force and to know how to use it is not the same thing.

If you don't HAVE force, you don't need to know about how to use it.

> 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?

> 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.
> 
No, the Canadians used to be the best machinegunners in the world, but that 
was a LOOOOONG time ago. :)

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

> : 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.
> 
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.

> : > 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.
> 
Oh, "differently".  Not WORSE, just "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. 
> 
Yes, Castro had fewer Jews as victims.  The skiing's not so good....

> : 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.
> 
ESPOUSE.  They don't DELIVER.  They just ESPOUSE.  Tell me what the Soviet
Union ESPOUSED for Jews and Muslims.  Tell me what Cuba ESPOUSES for Blacks
and homosexuals.  You don't mind bigotry and oppression, so long as it's
for a good cause....

> : > 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. 
> 
The WORTHLESS Cuban economy makes it difficult to get currency to buy
medication.  Or do they just deserve a handout?

Feel free to substantiate.  Of course it's a moot point.  You only allow TWO
choices, Stalinist or fascist.  I allow a third, liberal democracy.

> : > 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 provision of basic needs by the PRC is a myth.  Fiascoes such as the 
"Great Leap Forward" caused the deaths of thousands if not millions through
famine and starvation.  Fascism's an attractive proposition too, especially
the racist variety.  What attracts the ignorant, the malicious and the 
inadequate doesn't necessarily a good government make.

> : The inevitable contact with the outside world has changed China.
> 
> Not inevitable, it happened because policies towards it were softer than
> towards Cuba.
> 
Now I KNOW you don't know any Asian history.  How many THOUSANDS of Cuban
troops has the US killed since 1950?  Apparently you think that we haven't
tried to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party either....

> : 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. 

"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.

> : 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).             

Gee, couldn't they have gotten prosperous tourists from Romania? :)

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

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


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

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