From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 26 Dec 92 03:45:06 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):
: > 
: > 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;
It was a rebuttle to your claim that they wanted to expand.
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. 

: > Fascism : Regime established in Italy from 1922 to 1945 based on
: > dictatorship, patriotic exaltation and corporatism.
: > 
: 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.

You like to push the level of insults higher and higher don't you.
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. 

:  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. 
Besides, we are way off the initial subject of the necessity or not of the
cuban embargo.

: 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.

: > : China has nuclear weapons.  If Cuba did, we'd be nicer to them too.
: > 
: > From what you say only those can defend themselves have earned their
: > right to a dictatorship.
: 
: 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.          

: 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 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.

: 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.
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.

: > 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 :-).

: > 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.

: 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. 

: > 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. 

: 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.

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.

: I didn't have TIME.  As I said, I had to be someplace in an hour.  Pointing ou
: all of the logical and factual flaws in your argument would have kept me there
: for hours.

Yes the I don't have time routine, very convenient, this list was factual
look at it again.

: 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 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
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. 

: > 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.

[ accidentally deleted something about comparing Batista and Castro 
was like comparing apple and oranges. ]

It was the results that I compared, not the regime. 
The Batista regime was a puppet of the US and was democratic only for
show, It was *very* corrupted, the US sucked dry Cuba's ressources,
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).  

: > 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,

: 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.
When you are very poor liberty is having enough to live on, other 
philosophical considerations are not as relevant. Batista's regime was 
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 
communism so opening trade corridors would better suit the results
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
is using with China which is forced on it by the presence of a
nuclear arsenal there, would actually be the *good* one. Golly the US 
is doing something good... But it wasn't planned, maybe that's a clue 
for them :-). 

--
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 ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc