It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: World Leaders Demand End To U.S Blockade Of Cuba

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Cuba isnt a threat to anyone anymore, no USSR to back them up, perhaps when Castro shuffles off his mortal coil there will be a peaceful change towards a more democratic government.
What harm can they do? They are a third world country with a very small Military. The US dosent have to fear the spread of communism anymore. Perhaps its time to let let its citizens buy Cuban stogies again.
Or perhaps the US is still angry that they couldnt crush Communism on their own doorstep?



[edit on 16-10-2005 by Janus]




posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   
That's how screwing people is... you always regret the one that got away.

Don't get us wrong, Hawaii- we and the Dole corporation had a lot of fun screwing you too, we just miss Cuba because we came so close but never really had them.

(/tulipwalking) (/sarcastic use of political hate-speech)


Forgive me, I'll be semi-serious for a moment now and explain the above.
America, like any nation, became an empire when it acquired compelling interests abroad. I see nothing sinister about the word "imperialism". It's just an unpopular way of saying looking out for your economic, strategic, and political security, also known as the future of your country. However I feel about the word though, America has been imperialist by various means for a bit over a century.

Cuba, once upon a time, was a fairly important part of that. Cuba has much to offer, but offered far more before America was a "super-power". Cuba is the strategic anchor of the West Indies, the first step in the island-hop to South America, a link in a chain of protection for the Panama Canal, and a great place for either exerting influence over or preventing foreign influence over Mexico, which ofcourse is a strategic doorway into the United States. In the days before America had the power to mop the floor with any other Navy in the world, that was EXTREMELY important to the future security of the United States.

On top of that, Cuba could concievably have a better chance than any other nation of uniting the Carribean economically and politically, and to be in with such a union might create an opportunity for better ties with Venezuela as well. So even with the military interest diminished, economic motives and diplomatic motives remain (there are UN general assembly votes, cultural ties, and purse strings just sitting out there in the pond, and America wants to swim out and gather them up, understandably.)

That being said, Cuba is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. At this point, I can't imagine wanting them to be a state. I would want them to be a very successful ally. I wouldn't want the liability everytime they get hit by a hurricane, I wouldn't want the political destabilization, certain people (i'm indifferent) wouldn't want a disturbance of the favorable currency exchange rates and the shady banking and business laws in El Carib, etc etc. If I were running the show, i'd get the hell of their back, say that I was very sorry, start doing business with them, and screw them over in a semi-mutually-beneficial relationship, just like America does with virtually every other small nation it deals with. (well, actually I wouldn't screw them, I'm all for truly mutually beneficial relationships, not because I like the fairness so much as because I think it's better for us in the long run- but you see my point either way).

Just to clarify- the tulip walker thing wasn't serious. I don't care for the term, but I figured some would accuse me of it for that first part (not so much for the rest) so I saw fit to disarm the word.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
How did American propaganda twist the Cuban missile crisis. It was real simple. Cuba allowed our arch enemy at the time to point nuclear weapons at the US from our doorstep. How did we twist that? They were responsible for the closest humanity has ever came to nuclear war and if other countries want us to forgive them they might as well give that idea up. As long Castro remains the dictator of Cuba they will be our enemy and we aren't going to go out of our way to make it easy for them. They should have known that their huge mistake would have consequences and they are still paying for their actions.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by USAF6933
How did American propaganda twist the Cuban missile crisis. It was real simple. Cuba allowed our arch enemy at the time to point nuclear weapons at the US from our doorstep. How did we twist that? They were responsible for the closest humanity has ever came to nuclear war and if other countries want us to forgive them they might as well give that idea up. As long Castro remains the dictator of Cuba they will be our enemy and we aren't going to go out of our way to make it easy for them. They should have known that their huge mistake would have consequences and they are still paying for their actions.

You do realize that the United States placed Jupiter IRBM missiles in Italy and Turkey a full 4 years before the Cuban Missile Crisis. Please explain to me why it was ok for the United States to place nuclear missiles on the USSR's doorstep, but it nearly caused WW3 when the Soviets placed them in Cuba.

Please, I am really interested to know the nuances that change the whole nuclear threat dynamics here.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I never said that it was alright that we put nuclear weapons on the USSR's doorstep but then again we weren't forcing all our neighbors to become communists either. In my view almost anything that made nuclear war more likely was wrong. You never answered my question. How did American propaganda twist the Cuban Missile Crisis?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by USAF6933
I never said that it was alright that we put nuclear weapons on the USSR's doorstep but then again we weren't forcing all our neighbors to become communists either.

No you guys were backing the capitalist horse remember. The United States was forcing capitalism on Vietnam and Korea as well as other interference in many other ways.

But yeah, according to the Americans they werent forcing capitalism on countries, they were preventing the spread of communism. Such pedantics are usually played out from the victor, why should the Cold War be any different.


Originally posted by USAF6933
In my view almost anything that made nuclear war more likely was wrong.

I agree there.


Originally posted by USAF6933
You never answered my question. How did American propaganda twist the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Well I never said they twisted the Cuban Missile Crisis. Everyone knew the Russians placed the nukes on Cuba. What was there to twist about that? The demonization of the Cubans/Soviets/Communists over it though is complete propaganda. The version of the Cuban Missile Crisis sold to the World is that of the Soviets, under Khrushchev, playing nuclear brinkmanship with the United States and the US, under Kennedy, playing a masterstroke of diplomacy and got the Russians to back down.

But the Americans had to remove their initial threat to the Soviets in Turkey before the Russians backed down. So who's fault was it really? Would the Soviets of placed the missiles in Cuba if there was no U.S Missiles in Turkey? There would of been no strategic value in the Cuban Missile Crisis if there were no Jupiter's in Eastern Europe.

So yeah, the Americans used the Cuban Missile Crisis to demonize the Soviets and have punished Cuba ever since.

[edit on 16/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
This is just pathetic.

Sure in the past Cuba, beacuse of the Russian misiles may have been a minor threat. But now its nothing more than a poverty striken island that the inhabitants want to leave.

It no more a threat than many of the South American juntas that used to exist, or some African states.

If America DID lift its sanctions then the island may reject Castro because of the wonderful benefits of capitalism that would flow in.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken

If America DID lift its sanctions then the island may reject Castro because of the wonderful benefits of capitalism that would flow in.




Castro is the sworn enemy of the US. He stole the private property of thousands of Cubans, who now live in the United States. During the eighties, Castro sent the worst criminals in his country to the US in what was called the mariel boatlift and even today those morons are still causing problems for the US. When Castro is dead, we can revisit the issue. Until then the so-called world leaders can go to hell.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Agree with your post Grady. The recent appointment Rice made for a transition coordinator was really for someone to plan for the post Castro future--he's getting very old.

Just to correct a couple of misconceptions I've read: The U.S. never embargoed Cuba because it didn't want to become a state, on the contrary, cubans twice shot up the halls of congress because the U.S. was not allowing them to become a state. So did the Puerto Ricans and for the same reasons. Also, the current embargo has more to do with the stated intentions and past actions of Castro more than anything else; however, the Sugar interests in America have been very active in keeping the embargo in place for purely greedy reasons (Cuba can produce a higher quality of sugar than the U.S. and at a much cheaper cost).

I believe, personally, that if Cuba made restitution for all the businesses and property they nationalized when Castro took control the U.S. would forgive him and lift the embargo. Cuba was a very popular vacation destination before Castro and Castro promised (when he was still getting his revolution organized--with covert U.S. aid) that he would not nationalize U.S. businesses and swore he was not a communist. But he lied through his teeth. Castro's revolution was a very popular movement within Cuba because the dictator in power at the time (Ithink his name was Bustamante) might as well have been a mafia/mob employee. His only apparent interest was in lining his own pockets at the expense of his countrymen. His regime was totally corrupt.




[edit on 16-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 16-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Wait...during the 1980's he sends criminals?

During the 1960's they tried to kill him?

He's the bad person here...I like those lines of thought.

Castro, not a good guy but not allowing Cuba to trade Sugar with the United States [and other goods] it harming the people not Castro. He will eat, he will sleep and he will enjoy his life. As always it is the poor who suffer...



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I think that the real issue going on with this news article was that they used the word "blockade" instead of "embargo". They might seem similar, but to us they're very different.

Embargo generally means to make trade with a certain nation illegal. Blockade would mean surrounding Cuba with the USN and sinking anything that goes in and out. Big difference. Blockade was what we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Embargo is what we've been doing since that was over.

As for whether or not an embargo is a good idea, I personally don't like it. Just for the reason that I don't think the embargo has been hurting Fidel Castro, after all he's managed to stay in power after all these years. So in reality, I don't think an embargo is hurting the current regime, it's only hurting the people who suffer under that regime. I figure if we want him out of power the only way to do is going to be by black ops or invasion.

I don't like the sound of invasion, but this embargo isn't helping either side. But like I said, the main issue seems to be the word usage.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but to the best of my knowledge, the only "blockade" on Cuba is one being imposed on American traffic bound for that nation.

Would computers donated by Canadians that have to travel through the US to get there be considered American traffic? I'm not sure. Technically, they were travelling through the US but this seems more like a blockade than an embargo.



A religious group that gathers humanitarian aid for Cuba urged US authorities to release 12 Canadian computers seized at the US Mexican border under American sanctions against Cuba's communist government. The 43 boxes of computer equipment donated by Canadians were en route to Cuba in an annual caravan organized by the Pastors for Peace group when they were seized by US border officials at McAllen, Texas. "These were Canadian computers that were confiscated by US customs,'' said Genevieve Mutschler, a volunteer from the Canadian province of British Columbia. "They were sent from Canada in support of Cuba in its struggle against the US embargo.'' (The New York Times, 29/7/05)

www.cubasource.org...

Please excuse the source. This was also reported by news agencies in Canada, I just can't find the links.

And before anyone points it out, yes I know Castro probably would have taken them for himself. It's just the principle of the thing.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Wait...during the 1980's he sends criminals?

During the 1960's they tried to kill him?

He's the bad person here...I like those lines of thought.

Castro, not a good guy but not allowing Cuba to trade Sugar with the United States [and other goods] it harming the people not Castro. He will eat, he will sleep and he will enjoy his life. As always it is the poor who suffer...


Odium, the attempts on Castro's life were actually planned by the Mob and were acquiesced to by the CIA under the Kennedy administration. You can see where the Mob had a score to settle with the man--since he essentially stole all their businesses in Cuba (which were mostly resorts & casinos, & bars, plus houses of prostitution and Rum associated things). The Kennedy administration didn't think it risked very much by going along with what the Mob intended to do anyway).

And yes, the sad part of this now decades old feud has mainly only served to hurt the people of Cuba. The people of Cuba still love old man Castro and wouldn't throw him out for anything, but when he dies you can expect nearly everything to change.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
You do realize that the United States placed Jupiter IRBM missiles in Italy and Turkey a full 4 years before the Cuban Missile Crisis.


Oh How soon these third and fourth generations of the 20th centruy seem to forget their own countries either had the very same missles pointed at Russia or supported countries that did.

Kindly notice though there was never any mention of that little tidbit was there?

Why Is that? No need to answer, I will do it for ya. Because they just want to make the US out to be the big bad guy on the block all the time, :shk:when they clearly forget that some of them might not be alive had it not been for the US War Efforts in Europe and Japan/asia during WWII. And in Europe it was not just one war but two



[edit on 10/16/2005 by shots]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Oh How soon these third and fourth generations of the 20th centruy seem to forget their own countries either had the very same missles pointed at Russia or supported countries that did.

Kindly notice though there was never any mention of that little tidbit was there?

Why Is that? No need to answer, I will do it for ya. Because they just want to make the US out to be the big bad guy on the block all the time, :shk:when they clearly forget that some of them might not be alive had it not been for the US War Efforts in Europe and Japan/asia during WWII. And in Europe it was not just one war but two

Shots would it kill you to stay on topic once in your life? This thread is about Cuban/American relations. If you want to start a topic about something else, be my guest. Stop hijacking mine ok?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
It was the Russians who placed the nuclear weapons on Cuba, not the Cubans. Also the Americans were the ones who attacked Cuba, remember the Bay of Pigs? How quick the collective mind forgets the facts.

Facts?
Facts from where, subz?
Russia forced, by gun point, Cuba and Castro to accept Russian placed nukes on Cuban soil?!
I think not.

Furthermore, the Bay of Pigs was CIA-backed and supported Cuban exiles, approxly. 1300-1500 of them. If the Americans had literally done the invasion using solely American forces/troops , Cuba would be another state of the union.

Does us all a favor and instead of insisting that collective minds get their facts straight, how about you get your facts straight instead?





seekerof

[edit on 16-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
The only thing that the Cuba embargo has hurt in Cuba is their people if it wasn't for that they will not be flooding Florida coats risking death at sea so their children can get a better life in the US.

Get it, just like the sanctions on Iraq by the UN hurt the people more than it did Saddam, he still was able to build palaces and live a very luxurious life.


The people is the one that suffer the most as usual their governments don't care and then the rest of the world neither.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
A few people have mentioned the "US Embassy" inreference to Cuba (koo-ba
). FYI, there is no US Embassy in Cuba....it's a US Interest. I recently found that out myself....interesting little tid-bit.

sorry to get off topic



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Something that I did not read in this thread is one simple fact; although there is an embargo on Cuba by the US, Cuba is free to trade with every other nation on earth. Yet, somehow, the Cubans are blaming the fact that they are poverty stricken on the US. In fact, it should be Communism and forced collectivism that should be blamed for the sorry state of the Cuban economy.

On another point, I would like to see the embargo on Cuba lifted. It has served it's purpose; the U.S. embargo clearly demonstrated just how inefficent Communism and enforced collectivism is. Without the massive subsidies from the former Soviet Union, Cuba can barely subsist. The people of Cuba have suffered and Castro is, singlehandedly, to blame.
But, at this juncture in time, I believe that lifting the embargo will be Castro's final death knell. Faced with "opening" trade and tourism, Cuba will see what they have been missing while living under a communist regime. And while they might not overthrow and reject Castro himself, upon his death, the Cubans will surely reject Communism -- given a free choice. But I have my doubts whether Cuba could produce another leader as charasmatic as Castro that could willingly lead his people into poverty...



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Facts?
Facts from where, subz?
Russia forced, by gun point, Cuba and Castro to accept Russian placed nukes on Cuban soil?!
I think not.

Who's nuclear weapons were they? Cubas? HA! They may not of pointed a gun at Castro's head but they did tie the deal to financial and food assistance. Remind me again why Cuba is still bearing the brunt of this 40 year old decision and the Russians are not? Oh yeah, Castro is still in power, so they're punishing Castro by denying Cubans access to the largest economy in the World. Got vindictive?


Originally posted by Seekerof
Furthermore, the Bay of Pigs was CIA-backed and supported Cuban exiles, approxly. 1300-1500 of them. If the Americans had literally done the invasion using solely American forces/troops , Cuba would be another state of the union.

It was backed by the CIA and condoned by the US President. What more do you want? That was an American attempt at toppling a foreign government. That is against the law, and it failed. What did I say that was incorrect?


Originally posted by Seekerof
Does us all a favor and instead of insisting that collective minds get their facts straight, how about you get your facts straight instead?

Do me a favour and tell me what I said that wasnt a fact?

Cuban Missile Crisis: Russians placed Russian nukes on Cuba

Bay of Pigs invasion: CIA backed and funded, and condoned by the President of The USA. = American attempt to topple a foreign government.

Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean its not factually accurate.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join