Castro invites Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Cuba

[mshasta]

I hope Bush doesn't get any bright ideas of shooting down his plane or arresting him.
------------

Castro invites Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Cuba

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1619936,00050001.htm
Agence France-Presse

Havana, February 8, 2006

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accepted an invitation to visit Cuba from President Fidel Castro, in gratitude for Cuba's support of Iran's nuclear program, the official Granma newspaper said on Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad accepted the invitation in Tehran from Cuban Ambassador Felipe Perez Roque. During his visit, the Iranian leader will attend the September 11-16 Non-Aligned Summit in Havana, the daily said.

On Saturday in Vienna, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria voted against a resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over a nuclear program the West suspects is weapons-oriented.

The Iranian President recently publicly thanked Cuba for its "dignified and principled" position during the IAEA's special meeting, which ended in a 27-3 vote in favour of reporting Iran to the UN council.

Separately, Granma announced that Iranian Parliament President Ghulam Ali Haddad Adel has accepted an invitation to visit Cuba from Cuba's National Assembly.

[ECH1969]

1. Chavez voted no as well

Chevez, Castro, and Assad all supported Ahmadinejad.

[rayofreason]

8. Lovely company.

[ugarte]

10. Everybody needs a gang these days

[JI7]

11. what an ugly hideous bunch

[Tight_rope]

102. This picture is shows a gang of hoodlums!

[donsu]

14. better company then the bushmilhousegang

nt

[Vidar]

28. Uniting against a much stronger enemy the US-- good idea.

[K-W]

68. Welcome to international politics.

Unfortunately most, if not all, countries in this world are run by scoundrels and criminals.

[Mika]

12. Actually, it is the gov of Cuba that supports Iran's sovereign right..

.. to develop it own energy infrastructure as it sees fit.


As usual, the DU Cubaphobe Pavlovian response..

BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS
Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that
this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that

[tatertop]

17. Too bad the Castro haters don't take the time to learn from you

A closed mind is a terrible waste.

[Mika]

19. Thanks, tatertop. Too bad that the US gov bans Americans from seeing..

.. the real Cuba. Instead, most all we in the get in the US is "Castro this and Castro that".

[tatertop]

41. I, for one, would love to visit Cuba

[robcon]

20. I don't understand

Do you think Iran is trying to set up its energy infrastructure with nuclear power? In a country with enough oil to last hundreds of years?

I think you've been hoodwinked.

[Mika]

22. As you've stated, you don't understand.

Why should Iran burn off one of the only natural resources it has of value?

In hundreds of years oil will be extremely valuable for uses other than simply burning it up.

Besides that, if Iran wants to develop its own energy infrastructure just who the F is GW Bush to tell them that they can't?


I think that you've been hoodwinked into believing Bush BS.

[joshcryer]

23. Nuclear is very very expensive technology.

Iran is not helping its peoples by focusing on nuclear for energy when oil will provide for the people in the short term, very quickly, to everyone. There's no way Iran could "use up" all of its resources in any time soon. Nuclear research and development costs more than any other source of energy on the planet.

Why SHOULDN'T Iran use technologies that are well within its grasp, very cheap (burning oil is significantly easier and cheaper to do than creating nuclear plants), and IMMEDIATELY BENEFICIAL to the Iranian people? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

The point I'm making is that I think it's obvious that Iran's nuclear aspirations are not "for the Iranian people." They're to maintain the status quo and obviously are intended to eventually result in nuclear weapons.

[Mika]

24. So, I guess Canada has intentions to make nuclear weapons also?

Canada must have plenty of nuclear bombs by now. Why else would Canada develop nuclear power infrastructure? They have plenty of fossil fuels.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/world/canada.htm

[joshcryer]

26. Oh man. Nice strawman.

Canada's oil reserves are not currently tappable economically, it's coal reserves are not enough to sustain its population (though for most areas coal power is sufficient, the nuclear power is for the big cities, and necessary for a western level of consumption).

Iran has a population twice that of Canada, with a peoples who have significantly worse living conditions. Implementing sufficient nuclear technology would never happen, the first nuclear plants were akin to old world loans where we went "hey want a nuclear plant you cannot possibly have the technological ability to really run, ie, it's overkill for your level of development?" Iran goes, "Yeah, sure!" Totally stupid and crippling to the Iranian economy. Guess what happened to Iranian oil production when the US sold it some nice nuclear plants (at a price of $6 billion, btw? Dropped dramatically. We love that there oil. They were complete tools. The well being of the Iranian people were not the actual focus of the projects.

[joshcryer]

27. Btw, just did some research, nuclear plants really do cost more.

To build a nuclear plant can be between $5-10 BILLION, and they take several years to build. To build a coal/gas plant of equal power (1500MW) it costs between $250-500 MILLION. So, while Iran has spent nearly $20 billion trying to build a nuclear power infrastructure (we'll neglect all the money they've spent on creating highly enriched uranium which has no purpose other than nuclear weapons), it could've built 40 oil plants (and that's using a conservative estimate).

This is proposterous! I cannot believe this, I really can't. The wonderful thing about oil plants is that in the future they can be changed to use biomass feedstock, so they're even more longterm and potentially more environmentally friendly.

[Mika]

30. Better check Canada's oil stats again

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

Based on its production/population/consumption/export ratios Canada has even less need for nuclear power plants than does Iran.

Doesn't make sense. Canada must be making nuclear bombs.

[joshcryer]

32. We get most of Canada's oil.

They're our biggest oil importer.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

They produce between (2002-2004 stats) 1.9 to 2.8 million barrels per day, we get 1.6 million barrels per day (2006). They have a lot of vehicles. Iran doesn't. We export gasoline back to Canada.

The point is that Canada is living in the western world thus has higher levels of consumption, you are using what is commonly referred to as a "straw man" to "debunk" my position, without addressing the specific points.

I'm on you guys' side with regards to Cuba at least partially (I acknowledge that Cuba has been the target of a lot of terrorist activity by the US, and that it is a fairly democratic state). But I do not take kindly to any third world countries with vast, absolutely vast oil supplies, and any social problems relating to economics that occur in those countries. The middle eastern countries are the only countries in the world who are fully capable of becoming economically self sufficient. Given Iran's social incliantions you'd think they'd be for that, but in the end the state of Iran merely wants to maintain its power.

Stop with the weak strawman. Nuclear is significantly costlier than fossil, and anyone arguing this point is simply deluding themselves. Relatively poor countries with vast fossil resources focusing on nuclear do not have the peoples well being in mind.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

33. unlike most of a certain nation

with a populace with an average attention span from 7 seconds there are people "out there" who think long term.

[joshcryer]

56. Nuclear isn't long term.

Solar is. Oil technology is immediately addaptable to biomass usage. A 1500MW nuclear plant is going to cost a magnitude or more than an equally powerful oil plant. This is a no-brainer. If you want to bring your people into the current generation technologically (you know, electricity for everyone), then you work with technologies your country is best suited for.

[Ben Ceremos]

35. Nuclear energy investment

yields an investment to lifetime ratio some 20-30 times more cost effective than petroleum based energy plants. Same investment yields a much better return on investments. Furthermore, Iran has the same rights to develop nuclear energy as any Non-proliferation treaty signee. Geo-politically, I would develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons systems that serve as effective deterrence against Senor Peligro and the Gang that can't shoot shit...

[joshcryer]

58. This is not true.

This is only true if you look at an oil plant as being useless after the oil has run out, which it most certainly is not. Nuclear requires significant regulations, and waste management is a nightmare. Oil burns and all but some 1% of its byproducts are used in various industries, it's significantly easier to manage from a waste perspective.

And of course you develop nuclear weapons, but you do that to save your own ass, you don't do it to help your people! That's the point I'm making here. Look at Wikipedia (which I think is a valid source of material), Iran reduced oil production when the plants were built. Why? Because their focus on energy went toward nuclear. The Iranian people suffered as oil production went south and the focus on oil for energy simply vanished.

[Coastie for Truth]

42. Former Saudi Oil Minister and OPEC Chair Yamani el-Zaki

(hint: a geologist by academic training) said that petroleum is a "wasting resource" and it is to the advantage of all parties to develop alternative and renewable fuels.

When you get beyond "Physics 102" there is a world of difference between weapons and generators.

(I am a Bettis National Lab alumnus).

[joshcryer]

61. You don't look at resource, you look at technology.

Oil technology can be adapted to solar technology fairly easily (if not nuclear technology, since the generators for both systems are what are important, but adapating a solar plant to a nuclear operation is a lot harder). All you do is grow biomass to burn in these factories. (Talk about Physics 102.)

Of course the Saudi's would say to "conserve oil." As long as it is the primary fuel for vehicles, they can make the most money. The production of oil would go up in Iran if they started building lots of oil plants, production which the Saudi's wouldn't want to happen. Supply goes up, cost goes down. The nuclear focus in Iran is a double edged sword, we want them to have nuclear (then subsequently bomb their plants), because as long as that is their focus for energy, then they aren't using up that valuable resource we call oil. (This is specifically why oil production went down in Iran when they started building nuclear plants.) They were duped, that's how I see it.

And shame on you, the vast majority of Iran's nuclear program is to build HEU (look at Wikipedia). Nuclear plants facilitate that. Even the nice ones that make energy.

[0007]

46. Talk about a straw man......fuzzy math

[Judi Lynn]

49. They always just faaaaade away until the heat is off when they are

shown to be wildly off base. I've never seen one accept responsibility for being found bloviating.

[0007]

51. I've noticed three types here as of late, Judi Lynn, may be more!

1. The Drowner's-
2. The Starter's on ambiguous subjects
3. And the ones that keep Shit kicking and Agreeing with a true DUer that is venting angry with a senator or congressman at the time.

I hope I came across?

[Judi Lynn]

54. Oh, yeah! You've got it. Each has its own charm, wouldn't you say?

[0007]

65. Sheep dogs couldn't do a better job , I tell ya!

Did I go over edge?

[joshcryer]

59. Are you talking about Mika?

Because I think I made my point quite well, thanks.

But shame on you, you know my name, I've defended you and Mika before in the Cuba threads. I used to be an avid poster here until politics caused me to be quite depressed.

I think my argument is sound, but I openly accept 007's argument about my "fuzzy math."

[Mika]

101. Maybe you didn't realize that my posts and Canada & nukes was sarcastic

I was just paralleling your argument, using Canada, that Iran MUST be developing nuclear energy for the purpose of developing nuke bombs.

Canada doesn't have to sell off its oil and develop nuclear power because, like Iran, Canada has plenty of oil that it could use itself instead of selling it and developing nuclear power plants. Considering the costs of developing & construction of nuclear power/population Canada's nuclear power programs are even less cost effective that Iran developing nuclear power.

So, using the same "logic" that is applied to Iran - Canada must have plenty of nuke bombs by now.

[joshcryer]

105. That's why I called it a strawman.

No intent to actually discuss, just wanted to throw something out there.

[joshcryer]

55. Show me the fuzzy math.

Instead of just making some blanket unsubstantiated statement, thanks.

[oblivious]

95. Your argument is nonsense. The US started Iraq's nuclear program. Read!

The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid in the 1960s under auspices of the U.S. within the framework of bilateral agreements between the US and Iran. In 1967 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was built and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a US supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place plans were drawn by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with USA by the year 2000.

By 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels (950,000 m³) of oil a day, compared with about 4 million barrels (640,000 m³) daily today.

President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle". The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."<4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program

[joshcryer]

97. I said that.

It was to the US's benefit that Iran not produce its oil, since that would open up all of their reserves. We want to keep a tight lid on oil, always have. But the US didn't just give them nuclear plants, they had to pay for them at the price of $6 billion a pop.

Now, of course, the US says that they can use their oil for energy as opposed to nuclear, but since Iran never really focused on using oil for energy, and since the middle east has a sentiment that oil should be for fuel for vehicles and such, Iran is in the same essential boat they were in when all this started. They are beating a dead horse by trying to get a nuclear program up and running when it was never viable in the first place. What the US is going to do, now, is invade on the premise that they're trying to make WMDs (which they potentially are, with comments from top Iranian officials, and with the fact that they have HEU facilities, which they kept secret for awhile there). And we won't use their oil for energy because we want the oil for our own causes, we'll build nuclear plants for them (since Iran does have a large amount of uranium).

Basically all I'm saying is that there isn't any evidence that the Iranian government actually has the peoples interests in mind when it comes to the nuclear technology. Oil is the most rational source of energy in an oil rich country.

[Vidar]

29. Castro has been good for Cuba, and survived US mischief for 50 years.

He can walk freely among his people, which is far more than shrub would dare.

[Endangered Specie]

67. oh, Chavez too

god I hope soon people here will realize he ain't all hes cracked up to be...

[Dunvegan]

2. Rut ro.

Castro and Ahmadinejad standing only 60 miles from Miami and within several feet of each other...I can see the shine from the saliva forming in the corners of Georgie's mouth from here.

[Renew Deal]

38. Someone should make his plane "disappear" in the Atlantic.

:nuke:

[enigma000]

64. Iranian planes have proven to be unreliable

Lack of spare parts, I believe.

I think he has survived 2 assassination attempts so far

[cliss]

3. I highly doubt Ahmadinejad will go.....

Security might not be the best. Plus, I think Iran's leader has a full plate to deal with at home.......with the Evil Empire breathing down his neck. After all, Ahmadinejad has a new Bourse to oversee......March 20 got that George?

I'll tell you though, these guys are great kidders. I think they do this to poke them with a cattle prod in Washington. Really, these people are very jittery.....Remember how Hugo Chavez teases them constantly? He taunts Bush constantly. At the Council of the Americas, he said he would "sneak up on Bush and scare him".

They're just teasing.

[Judi Lynn]

6. It's their guilty consciences making them so jumpy!

Anyone as crooked, as dirty, scheming and plotting murder day in, day out, will probably feel other people are as vicious and untrustworthy as they are.

You note, _Bush is super up-tight, really wired, tense, hostile. Why can't he be more relaxed, and calmer, like Hugo Chavez? Like a grown man?

[phusion]

7. I absolutely love that photo

great eye for "those moments" by that photographer...Nice!

[Bacchus39]

13. Chavez relaxed??

good one. anyway Castro and the Iranian president make a nice couple.

[donsu]

15. why don't you like Castro?

nt

[Bacchus39]

16. is that a joke?

I really don't find any dictator appealing.

[donsu]

18. it wasn't a joke

nt

[brentspeak]

37. This is Democratic Underground, not Communist Underground

"Democratic", as in "democracy". Anyone who posts here should not be quizzing people on why they don't like dictators.

Which brings me to a more important question: This being a forum for supporters of the Democratic Party, what is a Castro supporter doing here?

[Mika]

39. Then you don't understand what Democratic Underground is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas.

Acusing other posters of being "Castro supporters" for simply asking a question is just all too similar to Bush/Batistano patterns of discussion.

The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S. We accept article submissions from those on the left who wish to write, so that DU represents a variety of progressive viewpoints.

I guess that DU is not for you if you feel that questions & reality based discussions about a neighboring country don't belong here.

This website exists so our members and guests are assured that there are many others across the country who share their outrage at the unilateral, arrogant, and extreme right-wing approach taken by George W. Bush and his team, the conservative Republicans in Congress, and the five conservative partisans on the Supreme Court.

The US embargo/sanctions on Cuba are unilateral, arrogant, and an extreme right-wing approach taken by George W. Bush and his team. When polled, DUers overwhelmingly believe that it is the wrong approach. DU is here for open discussions and disection of all of the current policies of the cabal in the WH. Why would you try to alienate someone who simply asks a question about a nation and national leader who is a thorn in the backside of this cabal?

If posters offend you with questions in certain forums, then maybe you shouldn't visit those forums and accuse fellow DUers of being "Castro supporters" for simply asking for some refinement of the discussion.

[rinsd]

47. But Mika you ARE a Castro supporter

These are the only threads I ever see you on. You doggedly defend any and all actions by the Cuban government and villify anyone who dares disagree as a tool of the Bushes/Miami.

[Judi Lynn]

48. You apparently haven't done as much searching as you thought.

Mika's all over the place, when Mika has time. You truly erred with this claim.

[rinsd]

50. Hey I qualified it...

...in terms I have never seen Mika in threads that didn't deal with Cuba in some way shape or form.

I am of course not all knowing nor do I see every single thread.

But based on a google search of DU with Mika, I wasn't exactly pulling it out of my ass.

On edit: So is the question whether Mika is a Castro supporter or that declaring one such is out of bounds?

[Judi Lynn]

52. Well, you're off base here. After I read your post, I did a DU search

on his name, and found 3 pages in multiple forums of CURRENT, open threads, without going back several days or touching the archives.

Any explation for that?

[rinsd]

60. I probably should have qualified that first statement even further

By saying that it seemed to me Mika posted predominantly in Cuba threads.

I was way too confident in my observation and hyperbolically made an incorrect assertion. I was wrong.

Now that we've dealt with the semantics, is the issue of whether Mika is a Castro supporter somehow in doubt? Why that reaction to something I would think Mika would be proud of?

[Mika]

109. I've consistently said that Cuba's good/bad works are by Cubans not Castro

Many people on the Cuban related threads claim that "Castro did this and Castro did that" and I have very consistently said that Castro doesn't do the eye surgery, or educate the children, or develop the Cuban health care system (or whatever the topic is). I have consistently said that it is the Cuban people who do these things, not Castro. Same with the bad things that happen in Cuba.

Am I being clear enough for you?

I neither laud nor demonize Mr Castro.

The Cuban government and its makeup and changes are the Cuban people's business, not the US government's business.

[Mika]

110. FYI, Cuba DOES NOT equal Castro

You are promoting that canard. In doing so you ignore the 11 million+ Cubans who live there.

-

I only vilify those who support the Bush regime's support for fake bought-and-paid-for "dissidents" in Cuba who, if they were conducting similar activities in the US receiving money/support from declared enemies of the US, would be arrested in the US.

Why do I do that?

Partly because the native domestic opposition groups/political parties in Cuba do so also. It hinders their legitimate work in Cuba.

Check out what Oswaldo Paya or Elizardo Sanchez have to say about the US paid "dissidents' and how they discredit the works of their legitimate domestic supported groups.

I fully support the domestic political discourse that goes on in Cuba that is not funded by the declared enemies of Cuba that have ulterior motives to overthrow the Cuban system of government and assist the US create a "transitional government" that, like the US's Bremmer did in Iraq, plans to privatize/corporatize all of Cuba's infrastructure. Condo Rice is going to host another series of Cuba transition plans soon, with these goals.

I support Cuba and the Cuban people in Cuba.

That does not make me a "Castro supporter".

To say that I am, simply because I do support Cuba's right to sovereignty, is as ridiculous as the righwingnuts saying that if one doesn't support Buash then you are 'with the terra-ists'.

-


Your accusation that simply because the only threads that you have seen me on are Cuba related is preposterous, and shows that you haven't seen my posts on a myriad of topics, plus show that you haven't actually read many of my posts on even the Cuba related threads - because if you had you might have learned what I have stated above, and you might have learned that I have actually spent significant time in Cuba and have seen elections there - from candidate selection, debates, elections and paper ballot counting done in public.

Of course, that takes actually reading and comprehending what I post.

-


Yes, I do post on many Cuba related (and Caribbean related) threads because it as an area of my interest and experience, and DUers tend to post on threads that represent or are related to their area of interest and experience (wow!). The DU pilots tend to post on the airplane related threads, the DU football fans tend to post on football related threads, the DU computer geeks tend to post on the computer related threads, the DU economists tend to post on the economic related threads, etc etc. That is one reason that DU is so great. Is that so hard to comprehend?


-

Also, 'calling out' or tossing accusations at topic experienced DUers on topics that oneself has little knowledge or experience is more revealing of your motives than those of the accused.

[joshcryer]

62. You have to wonder though...

...what Cuba would look like if it wasn't for the fall of the Soviet Union.

[0007]

66. There is some real wisdom in Mika's post please read twice

real slowly.

[K-W]

69. But apparently it is Mccarthyist underground. EOM

[ButterflyBlood]

43. hmmm, he's a brutal dictator who has imprisoned thousands?

and allows no free speech or free press maybe? Sorry, I'm not too big on totalitarian thugs.

[Judi Lynn]

45. You'd better share your insights with the CIA,

The CIA, world-famous for its Bay Of Pigs invasion, etc. has released the following info. in a report cited in this article:

CIA: Most Cubans loyal to homeland
Agency believes various ties to island bind the majority
By Robert Windrem
NBC NEWS PRODUCER

NEW YORK, April 12 <2000> — Cuban-American exile leaders — and many Republicans in Congress — believe that no Cuban, including Juan Miguel Gonzalez, could withstand the blandishments of a suburban American lifestyle, that he and all other Cubans would gladly trade their “miserable” lives in Cuba for the prosperity of the United States — if only given the chance. Witness House Minority Leader Dick Armey’s invitation to Gonzalez, offering him a tour of a local supermarket. But U.S. intelligence suggests otherwise.

THE CIA has long believed that while 1 million to 3 million Cubans would leave the island if they had the opportunity, the rest of the nation’s 11 million people would stay behind.

While an extraordinarily high number, there are still 8 million to 10 million Cubans happy to remain on the island.
(snip)

The CIA believes there are many reasons Cubans are content to remain in their homeland. Some don’t want to be separated from home, family and friends. Some fear they would never be able to return, and still others just fear change in general. Officials also say there is a reservoir of loyalty to Fidel Castro and, as in the case of Juan Miguel Gonzalez, to the Communist Party.
(snip)

U.S. officials say they no longer regard Cuba as a totalitarian state with aggressive There is no indication, U.S. officials say, of any nascent rebellion about to spill into the streets, no great outpouring of support for human rights activists in prison. In fact, there are fewer than 100 activists on the island and a support group of perhaps 1,000 more, according to U.S. officials.
(snip/…)
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ019.html

[rayofreason]

63. I don't like dictators either....

...but there are many here who will give a thug a pass as long as the club is held with the left hand. Right or Left, a dictator is still a dictator. And Ahmadinejad! The guy is certifiable. But Castro supporters won't criticize Castro even when he snuggles up to a guy whose idea of "social justice" involves head-chopping and stoning for the "offense" of being gay! And don't even get me started on Jew-hatred among the Iranian mullahs, with Ahmadinejad in the lead. The day that a Jewish, lesbian woman can walk down the streets of Tehran dressed as she pleases, without a veil or head covering, then you can have the President of Iran visit without embarrassment. That any Progressive would to want to have anything to do with Ahmadinejad is nauseating. But that's OK for Castro. He's no Progressive.

[K-W]

70. Dictatorship is always in the right hand.

This is the problem, too many people in DU are caught up in bullshit cold war understandings of political philosophy and international relations. The Cold War was just like the War on Terror. What little shred of truth there was served only as a fig leaf to a massive program of war and propaganda primarily designed to stifle dissent at home and justify colonial activities abroad.

The left right destinction IS the destinction between populism and authoritarianism.

Nobody suggested they wanted to have anything to do with Ahmadinejad, he just happens to be the head of state in Iran, so he happens to be the person anyone wanting diplomatic relations with Iran has to deal with. Cuba is in the unenviable predicament of having very few options for trade and diplomacy. US policy has, however, created number of marganilized nations around the world like Cuba, and Iran is one of them. This puts Cuba in the doubly unenviable position of having to cooperate with Iran to increase its economic and diplomatic strength to resist the economic/diplomatic/military pressures placed on Cuba by the US.

But you are absolutely right, Castro is in many ways a horrible progressive, but he does support many progressive ideas and is a great deal more progressive than most of the other heads of state on this planet. But nobody here suggested anyone choose Castro as thier model of progressiveness. All anyone has done is try to rationally discuss Cuba and Castro, which in the context of the deeply corrupted US discourse sounds like endorsement.

[rinsd]

71. chuckle

"The left right destinction IS the destinction between populism and authoritarianism."

Based on what interpretation? In what context? So was communism as practiced for a great deal of the 20th century(ie: Stalin, Mao, Kymer Rouge) actually right wing?

"Cuba is in the unenviable predicament of having very few options for trade and diplomacy"

Last I checked Cuba deals with everyone with the exception of the US.

[Judi Lynn]

73. You apparently haven't seen an illustration of the embargo on DU's

LBN running for several days:

_Bush administration's Treasury Department contacted the Sheraton Hotel at which Cuban officials were staying in Mexico, and had them thrown out, and their money sent to the Treasury Department, as part of the Helms-Burton Act, a part of the U.S. embargo.

You need to look up information on why so many countries have condemned the embargo, and have reviled its illegal extraterritorial demands, which affect companies everywhere which also seek to do business with the United States.

HELMS-BURTON. Take some time and look it up yourself. That's Jesse Helms, Dan Burton, both mouthpieces for the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami.

[rinsd]

76. I'm well aware of Helms-Burton

Cuba can deal with any country they choose to(US of course excepted), they can't deal with American companies. While I realize there is more nuance to that, those are the basics in a nutshell.

"have reviled its illegal extraterritorial demands,"

Which is why quite a few have legislation directly controverting this and why Mexico is considering in this case to hold the hotel liable for violating its laws.

The embargo is just plain stupid and hasn't accomplished anything but to state that Cuba has so few options in diplomacy and trade they HAVE to snuggle up to the nutjob currently running Iran is just not true.

[Mika]

111. You have Helms-Burton partially wrong

Helms-Burton also forbids FOREIGN companies (or their subsidiaries) that do business in Cuba from doing business in the USA.

Guess which market most all companies choose? The 300 million or the 11 million person market?

--


Plus I don't see anywhere in the OP that Castro is 'snuggling up' to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The article states that the UN representative of the government of Cuba voted in support of Iran's sovereign right to develop its own infrastructure.

[K-W]

75. Like I said, you interpret things through a bogus cold war context.

Based on what interpretation? In what context?

Based on the actual definition of the terms. The left right destinction refers to the french parliment when it was devided between royalists and populists, not between the mythological dueling ideologies of cold war propaganda.

So was communism as practiced for a great deal of the 20th century(ie: Stalin, Mao, Kymer Rouge) actually right wing?

Communism wasnt practiced for a great deal of the 20th century, it was only preached. Communism, like democracy is an idea. Democracy is the idea of people having equal say in society, communism is the idea of a society based around cooperation and the sharing of resources rather than competition for and the individual ownership of resources. Communism was never practiced and unlike democracy which is expressed to some extent through representation, the idea of communism was never even remotely expressed through state controlled economies. At best some of these nations could have claimed to be socialist.

You are using definitions for these terms based on US and Soviet Propaganda. The only two groups who wanted you to think Stalin was a communist were Stalin and his loyalists and US elites and thier loyalists. Stalin traded in the rhetoric of communism (much like authoritarian US politicians trade off the rhetoric of democracy and freedom) and the US government(which had been oppressing communists for generations already) was happy to agree with him that he represented communism.

All we saw in the 20th century was the same thing we saw in the 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th, 14th, 13th, 12th, etc centuries, tyranny, oppression, exploitation, racism, militarism, nationalism/tribalism, etc. This is why most revolutions failed, not because some of the revolutionaries think we can live in a world without private property which is no more radical than the many other ideas that have accompanied revolutions in the past, including democracy in its time.

Last I checked Cuba deals with everyone with the exception of the US.

The US embargo has wide ranging and global effects on Cuba's ability to trade, and Cuba must be concerned with both future and present trade. It, like all nations, wants to diversify its trade, especially when it knows there is a superpower waging economic warfare on it and especially in a vital resource like oil. Regardless, i wasnt only referring to trade, I was also referring to diplomacy. Iran is one of the few governments in the world that would oppose a US attack on Cuba were the US to decide that simply occupying them and embargoing them wasnt quite enough control.

[rinsd]

79. House of Lords and Commons would be a more apt descript, no?

"Based on the actual definition of the terms. The left right destinction refers to the french parliment when it was devided between loyalists and populists, not between the mythological dueling ideologies of cold war propaganda."

Imagine one of our greatest gulfs caused by seating arrangements! Anyway, the left/right then was more like nobility as the right and everyone else(peasants, merchants basically any non aristocrat) on the left. Not necessarily populist.

"Communism wasnt practiced for a great deal of the 20th century, it was only preached."

And people wonder why those advocating communism are regarded with suspicion ;-)

"You are using definitions for these terms based on US and Soviet Propaganda. The only two groups who wanted you to think Stalin was a communist were Stalin and his loyalists and US elites and thier loyalists. Stalin traded in the rhetoric of communism (much like authoritarian US politicians trade off the rhetoric of democracy and freedom) and the US government(which had been oppressing communists for generations already) was happy to agree with him that he represented communism."

Stalin as the communist wasn't really the point. I just picked out 3 examples where the rhetoric didn't meet the reality by a long shot. My question deals with whether the left can/has EVER be/been authoritarian. Responding that's not really left is kind of s copout.

"This is why most revolutions failed"

I would say most fail because they are uncompromising, regard detractors as traitors to the cause and the leadership grows quite corrupt by power.

"Iran is one of the few governments in the world that would oppose a US attack on Cuba were the US"

It depends what you mean by oppose (taking up arms in defense, protesting, UN condemnation or what?)I seriously doubt that. It didn't happen with Iraq and Saddam and they were considerably more isolated than Cuba is.

[K-W]

80. Well the term originated in France.

"Based on the actual definition of the terms. The left right destinction refers to the french parliment when it was devided between loyalists and populists, not between the mythological dueling ideologies of cold war propaganda."
Imagine one of our greatest gulfs caused by seating arrangements! Anyway, the left/right then was more like nobility as the right and everyone else(peasants, merchants basically any non aristocrat) on the left. Not necessarily populist.


I should apologize, I vastly oversimplified the history of the term. But it did originate in France. The right was royalists and then eventually the people who supported the dictatorship of Napoleon. The left changed, but was generally defined by opposition to royalty, support for revolution, support for the democratic constitution etc. The devide was between the supporters of authoritarianism and those who supported at least a somewhat more democratic society and in some cases a vastly more democratic society. This is the left. Anyone who claims to be a leftist, but supports authoritarianism is a hypocrit or a liar.

"Communism wasnt practiced for a great deal of the 20th century, it was only preached."

And people wonder why those advocating communism are regarded with suspicion ;-)

Educated people dont wonder why they are regarded with suspicion. They are regarded with suspicion because they have been stigmatized in our society for decades upon decades.

"You are using definitions for these terms based on US and Soviet Propaganda. The only two groups who wanted you to think Stalin was a communist were Stalin and his loyalists and US elites and thier loyalists. Stalin traded in the rhetoric of communism (much like authoritarian US politicians trade off the rhetoric of democracy and freedom) and the US government(which had been oppressing communists for generations already) was happy to agree with him that he represented communism."

Stalin as the communist wasn't really the point. I just picked out 3 examples where the rhetoric didn't meet the reality by a long shot. My question deals with whether the left can/has EVER be/been authoritarian. Responding that's not really left is kind of s copout.

Yes Stalin as the communist IS exactly the point. You were trying to prove that people on the left are authoritiarian by citing Stalin, you obviously think Stalin was on the left. But if we look at the facts rather than the propaganda we see that Stalin stated ideology was a load of bullshit. He wasnt really a communist, he wasnt really a leftist.

If he wasnt really a leftist, if he was just a thug who propagandized people, he doesnt support your argument.

Stalin was as right as right can be. He was the authoritiarian, he supported preserving the authoritarian society and his opponants in the Soviet Union, the dissidents, were the left. They were the ones who wanted democracy, they were the ones who opposed authoritarianism.

How is it a copout to point out that you are using false examples to prove your point? How is it a copout to point out that you are referencing liars and hypocrites as your examples of leftists.

"This is why most revolutions failed"

I would say most fail because they are uncompromising, regard detractors as traitors to the cause and the leadership grows quite corrupt by power.

If the revolutionary movement is being run by people like that it has already failed.

"Iran is one of the few governments in the world that would oppose a US attack on Cuba were the US"

It depends what you mean by oppose (taking up arms in defense, protesting, UN condemnation or what?)I seriously doubt that. It didn't happen with Iraq and Saddam and they were considerably more isolated than Cuba is.

Iran was an enemy of Saddam Hussien, that is why Iran did not strongly oppose the Iraq war. You will notice that Iran has benefited greatly from the overthrow of Saddam becoming a major force in the new Iraq.

But you have now pretty much proven my point. Cuba wants a relationship with Iran and vice versa, because they do not want to be as isolated as Iraq was.

[rinsd]

82. Well getting back to origins...

If we want to be real picky we should call them the 2nd & 3rd state.

"Yes Stalin as the communist IS exactly the point. You were trying to prove that people on the left are authoritiarian by citing Stalin, you obviously think Stalin was on the left. But if we look at the facts rather than the propaganda we see that Stalin stated ideology was a load of bullshit. He wasnt really a communist, he wasnt really a leftist."

Actually my question was whether you considered those examples to be right wing. You answered in the affirmative.

"How is it a copout to point out that you are using false examples to prove your point?"

again "My question deals with whether the left can/has EVER be/been authoritarian. Responding that's not really left is kind of s copout."

The "that's" in my quote is refering to authoritarianism not Stalin/Mao etc.

Saying those on the left can never be authoritarian is the same as saying those on the right can never be populist. That just isn't the way it works as of course no one is purely left or right. Even then we are dealing with simplistic terms, left or right.

"Educated people dont wonder why they are regarded with suspicion. They are regarded with suspicion because they have been stigmatized in our society for decades upon decades."

With quite a bit of supporting evidence from its supposed defenders.

"But you have now pretty much proven my point. Cuba wants a relationship with Iran and vice versa, because they do not want to be as isolated as Iraq was."

If anything strengthening a relationship with Iran especially now is likely to have the opposite effect for Cuba as Iran is now numero uno on the world shit list.

[K-W]

83. That is the way it works.

"Yes Stalin as the communist IS exactly the point. You were trying to prove that people on the left are authoritiarian by citing Stalin, you obviously think Stalin was on the left. But if we look at the facts rather than the propaganda we see that Stalin stated ideology was a load of bullshit. He wasnt really a communist, he wasnt really a leftist."

Actually my question was whether you considered those examples to be right wing. You answered in the affirmative.

"How is it a copout to point out that you are using false examples to prove your point?"

again "My question deals with whether the left can/has EVER be/been authoritarian. Responding that's not really left is kind of s copout."

The "that's" in my quote is refering to authoritarianism not Stalin/Mao etc.

As I have been trying to explain to you. Being on the right and being authoritarian are one in the same while being on the left and opposing authority are one in the same. I dont understand exactly what you are trying to say here, but regardless, Stalin/Mao etc are not representatives of the left.

Saying those on the left can never be authoritarian is the same as saying those on the right can never be populist. That just isn't the way it works as of course no one is purely left or right. Even then we are dealing with simplistic terms, left or right.

Certainly people who claim to be on the left, people who belong to organizations with leftist ideals can actually be authoritarian. I am certainly not saying that everyone who claims to be a leftist isnt authoritarian, what I am explaining is that if they claim to be a leftist and are actually authoritiarians they are liars or hypocrites, not symptoms of some imagined link between the left and authoritarianism.


"Educated people dont wonder why they are regarded with suspicion. They are regarded with suspicion because they have been stigmatized in our society for decades upon decades."

With quite a bit of supporting evidence from its supposed defenders.

Yah those jerks wanted to organize workers, how dare they.

"But you have now pretty much proven my point. Cuba wants a relationship with Iran and vice versa, because they do not want to be as isolated as Iraq was."

If anything strengthening a relationship with Iran especially now is likely to have the opposite effect for Cuba as Iran is now numero uno on the world shit list.

I like how you act as if the US government represents the world. And niether Cuba nor Iran are particulary concerned about losing stature in the eyes of the nation that wants to overthrow its government. They are concerned with preventing the US from attacking them in the first place, so they are reaching out to any nation that might be in a position to help.

[rinsd]

84. "I like how you act as if the US government represents the world."

How did I do that? You think Iran is popular in the world right now? Do you think people around the world are saying to Cuba good move or what are you thinking?

Of course Cuba could care less about its standing in the US gov't eyes. In fact this is just as likely a thumb in the eye.

"As I have been trying to explain to you. Being on the right and being authoritarian are one in the same while being on the left and opposing authority are one in the same. I dont understand exactly what you are trying to say here, but regardless, Stalin/Mao etc are not representatives of the left."

See this is where I disagree because it claims some type of goodness inherent to a political position. It is quite a bit more complicated.

So here's a brain bender for you. Since dissidents in Cuba oppose the authority of the government, are they on the left?

"Yah those jerks wanted to organize workers, how dare they."

As a stepping stone for recruitment and eventual overthrow. So yeah.

Anyway, this has been a fun exchange even if a bit contentious.

[K-W]

88. "Iran is now numero uno on the world shit list."

Iran is numero uno on the US government's shitlist. There is a difference.


How did I do that? You think Iran is popular in the world right now? Do you think people around the world are saying to Cuba good move or what are you thinking?

I meant exactly what I said, that you reflected the opinion of the US government as the opinion of the world. Which is exactly what you did. Whether Iran is popular or not doesnt change the fact that it is the US that has made Iran a special target of its ire as of late, not the world.

Of course Cuba could care less about its standing in the US gov't eyes. In fact this is just as likely a thumb in the eye.

Cuba would like nothing better than to have the US leave it alone, but since the US insists on being its enemy, you cant really expect it to pander to US interests.

"As I have been trying to explain to you. Being on the right and being authoritarian are one in the same while being on the left and opposing authority are one in the same. I dont understand exactly what you are trying to say here, but regardless, Stalin/Mao etc are not representatives of the left."

See this is where I disagree because it claims some type of goodness inherent to a political position. It is quite a bit more complicated.

I made no such claim. I was simply pointing out the meaning of the terms, goodness or badness are subjective. Authoritarianism is a good position to some, bad to others, that doesnt mean we have to pretend it isnt authoritarianism.

And exactly what bothers you about some political positions being more moral or ethical than others?

So here's a brain bender for you. Since dissidents in Cuba oppose the authority of the government, are they on the left?

If they oppose authoritarianism, yes, if not no. One can oppose a government without opposing authoritarinism.

"Yah those jerks wanted to organize workers, how dare they."

As a stepping stone for recruitment and eventual overthrow. So yeah.

That is the lie the US government used to lock up and blacklist workers who wanted nothing more than to improve thier working conditions. You really should learn the real facts about the labor movement in this country.

[rayofreason]

85. "...Stalin/Mao etc are not representatives of the left."

So who is?

What sophistry. Stalin and Mao were self-proclaimed Communists. They came from Communist parties that siezed power. Every Communist party that has seized power (is there any other way?) has behaved the same way - and woe be it to the people unfortunate enough to fall under their rule. And the response to this overwhelming reality is to say "Those guys were not really Communists"!

So do we add intellectual dishonesty to the tally of the faults of Communists?

[K-W]

90. So you think Stalin was a source of reliable information?

So who is?

Martin Luther King Jr.

What sophistry. Stalin and Mao were self-proclaimed Communists.

And obviously, because they were such honest, honerable people, we should take them at their word?

They came from Communist parties that siezed power. Every Communist party that has seized power (is there any other way?) has behaved the same way - and woe be it to the people unfortunate enough to fall under their rule.

Yes tyranny is bad in any form and under any rhetoric, that doesnt make a tyrant who talks about communism a leftist anymore than it makes a tyrant who talks about democratization a leftist.

And the response to this overwhelming reality is to say "Those guys were not really Communists"!

But that is reality. A reality you want to ignore. I will also point out that stalin and the soviets also claimed to be democrats. The Soviet Union was a nominally reprsentative country. I guess representation and democracy are also evil ideologies.

So do we add intellectual dishonesty to the tally of the faults of Communists?

I guess if we are interested in stereotyping a diverse group of people and making them all guilty by association with people who by every indication dont even share thier ideas.

But some of us arent on communist witch hunts.

[rayofreason]

81. rinsd makes good points...

.., so I won't repeat them here. I'll just focus in on a couple of things you said:

"...revolutionaries think we can live in a world without private property which is no more radical than the many other ideas that have accompanied revolutions in the past, including democracy..."

It seems to me that democracy has evolved organically, and that most democratic revolutions occur because an aristocratic refuses to share power (fall of the USSR included). Athenian democracy came about in such a manner, as did the Althing, the oldest continuously-functioning representative legislature. The abolition of "private property" (a.k.a. "the means of production" in Marxist terminology) has never evolved spontaneously in any society. Even hunter-gatherers own thier own tools ("private property", since through the use of tools food is obtained).

The only time that the abolition of private property has occurred has been at the point of a gun. It has led to the extermination of tens of millions, and in Cambodia, a democide of 1/3 of the people for being "enemies of the people". Communism (or shall we call it "the political philosophy pretending to be Communism") has been an umitigated disaster and should be rejected by all who truely value the rights of each and every human being.

[K-W]

86. Thanks for not repeating them.

"...revolutionaries think we can live in a world without private property which is no more radical than the many other ideas that have accompanied revolutions in the past, including democracy..."

It seems to me that democracy has evolved organically, and that most democratic revolutions occur because an aristocratic refuses to share power (fall of the USSR included). Athenian democracy came about in such a manner, as did the Althing, the oldest continuously-functioning representative legislature. The abolition of "private property" (a.k.a. "the means of production" in Marxist terminology) has never evolved spontaneously in any society. Even hunter-gatherers own thier own tools ("private property", since through the use of tools food is obtained).

This is pure sophistry. You are just playing around with words like organic and spontaneously to try to draw a false destinction. There is nothing remotely spontaneous about any revolution and nothing remotely spontaneous about any drastic reform in society. You are also trying to blur the meaning of private property. Nobody disputes that in any society there would have to be rules and conventions governing property and that property must be distributed to people to be used. Communists are referring to the concept of personal property in capitalism which refers to a great deal more than peopl having thier own tools (and in most cases means that people dont own their tools, because thier tools are owned by their employers)

The only time that the abolition of private property has occurred has been at the point of a gun.

This is true of almost all revolutions. And it isnt as if capitalism wasnt spread and enforced by the gun.

It has led to the extermination of tens of millions, and in Cambodia, a democide of 1/3 of the people for being "enemies of the people".

Im sorry but I am not nearly indoctrinated into cold war propaganda nor ignorant enough of world history enough to buy into the argument that atrocities in Cambodia were caused by the idea of sharing property.

Communism (or shall we call it "the political philosophy pretending to be Communism")

It depends which you are referring to. Only someone trying to mislead would pretnd the two are the same.

has been an umitigated disaster and should be rejected by all who truely value the rights of each and every human being.

Yes, tyranny has been an unmitgated disaster in all its forms. The problem here is that you want to smear ideas of cooperation and equality as if they were somehow related to tyranny. A silly exercise in guilt by association that doesnt stand up to any scrutiny. If the idea of cooperative economics causes tyranny, so does democracy, so does liberty, so does freedom, since all of those ideas have been a part of similiar unmitigated disasters.

[rayofreason]

93. "...tyranny has been an unmitgated disaster in all its forms."

Then why it is that every time that politcal power is seized by a movement claiming to represent the Marxist ideal the result is tyranny? And not just garden variety tyranny. We are talking mass slaughter and democide. Yes, Communists would love to jettison Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung, claiming "They are not us!" However, the exception would be a Communist reigime that is not tyrannical. Got an example?

[ButterflyBlood]

94. Some nice logical progressive thinking

Too bad some folks here seem to think a Holocaust denier who supports executing homosexuals, adulterers and treating women like virtual property of their husbands is A-OK and a repressive dictator is a true progressive leader.

[AngryAmish]

34. Ahmadinejad runs nothing in Iran

The Ayatollas runs everything. They have elections as a fig leaf.

[Zynx]

99. It would be a very bad move for us to kill Ahmadinejad.

Could you imagine the shitstorm over assassinating a world leader as blatantly as that?

[madeline_con]

4. I don't see any U.S. press on this.

Interesting it didn't even bear a mention in American news. Freedom of the press my left butt cheek!

[Skink]

5. Headline will read Ahmadinijad Delivers Suitcase Nuke to Castro

[madeline_con]

9. Yep, Rush would have a field day. n/t

[robcon]

21. The two should have a lot to talk about.

They can share ideas on "spontaneous" pro-government demonstrations.

They can talk about the effectiveness of their secret police organizations.

They'll look at each other's ways and means of arresting anyone who objects to the government. Remember, in Castro's Cuba, an anti-government pamphlet is worth 18 months in jail. Starting the Varela Project is worth 20-25 YEARS in Castro's gulag.

They can compare notes on closing down any press or news source that doesn't toe the line.

I think Fidel has some things to teach Ahmadinejad about running a one-party state. He's been running one for 45 years.

[Mika]

31. Varela Project got Oswaldo Paya the Nobel prize, not 20-25 yrs.

The Varela petition was delivered to the National Assembly with 30,000 signatures. No one has been arrested simply for signing it.

I've been to Cuba and read Cuban non government press that doesn't toe the communist party line. I've seen domestic opposition rallies that weren't busted up. I've seen political candidates from various parties running for offices in the municipal, provincial and national assemblies.


You are toeing the Bush/MiamicubanBatistano line o'crap. :hurts:

[Ben Ceremos]

36. Oops, Robcon...

you inserted your foot into your mouth again...

[robcon]

72. I think your propaganda ignores everyone else, Mika.

One would have to argue your choice is highly selective, to say the least, Mika. I think you're toeing the Castro line very tightly, Mika. A little too chummy with a dictator for my taste, though.

Cuba: Heavy Sentences Are "Totally Unjustified"
Rights Group Calls on U.N. to Condemn Crackdown

New York, April 7, 2003) --The heavy sentences imposed against non-violent Cuban dissidents are unjustified and draconian, Human Rights Watch said today. Defendants received sentences ranging from twelve to twenty-five years of imprisonment...

"It's perverse that there's a massive crackdown occurring in Cuba just at the moment that the United Nations is examining Cuba's human rights record," said Vivanco. "The Commission must condemn these abuses, and do so strongly and unequivocally."

Human Rights Watch has confirmed that at least twelve defendants have been sentenced, including Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello, age 56; Raul Rivero, age 57; Hector Palacios, age 62; Nelson Molinet Espino; Nelson Alberto Aguilar Rodríguez; Ricardo González; Oscar Espinosa Chepe; Hector Maseda; Oscar Alfonso Valdes; Marcelo Lopez and Marcelo Cano.

Marta Beatriz Roque, an independent economist, received a twenty-year sentence. Roque had previously spent nearly three years in prison for publishing an analytic paper calling for political reforms.

Nelson Molinet Espino and Nelson Alberto Aguiar, two dissidents who were tried together with Beatriz Roque, received twelve-year sentences.

Raul Rivero, a noted poet, writer and independent journalist, received a twenty-year sentence. Other sentenced journalists include Ricardo González Alfonso, who worked as a correspondent for Reporters Sans Frontières, and who received a twenty-year sentence. Oscar Espinosa Chepe, an economist, and Hector Maseda Gutierrez, a journalist, also received twenty-year sentences.

Opposition leader Hector Palacios, for whom prosecutors had originally recommended a life sentence, was sentenced to twenty-five years of imprisonment for treason and subversion. Palacios is one of the leaders of the Varela Project, a high-profile reformist effort.

Opposition activist Oscar Alfonso Valdes reportedly received an eighteen-year sentence.

Marcelo Lopez and Marcelo Cano, human rights activists, received eighteen and fifteen year sentences, respectively.

Human Rights Watch
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/04/07/cuba5520.htm

[joshcryer]

89. These types of facts will go IGNORED by Mika/Judi Lynn...

...they are way too bent on looking at the good in Cuba (and there is good in Cuba, absolutely no doubt), and dismissing the bad because bad things are done to Cuba (and bad things have in the past and in the present occured to Cuba, without justification).

I frankly don't care about "he did/she did" types of discussions, because they don't address the real issues. Okay, the CIA has done some really nasty stuff to Cuba, doesn't justify the social problems that the Cuba government is causing, by arresting dissidents on very weak grounds.

[Judi Lynn]

91. It seems this conversation is crying out for facts.

I don't have but a minute as I'm attempting to have some time with spouse, and took a minute to see how the threads are going tonight. I see you're hunched over your keyboard, tearing up the road, trying to get ahead of the more rational ones among us!

Here's an article which points out something you've overlooked, in the last paragraph I'll copy and paste:

April 26, 2003

Cuba Crackdown:
A Revolt Against the National Security Strategy?
By ROBERT SANDELS

Since becoming principal officer at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana in September 2002, James Cason has increased official U.S. connections with Cuban dissidents. Entering directly into Cuba domestic politics, Cason helped launch the youth wing of the dissident Partido Liberal Cubano. Nowhere in the world, said Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, would it be legal for a foreigner to participate in the formation of a political party. In October 2002, Cason invited a group of dissidents to meet with U.S. newspaper editors at his residence in Havana. Although it has become routine for heads of the U.S. mission to seek out dissidents, it was unusual to meet them at home.

Feb. 24 of this year, he participated in a meeting of the dissident Assembly for the Promotion of Civil Society at the home of prominent dissident Marta Beatriz Roque. Also present at the meeting were several reporters to whom Cason repeated his criticisms of President Fidel Castro's government and reaffirmed U.S. support for dissidents.

Cason organized two other such meetings at his residence in March even after receiving a formal complaint from the Foreign Ministry.

In a recent television interview in Miami, Cason said the help he gave dissidents was "moral and spiritual" in nature. But, according to the testimony of several Cuban security agents who infiltrated the organizations that received U.S. support, the Interests Section became a general headquarters and office space for dissidents. Some of them, including Marta Beatriz Roque, had passes signed by Cason that allowed them free access to the Interests Section where they could use computers, telephones, and office machines.

The State Department calls these activities "outreach." However, under the United States Code, similar "outreach" by a foreign diplomat in the United States could result in criminal prosecution and a 10-year prison sentence for anyone "who agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official (Title 18, section 951 of the United States Code).
(snip/...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/sandels04262003.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't make some of us have to take time to post a page showing all the disbursements these Miami idiots have milked from the Congress to pay annually to "dissidents" quaking in their tiny boots in Cuba. You know we've got the info.

In leaving, let me post the images of a couple of famous "dissidents."



Marta Beatriz Roque, whose secretary
turned out to be a Cuban double agent
who turned state's evidence and testified
to the large chunks of change Marta has
received from U.S. sources to fund her
"dissidence."



Oswaldo Payá

[joshcryer]

98. More of the "he did/she did" stuff.

I don't see how the US having similar laws absolves Cuba. They're both wrong for it. I don't care if someone is getting funding by some group. As long as someone is doing something non-violently, they should be free to do whatever they want.

[Mika]

100. So, foreign countries should be able to fund US politicians & campaigns?

Posted by joshcryer-->"I don't care if someone is getting funding by some group. As long as someone is doing something non-violently, they should be free to do whatever they want."



According to your suggestion, Cuba (and all nations) should relinquish their sovereignty by allowing foreign countries and/or groups with designs to overthrow the system of government (& that includes nations/groups with a past history of attacks, declarations of war, & violent acts) to fund and manage political candidates and campaigns.

IMO that is just plain whacked. :crazy:

[joshcryer]

104. Yes, absolutely. If their system isn't strong enough to deal...

...with external forces that act non-violently, then it is not strong. It is weak because it requires FORCE to stop these people.

[Judi Lynn]

108. It surely wouldn't fly here, would it? Someone would be in deep trouble

for trying that stuff in this country. It's somewhat ILLEGAL here.

[joshcryer]

117. And it's wrong.

"Colluding" could mean anything. What is wrong with you, or Mika, or me, for example, starting up an American Socialist Party and being funded by the Cubans? Would that be inherently wrong? Of course the heck not! Now if we went around bombing government buildsing or something, then you might have an argument. But that stuff isn't happening in Cuba these days. Much to Castro's disdain. It's a hell of a lot easier to make the dissidents out to be bad when they're blowing stuff up.

[Judi Lynn]

115. Hey, great answer. "as long as someone is doing something non-violently,

they should be free to do whatever they want." I guess that take care of all crimes other than outright bludgeoning people to death.
Smooth.

It even covers homicide with guns, as the person who shoots someone isn't violent himself. He just pulls the trigger, and can be completely out of sight, hiding in a tree, peeking out of a closet, lurking around a corner at the time he does it.

Back to reality, it's wise to remember that kind of action is still illegal by other countries and U.S. citizens, and is commemorated in U.S. law, to make sure people remember it.

Why would a country prohibit behavior by other countries and U.S. citizens, and engage itself the same way in other countries, with their citizens? Typical right-wing treachery. It's wrong.

At some point people are going to insist right-wingers observe the rules they require of others, regardless of how many idiots they have to support their criminality.

[joshcryer]

116. You think it's okay if the US arrests citizens...

Who "collude" with other nations, not doing anything other than writing some BS? No bomb making, no riot-inticing, none of that. Merely writing articles and spreading information. It's a BS law in either country. I think it would be a disgrace if a US citizen was arrested just because he talked the Cuban government (and I think you would agree that the US is unjustified in arresting people or fining people simply for going to Cuba and spending money there).

Yes, it's wrong. It's very wrong.

[Judi Lynn]

118. You're missing details already known long ago and discussed here

exhaustively. Repeating your claims won't make them correct.

The dissidents who were in prison, are in prison have colluded with American government representatives by being paid agents of the U.S.

You think you can wear us down by taking up all our time trying to respond to your repeated misinformation. Some of us don't really have enough time to answer you every time you repeat your claims. You won't win. You're wrong. You know you're wrong, we know you're wrong.

If you disapprove of U.S. law forbidding accepting money from foreign governments, and working for them to destabilize your own government, you're probably not going to find a lot of support in the LONG run. There are some things which are wrong, will always be wrong. The fact right-wing American administrations, or right-wing Congresses push to ignore the law and do it anyway doesn't change the matter.

Republicans are convinced they can control this hemisphere, and bribe people in enough Latin American countries, and Caribbean countries to dominate their citizens. Time is going to prove them wildly wrong. With any luck, the process is already underway.

Eventually these filthy bullies will lose. It may take forever, but they will be swept to the curb and cheerfully forgotten when the world becomes cleaner.

[joshcryer]

120. I take that as a yes.

You think it is okay for governments to arrests citizens simply because they have evidence that they're "colluding agents." They could be nice old grannies who make cookies but if someone claims or there's a piece of paper or there's money being exchanged, they can go to jail for a very long time.

Nice. Welcome to Orwell's world. I consider myself anarchist, politically speaking, I am against governments doing any such things. Read a book called, "Cuban Anarchism: The History of a Movement" and maybe be enlightened about the statist structures that exist there, and how they are ultimately the problem for the masses. Heck, my criticisms of Iran stem directly from the fact that the status quo, those in power, don't really have the people in mind, and the evidence shows that amply. I think that most of Cuba's best social achievements in recent years are due to necessity, the fall of the Soviet Union, not out of some desire of the Cuban government.

[donsu]

114. you'll have to add me to the list with Mika and Judi Lynn

nt

[Mika]

103. Your propaganda ignores certain facts, robcon

The "opposition" members you selectively highlight weren't arrested tried and jailed for publishing papers. They were in the employ of/aiding & abetting declared enemies of Cuba whose intent is to overthrow the system of government. These enemies of Cuba (the US gov and some of the hard line Miamicuban exile orgs) have a long history of attacks and violence against Cuba, its people, and Cuba's interests - and continue to fund such activity to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. This kind of activity is against the law in Cuba just as it is in the US.

No reasonable government/law enforcement system, including the US, would allow such activity (aiding and abetting groups/nations that have attacked and waged terror ops before and continue to harbor terrorists that have attacked) within its borders that potentially endangers life and sovereignty.

One would have to be unreasonable to think that such foreign activity should be allowed or promoted within one's own country.

[joshcryer]

106. Many of the dissidents are non-violent these days.

That's what's so controversial here. Because they get funding they're automatically evil and such. The dissidents are smart, because violence does nothing, eventually they will attain more and more sympathy in Cuba.

[Judi Lynn]

107. It's unlikely they will pick up much more sympathy in Cuba, considering

they affiliate themselves with people who have terrorized Cubans previously. That would be a stretch.

~snip~
Payá also had an opportunity to let the international community judge his commitment to democracy when he launched a newly created “National Dialogue Committee”, whose goal is to organise a transitional programme perfectly in line with the plan President Bush has put in place for snuffing out the Cuban nation. The said committee is made up of around 110 members of the Cuban extreme right, several of whom have a broad experience in international terrorism against the Cuban people. (4)

Among these is Carlos Alberto Montaner, a former CIA agent who received a military training at Fort Benning, and currently president of the Cuban Liberal Union whose headquarters is in Madrid. The organisation he directs is financed by the CIA and has the aim of promoting US foreign policy against Cuba within European and Latin-American administrations. (5)

Payá has also sought the collaboration of José Basulto León, one of the directors of the terrorist organisation Hermanos al Rescate, which has, on many occasions, violated Cuban airspace and, on 24th February 1996, almost triggered an armed conflict between Havana and Washington after the Cuban authorities shot down two of the self-same organisation’s planes which were breaching the country’s security. Basulto also displays a long criminal record: he was trained by the CIA, took part in the mercenary invasion of the Bay of Pigs in April 1961 and, amongst other things, made a bazooka attack on the Blanquita Theatre in Havana on 24th August 1962 when it was full of people. (6)

Far from being satisfied with the presence of these two individuals, the leader of the Christian Liberation Movement has called on such members of the Cuban-American National Foundation as Joe García and Ramón Humberto Colas. (7) Payá has openly expressed his delight at gathering together such “illustrious” personalities: “It is the first time that Cubans from inside and outside are working together as a single people with a single aim”. The declared “aim” is set out clearly in detail in the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, prepared by the former Secretary of State Colin Powell: the elimination of the Cuban revolution. (8)

Oswaldo Payá is too perceptive an individual to overlook the smallest detail of the past history of the members of his committee with their links to terrorist activities, but he has deliberately chosen to align himself with the most backward-looking section of the Cuban exiles. He has formally declared his goal of establishing “a market economy” in Cuba, as outlined in his Varela Project, falsely claimed in the media as being a Cuban initiative when in fact it was created in Washington. (10)

Payá, who is very voluble before the microphones of the international press, has “launched a challenge to the regime” by demanding fifteen minutes on Cuban national television in order to explain his political project. “I am challenging them yet again – to give me just fifteen minutes on the television which we, the Cuban people, pay for through our work”, he said. (11) At the same time, this opposition figure from the Christian Liberation Movement announced that he would refuse to stand at the municipal elections. The reason for this avoidance, by someone who claims to represent a broad segment of the Cuban population, is simple: he has absolutely no local support. In fact Payá, like every “dissident”, can stand and be elected, as Ricardo Alarcón, president of the Cuban National Assembly, has emphasised. (12) However, this type of election, where there is no need for an election campaign or for astronomical finances, but where the candidates are directly elected by those who live in the same district, interests the “human right activists” only minimally. They know full well that they are totally unknown by the Cubans and that the only support they enjoy on the island is within the US Interests Section.
(snip/...)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8077

[0007]

53. Stick with the skins, robcon, you have no idea what you're talking

about!

[Darranar]

25. Oppositional tendencies to the current global ruling class

are consolidating, as is to be expected. This sort of thing is a direct reaction to the "Bush Doctrine" and similar examples of the imposition of unilateral imperial will, and will continue as long as the current organization of the global order is retained.

[Judi Lynn]

40. Florida article on Cuban American visits to Cuba:

Family ties could defy Cuba travel rules

By Paolo Spadoni Special to the Sentinel |
Posted February 6, 2006

~snip~
In 2004, according to Havana's authorities, visits by Cuban-Americans and U.S. citizens not of Cuban descent were down by 50 percent and 40 percent, respectively. Moreover, Washington reported that the number of U.S. legal visitors to Cuba dropped by more than 60 percent between June 2004 and June 2005.

However, it seems that Cuban-Americans remain committed to visit relatives in Cuba despite new regulations that may interfere. While the number of legal trips taken to the island from the United States has clearly declined in the past year and a half, evidence from official Cuban sources suggests that U.S. illegal travel might have increased in 2005 and helped to partially offset the reduction of authorized journeys. Ironically, it is likely that Cuban-American visits accounted for the vast majority of travel violations, even though Washington's tighter rules were specifically designed to curtail family contacts.
(snip)

On the other hand, Cuban sources indicate that illegal trips by Cuban-Americans might be on the rise. It should be noted that, before 2004, Washington's authorities leveled fines against Americans who visited Cuba without permission but paid little attention to U.S. citizens of Cuban descent, as the latter were allowed to visit relatives on the island once a year without approval from their government. Yet given that Bush's new restrictions limit such visits to just once every three years and require a specific license for each trip, it is conceivable that Cuban-Americans began to take steps to bypass U.S. rules. After all, they can easily travel to Cuba through third countries or eventually take advantage of existing licensing programs -- like religious ones -- reserved for purposes other than family reunions.

Havana's official statistics report the total number of Cubans living abroad who visit Cuba every year without providing details on their country of residence. But these figures are a good indicator of Cuban-American travel to the island because the United States has by far the largest concentration of Cuban immigrants. For instance, USCTEC estimated that about 130,000 Cuban-Americans traveled to Cuba in 2003, representing almost 80 percent of all Cuban arrivals reported by ONE (about 168,000). And this share was probably higher because several Cuban-Americans visit their country of origin more than once a year, mainly to engage in informal money transfers.
(snip)

Keeping Cuban families apart could be a bigger challenge than U.S. authorities had envisioned.
(snip/)

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpcuba06020606feb06,0,3860896.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

[ButterflyBlood]

44. Castro and a rabidly anti-Semetic religious fanatic loon

Ah, but I thought Castro was just wonderful and everything bad that is ever said about Cuba is just a bunch of right wing propaganda (even when coming from such deciedly far right sources like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch)

:sarcasm:

[MisterP]

92. lots of national leaders have foreign relations

especially those on world empires' hit lists

[951-Riverside]

57. I think Castro has been to NY numberous times since Bush has been Resident

[robcon]

74. The famous clause in the Cuban Constitution explains it all

Freedom and human rights are always subservient to the needs of the government in Cuba. There are no individual rights in Cuba that can't be trumped by the needs of the "socialist state."

Cuban Constitution of 1976:

"None of the freedoms which are recognized for citizens can be exercised contrary to what is established in the Constitution and by law, or contrary to the existence and objectives of the socialist state, or contrary to the decision of the Cuban people to build socialism and communism. Violations of this principle can be punished by law."

[Judi Lynn]

77. It would be appropriate to link the whole constitution, so readers

can study it themselves.

http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm

[rayofreason]

87. I love the line...

..."..all the regimes based on the exploitation of man by man cause the humiliation of the exploited.."

This reminds me of an old joke from the USSR - "Yes, man exploiting man is terrible. Fortunately in Cuba (USSR) it is just the opposite."

The biggest joke of all was the Soviet constitution that promised all kinds of rights and delivered none. And so it is with the Cuban constitution. Let someone in Cuba try to set up thier own blog or discussion site (CU anyone?) with an independent web server and see how fast the boom come down.

One last joke - again adapted from one I heard from Russian and Georgian friends back in the good old bad old Soviet days.

Why do Cuban secret policemen travel in groups of three? One can read, one can write, and the third keeps an eye on those two intellectuals.

[K-W]

78. So they are like every other government in the world...

and are at times willing to violate rights for the security of the state, yah, I guess that explains it all.

[Mika]

96. Back to misinterpreting Article 62 again is see, robcon

Still at it with the same swill.


Article 62 of the Cuban constitution simply says that one must obey the law as set by the constitution and by law. Every constitution has similar language.

Just where does it say that there are no individual rights?

It doesn't.

In fact, prior and following articles within the same constitution disappoint your false notion. Maybe you should take a look at more of the Cuban constitution.

Just two examples

ARTICLE 54. The rights to assembly, demonstration and association are exercised by workers, both manual and intellectual, peasants, women, students and other sectors of the working people, and they have the necessary means for this. The social and mass organizations have all the facilities they need to carry out those activities in which the members have full freedom of speech and opinion based on the unlimited right of initiative and criticism.

ARTICLE 63. Every citizen has the right to file complaints with and send petitions to the authorities and to be given the pertinent response or attention within a reasonable length of time, in keeping with the law.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spinoza]

113. Figures.

A dictator and a Holocaust denier get together for tea.

[robcon]

119. A strawman argument.

Mika wrote: Just where does it say that there are no individual rights?"

It's not that there are NO rights in Cuba. But Cuba, in contrast with most other countries, says that

"..None of the freedoms which are recognized for citizens can be exercised contrary to what is established in the Constitution and by law, or contrary to the existence and objectives of the socialist state..."

Outlawing capitalism is a disgusting clause in a constitution. Every society should be free to exercise its wishes. The "objectives of the socialist state" as a criterion for legality is the prescription for a one-party state, which Cuba has.

Anti-democratic principles are enshrined in the Cuban Constitution, just as Sharia, ot its equivalent, is enshrined in the Iran system..

edit: grammar

[joshcryer]

121. Cuba is quite capitalist.

From an anarchist perspective Cuba is quite capitalist, class still exists, and so too does the status quo. If you are to look at the tourist industry in Cuba, you will see this intrinsincly capitalist environment, which only a few Cubans can benefit from. Imagine a bunch of nice hotels and resorts being run by some lucky Cubans here and there.

[Mika]

122. Good points joshcryer

Josh C, there are all kinds of capitalist endeavors/businesses in Cuba. From farmers markets, private restaurants, private bed and breakfasts, private boat rentals, dive shops, etc etc etc.

BTW, the large hotels and resorts are mostly joint ventures with hotel and resort multinational corporations. It is they who run them, mostly it is the staffing positions that are filled by Cubans. Cuba owns the majority interest of these properties in Cuba, so all of the improvements and upgrades benefit all Cubans in that the income generated by Cuba in these joint ventures is applied to the social infrastructure that is available to all Cubans.

Also, if, as robcon asserts incorrectly, that capitalism is illegal and outlawed then it shows that the Cuban government is not the totalitarian regime that robcon accuses because these types of businesses are up and running right now and have been for many years.


A little personal experience goes a long way when it comes to understanding the real Cuba. I've actually been there and seen it function, so I can say with full confidence that 99% of Cubaphobic demonization of the nation is just plain wrong (whether the false information and inaccurate demonization is deliberate or just plain ignorance is another matter of discussion).

This is why I have always said that the US travel sanctions banning Americans from going to Cuba easily to see the place for themselves should end. The common misconceptions that so any Americans have about Cuba would be dispelled if they could go to the island and see it and meet Cubans for themselves.




Posted by robcon-->"Anti-democratic principles are enshrined in the Cuban Constitution, just as Sharia, ot its equivalent, is enshrined in the Iran system.."


Drawing a parallel between the Cuban constitution an Sharia religious law is as ridiculous as it gets, and is way more than a wild stretch. :crazy: More like grabbing at straws.

[Judi Lynn]

123. It has always seemed such a good idea for people to learn something

FIRST, then make statements, rather than taking wild shots in the dark, expecting others to believe them.

The current situation aids the right-wing extremist overfocused blow-hards and outright xenophobes. Only intelligent people who personally have seen otherwise can assist by pointing in the right direction.

The travel ban is insurance against too many Americans seeing the reality personally. When that goes, the entire Florida Cuba-hate-industry will implode. All those years of hatred wasted. So much emptiness will be unbearable.



Some of them get immoderately cranky about this subject.