Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Raul Castro to Sean Penn: he'd meet Obama at Gitmo

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 05:01 PM
Original message
Raul Castro to Sean Penn: he'd meet Obama at Gitmo
Source: Associated Press

Raul Castro to Sean Penn: he'd meet Obama at Gitmo
Anita Snow, Associated Press Writer – 22 mins ago

HAVANA – Cuban President Raul Castro said in an interview released Wednesday that he would like to meet President-elect Barack Obama on "neutral ground" — and he suggested the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay.

The Cuban leader's offer came in a rare interview in Havana with actor-director Sean Penn, who wrote about it for the Dec. 15 edition of The Nation magazine. The article was released on the magazine's Web site Wednesday.

Penn asked if Castro would meet with Obama in Washington. The Cuban president said he "would have to think about it," but that it would not be fair for either leader to go to the other's territory. Instead he suggested the base at Guantanamo.

"We must meet and begin to solve our problems, and at the end of the meeting, we could give the president a gift ... we could send him home with the American flag that waves over Guantanamo Bay," Castro said.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081126/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_castro_penn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. OMG - without preconditions!?!?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's a fact you've probably never heard! From the article:
"Despite the fact that we hold different positions as to the most efficient way to eradicate terrorism, the difference between Cuba and the United States lies in the method and not in the need to put an end to the scourge," the government said then, four months after the September 11 attacks on America.

Military officers from both countries meet periodically to discuss mutual matters. Castro told Penn that 157 such meetings have been held since they began in 1994, on the third Friday of every month, and that they are recorded and alternate between the U.S. base and Cuban-held territory.

Castro said the meetings now include a U.S. State Department representative, but "the State Department tends to be less reasonable than the Pentagon." Still, he said, "no one raises their voice because ... I don't take part. Because I talk loud. It is the only place in the world where these two militaries meet in peace."
Amazing! Who would have known?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Wow
I didn't know that.

Interesting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's time for Tio Sam to get the hell outta Gitmo
Castro has a point in suggesting a rendevous at the Guantanamo Base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. That is fucking hilarious!!
No one had told me that Raul Castro was a fucking comic genius: "we could send him home with the American flag that waves over Guantanamo Bay."


BURN!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Wow. I was stunned by that too.
bushco sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
22. Yes, he is, isn't he?
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. The US should return Guantanamo to Cuba
It was stolen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. Too bad Castro doesn't seem serious about meeting.
His little joke at the end about Obama taking the American flag back with him is only provoking those who want to keep us from normalizing relations. Sure, Guantanamo should probably be given back to the Cubans but you don't start friendly discussions with snide remarks. It would have been best to discuss the possibility in private.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
20. After over 600 attempts on his brothers life by the CIA Raul has a right to be snide! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. I think you give up certain rights when you lead a nation.
Raul Castro should do everything in his power to convince the United States to end the embargo that has devastated Cuba's economy for nearly 50 years. If not making smart ass comments, that I agree he has reason for, will help the situation then he should not make smart ass comments. Millions of Cubans deserve his forbearance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. I think it's simplistic to say his comments are snide. Obama said he would
end the disaster that is Guantanamo. Raul's comments pinpoint the conflict over Guantanamo that must be resolved and Obama should not waffle on this ... there is now talk of delay.

Another term might be more useful -- instead of snide:

direct hit
a good idea!
historically appropriate comment


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #28
36. What's simplistic is thinking there aren't groups out there who will turn this comment around.
Yes, we should leave Guantanamo, but whether Castro's comments were correct or not it was still rather snide to say them. For eight years we've had to listen to bush* make inappropriate comments to world leaders and we've seen where it's gotten us. Why do you think this is any different? Leaders should always treat other leaders with respect and save the jokes for private conversation when appropriate.

There is also the repub angle we have to look at. Now Obama is going to have to negotiate with Castro while the right wing pushes the media to tell Americans that he's capitulating to the Cubans if we abandon Gitmo. You can reply saying you don't care what the repubs think or say, but they still have enormous power in the M$M and can push a storyline. Not a good starting point, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Please read this and then rethink Raul's comments
*** This was printed in the New Yorker Magazine

You don't have to be a Fidelista to see that he has some very good points. Obama's Cuba policy needs work.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/mayo/lun26/Reflections-26may.html

Reflections of Fidel


The empire’s hypocritical politics

IT would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing the speech Obama delivered on the afternoon of May 23 at the Cuban American National Foundation created by Ronald Reagan. I listened to his speech, as I did McCain’s and Bush’s. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly.

What were Obama’s statements?

"Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. (…) This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century – of elections that are anything but free or fair (…) I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba," he told annexationists, adding: "It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime. (…) I will maintain the embargo."

The content of these declarations by this strong candidate to the U.S. presidency spares me the work of having to explain the reason for this reflection.

José Hernandez, one of the Cuban American National Foundation directors whom Obama praises in his speech, was none other than the owner of the Caliber-50 automatic rifle, equipped with telescopic and infrared sights, which was confiscated, by chance, along with other deadly weapons while being transported by sea to Venezuela, where the Foundation had planned to assassinate the writer of these lines at an international meeting on Margarita, in the Venezuelan state of Nueva Esparta.

Pepe Hernández’ group wanted to return to the pact with Clinton, betrayed by Mas Canosa’s clan, who secured Bush’s electoral victory in 2000 through fraud, because the latter had promised to assassinate Castro, something they all happily embraced. These are the kinds of political tricks inherent to the United States’ decadent and contradictory system.

Presidential candidate Obama’s speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it.

How does he plan to address the extremely serious problem of the food crisis? The world’s grains must be distributed among human beings, pets and fish, the latter of which are getting smaller every year and more scarce in the seas that have been over-exploited by large trawlers which no international organization has been able to halt. Producing meat from gas and oil is no easy feat. Even Obama overestimates technology’s potential in the fight against climate change, though he is more conscious of the risks and the limited margin of time than Bush. He could seek the advice of Gore, who is also a democrat and is no longer a candidate, as he is aware of the accelerated pace at which global warming is advancing. His close political rival Bill Clinton, who is not running for the presidency, an expert on extra-territorial laws like the Helms-Burton and Torricelli Acts, can advise him on an issue like the blockade, which he promised to lift and never did.

What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency? "For two hundred years," he said, "the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle --not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and

despair. That is not a future that we have to accept --not for the child in

Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We

must do better. (…) We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach." A magnificent description of imperialist globalization: the globalization of empty stomachs! We ought to thank him for it. But, 200 years ago, Bolivar fought for Latin American unity and, more than 100 years ago, Martí gave his life in the struggle against the annexation of Cuba by the United States. What is the difference between what Monroe proclaimed and what Obama proclaims and resuscitates in his speech two centuries later?

"I will reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we'll also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas. We'll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people," he said near the end, adding: "Together, we can choose the future over the past." A beautiful phrase, for it attests to the idea, or at least the fear, that history makes figures what they are and not all the way around.

Today, the United States has nothing of the spirit behind the Philadelphia declaration of principles formulated by the 13 colonies that rebelled against English colonialism. Today, they are a gigantic empire undreamed of by the country’s founders at the time. Nothing, however, was to change for the natives and the slaves. The former were exterminated as the nation expanded; the latter continued to be auctioned at the marketplace —men, women and children—for nearly a century, despite the fact that "all men are born free and equal", as the Declaration of Independence affirms. The world’s objective conditions favored the development of that system.

In his speech, Obama portrays the Cuban Revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the exact same argument which, almost without exception, U.S. administrations have used again and again to justify their crimes against our country. The blockade, in and of itself, is an act of genocide. I don’t want to see U.S. children inculcated with those shameful values.

An armed revolution in our country might not have been needed without the military interventions, Platt Amendment and economic colonialism visited upon Cuba.

The Revolution was the result of imperial domination. We cannot be accused of having imposed it upon the country. The true changes could have and ought to have been brought about in the United States. Its own workers, more than a century ago, voiced the demand for an eight-hour work shift, which stemmed from the development of productive forces.

The first thing the leaders of the Cuban Revolution learned from Martí was to believe in and act on behalf of an organization founded for the purposes of bringing about a revolution. We were always bound by previous forms of power and, following the institutionalization of this organization, we were elected by more than 90% of voters, as has become customary in Cuba, a process which does not in the least resemble the ridiculous levels of electoral participation which, many a time, as in the case of the United States, stay short of 50% of voters. No small and blockaded country like ours would have been able to hold its ground for so long on the basis of ambition, vanity, deceit or the abuse of power, the kind of power its neighbor has. To state otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of our heroic people.

I am not questioning Obama’s great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. I feel sympathy for his wife and little girls, who accompany him and give him encouragement every Tuesday. It is indeed a touching human spectacle. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.

Is it right for the president of the United States to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext may be?

Is it ethical for the president of the United States to order the torture of other human beings?

Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet?

Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment to only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilize it, good and honorable, even when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? If it is good, why is this right not automatically granted to Haitians, Dominicans, and other peoples of the Caribbean, and why isn’t the same Act applied to Mexicans and people from Central and South America, who die like flies against the Mexican border wall or in the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific?

Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables, fruits, almonds and other delicacies for U.S. citizens? Who would sweep their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and lowest-paid jobs?

Are crackdowns on illegal residents fair, even as they affect children born in the United States?

Are the brain-drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable?

You state, as I pointed out at the beginning of this reflection, that your country had long ago warned European powers that it would not tolerate any intervention in the hemisphere, reiterating that this right be respected while demanding the right to intervene anywhere in the world with the aid of hundreds of military bases and naval, aerial and spatial forces distributed across the planet. I ask: is that the way in which the United States expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?

Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more dark corners of the world, as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may be?

Is it honorable and sane to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over?

Before judging our country, you should know that Cuba, with its education, health, sports, culture and sciences programs, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and the blood that has been shed in acts of solidarity towards other peoples, in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of your powerful country, is proof that much can be done with very little. Not even our closest ally, the Soviet Union, was able to achieve what we have.

The only form of cooperation the United States can offer other nations consist in the sending of military professionals to those countries. It cannot offer anything else, for it lacks a sufficient number of people willing to sacrifice themselves for others and offer substantial aid to a country in need (though Cuba has known and relied on the cooperation of excellent U.S. doctors). They are not to blame for this, for society does not inculcate such values in them on a massive scale.

We have never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the United States our help when Hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our internationalist medical brigade bears the glorious name of Henry Reeve, a young man, born in the United States, who fought and died for Cuba’s sovereignty in our first war of independence.

Our Revolution can mobilize tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilize an equally vast number of teachers and citizens, who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfill any noble purpose, not to usurp people’s rights or take possession of raw materials.

The good will and determination of people constitute limitless resources that cannot be kept and would not fit in the vault of a bank. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.

Fidel Castro Ruz

May 25, 2008

10:35 p.m.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. I know the U.S. is in the wrong here. There was never an argument there.
I'm just saying you don't oil the machinery of negotiations with snide comments or silly jokes. All that does is give the opposition within the U.S. a chance to foist some bullshit meme on the M$M to push into the minds of the average media consumer. Think back to Hillary's healthcare plan. It was wildly popular until the media started pushing lies and non-issues. If Obama really does want to ease or end this stupid embargo, he needs help from the Castros, not antagonism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. But Obama DOESN'T want to end the embargo.
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 04:46 PM by Billy Burnett
In his own words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqO37BBhCqY


Plus he added an insult or two directed at Cubans.

As usual, seemingly unaware of the verbal threats and attacks by American leadership too many Americans think that Cuba has to get on it's knees to negotiate with the US. :puke:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. As someone dear to Cuba already said, they'd rather die on their feet than live on their knees. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. As you can see, too many Americans tend to swallow everything they hear, without thought,
or even a moment of conscious reflection.

The U.S. C.I.A. conducted horrendous waves of violence and destruction against not only Fidel Castro, which you mentioned, but also the Cuban people themselves, and that pattern has remained in place up to this moment. The C.I.A. moved back, and the Cuban "exiles" did the dirty, filthy work, and even started farming out some of the murdeous actions to poor people they recruited from Latin America, as testified by one of a group caught bombing hotels in Havana, which killed an Italian tourist, and injured many others.

Anyone wanting to check on one name which comes to mind, look for "Eduardo Arocena," who testitifed in his own murder trial in New York, after he among others slaughtered a Cuban diplomat to the United Nations in his car. During his trial he cofessed he had carried biological warfare items into Cuba for the C.I.A. Other "exiles" have testified to similar acts.

Anyone getting serious about finding out about over 40 years of terrorism against the Cuban people themselves, after a reign of terror by U.S.-suppported bloody dictator Fulgencio Batista, who TORTURED dissidents, some to death, and who used death squads, the most well known of them being "Masferrer's Tigers," and threw the bodies of their victims into the streets, or hung them from lampposts or from trees, or even had them quartered and hung from trees, as in Santiago de Cuba, can always feel welcome and encouraged to start doing his/her homework in order to speak from a base in reality about Cuba.

Here's something I found which could be useful for some DU'ers, perhaps:

U.S. Aggression & Propaganda Against Cuba
Why the unrelieved U.S. antagonism toward Cuba?
by Michael Parenti
Z magazine, September 2004
~snip~
The U.S. policy toward Cuba has been consistent with its longstanding policy of trying to subvert any country that pursues an alternative path in the use of its land, labor, capital, markets, and natural resources. Any nation or political movement that emphasizes self-development, egalitarian human services, and public ownership is condemned as an enemy and targeted for sanctions or other forms of attack. In contrast, the countries deemed "friendly toward America" and "pro-West" are those that leave themselves at the disposal of large U.S. investors on terms that are totally favorable to the moneyed corporate interests.

Of course, this is not what U.S. rulers tell the people of North America. As early as July 1960, the White House charged that Cuba was "hostile" to the United States (despite the Cuban government's repeated overtures for normal friendly relations). The Castro government, in Eisenhower's words, was "dominated by international communism." U.S. officials repeatedly charged that the island government was a cruel dictatorship and that the United States had no choice but to try "restoring" Cuban liberty.

U.S. rulers never explained why they were so suddenly concerned about the freedoms of the Cuban people. In the two decades before the Revolution, successive Administrations in Washington manifested no opposition to the brutally repressive autocracy headed by General Fulgencio Batista. Quite the contrary, they sent him military aid, did a vigorous business with him, and treated him well in every other way. The significant but unspoken difference between Castro and Batista was that Batista, a comprador ruler, left Cuba wide open to U.S. capital penetration. In contrast, Castro and his revolutionary movement did away with private corporate control of the economy, nationalized U.S. holdings, and renovated the class structure toward a more collectivized and egalitarian mode.

Needless to say, the U.S. method of mistreatment has been applied to other countries besides Cuba. Numerous potentially dissident regimes that have asked for friendly relations have been met with abuse and aggression from Washington: Vietnam, Chile (under Allende), Mozambique, Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua (under the Sandinistas), Panama (under Torrijo), Grenada (under the New Jewel Movement), Yugoslavia (under Milosevic), Haiti (under Aristide), Venezuela (under Chavez), and numerous others.

The U.S. modus operandi is:
* heap criticism on the targeted government for imprisoning the butchers, assassins, terrorists, and torturers of the previous U.S.-backed reactionary regime
* denounce the revolutionary or reformist government as "totalitarian" for failing to immediately institute Western-style, electoral politics
* launch ad hominem attacks upon the leader, labeling him or her as fanatical, brutal, repressive, genocidal, power hungry, or even mentally imbalanced
* denounce the country as a threat to regional peace and stability
* harass, destabilize, and impose economic sanctions to cripple its economy
* attack it with surrogate forces, trained, equipped, and financed by the U.S. and led by members of the former regime, or even with regular U.S. armed forces

Manipulating Public Opinion
How the corporate-owned capitalist press has served in the crusade against Cuba tells us a lot about why the U.S. public is so misinformed about issues relating to that country. Following the official White House line, the corporate news media regularly denies that the United States harbors aggressive designs against Cuba or any other government. The stance taken against Cuba, it was said, was simply a defense against communist aggrandizement. Cuba was repeatedly condemned as a tool of Soviet aggression and expansionism. But now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, Cuba is still treated as a mortal enemy. U.S. acts of aggression-including armed invasion-continue to be magically transformed into acts of defense.
More:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Caribbean/US_Aggression_Cuba.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Tried to edit grammatical errors, got back too late. Much too late at night, mind malfunctions! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. That's a good article. Note that many countries get a pass - China, etc.
but Cuba is easy for the USA to pick on because they don't offer much in terms of natural resources or consumers, etc.

The younger generation of Cuban Americans want change. I hope that Obama doesn't listen to Hillary if she is SOS because her brother is married to a right wing Cuban American who influenced the Clintons. That said Bill Clinton relaxed the embargo somewhat. I expect a more sane approach from Obama, but it's probably not a priority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #29
54. Bill Clinton didn't relax the embargo. Under his admin it was stepped up considerably.
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 05:03 PM by Billy Burnett
Maybe you missed this little item --> Libertad Act (aka: Helms-Burton).

Obama's "sane" approach (as forwarded by him) is to relax Bush's increased travel and remittance sanction on Cuba-Americans and Cuban resident aliens - creating a special class of citizen/resident that will be free to travel anywhere including Cuba.

The rest of us non-Cuban-Americans and non-Cuban resident aliens are relegated to second class freedumb status and will continue to be travel restricted by the US government.
:crazy:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Thanks for the insult.
I don't "buy" the idea that the U.S. is there legally or even with purpose. I'm just saying that world leaders need to speak to each other with respect if they want to get things done. Didn't the bush* years teach you that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. What do you feel is unpardonable about what Raul Castro said?
Why should not the American President return home with the American flag? Why is it appropriate for the US to maintain Guatanamo, and why would it be, in your great opinion of permissable language concerning the Holy American President, not acceptable for someone to suggest getting out of the country the U.S. has both invaded and conducted over 40 years of economic war against, along with a horrendous history of violence and terrorism?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. I never stated that his comments were "unpardonable".
They just weren't conducive to polite negotiations in a volatile atmosphere where certain groups will want to take any misplaced comments at their worst. I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding that point without attacking my comments and trying to twist their meaning, but I think I've been rather clear. If Castro is serious about normalizing relations with the United States, regardless of who is wrong or right, he will contain his sense of humor and deal respectfully with President Obama - and Obama will return his respect. You just don't go into sensitive negotiations cracking jokes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Um, Raul was speaking with Sean Penn, not to Obama.
Unless Sean Penn was working as an official US envoy. :eyes:

Speaking of respectful dialog ... Considering the accurate observation that Mr. Obama changed position on the US sanctions on Cuba (from against sanctions, to pro sanctions) when he was in Miami speaking to associates of known exile terrorists, I think Raul knows that President Obama won't set foot on Cuba - it would upset the factions he was pandering to in Miami.

Seeing as that Obama made an official position statement that the US would retain the extra territorial sanctions designed to cripple Cuba under his admin isn't exactly speaking with respect to Cuban US policy watchers, including Raul.

I was half surprised to see that Mr. Obama didn't learn from the Bush years either.

Your point regarding respectful dialog is a double edged sword - that Mr Obama wielded in Miami, 2007.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. OK, then. You go on supporting hostile relations between the two countries.
I was trying to interject some reasonable comments into the thread but since so many here need their red meat propaganda, I'll just leave you all to it.

Enjoy your echo chamber. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Your words are comical, considering Billy Burnett had been to Cuba so many times by the time I
started reading his postings in 2000, at the CNN US-Cuba Policy message board people there considered him the first authority, and the idiot right-wing reactionaries made him their prime target day after day after day. He and other completely knowledgeable and pro-Cuban poster both also did a robust bit of posting at another heavy traffic site, as well during that time.

Billy's "echo chamber" has a host of people in it, including his Cuban friends on the island.

Hostile relations between the two countries. Oh, god, that's a hot one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Do you even know what an echo chamber is?
I'm not doubting anyone's knowledge of Cuba or the U.S. or Qatar for that matter. I'm saying that snide comments don't win friends. That fact that you can't seem to get that concept into your head shows that there's nothing left for us to discuss. You are right regardless of what facts or opinions anyone else presents so you just go on with your narrow viewpoint and I won't bother you any longer...longer...longer...onger...onger...ger...ger....... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. Haven't seen any of your consciousness raising comments. Most of us recognize
no one is narrow-minded by the time he/she starts digging out through the heavy layers of propaganda we've been buried beneath since childhood, separating us from the light of truth.

Narrow minded is someone who persists in buying the corporate propaganda deliberately thrown at us over the years concerning the unworthiness of leftist leaders.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Just go ahead and mischaracterize what I said.
You're claiming that you're interjecting some reasonable comments into the thread - where?

"Red meat propaganda"? What is that all about? Care to explain?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. That would be more like the stunningly stupid idea that leftists of other countries
are lesser people and lower than US-ians, and obligated to do our bidding, and that the leader of a country which spends less in one entire year than the US does in 12 hours on defense has to bow and scrape at the prospect some President of the U.S. might consider altering the dead wrong, imperial, internationally illegal U.S. policy against his country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. Americans have no right to Cuban soil. Navy sailors used to have sex with Cuban girls!
All Cuban governments wanted the US to return Gitmo back to Cuba, stolen as a pre-condition to independence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. If Raul were a dictator, like Bushco*, he would issue a signing statement voiding the treaty.
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 03:59 PM by Billy Burnett
Seeing as how he isn't, he's adhering to the Cuban constitution.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Please...he took over from his dictator brother
you think they are going to evict the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. Guide us all to the part where Billy Burnett said they will evict "us." Missed it, apparently. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #7
25. Since the old agreements say US will use Gitmo only as a "coaling station," there's a case
Edited on Thu Nov-27-08 06:32 AM by struggle4progress
that US has violated those agreements
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Obviously the U.S. has violated its agreements since bush* took office.
I'm merely saying that world leaders who are interested in getting things done don't take cheap shots. Simple concept, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #32
48. Americans lecturing Cubans on how to get things done?
Laughable. Really. :rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoonzang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. How about......no. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
9. because of US base ..no choice but to hammer out deals n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dirigo Donating Member (157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Gitmo Leased in 1903
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 08:49 PM by Dirigo
Since Gitmo was leased by the U.S. from Cuba in 1903 and had to mutually agree upon terms to end the lease, I ask what strategic purpose does Gitmo play in our national interest today over a hundred years later? We use it to violate the Geneva Conventions and we obviously placate Miami's Cuban community to sucker GOP votes out of them. It's only 400 miles from Florida, so given the technology of today, our naval capabilities today why on earth do we need Gitmo? Why not turn it into a Caribbean Refuge Center for all boat people rescued through the Caribbean waters to sort them out and return them from whence they come without having to do it on the beaches of Florida. Why not use it for humanitarian purposes rather than whatever it is we're using it for. Can it be for military golf, for military getaways to an exotic climate during the wintertime? Why don't we set up shop for the Navy in several places in the Caribbean perhaps closer still to Venezuela and make friends with its neighbors. We don't own Gitmo and it appears we'll never be able to annex it so why sink more money in that rat hole? We desalinate ocean water to drink and we generate our own electricity, etc. The base is self sufficient. Dismantal the damned thing or are we afraid Raul will invite the Russians to lease it for their naval interests or is Venezuela's port a better port for the Russians? If we can house hundreds and perhaps thousands of people swept up in a dragnet and hold them 7 years why in hell can't we use it for humanitarian purposes and still be within the terms of the lease?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor Cynic Donating Member (965 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. It was set up as a coaling station for steamships, and it might have become like Hong Kong.
Uncle Sam continues to send a monthly check to Cuba as rent. Fidel doesn't recognize this lease, but since one check was mistakenly cashed and cleared the lease has to continue indefinitely. It's just a convenient place to build a secret prison since US law doesn't apply there.

As for the Russians, it isn't the first time they sent ships to Cuba when US forces held Gitmo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dirigo Donating Member (157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Rabble Rouser
I didn't see where Castro cashed one of the checks and therefore it constitutes a contract and must go on indefinitely. I did see we pay about $4,000 a year, the lease has to be mutually agreed upon to change it, and it was further enforced with a Treaty. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think what Fidel thinks about a Lease executed in 1903 before his time matters one wit. He can protest all he wants but there is a lease in force and the US doesn't agree with what he thinks. I don't think cashing a check inadvertently some 50 years after the lease was executed would constitute any legal force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Funny, that
"And it was further enforced with a treaty"

Y'know, I have several ancestors, not to speak of living relatives who would just love to see certain treaties made by the US government enforced. see, this is the trouble with making "reaties" with a people who are for all intents and purposes subjugated - they have no recourse if the treaty is broken. Cuba in 1903 was really no better-off than the Natives during the previous forty years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. The Treaty says the lease continues till BOTH sides agree otherwise.
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 11:48 PM by happyslug
Thus Cuba has NOT even cashed the checks, they are deposited into a Swiss account since 1959. Whether Castro ever cashed a check or not is unimportant, the treaty clearly says the lease continued till BOTH Cuba and the US AGREE that the lease ends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_Treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Relations

The actual text of the 1934 treaty that governs Guantanamo:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/dip_cuba001.asp

Article 3 of the 1934 treaty:
Until the two contracting parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations signed by the President of the Republic of Cuba on February 16, 1903, and by the President of the United States of America on the 23d day of the same month and year, the stipulations of that agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantanamo shall continue in effect. The supplementary agreement in regard to naval or coaling stations signed between the two Governments on July 2, 1903, also shall continue in effect in the same form and on the same conditions with respect to the naval station at Guantanamo. So long as the United States of America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits, the station shall continue to have the territorial area that it now has, with the limits that it has on the date of the signature of the present Treaty.

Notice the US has the RIGHT under this clause to continue to occupy Guantanamo unit the US decides to abandon it. Cuba can NOT evict the US, it is a perpetual lease.

Please note the Wikipedia contains the statement that Castro has cashed a check, but gives no citation. The above language clearly shows that whether Castro cashed a check of NOT is unimportant, the treaty by its own terms forbids Cuba from evicting the US, thus it is UNIMPORTANT if Castro cashed a check or not.

The statement that Cuba cashed a check seems to be False. Such false statement do creep into Wikipedia. I like and use Wikipedia, most of the time the information is accurate, but false statements like this one creeps in. Note even Wikipedia points out that they is NO citation for this finding, always something to watch for an check on another cite to make sure it is true (and I suspect it is NOT true in this case).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnie624 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #18
33. The first "president" of Cuba, who was the original signatory of the Guantanamo lease
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 12:14 AM by ronnie624
was a U.S. citizen. Considering the history of U.S. involvement in Cuba, I can just imagine the process by which he became the "president". It seems likely that Cubans had little or no say in the matter. The legitimacy of the lease could possibly be successfully challenged in an international legal forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
39. Gitmo and Platt Amendment were a pre-condition to Cuban independence
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 03:02 PM by IndianaGreen
No one gave the US the right to Cuban soil! We are still under the delusion that we have the right to someone else's land, just as we did about slaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnie624 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #39
61. Exactly right.
For many, the discussion begins with the ingrained assumption that the U.S. has a right to occupy the territory of another country. Any departure from that premise simply doesn't compute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. '...he would like to meet President-elect Barack Obama on "neutral ground" '
....sounds quite reasonable to me....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
15. Who is this person and why are they relevant
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 10:15 PM by Pavulon
oh yeah, the brother of a dictator, and they are totally irrelevant to us policy. Just waiting for big bro to die so all rules set in place go away.

Edit:speling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
16. what a lovely idea -- and i would love
for barack to come home with that flag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
19. don't think that Obama will go to Cuba
or at least I hope not

that would be giving this dictator way too much

and before I get attacked for calling the Castro brothers dictators-save it




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dothemath Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. Arguing with a turnip ............
Consider it saved. Closed minds belong in the 'gene' pool - just before cleaning and filling with concrete.

Cuba is a nation, that despite being under the jack-booted heel of the USA for
more than 50 years, has more doctors, better health care, its citizens enjoy a longer life span, fewer infant deaths and has yet to be forgiven for getting rid of Batista - an honest-to-God dictator.

If Cuba had our FEMA, what with being pummeled with more hurricanes than anybody, including the USA, the island would be deserted now because everyone would be dead.

Just shut up and go away, you ignorant jerk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. You've gone to the trouble to inform yourself of Cuba's history. Scary! It's not as common
seeing people who've bothered to do any reading on the subject, as one would hope, and it's a shame.

That leaves propagandists an open field to say any old thing which comes to mind about the place, and it will most likely stand, since American citizens aren't allowed to go there to find out the truth for themselves, legally, and run the risk of an enormous penalty financially, and even time in jail if they get caught trying to visit Cuba.

You'd think that would make people even more determined to find out the truth, wouldn't you? Oh, well!

Welcome to D.U., resnah. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. jack-booted heel?
great hyperbole

they traded one dictator for another

actually FEMA worked pretty well before Bush put an incompetent political appointment in there

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
56. Funny thing. Cuba's disaster mitigation systems work well, no matter who's in charge.
From OXFAM America ...

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/emergencies/2004_tsunami/background/cubalessons

Oxfam America recently studied the experience of Cuba in its development of disaster prevention and mitigation programs. Situated in the Caribbean Sea, Cuba frequently stands in the way of serious hurricanes. While its neighbors are battered, losing lives and property, Cuba is unusually good at withstanding these calamities, and suffers much fewer dead.

Oxfam’s report, entitled Weathering the Storm: Lessons in Risk Reduction in Cuba cites a number of attributes of Cuba’s risk reduction program that can be applied by other countries. Three in particular are transferable to Asia and other regions:
Disaster Preparedness: Cuba was especially good at mobilizing entire communities to develop their own disaster preparations. This involves mapping out vulnerable areas of the community, creating emergency plans, and actually simulating emergencies so people can practice evacuations and other measures designed to save lives. When disaster strikes, people know what to do.

Commitment of Resources: Cuba’s strong central government prioritizes resources for its civil defense department. This helps the country to build up a common understanding of the importance of saving lives, and the citizens trust that their contributions to the government are well used for this purpose. Their collaboration on developing emergency plans helped build confidence in the government, so people trust in the plan they helped develop.

Communications: The communications system for emergencies in Cuba builds on local resources. Using local radio stations and other media to issue warnings on potential hazards also reinforces the disaster preparations. Since the local population is already involved in mapping risks and creating emergency plans, they are more inclined to act on emergency bulletins. Good communications, packaged simply, and built on existing, commonly used resources, is another way to build trust in disaster preparations.

Cuba is a unique example. There is a strong central government committed to protecting all its citizens, even the poorest and most isolated who are typically the most at risk. The most common natural disaster in Cuba is a hurricane, a threat visible for days and even weeks in advance. Yet building a culture of disaster preparedness, and involving local communities in mitigating risks, are strategies that can be applied in many other places, regardless of how rich or poor a country might be.


Looks like Cubans could show us how to get things done.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
55. Cuban leader willing to talk to Obama at neutral venue
Edited on Fri Nov-28-08 05:12 PM by Judi Lynn
Cuban leader willing to talk to Obama at neutral venue
By David Usborne in New York
Friday November 28 2008

RAUL CASTRO, the Cuban leader, has told the actor Sean Penn that he would be willing to meet Barack Obama, the president-elect, after he assumes power in the United States, although he added the encounter should take place in a "neutral location", for instance Guantanamo Bay.

"We must meet and begin to solve our problems," President Castro said during a highly unusual interview given to Mr Penn in Havana a few weeks before Mr Obama was elected. His article will be published in the December 15 issue of 'The Nation' magazine.

The purpose of such a summit, Fidel Castro's younger brother added, would be primarily to end the trade restrictions that the US has imposed on the Caribbean island since its Marxist revolution, which will be marked by 50th anniversary celebrations in January.

Penn, whose new film about Harvey Milk, the gay rights pioneer and city supervisor in San Francisco opened in the US this week, travelled in October to Venezuela and Cuba.

Critics of American policy towards Cuba have taken heart from the election of Mr Obama, who said during his campaign that he would lift the new restrictions imposed by George Bush on exchanges with Cuba.

He promised to allow Cuban-Americans to visit the island as often as they liked and to send as much money as they wished to their families there.

More:
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/cuban-leader-willing-to-talk-to-obama-at-neutral-venue-1556240.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-08 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Creating a special class of US citizen/resident is unconscionable.
So, Obama states that he wants to push US government policy to liberate only Cuban-Americans and Cuban resident aliens, so that they with be an exclusive class of citizens/residents - free to travel the world including Cuba.

Meanwhile, the rest of us US citizens/residents will continue to be relegated to second class status - restricted by an egregious travel sanction by our own government.

Pure pandering to an intransigent demographic seeking more special privileges - and it looks as though Obama will grant them yet another US government perk, while the rest of us are subjected to this civil rights violation.

Mr. Obama's stated position on this only highlights the inequity and hypocrisy of such policy, and if he enacts such an exile pandering policy it will be the laughing stock of the rising Latin Americas. Of course Raul hopes that Mr. Obama will recognize this, and won't succumb to the squealing minority of Miamicuban exiles demands of exclusivity, and end unfair travel restrictions for all Americans/residents.

Yes, President Obama will have many bigger fish to fry, but this one is easy.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Unbearably twisted reality in allowing the very same hard-core reactionaries who have controlled
US policy on Cuba since the 1960's, the same people who had their "exile" legislators, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Robert Menendez #### all Cuba-related legislation so that no matter what was adopted by our House got ripped back out in committee by one of them, or the loser right-wing lunatics they made their puppets, like Tom DeLay, and Dan Burton, and everyone they could influence, and Jesse Helms, Bob Smith, Robert Torricelli, etc. in the Senate.

Their strings reach all the way, we have learned, to Geneva, where they go to put the bite on delegates from other countries, and especially to the Czech Republic, and right-wing characters in assorted other European countries, as well as VietNamese "exiles" in the U.S., enlisted to assist them in their dirty campaign against Cubans.

These same people who have conducted over 40 years of terroristic acts against Cubans, sending wave after wave of terrorists to Cuba in massively armed boats, shooting at hotels from the water, kidnapping, even murdering Cuban citizens, bombing hotels, restaurants, discoteques, hiring Latin Americans to plant bombs in buildings, murdering, maiming, poisoning crops, livestock, unleashing biological warfare in the countryside, as testisfied by "exile" Eduardo Arocena, during his court trial for the murder of Cuban UN diplomat Felix Garcia Rodriguez, that he carried biological warfare materials into Cuba for the CIA.

Here's a great article which discusses Arocena you may find worth reading:
The GOP's Bill Ayers?
The McCain campaign has its own questionable connections to bombers and assassins.
By A.L. Bardach
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2008, at 3:40 PM ET

~snip~
As a result, McCain's campaign and advisers find themselves allied with and/or supporting militants who have committed acts that any reasonable observer would define as terrorism. On July 20, while campaigning for McCain in Miami and just prior to speaking at a McCain event, Sen. Joe Lieberman met with the wife of convicted serial bomber Eduardo Arocena and promised to pursue a presidential pardon on his behalf. Arocena is the founder of the notorious Cuban exile militant group Omega 7, renowned for a string of bombings from 1975 to 1983. Arocena was convicted of the 1980 murder of a Cuban diplomat in Manhattan. In 1983, Arocena was arrested and charged with 42 counts pertaining to conspiracy, explosives, firearms, and destruction of foreign government property within the United States. He is currently serving a life sentence in federal prison in Indiana. His targets included:
  • Madison Square Garden (he blew up an adjacent store);
  • JFK airport (Arocena's group planted a suitcase bomb intended for a TWA flight to Los Angeles—in protest of the airline's flights to Cuba. The plane would have exploded if not for the fact that the bomb went off on the tarmac prior to being loaded);
  • Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center (causing damage to three levels of the theater and halting the performance of a music group from Cuba);
  • the ticket office of the Soviet airline Aeroflot;
    and a church.
He also attempted to assassinate the Cuban ambassador to the United Nations.

Arocena was also convicted of the 1979 murder of New Jersey resident Eulalio José Negrín. The 37-year-old Negrín, who advocated diplomacy with Cuba, was machine-gunned down as he stepped into his car, dying in the arms of his 13-year-old son.
More:
http://www.slate.com/id/2202183/

These same people, who've been financing murders, bombings like the Cubana airliner which was brought down in flight, killing all 73 passengers on board, including children, and the Cuban fencing team, as described as financiers of his activities by one of the bombers, Luis Posada Carriles, former CIA and Iran/Contra figure, as well as terrorist, and mass murderer and bomber, are themselves free to come and go from the same country they've been terrrozing all these long years after the Cuban people threw them out of their high government positions and they fled to the US.

With the slick arrangement for their freedom to travel, they can come and go, while they have arranged it politically to keep US from going there, ourselves, and they thrive on a horrendous blob of US taxpayers' hard earned tax dollars year in, year out, as we are expected to pay their unbelievable budgets they've arranged for themselves to operate without any real oversight whatsoever.

Real slick operators, aren't they? They've got friends in high places, by god, and apparently we don't.

Here's some interesting information on Arocena posted by DU'er magbana:
John McCain Hugs Cuban Terrorist in Miami

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/56276-john-mccain-hugs-cu...

I think it is safe to say John McCain is palling around with noted terrorist Roberto Martin Perez in the video seen here. You kinda want to ask them to get a room.

Like most presidential politicians, McCain has tried to appeal to the far right-wing Cuban exile community in South Florida by chumming up with some of the most violent terrorists in the Americas. I guess that's okay, as long as the innocent civilians they target for death and suffering are...not in America. Right?

Except that Martin Perez, McCain's good buddy, is lobbying very hard for the release of fellow Cuban exile terrorist Eduardo Arocena, who has carried out terrorist attacks in the United States and says he would happily do so again.

Arocena was the founder of a terrorist organization called Omega 7, founded in New Jersey on Sept. 11, 1974 -- one year exactly after the US-funded overthrow of Salvador Allende (also on Sept. 11).

When Jimmy Carter loosened restrictions against Cuba, Arocena and his group demonstrated their displeasure by setting off bombs in New York City, New Jersey and elsewhere in the United States. During his trial, Arocena (who is still in prison for these activities) said he would happily kill American civilians if it furthered his cause. McCain, meanwhile, is promising exiles in Miami he will release this man if he is elected.

Omega 7 is responsible for the murder on Sept. 21, 1976, of Orlando Letelier in New York City, on behalf of Chilean dictator Agosto Pinochet. On Sept. 11, 1980, Cuban diplomat Felix Rodriguez is assassinated in New York by this same group. These guys are not afraid to kill innocent civilians on American soil. And McCain is not afraid to hug them in public.

McCain, in attempting to get the Cuban vote in Miami, has promised exiles there that he'll release Arocena. Joe Leiberman even went so far as to accept a letter from Arocena's wife, promising to take it to Laura Bush; here is a video of it.
More:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x8735

You've hit the point directly on the head. It's a bitter shame THESE people will be given every opportunity to come and go at will to Cuba while that country is banned to ordinary American citizens, 90 miles away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sex Pistol Donating Member (257 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
59. Raul is a fool to suggest that Obama will be his tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. He would be had he done that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mudoria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
60. I doubt Cuba is high on President Obama's list of things to
do in his first term. But if the President ever decides to meet with castro, Raul will show up where he's told to or I'm guessing the meeting will never take place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Obama doesn't need a list of things to do regarding Cuba. He needs to stop doing things to Cuba
Edited on Sat Nov-29-08 03:41 PM by Billy Burnett
Plus the discussion on US/Cuba relations has to include the injustice of denying American's constitutional right to unfettered travel.

Its more than just Cuba. It's our US constitutional rights being violated also. Supporting a policy to end the travel restrictions on Americans would be easy - mainly because a majority of Americans desire this change.


"But if the President ever decides to meet with castro, Raul will show up where he's told to..."

A example of the pathetic American exceptionalism that is being ever more rejected across the Latin Americas.

Raul was part of the leadership of the populist Cuban revolution that kicked the US oligarchy out of Cuba in 1959. Just who the F do you think he is, a frat boy?

One thing is certain, Raul and the rest of Cubans are not and will not be kowtowing to the US (excepting, of course, the US funded traitors referred to in the US media as "dissidents").


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Astonishing ignorance, isn't it? Such swaggering bravado can only seem appropriate among
very backward people, people who live entirely on emotion, incapable of investing the time, attention, perserverance needed to be informed.

Unbearably absurd.

Cuba has been exceptional in its ability to make its own way from the revolution forward, as noted even by the World Bank official, James Wolfensohn, admired and respected throughout Latin America and the world. Just not among the right-wing reactionaries, and dipsticks who can't be bothered to know what they're talking about, but live, instead, on idle rumor, conjecture, and outright whoppers which get passed around the ignorant yahoos as representations of reality.

A reminder of what James Wolfensohn said about Cuba years ago:
Learn from Cuba, says World Bank

by Jim Lobe

Washington, 30 Apr 2001 (IPS) - World Bank President James Wolfensohn Monday extolled the Communist government of President Fidel Castro for doing “a great job” in providing for the social welfare of the Cuban people.

His remarks followed Sunday’s publication of the Bank’s 2001 edition of ‘World Development Indicators’ (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics.

It also showed that Havana has actually improved its performance in both areas despite the continuation of the US trade embargo against it, and the end of Soviet aid and subsidies for the Caribbean island more than ten years ago.

“Cuba has done a great job on education and health,” Wolfensohn told reporters at the conclusion of the annual spring meetings of the Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). “They have done a good job, and it does not embarrass me to admit it.”

His remarks reflect a growing appreciation in the Bank for Cuba’s social record, despite recognition that Havana’s economic policies are virtually the antithesis of the “Washington Consensus”, the neo-liberal orthodoxy that has dominated the Bank’s policy advice and its controversial structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) for most of the last 20 years.

Some senior Bank officers, however, go so far as to suggest that other developing countries should take a very close look at Cuba’s performance.

“It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.

Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank’s dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong. The Bank has insisted for the past decade that improving the lives of the poor was its core mission.
More:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/learn.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
64. Russian president visits Cold War ally Castro
Published: Nov 28, 2008 11:01 PM Modified: Nov 29, 2008 12:02 AM
Russian president visits Cold War ally Castro

By ANITA SNOW, Associated Press Writer
Comment on this story

HAVANA - Russia's president met with revolutionary icon Fidel Castro on Friday, discussing Guantanamo Bay and hopes for a multipolar world with Cuba's former leader during a tour of Latin America aimed at raising Moscow's presence in the region.
Dmitry Medvedev spent hours talking and sightseeing with President Raul Castro before meeting privately with his 82-year-old older brother.

Medvedev said he was happy with his visit when he left the island Friday evening on a flight from the beach resort of Varadero east of Havana, Cuba's Prensa Latina news agency reported.

"We have defined what we are going to do next, we have cleared up everything regarding credits, and in Russia we will await President Raul Castro's visit," Prensa Latina quoted the Russian president as saying. The news agency offered no details about what had been defined and cleared up.

In an essay released hours after the meeting with Russia's president, Fidel Castro wrote that he emphasized to Medvedev Cuba's demand for the return of "up to the last square meter" of land occupied by the U.S. military base at Guantanamo.

More:
http://www.newsobserver.com/1566/story/1313211.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
66. Wonderful idea. I hope it comes to pass. And to the naysayers,
is this any more unlikely a scenario than the "ping pong diplomacy" which led to Nixon's trip to China?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC