What About Cuba?

Myself | 04-11-2003 | J.J. Hunsecker

[jjhunsecker]

Since we have now gotten rid of Saddam the Bloody Tyrant of Iraq who should be next on our Hit Parade? I Vote we turn our attention to an Island 90 miles off our own coastline. Fidel Castro is every bit as Terrible as Saddam, just this week 75 people we sentenced to prison for various Political Crimes, etc. and three people will be executed for trying to hijack a ferry to the U.S.. So why should we not get rid of Castro? He's close and I doubt it would take any longer than it took to take Iraq maybe less. Any other thoughts on this?????

[JoeSchem]

The reason we got rid of Saddam is because he invaded an ally (Kuwait) back in 1991 and we went to war with him then and signed an agreement in which he stated that he would allow for full inspection of weapons of mass destruction. Then he repeatedly violated that agreement, even after we warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned and warned him. We were able to invade because he broke a treaty.

In the case of North Korea, we never signed an agreement with them regarding weapons of mass destruction. So while Saddam was technically an aggressor (recalling what he did in Gulf War I), Kim is not. And the same for Castro.

[lawdude]

" I couldn't any of the countries, including Kuwait, very "liberated"."

I suggest Germany, East Germany, Japan, Soviet freed states (Lithuania, Latvia, etc.), Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia among others. Are they all perfect...no, but certainly the populace is better off than before liberation.

Has the US ever attacked a country with a democratic form of government? No.

Have the dictatorships we have either toppled or helped topple, become better off? Generally yes.

[MonroeDNA]

"OK, do you think the actions of the US don't have consequences?"

Of course we do. We let an evil dictatorship know that they can't keep their people down. Ask the liberated Iraqis if they love Bush. Go ahead: take that poll.

"Do you think the US can invade countries without provocation and not expect retaliation?"

Let them retaliate. Al-Queda was supposed to make us quiver in fear. Saddam was supposed to be even worse. Let them do their worst. Just be ready for the retribution.

But your premise is false: Do the Iraqis hate us for liberating them? They will carry out their own retribution.

I think that democracy should liberate peple, everywhere, no matter what. If the liberated people choose communism, or dictatorship after, they had their chance. So far, none have. They seem to want to be free.

[cynwoody]

Give it two years and he will be gone.

It would be so sad to see Fidel die of old age!

[saint]

[SamAdams76]

The subject of Cuba really makes me angry. This is because the United States so mismanaged the whole situation from the beginning of Castro's rule up to the present and as a result, the Cuban people have gone through so much needless suffering. We could have had Castro out of there decades ago. It really is a disgrace that we didn't.

The "Bay of Pigs" in 1961 was a total fiasco. We recruited some Cuban exiles and then sent them on a suicide mission with no air support. What was JFK thinking? And of course, he went and pretty much made the same mistakes in Vietnam (exacerbated by Lyndon Johnson).

The Cuban Embargo is a total failure as well. If anything, the embargo has enabled Castro to remain in power all these years. It forced him to develop close ties with the Russians (then Soviets) and brought about the Cuban missile crisis, which could easily have resulted in WW3. The embargo has enabled Castro to turn his people against the USA while keeping them in poverty. If you notice, everytime the United States considers relaxing the embargo, Castro does something blatant and provocative to force us to take it off the table. You see, the last thing Castro wants to see happen is for us to lift that damned embargo. For as soon as we lift it, Cuban goods will flood U.S. markets and U.S. money will flow into Cuba. Castro will try to stop it but even a brutal dictator like Castro can't stop the law of supply and demand. The Cubans will find some way to get their products into America once there is a demand for it. (In fact, even with the U.S. embargo, anybody who wants a Cuban cigar in America can still find one.)

Castro is 76 and pretty much at the end of the line. Even his heir-apparent brother Raul is now 71. They could feasibly last another 10 years but I doubt Raul will be able to hold things together once Fidel goes. If we lift the embargo immediately, the process will speed up rapidly. I don't think Castro or his brother will last a year once the embargo is lifted.

[FITZ]

Do you honestly think the US should have a "hit parade" of countries to invade and conquer, because we don't like their political systems? And if so, how long do you think the rest of the world would stand by and watch this happen?

One of the best things for the world was when the British empire spread it's ideals into countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India, HongKong etc. More people got to live in freedom and without suppression. I think when many people are dying trying to get out of a country, it's a big flashing sign that something is seriously wrong in that country ---that includes Mexico ---and if the alternative is for us to take in millions and put them on welfare or demand in one way or another that reforms get made, it might be better for us to make those demands. We can't be the only free country in the world ---that will invite disaster.

[VivaVilla]

The U.S. attacks governments that aren't in its best interest, and supports the ones that are. Whether or not they are democratic governments is rather irrelevant. We shake hands when dictators when the price is right.

[VivaVilla]

Well having lived in Mexico I can tell you with great certainty that there a large majority of Mexicans who have no interest in living in the U.S. The ones who have come to the United States come for economic reasons not for political ones. Are we going to invade Mexico to improve their economy?

[FITZ]

Not a large majority with one out of 5 Mexicans already moved to the US ---20 million here illegaly and many many more packing their bags to come over ---one out of four working Mexicans is working in the US. Something pretty wrong with that picture considering the vast natural resources in that country and the fact that it competes with Great Britain and Germany in number of billionaires. How many thousands of Mexicans have died trying to get out? I believe more than Cubans.

[Consort]

We have to go after both foreign and domestic enemies, not just foreign enemies. I suggest we go after Syria, New Jersey, Iran, and California in that order.

[Comus]

Cuban goods will flood U.S. markets

Just what Cuban goods would flow into US markets? Nothing is flowing into Canadian, British or French markets, and they have no embargo. As far is I can tell, Cuba has nothing to sell, they can't produce enough of anything for domestic consumption.

[VivaVilla]

I won't lie and say that things don't need to change in Mexico, but that is something that they must do, not us. Mexico is beginning to see changes in its political situation that are for the better. After having a 70 year presidential political monopoly there is now a new party in power. Changes are being made but it still will take time. Forcing a country to change through threats would be really careless.

[FITZ]

Except that Mexico makes it's problems our problems. Look at the most wanted list of the LAPD ---and the poverty all along the border where Mexicans are pouring across.

Actually if the US closed the border, then Mexico would soon be forced to make those needed changes and quite quickly. I know some of those people coming in from Mexico and it's almost tragic to see the utter waste of potential that is tolerated in Mexico.

We liberated Iraqis ----but it's Mexicans we see suffocating in boxcars, drowning in the Rio Grande (or Rio Bravo is you prefer) and it's canals, or dying of thirst out in our deserts just because of the massive injustice they face at home. Why should we just sit by and allow the corrupt elite to decide when they're ready to make system that isn't so horrible? They'll never be ready ---they're perfectly content with how things are now.

[FITZ]

I don't know too many Mexicans who say Fox is doing all that much. I think he discredited himself quite a bit right in the beginning with "toalla-gate" and his agenda seems to be to get as many of his citizens out of Mexico as he can ---that isn't positive change. I don't believe he's done much at all about the murder of girls and women in Juarez ---but I don't think too many of the influential care about them or the others who will be killed. How many Mexicans have been recently executed in the drug wars recently while Fox is out galavanting across the world stage demanding an end to the death penalty in the US? He's just a gas bag.

[VivaVilla]

What would you suggest be done in Mexico?

[VivaVilla]

"Actually if the US closed the border, then Mexico would soon be forced to make those needed changes and quite quickly. I know some of those people coming in from Mexico and it's almost tragic to see the utter waste of potential that is tolerated in Mexico."

I have heard this agrument before on other conservative boards but I would like you to elaborate on it. In closing the border would that entail closing commercial trade as well?

[FITZ]

Actually I first heard it from a university professor in Guadalajara. Immigration to the US is Mexico's safety valve, there are many who wish to live a middle class lifestyle but as long as they can hope to make it to the US, they don't have to demand that in Mexico. People who are doomed to be dirt poor their entire lives if they stay in Mexico know there is one easy way out ---but if that door was ever to close, they will become restless and there would be another Revolution. Mexico used to have a revolution about every 50 years ----it hasn't had one since the early 1900's and is long overdue. Something is obviously very wrong when 20 million people will live without legal status in a foreign land ----that many people don't leave unless things are seriously wrong --and if that many people couldn't leave, they would become very restless for change at home.

[FITZ]

As far as the commercial trade ---the campesinos have been protesting that quite a bit this year ---they've managed to get delays in NAFTA but are working on putting an end to it. Thousands of campesinos went to Mexico City in January, they rode their horses through the Congress and they did get some postponements at least ----Fox had to back down.