[XogGyux]

I doubt it. Those missiles were all aimed at the USSR.

Who says you need nukes to decimate cuba?

Yes, this is why there was a Bay of Pigs invasion and why the US continued a war against Cuba for decades.

And this is also why Castro wanted a deterrent.

Pfff. Bay of pigs. That is mostly propaganda. A couple thousand angry exiled Cubans hardly makes a real attempt at invasion by the us.

And this is also why Castro wanted a deterrent.

And this is why this was a stupid idea. A deterrent only works as a deterrent if you can keep it. If the Russians come later and says I am taking my weapons back, now you are fucking defenseless, weak and angered a far more powerful adversary... This is why I said this was stupid, it only puts a target on cuba, it is not a long-term solution. It only worked for the brief period of times that the US was shitting their pants, as soon as they negociated the removal of the weapons, cuba is back to being defenseless, except now it just angered the most powerful nation in history.

And then JFK got into power and supported the Bay of Pigs invasion to get Batista back into power.

No, it does not work like that.

Cuba did that by declaring its freedom and defending its sovereignty.

Really? So Cuba was not free before? it needed Russia's nukes to become free? Does that also mean that now that it does not have the nukes it is back to not being free?

[Potemkin]

And this is why this was a stupid idea. A deterrent only works as a deterrent if you can keep it. If the Russians come later and says I am taking my weapons back, now you are fucking defenseless, weak and angered a far more powerful adversary... This is why I said this was stupid, it only puts a target on cuba, it is not a long-term solution. It only worked for the brief period of times that the US was shitting their pants, as soon as they negociated the removal of the weapons, cuba is back to being defenseless, except now it just angered the most powerful nation in history.

Precisely. It was stupidity on both Khrushchev's part and on Castro's part. If Castro had demanded a garrison of Soviet troops to be permanently stationed on Cuban soil, that would have made a lot more sense. They would have had a purely defensive role, in case of a US invasion they would have acted as a 'tripwire' to bring the Soviet Union into any conflict (rather like the UN troops stationed in the DMZ between the two Koreas). But putting ICBMs on Cuban soil was fucking stupid, no matter which way you slice it.

[wat0n]

Precisely. It was stupidity on both Khrushchev's part and on Castro's part. If Castro had demanded a garrison of Soviet troops to be permanently stationed on Cuban soil, that would have made a lot more sense. They would have had a purely defensive role, in case of a US invasion they would have acted as a 'tripwire' to bring the Soviet Union into any conflict (rather like the UN troops stationed in the DMZ between the two Koreas). But putting ICBMs on Cuban soil was fucking stupid, no matter which way you slice it.

But fairly consistent with the stage the revolution was at (i.e. the fanatical one/terror).

[Pants-of-dog]

Who says you need nukes to decimate cuba?

So, after the US and the USSR destroyed each other, the remaining US forces were off to invade Cuba?

Pfff. Bay of pigs. That is mostly propaganda. A couple thousand angry exiled Cubans hardly makes a real attempt at invasion by the us.

Dismissal fo facts is not an argument.

The CIA supported them, and Operation Mongoose was a real covert op.

And this is why this was a stupid idea. A deterrent only works as a deterrent if you can keep it. If the Russians come later and says I am taking my weapons back, now you are fucking defenseless, weak and angered a far more powerful adversary... This is why I said this was stupid, it only puts a target on cuba, it is not a long-term solution. It only worked for the brief period of times that the US was shitting their pants, as soon as they negociated the removal of the weapons, cuba is back to being defenseless, except now it just angered the most powerful nation in history.

In other words, the Cubans would have been exactly the same place they were after nationalising US assets. So, no actual loss.

No, it does not work like that.

Yes, that is exactly why JFK supported the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Really? So Cuba was not free before? it needed Russia's nukes to become free? Does that also mean that now that it does not have the nukes it is back to not being free?

Strawman.

My argument was that Cuba painted a target on its back when it nationalised US assets, and having missiles would not have made Cuba more of a target than it was and is now.

[Potemkin]

But fairly consistent with the stage the revolution was at (i.e. the fanatical one/terror).

Indeed. Castro was still chomping on the bit, whereas Khrushchev was the leader of a revolutionary state which was already more than 40 years old. And he intended it to last at least another 40. Lol.

[XogGyux]

Precisely. It was stupidity on both Khrushchev's part and on Castro's part. If Castro had demanded a garrison of Soviet troops to be permanently stationed on Cuban soil, that would have made a lot more sense. They would have had a purely defensive role, in case of a US invasion they would have acted as a 'tripwire' to bring the Soviet Union into any conflict (rather like the UN troops stationed in the DMZ between the two Koreas). But putting ICBMs on Cuban soil was fucking stupid, no matter which way you slice it.

Stupidity's from Castro's part? Perhaps, he had little to win and a lot to lose. As per Nikita Khrushchev's part? perhaps not. They were already the Number 1 target of the US. Yes, it escalates the situation, but that is pretty much what they wanted, it was a cold war for a reason. Again, it is hard to know the precise motives and goals but you can imagine that if you manage to do everything in secret it would have been a good outcome for USSR. If not, they still manage to scare the crap out of the US and force them into bargainship. Again, it is hard to know for sure what were their strategic thinking, if any at all , but don't dismiss it as a failure either so quickly.

[Potemkin]

Stupidity's from Castro's part? Perhaps, he had little to win and a lot to lose. As per Nikita Khrushchev's part? perhaps not. They were already the Number 1 target of the US. Yes, it escalates the situation, but that is pretty much what they wanted, it was a cold war for a reason. Again, it is hard to know the precise motives and goals but you can imagine that if you manage to do everything in secret it would have been a good outcome for USSR. If not, they still manage to scare the crap out of the US and force them into bargainship. Again, it is hard to know for sure what were their strategic thinking, if any at all , but don't dismiss it as a failure either so quickly.

No, really, it was just stupid. What would Khrushchev have gained, even if it had been kept secret and had worked? As it turned out, the Soviet Union was publicly humiliated when it had to back down, and Khrushchev lost his job a few years later. Not a resounding success then.

[XogGyux]

No, really, it was just stupid. What would Khrushchev have gained, even if it had been kept secret and had worked? As it turned out, the Soviet Union was publicly humiliated when it had to back down, and Khrushchev lost his job a few years later. Not a resounding success then.

Humiliated? LOL sure whatever.

[late]

Humiliated? LOL sure whatever.

It's true, that failure pissed off the Politburo and resulted in his retirement a couple years later.

[Tainari88]

Essentially, yes. Khrushchev thought that this would give the Soviet Union a toehold in Uncle Sam's Caribbean backyard. But given the fact that such a toehold would only be of any value during a full-scale war between the US and the Soviet Union, and given the fact that ICBMs are purely offensive rather than defensive weapons, it was an incredibly stupid move on Khrushchev's part. The humiliation the Soviet Union suffered after backing down was a major factor in his fall from power just a few years later. The Cuban Missile Crisis did neither JFK nor Khrushchev any good at all.


Indeed they did, but they shouldn't have. And Castro wanted it much more than the Soviet Union. In fact, Castro kept urging Khrushchev to start WWIII throughout the Crisis. The tail was trying to wag the dog.

Mi Bellísimo, I have to give some input about what you said in this last line that Castro was trying to wag the dog.

One has to see the historical context of early sixties Cuba. El Che had been a doctor in a clinic in Arbenz' government in Guatemala in which there were literally US military interventions preventing Guatemala from keeping an elected president who simply wanted higher wages and more rights for United Fruit workers. You want higher wages and so on? In those days? Direct military intervention. From the USA. No negotiations. Just bombs reigning from the sky and tons of money to topple you fast. Place in a puppet fast.

Both el Che and Castro had been imprisoned by the Mexican gov't doing the CIA's bidding. Fidel Castro was not invited to any negogiations with Kruschev or Kennedy involving the Cuban Missile Crisis. Castro was ANGRY. I read that in his bio by Tad Tzulc. He was asked specifically by the American journalist Tzulc, what the issue was with his bad move with that missile. He said he thought there would be a bloodbath of hundreds of thousands of Cuban civilians whom were being trained to defend their national sovereignty against American imperialism that both el Che and Castro had witnessed happening in the recent past in the 1950s in Guatemala among other nations. In fact, nationalists from Puerto Rico had shot up US congress due to the violence on the island with US suppression. For Che and Fidel the US invasion would mean bloodbath of the many. And an overthrow and either back to Batista or some other handpicked USA puppet. The entire work of overthrowing Batista would be just another incident on the radar of USA backed imperial aggression. At the beginning Castro was not liked by the Cuban Communist party. He was not orthodox and he was not pliable at all. He was and acted like a nationalist and a hothead and also was a lawyer who loved the gift of gab and speeches and convincing. At heart Fidel was a nationalist.

Che always had a problem with the Cold War. He thought the best way for Latin American nationalist liberation movements to move forward was through creating the third option. The UNALIGNED nations movedment. Neither on the side of the Soviets or the side of the Americans. But on nations sick and tired of being pawns. This meant African nations and Latin America and also Asia in the future (Vietnam). If all could come together and do their own foreign policy away from the manipulations of both sides? True freedom.

What Castro thought was the USSR could be manipulated long enough to make it difficult for the USA to re-invade. But he thought he could be the wedge that would get the two to agree to not intervene in Cuba anymore. He did not really listen to Che's advice Bellísimo, mainly that he should have done what Che thought was best. To have built up an intelligence network that was within the Unaligned group. But that is why Castro did build up that social control on the island. To not allow another invasion to be successful. Paranoia now, but then it made sense.

I think also Soviet ground troops and the ones of the Americans in Guantanamo might have been a bad move as well. Cuba might have been made a third scene for the Cold War.

In the end Castro felt ignored and slighted. Knowing how that man's character was? It was not going to be a good outcome.

@jimjam 's assessment about Dulles? Being responsible for Kennedy's assassination is plausible.

Kennedy wanted to create some kind of exchange liberal style between Latin America and the USA. Alliance for Progress for Latin America was part of that policy from the early sixties.

In the end? Castro thought the Americans would relent. He underestimated how hated he was by the Cuban exile community and how angry the exiled ones were with a liberal establishment in DC. Never underestimate the ones who got their socioeconomic position in the native society destroyed. They felt scorned by Castro and betrayed by the liberals in the USA.

Mas Canosa's movement was thus a political group with a long term need for control of something they lost control of long ago.

[jimjam]

@jimjam 's assessment about Dulles? Being responsible for Kennedy's assassination is plausible.

The murder of JFK is jimjam's personal choice for crime of the century and I have studied it for years. I was in the Hawk's Nest (my college's student lounge) when I heard the news on an old black and white tv. It hit me like a kick in the gut and still does. The forces of evil scored big on this one …… a real history changer.

If you ever had doubts, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable

[Julian658]

The murder of JFK is jimjam's personal choice for crime of the century and I have studied it for years. I was in the Hawk's Nest (my college's student lounge) when I heard the news on an old black and white tv. It hit me like a kick in the gut and still does. The forces of evil scored big on this one …… a real history changer.

If you ever had doubts, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable

To this day I believe the Cubans and the Russians were involved.

3) An alleged Cuban intelligence officer knew Oswald, and praised his shooting abilities

The transcript of a 1967 cablegram recounted how a man named Angel Ronaldo Luis Salazar was interrogated at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City the year before by Ramiro Jesus Abreu Quintana, “an identified Cuban intelligence officer,” about Kennedy’s assassination. During the interrogation, Salazar claimed he remarked that Oswald must have been a good shot. According to him, Abreu replied “Oh, he was quite good….I knew him.”

https://www.history.com/news/what-the-j ... ase-oswald

That a Cuban knew LHO proves nothing, but it is a bit odd. And then there is Jack Ruby------we will never know.

[XogGyux]

To this day I believe the Cubans and the Russians were involved.

3) An alleged Cuban intelligence officer knew Oswald, and praised his shooting abilities

The transcript of a 1967 cablegram recounted how a man named Angel Ronaldo Luis Salazar was interrogated at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City the year before by Ramiro Jesus Abreu Quintana, “an identified Cuban intelligence officer,” about Kennedy’s assassination. During the interrogation, Salazar claimed he remarked that Oswald must have been a good shot. According to him, Abreu replied “Oh, he was quite good….I knew him.”

https://www.history.com/news/what-the-j ... ase-oswald

That a Cuban knew LHO proves nothing, but it is a bit odd. And then there is Jack Ruby------we will never know.

Pff. Everyone knows Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK.

[Tainari88]

Pff. Everyone knows Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK.

Eso estaba graciosísimo.

[XogGyux]

:lol: Eso estaba graciosísimo.

[Julian658]

Pff. Everyone knows Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK.

Ha, ha, ha! Your shift to the center regarding Cuba has made you witty!!!

[Julian658]

Pff. Everyone knows Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK.

Waita minute? Are you and Ted related?

[Tainari88]

:D

I have heard about Cruz's tale of a dishwasher father who only had one pair of underwear and how he had $20 dollars but was a God fearing religious Christian man who would never kill JFK.

Lol.

Marco Rubio also claimed once to be fleeing Castro's policies and horror when he was found lying because his relatives had fled to Florida and his parents too BEFORE the revolution when Batista was in power. Not when the Castro regime was there.

But a little lying is ok for the purposes of getting the Cuban exile vote in Southern Florida for these two conservative pro Trump Republicans.

I don't know @XogGyux how Ted Cruz lives with himself? Trump insulted his wife, called her ugly and his father an assassin, and he was an illegal alien from Canada or Cuba? And the dude still associated himself with Trump just for political reasons. NO TIENE DIGNIDAD.

Some of these Republican sellouts are beyond the pale.

Trump wins and these idiots fall into line behind them. He forgets what the man said about his wife and family.

Someone insults my husband or son I don't give a damn what the asshole may say or become. I won't be backing him EVER. Consistency a sign of someone trustworthy. Ted Cruz is a hypocritical cabrón.

[Potemkin]

I have heard about Cruz's tale of a dishwasher father who only had one pair of underwear and how he had $20 dollars but was a God fearing religious Christian man who would never kill JFK.

Lol.

Marco Rubio also claimed once to be fleeing Castro's policies and horror when he was found lying because his relatives had fled to Florida and his parents too BEFORE the revolution when Batista was in power. Not when the Castro regime was there.

But a little lying is ok for the purposes of getting the Cuban exile vote in Southern Florida for these two conservative pro Trump Republicans.

I don't know @XogGyux how Ted Cruz lives with himself? Trump insulted his wife, called her ugly and his father an assassin, and he was an illegal alien from Canada or Cuba? And the dude still associated himself with Trump just for political reasons. NO TIENE DIGNIDAD.

Some of these Republican sellouts are beyond the pale.

Trump wins and these idiots fall into line behind them. He forgets what the man said about his wife and family.

Someone insults my husband or son I don't give a damn what the asshole may say or become. I won't be backing him EVER. Consistency a sign of someone trustworthy. Ted Cruz is a hypocritical cabrón.

Ted Cruz understands what the American political system requires from him: to sell his soul in exchange for power, status and money. And if you're going to sell your soul, then at least get a good price for it, eh?

[Tainari88]

Yes @Potemkin you are correct about it Bellísimo, but that is the precise reason why they will lose the status and the power in their own society. You allow that to be the standard operating procedure, when some other nation's powerful and influential group comes along and you got to risk losing it to be faithful to your own nationalism first? You sellout to them as well. They lack any kind of dignity, self respect or principles to live by. They are for sale. TO ANYONE.

A nation winds up in the dustbin of history with those type of leaders Potemkin.

Then they wonder how their {powerful nation} wound up with the same has-been status of ex Empire like it happened to England, Spain, France and Holland, etc. Lol. Estupidos.