Cuba has proven that capitalism and technology are failures - Page 82 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15094258
Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not contradict my claim.

Congress can put out whatever sound bytes it wants. It does not change the fact that Pinochet had no need of the astonishingly high levels of aid he and his ilk needed until then.


I didn't understand the second paragraph :?:

By all accounts, they were indeed behind their neighbors when it came to military hardware (even if they were more than able to deal with internal opposition). And economically, they were also in rather deep troubles.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Peru was not a threat at the time, despite its large military. In 1975, the coup in Peru basically ended any threat, and it is almost certain that the CIA knew about and helped the Peruvian coup as well.


Exactly, the Peruvian regime was overthrown in 1975 but in 1974 this was far from certain and the regime was very much concerned about the Peru issue. Hence the insistence on getting aid, although even afterwards they were uneasy about the relative weakness compared to Peru.

And let's not get into the Argentina stuff that came to head in 1978, again, they preferred to endanger national security when it came to human rights (a rather underappreciated fact about the dictatorship).

Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that the Chilean economy at the time was a US experiment with neoliberalism.


No? The military had no other options after the usual policy at the time (advanced by PDC economists) had failed. It wasn't an American experiment, it was a Chilean experiment resulting from having no options.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, but that does not affect the argument.


Why? When carrying out intelligence operations in Cuba, which side has better chances to track? The Cubans, who exercise military control, or the CIA, which is acting clandestinely?

Pants-of-dog wrote:You did not specify which time.

The discussion was about whether the USA supported or eschewed corporate interests in foreign policy.

The fact that the USA only tried to overthrow a democracy one time (instead of both times) does not support the claim that the US refused corporate influence in foreign policy.


But it's an important fact. What Chavez and Allende truly had in common with each other wasn't so much nationalization of American businesses, but that both governments were hostile to the American interests in Latin America for ideological reasons.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The original claim was that a developing country like Cuba could foil all (or almost all) CIA plans over several decades to overthrow the regime, while simultaneously oppressing the local population.

The evidence provided showed a developed country (with the help of another superpower) was unable to foil many operations. These operations (even taken together) lasted a far shorter time.

The idea that Cuba, a developing country with no help from any superpowers, could effectively all significant operations by the CIA is implausible, even if we ignore the added difficulties of a population that wants regime change.


It's questionable whether East Germany would count as a developed country in the early 50s after being virtually destroyed in WWII. But if you want I can find similar operations in other countries within the Soviet Bloc.
#15094620
wat0n wrote:Sure, here's a few from Wikipedia:

Which of these definitions are you using? Certainly, the USSR didn't quite invade Cuba and set its own government up. But the relations between both could most certainly fall into the Collins Dictionary definition, and into the neocolonialism label.

How much control would satisfy you? I recall I said Cuba was a Soviet satellite, and even those had small divergences from the Soviet policy.

But just because an action is bilateral, it doesn't mean it's necessarily voluntary or that there may not be an asymmetry in power involved.

You could check the following MS thesis for both. If you just want to see things from a narrow economic perspective, then you can refer back to the payment by Angola for the Cuban intervention - it may not be Ethiopia, but it's an example of that sort of relations.


Looking back at your various claims:

1. Cuba had a neocolonial relationship with the USSR.

The thesis presented does not support this claim. It shows that Cuba acted independently from the USSR in Angola. Thus, any influence by the Soviets was not ongoing and issue and time specific, which is not typical with neocolonial relationships.

2. Cuba had a neocolonial relationship with Angola.

This also seems doubtful, since a lot of the aid was military training and supplies. No one trains and arms the people they are supposedly oppressing, for obvious reasons.

Also, Cuba sent medical professionals, engineers, and other people who helped create vital infrastructure. This is also contradictory to neocolonialism.

3. Cuba had a neocolonial relationship with Ethiopia.

This seems doubtful since Cuba did not benefit materially from its relationship with Ethiopia, or if it did, it did not do so at the expense of the Ethiopian people.

4. Cuba used Granma to interfere in the sovereignty of other countries.

There is absolutely no evidence at all for this claim.

wat0n wrote:I didn't understand the second paragraph :?:

By all accounts, they were indeed behind their neighbors when it came to military hardware (even if they were more than able to deal with internal opposition). And economically, they were also in rather deep troubles.

Exactly, the Peruvian regime was overthrown in 1975 but in 1974 this was far from certain and the regime was very much concerned about the Peru issue. Hence the insistence on getting aid, although even afterwards they were uneasy about the relative weakness compared to Peru.

And let's not get into the Argentina stuff that came to head in 1978, again, they preferred to endanger national security when it came to human rights (a rather underappreciated fact about the dictatorship).


This does not contradict my claim that the USA reduced funding because it had already achieved its goals. The only assumption that i am making is that the CIA already knew about the imminent coup in Peru, and so the USA knew it could step down its military aid.

Economically, Chile was exactly where the USA wanted it: in an economic shambles and open for control and investment.

No? The military had no other options after the usual policy at the time (advanced by PDC economists) had failed. It wasn't an American experiment, it was a Chilean experiment resulting from having no options.


No. The evidence you just cited shows that the Chilean military had its economic policies ignored and Friedman’s policies were adopted.

Why? When carrying out intelligence operations in Cuba, which side has better chances to track? The Cubans, who exercise military control, or the CIA, which is acting clandestinely?


We are not discussing tracking movements. We are discussing surveilling conversations.

But it's an important fact. What Chavez and Allende truly had in common with each other wasn't so much nationalization of American businesses, but that both governments were hostile to the American interests in Latin America for ideological reasons.


This does not change the fact that US interests in Latin America were based on making the USA richer by exploiting the natural resources of Latin America.

It's questionable whether East Germany would count as a developed country in the early 50s after being virtually destroyed in WWII. But if you want I can find similar operations in other countries within the Soviet Bloc.


Feel free to present whatever evidence you want. When you do, I will analyse it in terms of your claim.

At this point, you have only shown how implausible it is to claim that the Cuban counterintelligence are capable of stopping the CIA in its tracks so effectively.

It is more plausible to assume that Cuba does not have a significant number of people trying to get rid of socialism, which is why CIA efforts continue to fail.
#15094675
Pants-of-dog wrote:Looking back at your various claims:

1. Cuba had a neocolonial relationship with the USSR.

The thesis presented does not support this claim. It shows that Cuba acted independently from the USSR in Angola. Thus, any influence by the Soviets was not ongoing and issue and time specific, which is not typical with neocolonial relationships.


It acted "independently" in the sense that it put boots on the ground in Angola without asking the Soviets about it, yes. But the Soviets eventually sent military advisors and aid once Cuba was stuck in Angola. This is yet another case in which the differences are just in tactical matters, as opposed to overarching goals.

It's not all that different from the US warning the Chilean government to change course on human rights, with the latter not listening to the advice. Although in that case, Chile eventually carried out an assassination in US soil and then refused to cooperate with the ensuing inquiry despite American threats of the consequences of non-cooperation, I don't think the same ever happened with regards to Cuba and the Soviets. But then again I doubt the Soviets would have cared too much about something like that.

And with regards to Ethiopia, the USSR and Cuba were very much in line with each other.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Cuba had a neocolonial relationship with Angola.

This also seems doubtful, since a lot of the aid was military training and supplies. No one trains and arms the people they are supposedly oppressing, for obvious reasons.


On top of the 15000 soldiers on the ground carrying out military operations against South Africa and UNITAS you mean.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, Cuba sent medical professionals, engineers, and other people who helped create vital infrastructure. This is also contradictory to neocolonialism.


Firstly, I showed a few posts ago that this wasn't for free: The MPLA had to pay Cuba for these services.

Secondly, this is no different (in fact, it's quite similar) to American aid to Latin American countries by means of USAID or the Peace Corps. Yet when the US does it, it's colonialism :roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. Cuba had a neocolonial relationship with Ethiopia.

This seems doubtful since Cuba did not benefit materially from its relationship with Ethiopia, or if it did, it did not do so at the expense of the Ethiopian people.


Maybe, my impression is that Cuba did benefit at the very least in its relations with the Soviet Union.

Pants-of-dog wrote:4. Cuba used Granma to interfere in the sovereignty of other countries.

There is absolutely no evidence at all for this claim.


Wasn't Granma justifying the Cuban intervention in Ethiopia? Well, once the communists took over there - before that, Granma stood by the Somalian government :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not contradict my claim that the USA reduced funding because it had already achieved its goals. The only assumption that i am making is that the CIA already knew about the imminent coup in Peru, and so the USA knew it could step down its military aid.


I haven't heard that it was aware of any of that in 1974. In particular, I don't think it was aware of any concrete coup plotting by then. But I'll do my research on the matter.

Even worse, anyway, is the fact that the US Executive branch wanted to keep sending military aid to Chile and was barred to do so by Congress. This is quite evident from Kissinger's frustration over the matter, frustration he voiced several times over during the period, and the attempts by the US government to find a way to circumvent the ban on military assistance to Chile. Should I cite from the minutes from the respective meetings and the memorandums from the time? The historical documents of the time make it quite explicit (along with Kissinger's belief that human rights promotion was secondary to American interests).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Economically, Chile was exactly where the USA wanted it: in an economic shambles and open for control and investment.


That, too, was something of concern for the US, particularly when it came to avoiding OPIC insurance claims and getting the Chilean government to pay the outstanding foreign debt to the US government.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. The evidence you just cited shows that the Chilean military had its economic policies ignored and Friedman’s policies were adopted.


But it does show that the military most definitely didn't carry out the coup to do that (hence the internal debate). The change of mind only came as a result of the failure of what was the traditional economic policy during the '60s to improve the economic situation in the country.

Pants-of-dog wrote:We are not discussing tracking movements. We are discussing surveilling conversations.


Tracking movements is a necessary condition to surveil conversations done in a face to face basis. To be able to track conversations using electronic means, you also need some physical infrastructure that is hard to place if you don't exert military control over the territory to be kept under surveillance.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not change the fact that US interests in Latin America were based on making the USA richer by exploiting the natural resources of Latin America.


Why? That's a concrete example in which the USA was made poorer and barred from "exploiting the natural resources of Latin America", with no retaliation since the government that did so was aligned with the US. This means this wasn't the main foreign policy goal for the US with regards to Latin America, but more of a secondary - even if still important - concern. Even worse, one reason of why it was still an important concern for the US government is that the US government had insured American foreign investment in Latin America, so expropriations meant the US government (i.e. the American taxpayer) had to pay insurance claims for expropriation of insured property, so even in that regard the US government was concerned about its financial self interest rather than only about helping American businesses.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to present whatever evidence you want. When you do, I will analyse it in terms of your claim.

At this point, you have only shown how implausible it is to claim that the Cuban counterintelligence are capable of stopping the CIA in its tracks so effectively.

It is more plausible to assume that Cuba does not have a significant number of people trying to get rid of socialism, which is why CIA efforts continue to fail.


I find it hard to see how the case of East Germany could prove that, particularly since there was a revolt in 1953 that had to be put down by the Soviet military - and led to the development and strengthening of the East German repressive apparatus. If anything what it does show is that a good repressive apparatus can keep the opposition down.

This is not to say that the Cuban government cannot have widespread support. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but it can most definitely hold on its own without it as long as the security establishment enjoys a high degree of cohesion and is determined to keep the system as is.

And indeed, the existence of a competent Cuban security apparatus is one of the reasons why the Bay of Pigs invasion failed.
#15094688
wat0n wrote:It acted "independently" in the sense that it put boots on the ground in Angola without asking the Soviets about it, yes. But the Soviets eventually sent military advisors and aid once Cuba was stuck in Angola. This is yet another case in which the differences are just in tactical matters, as opposed to overarching goals.

It's not all that different from the US warning the Chilean government to change course on human rights, with the latter not listening to the advice. Although in that case, Chile eventually carried out an assassination in US soil and then refused to cooperate with the ensuing inquiry despite American threats of the consequences of non-cooperation, I don't think the same ever happened with regards to Cuba and the Soviets. But then again I doubt the Soviets would have cared too much about something like that.

And with regards to Ethiopia, the USSR and Cuba were very much in line with each other.

On top of the 15000 soldiers on the ground carrying out military operations against South Africa and UNITAS you mean.

Firstly, I showed a few posts ago that this wasn't for free: The MPLA had to pay Cuba for these services.

Secondly, this is no different (in fact, it's quite similar) to American aid to Latin American countries by means of USAID or the Peace Corps. Yet when the US does it, it's colonialism :roll:

Maybe, my impression is that Cuba did benefit at the very least in its relations with the Soviet Union.

Wasn't Granma justifying the Cuban intervention in Ethiopia? Well, once the communists took over there - before that, Granma stood by the Somalian government :lol:


All of this has already been addressed in our discussion or has not been supported by evidence.

I haven't heard that it was aware of any of that in 1974. In particular, I don't think it was aware of any concrete coup plotting by then. But I'll do my research on the matter.

Even worse, anyway, is the fact that the US Executive branch wanted to keep sending military aid to Chile and was barred to do so by Congress. This is quite evident from Kissinger's frustration over the matter, frustration he voiced several times over during the period, and the attempts by the US government to find a way to circumvent the ban on military assistance to Chile. Should I cite from the minutes from the respective meetings and the memorandums from the time? The historical documents of the time make it quite explicit (along with Kissinger's belief that human rights promotion was secondary to American interests).

That, too, was something of concern for the US, particularly when it came to avoiding OPIC insurance claims and getting the Chilean government to pay the outstanding foreign debt to the US government.

But it does show that the military most definitely didn't carry out the coup to do that (hence the internal debate). The change of mind only came as a result of the failure of what was the traditional economic policy during the '60s to improve the economic situation in the country.


The original claim that I made was that Pinochet enjoyed US support and was not fighting the CIA.

This claim has been supported.

Thus, Pinochet was working with a friendly superpower while Castro was working against it. This significantly changes how much each was able to extend their power.

Why? That's a concrete example in which the USA was made poorer and barred from "exploiting the natural resources of Latin America", with no retaliation since the government that did so was aligned with the US. This means this wasn't the main foreign policy goal for the US with regards to Latin America, but more of a secondary - even if still important - concern. Even worse, one reason of why it was still an important concern for the US government is that the US government had insured American foreign investment in Latin America, so expropriations meant the US government (i.e. the American taxpayer) had to pay insurance claims for expropriation of insured property, so even in that regard the US government was concerned about its financial self interest rather than only about helping American businesses.


Because they did try a coup the second time.

Tracking movements is a necessary condition to surveil conversations done in a face to face basis. To be able to track conversations using electronic means, you also need some physical infrastructure that is hard to place if you don't exert military control over the territory to be kept under surveillance.


Not necessarily. Most audio surveillance would be easily done through phones. The CIA and US intelligence agencies have had the ability of turning on the microphone in a phone without making it ring or needed it to be answered since the 70s. And modern techniques with cell phones are even better.

So this leaves places where there are no phones nearby. Like rural areas. Unless you think Cuban government officials are bugging farmhouses, US satellites and spy planes could easily cover this area better.

I find it hard to see how the case of East Germany could prove that, particularly since there was a revolt in 1953 that had to be put down by the Soviet military - and led to the development and strengthening of the East German repressive apparatus. If anything what it does show is that a good repressive apparatus can keep the opposition down.

This is not to say that the Cuban government cannot have widespread support. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but it can most definitely hold on its own without it as long as the security establishment enjoys a high degree of cohesion and is determined to keep the system as is.

And indeed, the existence of a competent Cuban security apparatus is one of the reasons why the Bay of Pigs invasion failed.


The Bay of Pigs invasion failed because the invaders assumed that there would be local support once they got there.
#15094694
Pants-of-dog wrote:All of this has already been addressed in our discussion or has not been supported by evidence.


I know we discussed this, but I don't see how it "has not been supported by the evidence". I did show that Cuba was charging the MPLA (thereby benefitting economically from the intervention, one the MPLA was rather dependent on), the Soviets also were drawn into Angola but on a more secondary role (granted, the Cubans themselves were the ones who had the initiative to intervene militarily) and I also did show Cuba acted in concert with the USSR in Ethiopia (to the point that they had the same stance on how to deal with the matter).

And on top of that, I showed Cuba stood with the Soviets when they engaged on imperialism of their own, such as when they invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, I also showed Cuba was thoroughly dependent on Soviet military and economic aid (indeed, the USSR was having them around $1m daily, and was one of the reasons why the US followed the "cool but correct" posture regarding Allende, hoping to get the Soviets or the Chinese to bleed out supporting him too).

This is all consistent with Cuba being a Soviet satellite, even if in some cases it wouldn't always and everywhere agree with the Soviets on everything just like the other satellites didn't for that matter (the Sino-Soviet problem was a great example of this, the tactical differences between both on issues like Chile or Angola is another).

Pants-of-dog wrote:The original claim that I made was that Pinochet enjoyed US support and was not fighting the CIA.

This claim has been supported.


And I showed the US withdrew that support, gradually, over human rights - being pushed to do so by Congress at first, and the Letelier case later.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Thus, Pinochet was working with a friendly superpower while Castro was working against it. This significantly changes how much each was able to extend their power.


And Pinochet was also working against the other superpower, while Castro was friendly towards it. That doesn't prove much.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because they did try a coup the second time.


So? The second coup was against a government that was hostile to the US, unlike the government in place during the first nationalization (which was a way bigger deal than in the early 2000s, given that oil was a lot more expensive in real terms in the mid '70s).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Not necessarily. Most audio surveillance would be easily done through phones. The CIA and US intelligence agencies have had the ability of turning on the microphone in a phone without making it ring or needed it to be answered since the 70s. And modern techniques with cell phones are even better.


And how can you do that if you don't have access to the country's telephone network? For cellphones, I also think there needs to be some physical hardware, although I agree that it's a lot easier to do (even satellites could suffice).

Pants-of-dog wrote:So this leaves places where there are no phones nearby. Like rural areas. Unless you think Cuban government officials are bugging farmhouses, US satellites and spy planes could easily cover this area better.


I wouldn't be surprised if they were monitoring dissidents who live in the countryside. Why not? :eh:

Pants-of-dog wrote:The Bay of Pigs invasion failed because the invaders assumed that there would be local support once they got there.


It turns out the Soviets knew about it and informed both the Cubans and even broadcasted it publicly some days before the invasion took place.
#15094699
wat0n wrote:I know we discussed this, but I don't see how it "has not been supported by the evidence". I did show that Cuba was charging the MPLA (thereby benefitting economically from the intervention, one the MPLA was rather dependent on), the Soviets also were drawn into Angola but on a more secondary role (granted, the Cubans themselves were the ones who had the initiative to intervene militarily) and I also did show Cuba acted in concert with the USSR in Ethiopia (to the point that they had the same stance on how to deal with the matter).

And on top of that, I showed Cuba stood with the Soviets when they engaged on imperialism of their own, such as when they invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, I also showed Cuba was thoroughly dependent on Soviet military and economic aid (indeed, the USSR was having them around $1m daily, and was one of the reasons why the US followed the "cool but correct" posture regarding Allende, hoping to get the Soviets or the Chinese to bleed out supporting him too).

This is all consistent with Cuba being a Soviet satellite, even if in some cases it wouldn't always and everywhere agree with the Soviets on everything just like the other satellites didn't for that matter (the Sino-Soviet problem was a great example of this, the tactical differences between both on issues like Chile or Angola is another).


I just spent several days looking over all these arguments, organising them to be more concise, reading your evidence, tying the evidence to the claims, and the n refuting them or discussing why they are unsupported.

You have now repeated a few of these claims without supporting them. It is cumbersome to ask me to do all of this again with these repeated arguments.

If you have new evidence or wish to revisit any of these arguments, let me know.

And I showed the US withdrew that support, gradually, over human rights - being pushed to do so by Congress at first, and the Letelier case later.

And Pinochet was also working against the other superpower, while Castro was friendly towards it. That doesn't prove much.


And how does that affect your argument?

So? The second coup was against a government that was hostile to the US, unlike the government in place during the first nationalization (which was a way bigger deal than in the early 2000s, given that oil was a lot more expensive in real terms in the mid '70s).


Why are we hostile to the USA?

And how can you do that if you don't have access to the country's telephone network? For cellphones, I also think there needs to be some physical hardware, although I agree that it's a lot easier to do (even satellites could suffice).


Why do you think the CIA does not have access to the Cuban phone network?

It turns out the Soviets knew about it and informed both the Cubans and even broadcasted it publicly some days before the invasion took place.


The fact that Kennedy screwed up in other ways does not change the fact that he had banked on the Cuban people rising up in revolt and had predicted wrong on that.
#15094718
Pants-of-dog wrote:I just spent several days looking over all these arguments, organising them to be more concise, reading your evidence, tying the evidence to the claims, and the n refuting them or discussing why they are unsupported.

You have now repeated a few of these claims without supporting them. It is cumbersome to ask me to do all of this again with these repeated arguments.

If you have new evidence or wish to revisit any of these arguments, let me know.


I have no problem in doing so, but I'm not sure of what claims I haven't been able to support. Which of them do you disagree with and why? Perhaps the main one is that Cuba had reached a state of dependence on the Soviet Union, in both economic and military terms, that it was a satellite in all but name.

You said that this isn't the case because Cuba and the Soviets weren't always in agreement. Yet, the Poles and the Soviets, for example, weren't always in agreement either even in something as serious for the latter as the Sino-Soviet split - and despite this, we still consider that Poland was one of the Soviet satellites. As such, the high standard for the degree of Soviet influence over Cuba was one that went beyond the influence it exerted over the countries that were widely seen as being its satellites, like Poland.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And how does that affect your argument?


It shows that 1) American policy towards Chile was about more than just private sector investment in the country and 2) American policy towards Chilean human rights violations was far from being the result of a consensus and it was also rather inconsistent (in fact, in disarray judging by the assessment within the US government)

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why are we hostile to the USA?


"We" as in the UP? I don't know, maybe I'm wrong but promising to repudiate all bilateral agreements with the US as part of their electoral platform is pretty hostile to me.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do you think the CIA does not have access to the Cuban phone network?


Because 1) I don't have any evidence that it does and 2) it's possible for the Cubans to detect if that's the case, even more so given that as a communist state the phone network is government property.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that Kennedy screwed up in other ways does not change the fact that he had banked on the Cuban people rising up in revolt and had predicted wrong on that.


But they didn't even get to that point. The Cubans were alert to the attempts to land, and thus were able to contain the invasion and force Kennedy to decide between a withdrawal and overt intervention. In the end he chose the former.
#15098335
Chris Loh wrote:Kuwait Airways Flies In Cuban Doctors From Havana

Image

On the evening of Friday, June 5th, 300 doctors and nurses from the Republic of Cuba arrived in Kuwait to assist in the battle against COVID-19. This large team of Cuban healthcare professionals will be working in intensive care for the next six months to deal with coronavirus cases.

The arrival of the Cuban team

A Kuwait Times Instagram post (embedded below) shows the large team emerging from a Kuwait Airways Boeing 777 via stairs. Sporting white medical coats and wearing face masks, the Arab Times reports that the team was transferred from the airport via private buses to be tested for the virus. ...


So both Qatar and now Kuwait have asked Cuba to help them by sending doctors. These are two of the richest countries on the planet, and the biggest export from my country to this region is WMDs.

You want dead people, you call NATO. You want alive people, you call Cuba.
#15098868
XogGyux wrote:That is Cuba for you in a nutshell.

Thanks for the inside-a-nutshell view of Cuba.

Right above your last post, is an inside-a-Kuwaiti jumbo-jet view of Cuba, and it is far more positive and hopeful than your tiny, cluttered little view.

The Kuwaitis are anxious to have lives saved so they don't have a lot of time to pry open a nut (nut = narrow ideology) and try to look at Cuba from inside it.
#15098874
QatzelOk wrote:Thanks for the inside-a-nutshell view of Cuba.

Right above your last post, is an inside-a-Kuwaiti jumbo-jet view of Cuba, and it is far more positive and hopeful than your tiny, cluttered little view.

The Kuwaitis are anxious to have lives saved so they don't have a lot of time to pry open a nut (nut = narrow ideology) and try to look at Cuba from inside it.


I have no doubt about it, they are happy, as so are the "leaders" in cuba that gets to enjoy of the benefit of propaganda and whatever deals and other below-the-table arrangements that they might have scored with this publicity stunt.
Meanwhile, the actual Cuban people can't catch a break.
#15098877
XogGyux wrote:Meanwhile, the actual Cuban people can't catch a break.

They have been under sanctions for a long, long time.

Remember Madelein Albright and her "500,000 dead Iraqi children caused by sanctions was totally worth it" line? By saying this, she reveals the desired result of sanctions.

Despite these sanctions, Cuban children have longer life expectancy than American children, and they are more likely to survive childbirth than American children.

Also, Kuwait and Qatar have called on Cuban doctors because they are worried about their own citizens' survival and health. But as soon as they need foreigners killed, they will call on the USA and its puppet countries like Canada.

We Western puppets kill, Cubans save lives. (let this sink in deeply before commenting again)
#15098881
QatzelOk wrote:They have been under sanctions for a long, long time.

Remember Madelein Albright and her "500,000 dead Iraqi children caused by sanctions was totally worth it" line? By saying this, she reveals the desired result of sanctions.

Despite these sanctions, Cuban children have longer life expectancy than American children, and they are more likely to survive childbirth than American children.

Also, Kuwait and Qatar have called on Cuban doctors because they are worried about their own citizens' survival and health. But as soon as they need foreigners killed, they will call on the USA and its puppet countries like Canada.

We Western puppets kill, Cubans save lives. (let this sink in deeply before commenting again)

Dude, stop the propaganda, just move to Cuba. With the crappy internet at least we get some rest of this non-sense.
Criticize Canada all you want, praise Cuba all you want, yet you still live in Canada don't you? How about that for fucking hypocrisy.
#15098993
XogGyux wrote:Dude, stop the propaganda, just move to Cuba. With the crappy internet at least we get some rest of this non-sense.
Criticize Canada all you want, praise Cuba all you want, yet you still live in Canada don't you? How about that for fucking hypocrisy.

As a Canadian, I can visit Cuba any time I want. But to live there, I would need to marry a Cuban and become a citizen, which isn't as easy as you make it sound. Especially since I am a gay male and am not interested in marrying some young guy so he can "have more stuff."

As the Covid and Race Riots reveal how weak our communities are, Cuba is looking more and more attractive to a lot of people. But perhaps we just need their wisdom and experience, and not their actual landmass? Perhaps the wiser route is to bring Cuba here to Canada, just like it was flown in to Kuwait, Qatar, and many other rich countries whose income level you no-doubt admire.
#15098995
QatzelOk wrote:As a Canadian, I can visit Cuba any time I want. But to live there, I would need to marry a Cuban and become a citizen, which isn't as easy as you make it sound. Especially since I am a gay male and am not interested in marrying some young guy so he can "have more stuff."

As the Covid and Race Riots reveal how weak our communities are, Cuba is looking more and more attractive to a lot of people. But perhaps we just need their wisdom and experience, and not their actual landmass? Perhaps the wiser route is to bring Cuba here to Canada, just like it was flown in to Kuwait, Qatar, and many other rich countries whose income level you no-doubt admire.

Yes yes yes. excuses.
#15099001
QatzelOk wrote:"Move to Cuba" is all you have, isn't it. :lol:

It is not all I have. I have shared with you the reality of Cuba and you keep posting non-sense propaganda, from the point of view of a tourist from a 1st world country with comparable shiton of $$.
Reasoning doesn't work, clearly, this thread has 82 pages of mostly non-sense. If Cuba is so great for you I am sure you can go live there :lol: . If not, just try for Venezuela or something. :lol:
#15100393
wat0n wrote:I have no problem in doing so, but I'm not sure of what claims I haven't been able to support. Which of them do you disagree with and why? Perhaps the main one is that Cuba had reached a state of dependence on the Soviet Union, in both economic and military terms, that it was a satellite in all but name.

You said that this isn't the case because Cuba and the Soviets weren't always in agreement. Yet, the Poles and the Soviets, for example, weren't always in agreement either even in something as serious for the latter as the Sino-Soviet split - and despite this, we still consider that Poland was one of the Soviet satellites. As such, the high standard for the degree of Soviet influence over Cuba was one that went beyond the influence it exerted over the countries that were widely seen as being its satellites, like Poland.

It shows that 1) American policy towards Chile was about more than just private sector investment in the country and 2) American policy towards Chilean human rights violations was far from being the result of a consensus and it was also rather inconsistent (in fact, in disarray judging by the assessment within the US government)

"We" as in the UP? I don't know, maybe I'm wrong but promising to repudiate all bilateral agreements with the US as part of their electoral platform is pretty hostile to me.

Because 1) I don't have any evidence that it does and 2) it's possible for the Cubans to detect if that's the case, even more so given that as a communist state the phone network is government property.

But they didn't even get to that point. The Cubans were alert to the attempts to land, and thus were able to contain the invasion and force Kennedy to decide between a withdrawal and overt intervention. In the end he chose the former.


So we looked at the claim that Cuba was a vassal of the USSR, and the economic argument and the foreign policy argument are not strong. Cuba has been able to maintain its own economy despite no Soviet aid, unlike Eastern Europe. Its foreign policy has aligned with USSR at some points and diverged in other points, and there is no evidence that the UsSR were taking the lead at the times they were aligned.

We also know there is continued attempts at overthrowing the Cuban government by the US, and this obviously requires the Cubans to defend themselves.

Finally, the evidence also indicates that socialism has widespread support on the island.
#15100395
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we looked at the claim that Cuba was a vassal of the USSR, and the economic argument and the foreign policy argument are not strong. Cuba has been able to maintain its own economy despite no Soviet aid, unlike Eastern Europe. Its foreign policy has aligned with USSR at some points and diverged in other points, and there is no evidence that the UsSR were taking the lead at the times they were aligned.


Cuba was not "able to maintain its own economy". Cuba had to go through substantial restructuring during the '90s and the Cuban economy was forced to switch to some of the pre-revolutionary activities such as tourism and in more recent years has been moving on to even allow private property.

What the Government did manage to do was to remain in power. Eastern European communists weren't so lucky.

Pants-of-dog wrote:We also know there is continued attempts at overthrowing the Cuban government by the US, and this obviously requires the Cubans to defend themselves.


Of course it does, and this means disregarding democracy and several basic human and civil rights. Be it to prevent being overthrown by the US or the Cubans themselves, remaining in power means giving up on democracy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Finally, the evidence also indicates that socialism has widespread support on the island.


Why don't they put socialism into the ballot box and we will see? So far it seems that Cuba has been slowly moving away from it, although I'd say that's driven by the realities of socialism rather than democratic choice.
  • 1
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83

Ah, I guess it's not murder if the cops didn't kn[…]

I don't deny that Erdogan is playing a risky game[…]

1. No, I say let them sue. If ever I become disab[…]