Pants-of-dog wrote:I am using the Wiki definition.
And the relationship between the USSR and Cuba did not seem that way.
I don't see why not? In what way wasn't the dependence of Cuba on the USSR colonial in nature? Didn't the Soviets use Cuba both as a military base (which I think was the top priority) and also as a way to get some cheap raw materials (particularly sugar)?
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is the second time that you try to change the goalposts in this specific manner.
Again, if you wish to show that their foreign policy was so similar as to make Cuba a satellite state, please do.
On the contrary, I'm asking you to provide evidence of any relevant diplomatic clashes between Cuba and the Soviets. For instance, it's easy to see China was not a Soviet satellite at least from the 60s onwards, given their diplomatic relations at the time. I have not seen anything like that between Cuba and the USSR, and the former's stance on the Sino-Soviet split was similar to that of the Warsaw Pact members (official neutrality, broad alignment with the Soviets. Indeed, in Ethiopia for instance, Cuba clearly aligned itself with the USSR by supporting Ethiopia, while China provided some token support for Somalia when the USSR decided to pick Ethiopia).
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this is not what I am saying at all. In fact, this would directly contradict my previous point, so it is illogical to assume I was making this point.
I see. But then, who was the representative of the Angolan people when Cuba intervened there?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again: we were discussing how Cuban and US foreign policy were the same or different. Cuba acted bilaterally with other countries. The USA does not.
And I'm pointing out that you are using a rather... Odd definition of "acting bilaterally" here. In what way, for example, did Cuba act bilaterally with regards to Ethiopia? And how wasn't US aid, which was granted under bilateral agreements with the recipient, not an example of a bilateral policy?
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not sure that Cuba was acting on behalf of the Soviets, or that Cuba was trying to benefit at the expense of Ethiopia.
Really? They coordinated the intervention from the beginning, and I don't see why would Cuba participate this actively if it wasn't expecting to benefit from it. Such benefit could, of course, be mainly in terms of its relations with the USSR (again, because it was a satellite) but I'd be surprised if it hadn't gained economically by (for instance) being paid by the Ethiopian government for the service provided.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why would international media care about Cubans?
Why wouldn't it care about the only Marxist regime in Latin America, one that's next to the US for that matter? Wasn't one of the largest Cold War crisis centered on Cuba if anything? Symbolically, I see plenty of reasons for that.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So no example of Cuba using Granma to threaten another country’s sovereignty.
Do you really want me to look for Granma articles engaging on revolutionary propaganda?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Wince all of this supports the idea that the US is maintaining a posture of overt isolation, it can and probably does have a covert program of attacking Cuba.
This, in turn, provides the historical and political context through which we need to see Cuba and Us relationships.
Maybe, I'm pretty sure it would love to have the way to covertly overthrow the Cuban regime. But if such covert operation exists, it's been a failure.
Pants-of-dog wrote:...or a hostile superpower intent on ransacking your country for resources.
Propaganda will be pretty useless without the critical mass and conditions to overthrow the government as described in that post. When those conditions haven't been met, a colonial power has historically had no other option but to overtly intervene using military force, i.e. war, directly or through its allies (if any). In that case, if anything, propaganda directed at the country's population was a failure.
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to remove the profit motive from healthcare entirely, I would support that.
That's rather hard to do. I hate this game that those "not for profit" healthcare systems play, where everyone pretends not to care about how much they make out of it yet still make sure to extract as much rents as possible - be it done by healthcare workers through unions or licensing, or the government bureaucracy by "creative" procurement of raw materials or getting Party benefits if in a totalitarian regime.
I'm personally indifferent about profit, but I do care about both the efficacy (Does the population get the healthcare it needs?) and efficiency of the system (Are society's resources being used in the best way possible?). I don't think there's any healthcare system that is perfect in this regard.