Topic: Billboard war in Cuba

[TehBorken]

[h3]Billboard war in Cuba   [img]http://www.boingboing.net/images/cubasign.jpg" alt="Cubasign" align="left" border="1" height="150" hspace="4" vspace="4" width="365"][img]http://www.boingboing.net/images/bush.jpg" alt="Bush" align="left" border="1" height="167" hspace="4" vspace="4" width="365"][br clear="all"][/h3] The folks at Fluctuat.net in France posted these exclusive photos from Havana. One image depicts the screen of flags that Fidel Castro had erected to obscure an electronic sign mounted on the Embassy of Switzerland building that houses the United States Interests Section. The sign streams quotes from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr. and George W. Bush, news headlines, and other propaganda.

The other image is just one of several anti-Bush billboards the government apparently erected in retaliation.

[a href="http://www.fluctuat.net/blog/2785-Anti-Bush-Propaganda-in-Cuba"]Link[/a] to the Fluctuat.net post,  [a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13700587.htm"]Link[/a] to Miami Herald article from January,  [a href="http://havana.usinterestsection.gov/usint-billborad.html"]Link[/a] to US Interests Section's Billboard page.

[soapbox]

maybe if castro hadn't been such a jackass back in 62' by allowing the USSR to load up his little island of marxist delights with ICBM's things wouldn't be so shitty now for his people and it's society.

i too would have a long memory if greenland started loading up with danish ICBM pointed at canada.  

[soapbox]

uh,correction. MRBM's not ICBM's  

[tenkani]

f*ck that. You can't justify the current idiotic embargo and travel restrictions based on the 1960's missile crisis. And it isn't about human rights either, as U.S. citizens are permitted to visit all sorts of horrible dictatorships around the globe. As bad as Cuba is, China's human rights record is worse, and they are one of our biggest trading partners. As it did in Iraq, the U.S. embargo has done nothing to hurt the leadership of the country, it has only hurt the poor.

There are consistent patterns out there, for those willing to see them. We have targeted Cuba not because it's a military threat, or because of human rights, or because it is not a Democracy. We have targeted it because Cuba is a symbol of revolution and anti-imperialism to the rest of Latin America. Also, I think, to change our policy now would be an acknowledgement that it was unjust to begin with, just as withdrawing from Iraq would be an acknowledgement of the same sort of idiotic blunder. The hubris of the United States doesn't easily allow for that kind of honesty.

[soapbox]

f*ck what?

your analysis of the american position to this day being fuelled by american anti-revolutionary distain for cuba is wrong,clearly the words spoken by Adlai Stevenson to the UN Security Council contradicts your perception of the US gov's position then and now.

it is not rhetoric Stevenson speaks,it was not a time for that.

 Taken from the that UN speech Oct.13 th 1962......

Let me make it absolutely clear what the issue of Cuba is. It is not an issue of revolution. This hemisphere has seen many revolutions, including the one which gave my own nation its independence.

It is not an issue of reform. My nation has lived happily with other countries which have had thorough-going and fundamental social transformations, like Mexico and Bolivia. The whole point of the Alliance for Progress is to bring about an economic and social revolution in the Americas.

It is not an issue of socialism. As Secretary of State Rusk said in February, "our hemisphere has room for a diversity of economic systems."

It is not an issue of dictatorship. The American Republics have lived with dictators before. If this were his only fault, they could live with Mr. Castro.

The foremost objection of the States of the Americas to the Castro rιgime is not because it is revolutionary, not because it is socialistic, not because it is dictatorial, not even because Mr. Castro perverted a noble revolution in the interests of a squalid totalitarianism. It is because be has aided and abetted an invasion of this hemisphere - an invasion just at the time when the hemisphere is making a new and unprecedented effort for economic progress and social reform.

The crucial fact is that Cuba has given the Soviet Union a bridgehead and staging area in this hemisphere; that it has invited an extra-continental, antidemocratic and expansionist Power into the bosom of the American family; that it has made itself an accomplice in the communist enterprise of world dominion.

end quote.

 

Both the Russians denied having nukes and staging areas in Cuba.Castro as well.

It's a moot point that it may have been a response to US missles in Turkey or that is was a response to waining Soviet military influence during the decade.

Point is...nukes were planted in Cuba and Cuba played ball with the Soviets.

Stick the point.This is not about less than desirable nations in which Americans are free to travel or the Fog of War in Iraq.It is about why Cuba is still being punished to this day like it or not.

[soapbox]

please provide further examples of where the "empire of america" is systematically targeting Latin American countries to further it's own direct interests.

america certainly does not behave as an empire and the last real comparison to that kind of behaviour was the phillipine islands....well,that was a disaster at empire behaviour.

america while pursueing a path of foreign policy that serves itself (what healthy democracy doesn't?) is not blind to real dangers of acting alone.

it is far from walking away from the world community even under the guidance of that pimple,Bush.

[tenkani]

Sorry, but you haven't given me a single reason why Cuba's actions in the 1960's justify a continuing blockade of that country today.

Jesus, we were AT WAR with North Vietnam in the 1960's, yet today we allow Americans to visit and have been expanding trade relations with that country so to me the quotes you have given are moot.

Although we claimed Cuba as belonging to our sphere of influence, they were in fact a sovereign country, and while we had every reason to be fearful about the presence of nukes in Cuba, to argue that their presence in the 1960's justifies our current actions has no basis legally or ethically. Again, our actions don't hurt Castro in any way. He loves playing the martyr. We only hurt the poor.

Cuba hasn't provided a threat in any tangible way to the United States in many decades, so if security isn't the reason, then what is?

You asked about whether our foreign policy in Latin America could be considered imperialist. I suppose the use of the term is questionable, as our methods of control have been more subtle than those traditionally associated with that label. Our covert and overt policies in Latin America over the years should give every freedom loving American pause. Aside from the assassinations and assassination attempts, we trained and funded death squads in Colombia and elsewhere, allied ourselves with narco terrorists (the contras were as bad as anything we claimed to oppose in the region) and invaded Panama in direct violation of international law (no, the U.N. does not allow an invasion based on claims that a country's leader is running drugs, especially when there is evidence that said leader was working closely with U.S. intelligence, who knew for over a decade EXACTLY what he was doing) just to name a few items.

I'm sleepy so I'll cut this short, but if you aren't ignorant of our long history of black ops in Latin America, much of it initiated to further U.S. business interests rather than to support democracy or freedom (repeatedly, in fact, our policies were used to support pro-U.S. dictators or terrorists), if you're aware of these actions and still feel that this country has some sort of moral highground remaining in the region then I don't know what else to say to you that won't fall on deaf ears. In order to take the stance you've adopted, it seems that you would have to completely ignore international (and U.S.) law and the opinions of most if not all major human rights organizations who've spoken out on the matter of our policy toward Cuba and our well-documented history of black ops in Latin America.

In any case, you're entitled to your opinion. Peace.

[soapbox]

peace.

haven't stated my position on covert operations,even the one's that indeed violate international norms and conduct if not international law.

(cuba was a quarantine not blockade..therefore not illegal as per UN rulings)

haven't stated my position on cuba but have only stated that it's actions then are the direct reason why it finds itself still in the bad books now.

no doubt cuba has far strayed from the path of a true noble revolution and is a repressive police state governed by the cult of personality,castro himself and no other(s) and any action by the US with regards to further isolating his leadership (ie)him, certainly hurts the "people".

wouldn't it be wise then for the people to rise up? (sorry for being a romantic this is nearly impossible)

lifting the isolation will happen right upon castros death.....let's not forget what happened in the early days of the "bolivarian revolution"...it's goal was to seize the wealth of american interests foremost.[/DIV]it was a money grab and had little do with a social revolution from the bottom up,the true drive for change.it was guided by castro himself to obtain the wealth that existed legally in cuba at the time.that being american investment wealth and hotels,banks and property.

there was never any apology from castro to american industry (who really were not responsible for the poverty in cuba since they brought investment and wealth legally and were capped by foreign owneship restrictions) for pirating assests.why was america responsible for cuba many social ills?what had america done in cuba to put cuba into the position it was in then? nada.period.[/DIV]the country and it's symbolic wealth were a natural target...when really if any target should be determined it would be washington.dc and policy makers that at the time,really didn't have an issue with cuba as things were going rather nicely for everybody (cubans and americans).

attempts at reconcilation were dismissed by castro and his merry band of jungle revolutionaries as have been since 62'.

that is the difference between the cuban situation and n.vietnam or vietnam today. [/DIV]vietnam sought immediately talks at normalizing relations after the final withdrawl.america refused due to it's military defeat there.[/DIV]vietnam knowing full well it's struggle was really one of breaking the chains of true foreign domination sought only to liberate itself as a free nation...the path chosen to do this was marxism/communism.[/DIV]what was a civil war in reality became a testing ground for asian communist containment when really it wasn't..as stated the struggle was one of liberation from the french colonial influence and americans (mcnamara) changed it with intervention into a playground for this new containment idea.

vietnam today allows visitors from the US and investment because it't enemy never really was america.america made the vietnamese into it's own enemy by intervention.vietnam now having matured into it's own nation united free of colonial influence and long having since shed the rhetoric of violent revolution under the guise of communisim has reached out to the world community basically denouncing it's former path of political struggle.having denounced the struggle is over...now can normalize and invite investment and nations into it's country.

cuba (rather) castro has never denounced the path or the revolution.for him the struggle is still on whether is people are victims (they are) or benefit![/DIV]castro continues to berate and provoke the US still now as he arrests his own people off the street.

sure,his people suffer and sometimes a big stick hits the robber while it also may strike the innocent civilian in the bank line up.

preventing hard earned US cash from entering his economy is the only option other than an invasion!!!!!

yes,indeed funds were given to the contras...the contras were the only reaction against the sandinistas.[/DIV]american funds and assistance were given to the contras (many were left over remains of the somoza dictatorship,so by default american covert forces had no choice)[/DIV]aid was illegal and reagan worked around congress secretly diverting funds from other sources including sales of arms to iran![/DIV]funding the contras did not result in the natural victory for anti-contra forces...the fighting dies down and the sandinistas were democractically elected out.[/DIV]cia intervention did not achieve this nor was there US business interests in the region.it was the containment policy in action not pro-US interests as their really wasn't big business interests to protect.[/DIV]pure ideology that's all.

colombia....never has there been a link between National Self Defense Forces (anti FARC) and the CIA.no US involvement there....but there is alot of anti-drug crop money and anti-eradication money.this is upfront and transparent.like it or not US tax money is assisting in democratic intiatives there.not political dirt and covertness.  

[tenkani]

Wish I had more time, but here's some Wiki info on the embargo from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

First,Iused the word "blockade" in part because the United States hasmadegreat efforts to pressure other countries into cutting off the flowoffunds and good into Cuba. At that point, it was no longer simply aU.S.embargo. Still, it was an unfortunate choice of words. It'snottechnically a blockade.

The [b style="font-weight: bold;"]United States embargo against Cuba[/b] (described in [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba" title="Cuba"]Cuba[/a] as [b style="font-weight: bold;"]el bloqueo[/b], [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language" title="Spanish language"]Spanish[/a] for "the blockade") is an economic, commercial and financial [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo" title="Embargo"]embargo[/a] imposed on [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba" title="Cuba"]Cuba[/a] by the [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States"]United States[/a] on [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_7" title="February 7"]February 7[/a], [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962" title="1962"]1962[/a]. [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006" title="2006"]As of 2006[/a], the embargo is still in effect, making it one of the most enduring [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade" title="Trade"]trade[/a] embargoes in modern history. It remains an extremely controversial issue worldwide, with the [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly" title="UN General Assembly"]General Assembly[/a] of the [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations" title="United Nations"]United Nations[/a] condemning it for the 14th time in [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005" title="2005"]2005[/a] by a large margin.

The embargo has been the source of almost unanimous international criticism. Annual votes in the United Nations [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly" title="United Nations General Assembly"]General Assembly[/a] that call on the U.S. to lift its sanctions pass with exceptionally large margins (173 to 3 in [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002" title="2002"]2002[/a]; 179 to 4 in [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004" title="2004"]2004[/a]). In the 2004 vote, only the U.S., [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel" title="Israel"]Israel[/a], the [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands" title="Marshall Islands"]Marshall Islands[/a], and [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau" title="Palau"]Palau[/a] voted against the resolution (with [a  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_States_of_Micronesia" title="Federated States of Micronesia"]Federated States of Micronesia[/a] abstaining).
[p style="font-weight: bold;"]The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European" title="European"]European[/a]governmentsinparticular who resent the extraterritorial pretensionsof a pieceoflegislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporationsandnon-U.S.investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_House_of_Commons" title="Canadian House of Commons"]Canadian House of Commons[/a], Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey-Milliken_Bill" title="Godfrey-Milliken Bill"]Godfrey-Milliken Bill[/a] which called for the return of property of [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Empire_Loyalists" title="United Empire Loyalists"]United Empire Loyalists[/a] seized by the American government as a result of the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution" title="American Revolution"]American Revolution[/a] (the bill never became law). Furthermore, the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament" title="European Parliament"]European Parliament[/a]in1996passed a law making it illegal for all EU citizens toobeytheHelms-Burton act. This EU law was clearly more symbolicthananythingelse, but virtually eliminated any weight the act had overEUcitizens.The [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council" title="European Council"]European Council[/a]:[/p][dl style="font-weight: bold;"][dd]whilereaffirmingits concern to promote democratic reform inCuba, recalledthe deepconcern expressed by the European Council overtheextraterritorialeffects of the "Cuban Liberty and DemocraticSolidarity(Libertad) Act"adopted by the United States and similarpendinglegislation regardingIran and Libya. It noted thewidespreadinternational objections to thislegislation. It called uponPresidentClinton to waive the provisions ofTitle III and expressedseriousconcern at the measures already taken toimplement Title IV ofthe Act.The Council identified a range of measureswhich could bedeployed bythe EU in response to the damage to theinterests of EUcompaniesresulting from the implementation of the Act.Among these arethefollowing:[ol][li]a move to a WTO dispute settlement panel;[/li][li]changes in the procedures governing entry by representatives of US companies to EU Member States;[/li][li]the use/introduction of legislation within the EU to neutralize the extraterritorial effects of the US legislation;[/li][li]the establishment of a watch list of US companies filing Title III actions.[/li][/ol][/dd][/dl][p style="font-weight: bold;"]Religiousleadersoppose the embargo for a variety of reasons,includinghumanitarian andeconomic hardships the embargo imposes onCubans. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II" title="Pope John Paul II"]Pope John Paul II[/a] called for the end to the embargo during his [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979" title="1979"]1979[/a] pastoral visit to [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico" title="Mexico"]Mexico[/a], and again during his [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998" title="1998"]1998[/a] visit to Cuba. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Bartholomew_I" title="Patriarch Bartholomew I"]Patriarch Bartholomew I[/a] called the embargo a "historic mistake" while visiting the island on [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_25" title="January 25"]January 25[/a], [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004" title="2004"]2004[/a]. United States religious leaders have also opposed the embargo. A joint letter in [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998" title="1998"]1998[/a] from the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciples_of_Christ" title="Disciples of Christ"]Disciples of Christ[/a] and the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ" title="United Church of Christ"]United Church of Christ[/a] to the U.S. Senate called for the easing of economic restrictions against Cuba. Rev. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson" title="Jesse Jackson"]Jesse Jackson[/a], Rev. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton" title="Al Sharpton"]Al Sharpton[/a], and Minister [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan" title="Louis Farrakhan"]Louis Farrakhan[/a] have also publicly opposed the embargo. On [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15" title="May 15"]May 15[/a], [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002" title="2002"]2002[/a] former President [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter" title="Jimmy Carter"]Jimmy Carter[/a] spoke in [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana" title="Havana"]Havana[/a],callingforan end to the embargo, saying "Our two nations have beentrapped inadestructive state of belligerence for 42 years, and it istime for ustochange our relationship."[/p]
Check out the article for some oftheeffects of the embargo, which were MUCH more severe after theSovietsfell, but are still significant. For instance, although theCuban expatcommunity in the United States wants Castro gone, even theyare upset bythe fact that they can't send gifts to their own relatives(can you giveme other examples of terrible dictatorships around theworld whereAmerican's can't send gifts to their relatives) and evencontacting themis difficult.

Asserting that Cuba's actions inthe 1960's are thecause (the implication being that they are the ONLYcause) of thecontinuing embargo implies that the United Statesgovernment has nocontrol over its own policy. The further implicationis that the policyis somehow just and rational. If this is true, whydo we essentiallystand alone in terms of world opinion? Why do we keepfinding ourselvesin this position? Why are we constantly the odd manout? Bush wouldargue that world opinion should not dictate ouractions, since we arethe leaders of the free world. Bush sees takingactions that horrify therest of the world as somehow heroic.

Personally,if I take astance and only Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palaustand with me, Iwould hope I'd have the good sense to ask why the restof the world islooking at me like I'm wearing a dead cat on my head.


I have to go so I'm sorry that I missed some of your points. I'll be back later.

Weshouldstart providing more links rather than just stated something asfact.When I get a chance I'll start by providing evidence of U.S. tiestoColombian death squads, and you can look for articles stating thatwehad nothing to do with them. Good luck with that.


soapbox wrote:
peace.[/div][div] [/div][div]haven'tstatedmy position on covert operations,even the one's that indeedviolateinternational norms and conduct if not international law.[/div][div] [/div][div](cuba was a quarantine not blockade..therefore not illegal as per UN rulings)[/div][div] [/div][div]haven'tstatedmy position on cuba but have only stated that it's actions thenare thedirect reason why it finds itself still in the bad books now.[/div][div] [/div][div]nodoubtcuba has far strayed from the path of a true noble revolution andis arepressive police state governed by the cult ofpersonality,castrohimself and no other(s) and any action by the US withregards tofurther isolating his leadership (ie)him, certainly hurts the"people".[/div][div] [/div][div]wouldn't it be wise then for the people to rise up? (sorry for being a romantic this is nearly impossible)[/div][div] [/div][div]liftingtheisolation will happen right upon castros death.....let's not forgetwhathappened in the early days of the "bolivarian revolution"...it'sgoalwas to seize the wealth of american interests foremost.[/div][div]itwasa money grab and had little do with a social revolution from thebottomup,the true drive for change.it was guided by castro himself toobtainthe wealth that existed legally in cuba at the time.that beingamericaninvestment wealth and hotels,banks and property.[/div][div] [/div][div]therewasnever any apology from castro to american industry (who really werenotresponsible for the poverty in cuba since they brought investmentandwealth legally and were capped by foreign owneship restrictions)forpirating assests.why was america responsible for cuba manysocialills?what had america done in cuba to put cuba into the positionit wasin then? nada.period.[/div][div]the country and it's symbolicwealthwere a natural target...when really if any target should bedeterminedit would be washington.dc and policy makers that at thetime,reallydidn't have an issue with cuba as things were going rathernicely foreverybody (cubans and americans).[/div][div] [/div][div]attempts at reconcilation were dismissed by castro and his merry band of jungle revolutionaries as have been since 62'.[/div][div] [/div][div]that is the difference between the cuban situation and n.vietnam or vietnam today. [/div][div]vietnamsoughtimmediately talks at normalizing relations after thefinalwithdrawl.america refused due to it's military defeat there.[/div][div]vietnamknowingfull well it's struggle was really one of breaking the chainsof trueforeign domination sought only to liberate itself as a freenation...thepath chosen to do this was marxism/communism.[/div][div]whatwas a civilwar in reality became a testing ground for asian communistcontainmentwhen really it wasn't..as stated the struggle was one ofliberation fromthe french colonial influence and americans (mcnamara)changed it withintervention into a playground for this new containmentidea.[/div][div] [/div][div]vietnamtoday allows visitors from the USand investment because it't enemynever really was america.america madethe vietnamese into it's own enemyby intervention.vietnam now havingmatured into it's own nation unitedfree of colonial influence and longhaving since shed the rhetoric ofviolent revolution under the guise ofcommunisim has reached out to theworld community basically denouncingit's former path of politicalstruggle.having denounced the struggle isover...now can normalize andinvite investment and nations into it'scountry.[/div][div] [/div][div]cuba(rather) castro has never denouncedthe path or the revolution.for himthe struggle is still on whether ispeople are victims (they are) orbenefit![/div][div]castro continues to berate and provoke the US still now as he arrests his own people off the street.[/div][div] [/div][div]sure,hispeoplesuffer and sometimes a big stick hits the robber while it alsomaystrike the innocent civilian in the bank line up.[/div][div] [/div][div]preventing hard earned US cash from entering his economy is the only option other than an invasion!!!!![/div][div] [/div][div]yes,indeed funds were given to the contras...the contras were the only reaction against the sandinistas.[/div][div]americanfundsand assistance were given to the contras (many were left overremains ofthe somoza dictatorship,so by default american covert forceshad nochoice)[/div][div]aid was illegal and reagan worked around congress secretly diverting funds from other sources including sales of arms to iran![/div][div]fundingthecontras did not result in the natural victory foranti-contraforces...the fighting dies down and the sandinistasweredemocractically elected out.[/div][div]cia intervention did notachievethis nor was there US business interests in the region.it wasthecontainment policy in action not pro-US interests as theirreallywasn't big business interests to protect.[/div][div]pure ideology that's all.[/div][div] [/div][div]colombia....neverhasthere been a link between National Self Defense Forces (anti FARC)andthe CIA.no US involvement there....but there is alot of anti-drugcropmoney and anti-eradication money.this is upfront andtransparent.like itor not US tax money is assisting in democraticintiatives there.notpolitical dirt and covertness.[/div][div] [/div][div]

[tenkani]

Damn, sorry the text formatting got jacked up on my last post. I also missed my bus, thank you very much      

Ok, to add to what I was saying, I agree with your comments about Castro "straying from the path of noble revolution". There have been far worse dicatators than Castro, but he is still a dictator. I would just argue that in terms of this debate, that is moot. Not only do we ignore dictators around the globe, we ally ourselves with them in many cases.

As far as expecting Castro to "apologize" for kicking the corporations, corrupt politicians and organized crime out of his country, don't hold your breath. It was a Marxist revolution, and Castro still believes in freeing the resources of countries from the abusive and exploitive influence of big money (his viewpoint).

Your assertion that Castro's real purpose in leading the revolution was to seize money seems a bit narrowly focused. It's my personal belief that at that time the man was an idealist. Like most revolutionary leaders, however, once he came to power, the lure of absolute control became too great. Your mileage may vary.

Many of your points may have merit (i.e. Castro still denounces the United States, supresses political expression etc.) but really have no bearing on the morality of the embargo. Again, there are far worse dictators that we enjoy fairly cozy relations with. And if our goal is to improve relations with Cuba so that they don't see us as imperialist pigs, continuing the embargo is not the way to do it. You don't encourage democratic change in a country by cutting it off from the world. The concept would be laughable if it wasn't so damn sad.

Until just a few years ago we were even embargoing FOOD AND MEDICINE. How can you defend that??

Ok, as to Nicaragua, and the implication that CIA support for the CONTRAS played no role in the eventual Sandanista electoral defeat. This is patently ludicrous. First, the country was in ruins primarily because of the terroristic tactics of the CONTRAS (using land mines in civilian areas, mining harbors, attacking civilian government officials etc). In addition, the U.S. was embargoing the country during a time of war, which simply added to the chaos and suffering. The CONTRAS primary goal was not to defeat the Sandanist military, it was to destabilize the country to such a point that they government would be overthrown. During the election, the U.S. made it clear that if the Sandanistas won, the embargo would remain indefinitely. All told, how can anyone argue that this election in any way reflected a fair sense of the wishes of the Nicaraguan people? In any case, the Sandanistas were a military government that peacefully handed over control after losing the election. That is pretty rare in itself, and I think I can safely say that had the CONTRAS seized control, they would have remained in power until forcably removed.

It boils down to this, we supported the anti-communist somoza for decades in Nicaragua despite the fact that he was one of the worst tyrants in the region. We trained his death squads in the School of the Americas, which went on to train many other repressive paramilitary groups in Latin America. Info on the School of the Americas is all over the net. Somoza was overturned by a popular revolution by the Sandanistas, who were angels in comparison, but the only thing that mattered to us was that we needed an anti-communist government in place. Thus began our sordid affair with the CONTRAS, who were literally terrorist narco-trafficers. We supported them in their war, which was directed more at the people and government of Nicaragua than the military.

[DIV style="FONT-STYLE: italic"]"yes,indeed funds were given to the contras...the contras were the only reaction against the sandinistas.[/DIV][DIV style="FONT-STYLE: italic"]americanfundsandassistance were given to the contras (many were left overremains ofthesomoza dictatorship,so by default american covert forceshad nochoice)"[/DIV]
Funds, training and weaponry. It has been alleged that some of our advisors may have actually taken part in combat, but that was most likely incidental rather than by design. I take issue with the assertion that we "had no choice" but to support the CONTRAS in this war. Your arguments display a cold-war mentality that caused the United States to betray everything we supposedly hold dear. In Latin America, due to this cold-war attitude, we repeatedly supported brutal military dictatorships, and engineered the fall of relatively benign regimes in order to replace them with pro-U.S. leaders. Only in the U.S. could we attempt to assassinate heads of state (arbenz, castro etc.) and still claim to be a bastion of freedom and democracy.

By the way, if you some insight on the role of U.S. business in Latin America, do some research on United Fruit Company.

Peace out, lover.

[tenkani]

Damn your eyes, I was late for work