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.
