<a https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7467335'> Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

US embrago on Cuba going?

ChaoticButterfly

I agree very much with this article. Cuba should go the way of other South American countries that are breaking free from american oppression more democratically.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...torship-castro

"Having an exceptional healthcare and education system, or defying a concerted attack by a global superpower, does not mean being let off the hook when it comes to allowing your people to vote for whoever they want."

"Social and economic rights are not compensation for political rights; they should complement each other." I think this quote can be used to describe America's utter hypocrisy in the last 70 years. They say they (by they I mean the american state mouthpiece) supported/support and installed/install democracy in Latin american countries. In reality they only care about the economic social rights part of that quote. Basically if was communist/Leninist (cuba was an example of this), social democrat, anarchist or anything remotely "left" the country was an enemy of state, even if it was democratic. If the country's social and economics system was a tyrannical "neoliberal" police state (example being Pinochet in Chile) they were an ally, regardless of whether it was democratic or not (Pinochet in no way facilitated democracy).

Basically america never gave two ****s about democracy, they only cared whether the countries economic/political system would allow them to enforce their nutcase extreme "neoliberalism" in a way that provided themselves an economic stranglehold over the world. They never cared that Cuba was ran by a dictatorship, they cared because that dictatorship was not willing enforce rampant neoliberal reforms by force on the Cuban population to aid america. Take Pinochet who ran Chile with an iron totalitarian fist. America never cared about that, they cared that Pinochet facilitated the kind of brutal economic reforms America wanted on Chile. Pinochet was an outstanding ally whilst Castro was a enemy. Both were dictators. Democracy never came into the equation, apart from the fact the US had to convince it's own population they were the "good" guys via propaganda and manipulation.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 1

viddy9

I sincerely hope that the outrageous and hypocritical embargo on Cuba will disappear. It has caused millions of Cubans to suffer, although Cuba itself has admirably resisted numerous attempted American terrorist attacks on its soil.

One would hope, indeed, that Cuba becomes a democracy like other socialist countries in Latin America and social democracies in Scandinavia. The former have taken millions out of poverty, increased wages and improved their healthcare systems, while the latter are some of the most equal societies in the world, with high taxation, high minimum wages and high trade union membership. Cuba would fit perfectly into this growing band of states which are resisting the free market dogma being exported from the United States, as it already has, as the article notes, a brilliant healthcare and education system and is brilliantly sustainable in terms of environmental and ecological impacts.

Hopefully, the US won't try to install a totalitarian regime in Cuba, as they have done in Latin America on countless occasions.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 2

MatureStudent36

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

I agree very much with this article. Cuba should go the way of other South American countries that are breaking free from american oppression more democratically.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...torship-castro

"Having an exceptional healthcare and education system, or defying a concerted attack by a global superpower, does not mean being let off the hook when it comes to allowing your people to vote for whoever they want."

"Social and economic rights are not compensation for political rights; they should complement each other." I think this quote can be used to describe America's utter hypocrisy in the last 70 years. They say they (by they I mean the american state mouthpiece) supported/support and installed/install democracy in Latin american countries. In reality they only care about the economic social rights part of that quote. Basically if was communist/Leninist (cuba was an example of this), social democrat, anarchist or anything remotely "left" the country was an enemy of state, even if it was democratic. If the country's social and economics system was a tyrannical "neoliberal" police state (example being Pinochet in Chile) they were an ally, regardless of whether it was democratic or not (Pinochet in no way facilitated democracy).

Basically america never gave two ****s about democracy, they only cared whether the countries economic/political system would allow them to enforce their nutcase extreme "neoliberalims" in a way that provided themselves an economic stranglehold over the world. They never cared that Cuba was ran by a dictatorship, they cared because that dictatorship was not willing enforce rampant neoliberal reforms by force on the Cuban population to aid america. Take Pinochet who ran Chile with an iron totalitarian fist. America never cared about that, they cared that Pinochet facilitated the kind of brutal economic reforms America wanted on Chile. Pinochet was an outstanding ally whilst Castro was a enemy. Both were dictators. Democracy never came into the equation, apart from the fact the US had to convince it's own population they were the "good" guys via propaganda and manipulation.

Cuba's so great over a million of its inhabitants have fled. Quite a few choosing to lash themselves to wooden pallets to get away.

That must tell you something?

Reply 3

Rakas21

I'm all for lifting the embargo now that Cuba has made owning private property legal.

Though the notion that Cuba is a success shows how little ambition the left have. In 1967 Cuba had a GDP per capita on par with Italy and the third highest real wages in the world, the fact that today it has low inflation and a decent education and health system does not take away from the fact that it would be a developed nation were it not for the revolution.

Reply 4

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by MatureStudent36

Cuba's so great over a million of its inhabitants have fled. Quite a few choosing to lash themselves to wooden pallets to get away.

That must tell you something?

I never said it was great. I have made endless anarchist pro democracy ramblings on this section. If I describe something as Leninist I am insulting it. The Cuban regime back then was based on Leninism.

The point I was making is that america didn't care about about whether it is a democracy or not. It only cares because economic model a regime imposes. Pinochet was terrible to live under, political opposition were burned alive and thrown out of helicopters. He also replaced a social democrat government.

So no you have told me nothing other than you are impossible to debate/reason with as usual.

If you had to ask me which south american country I had to live in the 60s it would be a hard choice. They were all very ****y. Whether they were Soviet Union proxies or American proxies. At least if I lived in Cuba I would have access to good health care (which is something America can't even manage which is pathetic if a backward banana republic under a whole load of sanctions with talent flight can do better).

Whether you like it or not the Cuban health care system is world leading and is recognized by the word health organization as being so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salim-lamrani/cubas-health-care-system-_b_5649968.html

I despise all the communist dictatorships and they provided an excellent opportunity to convince people that universal health care leads to a communist dictatorship (since socialism is bad). Meanwhile you have the likes of Castro brainwashing the population into believing you can only have health care under a glorious Communist dictatorship (since socialism is good). When you have to two major propaganda systems agreeing with each other (for different reasons) it is very hard to think outside of. The sooner all these regimes fall the better as it harms that piece of propaganda.

I'm not defending the Cuban regime, rather attacking the behavior of America.

Reply 5

MatureStudent36

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Pinochet was the best of a bad situation.

I feel sorry for the Americans. People are quick to criticise them, but rather slow to congratulate them on their achievements.

Reply 6

HucktheForde

Original post by MatureStudent36

Cuba's so great over a million of its inhabitants have fled. Quite a few choosing to lash themselves to wooden pallets to get away.

That must tell you something?

The sanctions must have hurt Cuba real bad. Well done america for lifting it.

Reply 7

Rakas21

Original post by HucktheForde

The sanctions must have hurt Cuba real bad. Well done america for lifting it.

Apparently we sent them sold old buses in the 60's and the US fired on the ship bringing them.

But the Cuban government made private ownership illegal anyway removing any incentive for Cuban's to start a business and with no patent system, no incentive to innovate either. So i don't blame the US too much. Not to mention they allied with the USSR.

Reply 8

HucktheForde

Original post by Rakas21

Their country, their choice.

Well the US annexed guantanamo bay for reasons we all know. So I dont blame them much for allying with USSR either.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 9

yo radical one

I always laugh when leftists claim that Cuba has a great healthcare system as some kind of (bogus) example demonstrating that socialism does actually work.

It's so badly funded they are forced to use nonsense medicines such as homeopathy, rather than medicine which has been shown to work using double blind trials, surgeons barely have adequate equipment and even the buildings are generally falling into disrepair

(In before OP blames the West)

Reply 10

MatureStudent36

Original post by HucktheForde

Their country, their choice.

Well the US annexed guantanamo bay for reasons we all know. So I dont blame them much for allying with USSR either.

What reason was that?

Being gifted to them by the Cuban government since 1903 as part of the Cuban American treaty?

Is that the reason? Or have you confused yourself?

Reply 11

HucktheForde

Original post by MatureStudent36

What reason was that?

Being gifted to them by the Cuban government since 1903 as part of the Cuban American treaty?

Is that the reason? Or have you confused yourself?

Have you confused yourself pretending to not know whats going on in guantanamo bay?

“But Jacob, a lease is a lease. When two sides to a lease mutually agree to the terms, what’s wrong with that? How can this really be considered an annexation when it’s really just a lease agreement?”

Because to be truly valid, an agreement requires willing consent. The Guantanamo Bay lease was acquired through force—the force of the U.S. government being imposed against a small, third-World, impoverished nation.

To understand how this happened, we go back to the Spanish-American War in 1898, the war that constituted the fateful turn of the United States toward empire. Cuba, along with the Philippines, was fighting for its independence from the Spanish Empire.

The U.S. government intervened in the conflict, ostensibly to help Cuba and the Philippines win their independence. But that ostensible purpose turned out to be a fraud. As the Cubans and Filipinos soon discovered, the U.S. government demanded that Cuba and the Philippines accept the U.S. government as their new master in place of the Spanish government.

When Filipinos objected, the U.S. government proceeded to kill hundreds of thousands of them to establish its new imperialist control over the Philippines.

To avoid the same type of massive loss of life, Cubans decided to give the U.S. government what it was demanding—control over Cuban affairs and leasehold rights at Guantanamo Bay. That’s what the infamous Platt Amendment was all about, which U.S. officials required Cuba to insert into its national constitution. Its terms permitted the U.S. government to unilaterally intervene in Cuban affairs whenever it wanted and mandated negotiations for U.S. military bases on the island, including Guantanamo Bay. Those terms were outlined in the 1903 Treaty of Relations with Cuba.

In 1934, the leasehold was modified to eliminate the authority of the U.S. government to control Cuba affairs but unfortunately it also reaffirmed the leasehold at Guantanamo Bay and effectively extended its term into perpetuity.
Was the 1934 modification consensual? How could it be when it was the U.S. government that was approving which Cubans would serve as rulers? In 1934, the Cuban president was Fulgencio Batista, who was an absolutely perfect model of a U.S. stooge or puppet who faithfully and loyally followed whatever orders U.S. officials delivered to him.

http://fff.org/2014/05/12/the-u-s-annexation-of-guantanamo-bay/

would Britain gift Bournemouth to France?

oh yes yes Cuba gifted them a piece of themselves just like every sovereignty would give lands to other countries without bating an eyelid. :rofl:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 12

MatureStudent36

Original post by HucktheForde

Have you confused yourself pretending to not know whats going on in guantanamo bay?

http://fff.org/2014/05/12/the-u-s-annexation-of-guantanamo-bay/

would Britain gift Bournemouth to France?

oh yes yes Cuba gifted them a piece of themselves just like every sovereignty would give lands to other countries without bating an eyelid. :rofl:

What's going on at guatanomo bay?

A functioning naval base that's been there since 1903.

Your confusing yourself with an American naval base that's been there since 1903. Castro and a detention centre.

The Guantanamo bay detention facility has nothing to do with American foreign policy towards Cuba.