@ The_Master_Warrior: "No. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have invaded Cuba. But U.S. Marines should have done it, not a bunch of poorly trained Cuban dissidents. That would have taken out Castro really quick."

The US had no business trying to "take out" Castro. Cuba's revolution transformed the country from a seedy American gambling den into a shining example of what Communism can achieve. Even in the face of the decades-long attempt by the US to strangle Cuba by restricting trade and travel, Cuba has achieved much, including having the best healthcare system in Latin America. Indeed, thanks in no small part to Cuba's universal healthcare system, Cuba has significantly better infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy than in the USA. Cuba has the highest doctor-to-population ration IN THE WORLD. This is despite the fact that the US blockade has often made it difficult to obtain some important medical supplies.

On the subject of healthcare, Cuba is home to the Latin American School of Medicine, one of the world's top international medical schools, and the largest medical training facility in the world. The facility has over 11,000 students (including 91 US nationals) who recieve high-quality training for free. They are supplied with free medical textbooks and other teaching materials, as well as free accommodation and free meals, and are even paid a modest monthly allowance.

Cuba also has one of the best education systems in Latin America.

All this in the face of decades of illegal economic blockade. Just think what Cuba could have achieved if it was allowed to operate without the stranglehold of the US blockade. The US should fuck off and leave Cuba alone.


"That bill that is going to get knocked down in the Senate? That's socialism. Welfare. That's socialism. Medicaid/Medicare. That's socialism. Housing projects. That's socialism. Do you want me to keep going? Because I could. Or do you get the point?"

You can keep going all you like, but so far you have failed to demonstrate that the USA is a socialist country. You clearly have very little understanding of what is meant by Socialisam.

Firstly, can you please explain how programmes such as Medicaid are "socialism"?

Secondly, would you like me to list all the US government policies which are NOT based on socialism? For a country to be "a socialist country moving towards communism" which I think is how you described the USA, it needs to have more than just one or two social welfare programmes. It would need to have a serious political programme aimed at establishing a planned economy run on socialist principles. The USA does not resemble this description.


@Jman77: "why should we even let the poor live? They contribute the least to society, and yet with this healthcare bill we would be devoting an incredible amount of money to them. Give money to the middle class. They are the ones that are really useful to society and they are also the ones that could use the extra cash. The high classes don't need it, and it is wasted by giving it to the low."

Are you serious? Kill the poor? Do you really care that little for your fellow man? You make me fucking sick. I cannot even belive you are part of the same species as me, your attitude to others is so disgusting. Tell me this: Why should the poor let YOU live?

"Tell me this: Why should the poor let YOU live?"

touché.

Also I think Cuba is the only country which i know of that went to Africa with a militrary force, with clearly stated aims and helped a newly free (angola) become a stable democracy. (though the cubans were aiming to promote the world-wide communist revolution, and in 1994 the angolans opted for a market economy emulating the US.

but to quote W. Freeman, US ambassador: "Castro could regard himself as father of Namibia’s independence and as the one who put an end to colonialism in Africa. Indeed, Cuba demonstrated responsibility and maturity. This should have been acknowledged by the USA as an important gesture and merited a respective answer. But American politics concerning relations with Cuba are absolutely poisoned, hence Cuba, which had acted really responsibly, was denied the slightest appreciation it had deserved"

The only reason Cuba is treated the way it is by the US is because of the whole affair with the soviet missiles. Honestly, the last several President's should have lifted that embargo long ago. After the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we had nothing to fear from Cuba (not that we did to begin with, but...) So, why do we continue in this blockade? Pure hubris. For some reason, America feels it can't let go of this. We got out of Vietnam with the black eye, so I really don't see why we can't let this one go, but our political machine is like a fucking pitbull and just can't admit that maybe, just maybe, Castro isn't Saddam and we have no business interferring with their affairs. I think if we finally dropped the blockade, we could start rebuilding relations with other Latin American countries and our reputation around the world would go up. But no, we have to be the "heroes" of a people who don't want or really need rescuing. It's time we got the fuck off Cuba's back and let them live free!

I might point out that Cuba and Castro do suppress political opponents and imprison them. Not ideal in my opinion, i'd rather see that changed, but who am I to enforce my opinions on another sovereign nation? (i'd rather see a free tibet and peace in the middle east, but we can always dream...)

The thing about Cuba and Angola reminded me of our relationship with Iran. When the moderate Khatami was president of that country, they were helping the US with Afghanistan until Bush said they were part of an "axis of evil."

Since I'm getting smashed everywhere for my note on darwinism, my point was to show that darwinism DOES NOT work. not that it DOES. no sane person would say "kill all the poor people", and I consider myself to be atleast mildly sane at the moment.

Can my name be clear now?

jman777 - If that was the point you were trying to make you need to work on your writing because I don't think that was clear to anyone reading it... (It wasn't to me and it clearly wasn't to several people who commented...).

I am glad to hear that you don't in fact believe any of that.

Yeah I wrote it during a class so I was in a hurry to do it. =/

Sorry, jman777, but you really need to be more careful about what you post. I have just spent several minutes reading, and re-reading, your post in which you used the quote I objected to, and it really does read as if you were supporting the quotation you used.

@orthaic: "Also I think Cuba is the only country which i know of that went to Africa with a militrary force, with clearly stated aims and helped a newly free (angola) become a stable democracy. "

orthaic +1 I thought of this example but then forgot to mention it because I was fuming over jman777's comment.

@ orthaic: "I might point out that Cuba and Castro do suppress political opponents and imprison them."

This is true, and it is right to criticise them for doing so. However for the sake of balance I would point out that the USA also does this, as do many US-backed states.

@ Draugnar: "It's time we got the fuck off Cuba's back."

Draugnar +1

I will jamie. =P lol

If there's motherfucking nukes in our backyard, no matter who they belong to, then we have a constitutional right to take them out. With or without declaring war. This falls under the category of (paraphrased, my memory is unfortunately not photographic) "a threat so immediate and dangerous as to not admit delay".

Haha. I'd like you guys to go tote around these failed marxist ideals in Little Havana. That would get fairly hilarious fairly quickly.

@ The_Master_Warrior: "If there's motherfucking nukes in our backyard, no matter who they belong to, then we have a constitutional right to take them out."

The USA had nukes before Cuba did. Therefore, your nukes were in Cuba's backyard first.

"Haha. I'd like you guys to go tote around these failed marxist ideals in Little Havana. That would get fairly hilarious fairly quickly."

I dont really care what people in Little Havana, Miami, think. The "Miami Cubans" who fled Cuba to live in Miami during the early 1960's were mostly upper class and upper-middle class Cubans who had benefited under the corrupt, despotic rule of the US-backed Batista regime, or had actually been directly connected to the regime. This minority of well-off Cubans grew rich while the majority of their countrymen lived in poverty. Of course they are anti-communist - communism brought an end to the corrupt regime which they supported. Cuba is better off without such people.

All I know is that Cuba is the only country in the world I have been to, including other supposedly communist countries, that has no beggars or street people.

Sun, it's because they arrest such people.

So I just went through this thread and only read the master warriors posts. I encourage everyone to do the same. Pure excellence.

I think my head would explode if I didn't have the other, more sane posts to read and counter his extreme right wing insanity.

And Diplofool, there are no more nukes in Cuba. In fact, we have a naval base on the island of Cuba. I'm sure you've heard of it. It's called Guantanamo Bay and is a huge military detainment facility for suspected terrorists.

@Draugnar and @Centurian - I think it might actually be pretty entertaining to see them completely out of context. As soon as I finish up this report I'm working on I may just do that!

The bottom line is that the only people helped by the embargo nowadays are the Castros. It's all very well to discuss whether the standard of living is good or bad under Castro but it doesn't solve the question of what the embargo is for, other than a childish vendetta. It's not going to foment another revolution- if anything it strengthens Castro's hold on the country.

@zckls04 - I think you've made the most important point there. The embargo isn't in any way helping to take down the Castro regime or really do much other than inconvenience the population and give the Castro's something to point to when they talk to the population of Cuba as an evil of the US. I can promise you every luxury that Raul or Fidel want they can get. The people of Cuba on the other hand... not so much. Regardless of one's position on the political or ideological reasons for the embargo, from a practical standpoint it's pretty clear it hasn't worked, and isn't working. Perhaps it's time to try a strategy of engagement.

@The_Master_Warrior
No, it's because everybody has a job, house, medical care and everything else needed for a stable life. I'm not saying I'd want to live there just that they don't have many of the social problems we do.

"If there's motherfucking nukes in our backyard, no matter who they belong to, then we have a constitutional right to take them out."

I had to laugh a little after seeing that. Without a little more explanation it's pure nonsense. Are you saying a country has the right to defend itself? That's a different thing than a constitutional clause authorizing any war to get rid of nukes in a nearby country. That's straight up extraterritoriality.

Would the Soviet Union have been justified in invading Turkey because we had nuclear weapons there? Kennedy really overreacted in the Cuban Missile crisis. ICBMs in Cuba are no more dangerous than ICBMs in the Soviet Union. It was pure politics and it almost destroyed the world. Shame on both sides for pushing the crisis so irresponsibly.

@Invictus: but wasn't appearing strong (And being willing to use you nukes) an important part of international diplomacy at the time.

further appearing strong has been important to avoid being invaded for many years, i hope now we have perhaps gotten beyond that stage, but only because economics (which has been a leading cause of war and civil conflict forever) is now globalized - because most major economies can't afford to lose their trade with each other they are unlikely to go to war. (except for those countries which you boycott trade with, North Korea for instance has very little stopping it from invading South Korea, except the imposing militrary forces)

In fact the major economic powers are more than capable of stopping their neighbours from going to war ever again. (Russia being able to invade georgia without serious economic reprecussions from the US, EU, China and India (collectively) is proof that in am in practice wrong... by ideally.

I'm not familiar with the USSR's constitution, but their hypothetical invasion of Turkey would be justified. Like I said before, if there are nukes in America's backyard, the Constitution gives us the right to take them out. This falls under the category of (paraphrased, my memory is unfortunately not photographic) "a threat so immediate and dangerous as to not admit delay".

well the US has nukes, so i figure you would feel mexico and canada are justified in invasion, right?

You realize that Turkey's in NATO so we would have had to have responded to such an attack and that we put nukes in Turkey before Russia put nukes in Cuba? While nukes in a neighboring, hostile country would certainly make the United States nervous, I think that the burden of proof that they were really an existential threat justifying invasion is pretty high. Should England have invaded France when France got the bomb? Should there have been a war between India and Pakistan after whichever side got the bomb first? Should China have invaded North Korea when they got the bomb or the Soviet Union invaded China when the Chinese got one?

Should Arab nations invade Israel because Israel has the bomb and is hostile to them?

I kinda see what you're saying, but it's too broad an ideology to be useful.

@MW - spending was necessary to get out of the Great Depression, he set standards to prevent such a collapse from recurring, and while the market will still fluctuate as it has recently, the measures he pushed have helped significantly. He brought the nation together in a time of war, he was a great president. Obama is trying to use some of the same principles, and hey look at the DOW: it's rising!!! gasp (i know it's just an arbitrary number reflecting only a select number of big corporation profit and sales changes but still it's got to mean something, right?)

India developed nuclear weapons because they feared China who already had them (And had been involved in border skirmishes) Pakistan similarily developed nuclear weapons because they feared India would use their's (afterall the issues with east pakistan and kasmir)