Poor Castro Hope he gets better
#106
Posted 19 April 2008 - 09:08 PM
And exactly how many women and children did Castro execute, or are you just popping this matter up in a desperate attempt to gain sympathy?
Quote
#107
Posted 19 April 2008 - 11:42 PM
So they wanted to save their own skins by STAYING IN CUBA RATHER THEN LEAVING WITH BATISTA? OK THEN.
Not for long, obviously.
People who protest poor work conditions are traitors of the revolution (despite most of them never having committed themselves to the revolution in the first place, we can assume that every Cuban is a member of the revolution whether they want to be or not)!
So the people are poor. So the government pays the people. So the government is at fault for the people being poor. Perhaps if they allowed farmers to set their own prices and have their own land, they wouldnt be poor.
Well the Cuban workers arent allowed to protest at all becouse they would be regarded as traitors and imprisoned or worse. Like I said, no difference. Castro and his cronies are the ones living in palaces and driving around in luxury cars while the workers have to scrounge what they can. Like I said, no difference.
Might I add: Shove your totalitarian apologist propaganda up your ass.
How do you know that no one is starving when the people arent allowed to broadcast their plight?
So when USAmerica starts locking people up for being "traitors" (when the WAR ON TERROR comes into full swing) I can assume you will be at the forefront of the mob, spitting in the faces of those "traitors" and demanding their lynching?
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#108
Posted 20 April 2008 - 01:18 AM
You see the problem is that unlike Batista, not everyone had a private air plane.
In the face of 50 years of hostility, an invasion, billions spent on destroying Cuba, I'd say the revolution has proved quite survivable.
Actually I believe all workers belong to unions in Cuba, the revolution was made for the workers, not against them.
perhaps if there wasnt an embargo and pressure to allow privatization they would not be poor and would allow privatization.
Because state rationing ensures a bare minimum of food for everyone.
The US isnt a socialist country, it is in fact the greatest purveyor of imperialist violence in the world. Your analogy falls flat.
Quote
#109
Posted 20 April 2008 - 02:12 AM
They had guns. People had boats. If they were as half as evil as you make them sound then why didnt they kill the people with boats and escaped? How did the other exiles escape?
So you judge a successful revolution on how long the revolutionaries manage to hold onto power. I guess it doesnt matter how many
So thats why workers in Cuba are payed nothing, have no land, live in appalling conditions and some are reduced to prostituting themselves to survive.
Perhaps if the communist aristocrats were more interested in making Cuba selfsufficient instead of depending on money and goods from the Soviets so that they may live in luxury, the Cuban people wouldnt be in such a predicament and the USAmerican embargo wouldnt have such an effect.
Lets face it, Cuba was in the shits even when it was receiving tremendous amounts of money and supplies from the Soviets.
So while the Cuban people have to ration their food, the communist aristocrats hold banquets.
My mistake, I guess everyone in a country that guarantees free speech is allowed to protest while the rest of the world has to keep quiet about their suffering.
Cuba sent soldiers to Angola on an official level and soldiers to dozens of countries in South America and Africa on an unofficial level.
Not really. Would you support your government if there were fucking you? If you answered no then why do you expect the Cuban people to support the communist aristocrats in Cuba?
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#111
Posted 20 April 2008 - 01:12 PM
Because some of the reactionaries were further inland, you know, in the sierras and stuff where they ended up taking up arms?
Very funny, but no. The question was one of the revolutions survivability. Not of its success.
Workers in most third world countries are paid nothing, dont have guaranteed rations, and have no access to healthcare or education. And your continuing exagerations are laughable. Honestly, "people have to resort to prostitution to survive" sounds like a line right out of some zany Christian Cuban website. Here's a hint. People resort to prostitution everywhere. That's why there are prostitutes.
What in the devil are you suggesting? That Cuba should have stopped taking Soviet aid to lessen the effects of the American embargo? If so your supposition is patently false and, moreover, insane.
The rulers of countries always hold banquets. And the rationing is to ensure that everyone gets enough, not due to a major shortage.
The reason the US is so concerned is because of US corporations that are angry at the appropriation of their land, and because of the terrorists in Miami who want to see Cuba blown off the map, and want to keep up a policy that deprives the other residents of what was their country before they betrayed it to the US.
Cuba's missions to Bolivia, Nicaragua, Congo, Angola and various other countries, and their heroic aid to the North Vietnamese, were acts of solidarity with their proletarian brothers against invasion by the US. The US used the Cuban traitors as CIA operatives to infiltrate South American governments and used military intelligence to help these governments destroy leftists in what became known as operation condor. There are no official figures on the death toll of this American dirty war, but it's placed somewhere between 10-20 thousand. Cuba was right to fight such imperialism.
Because the alternative is a loss of national sovereignty, a return to abject slavery to imperialist goals, and the wholesale slaughter of leftwing thinkers and state employees as was seen when the Spanish fascists won the war there. If the US were faced with such a challenge, I would likely cease my opposition to its government for the duration of hostilities and do what I could to defend my country.
Make random interjections! You can feel like you're debating without actually saying anything!
Quote
#112
Posted 02 June 2008 - 08:07 PM
Your suggestion that socialism is the only alternative to imperialism is BS. Cuba can be a successful capitalist country with a protective trade policy. Having such a rigid economy has no benefit to anyone except those who are at the top.
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#113
Posted 02 June 2008 - 08:51 PM
If the Castro brothers were to ease the restrictions on small businesses and so forth, that would be fine, but the suggestion that a capitalist government should come to rule in Cuba is one in the same as the suggestion that the American government should come to rule in Cuba.
Quote
#114
Posted 03 June 2008 - 01:31 AM
Explain how a country with a capitalist economy which has severe trade restrictions is the same as a country that is being ruled by a foreign power.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#115
Posted 03 June 2008 - 02:24 AM
Quote
#116
Posted 03 June 2008 - 04:16 AM
Cuba can still have a rigid political structure/system while having a capitalist/protectionist economy. If Cuban authorities can keep suppressing individual rights to keep the US at bay but that has nothing to do with the economics of the country.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#117
Posted 03 June 2008 - 12:42 PM
Yes that could happen, but it won't. Raul will not turn Cuba into a capitalist economy. The only way that would happen is in the event of a coup, or very gradually over say, fifty or so years. So the only way to see immediate capitalist change is through a US backed coup, that's the sub text which is why I'm wary of people who support such an idea.
Quote
#118
Posted 03 June 2008 - 10:19 PM
Yes that could happen, but it won't. Raul will not turn Cuba into a capitalist economy. The only way that would happen is in the event of a coup, or very gradually over say, fifty or so years. So the only way to see immediate capitalist change is through a US backed coup, that's the sub text which is why I'm wary of people who support such an idea.
I am not arguing what will happen but what should happen.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#119
Posted 04 June 2008 - 12:48 PM
President Castro should find some super soldier serum, and then go on a covert black op to capture Bush and his administration to put them on trial for war crimes, and then the US should elect Dennis Kucinich who will stop the embargo on Cuba and end any and all attempts to overthrow the government there, thus allowing President Castro to hold free elections and liberalize Cuban society.
Quote
#120
Posted 05 June 2008 - 02:49 AM
President Castro should find some super soldier serum, and then go on a covert black op to capture Bush and his administration to put them on trial for war crimes, and then the US should elect Dennis Kucinich who will stop the embargo on Cuba and end any and all attempts to overthrow the government there, thus allowing President Castro to hold free elections and liberalize Cuban society.
Find, continue being a dickhead.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.