skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Odds and ends
- Reuters reported yesterday on a new Central Bank regulation limiting cash transactions of foreign companies, and reports today on the apparent reason: a liquidity crunch that is getting critical.
- Frank Calzon calls for a dialogue in Cuba among “bishops, young communists, human rights activists, bureaucrats, the army, political prisoners, dissident writers and professionals and independent labour activists.”
- In the Washington Post, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend looks back at the views of her father, former Attorney General Robert Kennedy, on travel to Cuba, and hopes President Obama adopts his position that “travel restrictions are inconsistent with traditional American liberties.”
14 comments:
Let me get this right! Robert Kennedy was in favor of more normal relations with the Castro government? Are we talking about the same guy that was up to his ears in Operation Mongoose and all the plans to assasinate Fidel Castro? I know that a daughter always look up to her daddy but for goodness sake she is a public figure! Her view would be better received if she also had said her daddy was wrong in trying to assasinate Castro. The whole embargo package was the product of her family's enmity against Fidel Castro, and by the way they almost got everybody in this planet killed by sending equivocal signals to Khruschev prior to the Missile Crisis.
I guess that not all hypocrites live in Havana or Miami.
Vecino de NF
Thanks to new remittance law, i can express my god given right to share my money with my family in cuba, if I so desire. this is step toward more, not less, freedom. Thank you OB!
the kennedy's were certainly at so much fault for the institution of hostile policies from the american side, and bobby was the worse of the two. but fidel made many overtures to work things out, and there was some movement until JFK assassinated. jfk seemed to be moving to some sort of reconciliation.
but yeah, bobby was all for terrorism, assassination, embargo.
was that really you vecino?
anonimo
Anonimo,
Yes, that waa me! I have little patience for the children of the privilege selling me the goodness of their flawed parents whether the Rockefellers or the Kennedys on this side of the Strait or the Castros on the other side (I mean selling me Angel or Fidel.) Children of public figures should keep quiet about their parents and recognize that they were not angels but active agents of history that brought about great pain to many people.
Does that sound me like me now?
Vecino de NF
ano, "Fidel" made many overtures to "work things out"? Between serving his Soviet masters, fomenting civil war around the region and in Africa, crushing the spirits of the Cuban people under his suffocating control, having his minions attempting to thwart the US in every conceivable international forum, wow, he still had time to make "overtures" to the US to "work things out"!
Anonymous 5:16PM,
Knock it off with the less than clever play on words! Anonimo has his point of view, and for that matter I do not agree with it most of the time but he has a right to post without getting insulted in a sophomoric manner.
Vecino de NF
vecino, what's going on here? wow, i'm honestly impressed. it's ok though i can handle los ninos.
and i hope we can continue our battles, and there's nothing wrong with a little dig here and there. cause you really piss me off somethings, (je je) which is a compliment. the gusanos who just throw insults don't elicit any emotion, well maybe pity. no, bordom. (hope you don't take my dig re the price comment too personally, just wanted to point out flake is going a different approach in his efforts to end the embargo)
it's funny i think we both want the same thing, the normalization of relations, but for completely different reasons. anyway, enough of this christmas truce
(still awaiting your answer though)
anonimo
anon 516
and he eats babies too!
oye nino, read some history, or better yet, keep reading your fiction.
tu quieres un otra chupa chupa?
anonimo
ano, "Fidel" made many overtures to "work things out"? Between serving his Soviet masters, fomenting civil war around the region and in AfricaI picked up Piero Gleijeses' book about Cuba's role in Africa again last night. It makes clear that Cuba was not serving any "Soviet masters" when it decided to intervene in Africa. The USSR was strictly opposed to much of their work in Africa in the 60s, and Cuba did not even tell the Soviets about their intention to place troops in Angola in the 70s. The relationship waxed and waned over time, but at no time did Cuba ever act out of service to the USSR. That was US propoganda pure and simple. Kissinger lied over and over again, to cover for the deeds of their colonial apartheid friend's in South Africa and elsewhere.
oh, none of that happened. ok, ano.
cuba did follow a foreign policy path sometimes quite at odds with soviets. and their relationship was certainly inconsistent, particularly after missile crisis
and anyone interested in the history of dialogue between Cuba and USA go talk to peter kornblun at national security archives -- he's coming out with a book that demonstrates there was almost constant talk, different levels, exploring possibilities of relations. every pres did it, except bush jr.
but that's historical fact, and anon 846 and his type just don't have use for reality, unless under their green sky
man it's like teaching monkeys to read -- they just don't have the mental capacity to go beyond a
certain level, or maybe they work only on instinct.
anonimo
ano, let me try to break through to you in your upside down world. It may certainly be the case that various Administrations explored some sort of detente with Cuba, but they ALL came to the conclusion that Castro was not interested in "working things out." In the words of Vernon Walters, "We have nothing he wants."
anon 811, nice guess, but wrong as usual. as far back at 1964 fidel expressed in no uncertain terms that he'd be willing to discuss compensation for expropriation, freeing all political prisoners, halt aid to Latin American subversives. It was LBJ who ignored the overture, then simply re-iterated demands of social/political changes in cuba before any discussions would take place. then he moved on to the wonderfully successful vietnam war and cuba was put on the backburner.
cuba wanted, and has wanted, normal relations for obvious trade and economic benefits. america wants to continue to punish the cuban people in order to remove the regime and replace it for one back under the US fold. it was the US that didn't want to normalize relations with fidel and it's your type that continues to propagandize that. anyone who thinks that cuba would not have benefited from having a normal relationship with america is really living in a world quite distinctively different from reality. so please explain why cuba would not want access to american markets, and allow american goods into cuba; as long as it was under mutual benefit (not the previous neo-colonial arrangement)
so thanks for your advice, but i'd rather live in the real world.
anonimo
american perspective of "working things out" -- as long as Cuba agreed to all american demands,as long as all the pre-conditions for discussions were met prior to negotiations, then America agrees Cuba wants to 'work things out'
it is a world where black is white and bad is good
anonimo
Post a Comment