“The policy of creating hungrier and poorer Cubans in hopes of bringing down their government has been tragically ineffective.” That’s the description of President George W. Bush’s
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Allen Johnson, off the reservation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Mr. Allen F. Johnson heads Allen F. Johnson (AFJ) and Associates,LLC in McLean Virginia. According to the firm's website:
"Allen F. Johnson (AFJ) and Associates, LLC, provides ‘one-stop shopping’ for companies, governments and institutions and associations engaged in the international economy."
There must be money in this embargo lifting lobbying business. Being located in McLean, Virginia some would call Allen F. Johnson (AFJ) and Associates, LLC a beltway bandit.
Vecino de NF
boy the heavyweights are really coming out now
In a state centered economy with a totalitarian government, where the state controls all aspects of life, is it not the Cuban government's fault for not being able to feed its own people? I would imagine it can import food from Mexico, DR and the Central American countries fairly inexpensively.
Maybe it can direct some of the resources it uses to repress its people to food production.
NLNR
NLNR, it is up to the State in ANY country to make sure its people have enough food and not starving. Cuba is performing quite well in that regard.
According to the FAO, Cuba had "an insignificant level of undernourishment" in the period from 2003-2005 (looks like less than 1%). It had been as high as 14% as recently as 1997. This compares to an average of 23% undernourishment in the Carribean.
leftside, you need to get Raul on the phone quick to tell him how great Cuba is doing in food production! Better yet, why don't you go stand in the middle of the Malecon and explain to the Cuban people how good they actually have it!
chingon
when the truth is spoken the gusanos come out to do their best to tramp it down. give it up guys, no one cares for your rantings anymore.
vecino, are you saying there's something wrong with an anti-embargo lobby group, as opposed to the millions and millions spent in the pro embargo industry. worried about those CANF cheques?
since president kennedy promised to bring 'the terrors of the earth' to the cubans for their arrogance of supporting national aspirations, american policies have been designed to harm, starve and terrorize the cuban population into overthrowing the regime. but of course there are still many that refuse to even accept american policies have any impact on cuba (why have them if there was no expectation of intent). but to have some of those involved in continuing those policies of starving cubans now coming out and admitting at least the ineffectiveness of the program, albeit not recognizing the immorality of it, at least is a step in the right direction.
and coming from the former bushites its even more important.
so here is a government official admitting policy designed to starve the people of another country. does this not infer a policy of genocide? America the rogue state.
no, what it implies is the former government official is a numbskull who has no idea about a policy that was not even part of his portfolio.
chingon
Anonymous August 18, 2009 7:38 PM,
"vecino, are you saying there's something wrong with an anti-embargo lobby group, as opposed to the millions and millions spent in the pro embargo industry. worried about those CANF cheques?"
My post stands on its own. Mr. Johnson's column should be viewed as a solicitation for business in Iowa, a state known for its agricultural business interests. I have nothing against trading with Cuba but I would strongly object to using US taxpayers funds either directly or indirectly to finance that trade as Cuba has been known to not pay old debts and let new debts age not so gracefully. The list of stiffed debtor countries is long: Argentina, Japan, the successor countries to the Soviet Union, Spain, Mexico, etc. It can be said that every country that has traded with Cuba has been stiffed, and has uncollectable Cuban debts. Cuba is not the only country that has done this but in this case unless there are good political relations between the USA and Cuba it is very likely that US debts would be repudiated under a barrage of political invective.
As far as the existence of a pro-embargo industry, let us say that US-Cuba policy debate has spawned a healthy cottage industry on both sides of the embargo discussion. Curiously the pro-embargo folks tend to be motivated by ideology, while the the latest anti-embargo folks tend to be motivated by greed. Of course the traditional anti-embargo folks have always been motivated by an ideological interest in seeing a socialist revolution succeed and "yanqui" imperialism defeated.
Vecino de NF
Apologies to Anonymous August 18, 2009 7:38 PM, Mr. Peters, et alles,
I meant to say "lender countries: rather than "debtor countries" in my previous post:
have nothing against trading with Cuba but I would strongly object to using US taxpayers funds either directly or indirectly to finance that trade as Cuba has been known to not pay old debts and let new debts age not so gracefully. The list of stiffed lender countries is long: Argentina, Japan, the successor countries to the Soviet Union, Spain, Mexico, etc. It can be said that every country that has traded with Cuba has been stiffed, and has uncollectable Cuban debts. Cuba is not the only country that has done this but in this case unless there are good political relations between the USA and Cuba it is very likely that US debts would be repudiated under a barrage of political invective.
Vecino de NF
Leftside says: NLNR, it is up to the State in ANY country to make sure its people have enough food and not starving. Cuba is performing quite well in that regard.
According to the FAO, Cuba had "an insignificant level of undernourishment" in the period from 2003-2005 (looks like less than 1%). It had been as high as 14% as recently as 1997. This compares to an average of 23% undernourishment in the Carribean
I dont trust any UN statistic; the UN for the most part is corrupt and and nothing more than a venue to chastize the US. Are people generally hungry in Cuba, just ask the Cuban people themselves. Hunger is what spurned the Maleconzao in 1994 and what will spurn the next uprising or mass migration. See the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLLAh2yTqu0 and you'll see a poor black Cuban man (somewhat inebriated) speaking the truth. For this, he was arrested and tried and sentenced (within about a few days, transparent justice at its finest!) to two years of jail for "dangerousness". His chief complaint: WE ARE HUNGRY.
The Cuban government purposefully starves its people so that it can neutralize them. It has done this very, very well.
NLNR
vecino, are you saying the anti-embargo side is as extensive or as well funded as the pro-embargo industry? hundreds of millions of public funds have been spent for those supporting the continuation of the embargo in cuba, what has the cost of TV and radio marti been, and look at the waste and corruption.
to say pro-embargo is ideologically supported is not serious. the vast majority of those supporters are first generation exiles, the ones who lost most money and power, that's what they want back.
ending the embargo will increase business, we can't have that now can we. lets just keep starving the cuban people, a policy admitted to by govt officials. doesn't this rise to the charge of genocide?
there is no cottage industry comparison; on the one side the pro-embargo has a mansion, supported by millions of tax payers dollars, a policy opposed by a majority of americans. to try and equate the two sides is simply not telling the truth. so what's your agenda for stating such a bald faced lie?
re the black man who said he was hungry on the video, please give proof he was arrested and still in jail. otherwise stfu.
(i know for a fact you lie about this incident)
vecino
usually your post have at least a point or base of reality.
to compare the pro-embargo industry with the same level as the anti is ridiculous. we're not stupid here, so quit with the bareface lies just to try and prove your anti-cuban point.
As to Pánfilo's arrest and incarceration, my source is the following:
http://www.cubaencuentro.com/es/cuba/noticias/panfilo-es-condenado-a-dos-anos-de-carcel-201555
NLNR
man, anon 12:42 et al, you sure have cajones to parade your ignorance so flagrantly. Are you kidding me? Have you ever researched the millions of dollars that left-wing foundations (Ford, ARCA, etc.) have poured into the anti-embargo industry over the past 20 years??? Peters sure knows about it because that's what keeps him in business. Good grief, please educate yourself before posting such nonsense.
chingon
Anonymoi August 19, 2009 12:37 PM, August 19, 2009 12:42 PM have accused me of lying by saying that the anti-embargo side is motivated by the profit motive. All I have to go on are the statements by those who advocate lifting the embargo. For example Mr.Johnson states in his argument for allowing the sale of agricultural equipment to Cuba that "...Caterpillar and John Deere ought to be as familiar to Cubans as rice and beans." . He along with others have argued the embargo hurts American business interests that are losing a potentially lucrative market. His only ideological point in arguing for lifting the embargo is that commerce will somehow turn the Cuban government away from communism by increasing contacts with regular Americans. He and others seem to forget that the Cuban revolution happened because some Cubans were fed up with contacts with regular Americans. Fidel Castro has made it very clear that he feels that the pre-1959 situation was characterized by the exploitation of the Cuban people by American business interests. One must conclude that the Cuban government is not interested in truly free people to people contacts but rather regulated and controlled contacts between the Cuban government and American businesses.
I am on record supporting the lifting of the embargo but not for normal trading rules because I suspect that as an US taxpayer I will end up paying for the Cuban government's purchases. The embargo was put in place because US business interests lobbied for it. It will be lifted when US business interests feel that their investments abroad are no longer at risk of expropiation or confiscation and therefore is moot to keep punishing the Cuban government for what they did almost 50 years ago. Still it is amusing to find Pedro Alvarez from Alimport complaining about government red tape, or find committed socialists and some US business interests shoulder to shoulder in this debate.
In the meantime I would suggest that we remember the late Bob Novak's observation that things in Washington are rarely on the level.
Vecino de NF
chingon
are you a complete moron or just auditioning for one? Obviously English is not your first language
the point was you can't compare the pro-embargo industry with the anti- one.
there has been, a huge difference in amount of money that has been spent on the gusano side -- going back to the Reagan era and before. Radio and TV marti have been given millions and millions just for those two wasted programs. thousands have made a living in Miami simply on the back of government funding for the pro-embargo.
it was never said the anti-embargo side wasn't funded, you idiot, it was said there is no equivalency -- the pro-embargo has always had access to larger funding streams.
billions spent on pro-embargo, millions on anti. That was the point to the post, something you obviously failed to understand. learn to read before you make a public fool of yourself, ooppps, way too late for that.
but then when did facts ever get in the way of a good gusano?
the embargo was a government policy designed to starve the cuban people, as publicly acknowledged many times, most recently here.
american businesses were not solidly behind the embargo from the start. and now there is less in support.
when it comes to policy that is designed to starve people, as admitted, it is not ideological. its genocidal
your comments on cuban revolution are simplistic.
anyone who tries to say that the anti-embargo industry is the same strength of the pro-embargo side, financially, or has same access to govt support and funds, is simply (emphasis on simple) not a serious commentator on Cuba and is just an astro turfer.
chingon, are you a birther as well?
This gets more amusing by the minute. It is not clear what irks the last few commentators more: that someone like Chingon gets in their virtual faces, or that as of late many American businesses have chosen to support the lifting of the embargo for purely commercial reasons? (One is left to conclude that nothing substantial is happening on the US-Cuba negotiation front.)
Amused and puzzled!
Vecino de NF
Anon at 12:38pm
Did you watch the video of Panfilo speaking about hunger?
Have you confirmed that he has not in fact been arrested?
Please let me know.
NLNR
Leftside, still waiting for your to answer my questions? In the spirit of honest, respectful intellectual debate, you should answer my questions, just as I answered yours.
NLNR
ok, collective bootlicking numbskulls, let's parse this out. And I'll type slow so it will be easier for you to follow. The issue wasn't which side had more strength. The issue wasn't access to government funds. The issue was the idiotic claim that the pro-embargo side was awash in cash while the bootlicking, er, anti-embargo side couldn't rub two nickels together. The point is that is utter nonsense. Again, from left-wing foundations to U.S. corporations there are millions of dollars flowing into the anti-embargo campaign every year. The reason you must be so confused is that that fact doesn't come in your talking points from Havana. Even bootlickers like yourselves can get access to that money, but here's the rub: you actually have to get out of your lounge chair and do some work for it, as opposed to just posting crybaby notes on this site.
chingon
chingon, you are really win the award for comer mierda. the pro-embargo industry can not be compared to the resources of the anti-embargo, and if you believe it does then you really don't have a fricking clue about cuba or anything.
so are you finally admitting getting a big check from CANF
vecino, lifting the embargo for purely economic reasons. well duh. it may also have the affect of helping the cuban people.
keeping the embargo for pure ideological reasons for a narrow group that wants to return to power and economic hegemony. pure politics or pure economics. so where does morality fit into it.
Anonymous August 26, 2009 10:46 AM
"Politics have no relation to morals" Niccolo Machiavelli
I said commercial reasons not economic reasons. BTW what benefit would the Cuban people derive from the lifting of the embargo?
Vecino de NF
Post a Comment