skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Odds and ends
- Who says blogging isn’t work? Cuban Colada translates Russian newspaper coverage of the visit of General Nikolai Makarov, chief of the general staff of Russia’s armed forces here, here, and here. Makarov announced that “Cuban officers will again study at our military colleges and training centers, and Russian defense industry specialists will help Havana modernize its combat arsenal.” Also: “The time has come to aid the friendly nation in its development, especially on the socioeconomic level.”
- The New York Times: Declassified documents show that Fidel Castro urged the Soviets to consider nuking us, until they explained the concept of blowback to him, and which “changed Castro’s positions considerably.”
- ESPN: Cuban pitcher Aroldis Chapman establishes his residency in Andorra, the little landlocked country in the Pyrenees, and will likely soon be a big league free agent.
39 comments:
Hasnt there already been evidence of castro being initially in favor of nuclear stikes by smaller payload weapons in 1962?
Nico,
Yes. Fidel Castro urged Nikita Khruschev to conduct a first nuclear strike without consideration of the wellbeing and survivavility of Cuba, and Cubans. There is a letter from FC to NK on this topic.
Many cultured individuals in Cuba has never seen Dr. Strangelove, and they are shocked when they first see it.
Vecino de NF
Holy crap Phil! I posted my comment before I read the NYT article. I thought that the article expanded on Fidel Castro's letter to Nikita Kruschev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. HE WAS URGING A FIRST NUCLEAR STRIKE IN THE 1980s! This guy is a certified psychopath. Even Ronald Reagan was saying at the time that a nuclear war can not be won, and it should be fought!
OK I lost it! This is the last f****** straw! I don't care about infant mortality , and literacy rates. Any government that urges a first strike with nuclear weapons does not have a place on the face of Earth in 2009! I can not think of anybody who argues for the ethical nature of a person who advocates such an attack as anything but either malicious or stupid.
If there is anything that we learned after the Cuban Missile Crisis is that those damned weapons are there just because we do not want anyone to even think about using them in a first strike.
Sorry Phil and fellow commentators, it's time to agree that if this information is correct we need to disarm this guy. He has forfeited any right to sovereignty!
Vecino de NF
I definitely lost it. Ronald Reagan was saying in the 1980s that "a nuclear war can not be won, and it should NOT be fought!"
Vecino de NF
vecino, very passionate. so because of something that supposedly happened almost 30 years ago you say we need to disarm this guy? sorry, does cuba have nuclear weapons now?
the americans did explore limited nuclear strikes at various times -- including against cuba.
this is not a defense of castro; but again, everything about cuba is put to a higher standard. just keep that in mind.
so i guess because the United States considered the possibility of nuclear strike against Cuba, Vietnam, Soviets, etc we should disarm the United States.
come on, get a clue on how things work at that level, every option is discussed, it don't mean it turns to reality; except the americans spending billions on nuclear arms and using them; the only country in history to do it.
go to the report sited and read it, then put it into context.
vecino;
please point out where Castro said he wanted a nuclear first strike against the US?? are you saying that Castro, with no provocation, was planning a nuke attack on USA as a first strike policy??
All anonymii,
Fidel Castro wrote to Nikita Khuschev in the middle of the Cuba Missile Crisis urging him to launch a nuclear first strike against the USA without consideration to Cuban losses. This has been published in various authorative sources. I don't have a link to offer right now but if you can not find it, I'll look for it.
As far as considering first strikes, I'll grant you that all options are studied and considered at the operational level but, and that's a big BUT government leaders do not urge each other to launch nuclear first strikes. Those that do it unilaterally are no longer with us:
Khruschev and Kennedy in Cuban Missile Crisis
Richard Nixon going to DefCon 3 over the Yom Kippur War
All of the above appear to have met untimely dismissal from their government posts. If Oliver Stone wants to make a conspiracy movie about it, I'll forgo the royalties.
I would strongly urge those that want to save the Cuban Revolution to get rid of this Fidel Castro, and his brother if he can not be brought around to be a responsible fellow. Then we can all sit down and get out this big s*** hole into which we have fallen.
For goodness sake, how in heavens can you be follow a psycopath! This is not defensible!
Vecino de NF
This is an unbelievable sideshow. The real meat of the newly released documents is a sharp critique of US analysis of Soviet intentions:
"(The US) erred on the side of overestimating Soviet aggressiveness" and underestimated "the extent to which the Soviet leadership was deterred from using nuclear weapons." The Soviet leadership of the 1960s and 19702 suffered from a strategic inferiority complex that supports its drive for parity with (or even superiority over) the United States. All of the strategic models developed by Soviet military experts had a defensive character and assumed a first strike by NATO.
One might think it is slightly more important that the US Government lied to its citizens all through the Cold War in order to scare us and support the construction of more weapons, than some unverified, unclear statement about a conversation with Fidel Castro?
This line about Fidel is referred to in one paragraph of hundreds of pages and by one person of 28 interviewed. It is an aside to show how Soviet's appreciation of the devastation a nuclear strike increased over time. The information is not corroborated. It comes from a "general staff officer." The direct quote is that:
"Fidel Castro pressed hard for a tougher Soviet line, up to and including possible nuclear strikes."
The commentary before and after this remark is all about how the Soviet Union was seriously fearing a US first strike at this point (based on technical analysis of our ICBM positions). The USSR was likely sharing this analysis with Castro, which led him to push the Soviets for a harder line. Whether he actually proposed a first strike, or just to be better prepared for such a course of action, is not at all clear in this statement.
In other words, one should not jump to any conclusions before these remarks are clarified.
Let us also recall that Cuba has had nukes pointed at it for much of the Revolution. Cuba has also called for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, while the US continues to upgrade capabilities, making them more "user-friendly." And who is the only country to use nukes, again?
Leftside,
The fact still stands we have two documented instances of Fidel Castro advocating a nuclear FIRST strike. Can you document any other instance of a head of government doing so after the Cuban Missile Crisis? If you can't, you should seriously reconsider who you are following and supporting if you professed support for progressive causes is genuine.
As far as the rest of document, you are correct it is an assesment about Soviet intentions but the last time I checked this blog is called The CUBAN Triangle, and many items that may be ancillary to other citations are central to the Cuban narrative. The NYT article falls in this category. A rare nugget of insight buried inside hundred of pages of another topic. Kudos to the NYT for reporting this!
Once again I say that if you want to support the Cuban Revolution get rid of Fidel Castro and maybe even his brother pronto! They are psychopaths.
Vecino de NF
Sorry Leftcrank your typically lame attempt at moral equivalence will not succeed in obscuring Castro's psychotic personality. Anyone with half a brain knows about Truman's difficult and calculated decision to drop the bomb on Japan. Let me ask you a couple of questions: how many thousands of Americans do you think enjoyed full and bountiful lives with their fathers because their fathers didn't die in an invasion of the Japanese homeland? And how many Japanese do you think survived WWII because there was no conventional invasion of Japan, no doubt replete with the bombing of cities? Surely more than the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
chingon
"Anyone with half a brain knows about Truman's difficult and calculated decision to drop the bomb on Japan. Let me ask you a couple of questions: how many thousands of Americans do you think enjoyed full and bountiful lives with their fathers because their fathers didn't die in an invasion of the Japanese homeland? "
Yay, I love this part of the history!
Difficult? Perhaps. Calculated? Surely. The fact is that US committed an act of genocide by nuking two Japanese cities. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were valid military targets, the two cities were victims of a terror tactic, like it or not.
Japan was already defeated at the time of the bombings, the pacific fleet was already destroyed and their land troops were hopelessly scattered around the far east, and Russia already started to mobilize troops to the east for a final assault to Japan.
That last part is what US didn't like, they wanted to make a foothold in Japan and prevent at any cost the expansion of the USSR to the pacific. And make a demonstration of power to counter the overwhelming military prowess of the USSR at the end of he war. Thats the sad truth, check any book of the WW2 and see it for yourself.
And speaking of psychotics, Nuremberg judged Nazis for doing exactly the same thing, indiscriminate murder of civilians. That was considered genocide and a crime against humanity, and there it was pretty clear that following orders won't clear anyones personal responsibility. Never.
Its a pity that the two American presidents and the murderers that carry the actual bombing (and died without repenting) weren't judged there as they should.
As for the reference in the NYT, I can only find that"
In the early 1980s, the study quotes him as saying that Mr. Castro “pressed hard for a tougher Soviet line against the U.S. up to and including possible nuclear strikes."
I'm against the use of nuclear weapons in ANY instance, but Castro position is understandable. He needed the assurance that the USSR wont be sacrificing Cuba to avoid a nuclear conflict. They were putting their arses in the front and if something were wrong, they were going to be the first in having their ass burnt.
The linked article has a single reference to Cuba:
"During the early 1980s, according to the interviews, Fidel Castro recommended to the Kremlin a harder line against Washington, even suggesting the possibility of nuclear strikes. The pressure stopped after Soviet officials gave Castro a briefing on the ecological impact on Cuba of nuclear strikes on the United States. [I: 24; II: 28 (Danilevich)]"
From this is not clear if Castro is suggesting a preemptive nuclear strike or a retaliatory one. Let me read the original documents and I'll comment later.
ac,
What are you suggesting that we exhume cadavers and hold symbolic trials? Focus my dear friend, focus! The Cuban Missile Crisis change the way responsible governments view the use of nuclear weapons but apparently Fidel Castro missed that seminar for all his purported interests in humanity. The US got religion. The Soviet Union got it too. For goodness sake even the Indians and the Pakistanis realize that you do not use nuclear weapons in a first strike. Only people with serious sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies would even consider using them in a first strike.
So once again I'll repeat ad nauseum "if you want to support the Cuban Revolution get rid of Fidel Castro and maybe even his brother pronto! They are psychopaths."
Vecino de NF
Nope, I just stating that they (along others) should have being putted in trial in Nuremberg for war crimes the same than Nazis. There was no difference in the methods whatsoever, they were equally guilty of the same crime.
The exact reference to the Castro statement in the original information follows:
"One example of our appreciation of the consequences of nuclear use: In early 1980 Fidel Castro pressed hard for a thougher Soviet line against the US, up to and including possible nuclear strikes. The GS has to actively disabuse him of this view by spelling out the ecological consequences for Cuba of a Soviet strike against US. This changed Castro position considerably."
From that statement is not clear if Castro is suggesting a preemptive nuclear strike or a retaliatory one in case Cuba were attacked.
ac,
"...Fidel Castro pressed hard for a thougher Soviet line against the US, up to and including possible nuclear strikes." Sounds to me he is advocating escalation of tensions leading to nuclear strikes. Here you got a fellow urging a nuclear power to use nuclear weapons. It was already a given that first use by anyone was to be answered in kind. That's why Henry Kissinger argued that there was no use doctrine for nuclear weapons. It's time to admit that you got a problem and his name is Fidel Castro. He is psychopathic and sociopathic. Save the Revolution by getting rid of him!
Vecino de NF
ah, the revisionist tract makes its appearance. Japan was defeated, blah, blah, blah, about to surrender, blah, blah, blah. Truman dropped the bomb to keep the Reds out of Japan, blah, blah, blah. What absolute hokum. Only an abject cynic with a predisposition to hate everything about the United States could confect such tripe. AC, congratulations, you were up to it however...
chingon
"Sounds to me he is advocating escalation of tensions leading to nuclear strikes. "
This is the whole point, it sounds to you based in your own prejudices. If you detached yourself of the emotional argument, you will acknowledge that at that time (and perhaps still now) US was pointing nuclear warheads to Cuba, while Cuba didn't have any nuclear capabilities to counter such attack.
You are free to have any opinion 25 years later, but it was unlikely that the USSR would retaliate with a nuclear strike in case Cuba were attacked -even with nuclear weapons. Is a fact that they consider that the USSR betrayed Cuba in the October crisis, so is not that far-fetched to press for commitment in case of an attack.
You can interpret the argument as a psychotic plead for a preemptive strike or just reassurement of retaliation after a first strike, thats up to each of us, since the document does not provide any additional reference to the exact context.
And, BTW, in my humble opinion both sides were equally in the wrong here. An all out nuclear war won't benefit even the roaches (the only ones that supposedly would survive).
"Truman dropped the bomb to keep the Reds out of Japan, blah, blah, blah. What absolute hokum. Only an abject cynic with a predisposition to hate everything about the United States could confect such tripe. AC, congratulations, you were up to it however..."
Awww, what pile of crap. Only a brainwashed idiot who can't get the facts straight can arrive to such wonderful conclusion.
I don't hate US, Cuba nor any other country, but you should drop the blindfold an learn to discern by yourself when a person, country or whatever acts right and when it acts wrong.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an unnecessary genocide that will shame the US forever. The same goal could have been achieved by different means (dropping the bomb at an unpopulated location to show the effects or just issuing a warning to evacuate the city). That one was chosen as a demonstration of power (most likely against the USSR), simply like that.
Oh, isn't that so easy for you to muse about 60 years later. Genocide??? You cheapen the term just as much as those loonies who accuse the US on Cuba. You also have some unmitigated gall making such slanderous allegations against a country that saved your bacon in WWII. What crimes did we commit over there AC??
chingon
"You also have some unmitigated gall making such slanderous allegations against a country that saved your bacon in WWII"
You mean Russia? I didn't say anything regarding them, but Stalin himself was also guilty of genocide by his actions in the WW2.
"You cheapen the term just as much as those loonies who accuse the US on Cuba."
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but what other name you will give to the DELIBERATE MURDER of hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS?
Thats not an slanderous allegation, is the truth. If you don't like it, feel free to call it retribution, vengeance or ignore it at all. The facts will not change.
And the main point of the Nuremberg trial was that:
a) Explicitly targeting civilians at war is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
b) Following orders will not make yourself not accountable for your crimes.
The US has piled a fair amount of shit thorough the last century over themselves, please be objective, seeing the world in black and white will serve no purpose but make yourself looks like a fool.
oye pidgen -- at least your english is improving. too bad your historical fantasies haven't weakened.
The USA is the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons; they were used offensively, not defensively. It isn't a pathological criticism of America, it is historical fact and would be used in the same way if any other country did it.
there is no doubt hundreds of thousands of american soldiers had their lives spared by dropping the bombs, and in the context of the time it was seen as the right decision.
it doesn't alter the historical FACTS that japan was a defeated nation, overtures had been made to make a peace with USA. the americans chose two non military populated targets. after the first the japanese were almost desperate to come to peace agreement, the second bombing was irrelevant to achieve the final war aim. particularly when it came so soon after. there was, however, a strong cold war implications, it was to demonstrate the weapon as much to the soviets as to the japanese.
those who say the bombings were unjustified have as much historical accuracy as those who say they were. the FACT is the americans were the only nation in history to use the bombs in an offensive action.
and it gets so tiring to hear the USA saved everyone's bacon in WWII, go read a history book for once will ya. there were others involved you know, ever heard of England, Canada, and yes, oh no, the Soviets?? tell me even when the americans declared war on germany, or can you come with some more historic fantasy.
vecino, usually you have a semblance of being reasonable, compared to some of the others, but this one you are way over the edge.
Curtis Lemay begged Kennedy to nuke cuba during the missile crises, to turn the island into "a fucking paring lot" From: That infernal little cuban republic, lars schoultz. kennedy refused.
the americans have always had nuclear weapons, and it has been discussed as to the feasibility of using them, Reagan discussed it extensively, a winnable nuclear war, and was dissuaded. Castro discussed it, at a time cuba did not have nuclear weapons, and was dissuaded. castro could advocate all he wanted to, and the statement in question does not rise to that level, but he never had the ability to follow through. And no one, not you, knows the full context or setting of those comments.
America has always had the ability to follow through, and they did.
(BTW when USA agreed not to invade cuba after the crises the Soviets made it clear to the cuban side they would defend up to but not including nukes. this came out at the october crises conference in cuba a few years back)
if you want to extrapolate your point then do it, the americans have used nukes as a policy strategy and a topic for discussion, see nixon in vietnam, and they are the only nation to use them. the pentagon has plans currently for use of nuclear weapons against a number of countries.
no one's questioning condemning the use of nukes, it's a ridiculous step to take it to the level you are attempting.
if your position is to get rid of fidel and raul (well duh) that's fine, but your grasping at this preposterous straw is just living in a land where the sky isn't blue.
now lets get back to serious comments (of course pidgen is excluded from this)
mitio
On Planet AC, the United States was guilty of genocide in World War II.
When, WHEN, will those clueless imperialistas figure out that Fidel's efforts to nuke them were only an exercise in *recreational* nuclear war? Get over it, yanqui imperialists! It is time to stop whining and send more money and turistas to the First Free Territory of the Americas.
"On Planet AC, the United States was guilty of genocide in World War II."
On planet anonymous (aka fantasyland) the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cute fireworks fired to celebrate the summer festival.
I shiver and bow in appreciation just thinking in the cost you have to incur for this intergalactic message just to show us poor earthlings a glimpse of your superior intellect, vast knowledge and greatest ideas ever conceived.
"On planet anonymous (aka fantasyland) the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cute fireworks..."
Yes, it is only fair that the Japanese acquire defensive nuclear weapons and launch them against the American agressors, as Fidel wanted to do. It is time those yanquis had a taste of their own medicine!
If only more people understood history and the innate innocence of the world's peace-loving peoples, such as the Japanese in the 1940's. Only then will a true understanding of history emerge, leading to a general understanding of the emergence of Evil in the world, which can be precisely dated: July 4, 1776.
"The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an unnecessary genocide that will shame the US forever."
You are speaking truth to power, AC. We need more bold and dispassionate statements of fact, like this one.
\ Now if we could only resurrect Tojo, name him as the prosecutor of the Hiroshima genocide trial, and then resurrect Truman to place him where History has condemned him to be: in the defendant's dock. Papito, thou shouldst be living at this hour!
Mitio,
"vecino, usually you have a semblance of being reasonable, compared to some of the others, but this one you are way over the edge.
Curtis Lemay begged Kennedy to nuke cuba during the missile crises, to turn the island into "a fucking paring lot" From: That infernal little cuban republic, lars schoultz. kennedy refused."
Thank you for arguing my side! No HEAD of government since the Cuban Missile Crisis has argued for the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike except apparently Fidel Castro Ruz. As far as being reasonable, what is unreasonable about stating that any head of government who urges the use of nuclear weapons is a psychopathic sociopath and has no business heading any government? He is the problem of the Revolution not ours. So get rid of him if you want to keep the Revolution! He is a liability.
For the record we should remember that the Kennedy-Khruschev protocol to end the Cuban Missile Crisis was followed through by all sides except Cuba because no on-site inspections to verify the pull out of Soviet strategic weapons were never allowed by Fidel Castro Ruz. If the Soviets introduce plutonium bombs in Cuba, and never pulled them out, they could still be operational. Other weapons tend to degrade quicker because of radioactive decay naturally reduces the amount of fissionable/fussionable material.
As far as all this discussion about the use of atomic bombs by the US against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the free pass that the Allied forces (GB,USA, and USSR) got with respect to war crimes during WWII, I suggest we all look at the calendar, and realize that the question is not what people who are long dead did wrong. The question is what are we doing to fix the current impasse between Cuba and the USA, and between the Cuban government and those Cubans who disagree with it. Otherwise let's discuss about war crimes committed during the Napoleonic Wars, the suspension of habeas corpus by A.Lincoln, and the cruel treatment of Spartacus by the Roman legions.
Vecino de NF
Vecino, glad to see you finally grew a pair of cojones; glad to know you have recognized evil and understood its recalcitrant predisposition on this earth. On another note, Fidel is not responsible for the Revolucion. That is like saying a gun is responsible for the death of someone. The masses are responsible. They are the ones who pulled the trigger and have continued to do so.
El Odio
vecino, right, so lets not discuss something that supposedly happened 30 years ago, come on, at least be consistent.
fidel could no more start a nuclear war than fly to the moon, nixon and reagan however had the button to push, the people who supported it and policy wanks pushing it. the americans with their arsenal was and is far more dangerous in starting nuclear destruction than castro ever was. end your strawman argument it makes no sense.
Anonymous September 23, 2009 5:07 PM,
Thank you for proving my point unaware of what you were doing! No US president since the Cuban Missile Crisis considered the first use of nuclear weapons. The only one that came close was Pres. Nixon who went to DefCon3 over the Yom Kippur War. We all know what happened to him. Pres. Reagan stated clearly that "A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought." (April 1983). So before you muddle the waters confusing capabilities with intentions, and possession with desire, I would posit to you that a head of government who advocates the use of nuclear weapons is not fit to be a head of government regardless of whether he can use them or not.
Vecino de NF
El Odio,
The possession of a couple of testes is not an indication of anything but gender. There are plenty of testes carriers that take all sort of moral or ethical positions that are not traditionally associated with masculine virility and the logical converse is also false.
But more important now that you have addressed me directly, I will tell you what I think of your comments. They are crude, insulting, and hightly suspect. I am never sure if they are real or they are cheap provocations by the Disinformation Department of Cuban Intelligence. I have told others and now I will tell you: my only purpose is to find a rational and mutually beneficial way to get out of this impasse between Cuba and the USA, and between the Cuban government and Cubans who disagree with it.
Strongly recommend that next time you take the "cojones" term out of your comments. They make you sound as if your gagging on them.
Vecino de NF
vecino
nixion discussed during the vietnam war whether nuclear weapons should be used, it would have been first strike. it was used as a way to scare the vietnamese, but it was discussed.
bush also discussed nukes in the war of terror, every option is discussed as a matter of policy course.
but if you're standard of condemnation is discussion then i think you should be consistent. but really, context and specifics is everything and taking a comment made over 30 years ago is suspect at the very least. not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on this, particularly after reading the rest of your comments in your reply to the hate.
and not sure in another point, are you considering fidel still head of govt in cuba. or if you see raul in that role is there any evidence he discusses using nukes against america?
if you do want a beneficial solution to the USA Cuba problem, one must start from the assumption the cuban government is legitimate. if it is, then the only next step is when the Americans react to that position under accepted international norms.
if you think the government is not legitimate, then assume no accommodation or reconciliation is possible so the only recourse is hostility with intent of regime change (which seems to be american position since day one)
or do you think there are forms between the two -- semi-legitimacy?
with cuba those who support one side or the other focus on the individual policies of a nation of 11 million to prove or disprove points of view. you can pick that from any country but it really doesn't advance overall policy goals.
Anonymous September 24, 2009 8:32 AM,
"...not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on this..."
The primary question for all foreign policy decisions since the Cuban Missile Crisis is the avoidance of the use of nuclear weapons. That a player in the Cuban Missible Crisis urges a nuclear first strike as the logical end result of a foreign policy escalation 20 years after that event shows a psychopathic mentality that is not conducive to any sort of constructive relations. It must be specially galling for Cubans to find out that their best interests were safeguarded by a foreign nation (USSR) rather than their own leader.
"are you considering fidel still head of govt in cuba or if you see raul in that role is there any evidence he discusses using nukes against america?"
As long as Fidel Castro Ruz heads the Cuban Communist Party he is de-facto head of government of the Republic of Cuba according to its Constitution, and therefore Raul Castro Ruz is not. There is no evidence that Raul Castro Ruz is interested in urging the use of nuclear weapons although some comments he made to Sean Penn on his role during the Cuban Missile Crisis appear rather cavalier, and adolescent.
"... do you think there are forms between the two -- semi-legitimacy?"
Cuba did not have a legitimate government until its 1976 constitution. It was ruled by decree from 1959 until then by a revolutionary leader that came to power in a military takeover. The fact that the 1976 constitution was ratified in a coercive atmosphere that made oppossing it a treasonable offense punishable by jail under the national security decrees issued by an illegitimate government would support those that argue that the Cuban government is illegitimate. Having said that the fact that most of the Cuban population was born since 1959, and there appears to be tacit acceptance of the 1976 Constitution as currently ammended gives the current Cuban government a de-factor legitimacy that should be recognized. But that legitimacy can be called into question when peaceful dissent in all its forms is punishable by law. The Cuban constitutional clause making socialism eternal robs the current constitutional order of popular legitimacy by ignoring the possible wishes of future generations.
Vecino de NF
and so did the soviet constitution -- so what happened to that.
the only legitimacy is from the people, which you admit to above.
the problem is understanding what the cuban revolution was, and continues to be, for the majority.
your opinion of govt legitimacy based solely on constitutions is not supported by history, there have been many countries without constitutions that would be surprised to be told they were not legitimate
but again, there was no answer, do you consider the cuban govt legit or not?
peaceful dissent in all its form is NOT illegal in cuba; why do you state a bald faced lie like that. discussion, criticism and complaint within the system has been tolerated and encouraged many times, as it is now. and extreme is tolerated as well, Paya and Elizardo as a few examples.
and under wartime and national security threats dissent of any form was illegal in the United States as well --
are you afraid to release cuba from the stranglehold america has on it, to let it alone and breath as Hugo Chavez says, to see where things will lead. or are you one who just discounts any affect USA policies have had on cuba; or agree with what they continue to do.
Anonymous September 25, 2009 12:51 PM,
"...you consider the cuban govt legit or not?"
That was answered.
"...peaceful dissent in all its form is NOT illegal in cuba..."
If any form of peaceful dissent is illegal, then peaceful dissent is illegal. The Cuban criminal code has various sanctions against distribution of information that does not agree with the Cuban government. This is usually prosecuted under the so-called "enemy propaganda" statutes. That makes political dissent illegal. That not every person that dissents with the government is imprisoned does not mean that political dissent is legal. It just means that the law is not being applied at that time. In a sense the government personnel are committing a crime by not carrying out the law as stated. (Remember Cuba is an statute country with little space for jurisprudence in the application of the law).
For the record I do not lie and I am nof afraid of any change in current Cuba-USA relations. Rather I tried to be honest in my writings, and have said many times that I like to see a way out of the impasse between the Cuba and the USA, and between the Cuban government and Cubans who disagree with it.
Vecino de NF
Anonymous September 25, 2009 12:51 PM,
"are you afraid to release cuba from the stranglehold america has on it, to let it alone and breath as Hugo Chavez says, to see where things will lead. or are you one who just discounts any affect USA policies have had on cuba; or agree with what they continue to do."
Sorry I did not do justice to your questions. I believe I have commented on this in the past. Cuba/USA relations went from cautious optimism on the USA side to total enmity during a very short period. Fidel Castro's government took a series of measures against US interests that antagonized the US government very early on. The USA government reacted in a predictable way by sanctioning Cuba, and starting a covert program to overthrow the Cuban government. All this happened in 1959-1960.
The above plus another almost 50 years of actions/counteractions resulted in grievances on both side of this divide. The only way to get over the divide would be for a mutual acknowledgement of the right for each side to its grievances, and then to work for the future based on common goals. Most Cubans were not born before this confrontation began. The Cuban government has learned to thrive without US trade. The embargo is just a rhetorical point at this time. Personally I would welcome a US embargo if I wanted to build socialism. That way there is no need to put with those Yankee imperialists trying to exploit the people! All of the economic problems in Cuba are attributed to Cuban government actions and practices. If you want something from a neighbor, it is not advisable to insult them.
Vecino de NF
the USA wsa intent to overthrow the castro government by March 1959; how the hell is that cautious optimism????
american hostility was the root cause of the relationship, the americans invaded cuba in 1961, what affect do you think that had???
come on for once get your facts straight, it was american intolerance for the castro regime that is the root cause of this, they are the aggressor, not cuba.
Post a Comment