tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post176874840091150360..comments2023-11-16T03:57:05.158-05:00Comments on The Cuban Triangle: Odds and endsPhil Petershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06724525896667349935noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-23070087250659737222009-10-09T09:31:01.152-04:002009-10-09T09:31:01.152-04:00the USA wsa intent to overthrow the castro governm...the USA wsa intent to overthrow the castro government by March 1959; how the hell is that cautious optimism????<br /><br />american hostility was the root cause of the relationship, the americans invaded cuba in 1961, what affect do you think that had???<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-86292295448615825712009-09-25T14:58:43.417-04:002009-09-25T14:58:43.417-04:00Anonymous September 25, 2009 12:51 PM,
"are ...Anonymous September 25, 2009 12:51 PM,<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Vecino de NFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-80468237100986627552009-09-25T14:46:35.978-04:002009-09-25T14:46:35.978-04:00Anonymous September 25, 2009 12:51 PM,
"...y...Anonymous September 25, 2009 12:51 PM,<br /><br />"...you consider the cuban govt legit or not?"<br /><br />That was answered.<br /><br />"...peaceful dissent in all its form is NOT illegal in cuba..."<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Vecino de NFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-67909913636902711002009-09-25T12:51:58.335-04:002009-09-25T12:51:58.335-04:00and so did the soviet constitution -- so what happ...and so did the soviet constitution -- so what happened to that.<br />the only legitimacy is from the people, which you admit to above.<br /><br />the problem is understanding what the cuban revolution was, and continues to be, for the majority.<br />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<br /><br />but again, there was no answer, do you consider the cuban govt legit or not?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />and under wartime and national security threats dissent of any form was illegal in the United States as well -- <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-42305130564164102082009-09-24T17:24:39.531-04:002009-09-24T17:24:39.531-04:00Anonymous September 24, 2009 8:32 AM,
"...no...Anonymous September 24, 2009 8:32 AM,<br /><br />"...not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on this..."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"... do you think there are forms between the two -- semi-legitimacy?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Vecino de NFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-59575194589015969582009-09-24T08:32:52.483-04:002009-09-24T08:32:52.483-04:00vecino
nixion discussed during the vietnam war wh...vecino<br /><br />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. <br />bush also discussed nukes in the war of terror, every option is discussed as a matter of policy course.<br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br />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)<br /><br />or do you think there are forms between the two -- semi-legitimacy? <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-14746457351218310382009-09-23T17:54:49.378-04:002009-09-23T17:54:49.378-04:00El Odio,
The possession of a couple of testes is ...El Odio,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Strongly recommend that next time you take the "cojones" term out of your comments. They make you sound as if your gagging on them.<br /><br />Vecino de NFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-56135437805332309812009-09-23T17:45:05.782-04:002009-09-23T17:45:05.782-04:00Anonymous September 23, 2009 5:07 PM,
Thank you f...Anonymous September 23, 2009 5:07 PM,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Vecino de NFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-22224283518862617872009-09-23T17:07:08.215-04:002009-09-23T17:07:08.215-04:00vecino, right, so lets not discuss something that ...vecino, right, so lets not discuss something that supposedly happened 30 years ago, come on, at least be consistent.<br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-64677100282228200642009-09-23T14:00:36.777-04:002009-09-23T14:00:36.777-04:00Vecino, glad to see you finally grew a pair of co...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. <br /><br />El OdioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-45346887508120702472009-09-23T10:20:29.335-04:002009-09-23T10:20:29.335-04:00Mitio,
"vecino, usually you have a semblance...Mitio,<br /><br />"vecino, usually you have a semblance of being reasonable, compared to some of the others, but this one you are way over the edge.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Vecino de NFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-19177535276154010272009-09-23T07:24:58.958-04:002009-09-23T07:24:58.958-04:00"The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an..."The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an unnecessary genocide that will shame the US forever."<br /><br />You are speaking truth to power, AC. We need more bold and dispassionate statements of fact, like this one.<br /><br />\ 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!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-28261702580232066812009-09-22T22:26:43.261-04:002009-09-22T22:26:43.261-04:00"On planet anonymous (aka fantasyland) the nu..."On planet anonymous (aka fantasyland) the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cute fireworks..."<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-67632634260238059262009-09-22T21:35:32.810-04:002009-09-22T21:35:32.810-04:00"On Planet AC, the United States was guilty o..."On Planet AC, the United States was guilty of genocide in World War II."<br /><br />On planet anonymous (aka fantasyland) the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cute fireworks fired to celebrate the summer festival. <br /><br />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.acnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-75420605760992728762009-09-22T21:24:27.905-04:002009-09-22T21:24:27.905-04:00When, WHEN, will those clueless imperialistas figu...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-70057814970490701292009-09-22T20:58:16.553-04:002009-09-22T20:58:16.553-04:00On Planet AC, the United States was guilty of geno...On Planet AC, the United States was guilty of genocide in World War II.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-65233580230383107252009-09-22T20:21:48.147-04:002009-09-22T20:21:48.147-04:00oye pidgen -- at least your english is improving. ...oye pidgen -- at least your english is improving. too bad your historical fantasies haven't weakened.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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. <br /><br />vecino, usually you have a semblance of being reasonable, compared to some of the others, but this one you are way over the edge.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br /> America has always had the ability to follow through, and they did.<br /><br />(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) <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />no one's questioning condemning the use of nukes, it's a ridiculous step to take it to the level you are attempting.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />now lets get back to serious comments (of course pidgen is excluded from this)<br /><br />mitioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-86195654940555783662009-09-22T20:06:26.047-04:002009-09-22T20:06:26.047-04:00"You also have some unmitigated gall making s..."You also have some unmitigated gall making such slanderous allegations against a country that saved your bacon in WWII"<br /><br />You mean Russia? I didn't say anything regarding them, but Stalin himself was also guilty of genocide by his actions in the WW2.<br /><br />"You cheapen the term just as much as those loonies who accuse the US on Cuba."<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />And the main point of the Nuremberg trial was that:<br /><br />a) Explicitly targeting civilians at war is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.<br /><br />b) Following orders will not make yourself not accountable for your crimes.<br /><br />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.acnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-37978308508270134532009-09-22T19:22:00.928-04:002009-09-22T19:22:00.928-04:00Oh, isn't that so easy for you to muse about 6...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??<br /><br />chingonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-76987662941334142722009-09-22T18:28:22.708-04:002009-09-22T18:28:22.708-04:00"Truman dropped the bomb to keep the Reds out..."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..."<br /><br />Awww, what pile of crap. Only a brainwashed idiot who can't get the facts straight can arrive to such wonderful conclusion.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.acnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-19325297786224104532009-09-22T18:17:42.836-04:002009-09-22T18:17:42.836-04:00"Sounds to me he is advocating escalation of ..."Sounds to me he is advocating escalation of tensions leading to nuclear strikes. "<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).acnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-91279643575271251302009-09-22T18:07:18.929-04:002009-09-22T18:07:18.929-04:00ah, the revisionist tract makes its appearance. J...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...<br /><br />chingonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-31099652160057672922009-09-22T17:33:42.671-04:002009-09-22T17:33:42.671-04:00ac,
"...Fidel Castro pressed hard for a thou...ac,<br /><br />"...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!<br /><br />Vecino de NFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-71295245834852262062009-09-22T17:16:03.449-04:002009-09-22T17:16:03.449-04:00The exact reference to the Castro statement in the...The exact reference to the Castro statement in the original information follows:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />From that statement is not clear if Castro is suggesting a preemptive nuclear strike or a retaliatory one in case Cuba were attacked.acnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5851163370258594999.post-16290343819542625572009-09-22T17:09:54.320-04:002009-09-22T17:09:54.320-04:00Nope, I just stating that they (along others) shou...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.acnoreply@blogger.com