Screw you !
There is a price paid here for the embargo, as you say. However I believe the costs and the risks overall are worth the price. The Cuban government's tyrannical ways and its hostility towards us are beyond doubt. Entanglements with them will likely do us no good whatever, and will not likely benefit the oppressed among the Cuban people either. A good deal of the motivation of other western countries for cordial relations with Cuba is just to spite us. Goes with the territory, I suppose.
Well, if the spite of others were something which concerned me, i'd have been gone from this site a long time ago.
The fiasco of Cuban intervention in Angola (one of the many reason why the Russians didn't need Ray-gun's help to destroy the Soviet Union) destroyed any residual goodwill the least of the Cubans may have continued to cherish for Fidel. Che was long gone, and his influence was far more important in winning popular support during the revolution than Fidel's had ever been. I rather suspect that the Cubans are as impatient of Castro's longevity in the real Havana as they are in Little Havana. There was a time, before the collapse of the Soviet polity in 1991, when trade with the United States for foodstuffs might well have played into Castro's hand. I frankly think nothing could make his irrelevance in today's world more starkly evident than the simple full-belly prosperity which Cubans might attain if the embargo were lifted. I believe that we are well past the point at which the embargo does Castro any harm, and well into a time when lifting the embargo could do good for the Cuban people, as well as American farmers. I also despise the arrogance of Little Havana, and would dearly love hearing the rest of nation say to them exactly what you said in the opening of your last post.
JTT wrote: ... The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we’ll never know. And that of course was the idea."...
False! The embago was placed on the Casto regime to reduce its ability to spread and support its communist murderers thoughout the Western Hemisphere.
False!
Wrong!
Incorrect!
do I make myself clear?
What was the question again?
never mind
PERSPECTIVE
19th Century
France's Bonaparte regime murdered millions of civilians.
20th century
Germany's Hitler regime murdered millions of civilians.
Japan's Hirohito regime murdered millions of civilians.
Russia's Stalin regime murdered millions of civilians.
China's Mao Zedong regime murdered millions of civilians.
North Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh regime murdered millions of civilians.
Cambodia's Pol Pot regime murdered millions of civilians.
Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime murdered only hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Cuba's Casto regime murdered only tens of thousands of civilians.
Iraq's Baathis-al-Qaeda regime has murdered only thousands of civilians.
How's the US's Bush regime doing?
Well for one thing the US's Bush regime has offended billions of civilians.
so when do we expect a full scale American assault on China to defend Taiwan and liberate the poor repressed people of that benighted communist regime?
ican711nm wrote:Iraq's Baathis-al-Qaeda regime has murdered only thousands of civilians.
"Iraq's Baathis-al-Qaeda regime"?
I'm already ignoring your typo and still don't understand what you are saying. Are you talking about the current "regime" aka the "insurgency"? Or are you talking about Saddam's regime?
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:False! Wrong! Incorrect!
do I make myself clear?
What was the question again?
never mind
No! You need lots of counseling!
Try ignoring ican if you can! Perhaps that can help! It cannot hurt ... much!
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:so when do we expect a full scale American assault on China to defend Taiwan and liberate the poor repressed people of that benighted communist regime?
After a democat is elected pesident of the USA.
old europe wrote:ican711nm wrote:Iraq's Baathis-al-Qaeda regime has murdered only thousands of civilians.
"Iraq's Baathis-al-Qaeda regime"?
I'm already ignoring your typo and still don't understand what you are saying. Are you talking about the current "regime" aka the "insurgency"? Or are you talking about Saddam's regime?
CORRECTION
PERSPECTIVE
19th Century
France's Bonaparte regime murdered millions of civilians.
20th Century
Germany's Hitler regime murdered millions of civilians.
Japan's Hirohito regime murdered millions of civilians.
Russia's Stalin regime murdered millions of civilians.
China's Mao Zedong regime murdered millions of civilians.
North Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh regime murdered millions of civilians.
Cambodia's Pol Pot regime murdered millions of civilians.
Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime murdered only hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Cuba's Casto regime murdered only tens of thousands of civilians.
21st Century
Iraq's Baathist-al-Qaeda regime (alias, "the insurgency") has murdered only thousands of civilians.
How's the US's Bush regime doing?
Well for one thing the US's Bush regime has offended billions of civilians.
regime
n 1: the organization that is the governing authority of a
political unit; "the government reduced taxes"; "the
matter was referred to higher authorities" [syn: government,
authorities]
2: (medicine) a systematic plan for therapy (often including
diet) [syn: regimen]
The contention that "Bonapart's regime" murdered millions of civilians is completely a fabrication in the mind of he who has just written it. It is, sadly, the sort of thing we can expect from that source.
old europe wrote:regime
n 1: the organization that is the governing authority of a
political unit; "the government reduced taxes"; "the
matter was referred to higher authorities" [syn: government,
authorities]
2: (medicine) a systematic plan for therapy (often including
diet) [syn: regimen]
I was employing these definitions:
1 a : REGIMEN 1 b : a regular pattern of occurrence or action
2 a : mode of rule or management
www.m-w.com
Quote:Main Entry:
re·gime
Variant(s): also ré·gime /rA-'zhEm, ri- also ri-'jEm/
Function: noun
Etymology: French régime, from Latin regimin-, regimen
1 a : REGIMEN 1 b : a regular pattern of occurrence or action (as of seasonal rainfall) c : the characteristic behavior or orderly procedure of a natural phenomenon or process
2 a : mode of rule or management b : a form of government <a socialist regime> c : a government in power <predicted that the new regime would fall> d : a period of rule
However, if it really matters to you, call them all
organizations.
1 a : the act or process of organizing or of being organized b : the condition or manner of being organized
www.m-w.com
Quote:Main Entry: 1or·ga·ni·za·tion
Pronunciation: "or-g&-n&-'zA-sh&n, "org-n&-
Function: noun
1 a : the act or process of organizing or of being organized b : the condition or manner of being organized
2 a : ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY <charitable organizations> b : an administrative and functional structure (as a business or a political party); also : the personnel of such a structure
"Germany's Hitler organization"? Nah, doesn't sound right. That was a regime, aye.
He had France's psychotic Fronde and public executions off by a few years. Why act like you don't know what he's talking about?
<mutters....>
Setanta wrote:The contention that "Bonapart's regime" murdered millions of civilians is completely a fabrication in the mind of he who has just written it. It is, sadly, the sort of thing we can expect from that source.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_French_War
blue emphasis added by ican
Quote:Great French War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The period of conflict beginning on April 20, 1792 and continuing until November 20, 1815. This conflict was begun when France declared war on Austria following a gradual increase in tensions following the French Revolution in 1789. The wars continued through several régime changes in France (beginning with the deposition of King Louis XVI in 1792 and continuing through the Terror instigated by the Jacobins under Maximilien de Robespierre). The Jacobins were in turn overthrown and an Executive Director set up, eventually also giving way to the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte. The period of the war prior to the seizure of power by Bonaparte in 1799 is generally refered to as the Revolutionary Wars and the period afterward is known as the Napoleonic Wars.
In total the war claimed between 4 million and 6.5 million lives (including civilian casualties) and involved between 6 and 10 million combatants. It was fought principally in Europe, but conflict did occur in both north Africa and south Africa as well as in South America, North America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, India and throughout much of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
If you were to claim that I don't know how many of these millions of casualties were actually civilian casualties, you would be correct.
But until you show me evidence to the contrary (i.e., show me less than 2 million were civilian casualties), your calling my claim, "murdered millions of civilians is completely a fabrication," is itself a complete fabrication.
You capacity for self-delusion no longer surprises me. Note that Napoleon does not come to power until 1799, seven years after the period specified in your article. Therefore, all of the casualties in the period 1792-1799 cannot be attributed to Bonarpart's regime--the period which this article correcly identifies as the Wars of the Revolution. Then we get to the data highlighted by you with blue print about casualties--4 to 6.5 million, including civilian casualties. When one considers the number of casualties in the Wagram campaign, the number of casualties in the Prussian and Russian campaigns from 1805-1807, the casualties in the 1812 invasion of Russia, the horrible casualties the French suffered in Spain from 1808 to 1815, one can already account for several millions without any reference to civilians. I haven't the least doubt that you did not know that, for example, la Grande Armée which crossed the Vistula in 1812 numbered over one half million French, Germans, Italians, Dutch and Poles, and that 10,000 men marched out of that nightmare. There's half a million in a single campaign. Reliable estimates for the long running Spanish disaster are from three to four hundred thousand French, Dutch, Polish and German casualties in the French occupation armies; which therefore, does not include the Spanish, the English, the Canadians or the Portugese who died in Spain. I suspect you are unaware that there were more than a half-million participants in the great battle of Leipsic in 1813.
Subtracting the Wars of the Revolution, which include Napoleon's campaigns in Italy and Egypt, subtracting more than a million French and French-allied military dead, subtracting all of the Austrian, English, Canadian, Prussian, Spanish, Russian, Portugese, Egyptian and Turkish dead--subtracting all of the military and civilian deaths due to epidemic diseases, and you would be hard pressed to allege that even a million civilians died during the First Empire--and would still not be able to distinguish those who were killed with intent by the French, and those who were simply hapless victims. You would also not have accounted for the number of civilians who died because of the armies which opposed the French. Which is a far cry from an ignorant, off-hand statement to the effect that millions of civilians died during the Bonapart regime. As usual, you shoot your mouth off without the least knowledge of the history you purport to cite.
Lash wrote:He had France's psychotic Fronde and public executions off by a few years. Why act like you don't know what he's talking about?
<mutters....>
Thank you for your reminder.
For this forum, I should have taken into account all the civilians murdered by French regimes in the 19th Century. I know the
castroites (i.e., those favoring different rules for different people) in this forum often desperately avoid dealing with an
adamsites' (i.e., those who favor the same rules for everyone) actual assertions using transparently trivial distractions. They continue to vilify the US for its self-admitted historical flaws and self-directed efforts to correct these historical flaws, while ignoring the far worse historical flaws of other nations, other peoples, and pehaps even themselves.
It's the propagandist's old, often used, technique of avoidance of substantive debate: "Do as we say, not as we do, because we say so."
