US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

I'd love to lounge on a beach in Cuba, maybe near Santiago, so that i could gaze across the water at Jamaica. It's likely the only tropical destination i could currently afford.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Poverty in Cuba has not been "imposed by an American embargo". I am surprised to see Setanta reciting that nonsense.

Cuba has nothing much to sell to other countries, little money with which to buy the products of others, and it does not produce enough to meet its own meeds. Hard to blame all that on an embargo. The usual response is we hurt them by refusing to lend them money. However they have no basis on which to promise repayment, and their stated policy is to bite the hand that would feed them.

That's good enough right there to keep up the embargo, eh George? You wilfully turned a blind eye to Setanta's perfectly apt description of the misery that the USA has heaped on its Latin American neighbors, NEIGHBORS!!

Who knows what people are capable of if they're given the freedom to decide for themselves how their political system will develop. And forget the crap about your long history of freedom. Your political system enshrined brutality, has perpetuated brutality for most of its life.

Out of a total of 216 years, how many years would you say that blacks have been really free and full citizens, George?

Why should Cuba be forced to follow a system imposed on them by some other country whose political system is so far from being perfect?

===================
Killing Hope: William Blum
"Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.

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."

====================

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

JTT found this

"However even a rudimentary survey of scientific literature reveals there to be very little agreement on the subject of climate change. The unfortunate and inaccurate characterization of consensus is used as a rhetorical bludgeon of skeptics..."

Which seems eminently reasonable until you remember that just the same sort of reasoning was used by the tobacco companies to cast doubt on the link between smoking and lung cancer.

The vested interests here are far more powerful.

I think climate change will hit future generations very hard. And I also think there are no practical measures we can take to stop it.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. But this is a bit more complicated than the tabakki thing, Steve. This ole planet is one big mother and computer projections, well, I just don't know.

In the short term, for kids and grandkids and great grandkids, maybe it will be tough but in the longer term, Mother Earth will eventually get shed of us all.

0 Replies

"Mother Earth will eventually get shed of us all."

Armageddon outa here

0 Replies

Cuba proiduced lots of good music 50 plus years ago. Lecuona 's music is among its best. However that is a relic of the past - about all that poor Cuba has left with which to attract tourists.

Even in terms of sugar production Cuba produces far less than it did before Castro and the enervating combination of socialism and tyranny that he imposed on it.

Evidently all those happy Canadian tourists haven't had miuch economic impact on that unfortunate place.

The general advances in public medical care worldwide during the last 50 years account for the majority of Castro'ss self-proclaimed achievements in that area.

Castro will die fairly soon and his regime will crumble, revealing the devastation he jhas inflicted on Cuba.

0 Replies

Late in 1898, while speaking to reporters about the occupation of the Philippine Islands by American forces under the command of General Arthur MacArthur, President McKinley said that our mission was to bring christian civilization to the benighted souls in those islands.

One of the reporters respectfully pointed out that the Philippinos were Roman Catholics.

McKinley replied: "Exactly."

Early in 1900, McKinley announced the civilizing mission of the United States which General MacArthur would implement in the Philippines. This elicited from one of our greatest authors, primarily known as a satirist, the essay To the Person Sitting in Darkness. The author was Samuel Clemens. Two passages have always struck me very forcefully.

The first concerns what it is that needs to be explained to the Person sitting in darkness, although the passage appears late in the essay:

Mark Twain wrote:

Of course, we must not venture to ignore our General MacArthur's reports--oh, why do they keep on printing those embarrassing things?--we must drop them trippingly from the tongue and take the chances:

During the last ten months our losses have been 268 killed and 750 wounded; Filipino loss, three thousand two hundred and twenty-seven killed, and 694 wounded.

We must stand ready to grab the Person Sitting in Darkness, for he will swoon away at this confession, saying: "Good God, those 'niggers' spare their wounded, and the Americans massacre theirs!"

We must bring him to, and coax him and coddle him, and assure him that the ways of Providence are best, and that it would not become us to find fault with them; and then, to show him that we are only imitators, not originators, we must read the following passage from the letter of an American soldier-lad in the Philippines to his mother, published in Public Opinion, of Decorah, Iowa, describing the finish of a victorious battle:

"WE NEVER LEFT ONE ALIVE. IF ONE WAS WOUNDED, WE WOULD RUN OUR BAYONETS THROUGH HIM."

Having now laid all the historical facts before the Person Sitting in Darkness, we should bring him to again, and explain them to him.

The most telling passage, to my mind, however, appears somewhat before that in the text.

Our Mr. Clemens wrote:

The more we examine the mistake, the more clearly we perceive that it is going to be bad for the Business. The Person Sitting in Darkness is almost sure to say: "There is something curious about this--curious and unaccountable. There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive's new freedom away from him, and picks a quarrel with him with nothing to found it on; then kills him to get his land."

Two Americas, indeed.

0 Replies

O'George, the population of the United States is almost ten times that of Canada. It doesn't take a wizard at math to project what American tourism would mean to the island's foreign exchange.

0 Replies

Your remarks about advances in medical science over that last fifty years are specious as well, unless you contend that medical care for all Cubans was at or near "first-world" standards during the Batista regime.

If that is the case, then i won't reply, because i will be laughing too much to be able to type.

0 Replies

What's your point? That many of the rationalizations for our occupation of the Philippines were hypocritical? That we behaved with cruelty towards the (mostly Moslem) insurgents? That we suppressed a nationalistic movement that was already uinderway when we drove the Spanish out? All true, of course. However there is a lot more to the story and our voluntary withdrawl is a major part of it. The Philippinos made their preferences fairly clear during WWII.

Not much material, however, with which to redeem Fidel Castro.

Do you seriously suggest that we "owe" Castro and Cuba anything after their systematic attempts to oppose and harm us for the last 45 years? Cuba is already returning to its former status as the brothel of the Caribbean, this time with a scattering of Canadians and Europeans as the "exploiters". Let them have it.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

What's your point? That many of the rationalizations for our occupation of the Philippines were hypocritical? That we behaved with cruelty towards the (mostly Moslem) insurgents? That we suppressed a nationalistic movement that was already uinderway when we drove the Spanish out? All true, of course. However there is a lot more to the story and our voluntary withdrawl is a major part of it. The Philippinos made their preferences fairly clear during WWII. (empahsis added)

That is a completely false characterization of the Huk uprising. Although the Hukbalahaps may only been paying lip service to Roman Catholicism, and may have retained their native animism under cover, they were not ever Muslim. You are also either very ill-informed or are willfully ignoring several points. The Spanish garrison in Manila surrendered to Aguinaldo's forces before MacArthur landed. The Hukbalahap insurrection was directed at wealthy land owners, whether Spanish puros or those of the native Philippino variety. We deported Aguinaldo and as many of his socially and politically important supporters as we were able to identify and catch--but the Huks had no particular brief to support Aguinaldo, and their insurrection returned in greater force after MacArthur arrived with an American army and it became clear that life would be no better, and might well be worse, under the tender ministrations of MacArthur and William Howard Taft. When Douglas MacArthur served in the Philippines just before the Pacific war as military advisor to their government, he was asked about the seemingly eternal Huk insurrection by an American reporter. He replied to the effect that if he were a Huk, he would rebel, too. Douglas MacArthur had more experience of the Philippines than any high-ranking American officer serving in the military in 1941. The Second World War did not end the Huk insurrection. The successful campaign heavily supported by United States dollars and military advisors which ran the Huk leadership to ground in 1954, capturing Luis Taruc did not end the Huk insurrection. Maoist fanatics took control of the insurrection once Taruc was out of the way (claims that Taruc was a communist are nothing more than slurs, absent any proof, none of which has ever been provided). It was not until 1961 that the administration of President Quirino enacted substantive land reform which took the wind out of the Maoists' sails. Nevertheless, the venality and corruption of Marcos' regime lead to a rebirth of the Huk insurrection in less than a decade.

The propaganda that characterizes the Huks as an anti-Japanese guerilla movement gone communist and gone bad is so pervasive that many casual sources automatically refer to it as such, completely ignoring that the Hukbalahap are an ethnic group of Luzon, who were known by that name at the time that Magellan arrived there. The Huks fought for their freedom from serfdom and for land reform against the Spanish. After Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet and Aguinaldo forced the surrender of the Spanish garrison, the Huks stood down, and patiently awaited the reform they believed would result. When the elder MacArthur landed with an army, they went into insurrection again. When the Japanese invaded, the Huks simply targeted the new oppressive masters. After the defeat of Japan, the Huks stood down, and patiently awaited the reform which Quezon had promised while in exile. When it did not come, they rose again in 1948. With Maoist influence, and the reliable corruption of Philippino governments, the Huks became a monster which would not die. It would be so convenient if you could characterize them as Muslim extremists, and dismiss them thereby. But it just ain't so. With more than a thousand islands in the archipelago, extremists of every stripe can be found. The Muslim extremists are just the currently visible blight on that polity. The Huks are not and never were Muslim.

Quote:

Not much material, however, with which to redeem Fidel Castro.

I've already stated that i have no brief to defend Castro--his redemption is a matter of indifference to me. Warping the truth by omitting mention of how bad things were under Batista, and how eagerly the Cubans welcomed Castro not only does a disservice to history, it does yoeman service to right-wing propaganda designed to demonize the Cubans as a bunch of commies. It is in the interest of the Cuban expatriate community in Florida to promote such a view, and to insist on a continued American embargo. Politics as usual here--the ratificaiton of minoritarian tyranny over policy.

Quote:

Do you seriously suggest that we "owe" Castro and Cuba anything after their systematic attempts to oppose and harm us for the last 45 years? Cuba is already returning to its former status as the brothel of the Caribbean, this time with a scattering of Canadians and Europeans as the "exploiters". Let them have it.

There is not the least suggestion in anything which i have written that we "owe" anything to Cuba. Neither are we under any obligation to hem them in with economic misery to cater to the squeaky wheels in New Havana . . . excuse me, i mean in Miami. You are so fond of claiming that Ray-gun "won" the cold war. If that is so, then why do we continue to indirectly punish the Cuban people? Do you not consider adult Americans competent to make their own vacation travel plans without imposing State Department restrictions? Or perhaps we are simply acting to provide Jeb Bush good re-election prospects by relying upon the Cuban vote in Florida.

"Exploiters" thought the Canadians and Europeans might be claimed as being, i rather suspect that the Cubans would like a good deal more of that variety of exploitation. "Brothel?" Really, O'George, do you have a basis for that contention (i.e., that Cuba is any worse than any other tropical vacation destination) or are you just cranking up your invective in anticipation of more slanging in this thread?

0 Replies

JTT, you are aware that co2andclimate.org is a "Greening Earth Society" website - which is a public relations and lobbying organization funded by the Western Fuels Association.

I've always found it astonishing that in the US there are so many people which would deny global warming, or deny it to be anthropogenic, whereas in most other western countries that seems to be the consensus indeed.

0 Replies

My reference to Moslem resistance had to do with the Moro rebellion of the early decades of the 20th century. This was, by far, the major resistance movement as far as the involvement of U.S. forces were concerned, and it was Moslem and centered in the Southern islands. You only assumed I referred to the Huk uprising, though my reference was clear enough. The Huks were, as you say, a longer-term and much less disruptive force. Land reform was certainly one of their goals, but in those days there were numerous competing and well-armed interests in that country. Have you ever been there?

Was it "warping the truth" to omit descriptions of Batista? Should I also have included a description of the Cuban insurrection that opened the 20th century; or perhaps a description of the Spanish colonial system; or the depredations of the Caribe and Siboney natives? Give us a break!

"How eagerly the Cubans welcomed Castro" - except for the million or more who left everything behind and came to the United States immediately after he took over, and the thousands since then who have risked their lives attempting to escape the socialist paradise.

My experience in other "tropical vacation destinations" has been that most of what one finds there is amateur, non-commercial, and the voluntary offerings of the tourists themselves. This is not what I read in descriptions of the Havana tourist scene.

0 Replies

Last time I checked, I wasn't able to see the least bit of a difference between countries like El Salvador, Honduras or Nicaragua, who had massive "help" from the US, and Cuba, who was and still is treated like the enemy. Well, yes, there's one difference: Food is incredibly expensive in Cuba, compared to other Central American countries.
But to assert that Cuba would be better of without Castro is something I seriously doubt. It would be better of without the embargo, most definitely. Just like other Latin American countries would have been better off without US involvement.

0 Replies

Your reference was not specific to the Moros, and it is incorrect to claim that the Moros were a more serious concern than the Huks. We fought the Huks for longer and used more resources to kill them than was the case with the Moros. Given that you were not more specific, my refernce to the Huks is understandable.

I find it hilarious that you ask if i have been to the Philippines, and then justify your description of the alleged immorality of the Cubans by reference to what you have read.

I haven't the least doubt that the thousands (not millions) who fled Cuba after it became apparent that Castro would set up a quasi-Stalinist regime were acting in their own self-interest. There were a sufficient number, although still a minority, who had a close interest in the Batista regime which would have made Cuba an unhealthy locale for them after 1960. Once again, i am not here to defend Castro. By all means, make reference to the Spanish regime and its concentration camps. Don't forget to mention the constant political turmoil and rapidly recurring insurrections which took hold of the island after the American victory in 1898. Be sure to point out how many times we sent troops in after 1898. Be sure to point out the amount of support we gave Batista after we helped set up his regime.

Life has been hard for most Cubans since the end of the Napoleonic wars, and the Carlist insurrection against Isabella beginning in 1833. The Carlists who were driven from Spain found homes in Mexico and Cuba--two countries which had reacted to peasant uprisings after 1809 by brutal repression, but which rebelled against Spanish rule once the liberal government of post-Napoleonic Spain was in place. In Mexico, they succeeded in their rebellion, and it took Juarez and the Army of the Reform to unseat their power in 1859. In Cuba, the Viceroy managed to suppress both the peasant uprisings after 1809, and the uprisings of the puros after 1833. But the Carlists infiltrated Cuba, and it became a reactionary stronghold after Isabelline forces finally went down to defeat in Spain in the Carlist uprising in 1868. But the Carlists were doomed, and the military incompetence of Don Juan de Bourbon lead to their defeat in the 1872-1876 war, when Isabella's son Alfonso took the throne in 1874.

Throughout the period 1833-1898, various Cuban representatives tried to enlist American military officers to lead an uprising. Most notably, Albert Sidney Johnston almost took the bait when he resigned from the army after the 1852 Mormon campaign in Utah. Just in the nick of time, however, he discovered, as had so many other candidates, that he would be pitting his skills against the forces of conservative reaction, and horror of horrors, would be fighting to end the illicit slave trade from Cuba, which had made good money for so many Southerners from the days of Jean and Pierre Lafitte right up to our civil war.

So yes, O'George, mention as many of the horrors of Cuban history which you are able to enlist, and then explain how an American embargo in any way serves to end the misery of the Cuban people.

0 Replies

My reference to the mostly Moslem insurrection in the Philippines was specific enough to refer unambiguously to the Moros. It was this rebellion that involved the great majority of the U. S. army's efforts there. You are a bit - how shall I say it - quick on the rhetorical trigger in this and other matters. (Ready, FIRE, Aim) Thank you though for the tutorial on the Huks - I'm sure your readings have shown you that is was the Philippine Army that did most of the fighting against them.

Of course the Cuban Middle class that fled after Castro took over was acting in its self-interest. What else? Their self-interest was not less important than that of those who stayed, or were unable to find their way out while leaving was still possible.

I agree the Cuban people have had a tough time from an historical perspective. However, that is not the sole or most important factor in the formulation of our policy towards them. Our embargo was placed after Castro allied himself with the USSR and made his island a base for their missiles and the export of revolutions that rather directly threatened us. The USSR is now long gone and poor old Fidel is the last person living who apparently still believes all that nonsense. He and Cuba are simply not worth the trouble that lifting the embargo would now entail.

0 Replies

Yes, bellicose old Arthur MacArthur was content to fight both Moro and Huk for eternity, but Taft had the wisdom to get us out of that potential quagmire--one of the many reasons Theodore Roosevelt took ubrage against Taft and considered that he had been betrayed. The reason Philippinos did most of the fighting against the Huks was because the departure of the Americans did nothing to end the insurrection of the Huks, which lasted from before the American landing until shortly after Marcos was deposed. Simple longevity in the conflict gives them the palm. First and last, the most pernicious insurrection in the Philippines was that of the Hukbalahaps, which is why your contention that the Moro uprising was unambiguously inferential is without basis. If you meant the Moros, you ought to have said as much.

I have not condemned self-interst as a principle, although i consider it to usually be applied in a short-sighted, unenlightened manner. And my point precisely was that those with the best opportunity escaped the consequences of the fall of Batista, leaving the majority of the Cuban nation to suffer the consequences of the American embargo. It is the continuation of that embargo to which i object, and i won't quibble if you contend that i had not made that clear.

That last line cracks me up . . . trouble for whom? Jeb Bush?

0 Replies

Today in Iraq

Quote:

Monday, May 09, 2005
War News for Monday, May 9, 2005

Bring 'em on: Nine Iraqi policemen and one civilian killed in car bomb attack in Baghdad.

Bring 'em on: Three marines and one sailor killed in car bomb attack in Haditha.

Bring 'em on: One soldier killed and another wounded in IED attack in Samarra.

Bring 'em on: One soldier killed by small arms fire in Samarra.

Bring 'em on: Two US service personnel killed in an IED attack in Khalidiyah.

Bring 'em on: Two Iraqi police officers and two civilians killed and nine injured in car bomb attack in Baghdad.

Bring 'em on: Several US soldiers severely injured in car bomb attack in Mosul.

Bring 'em on: One child killed and another seriously injured in landmine explosion in Al-Muthana.

over 300 dead in the last week alone

Dailywarnews.blogspot.com

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Audits find flaws in U.S. handling of Iraq deals

The United States has carelessly, and possibly fraudulently, handled some Iraqi money meant for rebuilding and poorly managed billions of dollars of U.S.-funded contracts, said U.S. audits released on Wednesday.

In one area of Iraq alone,, nearly $100 million in cash used for rebuilding was unaccounted for. Incompetence by U.S. procurement staff ranged from contractors being paid twice to files being misplaced.

Two Audits by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found flaws in how U.S. government and military officials ran contracts paid for by the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi money entrusted to the United States after the 2003 invasion.

A third audit looked at a small sample of U.S.-funded projects paid for with $18.4 billion appropriated by Congress to rebuild Iraq and found sloppy and disorganized administration of some of those deals.

"There was no assurance that fraud, waste, and abuse did not occur," all three audits said.

At the same time, contractors that went to Iraq "to help rebuild the devastated country", were doing their best too.

Isakson and William "Pete" Baldwin, the former Iraq country manager for Custer Battles, filed a federal whistle-blower suit last year, accusing the company of war profiteering and defrauding the government of at least $50 Million.

The company rejects those claims. "Custer Battles strongly denies that any of its corporate management or officers knowingly engaged in any improper conduct," the firm said, responding to a list of detailed questions e-mailed by The Associated Press

We shouldn't forget that Iraq is still paying for its mistakes. I think it's fair that Iraq should pay the the 5% of revenue that is still being deducted from all Iraqi oil sales to pay compensation, mostly to Kuwait.

But guess what, someone else is going to pay more compen$ation for bigger mistakes; bush, blair, and the rest of the gang.
Posted by: Raed Jarrar / 12:25 AM (98) comments

www.raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com

It seems that the war profiteering has hit record heights these days; and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

How many US dollars have been wasted or stolen in Iraq due to incompetent management?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have not condemned self-interst as a principle, although i consider it to usually be applied in a short-sighted, unenlightened manner. And my point precisely was that those with the best opportunity escaped the consequences of the fall of Batista, leaving the majority of the Cuban nation to suffer the consequences of the American embargo. It is the continuation of that embargo to which i object, and i won't quibble if you contend that i had not made that clear.

That last line cracks me up . . . trouble for whom? Jeb Bush?

I do agree with most of the first paragraph. There were thousands of summary political executions in Havana after Castro took over, and the fear of death was also a motivating factor for some.

I do enjoy your historical riffs - even if they are off point. ( I say that sincerely, goddamnit!)

The main practical reason for the cointuinuation of the embargo is to prevent our banks from lending money to Cuba, and thereby financing the pronongation of the ordeal of the people of that unfortunate island. When the collapse comes the economic cost of restoring the island will be very high. I doubt that Canada will undertake to pay it, despite their frequent thumbing their noses at us over Cuban issues. I can see no reason for this country to paty that cost either, though the problem will be on our shores.

The political activities of Cuban Americans in Florida to protect their self-interests are just as legitimate as those of anyone else here. They have been very productive and successful here and their political power is their right.

0 Replies

Governors of many states have objected that their constituents are denied trade opportunities by the embargo. Although i doubt that anything will come of it, because they do not act in a unified manner, if there were a collective response, it would be just as legitimate to overrule the self-interests in Little Havana.

EDIT: That you do not share my assessment of the meaning to be drawn from history does not mean that my "riffs" are off point. And damnit, i mean that in the most insincere and hypo . . . i mean . . . oh Hell, never mind . . .

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know