As word of Fidel Castro's resignation as both president and commander in chief of Cuba was being broadcast on the news this morning I heard Bush talking about finally being able to bring peace and democracy to Cuba.
Raul Castro, Fidel's brother has been in charge since Summer 2006 - Has anyone noticed any changes in Cuba's stance since then? No...... I suspect things will stay much the same under Raul, as he is charged with being even more hardline than Fidel!
And I thought you wanted a kinder, gentler Bush. Need a diversion? We need to diplomatically take over Cuba and give their people the choice. I know what's happening in Iraq, but look what we did for our good neighbors, Cuba.
That's the problem - Americans know the history of Cuba that American propaganda has supported, not the REAL history of Cuba and why America has spread this propaganda for years and years. People, do a little independent research. Try to understand what Cuba was actually like before Castro and Che Guevara went in and fought with the Cuban people in the revolution. Understand how evil Batista was and the reason the US supported him - because he allowed US corporations to flourish there, exploiting the Cuban people and stealing their natural resources.
There is never just one side to any story. Doesn't it make you wonder why the US is often on the side of totalitarian dictators who allow their corporations free reign (for blood money) in their country, yet against others who happen to want the US out and their own people to own and run the resources of the country?
Educate yourselves - people are rarely the villians that the US corporate/government machine makes them out to be. And conversely there are MANY leaders far worse than Castro who the US plays nice with, including holding hands affectionately with the Bush family. Their cries against Castro in the name of democracy is a total sham in the face of these other hypocrisies.
I think it's time America minded her own business and stop sticking her nose where it doesn't belong! If they ask us to come and help, well then, okay. Otherwise, stay out!
The history of the Cuban exiles in So FL is mostly that of an oligarchy thrown out of their cushy deal with a totalitarian dictator who was at least as bad as Castro.
"a totalitarian dictator who was at least as bad as Castro. "
Gary - Batista was MUCH worse than Castro, but he was in the pocket of the US corporations who owned the major businesses and commanded the natural resources of Cuba. The US's policy towards Cuba was not based on whether or not the people of Cuba got a democracy, obviously, but whether or not the dictator in charge would allow US business to do as they please within Cuba.
Hey! Why don't we all move to Cuba since it's such a great place? We can start with Michael Moore and everyone else that thinks it's so much better than here.
With Castro out, it makes me wonder what many of the Socialists on Gather think about their shrinking world. And why in the world would these Leftists want to bring a failed ideology here?
Yes, you're absolutely right, Bret. It's comforting knowing that we now live in a society where most of the wealth is held in the top .01% of the country, where the children in poverty stats rise daily in almost every state, where you are free to get insanely wealthy, and also die during infancy at rates higher than any other civilized, western country. I thank my lucky stars everyday that we don't have any of those nasty socialist values here.
Bret, folks! Just another human example of the excellent propaganda machine that has rolled over the American intellect since the end of WWII.
I agree with Sheryl about Batista and the terrible conditions there pre-Castro. Jim is right about the mob too. Godfather II is all too accurate in respect to what was happening there. Castro was a nobody from nowhere but captured the people's imaginations, led them to a people's rebellion. And then crushed them.
Let's not paint every "enemy" of the United States as a saint just because we're critical of current administration. Castro has been nothing but a slug and thug since taking power. He tried to "protect himself" with short range nuclear missles which lead to the closest our world has ever been to annihilation (aptly called the Cuban Missle Crissis). When that failed, he mostly withdrew from the world scene even AFTER JFK promised Krushev that the US would never invade the island again.
Still, in relative safety for decades in power, Castro did NOTHING to better the plight of his impovrished nation.
Jim - Batista was banished in the 1950's are you really saying that "FL Cubans" are all in their 60's and 70s? Uhhhhh no. There's a reason tens of thousands of people have fled Cuba over the past 50 years. It SUCKS there. No communist government has EVER prospered. None. Even the USSR reformed but Cuba didn't.
Sorry folks. If you're gonna study history, bravo. The people here got most of it right....just don't cast the US to be the bad guy all the time...
Very well put, Stephen. And I hope you don't think that I am defending Castro's record after coming into power. He disappointed, exiled and/or executed many of the very people who fought beside him in the revolution because he did want absolute control. He was not equipped to be a leader of a country once in power and did what many do when they are lacking - he crushed those who criticized and questioned him.
I do, however, wish that people would read history from a number of viewpoints. Consider yourself in his shoes, in the shoes of the people who actually won the revolution in the early days of power. The country was in shambles, the business leaders, intellectuals, military and US supporters either left or were imprisoned. There was no structure on which to build. AND, the threats from the US were immediate and punitive in response to the wealth they he forced them to return to the Cuban people. He was left with a basically poor and uneducated populace to lead. And he turned to people with whom he felt an idealogical kinship - the Soviet Union. He knew very little about the people who ruled this country other than their professed belief in Marxism. He was young, inexperienced and idealistic. So, he reached out to them for some support - both humanitarian and military.
If we actually look at what happened, what he and his poor country of Cuba faced up against the US, a super power with more armament than the rest of the world put together, I don't think we can fault him for allying his country with the Soviets. When people recount the whole nuclear scare they make it sound like he was an equal or even greater match for the US - that's ridiculous and absurd.
I agree that people need some perspective - and that is what a lot of the conversation here on Gather surrounding this topic has lacked. People have been instantly ready to accept and support the total demonization of this man without taking a look at the evolution involved and how the US's response to the outcome of the revolution actually HELPED make Castro the stolid power he was for so many years in Cuba. Thank you for your measured, intelligent comments.
The idea of America is not to provide you with a job, a car, a house, and all the comforts of life. The idea of America is to give you the opportunity to earn all of those things on your own.
To demand the government provide those things to you is the reason we have a huge National Debt, a devalued currency, and inflation. Do you not understand the difference between the 2 examples?
Sheryl - totally agreed. Castro had ever reason to be paranoid of the US (is it paranoia if they really ARE out to get you? LOL). A funny gem of truth from a movie was Joe Pesci's character in JFK talking about the CIA's attempts to assasinate Castro. From poisoned food to exploding cigars.
It's funny/sad that people in our country are so uneducated about world events and our country's either positive or negative part in them when they make their value judgments. The modern-day example of "Cuba" is Iran. Golly Gee, I just can't imagine why they hate us so! (I say with obvious sarcasm).
As many don't know, the US propped up the Shah of Iran for many decades and the CIA either allowed or aided that dictatorship years of torture and murder that rivals what we've seen in Iraq. Yes, they deserve to mistrust if not hate us. And we're the ones who refuse to open dialogue with them based on the hostage situation of 1980? Not that two wrongs make a right but shouldn't we live in today and try and move forward?
Bret, while I agree with your first statement wholeheartedly, I don't understand your second one. How could having a huge debt, devalued currency and inflation be caused by something that we haven't done and haven't even attempted?
"To demand the government provide those things to you is the reason we have a huge National Debt, a devalued currency, and inflation. Do you not understand the difference between the 2 examples?"
I don't believe anyone argued for this position Bratboy. If you want the reasons for all those things, though, you need look no farther than Pennsylvania Avenue, though. Bush policy is the reason we have those wonderful things. Who else, since he's been in charge to preside over it all becoming a reality?
It's a pickle - Brit - you're day is done - you're gone with the son of a bush - out of date - out of touch and out of anything remotely related to reality.
Bret : "To demand the government provide those things to you is the reason we have a huge National Debt, a devalued currency, and inflation. Do you not understand the difference between the 2 examples?"
"Bret, while I agree with your first statement wholeheartedly, I don't understand your second one. How could having a huge debt, devalued currency and inflation be caused by something that we haven't done and haven't even attempted?"
Stephen Prosapio -
Overspending, starting with the Truman administration, put us on a path of deficit spending that will seemingly never end. No President seems immune to it - Democrat or Republican. We have inflation, a weak dollar, and a huge National Debt mainly due to outrageous Entitlement programs that soak up a majority of the U.S. budget each year. Without those debts, we'd have a Surplus each year, especially with the robust growth we've had in the last 45 years.
Don, not sure I would go quite that far. There is some evidence that Cuban intelligence and the CIA were in a race to see who could assasinate the other's head of state first, and Kennedy's boys lost the race. But, it is assinine that we continue to embargo Cuba but let Wal-Mart litter its shelves with products from Communist China -- comparatively speaking the Red Chinese directly or indirectly killed off ever so many more Americans that Fidel ever did.
Why would Mr. Bush send troops to Cuba? There's nothing left to take over, and the people there are tired of the ongoing poverty. Almost half the population is under 21, and they want prosperity, not mere subsistence. This alone will be good motivation to let "La Revoluccion" die of incompetence.............and it costs nothing to do.
Deficit spending has never been greater than under George W. Bush. It is about the war silly - not the entitlement programs. You are not understanding the reality here in the states. You have much to say about things, Bret, but you miss the forest for the trees.
Total entitlements in the 2007 budget were $1.55 TRILLION. And that's not even taking into account the amount of interest we have to pay on those entitlements. OUCH!
The trees ARE the forest, Joe. Don't miss the low-hanging branches or they'll smack you in the face when you're attention is diverted.
I would like to recommend the book "Where Does the Money Go?" to you who think you know exactly what is causing our federal budget problems and think you know how to fix them. Check out the interview with the authors on:
It's a very interesting, factual, and somewhat discouraging discussion. While you are both correct in part, the fact that you are only partially right, but insisting that you are fully right is the main reason why no one in DC is actually addressing this problem and it is getting worse and worse everyday.
Our reps need to stop the finger pointing and start getting down to work resolving this or we are very soon going to be in irreversible sh*t. There are many trees here that need to be dealt with.. When people insist that only spending needs to be dealt with, but taxes can be cut, THEY ARE WRONG. When people insist that only taxes need to be dealt with, spending can continue as it has been going, THEY ARE WRONG.
And it does not help to say, Bret, that "liberal democrats" are the spenders - Joe is corrrect is saying that spending has risen dramatically over the Republican majority years since 2000. So, stop the name calling and get real. This is a problem for us all and the answer can only lie in BOTH spending cuts and tax increases.
There are very few people that I flatly refuse to listen to due to their known extremist positions. Michael Moore comes to mind, Noam Chomsky is dubiously on the list, Hugo Chavez slithers to the surface..............and known bubble-head Bill Moyers says "present". At one time he was a respected Liberal journalist. However, that was a long time ago. After so many flawed hit-pieces, he's was voted into the Hall of Shame in 2005 on the first ballot, unanimously. He may have something reasonable to say once in a blue moon, but I'd rather not be forced to wade through a slimy dumpster of misinformation before finding a chicken bone of truth.
i'm so happy to see others that are willing to look at things from more than one perspective. i wanted to comment, but you guys have summed up my position nicely.
Umh, there is not much question that the tax cuts wiped out the surplus, and the war coupled with defense spending put us in the red. The de ja vu all over again. Same thing happened when Reagan tried to cut taxes and increased defense spending in order to bankrupt the USSR. The stupidity is that we did the same thing again and expected different results. You can't decrease taxes and increase spending and think that you are not going to go in the red. The question is not really whether we can live without the spending -- we can't or we would be in more serious problems than we are now. The question is do we keep taxes at a level to cover the spending, or do we just print paper. Bush opted to just print paper. The responsible thing to do is reinstate the taxes and then fight over what we are going to spend the money on planes and bombs or education and healthcare. To me its a no brainer, but apparently I don't understand thinking on the beltway.
Deb I meant that with the idiot in chief's Iraq fiasco that the boy scouts is all that is left for him to make anymore illegal/immoral invasions with ,sheesh. Also the troops are not being maimed or killed for me , I have no defense or oil stock.
What a short-sighted, self-serving, "me me me" attitude you have!
Very few of the troops in Iraq have oil or defense stocks either. Maybe you should talk to one, occasionally. You'll find out that most are highly patriotic and love serving their country, even when it entails protecting nimrods like you........LOL.
I know you've run into this Left Wing kook, Don, a few times. He's aggravating in his naybobbery. He's just so anti-American in everything that he says. The worst thing is that he tries to wrap himself up in the American flag just to say something anti-American. Fortunately, these Comrades aren't too bright about their tactics............they're completely transparent.........and sometimes downright childish. But funny - LOL.
So, Bret - Why hasn't GWB shrunk the size of government? Why has GWB increased the public debt threefold? You rant about the left and miss the entire message. I think your bias gets in the way of clear thinking.
The soldiers are fighting for our rights. No one can argue with that. But, remember that the mission isn't necessarily a good one just because we have soldiers fighting. That kind of blind patriotism is just plain kooky.
Bret, your true conservatives tend to turn out to be as big of spenders as any liberal -- the only difference is how they spend and whether they are courageous enough to raise revenues to cover the spending. Reagan and Bush have made it very clear that the only difference is what they spend on and have showed extreme irresponsibility with respect to raising revenues to cover the spending -- in fact they decreased revenues and expected some kind of misguided market-theory based miracle to bail them out. I prefer to have the domestic spending and fiscal responsibility -- that is not going to come from any conservative presently in the field, except Ron Paul and his policies are a bit....
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 55
Cuba has better schools, better healthcare and a lower mortality rate than the USA.
People speak against Bush here all the time so does that mean that another leader should come invade us?
That's the problem - Americans know the history of Cuba that American propaganda has supported, not the REAL history of Cuba and why America has spread this propaganda for years and years. People, do a little independent research. Try to understand what Cuba was actually like before Castro and Che Guevara went in and fought with the Cuban people in the revolution. Understand how evil Batista was and the reason the US supported him - because he allowed US corporations to flourish there, exploiting the Cuban people and stealing their natural resources.
There is never just one side to any story. Doesn't it make you wonder why the US is often on the side of totalitarian dictators who allow their corporations free reign (for blood money) in their country, yet against others who happen to want the US out and their own people to own and run the resources of the country?
Educate yourselves - people are rarely the villians that the US corporate/government machine makes them out to be. And conversely there are MANY leaders far worse than Castro who the US plays nice with, including holding hands affectionately with the Bush family. Their cries against Castro in the name of democracy is a total sham in the face of these other hypocrisies.
What's he up to?
Gary - Batista was MUCH worse than Castro, but he was in the pocket of the US corporations who owned the major businesses and commanded the natural resources of Cuba. The US's policy towards Cuba was not based on whether or not the people of Cuba got a democracy, obviously, but whether or not the dictator in charge would allow US business to do as they please within Cuba.
And why in the world would these Leftists want to bring a failed ideology here?
Bret, folks! Just another human example of the excellent propaganda machine that has rolled over the American intellect since the end of WWII.
I agree with Sheryl about Batista and the terrible conditions there pre-Castro. Jim is right about the mob too. Godfather II is all too accurate in respect to what was happening there. Castro was a nobody from nowhere but captured the people's imaginations, led them to a people's rebellion. And then crushed them.
Let's not paint every "enemy" of the United States as a saint just because we're critical of current administration. Castro has been nothing but a slug and thug since taking power. He tried to "protect himself" with short range nuclear missles which lead to the closest our world has ever been to annihilation (aptly called the Cuban Missle Crissis). When that failed, he mostly withdrew from the world scene even AFTER JFK promised Krushev that the US would never invade the island again.
Still, in relative safety for decades in power, Castro did NOTHING to better the plight of his impovrished nation.
Jim - Batista was banished in the 1950's are you really saying that "FL Cubans" are all in their 60's and 70s? Uhhhhh no. There's a reason tens of thousands of people have fled Cuba over the past 50 years. It SUCKS there. No communist government has EVER prospered. None. Even the USSR reformed but Cuba didn't.
Sorry folks. If you're gonna study history, bravo. The people here got most of it right....just don't cast the US to be the bad guy all the time...
I do, however, wish that people would read history from a number of viewpoints. Consider yourself in his shoes, in the shoes of the people who actually won the revolution in the early days of power. The country was in shambles, the business leaders, intellectuals, military and US supporters either left or were imprisoned. There was no structure on which to build. AND, the threats from the US were immediate and punitive in response to the wealth they he forced them to return to the Cuban people. He was left with a basically poor and uneducated populace to lead. And he turned to people with whom he felt an idealogical kinship - the Soviet Union. He knew very little about the people who ruled this country other than their professed belief in Marxism. He was young, inexperienced and idealistic. So, he reached out to them for some support - both humanitarian and military.
If we actually look at what happened, what he and his poor country of Cuba faced up against the US, a super power with more armament than the rest of the world put together, I don't think we can fault him for allying his country with the Soviets. When people recount the whole nuclear scare they make it sound like he was an equal or even greater match for the US - that's ridiculous and absurd.
I agree that people need some perspective - and that is what a lot of the conversation here on Gather surrounding this topic has lacked. People have been instantly ready to accept and support the total demonization of this man without taking a look at the evolution involved and how the US's response to the outcome of the revolution actually HELPED make Castro the stolid power he was for so many years in Cuba. Thank you for your measured, intelligent comments.
The idea of America is not to provide you with a job, a car, a house, and all the comforts of life. The idea of America is to give you the opportunity to earn all of those things on your own.
To demand the government provide those things to you is the reason we have a huge National Debt, a devalued currency, and inflation. Do you not understand the difference between the 2 examples?
It's funny/sad that people in our country are so uneducated about world events and our country's either positive or negative part in them when they make their value judgments. The modern-day example of "Cuba" is Iran. Golly Gee, I just can't imagine why they hate us so! (I say with obvious sarcasm).
As many don't know, the US propped up the Shah of Iran for many decades and the CIA either allowed or aided that dictatorship years of torture and murder that rivals what we've seen in Iraq. Yes, they deserve to mistrust if not hate us. And we're the ones who refuse to open dialogue with them based on the hostage situation of 1980? Not that two wrongs make a right but shouldn't we live in today and try and move forward?
:-)
I don't believe anyone argued for this position Bratboy. If you want the reasons for all those things, though, you need look no farther than Pennsylvania Avenue, though. Bush policy is the reason we have those wonderful things. Who else, since he's been in charge to preside over it all becoming a reality?
"Bret, while I agree with your first statement wholeheartedly, I don't understand your second one. How could having a huge debt, devalued currency and inflation be caused by something that we haven't done and haven't even attempted?"
Stephen Prosapio -
Overspending, starting with the Truman administration, put us on a path of deficit spending that will seemingly never end. No President seems immune to it - Democrat or Republican. We have inflation, a weak dollar, and a huge National Debt mainly due to outrageous Entitlement programs that soak up a majority of the U.S. budget each year. Without those debts, we'd have a Surplus each year, especially with the robust growth we've had in the last 45 years.
Why would Mr. Bush send troops to Cuba? There's nothing left to take over, and the people there are tired of the ongoing poverty. Almost half the population is under 21, and they want prosperity, not mere subsistence. This alone will be good motivation to let "La Revoluccion" die of incompetence.............and it costs nothing to do.
Defense spending in the 2007 budget is $439 billion.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/defense.html
Total entitlements in the 2007 budget were $1.55 TRILLION. And that's not even taking into account the amount of interest we have to pay on those entitlements. OUCH!
The trees ARE the forest, Joe. Don't miss the low-hanging branches or they'll smack you in the face when you're attention is diverted.
I would like to recommend the book "Where Does the Money Go?" to you who think you know exactly what is causing our federal budget problems and think you know how to fix them. Check out the interview with the authors on:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2008/02/where_does_and_should_the_mone.html
It's a very interesting, factual, and somewhat discouraging discussion. While you are both correct in part, the fact that you are only partially right, but insisting that you are fully right is the main reason why no one in DC is actually addressing this problem and it is getting worse and worse everyday.
Our reps need to stop the finger pointing and start getting down to work resolving this or we are very soon going to be in irreversible sh*t. There are many trees here that need to be dealt with.. When people insist that only spending needs to be dealt with, but taxes can be cut, THEY ARE WRONG. When people insist that only taxes need to be dealt with, spending can continue as it has been going, THEY ARE WRONG.
And it does not help to say, Bret, that "liberal democrats" are the spenders - Joe is corrrect is saying that spending has risen dramatically over the Republican majority years since 2000. So, stop the name calling and get real. This is a problem for us all and the answer can only lie in BOTH spending cuts and tax increases.
There are very few people that I flatly refuse to listen to due to their known extremist positions. Michael Moore comes to mind, Noam Chomsky is dubiously on the list, Hugo Chavez slithers to the surface..............and known bubble-head Bill Moyers says "present". At one time he was a respected Liberal journalist. However, that was a long time ago. After so many flawed hit-pieces, he's was voted into the Hall of Shame in 2005 on the first ballot, unanimously. He may have something reasonable to say once in a blue moon, but I'd rather not be forced to wade through a slimy dumpster of misinformation before finding a chicken bone of truth.
"So, stop the name calling and get real. This is a problem for us all and the answer can only lie in BOTH spending cuts and tax increases."
You're forgetting the most obvious solution, Sheryl. We could always shrink the size of government. Or is that just not a popular idea these days?
i'm so happy to see others that are willing to look at things from more than one perspective. i wanted to comment, but you guys have summed up my position nicely.
PEACE
Also the troops are not being maimed or killed for me , I have no defense or oil stock.
"And yet your hero has grown government by more than any other, Bratboy."
Precisely why we need a true Conservative in the White House, and not a part-time one. Unfortunately, that will have to be in 2012.
What a short-sighted, self-serving, "me me me" attitude you have!
Very few of the troops in Iraq have oil or defense stocks either. Maybe you should talk to one, occasionally. You'll find out that most are highly patriotic and love serving their country, even when it entails protecting nimrods like you........LOL.
I know you've run into this Left Wing kook, Don, a few times. He's aggravating in his naybobbery. He's just so anti-American in everything that he says. The worst thing is that he tries to wrap himself up in the American flag just to say something anti-American. Fortunately, these Comrades aren't too bright about their tactics............they're completely transparent.........and sometimes downright childish. But funny - LOL.
The soldiers are fighting for our rights. No one can argue with that. But, remember that the mission isn't necessarily a good one just because we have soldiers fighting. That kind of blind patriotism is just plain kooky.