Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on December 04, 2002, 05:47:27 AM
-
From CNN.com
Car ownership is denied most Cubans and Castro suggested it may be denied the students, too.
"If we begin to see students with motorcycles, automobiles, etc., we are risking accidents," Castro warned. "The saddest thing that could happen is a case of death in an accident. We have the duty to protect you as much as possible."
Oh yes! We must protect you from accidents. Therefore we ban you from using cars!
Since life also is inherently dangerous, soon we shall implement a new law that'll ensure that selected individuals (who happen to disagree with Castro) will not live, and therefore not risk any of the many dangers in life!
Vive la revolución!
LOL
Castro is pretty cool because he has been a thorn in the side of a great many Americans.he's an amusing rambling old man outta touch with time, and he commits atrocities against his own people.
But this is just funny. LOL.
-
Cuba is a great holiday destination these days.
What atrocities does he commit against his own people, BTW? I'm genuinely interested.
-
There are a lot of people in the US who think this way too. I'm pretty sure that if we aren't vigiliant, we could see things like guns, cigarettes, booze, and fattening food banned in our lifetimes.
-
Funked Sssssssssshhhhhhhh!
Just be quiet, stay hidden and observe.
This could be a rare "Euro V Euro" argument, oft rumored, rarely seen. I've heard they can get quite violent. Got your camera?
Peharps the wary Santa will come in and sniff the atrocity bait laid out by the hungry Dowding.
:eek:
-
I just want Castro to keep living enough time to allow Cuba to become a big Spanish owned mega holidays resort before those pesky Yankees get to add yet another star to their flag, they just have been trying that for 102 years already.
-
I wonder if he'd already banned knives?
Its pretty funny what a government will try remove from the people in the name of "safety". I mean... its not like he's worried that transportation would mean people were able to meet in large groups or anything like that. Its all about safety.
AKDejaVu
-
Who the hell in Cuba can AFFORD a car/gas anyway? Besides the Party Leadership that is....
xBAT
-
Perhaps the US ought to lift the embargo and start trading? And join the rest of the world?
Some big killings in real estate to made over there.
Having said all that, in 20 years time Cuba will be just like Florida and will be a major destination for American holiday makers.
-
See?
I KNEW it! You guys scared off the Santa and now the Dowding is looking for new prey.
But even if he gets his claws into one, it won't be a Euro V Euro... it'll be the old Euro V Yank again. That one's on almost every channel........ this was a rare opportunity.
Gone now.
-
Bah, Santa is a wannabe US republican..he barely qualifies as a Euro.
Daff
-
Originally posted by Daff
Bah, Santa is a wannabe US republican..he barely qualifies as a Euro.
Daff
So you're saying anyone that isn't a socialist or communist wants to be a republican? I'll buy that...
-
I'd suggest that people who somehow think Castro is 'cool' or 'harmless' or 'okay' in any way go to 'little Havana' in Miami and have a discussion with people who have relatives who are still held in Cuba against their will or buried there due to 'government questioning' or 'execution for a valid reason', etc.
Old or not the guy is a scumbag. The U.S. (and other Nations) aren't against him 'because they don't like him'.
Even the Soviet Union became frightened of him, after he suggested that the Soviet nuclear weapons located in Cuba be placed under his (Castro's) control. He went into such a tatrum when they said 'no' that they were honestly concerned about him forcibly taking the weapons.
There's alot of data on Castro and Cuba that's becoming available via the FOIA. Well worth looking into - very interesting stuff.
Mike/wulfie
-
I agree Wulfie, however...
I think Castro would be long gone if the US had normalized relations 30 years ago. Nothing gives communism the screaming fits more than free trade and prosperity.
-
you tried on a couple of occasions to 'kick...kill...exterminate....remove....poisin....shot' la mista Castro.
1 man held off the BIG americano power at bay for over 20 years.
I say ya'll a bunch of rutabagas:D
pick on SADDAM then look for a new target...CASTRO!!
just invent a cuban super missile or something...we now little hitler(BUSH) will find a X-cuse to pick on em:eek:
-
Since Castro seized control of Cuba from Batista after a bloody revolution I wonder what his views on gun control would be?
Curious, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Even the Soviet Union became frightened of him, after he suggested that the Soviet nuclear weapons located in Cuba be placed under his (Castro's) control. He went into such a tatrum when they said 'no' that they were honestly concerned about him forcibly taking the weapons.
Frightened of Castro?! Giving him control over nuclear weapons?! Who told you this hallucinations?! Taking nuclear weapons by force? What for? Neither Castro or Soviet leaders were idiots.
Saudi Arabia that is a big friend of the US can give you 75 lashes for owning alcohol. Why can't Cubans say they don't allow students to drive cars? Anyway, 95% of Cubans don't care.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Anyway, 95% of Cubans don't care.
Because 99% of them don't have cars? ;)
-
LOL Toad!
Read carefully what Toad is saying, Boroda. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Because 99% of them don't have cars? ;)
So what? I don't have a car and never learned to drive. I simply don't need it.
I can sit and drink beer when someone else drives for me. I'll prefer Cuba to Saudi Arabia ;)
-
:D
-
Boroda: Neither Castro or Soviet leaders were idiots.
Please remind me who once tried to build socialism in Angola and Afghanistan respectfully? ;)
Giving him control over nuclear weapons?!
Where did China get its nuclear technology? India? Iran? Iraq? North Korea?
Why wouldn't Castro want a few? Is he worse than other one time soviet clients?
What for?
So that when Soviet Union turned traitor to the holy work of liberation of international propletariat, joined the enemy's camp and left Cuba all alone (not counting those wacky North Koreans) against the world capitalism, they would have some weapons to bargain with.
miko
-
Please remind me who once tried to build socialism in Angola and Afghanistan respectfully?
Do you really think USSR cared about socialism in Angola? It was a question of supporting one superpower or another. BTW "buliding socialism" in Angola was performed mostly by Cubans.
Where did China get its nuclear technology? India? Iran? Iraq? North Korea? Why wouldn't Castro want a few? Is he worse than other one time soviet clients?
China is a difficult question for me. I need to look for some sources. IMO breaking the alliance with China was the worst Mikita's mistake. BTW, when did China make a first test explosion? IIRC in early 80s they already had thermonuclear weapons.
India and Iran? They do have Soviet and Russian reactors. I doubt that USSR supplied them with breeders. BTW, the dirty American blackmail worked and forced Russia from signing contracts with Iran about new reactors...
Iraq?! They have nuclear technology?! Oh, sorry, your whitehouse looney is going to bomb them anyway... CV groups heading towards Persian Gulf eat too much money to simply turn them away.
North Korea? For them it's a question of national survival. But again I doubt they have breeding reactors bought from USSR.
Please remember that USSR signed a treaty for not spreading nuclear weapons, and, unlike the "land of free", we don't have a nice habbit of spitting on any agreement when it stops to satisfy us. If USSR/Russia helped someone to build a Bomb - then please show us your information and start bombing us like you did with poor Serbs. If you have guts.
So that when Soviet Union turned traitor to the holy work of liberation of international propletariat, joined the enemy's camp and left Cuba all alone (not counting those wacky North Koreans) against the world capitalism, they would have some weapons to bargain with.
Castro should have done anything to please his ally, having such an enemy so close could leave him helpless without Soviet support. And if both USSR and US considered his regime dangerous - nothing could save him.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
BTW, when did China make a first test explosion? IIRC in early 80s they already had thermonuclear weapons.
[/B]
Early 1965 I believe.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
It makes my day when Boroda graces us with his presence.
I'm smiling so hard my face hurts!
Hard to pick the best in this one though.
Could it be: "North Korea? For them it's a question of national survival."
or is it: "Please remember that USSR signed a treaty for not spreading nuclear weapons, and, unlike the "land of free", we don't have a nice habbit of spitting on any agreement when it stops to satisfy us. "
..and really, there's too many contenders.
What a great day!
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Early 1965 I believe.
-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]
Too late to be a Soviet assistance.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It makes my day when Boroda graces us with his presence.
I'm smiling so hard my face hurts!
Hard to pick the best in this one though.
Could it be: "North Korea? For them it's a question of national survival."
or is it: "Please remember that USSR signed a treaty for not spreading nuclear weapons, and, unlike the "land of free", we don't have a nice habbit of spitting on any agreement when it stops to satisfy us. "
..and really, there's too many contenders.
What a great day!
Thank you.
I kindly await for Your words of wisdom collected from the greatest Internet traditional propaganda trashcans and highly trusted tabloids.
(http://forum.exler.ru/vb/images/smilies/sla.gif)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I kindly await for Your words of wisdom collected from the greatest Internet traditional propaganda trashcans and highly trusted tabloids.
(http://forum.exler.ru/vb/images/smilies/sla.gif)
Yes, I know how reading historically accurate sources makes you hear those "Uncle Joe voices" in your head.
-
Boroda: Do you really think USSR cared about socialism in Angola? It was a question of supporting one superpower or another. BTW "buliding socialism" in Angola was performed mostly by Cubans.
Sorry, I hastily mistyped "respectfully" for "respectively" meaning that Castro was matched to Angola and USSR to Afghtnistan. :o
Please remember that USSR signed a treaty for not spreading nuclear weapons, and, unlike the "land of free", we don't have a nice habbit of spitting on any agreement when it stops to satisfy us.
Well, US does sometimes tend to openly "spit" on a treaty and withdraw from it / not renew it according to procedures specified in the treaty itself after giving a notice in advance in a period of time specified in the same treaty - unlike USSR which just violated them covertly without bothering with formalities.
If USSR/Russia helped someone to build a Bomb - then please show us your information and start bombing us like you did with poor Serbs. If you have guts.
I though US won the Cold War without bombing USSR. A lot of russians would probably disagree with you that today's Russia should be held accountable for the actions of USSR in the 70s - which is what we discuss here. Or that it's politics represent continuation of USSR politics.
Castro should have done anything to please his ally, having such an enemy so close could leave him helpless without Soviet support.
Which is exactly what happened - left helpless and destitute. Korea is fed by US/Japain/S. Korea because of nuclear blackmail. Castro is probably kicking himself for not being more persistent...
miko
-
October '64 was the first Chinese nuclear test.
In 1955 the USSR delivered an experimental nuclear reactor, but in 1957 the Soviets welched on a previous agreement when they decided they weren't going to provide the nuclear weapon sample and technical data on its manufacture that they had promised, after talks with the US.
Soviet military aid stopped after 1960, and the whole Sino-Soviet relationship went downhill throughout the 60s, the low point being the armed conflict in March 1969.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Soviet military aid stopped after 1960, and the whole Sino-Soviet relationship went downhill throughout the 60s, the low point being the armed conflict in March 1969.
Whoop, lost me there..what conflict?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whoop, lost me there..what conflict?
Border patrols mainly trading bullets.. sheesh where were you?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Border patrols mainly trading bullets.. sheesh where were you?
Ahh! (I was watching Neil Armstrong :D )
-
midnight Target: Border patrols mainly trading bullets.. sheesh where were you?
More like a few smal-scale wars really, by western standards, with batallions of troops and serious artillery bombardments.
Allegedely an island on the border river (Amur) was completely removed by Soviets to get rid of argued territory and avoid future conflicts. Of course it was never in the Soviet papers. Probably not Chinise either.
Belligerence of Chinese caused Soviets to bancrupt the country building a huge railroad to serve as a backup to the one close to the chinese territory and useless otherwise - kind like a second front to the West Cold War "exhaust the enemy economically without firing a shot" plan.
miko
-
Boroda, maybe you misunderstood my wording:
1. Soviet nuclear weapons on cuba (not complaining about this - we had them all over NWE).
2. Casto knows they are there - but under control of Soviet military.
3. Castro asks Soviet leadership if he can have control of nuclear weapons directly, because (his reasoning) "If U.S. invades might not be enough time for Soviets to receive clearance to launch from Moscow".
4. Soviets say "No" (this is a wise thing showing great responsibility in my and many other's eyes, 30+ years 'after the fact').
5. Castro gets pissed. Is insulted, etc.
6. Soviet Union, seeing his reaction, eventually withdraw weapons from Cuba due to the 'severity' of his reaction. They were concerned for the safety of the weapons. ~10,000 Russians on Cuba. Many more Cubans on Cuba.
Substite 'afraid' (of Castro) for 'worried about temperment and stability' (of Castro) maybe.
Information is from (heavily censored, to protect sources + methods) communications intercepts of the time, from U.S. intelligence and military intelligence files cleared under FOIA. It appears (with FOIA data in bibliography section) in at least 2 books in the last 5 years.
Mike/wulfie
-
Miko2d - most Americans are totally unaware of the battles you are speaking of. It's the post WW2 version of 'All German fighters were shot down by P-51s'. :)
You still need to email me at AH_wulfie@cox.net so I can ask you a couple of questions via email!
Mike/wulfie
-
To hold anyone but a handful of people in Russia responsible for anything during the cold war is stupid.
The whole point - the whole difference - between the 'democratic' U.S. and other Nations (U.K., Canada, Germany, etc.) and the U.S.S.R. was the fact that in the U.S.S.R. all the power was in the hands of, and all the decisions were made by the same small elite group of people and the rank and file of Soviet citizens had no say over what happened to them or what their Nation did. When they opposed something via demonstration they were brutally repressed with punishment totally unmatching any (perceived) offenses.
You can't fight a (cold) war to give people living behind 'an iron curtain' 'freedom of choice' and then turn around and blame them for what their totalitarian state did while they were at it's mercy, can you?
Most of the people involved in the most 'evil' acts commited by the Soviet Union are dead now anyways.
Mike/wulfie
-
Gonna try once more. Do you think the US embargo perpetuated Castro, or hurt him?
I think that without the embargo, Castro would have been gone along with the rest of the communist block.
-
Yah know... I think Castro saved almost every Cuban from the perils of overeating too.
'Cept maybe himself and a few of his close buddies that are probably risking it for the good of all Cubans.
-
yeah we have a lot of cleaning up to do... first the terrorists including castro.. don't forget the oil, we need the oil..
then I was thinking Canada.
Why? what's to stop us? Their military ?
I'm thinking a few more ski resorts, fishing spots and lots of land to drill for oil on... for starters.
-
You tried that once in 1812. :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whoop, lost me there..what conflict?
Hehe that's right - I forgot you guys were all spoon fed "international communist conspiracy" & "domino theory" and all that other cold war paranoia. In the meantime the "communist conspiracy" was shooting at each other. The same effect can be got today by putting Iran and Iraq together in "an axis of evil" :)
-
Hehe, and in the same time Soviet media told us about "Chinese regime, united with American imperialists...".
Miko, the border conflicts were not described in the media (since lat-70s they were only rarely mentioned, without any details), but I have some Politizdat books with detailed ananysis of Chinese revisionism and Maoism, together with cultural revolution and other things, with a foreword mentioning "recent events on Damanskiy island" as a result of the "politics of so-called 'great helmsman Mao'"...
In the 80s the anti-Chinese propaganda was almost stopped, but until mid-80s we were told different things like Chinese atmospheric thermonuclear test explosion at Soviet border etc. And Maoism was declared an enemy ideology on the political informations until that meetings stopped in 1989, but mentioned mostly when speaking about ultra-left terrorist organisations.
Border conflicts of different scales happened quite often even after the demarcation of border started in the 80s. Chinese border was the most dangerous place for border guards. One of my friends got wounded there in 88 during an inspection on a "questionable" territory.
-
castro used to believe in the right of the people to bear arms to overthrow tyranny from without and within but he has rethought his positions and now, like beetle, realizes that the home office is allways right and benevolent. No need for citizens to own firearms.
lazs
-
Heh Dowding, as I said I like the man because he's resisted all US attempts to overthrow him. That doesn't mean I don't think he's a total stunninghunk however.
Atrocities do not necessarily mean murders (although I'm pretty sure there's been a few of those). Atrocities to me is the imprisonment and torture of political prisoners, the subjugation of citizens and all the suffering he's caused to the Cuban people due to his outdated 'socialism'.
This comes from a biased source (being the US state department) but I've seen many of the things mentioned in here verified by sources such as Amnesty International. It's lengthy but well worth reading as it details out what I mean with 'atrocities'.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/5/1/143641
Beyond the deaths caused by guards and police (which aren't prosecuted), this snippet will serve as an illustration of what I mean:
'Chamber, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for "enemy propaganda" and "disrespect for government authority," regularly was denied family visits because of his insistence on treatment as a political rather than a common prisoner. '
First of all that you get 10 years for 'enemy propaganda' and 'disrespect for government authority'. Then to top it off no visits from family.
Dowding, regardless whether you see Fidel Castro as a hero or likeable (hell, I like the guy for being able to withstand the pressure from the US - and he might even have had good intentions with the revolution - I believe he did at the time) one CANNOT ignore the human rights abuses that take place in his anti-democracy totalitarian impoverished nation.
Oh about the 'wannabe republican' comment. I'm not a Yank, so the term doesn't apply. I'm a European liberal - that is, I support a minimalistic state, do not support the current socialistic welfare handouts that punish the responsible and award the lazy. If I was to pick a side in US politics it would be impossible, as I support the democrats in some areas (like abortion and medicare, environment) but the Republicans in others (requiring people to WORK for a living, defense spending, self reliance).
Uncontrolled capitalism isn't a good thing, but uncontrolled 'socialism' always lead to a totalitarian state where human rights are removed. Point me to one place where we now have a purely socialistic state that also is free, and I'll concede. I doubt you can, though.
-
People often crow about 'America's failure to kill Castro', which is not really a fair statement.
Every attempt (America, other Nation's intelligence services attempted to kill him on more than one occasion) made to kill Castro was made by Cuban citizens with the assistance of the CIA. Cuban citizens who were against the Castro regime were put into contact with CIA officers and a plan was formed.
As usual, with certain people's opinion of America, it's a no-win situation. The USSR/KGB would have done the 'more reprehensible' but far more intelligent and effective thing if they had to go after Castro - used their own personnel to make sure the job was done properly. Dirty? Yes. But the KGB has long known what it took the intelligence services of 'democratic' Nations (including the U.K.) more than 40 years to figure out - nothing in 'intelligence work' is ever clean, honorable, etc.
But the U.S. (and the CIA) tried to maintain an semblance of legality to their actions..."Freedom loving people of Cuba overthrowing a totalitarian regime with assistance from a decmocracy", etc. The Russians have been smarter when it comes to intelligence work from the late 1800s onward - they would have 'claimed' that the 'shooters', 'assassins', etc. were Cubans but the team conducting the assassination attempt would have been Russian personnel.
That's not evil in my book - it's the way it should be run if you are going to go to such extreme measures in the first place.
So on one hand, we have the U.S. failing to have Castro killed, which labels them as 'incompetent' *and* 'immoral'. Go the KGB way and you are only labeled 'immoral', and the label doesn't mean anything really - certain groups of people are going to label you 'immoral' *no matter what you do, and no matter how much restraint you show*.
Castro was almost (as in *really* almost) killed twice:
1. An FN-FAL, with specialized (for killing someone) ammunition and a telescopic sight was provided by the CIA to a group of Cubans. They had a time and a place where Castro would be 'in the open' in an area where plenty of positions perfect for a 'sniper' were available. The Cubans took the weapon but the attack was never conducted.
2. A member of the 'dining staff' for Castro was recruited by the CIA and given a very lethal poison. Literally, at the last moment (i.e. when Castro was about to eat poisoned food) the 'waiter' panicked and confessed. I can't recall what happened to him or his family (see below for a book reference that mentions his fate).
So in both cases the CIA was working with Cuban citizens who were apparently willing to kill Castro. Was it a failure on the part of U.S. intelligence - in my opinion, yes. If you are going to make the decision to kill a foreign head of state - if you resort to such extreme measures for whatever reason - then go all the way. The U.S. army at the time had no shortage of personnel that could have carried out the task.
It was a failure of will, not a lack of competency. Various people in various political positions in the U.S. weren't willing to do without complete 'plausible deniability'.
For a very detailed and unbiased look at the 'Bay of Pigs invasion' (Kennedy was in no way to blame - he was blatantly lied to by CIA leadership at the time, and believed the lies despite the DoD telling him the invasion in it's 'new form' could never succeed) and the entire story of the CIA from the end of WW2 (i.e. OSS) thru the first part of the U.S. involvement in SEA read:
'The Very Best Men'.
It's a book written by a reporter who is in no way a 'fan of the CIA' - but on a promise to attempt to be impartial he was given access to official CIA in-house historical data and other documents that were cleared on the spot under the FOIA specifially for his use in writing the above mentioned book.
Mike/wulfie
(edit: I mistakenly typed 'Cuban missile crisis instead of Bay of Pigs invasion' - the book mentioned does cover the Cuban missile crisis in depth however)
-
Wulfie, if Iraqi dictator, through one of his agencies, provided two disgruntled American citizens with, say, two tons of high explosives and the two citizens used it to kill a bunch of senators, would the US not say that Saddam wad responsible for the killings?
Osama Bin Laden didn't fly any planes into US buildings, yet he is held responsible for it.
If the CIA, which is a US agency, provided Cuban citizens with weapons that then were used in an assassination/assassination attempt, then they'd also be responsible unless you want double standards.
The US has tried to kill Castro - they've done so using foreign people true, but they have tried. they've not given it their best shot, but they HAVE tried, and failed. :)
-
Santa - Castro isn't a hero to me. Far from it. He's an undemocratic dictator - but the US embargo is laughably hypocritical. Jesus, you only need to look at all the dodgy characters the US has flung weapons at to see it. The UK does the same, but at least it's consistent. :D
The US does arms deals with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, FFS - check out Amnesty International's dossier on them!
Frankly, the embargo is an historical throw-back. Let the green-backs flood in and Castro will be gone within a decade.
Personally, Santa, my politics are very similar to yours. I'm a moderate socialist who believes in personal responsibility and social justice. I balance can be struck between those seemingly diametrically opposed concepts, IMO.
I have an intense dislike for reactionaries.
Lift the embargo, make some money. Cuba libre, por favor! ;)
-
Santa,
There is a difference between citizens under the rule of a totalitarian state, where people are tortured and executed and have no protection from the government, attempting to overthrow their dictator with assistance from another Nation
*and*
A Nation supplying citizens of a democracy with weapons to attack and kill the *elected officials* of that democracy
Are you really telling me that there is no difference between Castro and your average U.S. senator in terms of good vs. evil, accountability (elected vs. took power via force of arms, murder, etc.), etc.?
Here's one immediate difference - if 2 disgruntled citizens for some reason decided to get rifles from Iraq (becuase they wouldn't need to get them from Iraq - the U.S.A. is a relatively free and open society - almost anyone can buy a hunting rifle) and they did kill some U.S. senators, they'd receive a trial according to laws that attempt to be fair and they'd be guranteed legal representation.
Reverse the situation and the 2 'shooters' would be tortured, then killed - most likely along with their families to 'set an example' (it's happened before).
And there is no comparison with the attacks of 9/11, or any terrorist attack vs. noncombatants and an intelligence agency arming 'dissidents' to overthrow a tyrant.
The terrorists are targeting innocents in an attempt to disrupt a self-ruled society that recognizes and respects the rule of law.
The dissidents are trying to make such a society take the place of a brutal dictatorship.
In effect you are telling me that the Allies plans to assassinate Hitler are no 'better' in terms of good vs. evil than the CIAs attempts to equip Cuban citizens to kill Castro.
Castro is an evil man. He has personally killed innocents. He has directly authorized the torture, killing, and repression of innocents.
Go ahead and smile over the failed attempts to kill Castro. Go to little Havana in Miami and tell the Cubans living there that fled Castro's rule that you are glad he's still alive. Video tape it and I'll pay you (or your next of kin most likely) $100.
Mike/wulfie
-
Wulfie:
I simply go by the acts, not by the circumstances.
If A supplies B with weapons and C then says A is responsible for what B did, then so be it.
If the same happens once more, and C says B *isn't* responsible, then I call that double standards.
Other than that, agreed