Us Gov.

[Peace]

Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Egypt
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Yemen
Syria
Sudan
Somalia
Saudi Arabia
Russia and Chechnya
Qatar
Oman
Pakistan
Mexico
Malaysia
Libya
What the US is doing in all this country …how gave the us the authority to be the world`s police to.

Do you want to convene me that all this people are “Tourism “ ... yah you will be a “Tourism" of you didnt Obey them ...

Why President John Kennedy was killed … simply just because he didn’t want the war.

5000 helicopter were sold by one company in Vietnam War …you can imagine the profit …don’t forget spare parts and maintenance .
What the USA is still doing in IRQA … why US supported saddam until the 1998
And why they supported binladden????????????

THE PEOPLE HOW ARE GOVERNING THE US ARE A BUNCH OF COMPNIE`S MANGERS HOW IS USING THERE POWER TO DO WHAT EVER THEY WANT …USING THE CAUSE THAT THEY MADE “11 OF SEPTEMBER” TO PENTRATE ANY PLACE …TO DO ANY THING THAT THEY WANT …OR WHO IS THE IDEOT THAT WILL BELIEVE THAT TWO GUYS WHO CAME FROM A CAVE AND READ A MANNULE FOR FLYING A PLANE WILL DRIVE A PLAN TO HIT IN THIS ACCOURETE WAY


they are using the TV to wash your minds people be carefull

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Every time a representative brings up the idea of getting the hell out someone from the opposite party screams ISOLATIONISM and that&#39;s the end of subject.
With todays modern communications, you are hardly practicing isolationism by not having a physical presence in any local. :helpsmile:

[alpha]

"they are using the TV to wash your minds" :D
I didnt know my TV served sanitary purposes.

[Busyman]

My first post was a flame and it got deleted. Rightly so I guess.

Let me say that this poster would have a point if it was more COHERENT&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:

[J'Pol]

I have suggested this before.

Let the USA leave every country in the world, other than their own. Remove every embassy, stop every aid programme, take US controlled jobs out of every other country.

Then close it borders for 10 years, no buying goods from foreign countries, no helping people, no foreign aid, no policing. No excuse for other people to commit atrocities on their soil.

See how the world gets on without them. I think we would hear a very different story then. I am sick of constant USA bashing, they are not perfect, but neither are they responsible for everybody else&#39;s problem.

[vidcc]

As hard as it is to believe it&#39;s a 2 way street and the USA needs the world especially the oil producing areas more than they need us.
In answer to how the world would be if the USA shut itself off, yes it would be very different. As to the difference being good or bad will always be a matter of opinion, certainly US foriegn policy leaves something to be desired and it has been suggested in other topics that the US tends to intervene only when it suits us ... when we can benefit from it
There is a fine line between helping, interfering and occupation. The trick is getting it right which even with the best intentions is almost impossible. The USA isn&#39;t responsible for everyone else&#39;s problems but it is for quite a few.
We will throw fuel on the fire if it is to our benefit, and i think it is essential that the rest of the world is audible and keeps us in check if we do so for the sake of humanity, otherwise we will just become the thing that we are supposed to be opposed to the most..a dictatorship

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@30 March 2004 - 18:58
I have suggested this before.

Let the USA leave every country in the world, other than their own. Remove every embassy, stop every aid programme, take US controlled jobs out of every other country.

Then close it borders for 10 years, no buying goods from foreign countries, no helping people, no foreign aid, no policing. No excuse for other people to commit atrocities on their soil.

See how the world gets on without them. I think we would hear a very different story then. I am sick of constant USA bashing, they are not perfect, but neither are they responsible for everybody else&#39;s problem.
:blink: WOW&#33;&#33;&#33; :blink:

(and that&#39;s from a foreigner)

We did try minding our business before WWII and BAM&#33;&#33;&#33;...Pearl Harbor....the rise of Hitler.....

Unfortunately, if the US goes down, there will be much more anarchy than we create.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman+31 March 2004 - 00:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 31 March 2004 - 00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@30 March 2004 - 18:58
I have suggested this before.

Let the USA leave every country in the world, other than their own. Remove every embassy, stop every aid programme, take US controlled jobs out of every other country.

Then close it borders for 10 years, no buying goods from foreign countries, no helping people, no foreign aid, no policing. No excuse for other people to commit atrocities on their soil.

See how the world gets on without them. I think we would hear a very different story then. I am sick of constant USA bashing, they are not perfect, but neither are they responsible for everybody else&#39;s problem.
:blink: WOW&#33;&#33;&#33; :blink:

(and that&#39;s from a foreigner)

We did try minding our business before WWII and BAM&#33;&#33;&#33;...Pearl Harbor....the rise of Hitler.....

Unfortunately, if the US goes down, there will be much more anarchy than we create. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m not a foreigner, you are.

Incidentally I always thought that Pearl Harbour was an attack by the Japanese forces, one lives and learns. I also believed it to be after Hitler&#39;s major activities in Europe, again a teaching point for me.

From what you say one would be led to suspect that the USA only joined in when it was attacked, rather than supporting it&#39;s allies.

Who on earth would become involved in a war when they had not themselves been attacked, but a friend had. Who would display that sort of loyalty.

[Biggles]

J&#39;Pol

I would agree that if the US adopted a strictly isolationist policy it would severely disrupt the world economy for some time. However, there would be a market of 5.7 billion outside this zone and only 0.3 within it. With US competition out of the way other businesses would have considerable scope to expand - it would certainly present the EU a gift wrapped opportunity. I think it would be a very brave US President that told Texaco and Coca Cola that they were not going outside the US boundaries anymore.

I can&#39;t get into a real lather about globalisation, but it would be a foolish government (or an extremely brutal one) that thought it could simply turn the economic tap off.

What would an isolationist US be like to live in? Well there may be more jobs (as all the stuff made outside would have to be made in the US) but petrol and other previously imported commodities would be expensive. The net effect would be an altogether slower economic cycle. This might please some.

One thing is for sure, the rich would stay rich and the poor would certainly still be poor. There was great wealth in the pre WW2 US but there was also grinding rural poverty. Isolationism served some but as a whole the country was underperforming. I think it would return to a similar position.

Of course, I am sure existing multi-nationals would, in reality, adjust their overseas businesses to get around any form of self imposed exile. US business is not in the world economy to win friends, it is there because there is serious money to be made.


:-"


I have to confess, I did not really understand the first post in this thread.

[J'Pol]

Biggles,

Agreed and see my last.

The post was not intended for the thinkers, more for those who spend their energy seeking scapegoats rather than solutions.

[Biggles]

:lol:

Ahh&#33; the broader perspective.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+30 March 2004 - 20:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 30 March 2004 - 20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@31 March 2004 - 00:46
<!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@30 March 2004 - 18:58
I have suggested this before.

Let the USA leave every country in the world, other than their own. Remove every embassy, stop every aid programme, take US controlled jobs out of every other country.

Then close it borders for 10 years, no buying goods from foreign countries, no helping people, no foreign aid, no policing. No excuse for other people to commit atrocities on their soil.

See how the world gets on without them. I think we would hear a very different story then. I am sick of constant USA bashing, they are not perfect, but neither are they responsible for everybody else&#39;s problem.
:blink: WOW&#33;&#33;&#33; :blink:

(and that&#39;s from a foreigner)

We did try minding our business before WWII and BAM&#33;&#33;&#33;...Pearl Harbor....the rise of Hitler.....

Unfortunately, if the US goes down, there will be much more anarchy than we create.
I&#39;m not a foreigner, you are.

Incidentally I always thought that Pearl Harbour was an attack by the Japanese forces, one lives and learns. I also believed it to be after Hitler&#39;s major activities in Europe, again a teaching point for me.

From what you say one would be led to suspect that the USA only joined in when it was attacked, rather than supporting it&#39;s allies.

Who on earth would become involved in a war when they had not themselves been attacked, but a friend had. Who would display that sort of loyalty. [/b][/quote]
Uh no you are not from the US so I don&#39;t know where the smart assed remarks are from. Typical J&#39;Polism.

Had the US been involved early Pearl Harbor might not have happened and neither the rise of Hitler....and who said those two were in chronological order anyway?

Yes, the US joined when they were attacked...but you already knew that. J&#39;Polism at it&#39;s very best. Before that the had embargos on Japan.

Hey man, nice going. ;)

[vidcc]

it&#39;s actually an interesting "what if" saying that if America had entered the war sooner the rise of hitler might not have happened. Back in those days the US, even though it was a formidable force, wasn&#39;t the superpower that it is now. Possibly if Hitler didn&#39;t over extend his armies with the war on the soviets things might have been different on the Eropean front. Hitler certainly had a strong army and arguabley better equiped in the early stages (an example would be tanks).
the USA entering the war was probably the ultimate saving event for the allied forces and could possibly have ended it sooner had it done so earlier but it may not have been as easy as some would like to think it was.

[Peace]

Regarding to “What If” I completely believe that if the US leaves the countries that the are in right now …and never interfere by any how ... this countries will live very good, we can imagine how things were before 30, at least there is no starvation in Africa.

Most of the African countries that we see on TV suffering from disease and starvations are very very rich countries in minerals like gold copier and other precious things like uranium and many many things, why do you think that governments are fighting secretly on those country and making all the sacrifices and spending all this money and souls …JUST for peace …that is nonsense.

Lets take Sudan for example: have 35 million goats, 32 million of sheep, 20 million camels, there are growing wheat with a very great quality that can beat the American wheat …but the wheat is an American exclusivity …they have the most fertile soil in the whole world people ..Yah naturally … and when they show it to you on TV they show all the poverty and the starvations …just to keep them under control ..Other wise they will be a great competitor for US in agricultural and other countries will strat shiffting to them and every on will be independant …WAKE-UP people... the people who are rolling are Merchants :angry: … I will not mention here any other resources like massive water, other minerals …. I am not kidding when I am saying that they are washing your brains on the TV … they are sociological doctor and consultant the big channels just to manipulate with each news to make sure that they will achieve their mission.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Peace@31 March 2004 - 02:32
Regarding to “What If” I completely believe that if the US leaves the countries that the are in right now …and never interfere by any how ... this countries will live very good, we can imagine how things were before 30, at least there is no starvation in Africa.

Most of the African countries that we see on TV suffering from disease and starvations are very very rich countries in minerals like gold copier and other precious things like uranium and many many things, why do you think that governments are fighting secretly on those country and making all the sacrifices and spending all this money and souls …JUST for peace …that is nonsense.

Lets take Sudan for example: have 35 million goats, 32 million of sheep, 20 million camels, there are growing wheat with a very great quality that can beat the American wheat …but the wheat is an American exclusivity …they have the most fertile soil in the whole world people ..Yah naturally … and when they show it to you the show all the poverty and the starvations …just to keep them under control ..Other wise they will be a great competitor for use in agricultural …WAKE-UP people the people who are rolling are Merchants … I will not mention here any other resources like massive water, other minerals …. I am not kidding when I am saying that they are washing your brains on the TV … they are sociological doctor and consultant the big channels just to manipulate with each news to make sure that they will achieve their mission.
Good lord man, many of those countries have corrupt governments,

Do you think the "people" are gaining from these natural resources and riches?

I must be brainwashed.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@31 March 2004 - 07:37

I must be brainwashed.
Agreed.

Even when people try to defend your country your immediate reactions are condescension and a display of your superiority complex. It&#39;s rather sad, you seem like a decent spud otherwise.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+31 March 2004 - 03:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 31 March 2004 - 03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@31 March 2004 - 07:37

I must be brainwashed.
Agreed.

Even when people try to defend your country your immediate reactions are condescension and a display of your superiority complex. It&#39;s rather sad, you seem like a decent spud otherwise. [/b][/quote]
Well if you were as smart as you think you are there wasn&#39;t a condescending statement there.

What? You were offended by "foreigner"? :blink:

I originally thought what you said was rather nice and refreshing coming from someone outside the US.

But alas here&#39;s J&#39;Pol, offended about nothing.
I was in agreement with you #&#33;#%&#036;#@#&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Also where is the superiority complex. :huh:

[cpt_azad]

Originally posted by Busyman+30 March 2004 - 22:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 30 March 2004 - 22:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Peace@31 March 2004 - 02:32
Regarding to “What If” I completely believe that if the US leaves the countries that the are in right now …and never interfere by any how ... this countries will live very good, we can imagine how things were before 30, at least there is no starvation in Africa.

Most of the African countries that we see on TV suffering from disease and starvations are very very rich countries in minerals like gold copier and other precious things like uranium and many many things, why do you think that governments are fighting secretly on those country and making all the sacrifices and spending all this money and souls …JUST for peace …that is nonsense.
&nbsp;
Lets take Sudan for example: have 35 million goats, 32 million of sheep, 20 million camels, there are growing wheat with a very great quality that can beat the American wheat …but the wheat is an American exclusivity …they have the most fertile soil in the whole world people ..Yah naturally … and when they show it to you the show all the poverty and the starvations …just to keep them under control ..Other wise they will be a great competitor for use in agricultural …WAKE-UP people the people who are rolling are Merchants … I will not mention here any other resources like massive water, other minerals …. I am not kidding when I am saying that they are washing your brains on the TV … they are sociological doctor and consultant the big channels just to manipulate with each news to make sure that they will achieve their mission.
Good lord man, many of those countries have corrupt governments,

Do you think the "people" are gaining from these natural resources and riches?

I must be brainwashed. [/b][/quote]
who says the american gov&#39;t isn&#39;t corrupt? just a thought :-"

P.S. how did george w bush win again? specifically the details about florida.


oh, one last comment for busyman, since ur american, it maybe of no surprise to you that there are members on this board that are from different countries that have different opinions and thoughts on the U.S., so please, don&#39;t be "so" biased :) . and for the love of god, no more of this "U.S. is the enemy" crap posts please, i&#39;m sick and tired of it, all these posts lead in flaming replies which evidently end no where (they either cancel each other out or just keep going). instead, post something new, god, i have nothing against america (dual citizenship B) ) the U.S. is my neighbour, and i have nothing against american policy (it&#39;s just bush i don&#39;t like, including chenney [spelling :( ] ) but i must agree, sometimes their methods are suspect, of course, everyone has a hidden agenda :rolleyes:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by cpt_azad+31 March 2004 - 04:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cpt_azad @ 31 March 2004 - 04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@30 March 2004 - 22:37
<!--QuoteBegin-Peace@31 March 2004 - 02:32
Regarding to “What If” I completely believe that if the US leaves the countries that the are in right now …and never interfere by any how ... this countries will live very good, we can imagine how things were before 30, at least there is no starvation in Africa.

Most of the African countries that we see on TV suffering from disease and starvations are very very rich countries in minerals like gold copier and other precious things like uranium and many many things, why do you think that governments are fighting secretly on those country and making all the sacrifices and spending all this money and souls …JUST for peace …that is nonsense.

Lets take Sudan for example: have 35 million goats, 32 million of sheep, 20 million camels, there are growing wheat with a very great quality that can beat the American wheat …but the wheat is an American exclusivity …they have the most fertile soil in the whole world people ..Yah naturally … and when they show it to you the show all the poverty and the starvations …just to keep them under control ..Other wise they will be a great competitor for use in agricultural …WAKE-UP people the people who are rolling are Merchants … I will not mention here any other resources like massive water, other minerals …. I am not kidding when I am saying that they are washing your brains on the TV … they are sociological doctor and consultant the big channels just to manipulate with each news to make sure that they will achieve their mission.
Good lord man, many of those countries have corrupt governments,

Do you think the "people" are gaining from these natural resources and riches?

I must be brainwashed.
who says the american gov&#39;t isn&#39;t corrupt? just a thought :-"

P.S. how did george w bush win again? specifically the details about florida.


oh, one last comment for busyman, since ur american, it maybe of no surprise to you that there are members on this board that are from different countries that have different opinions and thoughts on the U.S., so please, don&#39;t be "so" biased :) . and for the love of god, no more of this "U.S. is the enemy" crap posts please, i&#39;m sick and tired of it, all these posts lead in flaming replies which evidently end no where (they either cancel each other out or just keep going). instead, post something new, god, i have nothing against america (dual citizenship B) ) the U.S. is my neighbour, and i have nothing against american policy (it&#39;s just bush i don&#39;t like, including chenney [spelling :( ] ) but i must agree, sometimes their methods are suspect, of course, everyone has a hidden agenda :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
Well the post in question wasn&#39;t referring to America.

My bias? Hmm well I like my country, I don&#39;t like Bush and Dick.
(I like dick in bush though :D )

The last comment for me can be summed up easily.
This is an international board and most people not from here seem to be anti-American. They paint their country rosy and make America to be the sole fault of any of their own shortcomings. I don&#39;t know where bias plays into it, so I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re on about.

[Arm]

Yeah Peace thank you for telling us the obvious. :01:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Arm@31 March 2004 - 06:03
Yeah Peace thank you for telling us the obvious. :01:
And yes thank YOU smellyArmpit. :01:

[j2k4]

I&#39;m sure this has seen light here before, but it has relevance in this thread, so, once again, ladies and gentleman, Robin Williams&#33;

THE ROBIN WILLIAMS PEACE PLAN

1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those good ol&#39; boys: We will never "interfere" again.

2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don&#39;t want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.

3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We&#39;ll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don&#39;t like it there, change it yourself and don&#39;t hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don&#39;t need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don&#39;t attend classes, they get a "D" (for "deport") and it&#39;s back home baby.

6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy-wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries &#036;10 a barrel for their oil. If they don&#39;t like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them is stolen or given to the Army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don&#39;t need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE...

Now, ain&#39;t that a winner of a plan.

The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying "Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses." She&#39;s got a baseball bat and she&#39;s yelling, "You want a piece of me?"

[J'Pol]

Now that&#39;s good.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@31 March 2004 - 11:50
Now that&#39;s good.
Not for nothing is he called a genius. :D

Frankly, I was a bit surprised (but pleased, nonetheless) he was the piece&#39;s author. :)

[Biggles]

J&#39;Pol

:o

Robin Williams has been stealing your ideas&#33;

An outrage&#33;

The economics of the piece is somewhat suspect but amusing nonetheless.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@31 March 2004 - 19:27
J&#39;Pol

:o

Robin Williams has been stealing your ideas&#33;

An outrage&#33;

The economics of the piece is somewhat suspect but amusing nonetheless.
Biggles

One becomes accustomed to the blatant plagiarism. The only really novel ideas from our colonial cousins are from George Santayana and Kurt Vonnegut. Let&#39;s be honest a Spaniard and a German by nature, who found themselves American through no fault of their own. Indeed I think Santayana was actually born in Spain, not sure about the greatest ever "American " author, I think his parents arrived in the USA prior to his birth.

Re the economics, Mr Williams uses a fair dose of comedic licence, the piece is none the worse for it. I am quite fond of his work, derivative as it may be.

May I provide a quote, for those not aware of Santayana&#39;s work :

"Before you contradict an old man, my fair friend, you should endeavor to understand him."

Fan-Tastic

[Alex H]

:blink: WOW&#33;&#33;&#33; :blink:

(and that&#39;s from a foreigner)

We did try minding our business before WWII and BAM&#33;&#33;&#33;...Pearl Harbor....the rise of Hitler.....

Unfortunately, if the US goes down, there will be much more anarchy than we create.
I&#39;m not a foreigner, you are.

Incidentally I always thought that Pearl Harbour was an attack by the Japanese forces, one lives and learns. I also believed it to be after Hitler&#39;s major activities in Europe, again a teaching point for me.

From what you say one would be led to suspect that the USA only joined in when it was attacked, rather than supporting it&#39;s allies.

Who on earth would become involved in a war when they had not themselves been attacked, but a friend had. Who would display that sort of loyalty. [/QUOTE]
Uh no you are not from the US so I don&#39;t know where the smart assed remarks are from. Typical J&#39;Polism.

Had the US been involved early Pearl Harbor might not have happened and neither the rise of Hitler....and who said those two were in chronological order anyway?

Yes, the US joined when they were attacked...but you already knew that. J&#39;Polism at it&#39;s very best. Before that the had embargos on Japan.

Hey man, nice going. ;) [/QUOTE]
Um, I think that J&#39;Pol was pointing out that the attribute "foreigner" depends on where you are and where you come from. By calling him a foreigner you are implying that your audience you are speaking to is American, whereas it is really the wider the world. As J&#39;Pol is a citizen if the world, but not of America, he is therefor not a foreigner.

And for the Americans who think their country joined WWII to stop the rise of Hitler: Hitler&#39;s "rise" was during the 1930s, where he spent a lot of time quietly slaughtering the Jews, talking over other countries and doing a great Anthony Robins impersonation on the German people. Joseph Kennedy, one of the architects behind the Munich Agreement ignored Hitler&#39;s blatant re-armament and agreed, with the British, not to bother him too much.

Until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, America was quite happy to sit back and watch the European conflict, safe in the knowledge that the Atlantic protected them from Nazi Germany&#39;s quest for total domination (and even more happy to sell essential supplies to France and Britian). With the Japaneese attack on Pearl Harbour (done primparily to thwart a potential objection to Japan expanding it&#39;s empire to China and the East Indies, and harming US interests), America realized that being cut off from their friends (allies is hardly appropriate) may not have been such a great thing after all, and so finally, after nearly a decade of Nazi brutality in Europe, America got off it&#39;s arse and started being a responsible member of the world community.

The only problem is they haven&#39;t stopped "taking an interest" in world affairs since then. When the US government isn&#39;t trying to dodge conflict (WWI & WWII) the&#39;re trying to de-stabilize other countries (like Veitnam and Nicaragua) or pushing "democracy" on counties that are doing quite well for themselves anyway, like Cuba, who has continued to demonstrate that communism CAN work, despite US efforts to show otherwise.

If the US did suddenly disapear up it&#39;s own arse, I think the world would (after the celebrations had died down) get on with their own problems and ignore the hole where the United States used to be. In much the same way that the US does now when they bomb and/or invade another country now.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@31 March 2004 - 23:01
...like Cuba, who has continued to demonstrate that communism CAN work, despite&nbsp; US efforts to show otherwise.


STOP THE PRESSES&#33;&#33;

Communism is "working" in Cuba? :blink:

I can&#39;t believe you actually said that, Alex... :huh:

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4+1 April 2004 - 05:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 1 April 2004 - 05:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@31 March 2004 - 23:01
...like Cuba, who has continued to demonstrate that communism CAN work, despite US efforts to show otherwise.


STOP THE PRESSES&#33;&#33;

Communism is "working" in Cuba? :blink:

I can&#39;t believe you actually said that, Alex... :huh: [/b][/quote]
Cuba is still there, right?

And the Cubans do not live in such abject poverty as the US governmen would like you to believe. They would be even better off if the US would trade with them, instead of getting pissed with Castro for not being assasinated and putting embargos on his cigars.

[j2k4]

Of course Cuba is still there; where would it go? :huh:

As far as things being better in Cuba than our government would have us believe, sorry-I don&#39;t buy it.

When the boat people are trying to go south from here instead of north from there, maybe, but certainly not &#39;til then, OK?

Everyone who trades with the U.S. does better, Alex. ;)

[Alex H]

So why don&#39;t you guys trade with them? They have excellent cigars, nice coffee and the best rum in the world.

Is it because they refuse to be a US puppet?

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Alex H@1 April 2004 - 00:01
Until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, America was quite happy to sit back and watch the European conflict, safe in the knowledge that the Atlantic protected them from Nazi Germany&#39;s quest for total domination (and even more happy to sell essential supplies to France and Britian).
That&#39;s not true at all. If you about American history you would know that Franklin Roosevelt desperately wanted to join the conflict in Europe but the American people didn&#39;t want a war. He gave many public speeches saying that America wasn&#39;t going to join the war, but he didn&#39;t feel that way. It wasn&#39;t until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor that we were forced into conflict.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+1 April 2004 - 11:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 1 April 2004 - 11:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@1 April 2004 - 00:01
Until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, America was quite happy to sit back and watch the European conflict, safe in the knowledge that the Atlantic protected them from Nazi Germany&#39;s quest for total domination (and even more happy to sell essential supplies to France and Britian).
That&#39;s not true at all. If you about American history you would know that Franklin Roosevelt desperately wanted to join the conflict in Europe but the American people didn&#39;t want a war. He gave many public speeches saying that America wasn&#39;t going to join the war, but he didn&#39;t feel that way. It wasn&#39;t until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor that we were forced into conflict. [/b][/quote]
This is quite true.

Public opinion was largely isolationist/anti-war due to memories of WWI, and also the fact of the U.S. emerging from the Great Depression.

The last thing the public wanted was to jump back into another war.

FDR&#39;s motivations have always been the subject of speculation, but for whatever reason, he saw the inevitability of U.S. involvement.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Alex H@31 March 2004 - 21:01
like Cuba, who has continued to demonstrate that communism CAN work, despite US efforts to show otherwise.

If the US did suddenly disapear up it&#39;s own arse, I think the world would (after the celebrations had died down) get on with their own problems and ignore the hole where the United States used to be.
Alex,

I believe that Cuba&#39;s particular brand of Communism was only viable due to the almost total subsidizing of it&#39;s economy by the USSR.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has been increasingly desparate in it&#39;s overtures to the US.
Why would this be if they were as successful as you say?

Should the US "disappear up it&#39;s own arse" ( quaintly put, BTW), after the celebrations had died down I suspect that many people would realize that we haven&#39;t been cramming our culture/products down your throats ( a popularly held idea around here) as much as you all have been clamoring for them.

Basically, we cannot force you to wear Nikes and recognize Michael Jordan....you did that on your own.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@1 April 2004 - 00:07
So why don&#39;t you guys trade with them? They have excellent cigars, nice coffee and the best rum in the world.

Is it because they refuse to be a US puppet?
We don&#39;t trade with them because we don&#39;t like Castro, his regime, or it&#39;s policies, Alex.

Remember, there exists between us and Cuba a long history; nothing much ever changes, except the names of ex-presidents or actors/actresses willing to fawn over Fidel.

Puppets?

Is Saudi Arabia still one of our "puppets"?

Would that they were; in the process of trying to screw us on oil prices, they&#39;re going to give you another screwing, too, and no one gets a reach-around from the Saudis. ;)

Besides which, I&#39;ve had several Cuban cigars; they aren&#39;t that good.

Excellent rum is no great achievement, either.

"Nice" coffee can be had from a number of places.

So-

We are left with the fact of their strategic location as an impetus for extending our largesse, but we also have Gitmo, so, given Fidel&#39;s intransigence on other issues, why should we bother?

He could access our goodwill with a few genuine overtures, but does not.

C&#39;est le guerre.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+1 April 2004 - 11:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 1 April 2004 - 11:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Alex H+1 April 2004 - 00:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H &#064; 1 April 2004 - 00:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, America was quite happy to sit back and watch the European conflict, safe in the knowledge that the Atlantic protected them from Nazi Germany&#39;s quest for total domination (and even more happy to sell essential supplies to France and Britian). [/b]
That&#39;s not true at all. If you about American history you would know that Franklin Roosevelt desperately wanted to join the conflict in Europe but the American people didn&#39;t want a war. He gave many public speeches saying that America wasn&#39;t going to join the war, but he didn&#39;t feel that way. It wasn&#39;t until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor that we were forced into conflict. [/b]

Ah, another "If-you-had-been-forced-to-sit-though-American-History-in-High-School-like-I-had-to-you&#39;d-know-better" post.

The American people didn&#39;t want to go to war until it became clear that they were actually in danger? Wow, you guys were real players huh?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Public opinion was largely isolationist/anti-war due to memories of WWI, and also the fact of the U.S. emerging from the Great Depression.[/quote]

World War 1? You guys really had it hard in that one too, didn&#39;t you? Almost 20 hard months of fighting in 4 1/2 years of war. <_< There were a few other countries than were experiencing a "slower economy". Germany springs to mind, but they were more pro-active about it.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
We don&#39;t trade with them because we don&#39;t like Castro, his regime, or it&#39;s policies, Alex.

Remember, there exists between us and Cuba a long history[/quote]

I can&#39;t believe the US is still pissed off with Cuba for not letting the US invade them. If their economy was supported by te USSR, why didn&#39;t you guys lift the embargos on them when it collapsed? clocker seems to think the Cubans would be jumping for joy with the arrival of saturation American culture, as is the rest of the world apparently.

I also can&#39;t understand the American need for installing foreign governments. Your record of playing the puppetmaster is not that impressive:

Bay Of Pigs (If the army had known what TOP SECRET meant, it could have worked&#33;)
The Taliban (Came back to bite you)
Saddam Hussein ("We sold him the germs, then took &#39;em back")
Osama bin Laden (Really came back to bite you&#33;)
Haiti
Pinochet (was it 10s or 100s of thousands?)
Noriaga
Bolivia (&#39;46 if I remember)
Grenada
Panama
Iran
Pedro Estanga
Vietnam (did you learn nothing from this?)
Indonesia&#39;s invasion of East Timor
Somalia (I forget where I read that more people were shot than were fed.)
Honduras (Good &#39;ol Battalion 316)

and of course, Saudi Arabia.


Perhaps it would be safer for you guys if Cuba didn&#39;t become an American "puppet" after all.

[Busyman]

...and what was the point of your post?

Btw it is widely known that when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor they awoke a sleeping giant.

[ilw]

more like a giant who was pretending to be sleeping.

[j2k4]

Quote: AlexH:

Ah, another "If-you-had-been-forced-to-sit-though-American-History-in-High-School-like-I-had-to-you&#39;d-know-better" post.

The American people didn&#39;t want to go to war until it became clear that they were actually in danger? Wow, you guys were real players huh?


QUOTE (j2k4)
Public opinion was largely isolationist/anti-war due to memories of WWI, and also the fact of the U.S. emerging from the Great Depression.



World War 1? You guys really had it hard in that one too, didn&#39;t you? Almost 20 hard months of fighting in 4 1/2 years of war. There were a few other countries than were experiencing a "slower economy". Germany springs to mind, but they were more pro-active about it.

I guess "20 hard months of fighting" was enough for us to learn it wasn&#39;t a pleasant experience, Alex.

If it took you 4 1/2 years, I guess that makes Britain a bunch of thickos by comparison.

You apparently feel we should have begun patterning ourselves after you guys around 1914 or so, eh?

Would that we had; then we could experience being a failed empire too.

BTW-are you suggesting we should have jumped in earlier strictly as a means of jump-starting our economy?

Is that why you guys fought?


QUOTE (j2k4)
We don&#39;t trade with them because we don&#39;t like Castro, his regime, or it&#39;s policies, Alex.

Remember, there exists between us and Cuba a long history

I can&#39;t believe the US is still pissed off with Cuba for not letting the US invade them. If their economy was supported by te USSR, why didn&#39;t you guys lift the embargos on them when it collapsed? clocker seems to think the Cubans would be jumping for joy with the arrival of saturation American culture, as is the rest of the world apparently.

No.

Castro was, and continues to be the reason, Alex.

We haven&#39;t lifted the embargoes because he hasn&#39;t/won&#39;t renounce communism.

As to American culture, there is not a country on earth without the ability to resist it; tell me, Alex, why McDonald&#39;s is everywhere?

I would guess it&#39;s a question of capitalism; everybody, everywhere, wants more money, huh?

But:

I&#39;m likewise sure that, somewhere on earth, there is some haven free of "American Culture"; why not go there?

Of course, maybe "there" doesn&#39;t have hi-speed internet access; wouldn&#39;t want to lose you from the forum.

Guess you&#39;ll just have to stay put, eh? :)

Honestly, Alex-can&#39;t you be anti-U.S. without ranting?

ilw-

You are absolutely correct, however, we weren&#39;t pretending; we were having "nice dreams". :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

Quote(Alex H)

Ah, another "If-you-had-been-forced-to-sit-though-American-History-in-High-School-like-I-had-to-you&#39;d-know-better" post.

You can be forced to sit through American History but you can&#39;t be forced to pay attention. History was one of my favorite subjects while in school and is still one of my favorite things to read about.

[Biggles]

The First World War is an interesting case in point.

It was a war almost everyone wanted. They went off singing merry songs and 15 year olds lied about their age in hope of getting to share in the glory. "All Quiet on the Western Front" should be compulsory viewing for all (especially political leaders).

The US did stay out longer than most and actually only had troops there in numbers by May 1917 onwards and most of their fighting took place over the 1917/1918 winter. The US commanders were keen to demonstrate their ability and refused to share front lines with the Allies preferring to take on the Germans themselves - thus repeating the errors of 1915/1916. For the limited action the US forces saw they took ridiculously heavy casaulties - running full tilt into heavy machine gun fire till there was no one left to run; a party trick of the French and British for the previous three years.

Fortunately, by 1918, the Germans were on their knees and although the Front Line never really moved significantly one way or the other, by November 1918 they called and end to it. The Allies exacted heavy retribution on the Germans and gave rise to Hitler&#39;s accusation that these Germans were the November traitors; selling out their country. Paving the way for a re-match.

The moral - when people think war is a really good idea, duck.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Honestly, Alex-can&#39;t you be anti-U.S. without ranting?[/b]

Ha&#33; Thats like the US State Department&#39;s classifications of world leaders:

Extremist: Hates us.
Radical: Doesn&#39;t like us.
Moderate: Trying to suck up to us.
Ally: Already sold out to us.

If my views on the US is a rant, so be it.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>BTW-are you suggesting we should have jumped in earlier strictly as a means of jump-starting our economy?[/b]

Hey, works for everyone else. Ask <Trouble^Maker>, voice of the redneck masses, who he&#39;ll be voting for and why.


Originally posted by j2k4
Castro was, and continues to be the reason, Alex.

We haven&#39;t lifted the embargoes because he hasn&#39;t/won&#39;t renounce communism.

Why should he? Why does America have such a burning need to spread wonderful democracy to the rest of the world? Sure democracy is great, but why does the US punish countries who don&#39;t want or need it? Surely the Cold war showed you that demoracy was superior, or do you guys have a crisis of faith, and hope to get rid of it by repeatedly stating your beliefs until you know what they are?


Originally posted by j2k4
As to American culture, there is not a country on earth without the ability to resist it; tell me, Alex, why McDonald&#39;s is everywhere?

Is that something to be proud of? You export a fast food chain which is proven to be unhealthy and has shown contempt for the terrible environmental conditions it&#39;s business creates, and pays its employees a pittance.

How is that a great thing? Most people will cave in to someone with more money, more influence and bigger guns than themselves, so your argument about "resisting" American culture is a bit weak.

Well, actually there is Castro. But he&#39;s a looser that everyone hates anyway. <_<

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@
what was the point of your post?[/quote]

My point was that buying and corrupting your way into other govenments, like the ones I mentioned is not responsible behavior. You have no idea of the international ramifications of the American quest for democratic dominance, and by grafting, bullying and threatening everyone who doesn&#39;t agree with you, or has something you want (I didn&#39;t metion Iraq ;) ) you&#39;ll be doing yourselves no favours.

Shock&#33; Horror&#33; 9/11&#33; Who could have done this?&#33;? If the collective American concience could have pulled it&#39;s head out of its arse for a few seconds, you guys would have realized that lots of people hate you, because you&#39;ve f*cked them, their families and their countries over with "democracy" and "aid".


<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
You apparently feel we should have begun patterning ourselves after you guys around 1914 or so, eh?

Would that we had; then we could experience being a failed empire too.[/quote]

Keep up the way you&#39;re going and you&#39;ll find out soon enough.

[clocker]

Interesting words, Mrs. Badcrumble.

BTW Alex,
Personally I could give a rat&#39;s ass about Cuba.
As j2 noted, just about everything they have to offer can be had elsewhere.

Out of curiousity, where did the concept come from that the US is under some sort of obligation to be nice to countries we don&#39;t like/approve of?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Alex H+5 April 2004 - 23:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H &#064; 5 April 2004 - 23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Honestly, Alex-can&#39;t you be anti-U.S. without ranting?[/b]

Ha&#33; Thats like the US State Department&#39;s classifications of world leaders:

Extremist: Hates us.
Radical: Doesn&#39;t like us.
Moderate: Trying to suck up to us.
Ally: Already sold out to us.

If my views on the US is a rant, so be it.


Originally posted by j2k4
BTW-are you suggesting we should have jumped in earlier strictly as a means of jump-starting our economy?

Hey, works for everyone else. Ask <Trouble^Maker>, voice of the redneck masses, who he&#39;ll be voting for and why.


Originally posted by j2k4
Castro was, and continues to be the reason, Alex.

We haven&#39;t lifted the embargoes because he hasn&#39;t/won&#39;t renounce communism.

Why should he? Why does America have such a burning need to spread wonderful democracy to the rest of the world? Sure democracy is great, but why does the US punish countries who don&#39;t want or need it? Surely the Cold war showed you that demoracy was superior, or do you guys have a crisis of faith, and hope to get rid of it by repeatedly stating your beliefs until you know what they are?


Originally posted by j2k4
As to American culture, there is not a country on earth without the ability to resist it; tell me, Alex, why McDonald&#39;s is everywhere?

Is that something to be proud of? You export a fast food chain which is proven to be unhealthy and has shown contempt for the terrible environmental conditions it&#39;s business creates, and pays its employees a pittance.

How is that a great thing? Most people will cave in to someone with more money, more influence and bigger guns than themselves, so your argument about "resisting" American culture is a bit weak.

Well, actually there is Castro. But he&#39;s a looser that everyone hates anyway. <_<

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@
what was the point of your post?

My point was that buying and corrupting your way into other govenments, like the ones I mentioned is not responsible behavior. You have no idea of the international ramifications of the American quest for democratic dominance, and by grafting, bullying and threatening everyone who doesn&#39;t agree with you, or has something you want (I didn&#39;t metion Iraq ;) ) you&#39;ll be doing yourselves no favours.

Shock&#33; Horror&#33; 9/11&#33; Who could have done this?&#33;? If the collective American concience could have pulled it&#39;s head out of its arse for a few seconds, you guys would have realized that lots of people hate you, because you&#39;ve f*cked them, their families and their countries over with "democracy" and "aid".


<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
You apparently feel we should have begun patterning ourselves after you guys around 1914 or so, eh?

Would that we had; then we could experience being a failed empire too.[/quote]

Keep up the way you&#39;re going and you&#39;ll find out soon enough. [/b][/quote]
Alex H is on a roll huh?

Attacking "all things American"; even Mickey D&#39;s.

Besides your anti-American rant, I&#39;m with you on one thing...I really wish we would stop so much "aid" and trying to spread democracy.

The UK has had terrorism too. Furthermore just because alot of people hate us, as you say, doesn&#39;t mean the collective conscience of America shouldn&#39;t be shocked ya dumbfunk&#33;&#33;&#33; What were Americans supposed to say as the second tower crumbled?...."Well calm down everyone, we did support Israel". You are making light of 9/11 and that&#39;s a real bitch ass thing to do.

The rest of your post..well..you can go fuck yourself.

Get this straight also...we help who we want to help....just like the UK.
We are not obligated to help anyone.

[Peace]

First of all thanks people for the interesting responses,
I just would like o confirm that I don’t have any thing against the people of the US, for the matter fact I respect the majority of these people how have a great sensation of care and love (I am saying that coz I mean it) and I have many friends from that state who are very kind.
The problem is with the government which is taking the proverb” dived and conquer” they way to control all what I have mentioned in the beginning. Its very easy… keep the people of a country poor and without any study, so they will be completely busy how to bring food on the table and no one will give a damn about what is really happening.

They now how to play so they are making sure to keep the people away from the truth… the truth that they are claiming that they are very keen to bring it out for the people, I will tell you one thing guys, just try to get the real number about the number of the US soldiers who were killed. A friend of me who is working there, that the number of the soldiers who were killed is much bigger than was published (as you now this type of info. remains classified as one of the war’s secret) so how they will give it to the press freely to turn the people upside-down on there government.

I know that there is many...many people that if they know the truth, they will immediately adopt it, that why they are fooling you using your TV that you have paid for .

You can imagine people what is being made in the dark, no body give a damn for people souls regardless if they are Americans or from Afghanistan. They most important thing that they care about how much profit they will achieve, that why they killed the good guy Kennedy.

All the peace people and be careful. Hiding the truth is hard… but telling the truth is the HARDEST … it’s really so funny so painful

[Peace]

and see this

http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=107584&st=0




Edited: Duplicate posting not necessary. Refer to post by Peace on thread listed above.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Out of curiousity, where did the concept come from that the US is under some sort of obligation to be nice to countries we don&#39;t like/approve of?[/b]
The fact that you personally share this planet with more than 6 billion other people puts a resposibility on you to ensure that nothing bad happens to them. You don&#39;t have to go out and fight injustice in all its forms or even be increadibly active about it. Its called being a good citizen. You try to be nice to your family and friends, your local community and of course to your fellow countrymen and women.

There is another level to it, which is becoming increasingly clear in the Information Age, and that is the global community.

If you saw a kid in the street (or even your own child calling another kid a "dirty Muslim", you&#39;d say something along the lines of: "No, you&#39;re not better than that kid, you two are both equals, he just has different beliefs to yours". (If you&#39;ve heard this this concept before in your constitution, you&#39;ll know what I&#39;m on about).

So why don&#39;t you "approve" of communist Cuba? Just because you like democracy, why do you have to hate communism? If you "don&#39;t like" them, why do you have to try to destroy them. Personally, if I don&#39;t like someone I ignore them, but the US government has made the decision to "hate" on behalf of your entire country, where there maybe some people who don&#39;t mind the Cubans or their cigars. What benefits does America get from embargos on Cuba?


Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What were Americans supposed to say as the second tower crumbled?...."Well calm down everyone, we did support Israel". You are making light of 9/11 and that&#39;s a real bitch ass thing to do.[/b]

I watched it with a 5 minte delay as it was happening. First, I thought, "F*CK&#33; That&#39;s terrible...so many people...", then, "...but it doesn&#39;t surprise me".

The US has bombed or invaded so many smaller countries and ethnic groups that it was hardly surprising one of them would be pissed off enough to fight back. I wonder how many people in the Middle East watched the events of 9/11 thinking "Hey America, welcome to the rest of the world"?

I wasn&#39;t "making light" of that day, I was simply pointing out how your society is quite happy to run with the status quo and not think about anything outside your simple little world until it comes crashing down around you.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@
Get this straight also...we help who we want to help....just like the UK.
We are not obligated to help anyone. [/quote]
I&#39;ve got f*cking issues with the way the UK has behaved recently (and in the not-so-recent past) so saying "We only dun wot they dun" is hardly an excuse for your country&#39;s appaling actions. So there are two big and powerful countries that treat the rest of the world like shit. Do you want congratulations, dancing girls and a cake?

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
We are not obligated to help anyone.[/quote] As I said, I believe we are all accountable for our actions, and our inactions.

But if you do really believe that, please do not expect the rest of the world to feel sorry for you when some terrorists take ou their anger on you again. And don&#39;t ask for volunteers for anymore "Coalitions of the Willing". We&#39;re not obliged to, so why should we bother?

[alpha]

^ Well said :)

[Peace]

Alex H
where you ahve been from the beigging :D
there is some rational people around...just as i thought


Alex H Posted: 8 April 2004 - 09:37&nbsp;

You try to be nice to your family and friends, your local community and of course to your fellow countrymen and women.

you are right ...but dont you think that is selfish :). yah i know its a valid piont


Alex H Posted: 8 April 2004 - 09:37&nbsp;
The fact that you personally share this planet with more than 6 billion other people puts a resposibility on you to ensure that nothing bad happens to them. You don&#39;t have to go out and fight injustice in all its forms or even be increadibly active about it. Its called being a good citizen. You try to be nice to your family and friends, your local community and of course to your fellow countrymen and women.

There is another level to it, which is becoming increasingly clear in the Information Age, and that is the global community.

If you saw a kid in the street (or even your own child calling another kid a "dirty Muslim", you&#39;d say something along the lines of: "No, you&#39;re not better than that kid, you two are both equals, he just has different beliefs to yours". (If you&#39;ve heard this this concept before in your constitution, you&#39;ll know what I&#39;m on about).

So why don&#39;t you "approve" of communist Cuba? Just because you like democracy, why do you have to hate communism? If you "don&#39;t like" them, why do you have to try to destroy them. Personally, if I don&#39;t like someone I ignore them, but the US government has made the decision to "hate" on behalf of your entire country, where there maybe some people who don&#39;t mind the Cubans or their cigars. What benefits does America get from embargos on Cuba?



The US has bombed or invaded so many smaller countries and ethnic groups that it was hardly surprising one of them would be pissed off enough to fight back. I wonder how many people in the Middle East watched the events of 9/11 thinking "Hey America, welcome to the rest of the world"?


this is GREAT NO COMMENT :)

Keep on the good and rational work man

[j2k4]

Quote:AlexH:

QUOTE (clocker)
Out of curiousity, where did the concept come from that the US is under some sort of obligation to be nice to countries we don&#39;t like/approve of?


The fact that you personally share this planet with more than 6 billion other people puts a resposibility on you to ensure that nothing bad happens to them.

This would seem to indicate we should be everywhere at once with a military presence.

Of course, this sentiment doesn&#39;t take into account that we are constantly berated for thinking we are the world&#39;s "coppers", and I&#39;m sure it wouldn&#39;t save us from being accused of "just being in it for the oil", if there is any about.

Make up your mind, Alex:

Do we get to act outside our borders or not?

And don&#39;t even mention the U.N.; we&#39;ve had a bellyful of them and their inaction and outright stupidity-they are being exposed for what they are right now:

A collection of hapless countries overseen by a corrupt few opportunists (France, Russia, China, and a few others) which saw fit to benefit from back-door deals with Saddam Hussein to the extreme detriment of the Iraqi people.

No doubt they did what they did out of a humane concern for all the people of the Mideast.


You don&#39;t have to go out and fight injustice in all its forms or even be increadibly active about it. Its called being a good citizen. You try to be nice to your family and friends, your local community and of course to your fellow countrymen and women.

There is another level to it, which is becoming increasingly clear in the Information Age, and that is the global community.

If you saw a kid in the street (or even your own child calling another kid a "dirty Muslim", you&#39;d say something along the lines of: "No, you&#39;re not better than that kid, you two are both equals, he just has different beliefs to yours". (If you&#39;ve heard this this concept before in your constitution, you&#39;ll know what I&#39;m on about).

So why don&#39;t you "approve" of communist Cuba? Just because you like democracy, why do you have to hate communism? If you "don&#39;t like" them, why do you have to try to destroy them. Personally, if I don&#39;t like someone I ignore them,

Actually, this is an apt description of our policy towards Cuba.

but the US government has made the decision to "hate" on behalf of your entire country,

Don&#39;t decide who we "hate", Alex.

I live in the U.S., and you don&#39;t.

We do not hate Cuba or it&#39;s citizens (much as you claim not to hate Americans), we do have a problem with Fidel, as has been noted already.

If you don&#39;t see the difference, that is your problem, not ours.

where there maybe some people who don&#39;t mind the Cubans or their cigars. What benefits does America get from embargos on Cuba?

Y&#39;know, I&#39;d bet that the Cuban-cigar industry is government-owned. That would seem to indicate the revenue from sale of same would go into Fidel&#39;s pocket, and be of little consequence to the average Cuban.

I could be wrong on this, though.

Nah. I&#39;m right.

QUOTE (Busyman)
What were Americans supposed to say as the second tower crumbled?...."Well calm down everyone, we did support Israel". You are making light of 9/11 and that&#39;s a real bitch ass thing to do.



I watched it with a 5 minte delay as it was happening. First, I thought, "F*CK&#33; That&#39;s terrible...so many people...", then, "...but it doesn&#39;t surprise me"..because the U.S. supports Israel.

The US has bombed or invaded so many smaller countries and ethnic groups that it was hardly surprising one of them would be pissed off enough to fight back. I wonder how many people in the Middle East watched the events of 9/11 thinking "Hey America, welcome to the rest of the world"?

I wasn&#39;t "making light" of that day, I was simply pointing out how your society is quite happy to run with the status quo and not think about anything outside your simple little world until it comes crashing down around you.


QUOTE (Busyman)
Get this straight also...we help who we want to help....just like the UK.
We are not obligated to help anyone.


I&#39;ve got f*cking issues with the way the UK has behaved recently (and in the not-so-recent past) so saying "We only dun wot they dun" is hardly an excuse for your country&#39;s appaling actions. So there are two big and powerful countries that treat the rest of the world like shit. Do you want congratulations, dancing girls and a cake?


QUOTE (Busyman)
We are not obligated to help anyone.

As I said, I believe we are all accountable for our actions, and our inactions.

But if you do really believe that, please do not expect the rest of the world to feel sorry for you when some terrorists take ou their anger on you again. And don&#39;t ask for volunteers for anymore "Coalitions of the Willing". We&#39;re not obliged to, so why should we bother?

Just so, Alex.

Pull up a nice comfy chair and watch while we trot around the globe, caring/aggressing/warring, or whatever you want to call it; just so long as you are free to complain, eh?

Funny:

If you lived in most of the places you profess to "care" about (Cuba comes to mind) you wouldn&#39;t be free to say much of anything; and if you don&#39;t believe me, just ask one of our many Cuban board-members. ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by Alex H@8 April 2004 - 01:37
I was simply pointing out how your society is quite happy to run with the status quo and not think about anything outside your simple little world until it comes crashing down around you.


Love the sweeping generalizations.

Presumably no one in the UK would have been surprised/shocked by an act on the scale of 9/11 in your country due to your hyper-awareness of global politics.

It must be really refreshing to live in a country where everyone from the fishmonger to the Prime Minister is so educated and politically savvy.
I really look forward to experiencing this on my next visit.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Image Resized
[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~dangerousdude/3225550.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> ('http://home.earthlink.net/~dangerousdude/3225550.jpg')

Can you imagine the mayhem that would ensue if that guy just walked in to a gun show?&#33;

[vidcc]

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>@8 April 2004 - 09:15
Image Resized
Image Resized
[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~dangerousdude/3225550.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> (http://home.earthlink.net/~dangerousdude/3225550.jpg)

Can you imagine the mayhem that would ensue if that guy just walked in to a gun show?&#33;

well i guess the amount of gun touting people in the world would be reduced suddenly

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+8 April 2004 - 06:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 8 April 2004 - 06:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@8 April 2004 - 01:37
I was simply pointing out how your society is quite happy to run with the status quo and not think about anything outside your simple little world until it comes crashing down around you.


Love the sweeping generalizations.

Presumably no one in the UK would have been surprised/shocked by an act on the scale of 9/11 in your country due to your hyper-awareness of global politics.

It must be really refreshing to live in a country where everyone from the fishmonger to the Prime Minister is so educated and politically savvy.
I really look forward to experiencing this on my next visit. [/b][/quote]
Nicely stated, sir. ;)

My sentiments exactly; couldn&#39;t have said it better myself, and a few other platitudes which I could type out, but won&#39;t, owing to my inherent American sloth and laziness, which I am loathe to address, again, because I am an American.

I feel I owe it to the international pacifist community to occasionally evince imperfection (I am American, after all). :D

[Monkster]

the US new about Pearly Harbour AND 911 before they happened, and did nothing to stop it, hows that for government?

I don&#39;t wanna go on a big anti-American rant, although i could, but that is not the point. I just think that you Americans (and perhaps others as well) need to wake up and smell the BS the government is feeding you.

The US government is a bunch capitolists who wrap themselves in the flag and god, and 280 million ppl have fallen for their propoganda, hook, line, and sinker&#33; :(

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Monkster@8 April 2004 - 17:50
the US new about Pearly Harbour AND 911 before they happened, and did nothing to stop it, hows that for government?

I don&#39;t wanna go on a big anti-American rant, although i could, but that is not the point. I just think that you Americans (and perhaps others as well) need to wake up and smell the BS the government is feeding you.

The US government is a bunch capitolists who wrap themselves in the flag and god, and 280 million ppl have fallen for their propoganda, hook, line, and sinker&#33; :(
Utter bullshit. ;)

You buy all the conspiracy theories and try to tell us we&#39;re being hoodwinked by the government?

Buy a fucking clue, pal. <_<

[chalice]

Originally posted by Monkster@8 April 2004 - 23:50
the US new about Pearly Harbour AND 911 before they happened, and did nothing to stop it, hows that for government?

I don&#39;t wanna go on a big anti-American rant, although i could, but that is not the point. I just think that you Americans (and perhaps others as well) need to wake up and smell the BS the government is feeding you.

The US government is a bunch capitolists who wrap themselves in the flag and god, and 280 million ppl have fallen for their propoganda, hook, line, and sinker&#33; :(
Well, that&#39;s me convinced.


I do believe that Alex has been dismissed out of hand, rather unfairly, though.

I do think Clocker and J2 have made light of a serious point or two.

I&#39;m hesitant to believe that America&#39;s problem with Cuba is down to Castro alone. I can&#39;t state this as fact, but common sense tells me that the US government will not be happy until the Cold War is finally won. And by this I mean that Cuba condemns her guilded shackles and embraces democracy.

I guess that Fidel&#39;s death will bring this about but I&#39;m not sure that it will be a victory worth celebrating.

[Biggles]

I have long suspected that the US decision to pretend that Cuba does not officially exist has strengthened Castro&#39;s postion over the years, not weakened it.

Trade and a free flow of people and ideas may not have ousted Castro, but it may well have resulted in an altogether less hardline stance and a much more open society.

However, as J2 and others have pointed out, the US can trade with whomever they like.

The same is true for all States. On a rare foray into Fox News (when I actually hit the programme and not the endless weather clips) I saw an interviewer ask a Saudi oil expert if Saudi Arabia should not feel it owed it to the US to keep oil prices low. The gentleman looked at the interviewer for a moment (checking to see if he had two heads I think) and then gave a brief lecture on market economics. Trade is trade, and there are few favours out there for anyone.

With regards Pearl Harbour, I thought the conspiracy was that Churchill knew about Japanese movements, but thought it best to let things take their course as US entry would benefit Britain. This has never been proved to the best of my knowledge.

As a minor footnote, I think it was J&#39;Pol that started all this with a somewhat opaque comment regarding wars and supporting friends etc., (apologies if it was another thread). I think the point he was making was that by Jan 1942, when the US was an effective ally, we had been at war for 2 and a 1/2 years and, notwithstanding all the military casaulties, had sustained nearly 50,000 civilian deaths and a further 45,000 civilian wounded. It was like a 9/11 every couple of months for over two years with little or no support from anyone. Still, as we say over here, musn&#39;t grumble. :D

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Monkster@8 April 2004 - 19:50
the US new about Pearly Harbour AND 911 before they happened, and did nothing to stop it, hows that for government?

I don&#39;t wanna go on a big anti-American rant, although i could, but that is not the point. I just think that you Americans (and perhaps others as well) need to wake up and smell the BS the government is feeding you.

The US government is a bunch capitolists who wrap themselves in the flag and god, and 280 million ppl have fallen for their propoganda, hook, line, and sinker&#33; :(
Oh please&#33;&#33;&#33; Prove it&#33;&#33;&#33;
If you can&#39;t...Say you think they knew it...OR SHUT UP&#33;&#33;

I doubt the government knew about 9/11 and said "Hmmm, let&#39;s let it go...see how it plays out".
"the Japanese are going to bomb us....let&#39;s NOT be ready for &#39;em"

I love these threads because it shows the idiocy and ignorance of some our board members. It all comes out at some point.

Some of you are on crack. You think Americans are some single conscience regarding our government and it&#39;s all pro. Many of us were against the war in Iraq. Many of us don&#39;t like Bush. j2 happens to like him for the presidency, I don&#39;t, but I don&#39;t shit on j2 for liking him. I&#39;ll just make sure I vote for Kerry.

I&#39;ve floated many ideas regarding 9/11, even that it was set up by our own government but.... those are conspiracy theories and nothing more. I thought oh first 9/11 then the Patriot Act then attack Iraq then get oil....all as a plan. Theories

Bottom line: Again, if you don&#39;t know something as fact, say that or STFU&#33;&#33;&#33;

The lot of you also like to blame America for EVERYTHING. If we thought that way, we could blame Israel for 9/11 but we hold those who actually did it and planned it responsible.

I can&#39;t believe I&#39;ve seen posts trashing...McDonald&#39;s...DON&#39;T EAT THERE. If enough of you don&#39;t then the franchise will fail and close/move elsewhere.
This reminds me of Americans that sue McDonald&#39;s....but chose to eat there. :lol: :lol:

Alex H and Monkster and whoever the fuck else..........

Insult Bush (great I know I have and for good reason)

............Insult the American people and you insult me personally and any other Americans on this board..

FUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUUU&#33;&#33;&#33;

[chalice]

Originally posted by Busyman@9 April 2004 - 02:11
FUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUUU&#33;&#33;&#33;
Hmm.

And on Good Friday too. Shame on you.


:lol:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by chalice+8 April 2004 - 22:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice @ 8 April 2004 - 22:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@9 April 2004 - 02:11
FUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUUU&#33;&#33;&#33;
Hmm.

And on Good Friday too. Shame on you.


:lol: [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

It&#39;s still Thursday in Washington DC.

Besides most of this board seems to be atheist/agnostic anyway&#33;&#33; :lol: <_<

[clocker]

Originally posted by chalice@8 April 2004 - 16:09



I do believe that Alex has been dismissed out of hand, rather unfairly, though.

I do think Clocker and J2 have made light of a serious point or two.

I&#39;m hesitant to believe that America&#39;s problem with Cuba is down to Castro alone. I can&#39;t state this as fact, but common sense tells me that the US government will not be happy until the Cold War is finally won. And by this I mean that Cuba condemns her guilded shackles and embraces democracy.


Sorry, didn&#39;t mean to be "dismissive" or "make light" ative (?) of anyone.
The goal was not to be "strident" or "self-righteous".

BTW, what the hell did you mean by Cuba&#39;s "guilded shackles"?
Yes, I&#39;m aware that was meant to be "gilded".
Even so....what is particularly golden about Castro&#39;s repressive regime?

[j2k4]

Chalice-

I would echo Clocker&#39;s sentiment, but how would you characterize Alex&#39;s thread?

It seems to basically be a lament on behalf of the Cuban people (which sentiment I have empathy for), and an attempt to berate the U.S. for not alleviating their suffering by lifting the embargo.

However, he seems to conveniently overlook the fact of Castro and his repressive regime.

We could lift the embargo tomorrow, and it wouldn&#39;t mean a pinch of coonshit to the Cubans, as long as the old bearded-wonder is in charge.

Since he doesn&#39;t have the USSR to support his regime, maintaining his grip on Cuba has become that much more expensive, hence the plight of Cuba&#39;s citizenry has even further worsened.

Given these facts, should we have "pity" on Cuba, lift the embargoes and trade with them, knowing all we will accomplish is to make Fidel&#39;s job that much easier?

In essence, should we aid him in his quest to repress his own people?

He is the equivalent of the warlords in Mogadishu, or Saddam Hussein with regard to the "Oil for Food" program administered by the U.N.; the effort never manages to benefit those intended.

In the face of such evidence, Alex would nevertheless have us reinforce Castro this way.

So, I guess you are right; we are waiting for Fidel to die.

I suspect the Cubans are, too.

[leftism]

A few facts.

83% of the population in the USA has access to health care.
98% of the population in Cuba has access to free health care. (UNICEF)

Cuba has one of the highest ratios of doctors to patients in the world.

In Cuba there is one physician for every 183 inhabitants (1996).
In the USA there is one physician for every 365 inhabitants.

If Castro is so evil then why has he put so much of his countries resources into providing free healthcare?

Lets not labour under the delusion that the US embargo is any different to the sanctions against Iraq. The only people who suffer are the citizens not the leadership.

I&#39;ve highlighted the relevant section of this rather long report but, if anyone is genuinely interested in this subject it is worth taking the time to read.



Washington Office on Latin America
Myths And Facts About The U.S. Embargo On
Medicine And Medical Supplies
A report prepared by Oxfam America and the Washington Office on Latin America

BASIC FACTS:
The Cuban health care system functioned effectively up through the 1980s. Life expectancy increased,
infant mortality declined, and access to medical care expanded. Cuba began to resemble the developed
nations in health care figures. While the U.S. embargo prevented Cuba from buying medicines and medical
supplies directly from the United States, many U.S. products were available from foreign subsidiaries. Cuba
may have paid higher prices, and heavier shipping costs, but it was able to do so.

The Cuban health care system has been weakened in the last seven years, as the end of Soviet bloc
aid and preferential trade terms damaged the economy overall.
The economy contracted some 40%,
and there was simply less money to spend on a health care system, or on anything else. And because the
weakened Cuban economy generated less income from foreign exports, there was less hard currency
available to import foreign goods. This made it more difficult to purchase those medicines and medical
equipment that had traditionally come from abroad, and contributed to shortages in the Cuban health care
system.

In the context of the weakened Cuban economy, the U.S. embargo exacerbated the problems in the
health care system. The embargo forced Cuba to use more of its now much more limited resources on
medical imports, both because equipment and drugs from foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms or from non-U.S.
sources tend to be higher priced and because shipping costs are greater.

The new restrictions imposed by the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 (CDA) have further exacerbated
the problems in Cuba&#39;s medical system. The CDA prohibits foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations from
selling to Cuba, thus further limiting Cuba&#39;s access to medicine and equipment, and raising prices. In
addition, the CDA forbids ships that dock in Cuban ports from docking in U.S. ports for six months. This
drastically restricts shipping, and increasesshipping costs some 30%.
The Cuban government has prioritized health care spending in the last five years. The proportional
share of the national budget that goes to health care has increased from 5.8% in 1989 to 7.6% in 1995, while
proportional spending on defense and government administration has dropped substantially. As a result,
general public health indicators continue to be good (long life expectancy, low infant mortality). But that is
not enough to cushion Cuba&#39;s health care system from the effects of the economic crisis, as exacerbated
by the embargo and the CDA. There are shortages and delays throughout the medical system and troubling
signs of public health problems, including increases in mortality from infectious diseases, and higher
numbers of low birth weight babies.

It will take time, and a broader economic recovery, to restore the Cuban health care system to its 1980s
level. That is Cuba&#39;s responsibility. The United States did not cause the health care crisis in Cuba, but the
United States should cease measures that exacerbate that crisis. Restrictions on the sale of medicines and
medical equipment, and restrictions on shipping medicines and medical equipment should end immediately.

MYTHS AND FACTS:
MYTH 1: The U.S. embargo on medicine doesn&#39;t really hurt the Cuban health care system, because
nothing in the U.S. law prohibits Cuba from purchasing medicine and medical supplies from other
countries.
FACT 1.1: Some medicines and medical supplies are only available from the United States or from
foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies. Cuba cannot get them from other countries. For example:
?
Cuba cannot purchase spare parts for its U.S. built X-ray machines;
·
Cuba cannot purchase replacements parts for its public water supply pumps and pipes, which were
built in the United States;
·
A spare part used in the manufacture of prenatal vitamin supplements is only legally available from
U.S. or subsidiary suppliers; the production of prenatal vitamins has been sharply reduced;
·
Prostaglandin, the drug of choice for inducing labor, is only available from Upjohn, a U.S.
pharmaceutical company. Substitute drugs that Cuban gynecologists are forced to use carry higher
risks for mother and child;
·
The Kodak X-ray film recommended by the World Health Organization for use in breast cancer
screening is not available to Cuba because it is manufactured in the U.S.;
·
25 U. S. manufactured neonatal respirators, used for premature babies, were donated to Cuba. As
they age and malfunction, spare parts are not available to repair them.

FACT 1.2: U.S. owned companies increasingly dominate the world market in medicines and medical
equipment, and this increasingly restricts Cuba&#39;s access to medicines and medical equipment.
U.S. corporate buy-outs and mergers of international pharmaceutical companies are increasing, and this
brings foreign firms under the terms of the U.S. embargo. For example:
?
A key chemical used for early diagnosis of entopic pregnancies is not legally available to the Cuban
doctors because the manufacturer was recently purchased by a U.S. company, and is now banned
from selling to Cuba;
?
In 1995, Pharmacia, a Swedish company which since 1970 has had multimillion dollar sales to Cuba
of protein purifying equipment, chemotherapy drugs, and growth hormones, merged with Upjohn,
a major U.S. pharmaceutical company, and within three months of the merger closed its office in
Havana and ended sales there
.
United States pharmaceutical companies dominate the world market:
?
50% of all new world-class drugs developed between 1972 and 1992 are manufactured or patented
in the U.S. and are therefore unavailable to Cuba.

FACT 1.3: U.S. actions make it more expensive for Cuba to buy from third countries.
U.S. law generates long delays and higher costs to ship from third countries. The greater expense is
substantial - it is estimated that Cuba has to spend around 30% more in increased shipping costs to import


from countries other than the U.S. A recent study by the American Association of World Health found that
by 1993, Cuba was paying 43% over pre-CDA shipping rates.
?
These inflated expenses force Cuba to spend more of its limited budget on shipping rather than
purchasing medicine for the Cuban population.
?
Wheat purchased from E.U. countries costs &#036;25-&#036;28/ton (includes shipping); if purchased from the
U.S., it would cost &#036;13/ton.

FACT 1.4: U.S. actions make it more difficult for Cuba to buy from third countries.
A scare factor exists that dissuades third countries from trading with Cuba for fear of U.S. reprisal; there are
cases where foreign companies have refused to sell to Cuba.
U.S. provisions discourage third country shippers from delivering supplies to Cuba by barring ships from
loading and unloading cargo in U.S. ports for 180 days after delivering cargo to Cuba.
U.S. law prohibits third country manufacturers from reexporting to Cuba any goods made up of 20% U.S.
manufactured components.
Third country exports of goods containing as little as 10% U.S. manufactured components must receive a
license from the U.S. Treasury.

MYTH 2: Even with the embargo, Cuba can buy medicines and medical supplies from the United
States -- U.S. companies can receive licenses to export with verification mechanisms.

FACT 2: The complexity and confusion of the licensing process has resulted in only eight licenses
granted to U.S. subsidiaries between 1992 - 1995; in fact, no U.S. parent company has received a
license since the passage of the CDA in 1992 because:
?
The procedure is difficult, discouraging, and cumbersome, few companies apply. In fact, the stated
policy of both the Treasury and the Commerce Department is that "applications for validated
licenses will generally be denied";
?
Licenses must be obtained on a contract-by-contract basis, a laborious and time-consuming process;
?
Those who have applications approved must carry out an "on-site verification" process which is
difficult, complex, potentially costly and threatens harsh penalties; therefore, most companies do
not wish to do so. Neither Treasury nor Commerce has issued regulations explaining what sort of
verification is required, or how it is to be carried out.

MYTH 3: Cuban exiles, U.S. based humanitarian organizations and international aid agencies send
money, medicine and medical supplies to Cuba that make up for the ban on medicine and medical
supplies.

FACT 3.1: Donations are not a substitute for trade.
The level of donations received currently pales in comparison to import needs. According to the U.S.
Treasury Department, 82 licenses were approved for U.S. sales and donations of food and medicine to Cuba
between October 1992 and May 1995 at a value of 63 million dollars. Yet in 1990 alone, prior to the passage
of the CDA, Cuba imported well over &#036;400 million in food and medicines from U.S. subsidiaries.

Donations are an inconsistent and inadequate source of medical goods, rarely matching needs in terms of
specific drugs, medical equipment or replacement parts.
Contributions only reach a part of the Cuban population, benefiting those with relatives in the U.S. or ties to
charitable organizations.
The health of a population cannot be sustained by donations. Medical research and development is needed
to maintain and expand an adequate health care system and industry.

FACT 3.2: U.S. law imposes restrictions that limit humanitarian assistance to Cuba.
Restrictions placed on charitable donations from the U.S. are similar to those imposed on commercial trade
and have the same discouraging impact: a cumbersome licensing process and restrictions around shipping
and end-use certification requirements result in delays and higher costs that limit contributions.
Travel license requirements and the absence of direct flights to Cuba result in delays and higher costs for
both personal travel and donations. For example, the Cuban Council of Churches has experienced up to
three-month delays in U.S. donations re-routed through Canada. Catholic Relief Services has reported that
indirect shipping currently quadruples its shipping costs.
Donations from third country sources and international aid agencies are also limited by delays and increased
costs imposed by U.S. law. The CDA requirement that ships docked in Cuba cannot stop in U.S. ports for
180 days applies to international donations and international donors must apply for a license from U.S.
government agencies if the material they are sending contains over 10% U.S. origin components.

FACT 3.3: Even Cuban Americans who have a special license to permit family visits and donations
have been affected by the need to obtain travel licenses on a case-by-case basis and by the absence
of direct flights.

MYTH 4: Widespread suffering imposed by Castro is a larger concern than inadequate medicine and
medical supplies resulting from the embargo.

FACT 4: The embargo on medicine and medical supplies does nothing to weaken Castro&#39;s power.
The humanitarian impact of U.S. policy is used to justify social control measures that the Cuban government
deems as necessary in a "war-time" situation.
The ban further portrays the U.S. as an enemy that is hurting the Cuban people, thus arousing more
nationalistic, anti-American sentiment in Cuba.

MYTH 5: Inadequacies in the Cuban healthcare system stem from the Cuban government&#39;s failure
to prioritize healthcare by diverting its resources to other areas.

FACT 5: Cuba has prioritized access to doctors.
According to UNICEF, the Cuban healthcare system provides medical services free-of-charge to 98 percent
of the population, surpassing health care coverage in both the United States and the rest of Latin America.
Health services are widely available to the population, without regard to economic status, politics, race or
religion. Over 95 percent of the public is attended by local family practitioners, each serving approximately
150 families in their neighborhoods.

Cuba has one of the highest doctor/patient ratios in the world: by 1996, there were 60,129 physicians in
Cuba, half of these specialists, for a ratio of one physician for every 183 inhabitants. Problems in the Cuban
healthcare system are not an inaccessibility to physicians but the unavailability of medicine and medical
supplies as result of economic shortages and the embargo.

FACT 5.1: Despite the economic crisis of the 1990s, Cuba has continued to prioritize healthcare.
The health budget has increased its share of the national budget. Cuban healthcare spending was at 905
million pesos in 1989 but grew to 1.2 billion by 1996. This is the opposite of defense spending: in 1989, 1.3
billion pesos were spent on defense. In 1995 this amount had decreased to 602 million.
In fact, according to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Cuba spends a greater percent of its
GDP on health care than any other government in Latin America. In comparison to 7 percent spent by Cuba,
Bolivia spends .6 percent, Costa Rica spends 1.27 percent; Dominican Republic spends 1.12 percent; and
Brazil spends 0.64 percent.

MYTH 6: While depriving the healthcare system used by the vast majority of Cuban of adequate
funding, the Cuban government has developed a closed, parallel healthcare system for the
Communist Party elite, foreign &#39;health tourists&#39;, and others of the privileged few who can pay for
medical services in hard currency.

FACT 6: Foreign patient medical services represent only a small proportion of Cuba&#39;s universal
healthcare system.
A very limited number of hospital beds are set aside for foreign patients (the Cuban Ministry of Public Health*
and individual hospitals in Cuba state that only 400-500 of Cuba&#39;s 66,263 hospital beds are used by
foreigners). Only two medical centers in the country are dedicated to treating foreign patients: the Cira
Garcma International Clinic (with 41 beds) and the Center for Retinitis Pigmentosa (with 90 beds). There is
no deficit of hospital beds in the country and no Cuban is denied hospitalization in favor of a foreign patient.
The vast majority of revenue generated by foreign patient medical services is reinvested in the Cuban
healthcare system. In a recent interview, the Vice-Minister for Economic Affairs reported that 98.5 percent
of gross income from foreign patient care stays within the health system. The hospital providing the service
typically retains 60 percent of the funds and the remaining 40 percent goes into the national health budget.
Hospitals use their profits to upgrade the entire facility, used overwhelmingly by Cuban patients. The portion
of funds contributed to the national health care budget is used exclusively for purchase of medications,
ambulances, equipment and supplies for medical services to the population. Hard currency earned from
treating and selling medications to foreign patients is used to purchase medicines for Cuban patients who
receive them free in hospitals and at subsidized prices in pharmacies.

MYTH 7:The Cuban government diverts profits from medical exports to support and subsidize

Cuba&#39;s biomedical research programs at the expense of primary care facilities.
FACT 7: Cuba&#39;s biomedical research primarily benefits Cubans by producing vaccines domestically
that Cuba would otherwise be unable to import.
For example, the hepatitis-b recombinant vaccine, developed through genetic engineering, has made it
possible for Cubans to be immunized against this strain of hepatitis, reducing the otherwise prohibitive cost
of importing the vaccine from international manufacturers. Another example is that of recombinant
streptokinase - the life-saving "clot-buster" administered to heart attack victims - which is available in hospital
emergency rooms, due to biomedical research. If imported, this product would cost over &#036;150 per dose.


*Most of the Ministry of Public Health statistics are also contained in PAHO records. PAHO regularly sends
in teams to Cuba (as it does to other countries) to look at health statistics and check them against their own
methodologies. Cuba fully cooperates with this process and has come up very positive in these verifications,
according to PAHO itself.

Information drawn from A Role of the U.S.A in the shortage of food and medicine in Cuba" (Kirkpatrick,
Anthony: Lancet 1996; 348-1489-91), The Cuba Democracy Act of 1992, Catholic Relief Services, Mark
Rasenick, M.D., "Exchange of Medical Supplies, Information and Personnel with Cuba" (American Public
Health Association Resolution 9310), "Bread and Water" (Clear, Marty: University of South Florida Magazine:
Spring 1997, p. 18), "The Politics of Suffering: The Impact of the US Embargo on the Health of the Cuban
People" (Diane Kuntz: American Public Health Association), "Health in Cuba and the US Embargo" (World
Federation of Public Health Associations Resolution #94-3,May 2, 1994), Denial of Food and Medicine: The
Impact of the US Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba (American Association for World Health: 1997),
"Cuba: US Economic Sanctions" (Rennack, Dianne E. and Sullivan, Mark: Congressional Research Service
Report #95-248-F, November 1996), "Cuba: Issues for Congress" (Sullivan, Mark: Congressional Research
Service Issue Brief #94005, January 1997), "Cuba: What you need to know about the US embargo: An
overview of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations Title 31 Part 515 of the US Code of Federal Regulations"
(US Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control), "Cuba: Travel Restrictions" (US
Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control), "Embargo? What embargo? Trading with
Cuba increasingly bolder," (Tamayo, Juan O: Miami Herald, 5/11/97, pp. 1A and 13A)
October 1997


I&#39;ll be expecting the usual kindergarten behaviour from j2k4. I shall be sure to consult the various strongholds of sincerity and fairness to see what is an acceptable response to the inevitable. ;)

[chalice]

Originally posted by clocker+9 April 2004 - 05:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 9 April 2004 - 05:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice@8 April 2004 - 16:09



I do believe that Alex has been dismissed out of hand, rather unfairly, though.

I do think Clocker and J2 have made light of a serious point or two.

I&#39;m hesitant to believe that America&#39;s problem with Cuba is down to Castro alone. I can&#39;t state this as fact, but common sense tells me that the US government will not be happy until the Cold War is finally won. And by this I mean that Cuba condemns her guilded shackles and embraces democracy.


Sorry, didn&#39;t mean to be "dismissive" or "make light" ative (?) of anyone.
The goal was not to be "strident" or "self-righteous".

BTW, what the hell did you mean by Cuba&#39;s "guilded shackles"?
Yes, I&#39;m aware that was meant to be "gilded".
Even so....what is particularly golden about Castro&#39;s repressive regime? [/b][/quote]
Perhaps the shackles are not so "gilded" to the Cuban people but Castro&#39;s regime, to many, is representative of a small country doing its best against overwhelming odds. I do not mean to suggest that there was anything glorious about his tenure. However, some of his initiatives (national health, public education, full employment)were successful. Now, this success was down to the hard grind of his citizens and Soviet subsidies but the Soviets had more to gain than the Cubans for the aid they provided.

I can&#39;t help but think that Castro simply had no choice when sandwiched between superpowers.

[J'Pol]

Let the USA choose who it does and does not trade with. It is a matter for them. They have no need to explain themselves to anyone. If they choose not to trade with a country because of it&#39;s leadership, that is their choice.



With regard to aid / interference they seem to be in a no win situation . If they do things in other countries they are wrong.

If they do nothing, they are wrong.

Damned if you do, damned if you don&#39;t the way I see it.

It seems that everyone else wants to tell the USA when and where to spend it&#39;s own resources. You should go there and do this, but don&#39;t go there and do that. You are just a stupid American, so let a clever / morally superior European tell you what you should be doing. Oh, I won&#39;t contribute to the costs, you can do that. Fair enough.

[Rat Faced]

Cuba stopped being the big bad Communist country in 1991.

Since this date, anyone is free to own property and own a business, and the Government has a Catholic Orienation not an Atheist one.

Its still a Socialist Dictatorship, but hardly Communist....and the Human Rights Record is a hell of a lot better (although still very bad) than some other Countries supported by the USA.

Maybe if we look at the History since 1892, we can see why the USA will not support it? Remember, for example why there was a popular Revolution?


The USA, hobbled by a law requiring its own government to respect Cuban self-determination, could not annex Cuba outright, as it did Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. Instead, they installed a governor, General John Brooke, and began a series of public works projects, building schools and improving public health, that further tied Cuba to the USA. US leaders did retain the legal right to intervene militarily in Cuba&#39;s domestic affairs: In 1903, the USA built a naval base at Guantánamo Bay that is still in operation today.

By the 1920s US companies owned two-thirds of Cuba&#39;s farmland, imposing tariffs that crippled Cuba&#39;s own manufacturing industries. Discrimination against blacks was institutionalized. Tourism based on drinking, gambling and prostitution flourished. The hardships of the Great Depression led to civil unrest, which was violently quelled by President Gerado Machado y Morales. In 1933 Morales was overthrown in a coup, and army sergeant Fulgencio Batista seized power. Over the next 20 years Cuba crumbled, and its assets were increasingly placed into foreign hands. On January 1, 1959, Batista&#39;s dictatorship was overthrown after a three-year guerilla campaign led by young lawyer Fidel Castro. Batista fled Cuba for the Dominican Republic, taking with him US&#036;40 million of government funds.

Castro was named prime minister and began reforming the nation&#39;s economy, cutting rents and nationalizing landholdings larger than 400 hectares. Relations with the USA, already shaky, deteriorated when he nationalized US-owned petroleum refineries that had refused to process Venezuelan oil. The Americans retaliated by cutting Cuban sugar imports, crippling the Cuban economy, and the CIA began plotting devious ways to overthrow the revolutionary government. Desperate for cash, Castro turned to the Soviet Union, which promptly paid top dollar for Cuba&#39;s sugar surplus.

In 1961, 1400 CIA-trained Cuban expats, mainly upper-middle-class Batista supporters who had fled to Miami after the revolution, attacked the island at the Bay of Pigs. They were promptly captured and ransomed back to the US for medical supplies. The following week, Castro announced the &#39;socialist nature&#39; of the revolutionary government, something he&#39;d always denied. The Soviet Union, always eager to help a struggling socialist nation (particularly one so strategically located) sent much-needed food, technical support and, of course, nuclear weapons. The October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis is said to be the closest the world has ever come to nuclear conflict.

The missiles were shipped back to the USSR, and the USA declared an embargo on Cuba. Castro and his Minister of Economics, Che Guevara, began actively supporting guerilla groups in South America and Africa, sending troops and advisers to assist socialist insurgencies in Zaire, Angola, Mozambique, Bolivia (where Guevara was killed) and Ethiopia. The US response was to support dictators in many of those countries. By the 1970s, Cuba had limited itself to sending doctors and technicians abroad; there were problems enough at home. Despite massive Soviet aid, the Cuban command economy was in ruins, and the country&#39;s plight worsened in 1989 when Russia withdrew its aid as Eastern Europe collapsed.

In December 1991, the Cuban Constitution was amended to remove all references to Marxism-Leninism, and economic reforms began. In 1993, laws passed allowing Cubans to own and use US dollars, be self-employed and open farmers&#39; markets. Taxes on dollar incomes and profits were levied in 1994, and in September 1996 foreign companies were allowed to wholly own and operate businesses and purchase real estate. These measures gradually brought the economy out of its post-Soviet tailspin. The US responded by stiffening its embargo with the Helms-Burton Act, ironically solidifying Castro&#39;s position as defender of Cuba against the evil empire.



So basically these nasty people threw out a load of US business that owned 2/3 of their country due to the USA not being allowed to just annex them like Puerto Rico.

They then had the audasity to ask the USSR for Aid to rebuild their country because they couldnt get it from the USA (and by doing this they embraced Communism).

They then had the audacity to introduce Universal Education and Health care, which 10 years ago made Child Mortality in Hanover less than that of Washington DC.

They have also, much to the horror of the USA managed all this while fighting a Covert War with the CIA, and being the subject of a Blockade. Cruise ships cant call there even now due to this Blockade.... No tourist money coming in hurts who?

The reason Human Rights are watched in Cuba by the CIA is the "lack of free elections in accordance with internationally accepted standards"; I got news for you.. your own 2000 election falls into this criteria.

And the Human Rights people at the CIA are reduced to pointing at


As for the freedom of expression, Article 53 of the Constitution provides: "Freedom of speech and press are recognized for citizens consistent with the purposes of socialist society. The material conditions for their exercise are present by the fact that the press, radio, television, movies, and other mass media are state-owned or socially owned, and can in no event be privately owned, which ensures their use exclusively in the service of the working people and in the interest of society. The law regulates the exercise of these freedoms."

Ok, fair enough. Now, what about all the Iraqi Newspapers and TV stations that the Coallition have closed down? Oh but thats different....thats us...


There is a huge amount of Hypocracy and Misinformation about Cuba.

Yes, they violate Human Rights. There are no Free Elections, and the Government doesnt like opposition...well, that describes an awfull lot of Countries in the world. What opposition there is, they clamp down on..again a lot of places do it worse.

While in no way Condoning Human Rights abuses in Cuba; they arent exactly a "Brutal Dictatorship" in the scheme of things.

That type of Government wouldnt spend 8% of GPD on the Health of its Citizens. Thats a more of GPD than UK (7% I think) in making sure their citizens are Healthy and Live longer.


Off Topic:

Actually, talking GDP on Health... How does an economy as large as the USA spend 13.8% of its GDP on Health (twice the % of UK) and still not have Free Universal Health Care.

When you consider the Economy is vastly greater than the UK and the population only 5 or 6 times greater....you should all own your own Hospital...someone is getting ripped off.

[j2k4]

I&#39;d love to reply, but I&#39;m exhausted from all the reading. :huh:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@9 April 2004 - 07:30
I&#39;d love to reply, but I&#39;m exhausted from all the reading. :huh:
who are you and what did you do with j2k4? :lol: :lol: :lol: the man that holds the record for the longest topic posts :lol:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@9 April 2004 - 06:10
Off Topic:

Actually, talking GDP on Health... How does an economy as large as the USA spend 13.8% of its GDP on Health (twice the % of UK) and still not have Free Universal Health Care.

When you consider the Economy is vastly greater than the UK and the population only 5 or 6 times greater....you should all own your own Hospital...someone is getting ripped off.
perhaps a new topic would about which system works (even though it&#39;s been done to death) would bring out some interesting views. I have experience at the hands of both systems (private and social) and they both have their own benefits as well as their own downsides. A lot depends on your own personal circumstances as to the experience you get when it come to healthcare.

[j2k4]

vidcc-

I think you just defaulted to the position of "thread-starter", as one who has experience with both.

How&#39;s your shitpile? :lol:

[Busyman]

How is then that millions would love to leave Cuba if the country is so great?

So far what I&#39;ve read looks good on paper.


Why do so many defect or risk their lives on an inner tube to get to Florida?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@9 April 2004 - 10:57
vidcc-

I think you just defaulted to the position of "thread-starter", as one who has experience with both.

How&#39;s your shitpile? :lol:
i&#39;ll think about the wording so that it&#39;s a debate and not an attacking session about everyone elses system and get on it :lol:

the crap pile was only a pile for a short while as they started to spread it as soon as it was delivered,it ponged for just the one day then it calmed down the topsoil was spread just in time before the sky opened up...darn typical...no rain for the best part of a year and as soon as i get the landscapers in....cats and dogs (had to be careful not to tread in a poodle :lol: ) no pong now :P

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+9 April 2004 - 14:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 9 April 2004 - 14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@9 April 2004 - 10:57
vidcc-

I think you just defaulted to the position of "thread-starter", as one who has experience with both.


i&#39;ll think about the wording so that it&#39;s a debate and not an attacking session about everyone elses system and get on it :lol:

[/b][/quote]
That would be excellent. :)

Remember to use a fresh thread&#33; ;)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Busyman@9 April 2004 - 20:26
How is then that millions would love to leave Cuba if the country is so great?

So far what I&#39;ve read looks good on paper.


Why do so many defect or risk their lives on an inner tube to get to Florida?
Thats simple.

It IS a poor country, and many people would rather die than not live free.

The people of Cuba arent free to choose their own Government, that has never been in dispute. The dispute has been is "what has it got to do with you".

In addition, everyone has heard of "The American Dream".

You have illegal immigrants from quite prosperous western countries, not just "wetbacks".....havent you heard the streets are paved with Gold over there?

I sure have, and i know they arent :P

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+9 April 2004 - 14:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 9 April 2004 - 14:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@9 April 2004 - 20:26
How is then that millions would love to leave Cuba if the country is so great?

So far what I&#39;ve read looks good on paper.


Why do so many defect or risk their lives on an inner tube to get to Florida?
Thats simple.

It IS a poor country, and many people would rather die than not live free.

The people of Cuba arent free to choose their own Government, that has never been in dispute. The dispute has been is "what has it got to do with you".

In addition, everyone has heard of "The American Dream".

You have illegal immigrants from quite prosperous western countries, not just "wetbacks".....havent you heard the streets are paved with Gold over there?

I sure have, and i know they arent :P [/b][/quote]
Ahh the American dream.....One just has to concentrate on the word "dream" :D
What i would say about the land of opportunity is that you can&#39;t just wait for opportunity to knock on your door. The USA is no different from any other "free" nation in this respect. One could do just as well in most developed parts of the world as one could do here.with hard work building a business is achievable but carries the same risk of failure as everywhere else..the only difference is that we almost promote the idea as being the norm and people are more vocal in being patriotic here, even the poorest person in the land will stand up in pride when a Politician says "America is the greatest nation on earth" :D

[clocker]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@9 April 2004 - 06:10


So basically these nasty people threw out a load of US business that owned 2/3 of their country due to the USA not being allowed to just annex them like Puerto Rico.


So why would they risk doing business with us again?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+9 April 2004 - 23:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 9 April 2004 - 23:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@9 April 2004 - 06:10


So basically these nasty people threw out a load of US business that owned 2/3 of their country due to the USA not being allowed to just annex them like Puerto Rico.


So why would they risk doing business with us again? [/b][/quote]
Exactly.

Cuba is quite right not dealing with the US.

Why would they take the risk. You might end up investing in their country and no-one would want that.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+9 April 2004 - 18:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 9 April 2004 - 18:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@9 April 2004 - 20:26
How is then that millions would love to leave Cuba if the country is so great?

So far what I&#39;ve read looks good on paper.


Why do so many defect or risk their lives on an inner tube to get to Florida?
Thats simple.

It IS a poor country, and many people would rather die than not live free.

The people of Cuba arent free to choose their own Government, that has never been in dispute. The dispute has been is "what has it got to do with you".

In addition, everyone has heard of "The American Dream".

You have illegal immigrants from quite prosperous western countries, not just "wetbacks".....havent you heard the streets are paved with Gold over there?

I sure have, and i know they arent :P [/b][/quote]
Oh but aren&#39;t they free? Doesn&#39;t Cuba have "free" healthcare?

I know many immigrants from Trinidad, Mexico, and CANADA, and they would never want to go back. I wonder why.......



btw &#39;Looking For Fidel&#39; will air on HBO, Wednesday Apr. 14 from 8-9pm eastern time. It&#39;s basically an hour long Oliver Stone interview with the Cuban dictator.

In this interview he will discussing Fidel&#39;s crackdown on political dissidents among other topics like his potential successors and his failing health.

[Rat Faced]

Wow, did i upset you guys that much? :o

I got this on peergardian today:


Connection Rejected: 198.81.129.100 - CIA PGIPDB (**-**-**** @ **-**-**)

Yeh&#33;&#33; Im a disadent and a threat to world peace <_<


Edit: Date/Time removed; why make it easy for them :ph34r:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@9 April 2004 - 20:32
Wow, did i upset you guys that much? :o

I got this on peergardian today:


Connection Rejected: 198.81.129.100 - CIA PGIPDB (**-**-**** @ **:**:**)

Yeh&#33;&#33; Im a disadent and a threat to world peace <_<


Edit: Date/Time removed; why make it easy for them :ph34r:
Who me?

Upset about what?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by clocker+9 April 2004 - 22:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 9 April 2004 - 22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@9 April 2004 - 06:10


So basically these nasty people threw out a load of US business that owned 2/3 of their country due to the USA not being allowed to just annex them like Puerto Rico.


So why would they risk doing business with us again? [/b][/quote]
Clocker

I am not sure they do want to do business with you. I think the issue was (perhaps still is to a certain extent) that the US embargo was designed to stop anyone trading with Cuba.

I think this may be over now (or the EU just ignores it) because Cuba has become the hot bargain Caribbean holiday destination for many Europeans.

Regardless of what happens in the future, Cuba will not return to being a banana republic at the whim of a fruit company.

Despite the assistance to overthrow Allende in Chile (after the former nationalised copper mines etc.,) Pinochet did not hand back all the Chilean assets to foreign companies (although I may be wrong, I think very little in fact was returned). Today, Allende&#39;s party is back in charge of Chile and the 70s are now just a bad memory for the Chileans.

As a rule of thumb, trying to influence who other countries vote for and who should govern them tends not to be a happy experience (whether it was the West or the East that was pulling the strings)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Biggles@11 April 2004 - 21:50
I am not sure they do want to do business with you. I think the issue was (perhaps still is to a certain extent) that the US embargo was designed to stop anyone trading with Cuba.

I think this may be over now (or the EU just ignores it) because Cuba has become the hot bargain Caribbean holiday destination for many Europeans.

Regardless of what happens in the future, Cuba will not return to being a banana republic at the whim of a fruit company.


The main problem Cuba now has is the US Laws that doesnt allow any ship that has been to Cuba, to go to any American controled port for 6 months afterwards.

This means that:

1/ Cruise ships cannot not go there as they call at Florida and American controlled Islands in the Carribean... Tourists have to fly in, which is why its the "Hot Destination" for European Tourists...Flights are cheap for Europe as....

2/ A lot of Imports (including Medical) are also flown in (relatively speaking for a small Island), as the way to make a profit in shipping is to go and leave with a full load..as they cant deliver to US controlled Lands/Islands at the same time, they tend to give Cuba a miss.

As the imports are flown, there is added expense to things that they cannot get via US companies such as Medical Supplies... (This is a big problem, as over 1/2 the worlds Drug companies are US owned and cant legally sell to Cuba anyway)



On the upside (for Euro Tourists)..as there is a lot of flights, the seats tend to be cheap.