If the US invaded Cuba what would you do?

[incka]

If the US invaded Cuba what would you do?

I would go to Cuba and fight for the Cubans; even if it means dieing. I would not see a truely free country be destroyed by fascist pigs. Castro is one of the greatest men ever. Period.

[mazarane]

Hmmm...I'd question two base assumptions there...

I would not term Americans, or American soldiers, or the American goverment, fascist pigs. Criticism works better through evidence than insults.

I would not term Cuba a "truely free country". Certainly it has made some achievements worthy of respect- I've posted on the subject in one of the communism threads. But in terms of political freedom, freedom of the press....it's somewhat lacking to say the least.


That said, I would be very much against such an invasion. But that wouldn't extend to going and fighting for Castro's dictatorship. Come to that, I can't see me going and fighting for Chavez' "democracy". Hmmm...

[Sisyphis]

I had that feeling too, incka, when I heard that they were on the list for invasion/domination. To be honest, the notion of free speech and political freedoms, in a climate of absolute ideological domination via control of communication and wealth by a single system (I'm talking about the system that is external, and yet still acts upon Cuba), is incredible. I think that Cuba has more political freedom/freedom of speech than most countries, especially most countries under the ideological control of the prospective invaders.
Having said that, I also think that the true war lies where we stand. The extent to which Cuba, as it is, only exists for the purpose of facilitating fear and generating republican votes in the U.S., is something to take into account. It may be as much a tool for a broader universal fascism as it is a local force of liberation. We must take into account the contribution that we are capable of making locally, in comparison to our potential in a pitched battle, against the enemies of freedom and the advancers of exploitation. One thing is for certain; to take them on head-on cannot be advanced from the position of relative weakness in arms. Such an act would be a contribution to the prospect of universal intellectual immolation. Perhaps we need to encourage the act of fascist forces eliminating themselves, providing for a mutual weakening.
Having said that, as a matter of extended probability, invasions do have a tendency to invert if too many are taken up. The invasion that leads to a faster deconstruction than that which is inevitable in the current climate, might also plant the seed for an eventual extended universal invasion against the virus of our times.
I don’t think that an open invasion of Cuba is likely for the time being. Cuba is being invaded as we speak, ideologically and economically. It is an invasion that has just as much potential for success as a direct one, and the would-be world dominators with a “mission from beyond the stars” are quite stretched for the time being. This represents a reason for the enemies of the main fascist force to keep its defense capacities regionally restricted. Considering the recent U.S policy of attacking for the purpose of preventing an imagined danger, however, those countries who have been directly threatened would be well advised and sensible to follow the U.S. example and strike first, if they have the capabilities. If all of the countries mentioned were to launch an attack against the aggressor, considering its current weakened domestic defense capacities, they may well come close to winning.
It is horrible to witness the concept of democracy, as it currently largely exists (with the facade of democracy being the most effective mode of domination in the western world), being confused with liberation. I see no great good emanating from the spreading of a democracy as it stands in the western world.
It is impossible to transcend the fascist modality via an actual competitive act. Opposition, or the true negative to this standard, must be fluid. Never willingly jump into the category that exists for the purpose of eliminating the fluidity of the potential for negation. Cuba, under invasion, would be such a category. This is why I will no go there to fight against the demonstrably fascist invaders.

[Ygraine]

Pray fervently that Blair didn't drag us into it just to please his best friend Mr Bush

[oceanflower]

THis thread makes me smile. No one would have the freedom to say or write any of these things if you lived under the repressive regime of Fidel Castro.

[incka]

Quit with the republican propoganda Liz - Freedom of speech won't feed my children!

[Sisyphis]

THis thread makes me smile. No one would have the freedom to say or write any of these things if you lived under the repressive regime of Fidel Castro.

Castro wouldn't let me support him? Wow, what a selfless man! I think that you are being a little naive. Perhaps you should seek out an independant perspective on Cuba. In other regimes it isn't speech that is repressed, it is thought, and that is far worse.

[ArthurDent]

THis thread makes me smile. No one would have the freedom to say or write any of these things if you lived under the repressive regime of Fidel Castro.

First of all - Happy Birthday :)

I agree with you, and Sis - You know what she meant...

Anyway, I wouldn't support an invasion to Cuba unless it poses a threat on the world. Plus, I'm pretty sure Bush is done invading for quite a while... There are at least two other countries who could use some "outside assistance" that are far more burning than Cuba.

[oceanflower]

Quit with the republican propoganda Liz - Freedom of speech won't feed my children!

Repiblican prpoganda? I have a whole lot od Democrat friends who love their freedom and would never move to Cuba. So...will you be moving to Cuba, Sean, when you are old enough? Can you walk the walk, or are you just talking the talk?

[oceanflower]

Castro wouldn't let me support him? Wow, what a selfless man! I think that you are being a little naive. Perhaps you should seek out an independant perspective on Cuba. In other regimes it isn't speech that is repressed, it is thought, and that is far worse.

Very funny. However, my point still remains. Ae you saying that freedom of speech is honored in Cuba?

[oceanflower]

First of all - Happy Birthday :)
.

Thank you! :)

[Unregistered]

Very funny. However, my point still remains. Ae you saying that freedom of speech is honored in Cuba?

i'm saying that freedom of freely developed speech is honoured.

sis

[mazarane]

Current Amnesty International Report:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/cub-summary-eng

"Limitations on freedom of expression, association and assembly remained codified in Cuban law. However, a decline in numbers of prisoners of conscience over the last several years was taken by some observers as an indication that repression of dissidents was waning. Several prisoners of conscience were released during 2002, including Juan José Moreno Reyes, Vladimiro Roca Antúnez and Oscar Elías Biscet, apparently supporting this view.

However, there were more new detentions of prisoners of conscience in 2002, showing clearly the authorities’ continuing use of harsh measures to stifle potential internal dissent. In December Oscar Elías Biscet was redetained with a number of other activists as they took part in a discussion group on human rights."

"The authorities continued to try to discourage dissent by harassing suspected critics of the government. Suspected dissidents were subjected to short-term detention, frequent summonses, threats, eviction, loss of employment and restrictions on movement."

Cuban Law according to an AI report in 2002:
"In Cuba, freedom of expression and association are restricted both in law and in practice. This affects, among others, 'independent' journalists and trade unionists -- those working outside the state media or official trade union. The following is a short list of some of the offences contained in the Cuban Penal Code which usually result in the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience:

C 'Enemy propaganda' (article 103) - anyone who incites against the social order, international solidarity or the Socialist State by means of oral or written propaganda and anyone who makes, distributes or possesses propaganda of that kind; anyone who spreads false news or malicious predictions which are likely to cause alarm or discontent among the population, or public disorder.

Cecilio Monteagudo Sánchez(21) served four years in prison, reportedly for writing a leaflet calling on people not to vote in local elections which were due to take place in October 1997. The leaflet was never printed or distributed. According to the Cuban Constitution, citizens have the right to vote but are not obliged to do so.

C 'Dangerousness' (articles 72-74) - the dangerous state is the particular proclivity which a person has to commit crimes, as demonstrated by behaviour which clearly runs counter to socialist moral norms.

Independent journalist Jesús Joel Díaz Hernández(24) spent two years in prison, from January 1999 to January 2001, for this offence. This charge, which is particularly vaguely defined and risks being open to subjective application, has repeatedly used against those engaged in dissident activities."

Sis, I'm not sure how those two offences fit with your viewpoint. I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on the "thought control" you feel is prevalent in capitalist nations.

Sean, I would definitely say that freedom of speech is restricted in Cuba, and that it is in no way "republican propaganda" to say so. If you want to argue that other matters are more important in people's lives, then that's a different matter.

[skye]

Plus, I'm pretty sure Bush is done invading for quite a while... There are at least two other countries who could use some "outside assistance" that are far more burning than Cuba.


I hope he'll stop invading other countries not only for a while, but permanently.

[oceanflower]

i'm saying that freedom of freely developed speech is honoured.

sis
Please give me your definition of "freely developed speech."

[Sisyphis]

Freely developed speech is, among other things, that which has not been subjected to consumer domination, via education (the most complete education anyone gets in the modern world is how to consume - it is taught to Western children from birth and reinforced with every commercial, more adequately defined as psychological manipulation, before they are able to speak). The education received by everyone for free in Cuba - you can acquire a Doctorate without paying a cent for your education - is the most objective model conceivable for a nation at war. Ideology is naturally guarded against, if only as an act of moderation. The type of ideology that is used for the recapturing of Cuba is invasive – it is the Western Ideology of Capitalism which is, inherently, a force of domination. The ideology repressed is merely an invasive ideology moderated. Democracy, when it is not a democracy liberated from the repressive aspects of primal self interest inherent in its actual content today, may be conceived as being the antithesis of freedom in a social situation that has transcended the farce. In order to create a true democracy, you must first weaken its namesake.
The extent to which Cubans have access to freely developed speech is the extent to which Cuban policy guards the nation against the propaganda of enslavement. In a society such as Cuba, to proliferate anti-government sentiment has the potential to upset the volatile stability of Cuba’s freedom. Unlike other nations, where an act of free speech is only valuable because it allows us to act free, an act of free speech in Cuba has the potential to eliminate actual freedom.
Freely developed speech is merely the antithesis of speech that has been generated from the modality of domination and explotation. To this extent, when I say that Cuba allows "freely developed speech", I should qualify it by saying that it does so to a far greater extent than other models of governance, but not completely. Its incapacity to develop beyond its own stagnation is, however, beyond Cuba's control. A large part of Cuba's governance is expended in an "anti-virus infrastructure". This is because they are under attack. They have, unfortunately, reached the end of their horizon of freedom and found that they are confined within the walls of slavery that surrounds them. The only way that we can help develop the freedom of the people of Cuba, is by freeing ourselves. We are the slave-walls confining them.

[oceanflower]

Thank you, Sisyphis, for that explanation. Now, I'lll repeat my earlier question: Is freedom of speech granted to the citezens of Cuba? I refer to the type of free speech that is permitted in the USA, in England, in Denmark, to name a few. And please answer the question either "yes" or "no." It's a very simple, straightforward question.

[Unregistered]

No, certainly not. The type of free speech that you refer to is a mere symptom of slavery. As I said, it is a performance of freedom, an act. The type of free speech you refer to can only be spoken by the slave.
The attempt to get me to answer the question in a simple "yes or no fashion" is a symptom of the intellectual slavery advanced by the belief in simplicity (otherwise known as conservatism). You are asking me to perform a lie by pretending to believe that simplicity applies, whereas simplicity is a fiction that is generated by the incapacity to comprehend. Simplicity is the tool of oppression. It draws boundries where there are none, merely because people are too lazy to comprehend. It is identical to requiring a dog to sit when it is asked, and then applying such a limited comprehension to humans. You ask me to perform the tricks of a household pet, who knows only how to repond to positive and negative. You thereby desire the end of human freedom. It is the offensive request that a master gives to a servant, the end of intelligence, making humans easier to enslave.
Never ask me to lie by presenting me with arbitrary restraints. Such a requirment is beneath human dignity. The truth should never be neglected or negated by ignorance.

sis

[oceanflower]

No, certainly not. The type of free speech that you refer to is a mere symptom of slavery. As I said, it is a performance of freedom, an act. The type of free speech you refer to can only be spoken by the slave.
The attempt to get me to answer the question in a simple "yes or no fashion" is a symptom of the intellectual slavery advanced by the belief in simplicity (otherwise known as conservatism). You are asking me to perform a lie by pretending to believe that simplicity applies, whereas simplicity is a fiction that is generated by the incapacity to comprehend. Simplicity is the tool of oppression. It draws boundries where there are none, merely because people are too lazy to comprehend. It is identical to requiring a dog to sit when it is asked, and then applying such a limited comprehension to humans. You ask me to perform the tricks of a household pet, who knows only how to repond to positive and negative. You thereby desire the end of human freedom. It is the offensive request that a master gives to a servant, the end of intelligence, making humans easier to enslave.
Never ask me to lie by presenting me with arbitrary restraints. Such a requirment is beneath human dignity. The truth should never be neglected or negated by ignorance.

sis

Unless I break the rules of the Forums and use vulagarity, profanity or personal insult, please don't tell me what I may or may not say, Sisiphis. I do have freedom of speech, after all. And your opinion that free speech is a symptom of slavery is just that: your opinion. Your argument to change my opinion has failed to do so. I'm sorry that you feel threatened or insulted by the way I asked my question, but it was my question and I have the right to ask it in any way I please. I asked for a yes or a no answer because it is my opinion that, when one is confident in the stand one is taking it is not always necessary to employ excessive wordiness. In fact, it is often more effective to make one's point with brevity. There are questions that can be answered by a yes or a no, and, in my opinion, mine was one of them.

[oceanflower]

Uh oh...Since I request other members to stay on-topic, I have to chide myself this time: You and I are waaaay off-topic, sis. The topic is: If the U.S. invaded Cuba, what would you do?

So, sis, if you and I want to continue the discussion we wandered into, we'll need to do it in another thread. :)

[Morty]

No, certainly not. The type of free speech that you refer to is a mere symptom of slavery. As I said, it is a performance of freedom, an act. The type of free speech you refer to can only be spoken by the slave.
The attempt to get me to answer the question in a simple "yes or no fashion" is a symptom of the intellectual slavery advanced by the belief in simplicity (otherwise known as conservatism). You are asking me to perform a lie by pretending to believe that simplicity applies, whereas simplicity is a fiction that is generated by the incapacity to comprehend. Simplicity is the tool of oppression. It draws boundries where there are none, merely because people are too lazy to comprehend. It is identical to requiring a dog to sit when it is asked, and then applying such a limited comprehension to humans. You ask me to perform the tricks of a household pet, who knows only how to repond to positive and negative. You thereby desire the end of human freedom. It is the offensive request that a master gives to a servant, the end of intelligence, making humans easier to enslave.
Never ask me to lie by presenting me with arbitrary restraints. Such a requirment is beneath human dignity. The truth should never be neglected or negated by ignorance.

sis
"More matter, less art"

You're jumping to drastic conclusions here, and you have no right whatsoever to judge whether or not Liz believes in human freedom. Now unlike many other parts of the world, the United States, and Europe in particular, have fought for freedom. Not slavery- freedom. My countrymen, as well as Liz's countrymen and many others, have fought side by side, and given their lives to ensure that I sit here today, a free human being. For you to come here, jumping to conclusions, making hasty judgments and blatantly disrespecting the millions of Americans, Danes, British, French, German, etc, that have died on their feet to prevent me from living on my knees, is pathetic of you.

There exists only one freedom- extreme freedom. There is no such a thing as semi-freedom, or freedom but...Freedom can only exist in its purest form. Any attempt to censor or the like is bound to lead to revolt. There are, naturally, rules that are to be followed in order to ensure, as Liz beuatifully put it, that my freedom to does not interfere with anothers freedom from.

[Unregistered]

"More matter, less art"

You're jumping to drastic conclusions here, and you have no right whatsoever to judge whether or not Liz believes in human freedom. Now unlike many other parts of the world, the United States, and Europe in particular, have fought for freedom. Not slavery- freedom. My countrymen, as well as Liz's countrymen and many others, have fought side by side, and given their lives to ensure that I sit here today, a free human being. For you to come here, jumping to conclusions, making hasty judgments and blatantly disrespecting the millions of Americans, Danes, British, French, German, etc, that have died on their feet to prevent me from living on my knees, is pathetic of you.

There exists only one freedom- extreme freedom. There is no such a thing as semi-freedom, or freedom but...Freedom can only exist in its purest form. Any attempt to censor or the like is bound to lead to revolt. There are, naturally, rules that are to be followed in order to ensure, as Liz beuatifully put it, that my freedom to does not interfere with anothers freedom from.

You don't seem to be making any sense whatsoever, so what can I say? ocean flower demanded me to answer question the way she wanted me to, and I merely showed her that this was a tyranny of simplicity that she was trying to inflict upon me. She was trying to restrict my "opinion" by asking me to act in accordance with her "opinion". Your idea of extreme freedom is entirely at odds with the types of freedom that you advocate. I have no idea what you are talking about. Indeed, freedom to should be restricted to account for others' freedom from. Extend the logic of it, if you are capable, and see where it goes. I say simply that, if those thousands of people you believe died for your "freedom", and not just for your freedom from a different ruler than the one already in place, then they were horribly mistaken. I can think of nothing more pathetic than someone who thinks that they are capable of judging others while not even being able to guard his judgments from slapping him back in the face.

sis

[oceanflower]

You don't seem to be making any sense whatsoever, so what can I say? ocean flower demanded me to answer question the way she wanted me to, and I merely showed her that this was a tyranny of simplicity that she was trying to inflict upon me. She was trying to restrict my "opinion" by asking me to act in accordance with her "opinion". Your idea of extreme freedom is entirely at odds with the types of freedom that you advocate. I have no idea what you are talking about. Indeed, freedom to should be restricted to account for others' freedom from. Extend the logic of it, if you are capable, and see where it goes. I say simply that, if those thousands of people you believe died for your "freedom", and not just for your freedom from a different ruler than the one already in place, then they were horribly mistaken. I can think of nothing more pathetic than someone who thinks that they are capable of judging others while not even being able to guard his judgments from slapping him back in the face.

sis

Morty is making complete sense to me, and I agree with what he is saying. We have our opinions and you have yours. On the other hand what you say about me is completely false, Sisyphis, and I'll thank you not to make rash statements about my intent. "Tyranny of simplicity?" Spare me! :rolleyes:

[Unregistered]

you have no right whatsoever to judge whether or not Liz believes in human freedom.

What? Why? Surely this would be covered by what so many people like to call an "opinion". I have no right to have an opinion about liz? When did this restriction come into place in your doctrine of "freedom of opinion"? Is it just your opinion that this shouldn't be the case? Mind you, I suppose that even logic is an "opinion", and nothing can really be said about what types of opinions should be repressed since that would just be an opinion, and they're all equal and shouldn't be judged (or is that just an opinion?). I think that your freedom TO have an opinion certainly puts my freedom FROM living in a cuckoo clock in danger. Your freedom to kill people for democracy certainly hurts the dead person's freedom from being killed. Your freedom TO operate and establish a social order tends to defy another person's freedom FROM that social order. Your freedom to put up a fence (the origination of "property"), or to kill the next person who leaps over it, damages another's freedom from a world with fences and ownership. Your power to exploit resources (including human resources), tends to restrict another's freedom from working on unequal terms. So what in the world is this "freedom from, freedom to" principle on about?

sis

[Unregistered]

Morty is making complete sense to me, and I agree with what he is saying. We have our opinions and you have yours. On the other hand what you say about me is completely false, Sisyphis, and I'll thank you not to make rash statements about my intent. "Tyranny of simplicity?" Spare me! :rolleyes:

Well, thats your "opinion", o.f., and there is no way I can say anything meaningful about it, apparently. Why is what I said false? Just because you say it is (it's your opinion, right?)?

sis

[oceanflower]

Well, thats your "opinion", o.f., and there is no way I can say anything meaningful about it, apparently. Why is what I said false? Just because you say it is (it's your opinion, right?)?

sis

I know the intent of my own words, Sisyphis. That's not opinion, that's fact. Your interpretation of my intent was incorrect, and that's a fact, too.

[Unregistered]

I know the intent of my own words, Sisyphis. That's not opinion, that's fact. Your interpretation of my intent was incorrect, and that's a fact, too.

Oh, wow, excellent. I should have known the "intent"of your words, instead of just reading them. I'm sorry. So your saying that what I said wasn't your intent. That's fine, I'll just make believe that you used different words then and I'll consult you to ask you what you intended the words to mean from now on, instead of just taking them as they are. There's just one problem, though... you're probably gonna use more words when you tell me, so how am I gonna figure out what you intend from your representation of your intentions?
My interpretation of your words was spot on.

"And please answer the question either "yes" or "no." It's a very simple, straightforward question."

No it isn't. You're wrong. That's a fact. Why try to control my response? Oh, sorry, thats just what the words say... my bad.

sis

[oceanflower]

Oh, wow, excellent. I should have known the "intent"of your words, instead of just reading them. I'm sorry. So your saying that what I said wasn't your intent. That's fine, I'll just make believe that you used different words then and I'll consult you to ask you what you intended the words to mean from now on, instead of just taking them as they are. There's just one problem, though... you're probably gonna use more words when you tell me, so how am I gonna figure out what you intend from your representation of your intentions?
My interpretation of your words was spot on.

"And please answer the question either "yes" or "no." It's a very simple, straightforward question."

No it isn't. You're wrong. That's a fact. Why try to control my response? Oh, sorry, thats just what the words say... my bad.

sis

My words were very clear. Unfortunately you had difficulty understanding them. I am through with this conversation with you, Sisyphus, because your replies have degenerated into pure sarcasm. I prefer a more mature approach to a converstion.

[Morty]

Sis

Clearly there is little point in me attempting to argue, since you have already made up your mind, sealed it off, and thrown away the key. On the account that my countrymen died in order to ensure my freedom from (i.e. nazism, communism, fascism), they also ensured my freedom to (i.e. speak, write, act). If that is not a thorough enough "extension of logic" for you, then I shall remain worried. I am making perfect sense.

You have, by all means, the right to an opinion. Except in the case of inductive reasoning, which I do not feel was the case, I don't think you had the right to directly judge Liz, by her brief words, on whether or not her belief in freedom is sincere.

[Unregistered]

My words were very clear. Unfortunately you had difficulty understanding them. I am through with this conversation with you, Sisyphus, because your replies have degenerated into pure sarcasm. I prefer a more mature approach to a converstion.

That's fine. Your words were clear, I agree. That's why I quoted them. Unfortunately, you had difficulty knowing what they meant, apparently. They still stand, right there, show me how I'm misunderstanding them instead of running away. Use your dictionary, even. You accuse me of sarcasm, and that may be true, but I'm not sure how else to respond when a person just says, "you're wrong", without giving any evidence for the "fact".
Anyway, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm applying your logic and ideology. If I've misrepresented it, then show me show. If it leads to absurd results it certainly isn't the result of my "sarcasm", its the result of the implementation of your own "opinions", as you've shown me so far. I like a mature approach to conversation too, the type of maturity that doesn't degenerate into absurdities or blocking your ears and closing your eyes when you are legitimately challenged. That is what children do.

sis

[Unregistered]

Clearly there is little point in me attempting to argue, since you have already made up your mind, sealed it off, and thrown away the key.

No, just make a compelling point and I'll be happy to be compelled.


You have, by all means, the right to an opinion. Except in the case of inductive reasoning, which I do not feel was the case, I don't think you had the right to directly judge Liz, by her brief words, on whether or not her belief in freedom is sincere.

This wasn't a result of induction? Well. I'm not sure what you have in mind by "inductive reasoning", then. My process was not only inductive, some might even call it deductive. Hell, I could induct that you are wearing a dress and I'd still be using inductive reasoning. It would just be a very weak act of induction.
You don't "think" that I have the "right"! Why again? Well, thanks for your "opinion", anyway.
I'm not sure what is supposed to be done with it, so I'll just store it away with all of the others.

sis

[Morty]

No, just make a compelling point and I'll be happy to be compelled.



This wasn't a result of induction? Well. I'm not sure what you have in mind by "inductive reasoning", then. My process was not only inductive, some might even call it deductive. Hell, I could induct that you are wearing a dress and I'd still be using inductive reasoning. It would just be a very weak act of induction.
You don't "think" that I have the "right"! Why again? Well, thanks for your "opinion", anyway.
I'm not sure what is supposed to be done with it, so I'll just store it away with all of the others.

sis
If you're going to resort to indirect, childish little insults I suggest you argue with someone else.

[Sisyphis]

Childish insults? Where was the insult again? I'd like to argue that it is a cultural trait, if it is there, but that would be a little silly wouldn't it?

[Bongitybongbong]

*****

[creme_ala_creme78]

im fairly sure that ***** dont have anything to do with the us invading cuba....i could be wrong however...but please try to stay on track....







(how was that for hypocritical?)

[mattlad22]

i just dont understand why they would invade cuba.. for what?..cigars.. yes im not all that informed with cuba in any which way or form..but i live in canada and i would understand a heck of alot more if they came up here.. we got alot more 2 offer.

I dont think bush is done invading at all.. hes planning something soon because he asked our government to send a bunch of our canadian troops into iraq to "seal the deal"..So im kinda assuming he gonna attack something by mid summer.. probably iran.

Mostly though im just waiting for the poor country/countries that attack isreal..they gonna get hurt real bad and they dont even know it.

[Unregistered]

i just dont understand why they would invade cuba.. for what?..cigars.. yes im not all that informed with cuba in any which way or form..but i live in canada and i would understand a heck of alot more if they came up here.. we got alot more 2 offer.

I dont think bush is done invading at all.. hes planning something soon because he asked our government to send a bunch of our canadian troops into iraq to "seal the deal"..So im kinda assuming he gonna attack something by mid summer.. probably iran.

Mostly though im just waiting for the poor country/countries that attack isreal..they gonna get hurt real bad and they dont even know it.
You make it sound as if the President plans invasions like the rest of us plan vacations, and I doubt that's the case. I think Mr.Bush would like to be remembered as a peacemaker, not a warmonger.

[Morty]

If the US invaded Cuba what would you do?

I would go to Cuba and fight for the Cubans; even if it means dieing. I would not see a truely free country be destroyed by fascist pigs. Castro is one of the greatest men ever. Period.
Castro is great? Well, if by great you mean a dictator funding guerillas, keeping political prisoners for speaking against the regime, opressing the Cuban people and setting up a neighbourhood spying system in order to imprison the opposers of the revolution, then yes- he is great.

I hadn't read that opening statement 'till now, and I felt an urge to vent.

[mattlad22]

haha no i dont feel like bush just runs around conquering everything.. just for discussions sake i stated that cuba would be a pointless invasion.. and i read somewhere on these post that cuba was on some kinda list??..lol why..what uselessness.. thats why i stated canada.. we got alot more 2 offer.. and no i wouldnt like it if they came up north with the intent of taking over.. id throw beer bottles and hockey sticks at them!!!

[Unregistered]

Castro is great? Well, if by great you mean a dictator funding guerillas, keeping political prisoners for speaking against the regime, opressing the Cuban people and setting up a neighbourhood spying system in order to imprison the opposers of the revolution, then yes- he is great.

I hadn't read that opening statement 'till now, and I felt an urge to vent.

Well, I still would maintain that he is as good as there is. This is a relative judgement. Oppression/Law = what difference again? You talk about a spying system - you don't think that they have to have one. The odd U.S. backed agitator perhaps? Or are external forces politely minding their own business in your world?

sis

[mattlad22]

haha ya.. id just like to state that america let alone spy on themselves cant seem to stop spying on everyone lese either.. and that goes for pretty much every country out there..(as long as the technologie is provided) so really i dont think the spying part is all that bad cause really....when u use a credit card or debit ur bieng spied on 2.. its trace-able..so they always kind of have an idea where everyone is all the time.

[Morty]

Well, I still would maintain that he is as good as there is. This is a relative judgement. Oppression/Law = what difference again? You talk about a spying system - you don't think that they have to have one. The odd U.S. backed agitator perhaps? Or are external forces politely minding their own business in your world?

sis
Yes Sis, every country should have a government sponsored neighbourhood spying system- to hell with invasion of privacy and personal freedom! (Hm...)

[Unregistered]

Show me one that doesn't. This is how society operates - citizens participate in government activities, neighbours report criminal activities of neighbours.
In any even, Cuba requires a spy network as a response system to other aggressive covert activities, like U.S. sponsored and incited aggression and subversion. It is an anti-virus/spyware/adware measure as much as the opposite. This makes it a neutral activity in the context of being a negation of aggression. Cuba, as a nation, has never been allowed ITS privacy or freedom. This is a prerequisite for any other freedoms.

sis

[Jezebel]

This is very interesting. Born and raised in the United States I've never EVER heard anything positive about Cuba and Castro. All I've ever heard is the same old "They're a threat to good pure democratic countries and should be taken care of". That said, if the US were to invade Cuba I would probably be told something like "The US are finally LIBERATING the Cubans". But no, I'm not a nationalist and I would not support the invasion just like I do not support any of the many many other US led invasions of other countries.
It is nice to finally hear perspectives other than "The US are amazing, wonderful, freedom-loving angels!"

[Hietanen]

"Freely developed speech is, among other things, that which has not been subjected to consumer domination, via education (the most complete education anyone gets in the modern world is how to consume - it is taught to Western children from birth and reinforced with every commercial, more adequately defined as psychological manipulation, before they are able to speak" by Sisyphus.

Amen to that.

I think oceanflower just cant see thru her middle-class american reducing valve.

What is indeed freedom of speech in the west, freedom to consume, there is no freedom to oppose the neoliberalism that is predominant in the west and what the french students are fighting against, and the press the so-called "free press" plays along in the game. And the free market and worldbank is also a joke since Usa has always used sanctions where her own big companies and their interests have been threated.

Oh and what about Guantanamo? Innocent people kept there illegally as suspects of terrorism.

And I have to say that it looks like bullying this thing that Oceanflower and MOrty did for sisyphus


What would Henry Miller say if he was in america this day, its much worse than it was in his day, and still he had to run away, does this, by the way make you wonder what is wrong in the American atmosphere since she seems to be losing all her artists to France?

[Loki]

Although I think sis, is a bit umm zelous? I have to agree with a lot of what is said. Someone said they had never had heard anything apart from Castro being evil etc and a threat to democracy, can you truly call America free when you are such carfuly fed a particular view point from the a young age. You may be technically be allowed to say whatever you want, but as you only ever presented with "the right" point of view are you any more free than the Cubans?

Me personally, I would do everything in my power to support the Cubans. Although they leave a lot to be desired in there treatment of "political dissidents" I think there is even more to be desired in the western prodominantly American view of other cultures. I don't mean different religions etc but any culture that do not follow a capatalist culture. And does not put freedom of speech, and Democracy in there constitution.

The west has a complete lack of respect for any country that is not democratic. We think we know best.

[Maduro_Scotty]

I wouldn't agree with such a move. I would protest or donate money to causes that would be against the potential conflict. :idea: I don't believe that remedying violence with violence is a good thing. Personally, I'd rather see a more non-violent approach. I agree the action would be wrong incka, but I don't believe that Castro is necessarily a good man. If you speak out against him, you are imprisoned. There are many individuals spending time in his horrid jails simply because they dared to criticize him. He's a dictator who uses socialism to prop himself up. :bad:

[ArthurDent]

He's a dictator who uses socialism to prop himself up. :bad:

One of the most important points of the discussion, which for some reason always escape the people who speaks against such a move.

As I said, I see no reason to invade Cuba. But I see no reason to support Castro as well.

[Maduro_Scotty]

One of the most important points of the discussion, which for some reason always escape the people who speaks against such a move.

As I said, I see no reason to invade Cuba. But I see no reason to support Castro as well.


Amnesty International has an interesting http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/cub-summary-eng (write-up) on the situation there, though it's rather paltry as Fidel won't allow AI reps in. I include the link as I base my opinion on him in regards to facts. I agree ArthurDent, no need to support this guy. HugoChavez-maybe. Fidel?-not in this life.

[Nesonatalm]

I guess only the reason for invasion of Cuba could have any relevance in forming a response.