NationStates Jolt Archive

Iranian Leader to Travel to Cuba and Venezuela Before UN General Assembly Meeting
Western Hemisphere Policy Watch
(30 Aug 05) - New York will not be the first stop which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will travel in his first foreign visit as Iran's newly elected president. Scheduled to attend the summit of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September, Ahmadinejad will instead be making a stop in Cuba and Venezuela before heading to the United States for the UN summit, according to the Iranian news agency, Farda News.

(Photo) Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro meets with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran May 9, 2001. Castro urged Iran during the trip to help it defeat the U.S. "as you toppled the Shah" in 1979. Castro also said, together, Cuba and Iran would bring America "to its knees."
Ahmadinejad would have been to the United States, to participate at the meeting of the UN general assembly. However, advisors to the conservative Iranian president have apparently advised him against his debut on the international scene in the country that Iran often refers to as the "Great Satan."
"Ahmadinejad on his trip to New York will be making a stop in Caracas to meeting with Hugo Chavez [the Venezuelan president] and after that to Havana to meet with [the Cuban leader] Fidel Castro," said a report on Farda News. The 60th meeting of the UN general assembly is set to begin on 14 September.

Yesterday, lauding the resistance of the Cuban nation to the hegemonic policies of the US, Chairman of the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said President Fidel Castro is regarded as an impressive character in contemporary history and his presence on the political scene has left a double impacts on the anti-imperialism spirit of the Cuban nation.

Iran and Cuba are on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism.

I'm feeling mixed emotions. One part of me is saying "Uhoh, now what? :rolleyes: ". The other side is a bit creeped out. I just know that Liberality (http://accstudios.com/f/synopsis1.htm) is going to be prophetic. Just replace 'Osama Bin Laden' with 'Mahmoud Ahmadinejad' and 'Iraq' with 'Cuba' and we have a pretty good description of the possible future!

You know what, good on him. The US isn't the center of the world and he should be able to visit where he wants.

They should have a convention, invite north korea, and call it "Best friends of the USA Club"

They should have a convention, invite north korea, and call it "Best friends of the USA Club"
That would be funny. You know noone of them ahve actually done anything to harm the US.

That would be funny. You know noone of them ahve actually done anything to harm the US.

Seriously. Oil embargo's? Nearly starting nuclear wars? Straight up killings of americans? Meh, nothing recent ^_^

To be fair, Venezuela is cool.

Yeah! :mad:

First and especially I do not want to excuse is me for my english, that's not so good. Now that over the fact that U.S. Cuba and North Korea looks at as enemies of the democracy. I think that the U.S. at a kind of persecutions insanity lead. Naturally go I agreement with the fact that the terrorism must be fought and this with all means that there available are. Only firstly just a small historylesson: Afghanistan = previously a part republic of the USSR. Through of the tough America (through weapons to give at its best friends the Taliban) the communists must add flee. Result: Taliban wins and jumps the country back in the time. After only a few years, America to prey at its ally falls. Iraq = previously led through a dictator. Through of America and its allies add the dirty dog England and its friends, falls the government cover signal. Result: bloody attacks on Americas and citizens. Future: chance on a Conservative islam state with at the head a religious leader. I inform America for it that they firstly must learn from experiences (remember the large Viëtnam). Fall Cuba or North Korea at and the world will never burn as before. The only dictator in the world is the American puriteinism :sniper: . I said!

They should have a convention, invite north korea, and call it "Best friends of the USA Club"

Yeah, and Zimbabwe can provide the snacks...

Truth be said, GWB has made this problem. His saber rattling helped elect the Iranina President, and his villification of Chaves has made him a global hero for those who don't trust the neo-cons.

Seriously. Oil embargo's? Nearly starting nuclear wars? Straight up killings of americans? Meh, nothing recent ^_^

To be fair, Venezuela is cool.
The first 2 arn't illigal, you do the same to them, as for the third I havn't heard anything about that happening so i don't know.

Nearly starting nuclear wars? who?, how?

Just another attempt by global outcasts and misfits to form an alliance that never holds. I wouldn't be too concerned over this.

I hate how people are so angry about the Cuban Missile Crisis. I mean, we had nukes near the Soviets in Eastern Europe, and when they do the same thing in Cuba, we get angry.

The first 2 arn't illigal, you do the same to them, as for the third I havn't heard anything about that happening so i don't know.

Nothing is illegal in international terms, really. But my point was, they have harmed america. And North korea in the korean war? That killed a good number of americans.

Oceanview, Cuban missile crisis?

Didn't the UN kind of invade Korea?

And harming America isn't a crime is it, if it is then the US have been commiting the same sort of crime on thousands of countrys for the last few decades.

I can see Iran giving Cuba oil (which is needed since we have been stooping all the oil to Cuba to try and cause a revolution)

maybe it will be like in JAG and the Cubans will capture a F-15 with the latest anti-air technology and trade it with the Iranians for oil :eek:

I see some trouble coming! We need to spend more money on military tech! Yeah! I said it! MORE military spending! Screw welfare, screw healthcare. We won't need ANY of it if Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela get a few more buddies around the table. Throw in North Korea, and we'll be fighting a war that will give Cindy Sheehan a freakin stroke!

But my point was, they have harmed america. And North korea in the korean war? That killed a good number of americans.

Oceanview, Cuban missile crisis?

I nearly wet myself, I laughed so hard when I read this.

The UN/US invade Korea and you blame the Koreans for shooting back. The russians are doing the equivalent of US putting missiles in germany, and the US threatens to go to war over that, even if need be a nuclear war, and you blame Cuba??

Really, you should get out more.

BTW, you did know a certain US general seriously and repeatedly requested nukes be used during the Korean war? Not use as in "threaten with", but as in "actually deploy them and pollute a large part of the world with RA fallout".

I believe your refering to "tactical nuclear weapons"? Obviously not the "cleanest" weapon, but by no means capable of polluting "a large part of the world with RA fallout".

And yes, we threatened war over the Cuban missile crisis. When you are at war, whether its "cold" or not, you don't just let the enemy do something strategic just because you got to. War isn't share time in kindergarten where "everyone gets a turn".

And as for "invading" Korea, you say it as is we went after the entire country. Don't forget all the Koreans that were on our side. And also don't forget all the Chinese coming in the other side.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't have a problem either with the US actions during the missile crisis or in Korea. I'm not a US basher at all (I just *really* don't like Bush :D).

I do have a problem with someone who seems to think Korea is "bad" because they "hurt americans" and Cuba is "bad" because they "nearly started a nuclear war". That would be a bit of a one-sided way to look at things, wouldn't it?

Just like you said, war isn't play-time. Just as I can't fault the US for not accepting the missile deployment I can't really be surprised by the russians trying to bring missiles to Cuba. Considering the US missiles in germany and all that :D

I nearly wet myself, I laughed so hard when I read this.

The UN/US invade Korea and you blame the Koreans for shooting back. The russians are doing the equivalent of US putting missiles in germany, and the US threatens to go to war over that, even if need be a nuclear war, and you blame Cuba??

Really, you should get out more.

BTW, you did know a certain US general seriously and repeatedly requested nukes be used during the Korean war? Not use as in "threaten with", but as in "actually deploy them and pollute a large part of the world with RA fallout".


All I stated was these things happened. You put in conjecture about my beliefs, and acted like it was fact. You have made yourself the fool. I never blamed anyone for anything, except the recorded fact of what they did, regardless of provocation.

The UN/US invaded north korea, after the north invaded the south. Its arguable that the US provoked such a conflict, by setting up certain conditions in korea, but it did not invade until south korea was invaded. What the US did was morally arguable. What North korea did was a violation of international law, basically.

The US pushed Cuba to the soviets in the 50's. But it was still a conscious decision by cuba to put in nuclear weapons. They could have not put them there, and avoided the possible conflict totally.

Macarthur did not suggest nuking korea, if thats what you are implying. He suggested nuclear strikes on the chinese, for supporting the North koreans. Truman fired MacArthur for such talk.

You are saying I should get out more, and then try to act like you know more cold war history than I? Thats not very sensible.

I do have a problem with someone who seems to think Korea is "bad" because they "hurt americans" and Cuba is "bad" because they "nearly started a nuclear war". That would be a bit of a one-sided way to look at things, wouldn't it?

Hmm, I saw no posts saying anything like this.

The UN/US invaded north korea, after the north invaded the south. Its arguable that the US provoked such a conflict, by setting up certain conditions in korea, but it did not invade until south korea was invaded. What the US did was morally arguable. What North korea did was a violation of international law, basically.

WRONG.The US did NOT invade North Korea, thank you. The US was part of a coalition led and under the aegis of the UN. The NK's came across the 38th parallel and the UN force was mobilised to push them back.

And where on earth did you get this idea that the US "provoked" the North Koreans into invading the south? I would be very interested to see where you get this from.

The North Koreans maintain a presence in the DMZ and still do to this day.They have had fifty years to change and haven't.

And won't.

January 12 Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson confirms Korea and Taiwan are outside American Far East security cordon
June 1 NK strength at 135,000, with seven assault divisions and 150 T34 tanks

June 25 Korean time NK invades Republic of South Korea (ROK) without warning

June 25 New York time UN Security Council demands NK stop its attack and return to its borders

June 28 B-26 aircraft of the 13th and 8th Bomb Squadron suffer casualties at Han

June 29 ROK Capitol Seoul falls, bridges across Han river destroyed. Most of ROK army's best, with their equipment, trapped on northern side

June 30 NK 3rd Division (NK-3) crosses Han River; NK drives down Peninsula

June 30 President Truman commits US Troops to enforce UN demand.


Get your facts straight.

of more importance were procedures evolved in the Korean crisis in 1950. At that time the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council because of the UN refusal to admit the People's Republic of China as a member. Since the USSR was not present to cast a veto, the Security Council was enabled to establish armed forces to repel the North Korean attack on South Korea (see Korean War). Thus, at a time when the young organization had begun to seem politically sterile, it gave birth to the first UN army and to the widest “collective security” action in history up to that time, although the United States provided the bulk of both fighting personnel and matériel.

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/TimeLine.htm

That's the time line.

And this

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861704.html

The US pushed Cuba to the soviets in the 50's. But it was still a conscious decision by cuba to put in nuclear weapons. They could have not put them there, and avoided the possible conflict totally.

Kruschev and the Cubans placed ballistic nuclear missiles with a flight time of five minutes to the US and you expect the US to sit there and do nothing?.

And what's this "The Cubans put the missiles there"...they were Russian nuclear missiles, built by Russians, designed by Russians, manned by Russians and under the control of STAVKA and the Politburo.

Where the heck did you get this delusion that the Cubans had any command or control over those missiles?? They had none and did what the Soviets told them to.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Cuba/timeline.shtml

Kruschev made a humungous mistake and almost precipitated a full scale nuclear exchange.

Macarthur did not suggest nuking korea, if thats what you are implying. He suggested nuclear strikes on the chinese, for supporting the rth koreans. Truman fired MacArthur for such talk.

1951/04/11 - Truman fires MacArthur for speaking in public about using Nationalist Chinese troops in Korea - map

He was fired for insubordination and for criticising the governments policies...and it was Truman who suggested using nukes as well.

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/kr-wars.htm

You are saying I should get out more, and then try to act like you know more cold war history than I? Thats not very sensible.

I'd say I know far more than you do because I was there

I lived through it, I saw it happen.

John Toland "In Mortal Combat" Korea 1950-1953 is a good beginning...and with all due respect, whatever information you have on hand is either inaccurate, incomplete,distorted or just plain WRONG.

WRONG.

The US was part of a coalition led and under the aegis of the UN.



Get your facts straight.

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/TimeLine.htm

That's the time line.



Kruschev and the Cubans placed ballistic nuclear missiles with a flight time of five minutes to the US and you expect the US to sit there and do nothing?.

And what's this "The Cubans put the missiles there"...they were Russian nuclear missiles, built by Russians, designed by Russians, manned by Russians and under the control of STAVKA and the Politburo.

Where the heck did you get this delusion that the Cubans had any command or control over those missiles?? They had none and did what the Soviets told them to.





He was fired for insubordination and for criticising the governments policies...and it was Truman who suggested using nukes as well.

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/kr-wars.htm



I'd say I know far mnore than you do..and as for getting out more, I'd try the local library for a start.

John Toland "In Mortal Combat" Lorea 1950-1953 is a good beginning.


Someone is full with themselves.

The cubans could have told the Russians they didnt want missiles in their land. It might have had reprecussions for them, but they could have told the russians no.

Macarthur was indeed fired for going to the public with his critisicm of truman, partially including his wanting to use nuclear weapons, while truman said no. I wasnt wrong, I was non-descript, because I was talking in regards to macarthur and nukes, not macarthur and being fired.

You seem to have a wierd way of arguing, providing links that show you wrong?

How about the "home-by-Xmas" promise? MacArthur says that at the time when he made the statement at Wake, the N Korean Army was virtually gone (actually there were 120,000 NKPA left) and no Chinese (over 200,000 in Korea) in Korea. The only 'problem' was that his request to bomb Manchurian targets was denied by Truman and therefore, Truman was responsible for the UN 'bugout' in December 1950.

So lets see. Truman denies bombing manchurian targets. He doesnt order nuclear weapons used, despite being commander and chief from the start of the war in 1950, through initial chinese involvement, and until early 1953, despite the fact that he has the ability to order nuclear strikes. Funny that someone who supports nuclear strikes would deny them and not use them.

The cubans could have told the Russians they didnt want missiles in their land. It might have had reprecussions for them, but they could have told the russians no.

Oh god please...don't make me laugh.

You have absolutely no idea as to what was happening back then, and have obviously been reading some very very poorly written or extremely biased "history" of that period.

Cuba remained a "client state" of the Soviets for decades..now they are gone and Cuba is slowly waking up and realising that the communist dream of a "workers paradise" is a sick joke.

Only no one is laughing.

Someone is full with themselves.

Someone who has read and understood and watched and lived through the history and events you are discussing.

Do the words "we will bury you" sound familiar? Guess who said them.

Kruschev.

Kruschev and the Cubans placed ballistic nuclear missiles with a flight time of five minutes to the US and you expect the US to sit there and do nothing?.

Yes, absolutely. Just like you would expect the Russians to just sit there while they have American missiles pointed at them from Turkey.

Kruschev made a humungous mistake and almost precipitated a full scale nuclear exchange.

Perhaps, but he achieved his true goals. He secured the removal of American missiles from Turkey (this was done in secret) and the guarantee of Cuban soveriegnty in exchange for removing the missiles. In the end, I would say Khrushchev won the exchange despite the world media's misconception that Kennedy won.

Yes, absolutely. Just like you would expect the Russians to just sit there while they have American missiles pointed at them from Turkey.

First, the distance is nowhere near the same, secondly the missiles had been there for a long time, thirdly the US has maintained bases there for many years.

The difference was that the Russians decided to play roulette with a gun holding six cartridges, not one. It was an act of sheerest stupidity, in an insane game of brinksmanship that could have started a full nuclear exchange.

And Kruschev was not acting alone or in his own interests...that of course being how the Soviets worked...and still do.

To see someone take the side of the Soviets like this...it's interesting to see that rabid, revisionist "history" and the twisted "logic" of the lunatic left still holds sway in some minds.

Sad, almost pathetic in a way..but interesting nonetheless.

Perhaps, but he achieved his true goals. He secured the removal of American missiles from Turkey (this was done in secret)

Wrong again.

Kennedy did not publicly agree to dismantle missile bases in Turkey. In a secret telephone call, he told Khrushchev that – while he couldn’t agree to dismantle Turkish bases in a ‘tit-for-tat’ agreement – the USA did not see any need for them and that they would be dismantled soon.

and the guarantee of Cuban soveriegnty in exchange for removing the missiles. In the end, I would say Khrushchev won the exchange despite the world media's misconception that Kennedy won.

It amazes me to see you use the words "Cuban" and "sovereignty" in the same sentence..Cuba has never been independent..and until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union was nothing more than a Soviet stooge state, depending on the Russians for major economic aid.

Aid that is,of course, no longer forthcoming..Castro is isolated, alone, with only himself and the dictator Kim Jong-Il of the other "socialist workers paradise" remaining as any real vestige of the Soviet "legacy".

First, the distance is nowhere near the same, secondly the missiles had been there for a long time, thirdly the US has maintained bases there for many years.

The difference was that the Russians decided to play roulette with a gun holding six cartridges, not one. It was an act of sheerest stupidity, in an insane game of brinksmanship that could have started a full nuclear exchange.

And Kruschev was not acting alone or in his own interests...that of course being how the Soviets worked...and still do.

To see someone take the side of the Soviets like this...it's interesting to see that rabid, revisionist "history" and the twisted "logic" of the lunatic left still holds sway in some minds.

Sad, almost pathetic in a way..but interesting nonetheless.



Wrong again.





It amazes me to see you use the words "Cuban" and "sovereignty" in the same sentence..Cuba has never been independent..and until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union was nothing more than a Soviet stooge state, depending on the Russians for major economic aid.

That's why you see people trying to get to the United States from Cuba..not the other way around.
And why did they need to rely so heaviy on Russia?
Funny how you state your version of history is correct and the left's version is revisionist. Go to a library in Russia and see what verison is written there. History is not an absolute, it is a perception.

Funny how you state your version of history is correct and the left's version is revisionist.

It is when you twist the facts to suit your agenda.

And I don't have a "version" of what happened..I state facts as they are and as they occurred.I also have facts to back up my arguments.

Where's yours?

Go to a library in Russia and see what verison is written there.

No thanks..I don't need to go see edited, changed,altered,or otherwise corrupted manuscripts. Or stand in line for toothpaste, soap, meat, cheese, fish, bread, milk, vegetables, lightbulbs,paint and a hundred other items.

History is not an absolute, it is a perception.

Wrong.

History is about one thing and one thing only.

The truth

Who. what, when, where, why.

I've posted facts and links to illustrate my points. Here's one more on the "workers paradise" that is Cuba today.

http://www.geocities.com/policraticus/juan_clark_exodus.html

If you are so enamoured with the Cuban way of life, go live there.

I'm done here.

It is when you twist the facts to suit your agenda.

And I don't have a "version" of what happened..I state facts as they are and as they occurred.I also have facts to back up my arguments.

Where's yours?



No thanks..I don't need to go see edited, changed,altered,or otherwise corrupted manuscripts. Or stand in line for toothpaste, soap, meat, cheese, fish, bread, milk, vegetables, lightbulbs,paint and a hundred other items.



Wrong.

History is about one thing and one thing only.

The truth

Who. what, when, where, why.

I've posted facts and links to illustrate my points. Here's one more on the "workers paradise" that is Cuba today.

http://www.geocities.com/policraticus/juan_clark_exodus.html

If you are so enamoured with the Cuban way of life, go live there.

I'm done here.
Well flounce off then.
History is the study of past events, and the truth there is reletive.

So it was not reasonable for the USSR to want to place nukes as close to the US and the US had nukes to them? You know absolutly what the USSR hoped to gain from the events. Or do you as with most historical events propose a theory based on available facts.

The sources you gave stated percieved events from specific perspectives. From your statement you appear to believe that everything written in the west is fact with no slant, and everything from the east is distorted.

It must be good to know you are right and to know your perception of events is the correct one. Tell me, what are the exact details of Princess Diana and President Kennedy's deaths.

First, the distance is nowhere near the same, secondly the missiles had been there for a long time, thirdly the US has maintained bases there for many years.

"Khrushchev sent letters to Kennedy on October 23 and 24 claiming the deterrent nature of the missiles in Cuba and the peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union; however, the Soviets had delivered two different deals to the US government. On October 26, they offered to withdraw the missiles in return for a U.S. guarantee not to invade Cuba or support any invasion. The second deal was broadcast on public radio on October 27, calling for the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Turkey in addition to the demands of the 26th. The crisis peaked on October 27, when a U-2 (piloted by Rudolph Anderson) was shot down over Cuba and another U-2 flight over Russia was almost intercepted. At the same time, Soviet merchant ships were nearing the quarantine zone. Kennedy responded by publicly accepting the first deal and sending Robert Kennedy to the Soviet embassy to accept the second in private - the small number (fifteen) of Jupiter missiles near Izmir, Turkey would be removed. The Soviet ships turned back and on October 28 Khrushchev announced that he had ordered the removal of the Soviet missiles in Cuba. The decision prompted Dean Rusk to comment, "We went eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow just blinked." www.wikipedia.com

I concede that the missiles were due to be decommissioned anyway though what I said was still true. Though the threat to the Russians in Turkey was not significant from an American perspective, the Russians clearly overestimated the number and capabilities of the missiles in question.

The difference was that the Russians decided to play roulette with a gun holding six cartridges, not one. It was an act of sheerest stupidity, in an insane game of brinksmanship that could have started a full nuclear exchange.

And Kruschev was not acting alone or in his own interests...that of course being how the Soviets worked...and still do.

Regardless of Turkey, the US had greater nuclear capabilities than the Russians anyway being that they could strike with far more accurate missiles in greater quantity and in greater stealth from submarines. I stand by the fact that the Russians were justified, out of fear, in placing those missiles on Cuba. The action was not to gain advantage but to plug the missile gap and gain nuclear parity with the US.

To see someone take the side of the Soviets like this...it's interesting to see that rabid, revisionist "history" and the twisted "logic" of the lunatic left still holds sway in some minds.

And I can clear see that you hold to the traditionalist view that the US was fighting the good fight against 'evil Soviet aggression' and that the Cold War was Russia's responsibility.
In any case, you are most certainly wrong about me. I most certainly condemn many Soviet actions during the Cold War like the turning of Eastern Europe into a satellite zone, the Intervention in Hungary, the Brezhnev Doctrine and the Prague Spring. All oppressive and unsocialist actions worthy of condemnation.
However, I also accept the role the US played in creating and exacerbating the Cold War by overthrowing the governments of soveriegn nations (like Chile, a democracy until Pinochet), training terrorists and extremists (like Osama Bin Laden) and along with the Soviet Union mutually polarizing Europe and elsewhere.

It amazes me to see you use the words "Cuban" and "sovereignty" in the same sentence..Cuba has never been independent..and until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union was nothing more than a Soviet stooge state, depending on the Russians for major economic aid.

Of course I use the two words together because Cuba retained much soveriegnty during the Cold War. While they were economically dependent on the Soviet Union for oil and arms, Castro was no stooge. He actively and unlaterally supported movements around the world even deploying the Cuban army to places like Angola in support of the MPLA. His state was not a puppet state like in Eastern Europe.

Aid that is,of course, no longer forthcoming..Castro is isolated, alone, with only himself and the dictator Kim Jong-Il of the other "socialist workers paradise" remaining as any real vestige of the Soviet "legacy".

Where have you been? Cuba has survived. While certainly having to rely on capitalism for a brief time, Castro is now slowly tightening socialist controls on the economy and has reestablished trade relations with places like Canada, the EU and notably Venezuela.

History is the study of past events, and the truth there is reletive.

History is about the truth. Nothing more.

The sources you gave stated percieved events from specific perspectives. From your statement you appear to believe that everything written in the west is fact with no slant, and everything from the east is distorted.

I've read history books for over twenty years, and have no stomach in reading edited leftist / communist / socialist propaganda swill. The "rehabilitation" of Mao and Stalin come to mind.

I want facts.

Not fantasy.

Allow me to provide yet some more facts regarding Castro.

More than 100,000 people have been sent to prisons or concentration camps for political "crimes"; in prison they are often beaten, tortured and starved;

100,000 people have attempted to flee the country illegally and one third of them died in the attempt

It must be good to know you are right and to know your perception of events is the correct one. Tell me, what are the exact details of Princess Diana and President Kennedy's deaths.

That's easy.

One died in a car crash, the other was shot.

One was male, the other female.

Anything else?

(Oh...if you're going to start spouting conspiracy theories,please don't.So far I may disagree with you but agree you are at least making sense. Take one step in that direction and you lose all credibility.)

Where have you been? Cuba has survived.

Barely.

While certainly having to rely on capitalism for a brief time, Castro is now slowly tightening socialist controls on the economy and has reestablished trade relations with places like Canada, the EU and notably Venezuela.

Right..that's why he is worth $550 million.Nice try.

He actively and unlaterally supported movements around the world even deploying the Cuban army to places like Angola in support of the MPLA. His state was not a puppet state like in Eastern Europe.

What Cuba is, is a repressive dictatorship.

Puppet states? As far as I can see, they are all free nations. Elected governments, free markets, free trade,freedoms of the press and of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of movement...it's the key word I keep coming back to, isnt it?

Freedom.

Even Romania threw off the shackles of "Father Ceacescu" and is now finding its own way..mind you, the damage done to its economy and its people by decades of Soviet abuse and repression will take a long time to heal.

Barely.

Nonetheless, Cuba has survived.

Right..that's why he is worth $550 million.Nice try.

What? Cuba has a GDP of $33.92 billion according to CIA world factbook with a per capita rate of around $3000. Where does this $550 million statistic come from?

What Cuba is, is a repressive dictatorship.

Undeniably, what are you trying to prove?

Puppet states? As far as I can see, they are all free nations. Elected governments, free markets, free trade,freedoms of the press and of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of movement...it's the key word I keep coming back to, isnt it?

I was talking about Cuba not being a puppet state of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. I never said anything about Eastern Europe being a puppet state presently.

NB I notice you are trying to denounce Socialism as the cause of great evil and death and destruction. You blame it for the rape of Eastern Europe as well as other atrocities.
In truth, socialism is not to blame. A system is not evil, it is how a system is used that determines good and evil. It is the actions of petty men who seek only to preserve their own power and extend their wealth who are to blame, the very people that socialism is against.

History is about the truth. Nothing more.

I've read history books for over twenty years, and have no stomach in reading edited leftist / communist / socialist propaganda swill. The "rehabilitation" of Mao and Stalin come to mind.

I want facts.

Not fantasy.

Allow me to provide yet some more facts regarding Castro.

More than 100,000 people have been sent to prisons or concentration camps for political "crimes"; in prison they are often beaten, tortured and starved;

100,000 people have attempted to flee the country illegally and one third of them died in the attempt

Right..that's why he is worth $550 million.Nice try.

What Cuba is, is a repressive dictatorship.

Puppet states? As far as I can see, they are all free nations. Elected governments, free markets, free trade,freedoms of the press and of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of movement...it's the key word I keep coming back to, isnt it?

Freedom.



Wow. What a handy set of unsupported arguments.

I like the bit at the top where you condemn all leftist perspectives of history out of hand. There is no doubt in my mind why you believe that history is made up solely of facts and truth: you have decided what the truth is, and simply dismiss any fact that seems to imply a contrary view.

People use the word freedom too much, without really understanding the implications. Do you understand the difference between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to'? To have freedom from arbitrary murder, we have taken away people's freedom to murder each other.

By taking away US companies' freedom to make money off the Cuban people, Castro has guaranteed their freedom from imperialism.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our mind.
-B. Marley

Oh god please...don't make me laugh.

You have absolutely no idea as to what was happening back then, and have obviously been reading some very very poorly written or extremely biased "history" of that period.

Cuba remained a "client state" of the Soviets for decades..now they are gone and Cuba is slowly waking up and realising that the communist dream of a "workers paradise" is a sick joke.

Only no one is laughing.



Someone who has read and understood and watched and lived through the history and events you are discussing.

Do the words "we will bury you" sound familiar? Guess who said them.

Kruschev.

You are so arrogant its laughable, almost sad.

Cuba wasnt anyone's client until the late 50's, with the revolution. America believed they were(communist or just anti-american, I forget which atm), and so started economicly screwing with cuba. Cuba was forced at this time to go to the soviet side of the cold war, so it had any chance of staying independant, because the US doesnt have a good history with cuba, cold war and before.

Two years later, its not like the cuban leadership is killed off, the russians take power, and cuba is under occupation, as much as you would like to paint it as such. Castro could have said "We will not accept nuclear missiles on cuban soil", and that would have been that. The USSR wouldnt risk invading a country, especially one so close to the US. If the USSR had decided to cut aid to Cuba, cuba probably could have cut off all ties to the USSR, which would have been a sign to the west that it was willing to deal.

Cuba had a choice. They had leaders, who could say no. They wouldnt say no, but that doesnt change the fact that they could. You want to bring some proof that they could not, for a fact, say no whatsoever?

This thread isnt about your misconceptions of communism, so there is little reason to spout them out.

I have a great idea of what was happening back then. I get my history from teachers and books for the most part, completely respectable ones too. You are the one who has a shoddy view of history.

This whole "I was there" thing is bs. Were you in central US command? Or in the politiburo? No, of course not. You being there means you watched these things happen on television at best, and maybe read books on the subject after it happened. Thats hardly different than not being there, and reading history books, etc on the subject.

Yes, we will bury you is one of the most known comments by khruschev, do you want a cookie?

You really are an arrogant ass. I am discussing something with someone else, you quote me on questions to him, and answer, saying how smart you are. Get a life, man.

Huzzah!