So.... If the Cuban "exiles" who left Cuba when Castro took power

[WCGreen]

are entitled to reclaim their property after almost 50 years....

Why can't the Palestinians claim the land they left when the Israelis took ownership of in 1948...

If Bush and the Republicans support the patriotic cuban exiles who decided back in the late 50's to not stay in Cuba and fight, why can't the Palestinians make the same claim...

Just sayin'....

[LincolnMcGrath]

1. 5 4 3 2 1

I predict you will be labeled an anti-semite soon, possibly before I can get this posted.

[WCGreen]

3. I'm not blinded by ideology....

Therefor, it is easier to see the hypocracy....

[IndianaGreen]

44. The hypocrisy is that Cubans are treated differently from Haitians and

Mexicans by immigration laws.

[ThomCat]

2. Damned good questions.

Because people support their prejudices and are neither logical nor consistent.

[theanarch]

4. uh, because Cuban ex-pats...

(who all left voluntarily) are good, little GOP-bots, and Palestinians (who were driven out in a campaign of ethnic cleansing) are not?

[oneighty]

5. All of the Florida Cubans

even unto the generations borned here will run back to the Island they love so well.

Sarcasm

180

[eallen]

6. Cuba won't result in endless bloodshed, because....

The Cuban exiles will be disappointed. Their land was stolen, but it's just property. Dollars and cents. Most now are dead, and there is no way those who survive ever will see much in the way of reparation. That's tough, but not the end of the world.

The reason things are different in Israel and Palestine is that fundamentally, that isn't a war over land. If it were, Israel could pay reparations, and that would be that. It wouldn't do a bit of good. The war isn't about land. It is a religious war. As long as there is a Jewish state in Israel, Muslims will fight it.

[Chulanowa]

7. You're utterly full of it

It absolutely is a war over land. Religion is a front all three sides (including the Christian side here in America and over in Europe) used as a "legitimate" cover for financial reasons.

War is always about wealth. Everything else is just a cover.

And when you come here and you tell us "This is because all Muslims hate all Jews because they're Muslims and Muslims hate Jews!" - which is indeed what you're saying - Well then you're displaying to me that you not only buy into that cover, but you use it to legitimize your own hatred.

[eallen]

10. Read a little history. Religious wars are quite real.

Yes, issues of land and power always add to the mix. But religion plays a causal role in its own right, and often keeps a struggle going long after the power and land issues are history, rather than ongoing cause. How else do you explain the 30 years war? Just a war of German provinces against one another until a quarter the population was dead?

Look at the Temple Mount. Look at Jerusalem. Do you think the land there is worth blood that has been shed over it? Not at all. These are symbolic. The problem isn't land, but holy land. That is hard for anyone rational to understand, because it reaches a level of insanity that simply has no explanation. But it's very real, and it's a real difference between land issues in Israel and land issues in Cuba. There aren't any people claiming the Marina Hemingway as a sacred site.

:hippie:

[question everything]

31. And, while many Jews always lived in what for many years was called

P*****e, (be careful, this word may send this thread to the I/P forum), a major push came after WWII when millions of Jews perished and those that survived had no place to go. Oh, and why did the Jews find themselves in such an unhealthy predicament? No, not because of their property or their wealth. Most were poor village people living hand to foot in wretched conditions.

Why were Jews driven from Russia after they were killed? They were poor, no land, no money, no property.

Can you find the correct answer?

[Chulanowa]

40. Jews were pushed out of Russia

For political reasons - they, among many other groups, refused to dissolvetheir cultural identity. Thus they were regarded as counterrevolutionaries.

They were pushed out of Europe because while Europe didn't abide by the means of Hitler's Final solution, it seems that they didn't disagree with the sentiment too much. Americ had blocked Jewish immigration and European nations were doing their best to get the Jews to go "anywhere but here". The abuses they suffered in WW2 were not religious, but again political - much of the West European Jewry were quite well-off from good business, and in the economic slump of the Great Bepression, this made them great targets for both right-wiong and left-wing populists, Communists and Fascists alike. Each accused hte jews of working for the other side.

Would you perhaps be suggesting that they were driven out becuse Christians hate Jews as matter of principle, as some seem to attatch to Muslims all too frequently? Hope not, 'cause it's just as silly as that statement.

Eallen,

No. Again, religion has absolutely no "real" part in war. About the closest you get is when a group of religious identifies as a political body with military power behind it, such as in the Thirty Years War. You see when a religious group is a political group, then opposing groups fight them because of thier politics, and then drum up hate for their religion afterwards to "shore up" the claim for war among the fundamentalist-minded of their own religion - Which is needed because all the Abrahamic faiths are quite opposed to wholesale warfare and murder and hatred. So even when using religion in warfare, it must be corrupted first.

The Arabs of the middle east don't hate Israel because they're muslims and Israel is full of Jews. That's BS. It makes Muslims caricatures of antisemitism, and makes the Israelis blithely innocent lambs before their slaughter. Nor is Israel the ultimate evil out to eat Muslim babies and steal their eyballs.

No, Israel is a hated entity for purely political and property reasons. You see, we can argue back and forth about hte legitimacy of Israel all we want, but to the Arabs of the area, they see a European colonial power installed at the cost of their fellow Arabs at the end of WW2. They see European powers, including ourselves, backing up and supplying Israel with one hand, while exploiting and suppressing Arab states with the other. They transfer that frustration to Israel, much as a neglected sibling will grow to hate the favorite child rather than the parent doing hte neglecting.

Odds are that Israel could even still be forgiven - The West Pakistan / East Pakistan conflict managed to resolve itself even though it had many similar issues of land ownership, foreign involvement and exploitation, and even a dash of religiosity for flavor. The proble with Israel is that it keeps treating terrorism as an act of war, and it continues to deny the soverignity of its neighboring nations - while at the same time demanding they grant it unquestionable rights to the same. I would bet you that if Israel began treating terrorism as a crime comitted by individuals rather than as an act of war comitted by an entire ethnicity, it would go a long way towards mending relations. In this current conflict Israel could have approached Lebanon diplomaticly and worked out a method to get its soldiers back more or less peacefully - certainly with less carnage and better results than we're seeing now. Instead Israel chose to hold the entire nation of Lebanon collectively guilty

That's why Israel is hated. I'm not even going to try to state whether this viewpoint is right, wrong, or something in between - but it's the view held by the Arab population of the middle east, and not just the Muslim Arabs. It's not as if they're all loonie antisemitic religious fanatics each and every one - You don't see billboards up in Damascus like "Over a million burgers sild", "Over twelve thousand Jews dead".

Yes there are people for whom it is a religious issue - And most of them are here in America, bitching one way or another. The people actually fighting though, they want the property.

[WCGreen]

19. How true....

All war is about money, property, violence to satisfy the needs of the ruling cliche....

[manic expression]

12. Countless innocents

have been oppressed, murdered and had their land stolen from them by Israel. This is not about religion, this is about a people opposing injustice. Jews had lived in the region since time immemorial, but when the Zionists started taking all the land they could, massacring people along the way (which continues to today, by the way), that's when it started to be a problematic situation. If it WAS about religion, those Jews wouldn't have been living there.

As long as there is a belligerent, aggressive, oppressive and unjust state in the region, people will fight it.

[question everything]

32. "massacring people along the way?"

Can you provide specific examples? And while you are there, can you also provide examples of Arabs massacring Jews, what they called the "Arab Revolt?"

And, for your information - the Jews purchased land, mostly arid and swamp land that the seller was not interested in it.

[manic expression]

35. Surely

Take your pick:

"The first 'clearing' operations were conducted against Palestinian villages by Jewish forces in December."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1947.stm

"Irgun and Lehi massacred scores of inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem on 9 April. Word of the massacre spread terror among Palestinians and hundreds of thousands fled to Lebanon, Egypt and the area now known as the West Bank."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

"From 16 to 18 September, the Phalangists - who were allied to Israel - killed hundreds of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps as they were encircled by Israeli troops in one of the worst atrocities of nearly a century of conflict in the Middle East. Mr Sharon resigned from his post as defence minister after a 1983 Israeli inquiry concluded that he had failed to act to prevent the massacre."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1982.stm

"The Israeli Defence Forces responded and there was heavy loss of life among Palestinian civilians. More than 1,000 died in clashes which lasted until 1993."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1987.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1516268,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5065008.stm

I could also just direct you to Israel's latest atrocity which took the lives of about 60 innocent people.

Specific enough for you? And no, you can provide your own examples.

What I've shown surely shows that Israel has NO RESPECT for innocent life and only cares about its own base aims.

And for your information, they purchased land at first which also displaced Palestinians because they often didn't always "own" it. After this, however, the Zionists then started attacking targets, then went after people's land, and after evicting thousands upon thousands of innocent people, they didn't stop there.

[eallen]

34. That is one of the most stupid things ever writ.

"If it WAS about religion, those Jews wouldn't have been living there."

It is only religion that explains what identifies the people called Jews, why they were persecuted in Europe for centuries, by members of other religions, how that led both to a Zionist movement, and how that persecution culminated in the Holocaust, and why in modern times Jews are motivated to emigrate to Israel. Yes, there are all those other things involved. Also. But it's simply impossible to understand how modern Israel came to be, and why it would come to be, except with reference to religion, Christianity and Islam, as well as Judaism. Look up the terms aliyah and yerida. How can they be understood except in a religious context? Almost the precise opposite of your statement is the fact: It is only religion and religious conflict that explains the movement of modern Jews to the Levant. Any explanation that omits religion is nonsense.

[manic expression]

36. No, it's not, your views are delusional and insipid

Yes, we all know they are Jews. So what? That does not justify what the Zionists have done. The Zionist movement was about TAKING land for themselves, others be damned. It wasn't about religion, it was about theft. Plain and simple.

"...and how that persecution culminated in the Holocaust, and why in modern times Jews are motivated to emigrate to Israel."

Stop right there. So since many Jews were killed they have a right to take land from other people? Oh yes, good thing the same was done for the Tutsis, Gypsies, Zoroastrians, Cherokee/Nez Perce/Seminole/Aborigines of Australia/African Animists and every other persecuted group ever. Are you really so blind and naive as to think a persecuted group is entitled to other peoples' land, especially when those peoples had nothing to do with it? Get a grip.

Moving on, Israel's conflict is not about religion, people are mad at what they have done, not at their religion. The Zionists had little support until the Holocaust, the Zionists were insignificant before the late 1800's and yet you say it is intrinsically tied to Judaism? That is insane.

Oh, and thanks for taking my statement out of context, it really shows how delusional your views are. What I said was that Jews had been living in the area long, long, long before any Zionist. If it WAS about religion, then those Jews would not have been able to live there, but they were, so that tells you that it wasn't about religion.

[eallen]

38. Are you able to separate issues of justification from matters of fact?

Nothing I wrote was a justification for Zionism, nor intended as such. That's an argument I won't make, since I think the notion of a Holy Land promised by God is insane, and I oppose any state that preferences a religion.

Now, read what you wrote: "What I said was that Jews had been living in the area long, long, long before any Zionist. If it WAS about religion, then those Jews would not have been able to live there, but they were, so that tells you that it wasn't about religion."

The fact that some Jews were living in Palestine prior to Zionism, does not mean that there weren't and aren't religious factors in why other Jews who had never lived in Israel, and whose parents hadn't, and whose grandparents hadn't, and whose only tie to that land is religious, ended up moving to Israel. It's your attempt to remove religion from the modern history of the conflict that is nonsense. It almost boggles my mind that someone is so delusional as to pretend that the conflict between Israel and its neighbors is not heavily laden with religious animosity, on all sides.

[manic expression]

41. As a matter of fact

Zionism is not intrinsically tied to Judaism, the driving force behind the conflict is not religion. Religion may define the groups, yes, but that is not why they are there and that is not why they are fighting.

I never said religion had nothing to do with the situation at all, what is true is that religion has nothing to do with the problems.

The reason all those Zionist Jews moved to Israel isn't really tied to Judaism itself, it is tied to Zionism. Zionism stems from Judaism, of course, but mere religion wasn't the DRIVING motive, it was what defined their identity (like just about everyone else).

On the conflict, people aren't fighting Israel because they are Jewish. People are fighting Israel because of what Israel has done to entire peoples. It's primarily about what was done, not the religion of the people who did it.

[eallen]

45. So why do Muslims around the world hate Israel, but not Sudan?

The crimes Israel has done are small compared to the ones that the Sudanese government does. A secular person concerned about crimes against humanity is much more concerned about the genocide going on in Sudan, than about Israel's excesses, which are not intended to be genocidal. So why is Israel "the little Satan" in the eyes of the Muslim world? Your claim might make sense, if it were just the Palestinians or Lebanese who hated Israel. And if these groups also hated Hezbollah. As it is, you're ignoring a global alignment that can be explained only by religion.

Or in the case of some extreme Leftists, only by self-delusion.

[manic expression]

50. It's not that difficult to understand

Israel has been continuing its campaign of ethnic cleansing for the better part of half a century. The crimes in Sudan have been occurring for a very small period of time. Obviously when there is 50 years of built-up frustration and animosity, it will eclipse 3 years of very intense crime. That is one reason. Secondly, people are most angry at things done to them, that is to be expected. Because Israel has been comitting injustices upon Arabs for so long, that is bound to touch a nerve or two. That is another reason.

Surely, you really cannot be serious in your claims. You are in utter denial of reality, and are pathetically misled.

[eallen]

51. How crimes against Palestinians "done to" Iranians, Afghanis, etc?

There is some argument that Syrians and Saudis would have special affinity for Palestinians as fellow Arabs. That argument, which you made, is contradicted by a salient facts. The alignment has nothing to do with who is or isn't Arabic. Iranians hate Israel, and are not Arabs. Afghanis hate Israel, and are not Arabs. There is only one sense in which the Palestinians are the same "people" as the Iranians, Afghanis, and the other Islamic nations that make them a cause celebre. As much as you try to ignore the religious aspect of this conflict, the facts will overwhelm you.

BTW, you would be more believable as someone concerned with human rights if your icon weren't someone who set up labor camps and oversaw mass executions of political dissenters. Che Guevara is as guilty of crimes against humanity as Sharon. I don't excuse either. You, oddly, make an icon of one.

[manic expression]

53. First,

there is a shared history between the groups. Afghanis, even being ethnically and culturally different, do have an affinity to those in the region. If you key it all to religion you are missing a very big part of the picture. Next, to compare the Sudanese genocide to Israel's ethnic cleansing is invalid. Why? Because of many reasons; first, the Sudanese genocide is a very recent development while the ethnic cleansing in Israel has been going on for a long time; next, Sudan wasn't a country that was created on the land of other people, it is a case of internal genocide and while it is most disgusting, you should see a difference there; lastly, the very sad fact is that no one, from Syria to China to the US, has really cared about Sudan. Seriously, show me how the Arab world's outlook has been any less apathetic than that of the US'. Therefore, your comparison is completely worthless and doesn't look at the actual situation.

Deflecting the discussion to my avatar is to be expected. The FACT is that Che Guevara ensured that human rights were cared for in Cuba and he fought and died for those same principles in Africa and South America. Do you even know what Cuba was like before the revolution? Most people were practically serfs in a feudal system, American corporations, hand-in-hand with the oligarchy sucked the country dry. The rich got richer and the poor got exploited. The revolution toppled a government full of death squads and injustice and replaced it with a government which sought excellence in education, health care, universal housing and more. Everything from literacy to infant mortality to the amount of women in the workforce is exemplary, Cuba has achieved amazing things for its people. In spite of a siege of embargoes which would cripple any economy, Cuba has maintained a standard of living which is quite astounding, a standard of living which EVERYONE has. Where there was oppression and inequality, there is now parity and justice, there is now equity and more.

If you are comparing the murder of countless defenseless refugees with a revolution which established equity and justice in a country, you are truly without a clue.

Read up:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html


Before the 1959 revolution
• 75% of rural dwellings were huts made from palm trees.
• More than 50% had no toilets of any kind.
• 85% had no inside running water.
• 91% had no electricity.
• There was only 1 doctor per 2,000 people in rural areas.
• More than one-third of the rural population had intestinal parasites.
• Only 4% of Cuban peasants ate meat regularly; only 1% ate fish, less than 2% eggs, 3% bread, 11% milk; none ate green vegetables.
• The average annual income among peasants was $91 (1956), less than 1/3 of the national income per person.
• 45% of the rural population was illiterate; 44% had never attended a school.
• 25% of the labor force was chronically unemployed.
• 1 million people were illiterate ( in a population of about 5.5 million).
• 27% of urban children, not to speak of 61% of rural children, were not attending school.
• Racial discrimination was widespread.
• The public school system had deteriorated badly.
• Corruption was endemic; anyone could be bought, from a Supreme Court judge to a cop.
• Police brutality and torture were common.

___



After the 1959 revolution

“It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.

Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank’s dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong.

-

It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank’s Vice President for Development Policy, who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.

By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999;

Chile’s was down to ten; and Costa Rica, at 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.

Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba’s achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.

“Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable,” according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. “You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area.”

Indeed, in Ritzen’s own field, the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries.

“Even in education performance, Cuba’s is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile.”

It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.

There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.

The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.

“Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,” said Ritzen. “If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it’s not possible.”

Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada’s rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world.
(thanks Mika)

[eallen]

60. Is the freedom to oppose a socialist government a human right?

I have this odd liberal idea that freedom of expression and political opposition are very important. Even more important than toilets.

:hippie:

[manic expression]

61. You mean like this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm



Kind of like that? Thanks for playing.

[manic expression]

63. Also,

many people who have gone to Cuba have told me that people are not afraid to speak their minds. People are allowed to express themselves quite a bit. You can even listen to American news with a simple radio in Havana.

[eallen]

64. No, I mean like this...

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250012006?open&of=ENG-CUB

Freedom is not measured by when dissent is allowed, but by when it is forbidden. A tyrant imprisoning a few dozen dissenters is much more indicative of his disregard for freedom, than when he allows thousands others, that for whatever reasons of state, are viewed as less a threat or tactically better handled in other fashion.

[manic expression]

66. I expected as much

this is too easy.

Those "dissidents" had well established and well known ties with groups in the US, as well as the US government. They took funds and support from both. What's the problem with this, you ask? Taking foreign funds for political purposes without notifying anyone is illegal in practically any country (that includes the US). What's more is that the aim of those groups is the toppling of the Cuban government and the destabilization of the island.

Don't believe me? You don't have to.

Do you know who Oswaldo Paya is? Well, he is a prominent Cuban dissident. Guess what he had to say about those "dissidents": he criticized them for their links with the US and US-based groups because they discredit the entire dissident movement (for your information, he does not take money or support from the US; he's spent a total of one night in prison IIRC). Did you get that? A very famous Cuban DISSIDENT confirmed what the Cuban government has been saying.

"Unlike some Cuban dissidents, Payá does not accept aid from US government sources, and opposes the US embargo."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswaldo_Pay%C3%A1

So, basically, Cuba was cracking down on subversive activities which were funded by an aggressive nation. That is not unreasonable, it is not unjustified and it can only be described as acceptable. Nice try, but you've once again demonstrated your complete lack of a grasp on the situation.

[eallen]

69. Let me know when those dissidents are tried by a jury for their "crimes"

[manic expression]

70. Let me know when you actually know something

because you don't. I'd like you to recognize that what I said was completely true and valid, because you have offered nothing to counter my claims. You need to give an actual argument.

[manic expression]

62. Oh, and by the way

thanks for ignoring my entire post and blabbering some unsupported drivel about a lack of Cuban "freedums" (which I rebutted quite easily).

Why are you unwilling to comment on the conflict in the middle east?

[partylessinOhio]

8. Don't encourage those "exciled" Chalabis. They are nothing but trouble

and will drag * into another invasion, this time Cuba.

We need to stay out of Cuba and leave Cuba alone. America doesn't rule the world. We don't have clean hands.

[Poppyseedman]

9. Apples and Oranges

We assume property rights are handled the same way all over the world, but in the middle East there is a very weak system of property rights record keeping, in some places it is nonexistent

As an example in Egypt, something along the lines of 40% of the property is in dispute in some form or another.

There are many families holding the same deed to the same piece of property in various forms in Israel/Palestine

I'm not familiar in what state Cuban property rights laws are in, I assume, being a dictator Castro destroyed much of what was deeded to who.

[pretzel4gore]

11. you think batista wasn't a dictator?

goddam it man, the cuban people took control of their country under castro's leadership-he has not been able to let go of power because of constant threats by the US. If the fascasti retook control, how many cubans will die? i million? 2? 5?
fukk this

[Poppyseedman]

13. Under Batista, did Cubans own property? I believe they did

Under Castro, do Cubans own their property? Simple question, answer it.

Let me understand this: You are saying Castro wants to relinquish his absolute power but because of threats by the U.S. he can't?

Not to be rude, but are you drunk?

[WCGreen]

15. The rich.....

[manic expression]

16. Which Cubans, exactly?

Along with American corporations, the elite ruled and owned the country; it was an oligarchy. With the revolution and with Castro, do the Cuban PEOPLE own their country? Yes.

Castro doesn't wield a lot of power and he exercises less of it. Try to show us how he has "absolute power". It is clear that Cubans do approve of him and his policies.

Perhaps if you put aside your delusions and look at the reality of the situation, you'll get somewhere.

[Poppyseedman]

21. Why then are there millions of Cuban exiles living in Miami?

So when are you moving to Cuba? Put your money where your mouth is.

[manic expression]

27. Easy

First, many did leave because they were well-to-do in Cuba. Many did leave because they didn't like the revolution, because in any society, you will have people who don't like the policies of the government.

However, the biggest reason why most left was because of economic difficulties at home and economic opportunities in the US. When you have an embargo which severely limits the amount of trade you can do with the rest of the world, that does quite a thing to your economy. When an economy isn't in great shape, many people will try to go to a better one (why do I even have to explain this?). The embargoes are being put on the country by the very people who sucked the country's resources prior: the US. So, in reality, the embargo caused almost all of the emigration (in case you can't figure it out: the lack of "freedom" or whatever you are imagining has nothing to do with it).

When you actually look at the circumstances, you see a revealing picture that contradicts your fallacy. The US grants amnesty to ANY CUBAN WHO REACHES AMERICAN SHORES. Furthermore, the US offers MANY opportunities to Cubans to get to the US (through visas). Even with a very discouraging economic situation (which is the doing of the US), very few try to leave Cuba. In fact, it is amazing that there isn't far more emigration from the island. Why is this? One must only review the state of medicine, education, housing and other aspects of Cuban society to see that the people's needs are met and that all people have a decent standard of living (considering the circumstances).

If the embargoes which are put upon Cuba were put upon a similar country with a capitalist system, people would be dying in the streets.

Oh, and I'm planning to go to Cuba, which is difficult because of all the freedom the US government gives us. Funny how the US is so hesistant to let people see the country for what it is (especially when it's quite safe). On moving there, I live in the US, and my regard for the Cuban economic system doesn't change that. I find it ridiculous that I have to point out such obvious things. Try thinking before making such a pathetic statement.

[eallen]

52. Only the embargo keeps Cuba poor, unlike all other socialist states.

Oh, wait. Socialism whacked the economy in every other state that tried it also.

Reality bites. It has a well-known liberal bias. Not socialist. Liberal.

:hippie:

[manic expression]

54. If you knew anything,

you'd know that trade is a central aspect to any economy, it doesn't matter what the economic setup is. Countries need trade, and if a country is denied the ability to trade with other countries, the economy will naturally face enormous troubles.

The US, for instance, depends on South Africa's nickel and silver, if we were to face embargoes which denied us that source of natural metal, we would definitely feel very strong negative effects. Any country with similar embargoes would have a great amount of difficulty, and if it happened to a capitalist country, people would be dying in the streets.

However, in spite of these very serious and hampering embargoes, Cuba has ensured its people excellent standards of education, healthcare, housing, living and more. Even with the crippling siege, Cuba still provides its people with what they need and deserve. That is an amazing achievement.

You are ignoring reality, and that reality clearly shows that socialism works.

[pretzel4gore]

23. no, im not dronk....

the cubans own cuba - it's their property. the revolution happened in 1959; almost immediately the usa tried to ruin it. ever heard of the 'bay of pigs'? there was rw cuban involvement in the jfk murder - and later on in watergate. god alone knows what else. when the fascists fled cuba, how much of the national wealth did they take (ever heard of swiss banks)...will that wealth ever be returned?
i don't want to argue with you: this is a leftwing site and i don't want to read rw talking points about cuba. castro is an heroic figure, even moreso for having survived 9 US presidents, all hostile. had the cuban people not overthrown batista (who the hell was batista anyway, but a murderous thug) they'd have experienced what haiti, or the dominican republic, or venezuela/bolivia/nicaragua/peru argentina brazil chile etc experienced, and they would not have produced 10's of thousands of phd's meanwhile.
aniother thing. the pigmedia hate castro, and the cuban revolution. they also hate you (bush proves it)

[Poppyseedman]

25. I understand that the Cubans"own" Cuba

Individual property are the foundational basis for a free and prosperous society. One of the main reasons Cuba is economic joke isbecauseare are none. The Cuban people can and should lead much better lives, but their system of government makes it almost impossible to build a better life.

Since when is individual property rights a RW talking point?

[manic expression]

29. That's beyond wrong

individual property is the foundational basis for injustice, inequality and exploitation. It is free and prosperous for those who can afford it, oppressive and painful for those who cannot.

Moving on, the main reason Cubans do not lead better lives is because of the embargoes. They practically deny any trade with the rest of the world. Your inexplicable denial of the fact that the embargoes severely hamper the Cuban economy betrays your delusion and insanity. Their system of government and their economic setup, however, ensures that people have what the need and deserve. The Cuban people lead lives that are decent and respectable, they all have exceptional medical care, they all have exceptional education, they all have universal housing. Most importantly, however, they all have equality and justice.

The fact is that the Cuba provides a decent standard of living (especially when one considers the circumstances) for the Cuban people. Cuba provides a great amount of things that the people deserve, as well as making sure they have what they need. The common welfare is put above the greed of the few; instead of allowing the selfish exploitation of people and resources while the basic needs of the many are neglected, all people have what they should have. That is what is important, and that is something you fail to recognize.

[Poppyseedman]

43. I think our founding fathers would disagree with your premise

on individual property is the foundational basis for injustice, inequality and exploitation.

Why in the USA personal property is owned by something on the order of 70% of Americans.

Based on your post America would be the most unjust, less equal and most exploitation people on the face of the earth.

Which clearly we are not unless you ignore reality.

It must be very scary to live in your reality where dialectic thought process don't move beyond Marx.

[eallen]

46. You're talking to a socialist. I don't know what he's doing here.

Liberals believe private property is an essential part of a legal system. Socialists think private property is the foundation of injustice. Liberals think socialism is the foundation of poverty.

I don't know why a few socialists seem to think we liberals in the Democratic Party are ripe for their propaganda. I suspect they would have just as much luck picking off a few right-wingers, who already believe in a long list of myths. I guess because the traditional left-right scale places liberals between right-wingers and socialists, that they think liberals and socialists are somehow aligned. It's pretty funny, really, when you start to think about it. Marx realized quite well that liberalism was the enemy of socialism.

:hippie:

[Poppyseedman]

48. I have come to the conclusion he must be a troll

I find it hard to believe people who are smart enough to post on a website STILL buy into Communism / radical socialism model and promote it.

[manic expression]

56. Really?

What do you think of emminent domain?

Care more about private property than people's needs? You're wrong. Put greed in front of people's welfare? You're wrong. Put the "I" before the "we"? You're wrong. Favor the few instead of the many? You're wrong.

Have you ever actually read any socialist writings?

[eallen]

58. Read lots of socialist writings. The key is unifying labor & ownership....

Socialism, at least as I use the term, objects to the separation of business ownership from those who work in the business. The different kinds of socialism propose different ways of preventing that separation. The anarchists even seem to think that it can be prevented without a regulatory apparatus for doing so. They're dreamers. The problem for all socialists is that they make a bollix of what that unification entails for the economy. Except for some of the radical environmentalists who do understand that, and whose goal includes creating a much lower-tech, much poorer society. But that intersection is slim.

[manic expression]

59. First,

no, anarchists aren't dreamers. If you look at the anarchist communes in Spain in the 1930's you'll see that it's possible. I'm not an anarchist, but I know that it is possible.

Socialism has many definitions. Basically, I see it as the equal distribution of wealth and public ownership of important industries/aspects of society (doesn't have to be all or even most IMO).

And no, you don't have to create a "much poorer society". Such an assertion is incorrect on many levels. Socialism seeks to create a society where material worth is equal, so it does not lessen the wealth of a society, it only distributes it in a different (and better) manner. It lessens the wealth of the wealthy, yes, but that does not make the society poorer (quite the opposite as a matter of fact).

[eallen]

68. Ah. So you'll point out the states where socialism led to wealth?

Thought not. It's a very short list.

It's not the redistribution of wealth, per se, that incapacitates an economy. Rather, it's the complete destruction of some vital economic functions. Economic progress is made, under capitalism, by a process very similar to a genetic algorithm, where new ventures are created by entrepeneurs, typically motivated by the desire for wealth, these new ventures are capitalized by a variety of means from angel funding to debenture to equity funding, depending on their stage, the ventures are evaluated on the basis of how well they do in the market, i.e., satisfying consumer demand vis-a-vis other ventures, sometimes indirectly upstream by satisfying producer demand, most such ventures failing in that regard, and their capital investment lost and their remaining assets liquidated to satisfy creditors, but the successful ones then growing and motivating a further cycle of this.

No other process has been anywhere near as effective at creating wealth and technological progress.

Marx understood that capitalism was extremely productive. In fact, he thought it was too productive. Most socialists seem blind to the historical fact that no socialist economy has ever come close to capitalist productivity.

[manic expression]

71. I will

point out the reality that socialist states simply redistribute their wealth differently (evenly). That's not an incorrect statement. The fact is that for a very large part of the society, wealth does increase because people who had virtually nothing now have something because of economic reform. That is also a true statement.

No, you are totally wrong. Economic progress is made by industries and workers. Capitalism and "entrepeneurs" exploit workers, resources and industries for their own gain and consolidate wealth for themselves. The rich are allowed to benefit off of other people's toil while others must work extraordinarily hard just to survive.

The ventures of capitalism are evaluated by how much money they make. That's about all there is to it. Consumers can be persuaded or even forced to buy certain products through various means, none of them honest or forthright. In all of this, the consumer must shell out their money to line the pockets of those who are already rich, those who are in control, NOT those who must work for what the money was paid for.

This system is based off of greed and oppression. People make money for themselves instead of bettering society. People gain wealth through the unfair use of others. It is an advanced form of feudalism.

No process has been anywhere near as effective as creating wealth FOR THE WEALTHY. That is what capitalism is best at, consolidating wealth and power to a select few while denying any sort of parity to all else.

What you ignore is that even anarchist societies outproduced capitalist ones. During the Spanish Civil War, many communities became anarchist in just about every way. And guess what: production skyrocketed. What you also ignore is that capitalism generates wealth for certain people while socialism generates wealth for all the people. When wealth is made by and for exploitation, that only contributes to the injustice and benefits the rich instead of society.

When society makes sure production benefits the whole instead of the few, when a society puts its wealth to everyone instead of a small elite, when a society puts the common welfare before base greed, a society will find equity and justice. THAT is what is important, and THAT is what you are ignorant to.

[manic expression]

55. Many of the founding fathers owned human beings as property

Care to show your support?

Actually, America does have third world poverty in spite of its thriving economy. Go to any inner city and witnes the injustice and inequality and exploitation for yourself. Waitresses are forced to work long hours and still can't make rent. Single mothers are kicked off of assistance. Families are evicted from their houses when their jobs are taken away from them. So yes, America does have injustice and inequality and exploitation, and your insistence on ignoring this fact changes nothing.

Don't be so naive to think that we're actually the country you hear in patriotic songs. We're far from perfect, we're actually exception in the western world for our inequality and unfair societal setup. The fact is that this is the undeniable truth, and if you prefer "America the Beautiful" to the reality of depressed communities and people who can't find a way to make ends meet, you are beyond ignorant.

Try looking at reality, you might not like it, but it's the truth.

[sabbat hunter]

49. life under castro

for the everyday cuban is much better than under batista. under batista the mafia and a few rich controlled everything and the rest were poor and lived horribly.

now everyone has a education, health care.

life could be FAR better than under castro but it is at least better than under his predecessor.

who by the way was supported by the communists and unions.

[manic expression]

14. What are you talking about?

I don't care how many pieces of paper a Palestinian family doesn't have, they had their land stolen from them. It's quite simple, they were living on it, and someone else took it; they deserve what was wrongly taken from them.

With Cuba, it IS a different situation, but not as you say. The revolution put the needs of everyone above the base desires and petty possessions of the few. What happened in Cuba gave people what they need and deserve. The oligarchs are mad because they are no longer able to callously deny the people what they need, they are no longer able to make a mockery of justice.

[WCGreen]

17. The bottom line is....

Palestinians land was taken by the Israelis....

The Cubans that want to go back and get their land left after their land was taken by Castro and the revolutionaries...

And yes it was the wealthiest who split, because they could...

The point is, if we say the rich cubans who were "forced" into exile have a leitamate claim on the land they left then the Palestinians who left should have a legitamate claim to the land they were forced to leave....

It's the same thing no matter how you split it...

[Poppyseedman]

18. So when are you moving to the Cuban paradise?

Lead the way or are you too comfy living in your life of relative ease in the cruel USA.

[manic expression]

28. Is that supposed to be an argument?

I live where I live, I'm not interested in moving anywhere anytime soon for many practical reasons that have nothing to do with ideology. Your comment is as meaningless as it is insipid, your rhetoric as tired and repetitive as it is delusional and incorrect.

Oh, and if I was to move to Cuba, I would live in a great amount of comfort and ease because a dollar goes a lot further there. If you knew anything, you would've known that, but you don't know anything, so you didn't.

[Poppyseedman]

47. I know enough that the communist bilge you are pimping is long ago

a dead ideology on the ash heap of history. It has been proved to be morally corrupt, ethically compromised and impractical for the literally BILLIONS of people who suffered under it. Other systems are not perfect, like ours, but by pimping communism proves you are either a troll or completely delusional.

If you were to move to Cuban you would be a reprobate because you are living off the plight of mass social injustice and, exploitation. Leave your damnable ill gotten yankee dollars at home and live like a regular comrade.

You would make Castro proud. Hell, he might even give you a free rice cooker.

[manic expression]

57. Then you really don't know anything

Look at countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, El Salvador, Kerala and more. You are in utter denial of the development of the world today, because socialism is gaining ground. Many people have seen how it is a far more fair, justified, practical and better system, and that is why people are clamouring for that change from the beaches of India to the mountains and fields of South America and beyond. Your ignorance of this shows that you have no clue as to the world.

Oh, good, here comes the obligatory "move to Cuba" argument. These are my favorite. I'm not planning to move anywhere anytime soon. However, I will always work toward a better society here, I will work toward a society with parity here. Let me ask you something: what in the world are you trying to say with this point? So far, you haven't said anything of consequence at all.

[Poppyseedman]

67. OK, you are right, I am clueless. Socialism will eventually control

all worlds systems. Liberalism and socialism truly are different animals

Funny, you didn't mention all the colossal socialism failures in eastern europe, East Germany, Soviet Union, N. Korea, and many more. It must be my ignorance that prevents me from understanding why all those societies absolutely fall apart when freedom was introduced.

But in spite of all that, you converted me to the great and glorious Marxist theories you pimp, that have freed the world of oppression, war and all social ills

You and Che' keep truckin I plan to continue my quest for higher levels of ignorance.

[manic expression]

72. Well, you got one thing right

socialism is gaining ground in many areas. That much is a fact.

Those "colossal socialism failures" could scarcely be called socialism. Actually, they weren't really socialist if you actually look at it. However, even then, after the Soviet Union fell, the life expectancy went down consistently in Eastern Europe. Even then, the rampant corruption which followed was little better. I guess that is what you think "freedom" is: cronyism.

Your levels of ignorance are quite sufficient, try thinking instead.

[WCGreen]

20. Property rights in the US are up in the air....

Just ask those people who had their land taken away by the state under the guise of eminent domain....

[Poppyseedman]

22. Yes, thanks to the supposing "left side " of the court

Bastards

[demosincebirth]

24. What about the whole western U.S.

wasn't it taken (stolen) from Mexico. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which we signed, guaranteed mexican landowners property rights to the land they owned here. Yet, that land was systematically taken from them with the help of the courts.

[WCGreen]

26. There you go......

And to think the Israeli's haven't been on that land since 70-80 C.E.

I would gather the Native Indians, Mexicans, Saxons, and a whole bunch of other displaced people since the Israeli's were expelled from their chosen land would have a case as well....

[question everything]

30. Did a similar number of people from Miami go to Cuba?

In 1948, during Israel's war of Independence, about 600,000 Arabs left their homes in what later became part of the State of Israel.

At the same time, a similar number of Jews left Arab countries and came to Israel. While the Jews were absorbed into Israeli society and became productive citizens, the Arabs were kept in wretched refugee camps; they still are, growing up with no hope, no job prospect, only hatred for Israel and, of course, a great diversion for the other Arab nations who did not have to deal with unrest in their own countries.

[WCGreen]

33. No, but the Arabs hat left their homes, many could have stayed...

As many of the Cubans could have stayed...

[Solon]

39. There is a distinct difference here...

Most of those Palestinians were "Joe Schmoes" so to speak, not the elite of a country that took its tax money and wasted it on cars, gambling, and trips to Europe.

[WCGreen]

42. The motivation may be different...

But the results are the same...

[Crunchy Frog]

37. Very good question.

I'd be interested to hear what people have to say about it. (Maybe it's something to do with who was given what by God.)

[Greyhound]

65. The original "exiles" were the Cuban fascists that caused the

revolutionary reaction through their own short-sighted greed and abuse.