Is Castro Already Dead?

[BPSCG]

Communication is the exchange of understanding. The most effective vehicle for the exchange of understanding is speech. Accordingly, for communication to be effective, people wishing to communicate must have a common understanding of the terms they use when they speak.

If someone persists in using a term to mean something at variance with everyone else's understanding of the term, he should not be surprised when others decide there is no point in trying to communicate with him any more.

The foregoing is a long-winded way of saying, "Do Not Feed The Troll."

 

[dann]

You're still here? Well, I guess that's your vote for alleged.

 

[BPSCG]

Go away, troll.

 

[marksman]

By the way, what exactly are the language rules here.

I'm assuming this question was an honest and earnest request.

1. Don't use unnecessary italics and boldface when writing sentences.
2. Don't hyperlink references to your other statements on an issue.
3. Use commonly accepted definitions of English words rather than trying to redefine words for political purpose.
4. Don't put words in other posters' mouths.
5. Treat people with respect.
6. Make sure your arguments are free of logical fallacies.
7. If you make a statement of fact, be prepared to provide evidence of it, if requested.
8. Try to write clearly and use a spellchecker. (I, sadly, often err on this last point, though I am trying to improve.)

These are only the informal etiquette I have observed in my time at the JREF forums (too often observed in the breach).

And, by the way, personally, I think Posada is a terrorist.

You might also wish to peruse the forum rules

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, and a "punitive and disproportionate" one, which is why I and many others prefer to call it a blockade, whereas you and for instance Wiki would rather talk about an embargo.
By the way, what exactly are the language rules here. Would you also object to calling Posada a terrorist? Or is he just alleged?

Does it take a shaped charge to get an idea into your head?

A blockade is not an embargo with power ups, it is physically, legally, and politically a different thing. An egg is not an ostrich.

Embargoes differ in intensity and purpose, a blockade is a physical obstruction, with armed vessels, on all trade to and from a nation's ports. You think the US trade embargo on Cuba is severe. Fine. Oh, and waaaaaaaaah.

An embargo's strength or weakness, or extent, does not change its nature from embargo. It is still an embargo, a form of economic coercion. (see again oil embargo of OPEC versus US, 1973. That wasn't a blockade either.) If it is upgraded to a blockade, it has to be declared and enforced by armed ships of a belligerent nation to be one.

Now do you understand, dann, or are you a willfully ignorant fool on top of anything else you may be?

DR

PS: I leave as an exercise to the reader what the nature of the UN sanctions on Iraq were beginning 06 Aug 1990, to Jan 17 1990, to March 1991, to March 2003. It is fascinating, if one cares about such things.

 

[Architect]

You think the US trade embargo on Cuba is severe. Fine. Oh, and waaaaaaaaah.

Well in all fairness, if you read my earlier post you'll find that a substantial number of America's allies consider the embargo (and in particular the attempt to use US law to restrict the rights of third parties in other soveriegn states) so severe and disproproprtionate that they have passed legislation making it effectively illegal.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well in all fairness, if you read my earlier post you'll find that a substantial number of America's allies consider the embargo (and in particular the attempt to use US law to restrict the rights of third parties in other soveriegn states) so severe and disproproprtionate that they have passed legislation making it effectively illegal.

The US spent some time in the 70's dealing with second and third party issues regarding the Israeli/Arab embargo that impacted US companies who did business in Israel. The Arab league attempted to penalize second and third party trade with Israel (and thus not the Arabs) which Japanese companies played along with for some years. So did some US companies, to include IIRC Coca Cola.

Pardong me for not being impressed. Who do your countries value more as a trading partner: Cuba or the US?

Choose as you will. Live with your choices. Money talks, and altruism sometimes walks . . . though sometimes is sings.

While I am not convivced the US Cuban embargo is anything more than a sop to sugar beet farmers and the Florida tourism industry, it's politics as usual in the post Wall world.

And I still can't get a good Cuban cigar.

DR

 

[Architect]

Who do your countries value more as a trading partner: Cuba or the US?

And yet despite that, the EU and other countries passed legislation effectively making it illegal for the US to apply the legilsation. Gives you an idea of how strongly the rest of the world feel about it. You might also wish to remember the UN Resolution against it.

Incidentally, it didn't seem to slow the US to consider that their attempt to restrict third part sovereign nations might annoy their major trading partners.

 

[Garrette]

And I still can't get a good Cuban cigar.

This fact alone is nearly reason enough to justify the surge. We could occasionally get Cubans from the locals and could always get them via internet shopping (I personally never had to order any, being friends with a few die-hard cigar aficionados who were happy to spread their faith).

 

[Darth Rotor]

And yet despite that, the EU and other countries passed legislation effectively making it illegal for the US to apply the legilsation.

What, illegal in the US to do it? You don't have the jurisdiction.

Gives you an idea of how strongly the rest of the world feel about it. You might also wish to remember the UN Resolution against it.

Oh, yes, and you can see how that has been enforced. *yawns*

Incidentally, it didn't seem to slow the US to consider that their attempt to restrict third part sovereign nations might annoy their major trading partners.

Actually, I think it was considered, and the decision was made anyway. This policy is what, 40 years old?

Sure, it's an annoyance. Our good friends in Europe do many things that annoy us, and the US does many things that annoy the tender sensibilities in Europe. The list of trade peeves is long and distinguished. ( I recall some beef issues, genetic engineering and corn, just off the top of my head.)

Is Cuba worth dying in a ditch over? I don't think so, any more than I thought Albanian security was worth wasting American blood and treasure over. We did it anyway, too soothe European sensibilities that Europe could not handle without Uncle Sugar holding their hand.

It's a whine fest, all sound and fury, signifying nothing, to add to the cacophony of whine fests regarding a multitude of other issues.

DR

 

[Architect]

What, illegal in the US to do it? You don't have the jurisdiction.

This is where you actually put your finger on it, just the wrong way around. The US legislation actually attempts to control the operation of businesses and individuals in third party sovereign states. Effectively it aims to make trading with Cuba a criminal offence regardless of whether the transaction or any of the parties to it were operating in US sovereign territory.

I can imagine that the US would get mightily upset if Europe did the same thing to you.

As a result your own strongest allies - the likes of the UK and neighbours such as Canada - specifically passed legislation countering the US legislation.

The point I think your overlooking here is that the US stands alone. When your own allies, and those who stand most to lose by way of trade with you, tell you that you've bollocked something up then a bit of self analysis is normally advisable.

Oh, yes, and you can see how that has been enforced.

Now, you don't want a potted history of US resolutions which the US has used to justify military action and the like, do you?

Is Cuba worth dying in a ditch over? I don't think so, no more than I thought Albanian security was worth wasting American blood and treasure over.

You've got me there. When were the US involved in Albania?

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is where you actually put your finger on it, just the wrong way around. The US legislation actually attempts to control the operation of businesses and individuals in third party sovereign states. Effectively it aims to make trading with Cuba a criminal offence regardless of whether the transaction or any of the parties to it were operating in US sovereign territory.

And so, how many Brits were arrested for doing trade with Cuba? How many extradited?

I can imagine that the US would get mightily upset if Europe did the same thing to you.

Free to try, and free to try and back it up.

As a result your own strongest allies - the likes of the UK and neighbours such as Canada - specifically passed legislation countering the US legislation.

A fascinating game of "that's what friends are for." We also seem to be having a piss up with the Canadians lately about corn. The Canadians and Spanish have had more than a few pissups over fishing.

So what?

The point I think your overlooking here is that the US stands alone.

Right. Supported when it was convenient by it allies, then abandoned when interests diverged. So, I ask again, of what relative importance is this Cuba thing? Did it preclude the NATO bombing of Serbia? Did it preclude the NATO ops in Afghanistan? Oh, dear, did it preclude the Dutch, Italians, Spanish, and Brits from heading off to Iraq?

Oh dear, it actually didn't matter much more than a gutless UN resolution.

When your own allies, and those who stand most to lose by way of trade with you, tell you that you've bollocked something up then a bit of self analysis is normally advisable.

Or, it is to ask them how important it really is, other than as a political gesture.

Now, you don't want a potted history of US resolutions which the US has used to justify military action and the like, do you?

UN resolutions are as useful as the moxy behind them. When there is something behind them, they tend to be binding, when there are a load of whinging c___s behind them, they tend to get the ridicule they deserve.

You've got me there. When were the US involved in Albania?

1995-1999, and beyond. Weren't you paying attention to what NATO does? What do you think incited bombs in Belgrade? Freaking Albanians.

DR

 

[dann]

As you can see, Architect, whining is only called for if it is whining about the disobedient allies of the USA!
Nobody else has the right to whine since whining is justified only if you are powerful enough to go beyond whining: "Free to try, and free to try and back it up." Might is right as the argument!
My admiration for the Cubans and their struggle against the blockade always grows when I encounter this kind of US rhetoric.

 

[Darth Rotor]

My admiration for the Cubns and their struggle against the blockade always grows when I encounter this kind of US rhetoric.

You can't fight what isn't there.

As to "might makes right" it isn't an argument, it's how the world works.

So far. That's why you aren't speaking German.

DR

 

[Elizabeth I]

By the way, why don't you read your own links?
"verb
1. hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; "His brother blocked him at every turn" [syn: obstruct]"

[bolding mine]
At the risk of being accused of being (1) naive or (2) obvious, dann, is it possible you have confused blocked with blockade?

While the words may share a root, something can be blocked without being blockaded. For example, your drains might be blocked, but it would be stretching a point to say they were blockaded.

 

[Darth Rotor]

[bolding mine]
At the risk of being accused of being (1) naive or (2) obvious, dann, is it possible you have confused blocked with blockade?

While the words may share a root, something can be blocked without being blockaded. For example, your drains might be blocked, but it would be stretching a point to say they were blockaded.

Bless you for your optimism.

DR

 

[dann]

[bolding mine]
At the risk of being accused of being (1) naive or (2) obvious,

No, not at all.

dann, is it possible you have confused blocked with blockade?

No, I don't confuse the words. Like the people I link to, I am not unaware of the usual meaning of the word, and if DR and others would like to replace it with the punitive and disproportionate embargo, I'm willing to compromise. I think that blockade is shorter and therefore easier to use, but I wouldn't really mind using the longer term since my shorter one seems to upset people so.

As to "might makes right" it isn't an argument, it's how the world works.

Yes, that is exactly the way your argument goes! So why continue with the next line ...

That's why you aren't speaking German.

... where you insist on the USA being the good guys 'saving the world from the Nazis'?
By the way, I not only speak German, I teach it too!

 

[ZirconBlue]

My admiration for the Cubans and their struggle against the blockade always grows when I encounter this kind of US rhetoric.

 

[Luke T.]

Here is exactly what is going to happen in Cuba when Fidel is done and gone.

Raul is a joke on the street. The people crack jokes about him. Not in a very public way, but amongst each other. Considering their society, the fact they feel comfortable joking about him says a lot.

But Raul is also a true blue nutjob. A dangerous lunatic.

He has built up a small coterie of loyal subjects in anticipation of this day. But there are Fidel loyalists who have spent way too many years working their way up the power structure to let this clown rule the roost. And as a whole, they are a much bigger and far superior force to Raul's clique.

So they will approach Raul, if they haven't already, and they will tell him, "Fine, you can be Supreme Poobah. Get all the press and the glory. But we are in charge, get it?"

If Raul balks, they will eliminate his posse. Simply slay them.

This is "make him an offer he can't refuse" time.

And that is what is going to happen.

As for reforms, that will happen. Just about everybody but the US does business with Cuba. Even Israel, which is the most terrorist-intolerant nation on the planet, does business with Cuba.

If the US does business with Cuba, the effect on their economy will kill any communistic tendencies which remain.

When a lot of Cubans ran away to the US, their relatives who stayed behind caught some serious crap from the rest of the population. Rocks through the windows, insults in the street. All that. Those people who insulted these "left behinds" felt that by being loyal, they would get ahead.

Well, it hasn't turned out that way. Those people who left for the US have been sending money back home to Cuba, and the left-behinds are much, much better off than the people who used to curse them. And now those people who used to curse them are seriously disillusioned with the Castro way of life. Castro succeeded in making everyone equal all right. Equal with the lowest person.

So sit back and watch.

Hopefully, the US will be smart enough to see all this and act accordingly.

 

[dann]

Raul is a joke on the street. The people crack jokes about him. Not in a very public way, but amongst each other. Considering their society, the fact they feel comfortable joking about him says a lot.

'Considering their society'? The Cubans have been telling jokes about Fidel Castro as well, and a couple of days before he was reported ill, Cuban TV had a two-hours-long satire of a round-table discussion between Castro and other notabilities. The character playing Fidel was very good at mimicking Casto's gesticulations and tone of voice, and the Cubans I saw it with were killing themselves with laughter. One of the gimmicks was that every time Fidel mentioned the successes of the revolution, the lights in the studio went out! Some of the Cubans I watched it with were gay, and they seemed to enjoy a very butch-looking woman the most. Every time she made a particularly masculine-aggressive gesture, they yelled "Macho! Macho!"
The Cubans don't seem to be particularly scared of cracking jokes about Fidel Castro either. It is a very interesting myth.

But Raul is also a true blue nutjob. A dangerous lunatic.

He has built up a small coterie of loyal subjects in anticipation of this day. But there are Fidel loyalists who have spent way too many years working their way up the power structure to let this clown rule the roost. And as a whole, they are a much bigger and far superior force to Raul's clique.

So they will approach Raul, if they haven't already, and they will tell him, "Fine, you can be Supreme Poobah. Get all the press and the glory. But we are in charge, get it?"

Don't make him sound like George W., please!

If Raul balks, they will eliminate his posse. Simply slay them.

This is "make him an offer he can't refuse" time.

And that is what is going to happen.

Very interesting myths. I don't think that they say much about Cuba, but they tell us a lot about you.

As for reforms, that will happen. Just about everybody but the US does business with Cuba. Even Israel, which is the most terrorist-intolerant nation on the planet, does business with Cuba.

If the US does business with Cuba, the effect on their economy will kill any communistic tendencies which remain.

It's hilarious! For almost 60 years the Americans have been doing their best to save the revolution!?

When a lot of Cubans ran away to the US, their relatives who stayed behind caught some serious crap from the rest of the population. Rocks through the windows, insults in the street. All that. Those people who insulted these "left behinds" felt that by being loyal, they would get ahead.

Well, it hasn't turned out that way. Those people who left for the US have been sending money back home to Cuba, and the left-behinds are much, much better off than the people who used to curse them. And now those people who used to curse them are seriously disillusioned with the Castro way of life. Castro succeeded in making everyone equal all right. Equal with the lowest person.

Like I mentioned above, it is a problem that the people with Miami connections are doing better than the rest of the Cubans. And a lot of Cubans are disillusioned with the prevailing poverty. But like I also mentioned, this does not mean that they will welcome back the Miami revanchists who want to return to claim the property that they couldn't take with them to the USA.

So sit back and watch.

Hopefully, the US will be smart enough to see all this and act accordingly.

You mean, put a stop to the punitive and disproportionate embargo? (See?!) Now I can't speak on behalf of the Cubans, but I'm sure that they'll look forward to that! Now if the US administration would also hand over Posada to Venezuela and release the Miami Five, that seems to be everything the Cubans are asking for!