Family Values Under the Bush Administration

[ImaginalDisc]

For ImaginalDisc: Please show any statement I have made that is a lie. I did not state that Hong Kong had no trade partners. I did not state that Israel received no aid from the U.S.

Glady, liar.

On November 6, 1962, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1761, condemning South African apartheid policies. On August 7, 1963 the United Nations Security Council established a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa. Following the Soweto uprising in 1976 and its brutal suppression by the apartheid regime, the arms embargo was made mandatory by the UN Security Council on November 4, 1977 and South Africa became increasingly isolated internationally. Numerous conferences were held and the United Nations passed resolutions condemning South Africa, including the World Conference Against Racism in 1978 and 1983. A significant divestment movement started, pressuring investors to refuse to invest in South African companies or companies that did business with South Africa. South African sports teams were barred from participation in international events, and South African culture and tourism were boycotted.

Read, and learn.If international sanctions against South Africa were a good idea, why are they a bad idea for Cuba?

Empahsis added.

South African Arms Emgrabo does not equal Cuban Embargo.

The Embargo against Apartheid South Africa was not at all the same as the Embargo against Cuba. Your own quoted information quite clearly describes the Embargo against S.A. as an arms embargo, and yet you continue to equate it to the embargo against Cuba. That's outright deception. You are a liar.

For both of you: My point wasn't that trade with the U.S. isn't beneficial; hell, everyone wants to trade with the U.S. (well, maybe excepting NK). My point was that almost every country has some built-in disadvantage. Now, you can claim that disadvantage is all that's standing between you and The Good Life, as the Castro apologists here are doing, or you can overcome those advantages, as Hong Kong, Israel, and many other countries have done.

Yes, Israel gets lots of military aid from the U.S. But Cuba got lots of military aid from the USSR for years and years (until the USSR decided it had enough of its own problems and stopped pouring money into Castro's sinkhole), and it had a relative advantage over Israel of having a temperate climate and soil rich enough that you could probably stick a baseball bat in it and it would sprout, while Israel is a stinking desert. Castro doesn't have to build a wall around his country to keep his neighbors from shooting missiles into Havana, and doesn't have to maintain a huge standing army to fend off an invasion from the combined forces of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Mexico. In short, Cuba has some advantages vis a vis Israel, and some disadvantages.

Same thing with Cuba vs. Hong Kong.
And Taiwan.
And Malaysia.
And Indonesia.
And...

But you latch on to one disadvantage Cuba has and claim that if just this one thing were eliminated, Cuba would be prosperous and happy and enjoying The Good Life.

Do you really believe that?

Can you show me any communist country that was ever prosperous and happy and enjoying The Good Life? Even those that the U.S. did trade with?

You trailing questions are irrelevant. The U.S. entirely shut off Cuba from the outside world for 12 years, and then the Embargo, after Carter, was continued with renwened fervor. The USSR aid to Cuba has long since ended, because, you may not be aware of this, the USSR is defunct.

Israel has always had trade. Israel has never been cut off entirely from trade from the outside world. Your comparision is invalid.

On a personal note, how dare you suggest I am a Castro apologist.

 

[FreeChile]

Well, I suggested tougher, international sanctions, like were imposed on South Africa, but was hooted down by the would-be Castro-enablers here.

Since you want the anti-embargo crew to join your cause, you know what their response would be. Your words come back to bite cha!

BPSCG: Why should I? What's in it for me?

The UN imposed sanctions against arms sales to South Africa, and many other countries imposed additional sanctions of their own. South Africa only treated most of its population brutally, while Castro treats substantially all of his brutally. But South Africa is/was deserving of harsher sanctions than Cuba, in the world's opinion.

Again, the anology is flawed. You equate the level of brutality in both cases; therefore your numerical analysis fails. It is also arguable that the South African regine would have collapsed with or without the international support. The people were simply that fed up already. And your words come back to byte cha! Again, perform the appropriate reversal of your words below.

So your argument for lifting the sanctions against Castro comes down to this: We help support one murderous dictatorship, therefore we should support every murderous dictatorship (plus you want to be able to smoke his cigars).

Does your list of approved dictatorships include Saudi Arabia?
Pakistan?
Apartheid-era South Africa?
Somoza-era Nicaragua?
Pinochet-era Chile?
Batista-era Cuba?

 

[BPSCG]

Your own quoted information quite clearly describes the Embargo against S.A. as an arms embargo, and yet you continue to equate it to the embargo against Cuba. That's outright deception. You are a liar.

For starts, "compare" does not mean the same thing as "equate."

Second, the U.S. is one of only three or four countries that supports the Cuban embargo. If you take the trouble to go back to the first link I posted about South Africa, you'll see that the UN arms embargo was only one of many sanctions against South Africa, carried out by many countries, both independently and in concert with each other around the world, sanctions that involved trade cessation, divestment in holdings of South African corporations, and even severing of cultural ties. As I said, read, and learn.

Were those sanctions the same as those against Cuba? No. Were they just as punishing? Quite possibly more so.

So your reply to these facts is to call me a liar.

On a personal note, how dare you suggest I am a Castro apologist.

Fine. How about I call you a would-be Castro-enabler, then? Feel better?

 

[BPSCG]

Since you want the anti-embargo crew to join your cause, you know what their response would be. Your words come back to bite cha!

Oh, I knew exactly what the response would be from the crew that will excuse or "explain" the behavior any dictatorship as long as it hates the U.S. Believe me when I tell you I was not surprised in the slightest.

Again, the anology is flawed. You equate the level of brutality in both cases; therefore your numerical analysis fails.

Does it? Which country has/had the greater level of brutality? Please back up your answer with facts and figures.

It is also arguable that the South African regine would have collapsed with or without the international support.

(Note FreChile is using the passive voice, indicating he is either trying to evade responsibility or doesn't want to claim credit for the action in the sentence...) Please tell me who makes the argument that "the South African regine would have collapsed with or without the international support." Do you?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So your reply to these facts is to call me a liar.
Fine. How about I call you a would-be Castro-enabler, then? Feel better?

Did you fail to read about the fact that my family narrowly escaped being murdered by Castro? Are you remotely aware of how off-base and insulting you are?

 

[Kerberos]

For starts, "compare" does not mean the same thing as "equate."

No, but saying it's tougher means that you claim it's tougher, any support for that statement?

Second, the U.S. is one of only three or four countries that supports the Cuban embargo. If you take the trouble to go back to the first link I posted about South Africa, you'll see that the UN arms embargo was only one of many sanctions against South Africa, carried out by many countries, both independently and in concert with each other around the world, sanctions that involved trade cessation, divestment in holdings of South African corporations, and even severing of cultural ties. As I said, read, and learn.

I did read, but unlike you I also understod. The wikipedia article does not say that

Were those sanctions the same as those against Cuba? No. Were they just as punishing? Quite possibly more so.

Really? "quite possible"? what does that mean? Or is that just your way of avoiding actually having to defend your position? Can you answer that or will you be to bussy going around kicking gunshot victims since they'd still be miserable even without being kicked and kicking them doesn't harm you?

So your reply to these facts is to call me a liar.

What facts? The "fact" that the Sanctions against South Africa were "quite possible" (funny, how you didn't include that qualification a few posts ago) more punishing than those against Cuba? The "fact" that the wikipedia article says that the UN arms embargo was only one of many sanctions by many countries both independently and in concert? Where was it it said that again? No, "movement" does not translate to many countries working both independently and in concert.

 

[Zep]

Good enough for you, Zep? Straight from the horses mouth.

As I read it, you CAN travel to Cuba if given the proper permission from the US government. Permission is granted only for certain purposes. Tourism is not one of the things they allow you to go over there for, and you can be arrested if you try to circumvent the regulations by travelling through a third country.



bolding mine.

Thank you for that.

And yet, as I noted in my previous post, I'm reasonably informed that nearly 250,000 Americans visited Cuba last year as tourists, but with less than 10,000 licenses issued. Using a third-party country as a stopover to get there.

Given the tough talk of this proclamation, shouldn't those people at least be fined heavily on return? And at least a representative sample jailed or something?

 

[Ausmerican]

Why should I? What's in it for me?

This must be an example of "the Judeo-Christian concept of helping those less fortunate than ourselves when we can" you mentioned earlier I guess?
So far your entire arguement for continuing the embargo seems to be able to be boiled down to "communism is bad mmkay?"

 

[Kerberos]

This must be an example of "the Judeo-Christian concept of helping those less fortunate than ourselves when we can" you mentioned earlier I guess?
So far your entire arguement for continuing the embargo seems to be able to be boiled down to "communism is bad mmkay?"

Ahh, but let's not forget his multitude of ad homs. BPSCG argument just wouldn't have the same the same weight without his ceasseless acusation of being a Castro-supporter towards anybody who disagrees wuth him.

 

[a_unique_person]

Hey, I support Castro. He's a great guy.

 

[Zep]

Castro is going to die soon, and his little empire will most likely disintegrate like Saddam's did. Already much of the mutual animosity is happening aside from and despite the reality of the burgeoning trade between the two countries, and is becoming mostly irrelevant posturing. At the very least, when Castro finally pops his clogs, there will be major upheavals in Cuba.

Who knows! They may even decide to accept the reality of the current situation, and everyone can act normal for a change...

 

[BPSCG]

Castro is going to die soon, and his little empire will most likely disintegrate like Saddam's did.

Whoa, now there's the strangest revisionist history I've ever seen.

That reminds me of a few lines from Jimmy Breslin's classic mafia book, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. Talking about a war to take over the mafia territory in Queens, New York, he describes a capo named Joe the Wop.

"Joe the Wop shot nuns. He died of natural causes. His heart stopped beating when men stuck knives into it.

"Raymond the Wolf, who had sent the men with the knives, took over. Raymond the Wolf ate babies. He dropped dead while being strangled."

Saddam's little empire disintegrated while being invaded and bombed.

 

[Mephisto]

Can someone remind me why we still have an embargo on Cuba and not on China?

That's an easy one, because we owe lots of money to China, and Cuba is full of illegal immigrants.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Whoa, now there's the strangest revisionist history I've ever seen.

That reminds me of a few lines from Jimmy Breslin's classic mafia book, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. Talking about a war to take over the mafia territory in Queens, New York, he describes a capo named Joe the Wop.

"Joe the Wop shot nuns. He died of natural causes. His heart stopped beating when men stuck knives into it.

"Raymond the Wolf, who had sent the men with the knives, took over. Raymond the Wolf ate babies. He dropped dead while being strangled."

Saddam's little empire disintegrated while being invaded and bombed.

More disinformation. Zep clearly did not suggest that Saddam's dictatorship collapses because he died. He suggested that when Castro dies, his dictorship will collapse, just as Saddam's has.

Oh I'm sorry, did I interfere with your disinformation campaign? Would you like to continue to call me a Castro, what it is now, apologist? Supporter?

 

[Mephisto]

Did you fail to read about the fact that my family narrowly escaped being murdered by Castro? Are you remotely aware of how off-base and insulting you are?

Hey! Having a family that narrowly escaped being murdered by Castro and claiming that terrorists are trying to kill YOU (because you live in the same city they attacked - er, two cities they attacked) aren't necessarily the same thing.

One sounds personal, the other . . . well, it sounds paranoid.

 

[Mycroft]

More disinformation. Zep clearly did not suggest that Saddam's dictatorship collapses because he died. He suggested that when Castro dies, his dictorship will collapse, just as Saddam's has.

Oh I'm sorry, did I interfere with your disinformation campaign? Would you like to continue to call me a Castro, what it is now, apologist? Supporter?

I don't believe Zep did it intentionally, but to say Castro's empire would crumble "just like" Hussein's could easily be read to mean that Castro's empire would crumble "in the same way" that Hussein's did.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't believe Zep did it intentionally, but to say Castro's empire would crumble "just like" Hussein's could easily be read to mean that Castro's empire would crumble "in the same way" that Hussein's did.

It's a similie. A short one too, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, even in the case that your interpretation is correct.

 

[Mycroft]

It's a similie. A short one too, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, even in the case that your interpretation is correct.

No, actually a similie would mean that Zep did intend to say that Castro's empire would fall in the same way that Hussein's did. Since Zep most likely meant that both empires would be fallen without any implied similarity in how they fell, it was that the statement looked like a simile but wasn't supposed to be one is why BPSCG replied as he did.

I'm not making mountains out of anything, I'm just explaining what I see.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No, actually a similie would mean that Zep did intend to say that Castro's empire would fall in the same way that Hussein's did. Since Zep most likely meant that both empires would be fallen without any implied similarity in how they fell, it was that the statement looked like a simile but wasn't supposed to be one is why BPSCG replied as he did.

I'm not making mountains out of anything, I'm just explaining what I see.

Now I'm afriad I don't follow you entirely. How about we shelve this one, and get back to the ad homs and rhetoric? That way, we don't actually have to deal with facts or logic.

 

[Mycroft]

Now I'm afriad I don't follow you entirely. How about we shelve this one, and get back to the ad homs and rhetoric? That way, we don't actually have to deal with facts or logic.