Cuba

Some of us may look at the U.S. through rose-colored glasses. It would seem, however, that you Anton look at it through red-colored glasses.

If Cuba's economy was everything you seem to think it is, lack of trade with the U.S. would not significantly hold it back. After all, you've said yourself they trade with the rest of the world. It is stagnant (at best) because the Communist/Castro system stiffles free-thinking, free enterprise, and progress.

Most of your constant Central America harangues are not true. Yes, U.S. trained right-wing militias killed innocent (and guilty) people, just as the Soviet-backed leftists did (and still do). I have yet to see any shred of evidence that U.S. forces of any kind were present when the crimes actually occurred.

The New York Times has become a leftist joke, much like the BBC. It survives on reputation alone.

 

SgtBob,thank you for this reply.

Cuba has indeed a state regulated (planned) economy, it means that it cannot react on consumers wishes. It also means that the cuban economy cannot respond in time to new developments. In this it is what you say it is; cuba's economy is not flexible to ''bear'' losses and to increase when it has the opportunities.

However it is important to understand that cuba cannot receive loans or financial injections like a ''kapitalist state''. Therefor it is not simple for cuban economy to develop and hook on the develop line.

On the other hand, the ''kapitalist states'' surrounding cuba haven't got a solid economy. Haiti, Dominican Repulic and Jamaica are far from having a ''good and solid'' economy so it seems unfair to me to disqualify the cuban economic as practiced nowadays. (also in reports by dutch media)

Although cuba trades internationally it has no development value, I mean that it lift cuba on a higher level so to say. That has to do with the us sanctions. Like I said before; a multinational, with interests in the us, will think twice before investing in cuba.

The question then is: does cuba get a fair chance to develop?

In my opinion ofcourse not, cuba is in the economic atmosphere of the us and the denial of cuban goods in most american countries mean a big problem in terms of commerce/trade.

 

I don't know that much about Cuba, but apparently their education system is one of the best in Latin America.

 

Propaganda is not education. Although it is likely that Cuban children do have more oppurtunity to go to school than is average in Latin America. One does wonder, though, about the curriculum.

 

if that was true, cuba will be flooded by students from all over the world, and that will be a good point for castro :-?

 

Haiti, Dominican Republik, etc. are far from Democratik or Kapitalist States. They are effectively Banana Republiks, and this is a loose usage of the word Republic. I could get into some serious French bashing to explain many of their historical problems, but in deference to Castelot I won't.

Firm control of the citizenry, lack of growth, citizens routinely fleeing to other countries, lack of investment due to government interference, Oligarchy. Every Communist nation accomplishes all this with or without U.S. embargos.

 

I could get into some serious French bashing to explain many of their historical problems, but in deference to Castelot I won't.
.[/quote]

Please do so, I'm interested.

 

This was very courteous of whoever wrote that, Castelot. Don't provoke it.

Thanks!

 

SgtBob, do you consider the heritage of the french colonisation of these countries the main reason for the present problems? If so I do not understand you critisise cuba's problems. In that case the us is totally responsable because the us colonized cuba after the us-spanish war wich was provoked by a us marine ship in Havana.
A bit odd to think that way, same for vietnam and korea. There problems are as much related to their former colonial masters as Haiti's and Dominican Republic's.

 

The U.S. did not colonize Cuba. The Spanish-American war broke out in 1898, the immediate cause being when American battleship Maine mysteriously blew up in Havana harbor, with great loss of life. The U.S. blamed the Spanish, who had been the colonial masters of Cuba for nearly 400 years. The latest thinking is that the disaster was caused by a coal powder explosion. The U.S was sympathetic to Cuban rebels who had been fighting the Spanish since 1895. Playing on public opinion, the U.S. declared war on Spain and quickly won the "splendid little war". The U.S. gained control of Cuba and another Spanish colony, The Philipines (after an exchange of cash). The U.S. turned over control to the Cubans in 1901 or 1902. The U.S. conducted a savage, bloody, brutal and bitter war with Moslem seperatists in the Philipines, and gradually turned over more and more control of the govenment to the Filipinos. In 1934 the U.S. set the date for independance as July 4, 1946. Despite WWII, the U.S. kept the date.

 

quote canambridge ''and quickly won the "splendid little war".

???? That is not the story told by the military, the american army had enormous problems in the process of defeating the spanish garrisons. The Mausers used by the spanish were on all fronts better then the Krag-Jorgensen 1892 rifles for example. The remnants of the spanish/cuban forces fought a guerilla war that lastet for many years.

Oke, so when the us conquers a country, doing in the process the same as every other colonial power did that time, it isn't colonizing? Cuba and Philipines were colonies and used the same way like Great-Brittain did with its ''independant'' commonwealth colonies.

 

The whole point of "colonizing" is to expand territory for your country. If the U.S. is freeing the country that it did not originally colonize, how is that considered colonization? Britain and many other european powers gave up control of their colonies because of loss of power and the want of freedom in these countries.

 

yes, $20 million in cash.

 

The Spanish troops did have better rifles than the Americans in 1898; however, the US troops were, overall, much better trained and led than the Spanish troops were. Frankly, any of the first-class European armies of the period would have probably defeated the American forces in Cuba with ease.

As for American colonialism, that's a more complex question. There was definitely some exploitation of Cuba ala the European pattern following the war. The Philippines were different. The USA tried to do everything it could to make life better for the Filipinos. Roads, schools, hospitals, and many other public works projects were constructed by the Americans, while the Filipino people were treated remarkably well, especially when compared to how Europeans tended to treat the natives of their possessions. Japan took advantage of this in 1941-42; the people of the colonial possessions the Japanese overran usually welcomed them as liberators (until they learned the hard way that they had just swapped one master for another). But not in the Philippines. The Japanese could not understand why the vast majority of Filipinos stayed loyal to the US. But when one considers all that America did for the Philippines, and the fact that the American government of the islands was always well intentioned (if sometimes inept...), then the reason becomes obvious. Put simply, we were *nice* to them, to the point of promising them their independence by a certain date, a promise we kept despite WW2.

 

I agree with most of your post, it is very true that unlike other colonial powers the us offered discussed and built a independant Philipines in a way not a single other colonial power did. Still I don't believe that neither the us france brittain nor japan had anything to look for there as colonial power.

Perhaps I am a bit too focussed on the 'colonial part' and not on the things done to built an independant state.
I go read something about it, do you have some info for me, books etc?

 

Um, hang on a minute...

Didn't the US 'takeover' of the Phillipines spark off one of the bloodiest colonial wars ever, with the US commander (General James? Jacobs? something like that) giving an order which was (almost exactly) 'kill & burn. The more you kill & burn the happier I'll be' - and he went on to proclaim that anyone over the age of 10 was a potential rebel & therefore fair game. His soldiers followed his orders.

Yes, the USA did 'develop' the Phillipines, and the 'natives' (are they Maories or what?) did end up being very much supportive of America, but it was hardly the "here is some money, right, now you are ours, and we are benevolent" act that it is portrayed.

It was this bit of fun in the Phillipines that convinced the Americans that their handguns needed more power - even 2 or 3 hits from a .38 would often not bring down a charging tribesman. From this the Colt .45 (or maybe the Browning - I get confused there) was developed (or adopted by the military?).

 

It was the Colt. The intial war fought between the Filipinos and the US forces was a nasty one; but aren't they all? And the insurgents didn't exactly win any humanitarian awards, either. But once the war was over, most of the Filipinos decided to put it in the past, and the islands and their people did benefit greatly from the US presence.

 

So basically it was a colonial takeover like any other (actually a fair bit more brutal at the outset) - but you decided to be nice to them afterwards.

 

Say what, are you completely off your rocker? Cuba after the Americans took over became the brothel of the Pacific. Big time crime sindicates stole the land from the people.

If this is heaven I suggest you reread your Christian Bible to reastablish what heaven is supposed to look like.

Funny how the USA was born by revolutionaries yet when another country, Cuba in the case, did so the USA branded them as outcasts; how dare anyone say that the American way is not the best way. How dare they. Well they, the Cubans, did and they did it with more than 30% of the population; unlike the American War of Independence from England.

Gripe all you want. Show your proof. You are great at accusing others of making outlandish statements, now I am accusing you of the same. Show your evidence, just like I have done.