Lamis Andoni is a Middle East consultant for Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based news station. She has been covering the Middle East for 20 years. She has reported for the Christian Science Monitor, the Financial Times and the main newspapers in Jordan. She was a professor at the Graduate School in UC Berkeley.
Close.
Lamis Andoni
Doha, Qatar
Lamis Andoni is a Middle East consultant for Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based news station.
more »
Sadly, American Observer appears to understand no more than folks in Washington do about what Cuba is really like, and what we in the US have to learn from the Cuban experience. Life isn't perfect there, but it's a lot better than it would be if Batista had continued running the country.
Not that the folks in Washington care, but the vast majority of Cubans don't want to have anything to do with that 51st state idea.
Why does not the US just drop all pretenses, abandon their stupid embargo, and let Cubans be bombarded with trashy US culture, Coke, Utube, American Idol--Communism would be dead in a heartbeat. Sure go ahead and make Cuba the playground for the wealthy, add them as the 52nd state (Red) after admitting Puerto Rico as 51 (Blue). Have to balance the electoral college after all just like w. AK and HI.
re: the multiple postings: I believe that the WaPo server upload is slow and folks press submit multiple times.
Demetri and American Observer have posted two comments from different perspectives to the Lamis Andoni article that were worth reading although I must add that my opinion runs along lines very similar to Demetri's. Likewise, I agree with Mickey, Lamis.......... Don't expect to be let into America anytime in the near future......... : )
P.S. Anonymous (Jovez?): Why don't you take your ridiculous racial rants to a blog or forum where:
1) They are on topic
2) People might give a damn about your idiotic projections
"I have absolutely no reason to believe or expect the Cubans to resist a capitalist model, but I certainly don’t think we should go back to the days of Meyer Lansky type economic pr*st!tut!on."
American Observer replies:
Dimitri, it is funny that you should refer to pr*st!tut!on. As you know, Castro's Cuba has very little to give the world, and many of the European and Canadian tourists who go there every year are actually going to enjoy the tens of thousands of Cuban 'j!netar!as' who will sell their bodies for trivial sums of money. Experts all agree that Castro's definition of "cultural integrity" has turned Cuba into the wh*rehouse of the Caribean.
"Cuba doesn’t have to turn into the Cayman Islands in order to provide economic opportunity for its citizens."
American Observer replies:
Dimitri, I explained at great length how Castro has spent fifty years training the Cuban people in the Communist lifestyle of stealing, cheating, and avoiding labor, and I challenged you to offer any reason to believe that Cuba will not follow the Bulgarian path. Instead of talking about the experience of other post-Communist countries, you have started to refer to the Cayman Islands, whose experience has been so different for so long. Instead of trying to blame Cuba's past and future on the Yankees, why not look at the obvious models? Even if America wanted to preserve Cuba's -- 'sense of national pride and culture' -- the eagerness of ordinary Cubans to sell their bodies should remind us how hungry and desperate fifty years of Castro have made them. Communist societies are only held together by lies and raw violence, and once the regime is no longer able or willing to keep the lies and violence going, the house of cards falls very quickly. Unless America actually decides to give the Cuban regime billions in dollars in subsidies the way the Soviets did, then Cuba is certain to follow the Bulgarian path.
"You can certainly gather from his writings that he sympathized with socialist ideals and the promise of an egalitarian society, but make no mistake that his goal was not to spread socialist revolution but rather to continue the struggle for national and cultural independence."
American Observer replies:
None of that explains why Casto made Cuba into a lackey of the Soviet Empire, and none of that explains why Castro invaded Africa to spread Marxism.
" I also think that the historical record provides adequate evidence to support the assertion that if Eisenhower’s administration had not taken such a hard line with Castro and permitted him to try and institute some of the socialist reforms that he had in mind without demanding that he prostitute his country as Batista and his predecessors had done, then we may have not seen the nationalization of every piece of property in Cuba. "
American Observer replies:
That is also a historical fantasy. Castro insists on owning every scrap of land in Cuba for the same reason that Stalin insisted on owning every scrap of land in the Soviet Empire, and for the same reason that Mao Zedong insisted on owning every scrap of land in the Chinese Empire. If Castro had tolerated any private business in Cuba, then some Cubans would have become richer than other Cubans, and those rich Cubans might have created political organizations which became rivals for power or influence. By keeping complete control of every farm or enterprise in Cuba, Castro has been able to sustain the fantasy that all Cubans are his children, eating at his table, and Castro has been able to portray himself as a sort of God on earth. Castro did not inflict Communism on Cuba because Eisenhower forced him to do it; instead, Castro inflicted Communism on Cuba because only Communism would give him the power and cult of personality that his egotism demanded.
It is easy to prove this. After all, Cuba has had trade with Canada and Europe for a quarter of a century now, but Castro has not used this as a chance to create the kind of 'mixed economy' you seem to have in mind; instead, any time any group of small farmers or small businessmen become successful, Castro simply denounces these farmers and small businessmen as 'new bourgouis' and breaks them. If you don't know anything about Cuban history, go look it up.
"It is an indisputable fact that American imperial meddling in Cuba is not only indirectly responsible for the trajectory of Cuban history over the past 100 years, but also directly responsible for the brutal dictatorships that preceded Castro since we occupied the island in 1898."
American Observer replies:
Actually, there is nothing 'indisputable' about it. Cuban history has been brutal since the Carib Indians hunted down and killed and ate the Arawak Indians; Cuban history has been brutal since the Spanish massacred both sets of Indians; Cuban history has been brutal since the Spanish imported hundreds of thousands of African slaves and worked them to death; and Cuban history has been brutal since the Spanish Empire spent hundreds of years ruling its white settlers and black slaves with an iron hand and the world's first concentration camps. Cuban history would have been brutal if the United States of America had never existed. In fact, if America had never existed, Cuba might still be a colony of Spain, and there is every reason to believe that if Cuba had achieved independence on its own, Cuba would still be ruled by some dictator of the right or left according to the patterns set down by the Caribs or the Spanish.
-MORE JOBS Si!
-LESS iNFLATiON!
-CLEANER ENViROMENTS!
-CHEAPER OIL Prices again!
-LESS Reliance on iMPORTED Oil!
-BETTER Care & Protection for CHiLDREN & FAMILY's!
-MORE PEACE & HEALING of NATIONS on Space-Ship Momma Poppa EARTH!
-MERGE CUBA as 51st State or as Common-Wealth & Possibly All of Mexico too!
This 'Jay' person has posted the same message five times. That means that four iterations of that message are spam. Why does this page block so many legitimate messages and then allow so much spam? Why is the management of this page so incompetent?
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
Better a HILLARY than BORACK!!!!!
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}} http://USA/US/USA/USA/USA/USA
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR!!
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
Better a CLINTON than OBAMA!!!!!!!
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........_________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton vote APOCALYPTIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton ACTION/EXPERiENCE:
--
iMAGINE: Adding an additional 10 or 12 STATES to our current 50 STATES!
Yes, ALL of MEXiCO & CUBA!
Also iMAGiNE:
101 U.S.A. STATES all-the-way to PANAMA, where ironically John McCain was Born!??
iMAGiNiNE: No more reliance on Middle-East. Good Riddence OPEC. And more Prophetic Good-Tidings!
--
Note: It is not a 'pipe-dream', IT is achievable. Ya Ya YO!
--
VOTE: AMEND the Dynamic "American MONROE-DOCTRiNE" not Religion!
Good Bye Middle East Oil!
Good Bye KABBA in Saudi Mecca!
Good bye 'AL AQSA Dome' in Jerusalem!
Good by Israel!
Good bye Afghnisatanstan!
Good bye Pakisatanstans! et al!
---
Since ALL 'Non-Islamic' (KAFFiRs, iNFidels) in SAUDI & in another 50 Isamic Nations are considered 2nd/3rd class Citizenz & 'Forbidden' to worship in fear of islamic KORANOHOLiCS attacks THEN;
VOTE: iLLEGAiZE 'ISLAM' & their Wahabee financed MOSQUES in ALL of the AMERICA's now!
Unless I missed something I don’t believe that I even mentioned the words “socialism” or “communism” even once in my thread, let alone base any of my arguments on them.
It is an indisputable fact that American imperial meddling in Cuba is not only indirectly responsible for the trajectory of Cuban history over the past 100 years, but also directly responsible for the brutal dictatorships that preceded Castro since we occupied the island in1898. I also think that the historical record provides adequate evidence to support the assertion that if Eisenhower’s administration had not taken such a hard line with Castro and permitted him to try and institute some of the socialist reforms that he had in mind without demanding that he prostitute his country as Batista and his predecessors had done, then we may have not seen the nationalization of every piece of property in Cuba. It is a fact not just of Cuban history under Castro but also of every authoritarian regime that when you threaten its survival you encourage it to become more closed and more autocratic. Castro, like so many autocrats that have defied American authority, was a nationalist first and socialist second. You can certainly gather from his writings that he sympathized with socialist ideals and the promise of an egalitarian society, but make no mistake that his goal was not to spread socialist revolution but rather to continue the struggle for national and cultural independence. Why do you think his greatest hero was Jose Marti and not Carl Marx?
The reframing of every single debate of this kind to the simple distinction of communist vs. capitalist was intellectually criminal during the cold war and today it is just plain stupid. Understanding why Cuba “is where it is” today is far more complicated than saying that it is because “Cuba has had total communism for fifty years.” Yes, I agree that state-run economies contradict the very essence of human commerce that is endemic to our species, but as I mentioned in my original thread, things do not occur in a vacuum. Despite Castro’s dictatorship and suppression of free speech and crimes against humanity, he managed to preserve a level of cultural integrity and independence that is worth preserving now that he has stepped down. This is not an opportunity for America to go right back to sticking its nose in the affairs of an island nation that poses no threat whatsoever to our national security, and whose people want nothing more than dignity and good economic relations with the rest of the world. I have absolutely no reason to believe or expect the Cubans to resist a capitalist model, but I certainly don’t think we should go back to the days of Meyer Lansky type economic prostitution. Cuba doesn’t have to turn into the Cayman Islands in order to provide economic opportunity for its citizens. Any society, given the choice, will choose to raise its living standards while at the same time maintaining its sense of national pride and culture. Why should Cuba be any different?
"We are behaving as if the last 50 years of Cuban life is some kind of historical blind spot. "
American Observer replies:
No, you are wrong. Several of my relatives have visted Cuba recently, and their reports fit what I read in the press. It is clear that the American political establishment understands the Cuban situation well, and you, Demitri, seem to be trapped in some kind of historical blind spot.
Demitri, what explanation do you have for the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Empire? What explanation do you have for the collapse of Communism in other independent Communist republics, such as Yugoslavia, Romania, and Albania? What explanation do you have for the way the leaders of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China have chosen to betray Communism completely and convert their countries into hardcore capitalist countries -- countries more capitalist than the United States? What explanation do you have for the way Socialism has sputtered and failed in every other country that has tried it, from Burma to Zimbabwe? Communism was not brought down by the gringos and it was not brought down by 'imperialist meddling'; Communism was brought down because Communism simply does not work. If all of the gringos and capitalists and 'imperialist meddlers' had died of heart attacks in nineteen sixty-five, Cuba and Russia would still be economic failures.
If you want to understand the future of Cuba, you don't need to dig off some dusty book of politically correct history with long lists of the Gringos did this and the gringos did that. Long lists of PC data did not restore socialism in Chile or Greneda or Nicaragua, and the usual PC 'histories' will not preserve a Marxist economy in Cuba. Daniel Ortega taught the children of Nicaragua to say Venceremos -- 'we will win' -- but that will never restore the socialist society which the voters overturned in free elections.
Instead, the best way to understand the Cuban situation is to look at the present situation of countries which were in the same situation as Cuba. Where should we look for examples? Some people suggest that Cuba should follow China. However China, Vietnam, Hungary, and Poland were able to move rapidly to market economies because true Communism had only lasted for a generation or so before 'market reforms' began. Thus, there was still a large pool of people who remembered how to function in a capitalist society, and they were able to get a new economy moving within just a few years. Other countries, such as Russia and Romania, had true Communism for much longer, and those societies spent ten or fifteen years floundering before they began to get their economies in order. Which society does Cuba resemble?
Cuba has had total Communism for fifty years. The last capitalist generations are mostly dead, and the people of Cuba have spent fifty years learning to steal and make excuses and avoid work. If you want to know where Cuba will be in fifteen years, just look at where Bulgaria is today. Sophisticated observers agree that Cuba is doomed to follow the Bulgarian path.
For all the talk about the need to change American foreign policy in order to reflect the realities of a world hostile to imperial meddling, you would think that the “intellectual” community in this country would view the current developments in Cuba as the single greatest opportunity in this post cold-war world to fundamentally alter the perception and reputation of our nation, and set us towards a new path of reconciliation and peace. Instead, the resignation of Fidel Castro from his role as dictator and patriarch of the Cuban Revolution is viewed as yet another shortsighted opportunity by American businesses to turn a profit and by American politicians to pontificate on an issue that they clearly know nothing about. The media is already talking about how Castro’s resignation and the newfound influence that we should look to exercise on the island can finally move Cuba towards a more free and prosperous future. How stupid. How pathetic. For a people so enamored with our own role in “shaping history” we sure don’t seem to know all that much about it.
I’m unsure of why Americans are so ignorant of history. Perhaps it is because we tend to view historical events from a nationalist perspective, conveniently jettisoning facts that don’t bode well for our nation’s self-esteem. Or maybe we just don’t have time to bother with the events of the past; who knows…
If we did bother with learning a thing or two about the past, we wouldn’t be so stupid as to assume that Cuba has just been sitting on the sidelines of history waiting for us to bring them the light of liberty for all these years. After all, health-care and education are two of the revolution’s most profound success stories, ensuring that if we want some details on how Cuba got to where she is today we will find an island full of well-informed and fairly healthy people to tell us. In fact, if we had consulted with them before invading Iraq I’m sure they could have easily predicted that our imperial adventure would probably look very similar to our escapade in Cuba over 100 years ago. I am referring, of course, to the Spanish-American War – that “splendid little war” that offered us our first chance to liberate a suppressed and backwards people.
Under the duplicitous justification that we were liberating the Cubans from the yolk of Spanish colonialism, the war of 1898 became the first imperial adventure by the United States since the signing of the Monroe doctrine in 1823 (the first implicit admission by America that it had imperial ambitions). The American press at the time, most famously led by newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst, provided the propaganda necessary to excite a public already agitated by the consequences of an ongoing economic depression and social malaise. Using the New York Journal as his most prominent weapon of choice, Hearst ran sensational news stories meant to demonize the Spanish while at the same time rousing feelings of sympathy for the Cuban cause. The story of Evangeline Cisneros, a convent educated Cuban teenager imprisoned by the Spanish in Havana is perhaps the most famous of Hearst’s propaganda efforts in this regard. After Cisneros was rescued from the Spanish prison, she was returned to the United States and paraded around the country by Hearst himself, appealing to Americans’ sense of righteousness in an attempt to further fan the flames of war (images of Jessica Lynch inevitably come to mind).
On July 17th, 1898, after a resounding victory by American forces over the Spanish navy, both countries’ generals assembled in Santiago’s main square for the formal surrender of the city to the United States. There, the Spanish flag, which had flown over Santiago for nearly 400 years, was brought down and replaced with the stars and stripes. One cannot help but point out the eerie similarity between this imperial gesture on the part of the United States and that famous image of a US soldier draping the head of Saddam’s statue with an American flag that fluttered about the world press soon after US forces took Baghdad in the spring of 2003 – one hundred years after America’s first colonial war.
Recognizing that military occupation was not enough to guarantee American influence in Cuba, the United States government institutionalized its authority over the island by way of the Platt Amendment. Therefore, the newly formed and “independent” government in Cuba would simultaneously be constitutionally bound to its new master who could intervene legally in Cuban affairs in order to “ensure the freedom” of the Cuban people (see anymore similarities to Iraq?). Although the Amendment was repealed in 1934, US rights to that bastion of freedom, Guantanamo Bay, are still ours to this day.
So, when Fidel Castro rode into Havana on one of Batista’s US supplied tanks on January 8, 1959, the event was not viewed in a vacuum by his fellow Cubans. The overwhelmingly popular support for his revolution did not come out of nowhere. It did not just sprout out of the sierra maestra. It was a result of numerous US supported dictatorships, the exploitation of Cuban workers by American companies and the national humiliation of having one’s society and culture serve as a playground for the recreation of “others.”
But in those 49 years, from when Castro began his revolution to today, life has not stopped in Cuba; history is not waiting in abeyance for Uncle Sam to stroll back into Havana as if it were 1959. Yet, it seems from the commentary that has erupted since Castro declared his resignation that this is exactly what many Americans think. We are behaving as if the last 50 years of Cuban life is some kind of historical blind spot. If you want evidence of this you need look no further than our current administration’s press secretary, Dana Perino, who casually conceited that she knew nothing about the Cuban missile crisis other than that it had to do with “Cuba and missiles.” And yet, we have the audacity to think that everything that has happened in the last 50 years can be written off as though it were the Cubans just horsing around in a sandpit of lawlessness waiting for America to return and put everything back in order. In a country so fond of opinion polls, you think we would use one or two to find out what the Cubans themselves actually want post-Castro Cuba to look like…
I really don’t know what else to say on this subject. These recent events in Cuba present us with a truly unique opportunity. By engaging Cuba in a way that does not sacrifice the independence and pride of its people, we can set our country on a new path of reconciliation and trust in American leadership. It is not a solution, but it is a step in the right direction. We cannot continue to behave as though history does not matter and at the same time expect to make progress in this world. Events do not occur in a vacuum and if we want to continue to shape history then we must be prepared to learn from it as well.
PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for PostGlobal to Lauren Keane, its editor and producer.
All Comments (25)
Bravo Cuba, bravo.
It is so reassuring to know that at least one country is willing to stand up to the cess pool of america.
June 9, 2008 6:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 9, 2008 18:37
porque no publicas mi comentario
April 2, 2008 5:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 2, 2008 17:18
Sadly, American Observer appears to understand no more than folks in Washington do about what Cuba is really like, and what we in the US have to learn from the Cuban experience. Life isn't perfect there, but it's a lot better than it would be if Batista had continued running the country.
Not that the folks in Washington care, but the vast majority of Cubans don't want to have anything to do with that 51st state idea.
March 12, 2008 12:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2008 00:15
Kosovo as 52st State
March 9, 2008 5:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2008 05:27
Why does not the US just drop all pretenses, abandon their stupid embargo, and let Cubans be bombarded with trashy US culture, Coke, Utube, American Idol--Communism would be dead in a heartbeat. Sure go ahead and make Cuba the playground for the wealthy, add them as the 52nd state (Red) after admitting Puerto Rico as 51 (Blue). Have to balance the electoral college after all just like w. AK and HI.
re: the multiple postings: I believe that the WaPo server upload is slow and folks press submit multiple times.
February 25, 2008 11:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 23:22
Demetri and American Observer have posted two comments from different perspectives to the Lamis Andoni article that were worth reading although I must add that my opinion runs along lines very similar to Demetri's. Likewise, I agree with Mickey, Lamis.......... Don't expect to be let into America anytime in the near future......... : )
P.S. Anonymous (Jovez?): Why don't you take your ridiculous racial rants to a blog or forum where:
1) They are on topic
2) People might give a damn about your idiotic projections
February 25, 2008 12:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 12:31
Dimitri says:
"I have absolutely no reason to believe or expect the Cubans to resist a capitalist model, but I certainly don’t think we should go back to the days of Meyer Lansky type economic pr*st!tut!on."
American Observer replies:
Dimitri, it is funny that you should refer to pr*st!tut!on. As you know, Castro's Cuba has very little to give the world, and many of the European and Canadian tourists who go there every year are actually going to enjoy the tens of thousands of Cuban 'j!netar!as' who will sell their bodies for trivial sums of money. Experts all agree that Castro's definition of "cultural integrity" has turned Cuba into the wh*rehouse of the Caribean.
February 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 11:59
Demitri says:
"Cuba doesn’t have to turn into the Cayman Islands in order to provide economic opportunity for its citizens."
American Observer replies:
Dimitri, I explained at great length how Castro has spent fifty years training the Cuban people in the Communist lifestyle of stealing, cheating, and avoiding labor, and I challenged you to offer any reason to believe that Cuba will not follow the Bulgarian path. Instead of talking about the experience of other post-Communist countries, you have started to refer to the Cayman Islands, whose experience has been so different for so long. Instead of trying to blame Cuba's past and future on the Yankees, why not look at the obvious models? Even if America wanted to preserve Cuba's -- 'sense of national pride and culture' -- the eagerness of ordinary Cubans to sell their bodies should remind us how hungry and desperate fifty years of Castro have made them. Communist societies are only held together by lies and raw violence, and once the regime is no longer able or willing to keep the lies and violence going, the house of cards falls very quickly. Unless America actually decides to give the Cuban regime billions in dollars in subsidies the way the Soviets did, then Cuba is certain to follow the Bulgarian path.
February 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 11:56
Demitri argues:
"You can certainly gather from his writings that he sympathized with socialist ideals and the promise of an egalitarian society, but make no mistake that his goal was not to spread socialist revolution but rather to continue the struggle for national and cultural independence."
American Observer replies:
None of that explains why Casto made Cuba into a lackey of the Soviet Empire, and none of that explains why Castro invaded Africa to spread Marxism.
February 25, 2008 11:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 11:53
Demitri says:
" I also think that the historical record provides adequate evidence to support the assertion that if Eisenhower’s administration had not taken such a hard line with Castro and permitted him to try and institute some of the socialist reforms that he had in mind without demanding that he prostitute his country as Batista and his predecessors had done, then we may have not seen the nationalization of every piece of property in Cuba. "
American Observer replies:
That is also a historical fantasy. Castro insists on owning every scrap of land in Cuba for the same reason that Stalin insisted on owning every scrap of land in the Soviet Empire, and for the same reason that Mao Zedong insisted on owning every scrap of land in the Chinese Empire. If Castro had tolerated any private business in Cuba, then some Cubans would have become richer than other Cubans, and those rich Cubans might have created political organizations which became rivals for power or influence. By keeping complete control of every farm or enterprise in Cuba, Castro has been able to sustain the fantasy that all Cubans are his children, eating at his table, and Castro has been able to portray himself as a sort of God on earth. Castro did not inflict Communism on Cuba because Eisenhower forced him to do it; instead, Castro inflicted Communism on Cuba because only Communism would give him the power and cult of personality that his egotism demanded.
It is easy to prove this. After all, Cuba has had trade with Canada and Europe for a quarter of a century now, but Castro has not used this as a chance to create the kind of 'mixed economy' you seem to have in mind; instead, any time any group of small farmers or small businessmen become successful, Castro simply denounces these farmers and small businessmen as 'new bourgouis' and breaks them. If you don't know anything about Cuban history, go look it up.
February 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 11:52
Demitri says:
"It is an indisputable fact that American imperial meddling in Cuba is not only indirectly responsible for the trajectory of Cuban history over the past 100 years, but also directly responsible for the brutal dictatorships that preceded Castro since we occupied the island in 1898."
American Observer replies:
Actually, there is nothing 'indisputable' about it. Cuban history has been brutal since the Carib Indians hunted down and killed and ate the Arawak Indians; Cuban history has been brutal since the Spanish massacred both sets of Indians; Cuban history has been brutal since the Spanish imported hundreds of thousands of African slaves and worked them to death; and Cuban history has been brutal since the Spanish Empire spent hundreds of years ruling its white settlers and black slaves with an iron hand and the world's first concentration camps. Cuban history would have been brutal if the United States of America had never existed. In fact, if America had never existed, Cuba might still be a colony of Spain, and there is every reason to believe that if Cuba had achieved independence on its own, Cuba would still be ruled by some dictator of the right or left according to the patterns set down by the Caribs or the Spanish.
February 25, 2008 11:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 11:50
All of the messages from this 'Jovez' person are spam, and they should be deleted. Who manages this page? Why does this go on?
February 24, 2008 6:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 24, 2008 18:51
V*O*T*O:
A*C*T*i*O*N!
E*X*P*E*R*i*E*N*C*E!
MRS & MR. UNCLE S*A*M:
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
< ?: +) http:/// VOTO http:/// < ?: +)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
< ?: +) http:/// VOTE http:/// < ?: +)
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
< ?: +) http:/// VOTO http:/// < ?: +)
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........____________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton ACTiON--EXPERiENCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton Vote CHEAPER OIL Again!
---
...
-MORE JOBS Si!
-LESS iNFLATiON!
-CLEANER ENViROMENTS!
-CHEAPER OIL Prices again!
-LESS Reliance on iMPORTED Oil!
-BETTER Care & Protection for CHiLDREN & FAMILY's!
-MORE PEACE & HEALING of NATIONS on Space-Ship Momma Poppa EARTH!
-MERGE CUBA as 51st State or as Common-Wealth & Possibly All of Mexico too!
-And MORE good Prophetical Tidings coming SOON!
GRACIaS. Thanks!
February 24, 2008 9:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 24, 2008 09:54
Lamis Andoni, let's just say you won't be able to get a visa to visit the United States for a long long time, if ever.
Good job!
February 23, 2008 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 23, 2008 13:44
This 'Jay' person has posted the same message five times. That means that four iterations of that message are spam. Why does this page block so many legitimate messages and then allow so much spam? Why is the management of this page so incompetent?
February 23, 2008 2:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 23, 2008 02:28
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
February 22, 2008 10:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2008 22:05
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
February 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2008 22:04
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
February 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2008 22:04
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
February 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2008 22:04
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
February 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2008 22:04
Get off this imperial bs. Any country with great power will use it in both negative and postive ways. Compared to other great powers in history - America has been more benevolent than the norm. In most cases in history the big powers crush their enemies and turn them into slaves or send them to labor camps.
And with regards to Cuba as the 51st state - why does everyone assume we want another state. What does Cuba offer but a boat load of poor people. In the grand schema of things Cuba matters little - its a small island with a small population. You know how much it'd cost to raise Cuban living standards to the rest of America. We're better off leaving them on their own and dealing with them like we deal with other annoying countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
February 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2008 22:04
Friends of Cyber-Space on HiLLARY For PREZ 2009:
Vote:
A*C*T*i*O*N!
Vote:
E*X*P*E*R*i*E*N*C*E!
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
Better a HILLARY than BORACK!!!!!
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
http://USA/US/USA/USA/USA/USA
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR!!
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
Better a CLINTON than OBAMA!!!!!!!
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........_________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton vote APOCALYPTIC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton ACTION/EXPERiENCE:
--
iMAGINE: Adding an additional 10 or 12 STATES to our current 50 STATES!
Yes, ALL of MEXiCO & CUBA!
Also iMAGiNE:
101 U.S.A. STATES all-the-way to PANAMA, where ironically John McCain was Born!??
iMAGiNiNE: No more reliance on Middle-East. Good Riddence OPEC. And more Prophetic Good-Tidings!
--
Note: It is not a 'pipe-dream', IT is achievable. Ya Ya YO!
--
VOTE: AMEND the Dynamic "American MONROE-DOCTRiNE" not Religion!
Good Bye Middle East Oil!
Good Bye KABBA in Saudi Mecca!
Good bye 'AL AQSA Dome' in Jerusalem!
Good by Israel!
Good bye Afghnisatanstan!
Good bye Pakisatanstans! et al!
---
Since ALL 'Non-Islamic' (KAFFiRs, iNFidels) in SAUDI & in another 50 Isamic Nations are considered 2nd/3rd class Citizenz & 'Forbidden' to worship in fear of islamic KORANOHOLiCS attacks THEN;
VOTE: iLLEGAiZE 'ISLAM' & their Wahabee financed MOSQUES in ALL of the AMERICA's now!
February 22, 2008 2:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2008 14:35
Response to American Observer:
Unless I missed something I don’t believe that I even mentioned the words “socialism” or “communism” even once in my thread, let alone base any of my arguments on them.
It is an indisputable fact that American imperial meddling in Cuba is not only indirectly responsible for the trajectory of Cuban history over the past 100 years, but also directly responsible for the brutal dictatorships that preceded Castro since we occupied the island in1898. I also think that the historical record provides adequate evidence to support the assertion that if Eisenhower’s administration had not taken such a hard line with Castro and permitted him to try and institute some of the socialist reforms that he had in mind without demanding that he prostitute his country as Batista and his predecessors had done, then we may have not seen the nationalization of every piece of property in Cuba. It is a fact not just of Cuban history under Castro but also of every authoritarian regime that when you threaten its survival you encourage it to become more closed and more autocratic. Castro, like so many autocrats that have defied American authority, was a nationalist first and socialist second. You can certainly gather from his writings that he sympathized with socialist ideals and the promise of an egalitarian society, but make no mistake that his goal was not to spread socialist revolution but rather to continue the struggle for national and cultural independence. Why do you think his greatest hero was Jose Marti and not Carl Marx?
The reframing of every single debate of this kind to the simple distinction of communist vs. capitalist was intellectually criminal during the cold war and today it is just plain stupid. Understanding why Cuba “is where it is” today is far more complicated than saying that it is because “Cuba has had total communism for fifty years.” Yes, I agree that state-run economies contradict the very essence of human commerce that is endemic to our species, but as I mentioned in my original thread, things do not occur in a vacuum. Despite Castro’s dictatorship and suppression of free speech and crimes against humanity, he managed to preserve a level of cultural integrity and independence that is worth preserving now that he has stepped down. This is not an opportunity for America to go right back to sticking its nose in the affairs of an island nation that poses no threat whatsoever to our national security, and whose people want nothing more than dignity and good economic relations with the rest of the world. I have absolutely no reason to believe or expect the Cubans to resist a capitalist model, but I certainly don’t think we should go back to the days of Meyer Lansky type economic prostitution. Cuba doesn’t have to turn into the Cayman Islands in order to provide economic opportunity for its citizens. Any society, given the choice, will choose to raise its living standards while at the same time maintaining its sense of national pride and culture. Why should Cuba be any different?
February 22, 2008 2:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2008 02:02
Demitri says:
"We are behaving as if the last 50 years of Cuban life is some kind of historical blind spot. "
American Observer replies:
No, you are wrong. Several of my relatives have visted Cuba recently, and their reports fit what I read in the press. It is clear that the American political establishment understands the Cuban situation well, and you, Demitri, seem to be trapped in some kind of historical blind spot.
Demitri, what explanation do you have for the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Empire? What explanation do you have for the collapse of Communism in other independent Communist republics, such as Yugoslavia, Romania, and Albania? What explanation do you have for the way the leaders of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China have chosen to betray Communism completely and convert their countries into hardcore capitalist countries -- countries more capitalist than the United States? What explanation do you have for the way Socialism has sputtered and failed in every other country that has tried it, from Burma to Zimbabwe? Communism was not brought down by the gringos and it was not brought down by 'imperialist meddling'; Communism was brought down because Communism simply does not work. If all of the gringos and capitalists and 'imperialist meddlers' had died of heart attacks in nineteen sixty-five, Cuba and Russia would still be economic failures.
If you want to understand the future of Cuba, you don't need to dig off some dusty book of politically correct history with long lists of the Gringos did this and the gringos did that. Long lists of PC data did not restore socialism in Chile or Greneda or Nicaragua, and the usual PC 'histories' will not preserve a Marxist economy in Cuba. Daniel Ortega taught the children of Nicaragua to say Venceremos -- 'we will win' -- but that will never restore the socialist society which the voters overturned in free elections.
Instead, the best way to understand the Cuban situation is to look at the present situation of countries which were in the same situation as Cuba. Where should we look for examples? Some people suggest that Cuba should follow China. However China, Vietnam, Hungary, and Poland were able to move rapidly to market economies because true Communism had only lasted for a generation or so before 'market reforms' began. Thus, there was still a large pool of people who remembered how to function in a capitalist society, and they were able to get a new economy moving within just a few years. Other countries, such as Russia and Romania, had true Communism for much longer, and those societies spent ten or fifteen years floundering before they began to get their economies in order. Which society does Cuba resemble?
Cuba has had total Communism for fifty years. The last capitalist generations are mostly dead, and the people of Cuba have spent fifty years learning to steal and make excuses and avoid work. If you want to know where Cuba will be in fifteen years, just look at where Bulgaria is today. Sophisticated observers agree that Cuba is doomed to follow the Bulgarian path.
February 21, 2008 10:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2008 22:52
For all the talk about the need to change American foreign policy in order to reflect the realities of a world hostile to imperial meddling, you would think that the “intellectual” community in this country would view the current developments in Cuba as the single greatest opportunity in this post cold-war world to fundamentally alter the perception and reputation of our nation, and set us towards a new path of reconciliation and peace. Instead, the resignation of Fidel Castro from his role as dictator and patriarch of the Cuban Revolution is viewed as yet another shortsighted opportunity by American businesses to turn a profit and by American politicians to pontificate on an issue that they clearly know nothing about. The media is already talking about how Castro’s resignation and the newfound influence that we should look to exercise on the island can finally move Cuba towards a more free and prosperous future. How stupid. How pathetic. For a people so enamored with our own role in “shaping history” we sure don’t seem to know all that much about it.
I’m unsure of why Americans are so ignorant of history. Perhaps it is because we tend to view historical events from a nationalist perspective, conveniently jettisoning facts that don’t bode well for our nation’s self-esteem. Or maybe we just don’t have time to bother with the events of the past; who knows…
If we did bother with learning a thing or two about the past, we wouldn’t be so stupid as to assume that Cuba has just been sitting on the sidelines of history waiting for us to bring them the light of liberty for all these years. After all, health-care and education are two of the revolution’s most profound success stories, ensuring that if we want some details on how Cuba got to where she is today we will find an island full of well-informed and fairly healthy people to tell us. In fact, if we had consulted with them before invading Iraq I’m sure they could have easily predicted that our imperial adventure would probably look very similar to our escapade in Cuba over 100 years ago. I am referring, of course, to the Spanish-American War – that “splendid little war” that offered us our first chance to liberate a suppressed and backwards people.
Under the duplicitous justification that we were liberating the Cubans from the yolk of Spanish colonialism, the war of 1898 became the first imperial adventure by the United States since the signing of the Monroe doctrine in 1823 (the first implicit admission by America that it had imperial ambitions). The American press at the time, most famously led by newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst, provided the propaganda necessary to excite a public already agitated by the consequences of an ongoing economic depression and social malaise. Using the New York Journal as his most prominent weapon of choice, Hearst ran sensational news stories meant to demonize the Spanish while at the same time rousing feelings of sympathy for the Cuban cause. The story of Evangeline Cisneros, a convent educated Cuban teenager imprisoned by the Spanish in Havana is perhaps the most famous of Hearst’s propaganda efforts in this regard. After Cisneros was rescued from the Spanish prison, she was returned to the United States and paraded around the country by Hearst himself, appealing to Americans’ sense of righteousness in an attempt to further fan the flames of war (images of Jessica Lynch inevitably come to mind).
On July 17th, 1898, after a resounding victory by American forces over the Spanish navy, both countries’ generals assembled in Santiago’s main square for the formal surrender of the city to the United States. There, the Spanish flag, which had flown over Santiago for nearly 400 years, was brought down and replaced with the stars and stripes. One cannot help but point out the eerie similarity between this imperial gesture on the part of the United States and that famous image of a US soldier draping the head of Saddam’s statue with an American flag that fluttered about the world press soon after US forces took Baghdad in the spring of 2003 – one hundred years after America’s first colonial war.
Recognizing that military occupation was not enough to guarantee American influence in Cuba, the United States government institutionalized its authority over the island by way of the Platt Amendment. Therefore, the newly formed and “independent” government in Cuba would simultaneously be constitutionally bound to its new master who could intervene legally in Cuban affairs in order to “ensure the freedom” of the Cuban people (see anymore similarities to Iraq?). Although the Amendment was repealed in 1934, US rights to that bastion of freedom, Guantanamo Bay, are still ours to this day.
So, when Fidel Castro rode into Havana on one of Batista’s US supplied tanks on January 8, 1959, the event was not viewed in a vacuum by his fellow Cubans. The overwhelmingly popular support for his revolution did not come out of nowhere. It did not just sprout out of the sierra maestra. It was a result of numerous US supported dictatorships, the exploitation of Cuban workers by American companies and the national humiliation of having one’s society and culture serve as a playground for the recreation of “others.”
But in those 49 years, from when Castro began his revolution to today, life has not stopped in Cuba; history is not waiting in abeyance for Uncle Sam to stroll back into Havana as if it were 1959. Yet, it seems from the commentary that has erupted since Castro declared his resignation that this is exactly what many Americans think. We are behaving as if the last 50 years of Cuban life is some kind of historical blind spot. If you want evidence of this you need look no further than our current administration’s press secretary, Dana Perino, who casually conceited that she knew nothing about the Cuban missile crisis other than that it had to do with “Cuba and missiles.” And yet, we have the audacity to think that everything that has happened in the last 50 years can be written off as though it were the Cubans just horsing around in a sandpit of lawlessness waiting for America to return and put everything back in order. In a country so fond of opinion polls, you think we would use one or two to find out what the Cubans themselves actually want post-Castro Cuba to look like…
I really don’t know what else to say on this subject. These recent events in Cuba present us with a truly unique opportunity. By engaging Cuba in a way that does not sacrifice the independence and pride of its people, we can set our country on a new path of reconciliation and trust in American leadership. It is not a solution, but it is a step in the right direction. We cannot continue to behave as though history does not matter and at the same time expect to make progress in this world. Events do not occur in a vacuum and if we want to continue to shape history then we must be prepared to learn from it as well.
February 21, 2008 6:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2008 18:22