|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 09/30/2001 : 17:34:32 [Permalink]
|
They flee to the US for the same reason Mexicans and so many others do. To take part in that 24 hour party known as America.
The Cubans living in Florida are now mostly the children and grandchildren of the ones that left and maybe just hate Cuba for the same reasons the US officially has for decades. Habit.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
marvin
Skeptic Friend
77 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2001 : 09:20:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Then why the hell are boatloads of Cubans risking their lives to flee to the U.S.?! If it's the result of U.S. sanctions, why do the expatriates that are here hate Castro? ---Tokyodreamer
I don't believe I've ever heard any expatriates support Castro, until I read the Workers World.
quote:
I doubt it will work against Castro because Castro is not the man depicted by the US government. While he is definitely not elected he has had a lot of support and there are reasons for this. Cuba has had one of the highest literacy rates in the America's (far better than the US) and access to medical care that 1/3 of US citizens only dream about. You can argue that the economy there is terrible but considering the sanctions it's easy to see why that would be.
Sanctions don't always work and in cases when they are imposed for no good reason at all other than stubbornness it's easy to see why they wouldn't work everywhere every time. But they have worked sometimes in some places where otherwise a major military action would have been necessary. ---@tomic
Cuba is under a US embargo, a blockade or sanctions no one seems to agree: “Many people believe that the U.S. embargo, in place since 1961 (the longest embargo in modern history), has failed to accomplish its objectives; along with Israel, the U.S. is the only country to recognizes the embargo which violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the US is signer. Ironically, American sanctions, if successful, would result in mass immigration to American shores by Cuban expatriates, as happened in spring of 1980 under President Carter's administration.”
“The Soviet leadership unilaterally suspended trade in 1990. The ensuing loss of imports brutally hit Cuba's economy. Imports dropped from $8.1 billion to $1.2 billion within one year.
Food, medicine, fuel and energy, transport, industrial and agricultural production--all of the country's most essential needs were severely affected.
Cuba seemed alone. The Eastern European countries had abandoned their socialist systems and succumbed to the siren song of capitalism.
President Fidel Castro prepared the Cuban people for what he called a "Special Period in Time of Peace." He explained that the country would need solidarity, determination to defend socialism and an economic strategy to survive the crisis intact.
"Fidel, at the beginning of the Special Period, said the first thing is to resist, the most important thing," [Carlos] Lage noted. "We applied economic changes that were inevitable. The socialist camp no longer existed. The loss of trade with the socialist bloc, in which we received preferential prices, coincided with a period of faster globalization all over the world.
"[We undertook] absolutely essential changes so we could continue building socialism. It was not possible to conceive of an isolated economy; it is not necessary to close ourselves off to defend socialism. The main mechanisms we use are the mechanisms of socialism. Our main lever is the mobilization of the people."
Instead of falsely describing the reforms as "market socialism," they were frankly explained as capitalist-style economic measures--steps backward needed to revive a devastated economy and preserve the socialist gains of free health care, education and housing for all.” ---Workers World
It sounds good, however has anyone actually immigrated to Cuba? Besides Elian…
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2001 : 12:24:41 [Permalink]
|
The US should go back and examine some of it's foreign policies, particularly those still in place from the Cold War era. Cuba, was in part smacked for the Russian missiles they tried putting in, way back when... But as has been pointed out - 40 years ago. A 40 year old policiy should be reviewed every so often (more often than every 40 years). Unfortunately, it will probably take another 40 years to lift it until there are in office, those who don't really remember much about the Cold War and could care less about a Socialist government compared to the threat of a fanatical fundamentalist religious regime.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2001 : 12:02:48 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, I don't intend to get back into a full blown argument about sanctions again, but I'll answer a question for you and explain why my mind hasn't been changed.
You asked if I have read Nagy yet.
Yes I had and have again (at least the article you linked to). Sorry about no links, but my time is limited. If I can find them later, I'll add them.
To summarize the article for those who haven't read it, Nagy refers to some US documents saying the following:
1. January 1991: Bombing and attacks will seriously disrupt the availability of clean water to the Iraqi people and cause an increase in diseases among the populace.
2. Summer 1991 (June, I think): The bombing and attacks created the predicted disruption in availability of clean water and the subsequent embargo on equipment for water purification has worsened it.
Nagy is correct; these documents exist and they say what he says they said.
So why don't they convince me that the US is embarking on intentional terrorism, subjugation, murder, et al? Three reasons:
1. Nagy accepts the portions of these documents that make the US look bad, but discards the rest. In THE SAME DOCUMENT from the summer of 91, the analysts say that the hardship exists but is not as bad as expected. Nagy says something to the effect: "of course they'd downplay the hardships; they're Americans." The document also says that the hardships could be alleviated if Hussein distributed non-embargoed items as supposed to, but Nagy says something to the effect: "Of course they'd blame Hussein; they're Americans."
Hardly unbiased.
2. Later documents exist to show otherwise. Go to the same DIA site where Nagy found the referenced documents and do a search on water purification. You will find several documents presented to the UN as late as 1997 and written by committees that include no representation of the US or UK and you will find descriptions of how Hussein continually obstructed inspections and how his actions prevented confirmation of the terms of the treaty AND added to the misery of the Iraqi people. Yet Nagy never cites these documents.
3. Here's the more esoteric explanation, though, and it is not really adequate as an excusal of US actions, but it does contribute. It is essential to understand what these documents are that Nagy cites and how they are used.
The documents are really Annexes to what are commonly called "Country Studies." Ultimately, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is responsible for all country studies, but they in fact write very little of very few of them. Instead, they act as a clearing house, compiler, and library for use by the Intelligence community. I ran the production side of an IPC/RPC (Intelligence Production Center/Regional Production Center) some years back.
Here's how the system works:
a. DIA wants a country study on EVERY country in the world.
b. DIA has limited resources and therefore prioritizes all countries, with 'high threat' occupying the first tier.
c. Active duty units are told to compile the first tier country studies.
d. Reserve units are told to compile the second tier country studies.
e. Third tier country studies usually do not get done.
f. Sometimes there is a mix with active duty units having primary responsibility for a country but utilizing a Reserve unit or units to support them.
g. No single office compiles the entire country study. One office will be told: "Write the study on Country X's land forces," while another will be told "Write the study on Country X's naval forces." On down the line until all aspects of a country's military, economic, geographic, political, and sociological landscapes is outlined. The military side is done first and thoroughly. The remaining aspects are completed as time and resources allow, meaning that sometimes they are never done.
h. When completed, the country studies are put on a shelf until needed and, in theory, updated periodically. THEY ARE NOT, as a matter of course, SENT IMMEDIATELY TO THE RELEVANT CINC OR THE PRESIDENT. It is doubtful that anyone at DIA reviews them in depth except to ensure that the format is correct, and any such review will probably be done by a career civilian who is not a 'decision-maker.'
So what does this mean regarding the particular country study on Iraq--
1. Before August of 1990, Iraq was probably (I don't know for a fact; I'm assuming) a tier two country, so some Reserve unit, probably in Atlanta, North Carolina, or Florida, wrote the country study.
2. In August 1990, Iraq suddenly became a tier one country, so the G-2 for CENTCOM pulled the country study to his active Intelligence folks and/or activated the supporting Reserve unit for them to work on it full time.
3. In January 1991, the country study was completed/updated, including the section predicting a bad effect on the water supply.
4. Schwarzkopf asked for his G-2's summary of the country study and gave him 30 minutes max to do it.
5. The briefing probably went something like this:
G-2: "You can beat them militarily, and you can destroy their infrastructure. The long-range implication of extensive bombing and ground-based campaigns is a degradation of the civilian populace's ability to support itself."
Schwarzkopf: "What happens without bombing?"
G-2: "Our losses increase due to higher support of Iraqi ground troops with aircraft, but mostly due to the enemy's continued access to interior lines and flexibility of movement, not to mention the currently high elan of the Republican Guard. Further, even after a military victory, the political/religious landscape is such that Hussein will not be removed as a threat unless more pressure is brought to bear."
Schwarzkopf: "How hard is it to rebuild the infrastructure later?"
G-2: "Easy with the right materials and labor, though expensive, and it will require the cooperation of whatever regime is in place."
Schwarzkopf: "What do I tell Powell and Bush about the diplomatic/political aspects of this?"
G-2: "Tell them that if they want Hussein removed AS A THREAT then they have two options and two options only: Do it physically ourselves or make it so unpleasant for him to remain defiant that he complies with whatever conditions the coalition imposes at the end of the armed conflict; keep in mind that making it unpleasant for him will be more difficult than making it unpleasant for his people.
Schwarzkopf: "Anything else?"
G-2: "This is not a science."
Without being an eyewitness to the entire process, I cannot of course guarantee this, but being familiar with the process, I can assure you with near certainty that NO ONE IN ANY DECISION-MAKING POSITION asked the intelligence community to find out how to ruin the water supply; that study was done merely as a matter of course in compilation of the country study. AND NO ONE IN ANY DECISION-MAKING POSITION ever reviewed the situation and said to himself: "Good; they have no clean water."
If you take these two documents by themselves, and you ignore the comments that Nagy ignores, then the worst you can say about the US is that we have an inefficient intelligence system that does not get crucial data to the pertinent people.
If you take these documents in context with all comments given due weight, and in light of the UN documents that follow, then you conclude that the US policy has been driven from a primarily political and heavily military perspective and that the bulk of the hardship could have been alleviated if Hussein complied.
All that being said, I am--as I've said before--leaning toward lifting the sanctions anyway, merely because they're not effective enough to justify the hardship.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2001 : 04:21:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1. January 1991: Bombing and attacks will seriously disrupt the availability of clean water to the Iraqi people and cause an increase in diseases among the populace.
2. Summer 1991 (June, I think): The bombing and attacks created the predicted disruption in availability of clean water and the subsequent embargo on equipment for water purification has worsened it.
There was also a study done regarding the water supplies in Iraq some years ago. That actually the agricultural practices in Iraq were, in part, contributing to the demise of their availability of fresh water. This was in reference to endangered species and the Iraqi government draining the marshes for agriculture. I'll see if I can find the links.
From this, I gather that there were some water problems prior to 1990.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." ~Blaise Pascal |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2001 : 05:49:51 [Permalink]
|
I think it's clear from this and other sources that the U.S. targeted the civilian population in the hopes that the population would rise up, or so they said.
Genocide is the result.
quote:
Gorgo, I don't intend to get back into a full blown argument about sanctions again, but I'll answer a question for you and explain why my mind hasn't been changed.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
marvin
Skeptic Friend
77 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 14:25:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think it's clear from this and other sources that the U.S. targeted the civilian population in the hopes that the population would rise up, or so they said.
Genocide is the result.
The Iraq Liberation Act. 1998
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.—The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE.—(A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE.—(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.—The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.
|
|
|
|
marvin
Skeptic Friend
77 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 14:48:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Genocide is the result.
Genocide ~ The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
Gorgo,
I disagree with your naive conclusion. IMO it's an ugly foreign policy mess that is the result of the American voting publics belief that, changing the government of Iraqi is ‘not worth one American life', so try to have the people of Iraqi remove Saddam Hussein. Sanctions, no-fly zones and 97 million US greenbacks to promote the overthrow of Saddam, without success. In fact he is probably stronger in political support, both inside and outside the country, then he was after the war.
Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power, at the risk of American life.
It's the only way to stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 15:51:52 [Permalink]
|
Another expert come to tell me how naive I am. What an education I will receive, I'm sure. Tell me, how much money has been spent on the "Iraq Liberation Act" and tell me what this has to do with what I wrote?
Let me quote from a Pentagon planner who was consulted for an article printed in the Washington Post, June 23, 1991:
"People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water and sewage.' Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions - help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on the infrastructure was to accelerate the effects of sanctions."
This is targeting civilians, which is against the Geneva Convention, and the UN Charter. If you're trying to say that the U.S. is the champion of democracy in the region, well, you just don't know much about the history of Southwest Asia or even the history of the 1980s and 90s.
quote:
The Iraq Liberation Act. 1998
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 16:04:33 [Permalink]
|
Tell the families of those U.S. and allied soldiers that no one died in the Gulf War. Mostly by friendly fire and by accident, I'm sure, but there were definitely U.S. deaths in Iraq.
The fact that Saddam Hussein is more entrenched in power than ever is one of my points. This is the result of the brutal sanctions policy.
Do a search for "Genocide Convention" and you'll see that the legal definition of genocide is not the same as your dictionary's definition, however, your dictionary's definition is not far from what is happening.
http://www.iacenter.org/rc12600.htm
Genocide is defined in the Genocide Convention, in part, as follows:
Article II...genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
quote:
quote:
Genocide is the result.
Genocide ~ The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
Gorgo,
I disagree with your naive conclusion. IMO it's an ugly foreign policy mess that is the result of the American voting publics belief that, changing the government of Iraqi is ‘not worth one American life', so try to have the people of Iraqi remove Saddam Hussein. Sanctions, no-fly zones and 97 million US greenbacks to promote the overthrow of Saddam, without success. In fact he is probably stronger in political support, both inside and outside the country, then he was after the war.
Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power, at the risk of American life.
It's the only way to stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 16:19:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
a) Killing members of the group;
So if 2 or members of a "group" are killed then it's genocide?
That's a pretty stupid definition.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 18:39:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Genocide is defined in the Genocide Convention,
Why the hell is this so-called "Genocide Convention" any more qualified to (re)define a word than me and my beer buddies on a Friday night?
(I don't really have beer buddies, and I think beer tastes like dog piss ( ), but I was trying to make a point, dern it!  )
------------
And if rain brings winds of change
let it rain on us forever.
I have no doubt from what I've seen
that I have never wanted more.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 19:04:52 [Permalink]
|
And what is this serious bodily or mental harm? How serious is serious and how the hell does mental harm get into a definition of genocide?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
marvin
Skeptic Friend
77 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2001 : 14:50:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
…and I think beer tastes like dog piss…
Yea, but what does Zima taste like…
quote:
Tell the families of those U.S. and allied soldiers that no one died in the Gulf War. Mostly by friendly fire and by accident, I'm sure, but there were definitely U.S. deaths in Iraq. ---Gorgo
…the American voting publics belief that, changing the government of Iraqi is ‘not worth one American life', so try to have the people of Iraqi remove Saddam Hussein….
“not worth one {more} American life” --- Killing Saddam would possibly result in double the number of casualties if not more.
Persian Gulf War coalition losses: 240 were killed, 148 of whom were American. The number of wounded totaled 776, of whom 458 were American, twenty-four percent of the 148 American battle deaths during Operation Desert Storm were by "friendly fire." A further fifteen percent of the 458 wounded were by our own troops.
quote:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
This means that War = Genocide
quote:
Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
This means that the entire legislative branch is guilty, not to mention the DOD. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
