Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software Government Politics

Cuba Switching to Linux 1149

Tony Montana writes "According to several news sites the government of Cuba is dumping Windows in favour of Linux. Cuba's director of information technology, Roberto del Puerto, says that Cuba already has approximately 1500 computers running on Linux, and is working towards replacing Windows on all state owned computers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cuba Switching to Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:15AM (#12576986)
    I'm assuming that all Cuban installations of Windows are pirate copies anyway, because it's illegal for US companies to sell to Cuba (very stiff penalties).
  • Great... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ooze ( 307871 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:17AM (#12577025)
    All we need is another multi billion dollar company with a reason to lobby for invading Cuba...
  • Re:WMDs (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:21AM (#12577065)
    That they got from where? China or North Korea? You think we wouldn't notice it coming in? Did they built a tunnel under the ocean from the Pacific over to Cuba?

    Give me a break.
  • Now how about... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by suman28 ( 558822 ) <suman28NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:22AM (#12577073)
    Cuba switch to a real democracy and they will be all set.
  • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:22AM (#12577077) Journal
    First thing he did was nationalize the sugar industry. I'm sure getting rid of Micro$oft is in the same vein to him.

    How does the government having sole control over an industry make it any less of a monopoly?

  • by mangu ( 126918 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:22AM (#12577087)
    it's illegal for US companies to sell to Cuba (very stiff penalties)


    My thought exactly. And, if you RTFA (very short, all three of them) you'll find the following: "Del Puerto said his office was working on a legal framework that would allow the replacement of the Windows system". I wonder which legal framework is that? In a country that has the dictator with the longest time in office in the whole world, how much of a "legal framework" is needed, anyhow?



    (BTW, congrats to you, twelfth comment and the first non-stupid, non-redundant one).

  • by brontus3927 ( 865730 ) <{edwardra3} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:23AM (#12577094) Homepage Journal
    I think it might not be a bad idea to amend the GPL to insist that no Communism or politically misaligned countries / organizations should be able to use it. This would help combat some of the negative sterotypes facing OSS.

    But that is the "great" thing about the GPL and similar OSS licenses. Its free to anyone dispite ideological differences. If it wasn't, a F/OSS advocating developer could bar me from using their software because I also use non-Free software. A staunch pro-life developer of a scheduling package could bar an abotion clinic from using their software. If something is going to be free, it needs to be free, not "kinda-free, only when you agree with us"

  • by CommunistTroll ( 544327 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:25AM (#12577114) Homepage
    If Cuba is using copies of Windows in a legal fashion under Cuban law then they are not pirate copies, even if that use would be illegal under US law.

    It's up to Cuban copyright law to decide whether you should have to pay Microsoft to use copies of their software.

  • by diegocgteleline.es ( 653730 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:28AM (#12577144)
    Even if they can, Cuba has loved linux for a while - obviously, even if they can they don't want to depend from USA technology. Infomed, for one (the national healtcare information sharing or whatever you english people call it) is based in linux at least
  • by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:29AM (#12577153) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft obviously also has distributors outside the United States, and it's perfectly legal for them to sell to Cuba.

    Or even Microsoft Canada. We don't buy into the isolationist argument up here, and we don't get our knickers bent out of shape trying to "prove" that communism doesn't work but undermining Cuba at every opportunity.
  • Re:That's cool... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PaxTech ( 103481 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:30AM (#12577161) Homepage
    Yep, that "stability", it's a wonderful thing. Especially when it's maintained by imprisoning librarians [afsc.org].

    But oh, I forgot, this is slashdot, where the US is a horrible fascist dicatorship and Cuba is a magical wonderland of sharing and human kindness.
  • Re:Positive Image (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:32AM (#12577183) Journal
    Actually they have quite a positive image in most countries of the world other than the US. Given that they've been US embargoed for several decades and yet still can offer some of the best healthcare and social services in the Caribbean says alot to their efficiency. Castro and the communist government aren't a walk in the park (e.g. human rights abuses, limited democractic rights for population, dictatorial powers) but its not nearly as bad as portrayed in the American media.

    Linux is a good deal for Cuba, as they can't legally buy Windows given the US embargo...actually they can't buy most software under the circumstances. Also, their currency weakness doesn't allow them to trade for services very well. Given that Linux will make the every-day person's life more productive I can't see anyone reasonably opposing Linux adoption in Cuba...the government won't benefit from this directly.
  • by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:34AM (#12577203)
    What worries me is importing what is made in cuba into the US.

    What happens when cuban sysadmins start submitting patches into linux? is this not then code that is a product of cuba? that would be Illegal to bring into the USA.

    which then comes into a linux used in the USA?

    This worries me, as then microsoft could use this as a legal loophole to prohibit the use of Linux in the USA.

    That would be a big boon for them as then they would have no competition.

    Think about it. How ridiculous does it sound. Or not?
  • by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:35AM (#12577216)
    Isnt that *the* major factor whenever a major corporation switches, or is looking to switch? Isnt that the main factor that is always pushed for switching from closed source to opensource here on slashdot? It isnt just the communists that want to freeload, everyone does.
  • by CommunistTroll ( 544327 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:37AM (#12577237) Homepage
    Property is an artificial construct of law.

    Intellectual property doubly so.

  • Re:Positive Image (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:39AM (#12577254)
    Right. And that's why there's no shortage of people willing to risk death to escape from Cuba?
  • by Lifewish ( 724999 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:39AM (#12577259) Homepage Journal
    Unfortunately, that's bollocks. If Cuban law states that "you need not ask permission or pay anything before using software written by someone else" then it is no longer up to Microsoft. Not in Cuba anyway.

    Remember, rights are not universal; they're granted at the discretion of the country in question, however much we might wish it otherwise.
  • by j0e_average ( 611151 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:40AM (#12577261)
    You could add the US to the top of that list, pal.

    What's worse: a country openly proclaiming communism, or one that espouses freedom -- all the while attempting to deny it's own citizens the right to freely travel and increasing surveillance in the name of "fighting terror". Oh, and not to mention all of the "detainees" held in Gitmo. These folks, while probably a bad lot, are being held without being charged with a crime, denied access to legal representation, and in some cases have had thier HUMAN RIGHTS violated. This is the kind of shit that I used to bring up about Cuba and China.

    God save the US. God Damn the current US regime.
  • Re:Positive Image (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KillerBob ( 217953 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:41AM (#12577269)
    They've been legally buying it from Microsoft Canada. Theoretically MS Canada is a separate trade entity from MS in the USA.

    You did know that Canada is Cuba's biggest trading partner, right? Yay Helms-Burton law. Really effective....
  • by myc_lykaon ( 645662 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:45AM (#12577310)
    It is ironic that the real communists want to use GNU/Linux because it is free as in beer.

    I think you'll find they are wanting to use it as it is 'free' as in 'not produced by a company in the country that has maintained a remarkably schizophrenic attitude to Cuba, attempted numerous coups and asassination attempts against the leader and is currently forcing the general populace to live below the poverty line by punitive trade embargoes all based on misplaced ideology' :).

  • by wed128 ( 722152 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:46AM (#12577321)
    even with a geek number system, it was zero before he posted...unless we were giving the comments numbers rather than counting, making his comment number 0.
  • Re:Nah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dyfet ( 154716 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:51AM (#12577365) Homepage
    Functioning was much more like capitalism than communism. In the Marx ideal, after all, the workers own the means of production directly. This never actually happened in the Soviet Union; private capitalists owning farms and factories were simply replaced by a state functioning as a consolidated monopoly owner. Once you look at it this way, other parallels become rather startling and more obviously similar to dysfunctional forms of capitalism, such as private monopolies, as Adam Smith wrote about so long ago. There is more in common, for example, between Gates and Stalin in this respect, than you might otherwise initially consider.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:00AM (#12577465)
    "Remember, rights are not universal; they're granted at the discretion of the country in question, however much we might wish it otherwise."

    That's not true in the US. You have inalienable rights. The government does not grant you rights, they can only restrict your natural rights when there is a need. The constitution defines the power of government to restrict your rights.
  • by Morgaine ( 4316 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:00AM (#12577468)
    how many people will make a comment about communism and linux

    Communism makes some people see red (:-), so leave it out.

    More relevant here is that Linux and open source in general is about cooperation and collaboration without an enemy, whereas sociopolitical systems usually have an enemy within and always have an enemy without. Our collaborative community has no real similarity to any of that, despite the political FUD occasionally dished out by the vested interests that we're treading on.

    So yeah, we'll get some negative political mud thrown at us, but who cares. It's just the death throes of the old cathedral dinosaurs on their way out.
  • Re:That's cool... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Xenna ( 37238 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:01AM (#12577484)
    You're must be joking. I've been to Cuba too and I found it a horribly backward country suffering under a terrible and corrupt dictatorship.

    The country is full of murals saying how wonderful they are and how they defeated the US. The people are piss poor and you see disabled people walking around on improvised crutches made out of branches. Everything is a lie in Cuba...

    If only the US would understand it's their embargo that's keeping Fidel in the saddle.
  • by Latent Heat ( 558884 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:05AM (#12577559)
    My mother had this expression "having the bartender as your employment reference."

    I remember our local left-of-center rag going on about American profligate use of energy, pointing to color TVs as offenders, how black and white TVs use much less energy and are preferred in . . . Cuba. Never mind that modern solid-state color TVs use about as much electricity as an average light bulb and that Cuba's energy conservation kick may have more to do with their economics rather than Uncle Fidel being friends with Amory Lovins.

    I would put the love of Linux in the same category. Sure, it is great that someone economizes by not paying a tithe to Microsoft, but bragging about Cuba switching to Linux is kind of like saying, "Linux, the choice of a third-world failing Communist dictatorship with an aging nutcase leader."

    Oh, and about the response that Cuba is the victim of the U.S. trade embargo -- I believe just about everyone else in the world trades with Cuba and visits Cuba.

  • by mysticgoat ( 582871 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:08AM (#12577596) Homepage Journal

    It is ironic that the real communists want to use GNU/Linux because it is free as in beer.

    I just went back through the three articles cited in the story, and I didn't see any mention as to why Cuba was going through the conversion to Linux. Where did you get your information?

    Other than the "free as in beer" reason, these possibilities occur to me:

    • This could be in retaliation for Gates' recent anti-communist remarks
    • This could be based on idealogical concerns about whether information can be owned and controlled by individuals/corporations or belongs to the state
    • This could be a strategic decision to take future software development "in house" rather than depending on 3rd party developers who are based in a hostile country
    • This could be a pragmatic decision based on studies that show that a gradual conversion to Linux now would be better in some ways than the inevitable enforced upgrades to Longhorn / Office2006

    I also question your use of the word "ironic" in this context, but I'll leave discussion of english metallurgy to slashdot's esteemed group of grammar nazis.

  • Figures (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thelizman ( 304517 ) <hammerattackNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:11AM (#12577654) Homepage
    ...I look forward to the day when it will hurt the US not to deal with Cuba...


    I look forward to the day when people stop letting themselves be consumed with hatred.

  • Re:It's Official! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by a trolling stone ( 884793 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:15AM (#12577704)
    It does. Now if we could just get people to understand that the word "communism" doesn't mean what they think it means.
  • by gerddie ( 173963 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:16AM (#12577718)
    First thing he did was nationalize the sugar industry.
    You should probably do some research [walterlippmann.com]before posting:

    Before 1959, the laws of the "free market" did NOT operate in Cuba. Between 1934 and 1959 Cuba had a state capitalist economy.

    Do you know that the US sugar quota actually was a mechanism by which the United States Department of Agriculture determined the amount of sugar that the US could buy from the island, and at what price? Even the number of ships to be used to carry the sugar were determined by fiat.

    The Jones Costigan Act (from the US) compelled the Cuban government to then allocate how much sugar cane would be grown by each colono. Tthere was a formula established on how much every sugar cane cutter would be paid on the basis of the weight of the cane, but in concordance with the established price of the raw sugar. And that was determined by both governments.

    Do you know that the hacendados who owned the sugar mills were also chosen by the Cuban state? So, it was the state who selected the hacendado and the amount of sugar to be produced, and how much sugar was to be raw and how much refined and how much could be paid to the sugar mill worker?

    You probably have heard that after 1934 sugar mills were bought off by Cubans from Americans. That is true. BUT what is never mentioned by the exiles is why. The reason is simple: since the laws of the market did not operate, the comparative advantage was based on political access to the Batista regime. So, foreign sugar interests simply decided to get out of the business. Hence, the Cubans ended up controlling the milling process because their friends in government gave them the allocations.

    The political economy of sugar was totally and completely controlled by the two governments. And, by the way, since sugar was the pivot of the entire economy, that meant that the invisible hand did NOT operate in other sectors either -- such as lending, transportation, shipping -- if related to sugar.

    Before 1959, Keynesian economics were more advanced in Cuba than in the United States

    So, tell me, is that the understanding you had of what Cuba was before 1959?

    If it is not, then research the matter. Don't take my words. Then you will see that Cubans in the island have NOT known what the so called liberal economic model was like, None of those alive in Miami ever experienced it, at least not in Cuba.

    In fact, the Cuban revolution of 1959 raises a number of interesting issues.

    For example, do you realize that the Cuban revolutionary government wanted to get rid of the sugar quota (the whole Jones Costigan system) and allow the REAL market to determine who produced sugar in Cuba and how much?

    So, Fidel Castro the radical revolutionary was preaching to the conservative Republican Eisenhower administration the beauties of the market! What the US government did, of course, was to say - you dont like the quota system - well, we are taking you out of it and we will NOT buy sugar from you.

    And do you realize that those who benefitted from the quota system (all of whom are now in Miami) opposed the revolutionary regime on the basis that they did not want market forces to determine whether they could continue producing sugar?

    Things are seldom what they appear.

    Consider the following:

    Why do you suppose the United States government was so upset when Cuba decided to start selling sugar to the Soviets and other countries?

    Because it meant a link to Communism? Hardly. Because the Cuban revolutionary government defied the Jones Costigan act which was perfectly calibrated so that the market of sugar will remain stable, without anyone producing MORE than they were told by the US Department of Agriculture. To preserve the system was in the interests of those who could NOT compete in an open and truly free world market in sugar. The Cubans knew th

  • by Pros_n_Cons ( 535669 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:19AM (#12577751)
    Only a slashdotter could turn Cuba into beacon of freedom, and the US as the one with "misplaced ideology" But getting a +5 insightful? Now THAT caught me by surprise.
  • by Yankel ( 770174 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:24AM (#12577825) Homepage
    I agree. Assuming Cuba is paying for Windows (possibly from Microsoft Canada?) out of necessity, it's better to support a company that isn't based in the U.S. -- for philisophical reasons.

    However, that leads to the next big question -- which distro will Cuba use... or will they roll their own?

    There are a few Spanish-language distros available to choose from that aren't owned by large American companies.

    If they do choose to role their own, what copyright law exists to make sure that they don't fork it off and close the source themselves? If for economic reasons, they're only interested in free beer, this is a risk.
  • by alienmole ( 15522 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:25AM (#12577827)
    Two points:

    First, there's an issue of degree. There are far more ordinary people in Cuban prisons, who would not be imprisoned in any free country. This imprisonment doesn't require national-level exceptions to normal rules of due process, it's a routine thing. That's not the case with Jose Padilla.

    Second, I wasn't defending the US, I was pointing out that Cuba is still a very repressive place, and those who want to pretend that everything's cool and its problems should just be accepted with a wink are themselves collaborating in the repression of the Cuban people.
  • Re:That's cool... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pros_n_Cons ( 535669 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:26AM (#12577842)
    How could you forget this is slashdot? every other comment is fanaticism.
    I try to only read linux articles but I still can't avoid every thread being made into why the USA is evil.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:28AM (#12577870)
    Its funny listening to Americans comment on a country that the vast majority have never been to. Not to mention countries that they are not free to visit should they want to.

    Not being American, and therefor being FREE to go where I please, I can tell you that a rum and COKE is not hard to come by. Funny, I thought Coke was an American company?

    Looks like the US has a much larger problem with Coke smuggling than they thought.

    Haven't any of you sheeple figured it out yet, it is only illegal if you are not a giant corporation. If you have 30 employees and you trade with Cuba, look out, those Southern redneck senators will hunt you down like dogs. If you employ 30,000 employees, and pay of the douchbags on the hill, you can do as you please.

    The US policies against Cuba are bad for Cuba, but great for the rest of the world. It has left a Carribean island with great weather, great beaches, great cigars, affordable accomodations and best of all, NO Americans. It's like vacation heaven. Besides, none of you would like it there. Really.
  • Re:That's cool... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PaxTech ( 103481 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:30AM (#12577897) Homepage
    So everyone that Castro has imprisoned was plotting to overthrow him? Are you kidding?
    Amnesty International reports they were accused of such "crimes" as publishing articles, talking with international human rights groups, organizing unions, distributing literature, and receiving material support for these activities from the US. Amnesty comments, "Despite the Cuban government's claims that such acts threatened national security and therefore warranted prosecution, the above activities constitute legitimate exercise of freedoms of expression, assembly, and association." Amnesty adopted the 75 dissidents as prisoners of conscience.
    Amnesty International is hardly an American lapdog of an organization. Just because you don't like the USA, don't delude yourself into thinking that any enemy of the USA is righteous and noble.
  • by amightywind ( 691887 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:31AM (#12577914) Journal

    currently forcing the general populace to live below the poverty line by punitive trade embargoes all based on misplaced ideology

    And you say nothing of a megalomaniac Marxist king of sorts who runs a feudal state and who has been practicing economic voodoo for 40 years, and you blame the US for Cuba's poverty? Who is the real schizophrenic.

  • by OreoCookie ( 814421 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:32AM (#12577915)
    I think you'll find they are wanting to use it as it is 'free' as in 'not produced by a company in the country that has maintained a remarkably schizophrenic attitude to Cuba, attempted numerous coups and asassination attempts against the leader and is currently forcing the general populace to live below the poverty line by punitive trade embargoes all based on misplaced ideology' :).
    I've never understood this line of reasoning that the US embargo on Cuba causes them to live in poverty. It is only the US that won't trade with Cuba. China, Russia, The EU and most of the world have no restrictions on trade with Cuba. You can buy Cuban cigars anywhere outside the US and travel from outside the US to Cuba is largely unfettered.
  • by edremy ( 36408 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:39AM (#12578011) Journal

    First, there's an issue of degree. There are far more ordinary people in Cuban prisons, who would not be imprisoned in any free country.

    Perhaps. They jail political dissidents. We jail pot smokers. Thus, the US has the highest imprisonment rate in the world. (Or very close- we don't know North Korea's) Cuba's not even in the top ten.

    Second, I wasn't defending the US, I was pointing out that Cuba is still a very repressive place, and those who want to pretend that everything's cool and its problems should just be accepted with a wink are themselves collaborating in the repression of the Cuban people.

    I'd be one of the last to defend Cuba- it's a wreck of a country due to a meglomanical dictator. The world will be a better place when Castro is worm food.

    But other countries simply don't see Cuba with anywhere near the level of hatred in the US. They see us pointing fingers at Cuba's repressive practices while we're busy keeping people in legal limbo forever in our own tiny slice of Cuba.

    If we had cleaner hands other countries might be more willing to listen to us about Cuba.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:41AM (#12578059)
    North Korea does also.

    Don't forget China, they also have a parliament and a constitution.

    What about Iraq under Saddam? Yep, parliament and constitution.

    What about Eastern Germany? Yep, parliament and constitution.
    And the list goes on and on and on...
    Your point was?

    Seriously, having a parliament and a constitution doesn't mean anything unless there is democracy and rule of law.

    I'm really wondering what intelligent people modded parent up...
  • by Misanthropy ( 31291 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:43AM (#12578080)
    President who cannot be voted out of office == dictator
  • America is pretty much the only country not trading with Cuba directly. In spite of that, millions in US currency flow into Cuba every month through indirect routes, including the sizable Cuban population who fled to the US for love of freedom. Overall, Cuba has a national GDP of $33.92 billion, which gives them a far better per-capita than most other countries with similar poverty levels.

    The reality simply is that Cuba is run by a corrupt and incompetant military dictator whose only prior qualification was being a spoiled rich kid and lawyer. The complete mismanagement of the economy by his everlasting regime led to scarcity, and the spoils system inherent in any communist regime has led to a disparity whereby most Cubans live in abject poverty, but the priveledged few live in opulant comfort.

    Cuba is not even a good example of how a communist ought to be run, but it is an excellent example of how communist governments eventually are run.
  • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:45AM (#12578115)
    Speaking from a third party country, Britain, if you think that the US holds the moral highground over Cuba, you are sadly mistaken. For example, if my company were to trade with Cuba, maybe to import Havana cigars, then the US, who is not party to the trade, and supposedly believes in free trade has a law whereby they can apply sanctions to my company. The way America has bullied Cuba for years, simply because they disagree with it's political system is appaling. During the cold war it was understandable, especially the missile crisis. But this many years after the cold war has ended it is ridiculous.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:46AM (#12578129)
    How can this possibly be marked as 'interesting'? It is an open secret that Microsoft (or frankly any other software vendor) would rather have people use their software illegally than use a competitors software. This is true even if they would never admit it.

    While this may be a net-zero cash flow move for Microsoft, there is a possibility that this may influence another Latin American country to follow suit, possibly one from which that Microsoft might actually get cash out of.

    My guess is that there will be no official comment out of Microsoft.
  • by Lord Agni ( 643860 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:50AM (#12578182)
    Cuba doesn't have trade embargoes with the entire world, does it? Why doesn't it profit from the trade it engages in with Mexico and Canada? BECAUSE IT'S A DICTATORSHIP! Neither capital, labor, nor information flow freely, or even semi-freely. Central planning is what keeps North Korea starving, and Zimbabwe on the brink of starvation.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:51AM (#12578193)
    Have you ever BEEN to Cuba? Oh wait, you're American.. never mind... Cuba may be Communist, but did you ever stop to think that Castro and Gueverra (sp) freed the Cubans from a much worse dictator (Batista) I've spent some time in Cuba (Canadians are allowed to travel wherever we want, ahh freedom!) And the people there are doing quite well thank you very much.
  • by Various Assortments ( 781521 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:57AM (#12578267)
    Your bias is showing. He didn't say anything about it being a beacon of freedom, he simply said their main concern might not be cost, but that the alternative is produced by a nation who never misses a chance to re-state that Cuba is its enemy.

    And the implied suggestion, that the USA's policy towards Cuba is stupid, well, I'd like to see you argue otherwise.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:08AM (#12578444)
    And the people there are doing quite well thank you very much.

    Quite well compared to what? Hatians? That, amigo, is not quite well.
  • Re:Positive Image (Score:3, Insightful)

    by I confirm I'm not a ( 720413 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:09AM (#12578449) Journal

    From where do people get the numbers to judge Cuba's healthcare success? That's right, from the Cuban government. Russia also was tops in the world in tractor manufacturing, to hear them tell it.

    I've been sick in Cuba. I'd rather be sick in Cuba than in the UK. The UK *imports* health-care professionals; Cuba *exports* them (eg. to South Africa, that evil crypto-Communist state). I've not heard any health-care statistics from the Cuban government, merely contrasted treatments, doctors' bedside manners, etc. Cuba sucks in many ways, but healthcare truly isn't one of them... although one Cuban doctor apologised, explaining that since I was a tourist I couldn't have access to certain treatments that were reserved for Cuban taxpayers. Bloody commies.

    (Worth mentioning that my - self-inflicted - medical condition was cronic toothache brought on by organically-reared meat fed largely on the surplus sugar crop. Hmmm, sweet, organic bacon!)

  • by Rune Berge ( 663292 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:11AM (#12578493)

    If the copies are illegal (...)

    I suspect the copies are 100% legal. By Cuban law. Is there any other that matters in this case? I somehow doubt Cuba has signed any international copyright agreements.

    Nobody in Cuba should be able to run Windows Update.

    What about foreigners who has actually paid for it?

  • by Kiryat Malachi ( 177258 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:13AM (#12578524) Journal
    There are plenty of military dictatorships in the world.

    The US doesn't maintain crippling economic embargos against most of them.

    If you think the US attitude towards Cuba is *anything* other than a relic of the Cold War and the political consequence of the relatively large power wielded by exiles in the arena of Florida politics, you are sadly mistaken. And the sad truth is, Cuba does have the high ground in this.
  • by orkysoft ( 93727 ) <orkysoft@m y r e a l b ox.com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:17AM (#12578601) Journal
    Well, if the US hadn't interfered with all sorts of trade embargoes, particularly after the cold war, then it would be much clearer who's to blame for the poverty in Cuba, eh?
  • by mc_barron ( 546164 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:20AM (#12578671) Homepage
    I completely agree. I am one of those lucky amaericans who HAVE been to Cuba (in 2001). While there I kept thinking to myself
    "This is a beautiful country with very nice people...I dread the day that americans invade and ruin a perfectly good thing."
    For every nice american travelling, there are at least 3 that act like asses and are ignorant of the culture they are visiting.
  • by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:29AM (#12578821) Homepage Journal
    A democratic nation, any democratic nation, will always have moral highground over a non-democratic one.
    Which is why the USA chose to overthrow Democratic Socialist Allende and replace him with Fascist Dictator Pinochet, right?

    Look, however much governments (US or otherwise) wish to pretend that their foreign policy is based on morality, it isn't. OK? Foreign policy is solely about protecting your national interests : in terms of finance and security, and the sooner you recognise that, the more sense you'll make of it.

    It's not about good guys vs bad guys, and it's especially not about democracy vs. dictatorship. A dictator friendly to US interests (the House of Saud, for instance) is always going to treated more favourably than an unfriendly democrat (say, the President of France, or "Old Europe" as we like to call ourselves).
  • by EugeneK ( 50783 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:30AM (#12578834) Homepage Journal

    Every time I see some goofball walking around with a Che Guevara t-shirt, I want to shake him by the shoulders and say, "Do you know this guy threw people into camps and then had them shot?"


    Funny, I think the same thing when I see someone with a Bush/Cheney bumpersticker.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:34AM (#12578888)
    "Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." Bill Gates, 1998

    It's not an "open secret", it's stated policy.

  • Re:FUC#ING LIAR!!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AusG4 ( 651867 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:44AM (#12579009) Homepage Journal

    As a canadian, you are full of sh!t...ROYALLY!

    First off, I find it amusing that you wrote the word "sh!t" with an explanation point, as if to try to be polite, yet wrote "FUCKING" in capital letters only 7 words later... but I digress.

    OH WAIT! I forgot, you watch our state-run(commie) TV,CBC...so naturally everything is the badbad amerikkans fault, right?

    Almost every nation in the world, democratic or otherwise, has a federally opeated broadcaster (The United States being the notable exception; though the United States is also violently capitalist in nature, so that explains that). This isn't communist at all. Either way, I'm doubting your Canadianism; things aren't "state-run" in Canada, they're "crown controlled".

    Semantics aside, the word your feeble mind is probably grasping at is "socialist". Of course, "socialism" and "communism" aren't synonyms, despite how many conservative fear-mungerers on Fox News have tried convince you otherwise.

    Of course, you may just be parroting the old conservative half-truth that the media is "liberal", in which case you'd be a sheep who isn't really sure what the word "liberal" means, either.

    At any rate, the last time I saw the CBC indite the Americans for something morally questionable was .... oh wait.... never. So regardless of what you think about the CBC you don't really have a point at all, do you?

  • Re:That's cool... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PaxTech ( 103481 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:56AM (#12579170) Homepage
    I am no way a cuba fanboy of any kind..

    Well, that's a good thing.. Oh no, wait.. I sense a "but" coming. This is how people who dislike the US argue about injustice in the world. "I'm no fan of the 9/11 hijackers, BUT..", followed by a litany of US crimes, real and imagined.

    Dude : The discussion we're having right now is about Cuba's human rights record. Bringing your anti-US bias into the discussion is completely off-topic and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Castro's Cuba violates people's basic human rights on an ongoing basis.
  • by slapout ( 93640 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @12:04PM (#12579257)
    We don't buy into the isolationist argument up here, and we don't get our knickers bent out of shape trying to "prove" that communism doesn't work but undermining Cuba at every opportunity.


    And Cuba doesn't point Nuclear Missles at you either.
  • by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @12:04PM (#12579271)
    How is a third world dictatorship, where you can't surf the internet without explicit permission from the government, switching to Linux supposed to bring good attention to Linux? Shouldn't this be something that Linux advocates try to downplay?

    Next Up: The government of Sudan has endorced Linux - "We wouldn't be able to carry out our genocide of non-muslims without it! We have 3,000,000 corpses to attest to the efficiency of open source software!".

    Also in News: The president of NAMBLA announces the growth of Linux use amoung child pornographers. "Windows just isn't secure enough to download kiddie porn without worrying about some police force exploiting a Windows flaw to catch us. Linux is the only OS for hardcore child-porn fanatics!"

    Yeah, great... Just when Linux and Open Source software is starting to get good publicity from the press, Linux "Advocates" are now trying to link Linux to totalitarian regimes. With friends like these, who needs enemies!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @12:18PM (#12579443)
    If you think this phenomenon is unique to United States citizens, you are sadly mistaken.
  • by mbaker911 ( 305820 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @12:19PM (#12579457)
    Interesting comments. I always thought the trade sanctions against Cuba were put in place because of the seizure of US companies/assets by Castro during the takeover.
  • Re:Nah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @12:20PM (#12579470) Journal
    Wow, you've really bought the anti-communist propaganda hook, line, and sinker, haven't you? First, Communism says nothing about private ownership of things. Just the means of production. Work incentive? What's that? Oh, right, "Everyone is a greedy lazy bastard who cares nothing about anyone but themselves and must be bribed into working with a big juicy carrot." Guess what? Most people care more about fairness, justice, and reciprocity than about pure selfish interest. People are motivated to work by many things. Don't try to write about Marx's ideal when you obviously haven't read anything he's written. Nothing in communism precludes rewarding excellence or withholding rewards for non-production, it just means that everyone is taken care of to a basic standard. The grandparent poster's comparison is very valid. The Russians practiced real communism for all of about two years right after the revolution, then the bastard monopolist capitalists took control and changed everything but the name. Read some history, and stop drinking the corporatist kool-aid, there's something funny in it.
  • by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @12:38PM (#12579679) Homepage Journal
    one that is slowly turning itself into a democratic monarchy - very much like the (gasp) British government.
    Oh, do fuck off. Both the US and the UK have undemocratic and unaccountable institutions at the heart of public life. The difference is ours is almost entirely ceremonial, and yours gets to decide the outcome of elections, despite the fact that every member of the Supreme Court is a political appointee (Here's a shock : on that most important issue, they voted on party political allegiances). Here in the UK, we stick to our old fashioned ways of democracy, like actually counting the ballots.
    The difference between Cuba and Saudi Arabia is that Saudi Arabia is willing to work with the US on making changes
    Err. No. Don't believe the hype.

    The Saudi's are still appalling violators of human rights, and the latest Amnesty International reports suggest they're not about to change. The difference between American treatment of Saudi Arabia and Cuba is based on two things :
    i) Cuba is near, and the spectre of a communist boogeyman still plays well with the US electorate.
    ii) Access to one of the world's largest reserves of oil is of more strategic importance than access to the world's best cigars.
  • by Kiryat Malachi ( 177258 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @12:39PM (#12579696) Journal
    I think the 46 years of blockade, economic warfare, and *military attacks* put paid to that debt a while ago, myself.
  • by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @12:43PM (#12579735) Homepage Journal
    You can have that money right after you give the Native American's their land back.
  • by thephotoman ( 791574 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @12:52PM (#12579841) Journal
    I don't know about the GP, but I personally can see how ownership is an artificial construct. Why does this land belong to me, other than the fact that it is currently in my possession and I have a piece of paper that says so?

    Ownership is a legalism that has no meaning without the appropriate laws. It's not really a privilege so much as the government created the institution of ownership in the forging of the social contract that makes the government legitimate.
  • by zoloto ( 586738 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @12:58PM (#12579906)
    don't start that bs again.
    Just because it's the only recent example of one people taking over a land that was inhabited by another people means nothing. It's the only one in recent history that people can, for some reason, blame the USA for and get away with it.

    If we had examples of other countries like the people of britian BEFORE the "britians" formed a country people would decry them as well, but since it's so long ago no one even cares. And that's my attitude about the natives... myself haveing a LOT of my own ancestory with them.

    The fact of the matter is, every people before the land they occupied became a country/territory as we see it today, was simply "owned" by someone else before them. Wars, countries uniting and dissolving were and will always be a fact of history.

    Now quit the rant about the Native Americans. They had their chance and time to rule over this continent... now it is ours for the next thousand years or so.
  • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:01PM (#12579940)
    She went to school one day, and the class was told to bow their heads and pray to God for some candy. After they did that, they waited for a while - no candy. Then the class was told to bow their heads and pray to Castro for candy - then a government worker handed each of them a piece of candy. Brainwashing starts in kindergarden in Cuba - she was in that class.

    Interesting. When I was at school in Britain, every morning we said a prayer to God. In America I believe your kids pledge allegance to the flag of the United States of America. Now you might just accept that as a normal thing, but from this side of the pond that looks rather like like "brainwashing starting in kindergarten."

  • by arashi no garou ( 699761 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:05PM (#12579994)
    The way America has bullied Cuba for years, simply because they disagree with it's political system is appaling.

    But keep in mind, America also disagrees with China's political system, and look how much business we do with them. It's not about politics, it's that the only thing worth importing from Cuba is the cigars. Without China, we wouldn't have most of the products that support our digital lifestyles.
  • by EatAtJoes ( 102729 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:11PM (#12580054) Homepage
    Yeah, and we're DEFINITELY not brainwashed at all here in the US. Just keep saying that to yourself.

    It's amazing how folks can moralize about Cuba and completely ignore US-sponsored atrocities everywhere else in Latin America. Who are you going to blame Haiti on? How do you justify our attempts to oust a thice-elected leader in Venezuela? Constant invasions of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama etc etc etc?

    The fact is, the US is an aggressive, militant empire that has it's boot on the neck of thousands of poor people across latin america. Castro may be an oppressive dictator, but he can't come close to matching the kind of bloodthirsty domination the US has wreaked.

    And don't get me started about the anti-Castro terrorists in Miami. Castro is a drop in the bucket, but here in the brainwashed US he's "worse than hitler".
  • by Quantum Fizz ( 860218 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:13PM (#12580081)
    The US policies against Cuba are bad for Cuba, but great for the rest of the world. It has left a Carribean island with great weather, great beaches, great cigars, affordable accomodations and best of all, NO Americans. It's like vacation heaven. Besides, none of you would like it there. Really.

    Well I'm glad you conceited snobs enjoy the embargo while the people of Cuba suffer because of it. The embargo severely cripples the Cuban economy, but hey, let's keep those people in poverty just so a few snobs like yourself can vacation on the Island free of American influences.

    Perhaps you're not aware that not only can the USA not trade with Cuba under the embargo, but any international vessel that trades with Cuba cannot trade with the USA on that same trip. So if you are trading anything, you will aim most of your travels to the USA, because the Cuban imports/exports will not add anythign appreciable.

    You may love keeping the embargo intact so you can take small vacations there like the conceited snob you are, but Cubans have alot of difficulty buying everyday necessities such as medicines, light bulbs, automobile parts, etc because of it.

    You may love great beaches and cigars, which explains your reasons for going. When I (a US citizen) went we brought tens of thousands of dollars worth of medicines that US hospitals were disposing because they were just past their expiration date (but still good for all intents and purposes). The hospitals we visited were extremely gracious for this, medicines are really in short supply there because of the embargo.

    You may like not dealing with Americans travelling in your little vacation paradise, but most cities are poorly lit, with only every 3 or 4 streetlights on. I thought at first this was to save electricity, but it's because they have a very short supply of light bulbs they can get through the embargo.

    You may love the antique cars still driving around (with ridiculous amounts of air pollution), but Cubans have tough times getting automobile parts through the embargo. That's why they still have many old cars from before the embargo was placed. They have tough times not only buying new cars but even replacement parts for old cars. But hey, let's keep them in this state just so you can go and visit this quaint island.

    It's funny how you dislike Americans so much, yet you're in reality far worse than the average American you despise so much.

  • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:15PM (#12580097)
    And in arguing that, you accept that Castro and his revolutionaries had a right to take the American owned land in Cuba away from the US. Lets face it he had far more justification, what him actually being Cuban and all.
  • Re:That's cool... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quantum Fizz ( 860218 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:23PM (#12580205)
    Cuba is poor, but most of that is due to the embargo. Their sugar industry virtually collapsed when the US imposed the embargo, that was a major source of income. That's also why sugar in the USA is priced higher, and why you see high-fructose corn syrup so prominently.

    You are right about having political murals around the country.

    You don't like improvised crutches, but then you should be against the embargo so they can get proper medicines and other health-care items.

    You are also right that the embargo works to Fidel's advantage, in that the tighter the US squeezes the more Fidel can rally the people.

    But you are wrong if you claim it's Fidel keeping the people poor, for the resources they have and the limited trading they can do with other countries, Cuba is a far more advanced nation than other similar countries.

    And the other thing is that everybody is equally poor - same access to education, health care, food, etc. Unlike nearly every other Latin American country, where the rich are super rich elites and the poor live in total abject poverty.

  • by Pentagram ( 40862 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:25PM (#12580242) Homepage
    Lenin referred to these people as "useful idiots".

    No he didn't. [slashdot.org]

    When a centralized authority assumes control of the resource, they own it.

    So the board of directors actually own companies, not the shareholders?
  • by Ochu ( 877326 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:26PM (#12580258) Homepage
    Actually, that appears to no longer be the reason for the embargoes. It is all about keeping in power... Think about it, how many Cubans have fled to the US, because they hated Castro? A sizeable number, I think there are about a million of Cuban origin there, and they all want to keep on punishing Castro with these sanctions. They will vote for whoever is most against Cuba. Now where exactly are they? Well, they couldn't have gone far, so what is the closest state to Cuba... why, Florida! Now can anyone name a state where a million undecided voters really, REALLY matters?
  • by JJ ( 29711 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:34PM (#12580353) Homepage Journal
    To answer your biggest question:

    No. Not surprised at all. I 'helped' a friend write a political science thesis on Cuba. Although you've reasonably well turned the clock back to 1934, you've come off as shallow because you haven't examined Cuban history very deeply. The Jones Costigan Act was meant to re-pay the costs of the Spanish-American War of 1898 in which the USA invaded Cuba and rid the Cubans of their Spanish overlords.

    By linking their economy intimately to that of the USA, the Cubans were buying their ongoing protection as well. Throughout the first half of the 20th century there were real or at least perceived threats from foreign European powers. Placating the neighborhood bully is a relatively common method of insuring your own safety.

    By the 50s, this system was becoming old. The Batista regime was becoming to arrogant, brutal and corrupt to recieve sympathy from the USA and the sugar producing states were developing. The Everglades was partially drained in the early fifties, producing wonderful sugar cane acreage.

    Cuba was ripe for revolution and the US was unwilling to prevent it.

    But for you to say, "Before 1959, Keynesian economics were more advanced in Cuba than in the United States." just shows the shallowness of your comprehension. Cuba was paying off an international debt and as a commodity producing nation had everything to benefit from stability in the commodity price. By throwing wide open the production, the revolutionary government obliterated that stability and forced their own nation into an economic tailspin which could only be rescued by joining the Soviet bloc. Soviet oil supported the Cuban economy for over 30 years, the Cuban people only managed to trade one master for another via revolution.

    Fidel, as a true socialist, deserves respect, but his economic background was in no way Keynesian.

    As usual the academic left tends to approach Cuba from an ideological standpoint without paying any attention to reality.
  • by nagora ( 177841 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:48PM (#12580491)
    Next up: Oil barons use MS Office to plan their raping of middle-eastern countries in the name of freedom.

    TWW

  • by rshoger ( 766169 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @01:50PM (#12580510)
    all you have to say when it comes to the US and South America is UFCO, and say it over and over.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:10PM (#12580786)

    Do the actions of the U.S. against Chile in 1970 justify the means used by Castro against his own people since before that time (1959) up till this day?

    Are you saying that you tolerate or even support the curbing of basic freedoms and human rights in Cuba because those things are necessary?

    Are you saying that Castro is justified in ignoring the rights in the constitution he himself had rewritten (i.e. Varela petition with 10000 signatures was ignored and the leaders imprisoned)?

    Are you saying that some dictatorships are justifiable because keeping a single leader in power for 46 years is the only way for smaller countries to defend their interests?

    Please use your press freedoms to denounce U.S. mistakes if you want, but please don't use them to help a loathsome government justify denying them to its own people. Such things are unnecessary and unjustifiable, and none of us should be supporting the curbing of basic freedoms anywhere, and much less for 46 years.

  • by Fished ( 574624 ) * <amphigory@gmail . c om> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:22PM (#12580929)
    That's what the US government want you to believe, yes. In reality it's because America is paranoid about communism even to this day.
    No, reality is that there is a sizable body of Cuban refugees, concentrated in Florida. These refugees (really immigrants now) want Castro punished, so he's punished. My "Tia Maria" (Adopted Aunt Maria) was a Cuban refugee, and she HATED Castro with a purple passion.

    Go back and take a look at the last few presidential elections and not how often Florida was a close state that could make or break a close election - and how many Cubans live in Florida. The reason we still have an embargo on Cuba is because nobody wants to take a chance of alienating these voters and losing an election because of it. It's got nothing to do with communism (which even most Republicans no longer see as a threat.)

    Kind of makes you think - if the Clinton administration had taken a more cynical tack in the Elliot Gonzales case, Gore might well have carried Florida in 2000, seeing as he only lost it by 300 votes or so.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @03:06PM (#12581419)
    Because the parallel illustrated by the "simple mind" was concise and worthy of the "Insightful" designation?

    There are no 100% "good" or "bad" countries. That is, there are good and bad people and policies everywhere you go.

    Some bad apples resulted in living, breathing, bleeding human beings being brutalized at Guantanamo. Bad. Same thing happens every day in (US) prisons. Bad. Some tin-pot 3rd-world dictator kills hundreds of thousands (Idi Amin, for example). Bad. The "leader of the free world" (*cough*), kills tens of thousands of civilians in a campaign against Iraq. Bad.

    Get it? Bad is bad. Whether you subscribe to moral relativism or absolutism, you can't get around that the US has dealt out quite a bit of "bad" in its 230-ish years on the global map.

  • Re:FUC#ING LIAR!!! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @03:12PM (#12581480)
    You are citing statistics which coincide with the end of the cold war, not just a change in the sanctions regime. Sanctions, as usual, have not accomplished the task, at some point, force will be necessary.
    I'm not going to accuse you of lying, because I think doing so is pretty amateurish. You have misrepresented the cause of your statistics.
    It could very easily be attributable to the lack of support provided by the USSR, not the sanctions.
    This is the typical leftist unthinking outrage, of course, so I wouldn't expect facts to stop you. :)
  • I think that there is a general understanding even here in the US that the sanctions on Cuba are both counterproductive and implimented in such a way as to hurt the generally innocent Cuban civillians. I think that most Americans would favor more trade with Cuba. The problem instead however is that the ages of the past seem to lie like a nightmare on the present, and what was once a cold-war imperial policy (the Cold War was an imperial chess game between two cultural and political empires, IMO).

    See here is the problem: During the Cold War, the US implimented a policy of helping Cubans who didn't much like Castro immigrate to the US, where they now make up an indispensible voting block on one of the most important states (Florida). In doing so, we have essentially imported Castro's oppoisition to the US, where they are now a formitable force. Sort of a tail wagging the dog....

    So now, anyone with presidential aspirations cannot afford to alienate this group. So while we can pursue free trade with China (which seems to be helping to force them to transform their economy to more of a market one), it is politically impossible to do this with Cuba.

    Furthermore, lets look at this idea of placating evil. I have only a few names to mention: Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Ho Chi Minh.... Each of these people have either been close US allies or CIA operatives. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Just like the Germanic tribes and the Romans, only former allies can beat the world's largest superpower. We saw that with Vietnam, and we may be seeing that today with Iraq.

    Today, things are probably a little better, but we still see issues with the regimes of countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia in terms of systematic oppression of their peoples. Yet these are still our current allies. China was left off the list because I don't think that they are really being seen as an ally at the moment. So I ask again, with friends like these who needs enemies?

    Interestingly if oyu look at Africa, those countries which during the cold war associated themselves with the USSR are now further in their transition to democracy than those dictatorships that the US propped up. Sometimes I think that we are our own worst enemy in these regards.

    Our embargo of Cuba is an anacronism, and a relic of days gone by which has unfortunately institutionalized itself. Free trade is the one weapon we could use with impunity against Castro and which his government could not withstand. Yet it is off the table because it is seen as placating him.
  • He is not nuts. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jotaeleemeese ( 303437 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @03:28PM (#12581630) Homepage Journal
    He is one of the most articulate politicians of the last century. You may fully disagree with him, but you can't challenge much his consistency.

    He is educated and cultivated, when he talks to friends he prefers to talk about literature, poetry and movies than about politics. He would put to shame most other world politicians on a debate or discussion, and very often does when given a chance.

    His ideology may be unrealistic but it is not irrational. Christianity is also irrational but follows a dogma. In general nobody calls the pope nuts for this reason.

    The failure to encourage Cuba to become a democracy has a lot to do with the underestimation of the capacity of Fidel Castro as a politician.

    Cuba would perhaps be a democratic country today if successive US goverments would have treated Fidel Castro as the able politician he is and offered him a dignified way out of his isolationism.

    The US have done so with far worst dictators.

  • by legojenn ( 462946 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @03:35PM (#12581715) Homepage
    I'm sure you'll get the cheque when descendants of Loyalists are refunded their money from the land taken from them after the US War or Independence.

    The UK forgave the US. Why can't the US forgive Cuba?

  • by glesga_kiss ( 596639 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @03:36PM (#12581726)
    You are just showing your stupidity and complete and utter brainwashing on the subject. Cuba begged the Ruskies for the nukes because the USA had invaded Cuba serveral times, and was conducting terrorist campaigns against them Google for "Bay of pigs" and "operation northwoods" to see what they were up against.

    And the only reason the Russians agreed? Because the US had nukes in Turkey pointing at Moscow. This is before ICBMs, so nukes had quite short ranges. Putting nukes on Cuba LEVELLED the playing field, as it was the first time Russia had the capability to get a nuke onto US soil without using vunerable (interceptable) bombers.

    And when it ended (thank JFK for that, stayed calm while others wanted to start WW3 then and there with a first-strike), the USA agreed to with draw it's missles from Turkey. A very powerful propaganda campaign then kicked into the make sure the US public didn't find out about the Turkey aspect, thus blaming Russia for the whole thing and making themselves look like the victors.

    So, in your own words, who's the "fascist foothold". I suggest you look up fascism in the dictionary. It likely says "see current US administration". Here's dictionary.com's take:

    1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

    2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

    "Dictator" is a funny one, as it's not one person. The US is ruled by the arms and oil industries, bush is just the public front-end. Take away the "dictator" from the definition and the US is practically the dictionary definion of it. If you speak out against it, you are "with the terrorists" or "un-American". The idea of this itself is so unAmerican it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that your nation is willing to kill thousands of people every single year for it's own benefit.

    There is no way that the US can EVER claim moral superiourity over Cuba. And keeping this bullshit ongoing for so many years is almost fucking childish!!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @03:40PM (#12581772)
    " You need to get your facts straight. You are saddling the people of america with the actions of CIA operatives during the fight against communism."

    You sit back and let them do it. Heck you even vote the people in. You don't get off the hook that easy.
  • by Quantum Fizz ( 860218 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @04:02PM (#12582032)
    I don't recall the majority of Cuban-Americans including new arrivals saying that the admire Castro.

    Brilliant logic, the people that emigrate from a country do tend to hate the government (or economy or other factors). You then extrapolate from extremely specific subset to all people.

  • by Quantum Fizz ( 860218 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @04:18PM (#12582238)
    I take it those residents wouldn't be the same ones who risk their lives fleeing TO the United States on rickety watercraft?

    Are you talking about Cubans risking their lives getting to USA on rafts? Or Mexicans, Guatemalens, Salvadorenos, crossing miles of desert for the same thing? Dick Cheney praised El Salvador in the VP Debates, yet Salvadorans constantly try to cross the border risking their lives. By your logic he just praised Cuba by proxy too, then.

    Additionally - the US Interest Section in Havana (kind of like an embassy, but not really since we don't have official relations) has been spreading propaganda about how great life in the USA is, how bad things are in Cuba, etc. That wouldn't have anything to with it either, would it?

    Every single country on the planet has had people emigrate from it. So there

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @04:32PM (#12582415)
    I'm American. I've been to Cuba. I went on a humanitarian visa with my brother-in-law, an ABC (American-born Cuban) and his father, who left Cuba in the 60s and then went back for his parents during the Mariel Boatlift (look it up).

    You are ignorant. It's possible you're not stupid, but it's obvious you don't have all the facts. Why? The Cuban government is very good at concealing the rest of Cuba from tourists like you. Cuba's economy is absolutely dependent on their ability to decieve tourists like you. You certainly wouldn't spend your freedom-loving vacation in squalor would you? Small resort towns are filled with happy and prosperous Cubans, the minority of the population. The best communists are given these best of jobs.

    Rent a car and drive 20 miles to the next nearest village, talk to the real Cubans, and the difference is night and day. Abject poverty, daily hunger, unhealthy living is the norm. The people are definitely not doing fine. Absolutely zero of those dollars that you spent on rum and cigars flows to anyone other than the regime. Guess what. Pump all those freedom-loving American dollars into the economy and guess where it's going to flow. To that same corrupt regime. An increase in money doesn't make the corrupt regime less corrupt. You know who know this? Cubans immigrants to the US. The most rabid supporters of trade embargoes are those Cubans who have managed to escape from Cuba to the US. They know what will happen if you support Castro.

    Further, your argument about past regimes is moronic and self-serving. I'll tell you what my dad told me when I came home with a B on my report card. I was tired of him griping at me that it wasn't an A, so I told him that there were plenty of other people in the class that got Ds and Fs (failing grades); at least I wasn't like them. He told me that in our family, we don't measure ourselves against the worst to make ourselves feel better, we compare ourselves with the best to make ourselves improve.

    Just because there is (or was) something worse, doesn't mean that we can ignore the current injustice. It is only a way of blinding yourself into inaction. You're selling your soul for the price of a daquiri. In America, we've made some mistakes, but we're holding Cuba to a higher bar.
  • by the gnat ( 153162 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @04:50PM (#12582612)
    I think that there is a general understanding even here in the US that the sanctions on Cuba are both counterproductive and implimented in such a way as to hurt the generally innocent Cuban civillians.

    And this isn't limited to hysterical lefties either. I think Communism is evil and Castro is a thug, but I also think our current policies punish the Cuban people for the crimes of their leader. Frankly, I'd rather we normalize trade relations and allow US citizens to visit. Flood the country with cheap American consumer goods, or let the exiles visit their families, and watch Castro's pathetic little utopia crumble.

    (By the way, the apparent success of Cuba's economic system was due in no small part to the massive subsidies it received from the Soviet Union for three decades. They're currently receiving free oil from Venezuela, since Chavez looks up to Castro. There was an immense propaganda value to having a "successful" Marxist state right on America's doorstep - seems to have worked pretty well, judging from some of the idiots here praising Castro.)

    those countries which during the cold war associated themselves with the USSR are now further in their transition to democracy than those dictatorships that the US propped up. Sometimes I think that we are our own worst enemy in these regards.

    You're right, but this doesn't necessarily mean the USSR did a better job fostering prosperity or democracy. What it really means is that as Communism collapsed, these nations had to find their own way without our "help". Apparently Vietnam is now full of Western companies and has a growing consumer economy. Which means we ended up winning the war after all, and didn't need to kill 50,000 Americans and three million Vietnamese to do it. Fuck.
  • The Real Cuba (Score:2, Insightful)

    by aaronlinux ( 885390 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @10:40PM (#12585465)
    After reading some of the comments, I couldn't help creating an account and posting this. Images can say a lot more than words. Visit www.therealcuba.com I'm cuban and it really hurts too see someone defending such cruel system (most of them not even know the truth about the country and everything its people - including my familiy and friends- go through each day)
  • by orzetto ( 545509 ) on Friday May 20, 2005 @04:26AM (#12586819)
    How much political dissent is allowed?

    Actually I forgot to mention that when I was in Cuba, it was a month or two after national elections. The system there is similar to California's: you can vote Yes to confirm those in power, or No and specify whom you would prefer to take power.

    Now, of course you may quote Grampa Josip about "it's not the people who vote that matter, it's the people who count the votes". I have no sources on whether elections are rigged and if the case to what extent. Yet, whereas I saw many more ads for Yes, the largest ad I saw was a roadside No, roughly the canonical 3×6 meters.

    European socialists (you know, the type with taxes > 50%)

    I live in Norway, considered to have the highest tax level on earth. My tax percent is about 25%. Those myths about 50% tax rate are (sometimes deliberate) misconceptions about marginal tax rate. For instance, in Norway, income beyond about 60,000 dollars is taxed at an higher percent.

    The US gov't's problem with Cuba is narrowly limited to its practice of oppression.

    Given the record of support for Saddam Hussein [gwu.edu], most southern-american dictatorships, the organization of the Escola de las Americas [wikipedia.org], arming the Contras in Nicaragua, frienship with the house of Saud, collaboration with the regime of Francisco Franco, and countless others (and I've kept myself to only a few over the last 50 years), your statement is laughable and is the result of overexposure to propaganda.

    The US are pissed at Castro because he nationalized US-owned cuban industries, that US businessmen had bought or started by doing business with the corrupt regime of Batista. The same way, the UK was pissed at Iraq since a long time, since Iraq had nationalized assets of BP a few decades ago. Formerly-rich cubans in Florida are a resource of votes in a swing state. Cuba is a former ally of the Soviet Union and therefore adversary to the US, and its leadership is unwilling to let US interests in. Talking about freedom of speech in Cuba takes away the focus from the freedom of speech at home. Really, it's all about the money.

    If there's a problem with US foreign policy, today as well as during the cold war, is that they rather protect American economic interests instead of what should be the American values (freedom of speech and the like, as you find them in the Constitution).

    One of the nasty side effects is that economic or strategic short-term gain is often to the detriment of the long-term: the US financed Mujahedeens in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, only to find them bringing down the WTC in New York. They knew they were fundies, they only cared they were shooting Russians and local Communists; it should be obvious that if he's a wacko, you should not hand him guns.

    Now, to take a leap: what is an example of a dictatorial regime currently sponsored by the US, that is full of fundie nuts? Well, that's Pakistan. Contrary to all previous situations, however, Pakistan has got nukes. If Musharraf ends like the Shah, we're in for some creepy times.

  • Re:Positive Image (Score:3, Insightful)

    by I confirm I'm not a ( 720413 ) on Friday May 20, 2005 @06:46AM (#12587244) Journal

    Uh, I can safely say the Cuban authorities *didn't* clean up the areas likely to be visited by foreign dignitaries, for the simple reason that much of what I saw was - how to put this politely? - a shit-hole. The shops were unstocked, the roads were badly in need of a resurfacing, and the cars varied between the "stretch-Zils" (take two decrepit Soviet cars, vut in two, weld together), modern Japanese imports that wouldn't survive their first service (lack of parts), the stereotypical 1950's Detroit classic held together with duct-tape and love, etc. As a patient, the healthcare, however, was excellent.

    Cuba is *not* the Soviet Union, anymore than the UK is the USA, or Canada is Mexico. Similarities in ideologies do not translate into identical economies, legal systems, etc.

    On the subject of foreign dignatries visiting, the G8 leaders will be visiting Scotland in July. Exactly how much of the real Scotland do you think they'll see? How many protesters will they see? My guess is very little and very few.

  • Re:That's cool... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PaxTech ( 103481 ) on Friday May 20, 2005 @08:52AM (#12588026) Homepage
    The topic of this article is Cuba. The OP posted some uninformed puffery about Cuba's stability. I pointed out that Castro maintains this stability by imprisoning librarians.

    You show up, and rattle off a list of US "crimes", having absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion. This is why it's impossible to talk to leftists about human rights. No matter what wrongness is being perpetrated in the world, you simply must bring the topic back to the US, your root of all evil.

    (Note: Some twat made became my foe, or made me a foe, or something, because of this discussion! Hello twat! Don't bother replying, unless you can somehow undo the -6 mod my foes automatically get.)

    I don't much blame them. You haven't made any kind of argument beyond rattling off boring rehashed Chomsky-esque propaganda, Nazi references and all. You're off topic and it's pointless to argue with you.

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Working...