Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' Raul's words
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Syria defiantly denies killings, as U.N. council meets
( 0 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 0 )
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
16 Comments
Login to comment
0
LFRAgain
The sooner Fidel shuffles off this mortal coil, the better things will be for all involved.
0
skipthesong
The sooner Fidel shuffles off this mortal coil"
and I bet you there will be a memorial for him somewhere near Nancy Pelosi's place commemorating him.
0
Helter_Skelter
Fidel needs to chill out. There's an appeaser in the White House now. Cuba's not going to have to make any concessions. It's all good.
0
TheQuestion
For years I've been under the impression that he was keeping alive by sucking out the souls of other cubans thoughout the island thus keeping himself in preternatural state of vitility while the rest of the country withers and dies. This would explain his uncanny ability to ward off natural death, the CIA, and whatever else has been thrown at the old tyrant. Now that the country has reached a point that calling it a dead husk of its former self would be a compliment perhapse he will finally die.
0
LFRAgain
Helter_Skelter,
If you're going to throw around the word "appeaser," a la Neville Chamberlain, at least take the time to learn the historical context with which it's associated. The negative connotation of "appeasement" that you are obviously parroting (because it's what Poppa Rush told you to say) has to do with appeasing an openly antagonistic foe in order to avoid an armed confrontation. Cuba is hardly antagonistic and is about as much a security threat to the United States as wet pasta. But when the word "communist" pops up on your radar, I suppose those little details don't really matter to you, do they? Go ahead. Continue to look silly.
0
Midnightpromise
LFRA, you not a student of history are you? Poor little Cuba, the island paradise that once hosted nuclear weapons aimed at the USA. And with Putin seeing a weak appeasing US president in the white house we would never think they might try it again would thay? I mean just cause they started landing strategic bombers in S. America already means nothing to such an astute study of history such as yourself does it?
0
Helter_Skelter
Seriously LFR, who's looking silly.
0
likeitis
What, 45 years ago? The history is hardly relevant to today. Besides, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a DIRECT result of American aggression, not the other way around. Ever heard of the Bay of Pigs? The U.S. Congress's authorization for the use of force against Cuba? (quite similar to the more recent one against Iraq which resulted in, whodathunkit, an invasion of Iraq!)
You could afford to spend less time in history textbooks despite your lapses there, and perhaps get a little more updated to today. The Soviet Union collapsed, Russian relations with Cuba are not what they were, Cuba no longer feels imminent threat from the U.S. (and I cannot tell you what a WHOPPER of a difference it makes when someone DOES NOT feel threatened. They are really less inclined to plant other country's nukes on their soil. Really.)
I cannot comment on this except to say that it takes two to tango. Even if that is true is some sort of real threat, we are far better off patching up relations with Cuba a.s.a.p. instead of continuing this bad joke of trying to destroy them by ignoring them. Anything we can do to prevent Cuba from joining into such a scheme as that is welcome. It might not work. But guess what? Staying the course will DEFINITELY fail.
And if this is true, I might remind you of three things: 1)The U.S. outspends Russia on defense by 6 times easy. 2) MAD is still in effect and 3) The U.S. has troops, bombers, tanks, you name it on three sides of Russia right now, a lot closer to Russia than S. America is to the U.S. So buck up little buddy and stop quaking in your boots so much about events a very long isthmus and a whole continent away.
0
likeitis
You don't even know the definition of the word "appease"!
You. And you would look even sillier if you tried to define "appease" on your own (without doing a cut and paste or looking it up), and then tried to relate that to anything Obama has said or done.
0
ca1ic0cat
Obama is going to have to be persistant with both Cuba and Iran to pursuade them that 30+ years of antagonism can be set aside. Old habits die hard. Perhaps Castro dying will help the process but it needs to continue in any case. Cuba is certainly no threat to the US. Iran may be a threat to stability but is probably sane enough to avoid catastrophy. NK is the only bunch of loons that might prefer distruction to compromise.
There is nothing to loose by trying; the effort is going to have to be consistant and long term.
0
LFRAgain
Midnightpromise, Helter Skelter,
There's mistaken and then there's just plain misinformation. Cuba didn't put those missiles in Cuba. The Soviets did. Unless you're trying to convince me that Cuba has or had a nuclear weapons program? And unless you missed the newsflash, the Soviet Union is long gone, the missiles are long gone, and so too are all the subsidies the Soviets sank into Cuba, hence the poverty.
Cuba poses no threat to the United States, militarily, economically, or politically. It hasn't since 1962, and even then only by proxy. It has made no overt threats to the United States, other than to defend itself, despite the United States funding a complex but failed coup against the Castro government in 1961 and maintaining to this day a naval base manned with over 9,500 Marines and sailors right on Cuban land. Cuba's military strength has dwindled from a high of 235,000 in the mid-90s to 60,000 in 2003.
So, please, explain to me how big and mean the Cubans are and how they've spent the better part of 4 decades threatening and terrorizing the citizens of the United States with promises of violence. Please, school me on the intricacies of US-Cuban relations, since you so very clearly have a handle on all the facts, including all the military threats Cuba has made against the United States over the past 40 years. Can’t wait for you to list them all here in order to make your case.
0
sailwind
Can't speak for Midnightpromise or Helter but I have to say trying to potry Cuba as a 'victim' of the big bad United States is also way off the mark.
The military threat since 1962. Fidel allowed the Soviet Union to use his nation as a proxy. That in itself was a military threat. he allowed the Soviets to land backfire bombers, station advanced Mig Fighters, and provided services to Soviet nuclear attack submarines and warships right in own backyard. In addition he allowed the Soviets to train not only his Army. With his Soviet trained Army then themselves trained and armed leftist back insurgents from all over South and central America. It cost the United States countless treasure just to contain his and Soviet ambitions in the region. It got so bad that the United States actually had to invade Grenada and fight the Cuban battalion that he put their to support the Maxist coup that had taken place with Cuba's backing and assistance. I could go on with even more specifics but to say Cuba was just sitting there and posing no military threat to the U.S all those years just isn't true. He was constantly testing how much the U.S would tolerate of his meddling in the region (see Grenada).
Economically........Well to say I sure wish we didn't have to spend all those billions of dollars that we did on Military support for other countries in the region, to help them defeat left wing insurgencies backed by him and the Soviets. I think that would be at least over a hundred billion dollars at least. Also his 'Mariel Boatlift' in 1980 when 180,000 of his 'happy citizens' took the chance to escape his Socialist paradise, but on heck of a strain on our economy in absorbing them. Not to mention he included almost all his criminals and mental health defectives as an extra gift to us in that gesture.
Politically, the United States has always had a Foriegn Policy of containment to Soviet ambitions they are intertwined with the economic impact and the military threat I've alluded to above.
But now to quickly address what I feel about American Cuba relations after the Soviets and now Fidel Castro is pretty much out of power (wish he'd croak pretty soon myself by the way). I think now is really time to ease the cold war mentality and rhetoric, and start moving toward a better relationship based on reciprocal steps. It seems Obama is doing that and I like his approach so far.
0
LFRAgain
Sailwind,
I'm not trying to paint Cuba as a victim of the US. I'm trying to put the situation into proper perspective. In any given conflict, we all want to be on the side of the angels, but when it really comes down to it, in all but the most extreme or obvious circumstances, right and wrong, good or bad, are very rarely black and white. I'm not going to venture a guess at your age, but I'm pretty confident that you figured out long ago that there are a whole lot more grays out there than absolutes.
Nuclear missiles? Almost half a century ago. Cuba hasn’t threatened the United States since. Which is the entire point of wanting the US government to try something different. It’s a different world now. It’s time for a different approach. And quite frankly, communism isn’t even remotely the threat we should be concerning ourselves with now.
And Grenada? You can’t be serious. The US had multiple chances to make Grenada an ally before the events that led up to the invasion (including helping build the “Soviet landing strip” that was used as one justification for the invasion, assistance that Grenada asked fro from the US, but was refused), but pissed away those opportunities with a juvenile, almost obsessive fear of “commies hiding under every bed.” Castro, BTW, didn’t even support the dictator whom US troops went in to depose, expressing strong, public and private support for the former leader, Bishop, who was later murdered by the very rebels the US had to fight. And that “battalion” of Cubans you mentioned? Fewer than 100 of the 750 Cubans in Grenada at the time were military personnel. And we won’t even get into the legal implications of the United States invading a British protectorate.
Heh heh! Sailwind, tell you what: I promise to continue to listen to and respect your opinions (well, except for that whole “investments” debate we got into a while back – sorry ‘bout that. I was mad.), if you promise not to think I’m naïve enough to believe “cause” means “effect” and vice a versa, a la your “economic threat,” argument.
Exactly. And by pursuing that policy of containment, it stands to reason that the US is prepared to accept the associated costs. Trying to lay the “containment” bill at the doorstep of Cuba is like trying to make your employer bear the costs of the car you use to drive to work.
I'm not surprised we both see the endgame the same way. I'd love to see the United States and Cuba get along. We have more in common than many would like to admit. But as you say, this Cold War rhetoric has simply got to die off, much like Castro, if anything is to change for the better.
0
goodDonkey
likeitis
Excellent comment at 04:12 PM JST - 23rd April.
Raul's words prove that Obama is using an effective approach and we will see the world respond in similar ways to Raul. I will bet in the final analysis we will see solutions that mimic Raul's comments much more than Fidel's retort.
0
sailwind
LRA
So am I. You are correct the world isn't black and white it is gray. Cuba pursued a foreign policy she believed was in her best interests (well not really I should say Fidel pursued on in his own self-interest, the Cuba people have pretty much had to suffer with it ever since). The United pursued a foreign policy that was her best interests. The two policies were incompatable in the context of cold war politics.
Actually he does if you think about it. If my employer didn't pay me enough to be able to afford a car and fill it up I wouldn't be able to even be his employee cause I couldn't get to work in the first place. He has to bear the costs by providing me enough salary income to afford a car in the first place. Which he absorbs and passes the cost on to the customer. Anyway on economics were just too opposite on our views. Though believe me I do respect your left of center tilt on the economic front, I just come from a fiscal conservative right of center spot, your not going to change my views on that and I'm sure your not going to change your Keynesian ecomic outlook. Though glad to see your not mad at me anymore :).
I appreciate that and I appreciate your response and respect for my attempt also of trying to bring a little more historical perspective into Cuban - U.S relations after the 62 missle crises (people also seem to forget how close we really came to a nuclear war then, by the way.)
0
teleprompter
Raul Castro is still chief of Cuba's secret police.
Back to top