Castro confirms Cuba will let U.S. aid team visit


peapod
#31
gimmy back that wiskey ocean You gots that right! Nero does not care that cuba's model could actually save lives in a disaster...nope he just cares about calling him a commie, so ascared that somebody might touch his barrel of oil
 
Ocean Breeze
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

NJ......gotta tell ya.....you is scary. You have a hate/hard on ...for Chevey and Castro. and assuming you have the fecking right to do what you want in another nation has been one of the big causes for all the anger /rage/ and hate for the US.

Not sure why you make it YOUR fecking business to decide which nation needs a regime change when your own criminal quasi dictatorship is running YOUR country into the ground.

Or is this an attempt to redirect the attention from the mess in the bushevik regime onto others .......??

isn't this exactly how the neocon busheviks have been playing it?? misinformation, disinformation diversional tactics, layers of lies and their "justifications" (which are more fecking lies.

Sadly.........it seems that you have lost the right to criticize /condemn /or wish any leader ill health......as your own back yard is a cesspool right now. (in every shape and form) .......not that your collective arrogance will stop ya from interfereing ,meddling and messing around where you don't belong...........but where you want something.

Do you really think that SH would have been attacked, invaded .....and all the atrocities that followed........IF Iraq was not a motherload of resources.???

what the title of this thread suggests is that Castro is more amenable than bush would EVER be.

What is it with you guys that think you have to have your fecking way ALL the time...... or you just shoot /invade and destroy. At the rate things are going.....no other period in history / or criminal leader will hold a candle to what you are doing. What is really sickening.......is that in the current era .....humanity (particularly in the so called advanced nations ) should KNOW better. But it is glaringly apparent that there is nothing evolved, progressive in the humanoids of the u.s.......and the only aspect of your culture that has "advanced" is your lust /obsession / for and about military skills and toys. & KILLING ...


If you ever want to REGAIN any genuine respect.........you gotta start showing it to others.

Well Ocean, how can a country like Cuba have the gall to complain about our embargo against it when it still hasn't compensated us for property and assets seized after Castro took over? Could you answer this question?

TILL IT GIVES US BACK WHAT IT TOOK, CUBA HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ANY US EMBARGO.


It has every right to complain !! so does every other nation on this planet. The US has been screwing other nations around for yrs.

When YOU give BACK to Iraq all that YOU fecking well DESTROYED there.......the lives you took.......then you can bitch about something like this. Otherwise.......your bitching is hot air. YOU are NOT without blame in ANY situation that arises now. YOUR meddling fingers are all over the map.........and the world is royally and justifiably pissed off.

what is really pathetic is that so many in the u.s. could give one flying feck about anyone but themselves....and really believe they are invincible. Reality will hit hard.....and harsh.
 
Ocean Breeze
#33
"gimmy back that wiskey ocean"



(nearly all gone...
 
Nascar_James
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

YOUR meddling fingers are all over the map.........and the world is royally and justifiably pissed off.

A might touchy I see, Ocean. tsk tsk ...

World is pissed off at us? Is that why we are still the number one choice for immigrants around the world?

You don't see how the world thinks, so you can't speak for it.

Furthermore, there are countries like the UK, Australia, Poland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Romania, Denmark, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia ...etc) all part of the "Coalition of the Willing" that have supported us (and are still suporting us) on our global war on terrorism and in Iraq. Are these countries pissed off at us (as you say)? Funny way of showing it, by supporting us in Iraq.
 
Ocean Breeze
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

YOUR meddling fingers are all over the map.........and the world is royally and justifiably pissed off.

A might touchy I see, Ocean. tsk tsk ...

World is pissed of at us? Is that why we are still the number one choice for immigrants around the world?

You don't see how the world thinks, so you can't speak for it.

Furthermore, there are countries like the UK, Australia, Poland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Romania, Denmark, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia ...etc) all part of the "Coalition of the Willing" that have supported us (and are still suporting us) on our global war on terrorism and in Iraq. Are these countries pissed off at us (as you say)? Funny way of showing it, by supporting us in Iraq.

 
peapod
#36
no one can be that dense ocean...me thinks he is playing us
 
jimmoyer
#37
Actually neither of you might be as accurate as you can be about pro or anti-american attitudes:




washingtonpost.com
Who Are the Pro-Americans?

By Anne Applebaum
Post
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; A21



So familiar are the numbers, and so often have we heard them analyzed, that the release of a new poll on international anti-Americanism last week caused barely a ripple. Once again the Pew Global Attitudes Project showed that most Frenchmen have a highly unfavorable view of the United States; that the Spanish prefer China to America; and that Canadian opinion of the United States has sunk dramatically. And once again the polls told only half of the story. After all, even the most damning polls always show that some percentage of even the most anti-American countries remains pro-American. According to the new poll, some 43 percent of the French, 41 percent of Germans, 42 percent of Chinese and 42 percent of Lebanese say they like us. Maybe it's time to ask: Who are they?

In fact, when pro- and anti-American sentiments are broken down by age, income and education -- I did so recently using polling data from the Program on International Policy Attitudes, supplied by Foreign Policy magazine -- patterns do emerge. It turns out, for example, that in Poland, which is generally pro-American, people between the ages of 30 and 44 are even more likely to support America than their compatriots. This is the group whose lives would have been most directly affected by the experience of the Solidarity movement and martial law -- events that occurred when they were in their teens and twenties -- and who have the clearest memories of American support for the Polish underground.

It also turns out that in some more anti-American countries, such as Canada, Britain, Italy and Australia, people older than 60 have far more positive feelings about the United States than their children and grandchildren. This was the generation, of course, that had positive experiences of U.S. cooperation or occupation during World War II. And surely there's a lesson here: Although anti-Americanism is often described as if it were mere fashion, or some sort of contagious virus, America's behavior overseas, whether support for anticommunist movements or allied cooperation, does matter. To put it differently, people feel more positive about the United States when their personal experience is positive.

But the polls also make clear that direct political experience is not the only factor that shapes foreigners' perceptions of the United States. Advertising executives understand very well the phenomenon of ordinary women who read magazines filled with photographs of clothes they could never afford: They call such women "aspirational." Looking around the world, it is clear there are classes of people who might also be called aspirational. They are upwardly mobile, or would like to be. They tend to be pro-American, too.

In Britain, for example, 57.6 percent of those whose income are low believe that the United States has a mainly positive influence in the world, while only 37.1 percent of those whose income are high believe the same. Breaking down the answers by education, a similar pattern emerges. In South Korea, 69.2 percent of those with low education think the United States is a positive influence, while only 45.8 percent of those with a high education agree. That trend repeats itself not only across Europe but in many other developed countries. Those on their way up are pro-American. Those who have arrived, and perhaps feel threatened by those eager to do the same, are much less so.

In developing countries, by contrast, the pattern is sometimes reversed. It turns out, for example, that Indians are much more likely to be pro-American if they are not only younger but also wealthier and better educated, and no wonder. Because India has only recently been open to foreign investment, younger Indians have had the experience of working with Americans, whereas their parents have not. The poor in India are still untouched by globalization, but the middle and upper-middle classes -- those who see for themselves a role in the English-speaking, American-dominated international economy -- are aspirational, and therefore pro-American. Some 69 percent of Indians with high incomes think the United States is a mainly positive influence in the world, and only 29 percent of those with low incomes agree. This same phenomenon may also account for the persistence of a surprising degree of popular pro-Americanism in such places as Vietnam, Indonesia, Brazil and the Philippines. They're getting wealthier -- like Americans -- but aren't yet so rich as to feel directly competitive.

True, these pro-Americans may not be a majority, either in the world or in their own countries. But neither are they insignificant. Pro-Americans will vote for pro-American politicians, who sometimes win, even in Europe. They will also purchase American products, make deals with American companies, vacation in the United States if we give them visas to do so. They are worth cultivating, with presidential speeches or diplomatic visits, because their numbers may even grow if their economies expand, if their markets grow freer, if they begin to see the global economy as a promise and not a threat. Before Americans brush off the opinion of the "foreigners" as unworthy of attention, they should remember that whole chunks of the world have a natural affinity for them and, if they are diligent, always will. Happy Fourth of July.

A longer version of this article appears in the July/August issue of Foreign Policy magazine. The writer's e-mail address is applebaumanne@yahoo.com.
 
peapod
#38
anne applebam.. Ouch! and I thought gonda blow was harsh.

Here we go again, somebody get nurse ratchet and gives them boys a shot of bug juice. Your government, not the american people, have done more to destroy any hopes of spreading democracy in the world. Your government are liars, invaders and thiefs. They are in your face hypocrites, and at the end of the day jimmy all you do is whine about how everybody is pickin on you.

Ehm...tell me nero...the confiscation act of 1862, you know the one which of course was necessary for to combat the "ememy" real or imagined I guess :P
Did these indivduals get their property back?? oh I see..uh huh..its different when another country does it
 
Ocean Breeze
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by peapod

no one can be that dense ocean...me thinks he is playing us


Don't bet on it peapod.............the bloke left Canada for the US.... (doesn't that speak volumes???

(dang.......could not resist that one.....
 
Ocean Breeze
#40
Quote:

Actually neither of you might be as accurate as you can be about pro or anti-american attitudes

not sure anyone can be "accurate" about attitudes.....as this is totally subjective. An opinion poll is subjective........and is as mercurial as the mood changes on this planet. ....T's not hard science.
 
Hard-Luck Henry
#41
Anne applebaum, meet Margaret Drabble ...

I loathe America, and what it has done to the rest of the world
By Margaret Drabble
(Daily Telegraph: 08/05/2003)

"I knew that the wave of anti-Americanism that would swell up after the Iraq war would make me feel ill. And it has. It has made me much, much more ill than I had expected.

My anti-Americanism has become almost uncontrollable. It has possessed me, like a disease. It rises up in my throat like acid reflux, that fashionable American sickness. I now loathe the United States and what it has done to Iraq and the rest of the helpless world.

I can hardly bear to see the faces of Bush and Rumsfeld, or to watch their posturing body language, or to hear their self-satisfied and incoherent platitudes. The liberal press here has done its best to make them appear ridiculous, but these two men are not funny.

I was tipped into uncontainable rage by a report on Channel 4 News about "friendly fire", which included footage of what must have been one of the most horrific bombardments ever filmed. But what struck home hardest was the subsequent image, of a row of American warplanes, with grinning cartoon faces painted on their noses. Cartoon faces, with big sharp teeth.

It is grotesque. It is hideous. This great and powerful nation bombs foreign cities and the people in those cities from Disneyland cartoon planes out of comic strips. This is simply not possible. And yet, there they were.

Others have written eloquently about the euphemistic and affectionate names that the Americans give to their weapons of mass destruction: Big Boy, Little Boy, Daisy Cutter, and so forth.

We are accustomed to these sobriquets; to phrases such as "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" and "pre-emptive strikes". We have almost ceased to notice when suicide bombers are described as "cowards". The abuse of language is part of warfare. Long ago, Voltaire told us that we invent words to conceal truths. More recently, Orwell pointed out to us the dangers of Newspeak.

But there was something about those playfully grinning warplane faces that went beyond deception and distortion into the land of madness. A nation that can allow those faces to be painted as an image on its national aeroplanes has regressed into unimaginable irresponsibility. A nation that can paint those faces on death machines must be insane.

There, I have said it. I have tried to control my anti-Americanism, remembering the many Americans that I know and respect, but I can't keep it down any longer. I detest Disneyfication, I detest Coca-Cola, I detest burgers, I detest sentimental and violent Hollywood movies that tell lies about history.

I detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism about victories it didn't even win.

On April 29, 2000, I switched on CNN in my hotel room and, by chance, saw an item designed to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war. The camera showed us a street scene in which a shabby elderly Vietnamese man was seen speaking English and bartering in dollars in a city that I took to be Ho Chi Minh City, still familiarly known in America by its old French colonial name of Saigon.

"The language of Shakespeare," the commentator intoned, "has conquered Vietnam." I did not note down the dialogue, though I can vouch for that sentence about the language of Shakespeare. But the word "dollar" was certainly repeated several times, and the implications of what the camera showed were clear enough.

The elderly Vietnamese man was impoverished, and he wanted hard currency. The Vietnamese had won the war, but had lost the peace.

Just leave Shakespeare and Shakespeare's homeland out of this squalid bit of revisionism, I thought at the time. Little did I then think that now, three years on, Shakespeare's country would have been dragged by our leader into this illegal, unjustifiable, aggressive war. We are all contaminated by it. Not in my name, I want to keep repeating, though I don't suppose anybody will listen.

America uses the word "democracy" as its battle cry, and its nervous soldiers gun down Iraqi civilians when they try to hold street demonstrations to protest against the invasion of their country. So much for democracy. (At least the British Army is better trained.)

America is one of the few countries in the world that executes minors. Well, it doesn't really execute them - it just keeps them in jail for years and years until they are old enough to execute, and then it executes them. It administers drugs to mentally disturbed prisoners on Death Row until they are back in their right mind, and then it executes them, too.

They call this justice and the rule of law. America is holding more than 600 people in detention in Guantánamo Bay, indefinitely, and it may well hold them there for ever. Guantánamo Bay has become the Bastille of America. They call this serving the cause of democracy and freedom.

I keep writing to Jack Straw about the so-called "illegal combatants", including minors, who are detained there without charge or trial or access to lawyers, and I shall go on writing to him and his successors until something happens. This one-way correspondence may last my lifetime. I suppose the minors won't be minors for long, although the youngest of them is only 13, so in time I shall have to drop that part of my objection, but I shall continue to protest.

A great democratic nation cannot behave in this manner. But it does. I keep remembering those words from Nineteen Eighty-Four, on the dynamics of history at the end of history, when O'Brien tells Winston: "Always there will be the intoxication of power… Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

We have seen enough boots in the past few months to last us a lifetime. Iraqi boots, American boots, British boots. Enough of boots.

I hate feeling this hatred. I have to keep reminding myself that if Bush hadn't been (so narrowly) elected, we wouldn't be here, and none of this would have happened. There is another America. Long live the other America, and may this one pass away soon."
 
Ocean Breeze
#42
good job H.L.Henry.
 
Nascar_James
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Actually neither of you might be as accurate as you can be about pro or anti-american attitudes:




washingtonpost.com
Who Are the Pro-Americans?

By Anne Applebaum
Post
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; A21



So familiar are the numbers, and so often have we heard them analyzed, that the release of a new poll on international anti-Americanism last week caused barely a ripple. Once again the Pew Global Attitudes Project showed that most Frenchmen have a highly unfavorable view of the United States; that the Spanish prefer China to America; and that Canadian opinion of the United States has sunk dramatically. And once again the polls told only half of the story. After all, even the most damning polls always show that some percentage of even the most anti-American countries remains pro-American. According to the new poll, some 43 percent of the French, 41 percent of Germans, 42 percent of Chinese and 42 percent of Lebanese say they like us. Maybe it's time to ask: Who are they?

In fact, when pro- and anti-American sentiments are broken down by age, income and education -- I did so recently using polling data from the Program on International Policy Attitudes, supplied by Foreign Policy magazine -- patterns do emerge. It turns out, for example, that in Poland, which is generally pro-American, people between the ages of 30 and 44 are even more likely to support America than their compatriots. This is the group whose lives would have been most directly affected by the experience of the Solidarity movement and martial law -- events that occurred when they were in their teens and twenties -- and who have the clearest memories of American support for the Polish underground.

It also turns out that in some more anti-American countries, such as Canada, Britain, Italy and Australia, people older than 60 have far more positive feelings about the United States than their children and grandchildren. This was the generation, of course, that had positive experiences of U.S. cooperation or occupation during World War II. And surely there's a lesson here: Although anti-Americanism is often described as if it were mere fashion, or some sort of contagious virus, America's behavior overseas, whether support for anticommunist movements or allied cooperation, does matter. To put it differently, people feel more positive about the United States when their personal experience is positive.

But the polls also make clear that direct political experience is not the only factor that shapes foreigners' perceptions of the United States. Advertising executives understand very well the phenomenon of ordinary women who read magazines filled with photographs of clothes they could never afford: They call such women "aspirational." Looking around the world, it is clear there are classes of people who might also be called aspirational. They are upwardly mobile, or would like to be. They tend to be pro-American, too.

In Britain, for example, 57.6 percent of those whose income are low believe that the United States has a mainly positive influence in the world, while only 37.1 percent of those whose income are high believe the same. Breaking down the answers by education, a similar pattern emerges. In South Korea, 69.2 percent of those with low education think the United States is a positive influence, while only 45.8 percent of those with a high education agree. That trend repeats itself not only across Europe but in many other developed countries. Those on their way up are pro-American. Those who have arrived, and perhaps feel threatened by those eager to do the same, are much less so.

In developing countries, by contrast, the pattern is sometimes reversed. It turns out, for example, that Indians are much more likely to be pro-American if they are not only younger but also wealthier and better educated, and no wonder. Because India has only recently been open to foreign investment, younger Indians have had the experience of working with Americans, whereas their parents have not. The poor in India are still untouched by globalization, but the middle and upper-middle classes -- those who see for themselves a role in the English-speaking, American-dominated international economy -- are aspirational, and therefore pro-American. Some 69 percent of Indians with high incomes think the United States is a mainly positive influence in the world, and only 29 percent of those with low incomes agree. This same phenomenon may also account for the persistence of a surprising degree of popular pro-Americanism in such places as Vietnam, Indonesia, Brazil and the Philippines. They're getting wealthier -- like Americans -- but aren't yet so rich as to feel directly competitive.

True, these pro-Americans may not be a majority, either in the world or in their own countries. But neither are they insignificant. Pro-Americans will vote for pro-American politicians, who sometimes win, even in Europe. They will also purchase American products, make deals with American companies, vacation in the United States if we give them visas to do so. They are worth cultivating, with presidential speeches or diplomatic visits, because their numbers may even grow if their economies expand, if their markets grow freer, if they begin to see the global economy as a promise and not a threat. Before Americans brush off the opinion of the "foreigners" as unworthy of attention, they should remember that whole chunks of the world have a natural affinity for them and, if they are diligent, always will. Happy Fourth of July.

A longer version of this article appears in the July/August issue of Foreign Policy magazine. The writer's e-mail address is applebaumanne@yahoo.com.

Good points Jim. I had noticed that countries with pro-US leaders like Australia's John Howard and Italy's Rudy Berlosconi tend to have a favorable opinion of the US.
 
Ocean Breeze
#44
Quote:

Italy's Rudy Berlosconi tend to have a favorable opinion of the US.


interesting as he and Italy are saying that they WARNED bush about the Invasion (Iraq) and the consequences that would /might play out.

Don't know about Howard.......as he might still be enthalled by being a US lap dog . It all depends on what is in it for him.
 
Hard-Luck Henry
#45
Which points are good James? it's just highly speculative nonsense. For instance, this idea that the more affluent, better educated members of a population "feel threatened" by the aspirations that the US is supposed to encourage?

Look at these stats:

The Pew Center for People and the Press reports that in European nations that have traditionally had more positive views of the U.S., such as Great Britain, Germany, Poland and Italy, the U.S. image has plummeted. From 2000 to 2003, positive views of the U.S. dropped from 83% to 48% in Britain, 78% to 25% in Germany, 76% to 34% in Italy and 86% to 50% in Poland (Pew Research Center, March 2003).

That's an awfully large and very sudden drop in positive views. Have these " more educated" people only just realised this supposed threat exists? Of course not. Could it, then, be connected to something else? Hmmm ...

Here's what people are really afraid of:

In a survey conducted in Europe in October 2003, it was reported that 53% of 7,515 respondents said that the United States was a threat to world peace.
 
Ocean Breeze
#46
Quote:

Here's what people are really afraid of:

In a survey conducted in Europe in October 2003, it was reported that 53% of 7,515 respondents said that the United States was a threat to world peace.


indeed. and this is exactly how the u.s. wants it. It empowers them ....... as just the idea of nations being afraid .....gives them that same euphoric power ............ that the terrorists get from their "threat".

who is the biggest threat on this planet??? U.S. or terrorists??? A no brainer. The U.S. ........and just as the terrorists use the fear factor to "control" .......so does the us busheviks.


............and that was '03. Wonder how it stands now. Wonder too, which is more pronounced : fear or anger......at the u.s.??
 
jimmoyer
#47
Good points, Hard Luck Henry.

I was only trying to introduce further thinking on the subject rather than just seeing one side cancel the other as usual on this board.
 
Martin Le Acadien
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by missile

I don't remember Britain getting any compensation from you for the revolutionary War or Spain getting anything for Texas and California. But that's different ,isn't it?You won those battles

O forsooth, my Acadian friend, let us review history if we shall:

1. The Treaty of Paris (1783) set up a commission to examine all claims on both sides and pay "war" damages. The treaty gave a 2 year grace period for the submission of claims and allowed the any parties to submit claims for property confiscated by either side! The loyalist who wish to move were allowed free passage and property rights were to be respected and likewise if any sympathizers on the British side wish to move South, their freedom was assured in that manner likewise. The US govt assumed all claims against the British Govt in the 13 colonies and the British govt did likewise in the North.

2. Spain did not own Texas at the time of the "Texas Revolution" in 1836, since Texas was part of the State of Coahuila Y Tejas in the Republic of Mexico. Spain had given Mexico its independence in 1821 and reliquished all rights to Tejas.

The Texas Revolution was technically carried out by Citizens of the Republic of Mexico since all the people living in Texas had to be Mexican Citizens to own land or vote! (Also they had to be Catholic, too!) The Texas Republic was formed by the Texicans who from 1836 to 1845 had an independent republic! The British Govt recognized Texas and maintained an Embassy in Austin! So did the French, the British Consulate is still in the same building!

Texas entered the union as a soveriegn nation under treaty and can leave the union if she wishes by that treaty! The United States ASSUMED ALL THE DEBT OF THE TEXAS REPUBLIC! This includes payment for Mexican Claims.

3. The southwest US was conquered but the treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo paid the Mexican govt $48 million dollars and the US assumed all Mexican govt debt in the Territories. (Later calculated at over 1/2 Billion Dollars!

4. The Gadsen Purchase in 1853 from Mexico cost the US 53 Million dollars and was a sliver of land on the Southern Boundary completing the present Continental bounaries of the lower 48 bought to complete the southern railway link. The US assumed all debts of Mexico for this little fiasco, also!

5. Missle, did I forget about the treaty of 1818 by which the US & Canadian Border was fixed in the East and set up the Boundary Commission. By 1842, the border was fixed at 49 N with some US ceeded to Great Britian and some ceeded to the US to work it out! If not, Lethbridge, Alberta would have been in the US and ST. Paul, Minnisota would have been in Canada!

Now since all is forgiven, lets talk about Acadien Land claims and Ethnic Cleansing, shall we! The US and Canada have assumed the former claims of their imperial parent and should be willing to pay off!
 

Similar Threads

13
Castro successors keep Cuba on stable track
by canadarocks | May 3rd, 2019
23
A New Cuba?
by Twila | Jul 27th, 2007
2
Castro and Communism ending>?
by sine000 | Aug 20th, 2006
1
Castro and Petty Cash
by I think not | May 5th, 2006