Castro confirms Cuba will let U.S. aid team visit
- Thread starter unclepercy
- Start date
I see no hero worship here, jim, ridiculous or otherwise - people are simply pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of condemning Cuba's human rights record, whilst supporting Bush, and of expressing empathy towards the Cuban general population, whilst supporting the US embargo that impoverishes them.
Missle? I prefer NOT to speak to the choir. That's boring and self congratulatory and smug.
And HardLuck Henry, there definitely is an over-reaction to worshipping this new David against Goliath. All these posts extolling the awesome wonder of this New Man of the People is just a gushing enthusiasm.
It is way too soon to tell.
We'll see.
And HardLuck Henry, there definitely is an over-reaction to worshipping this new David against Goliath. All these posts extolling the awesome wonder of this New Man of the People is just a gushing enthusiasm.
It is way too soon to tell.
We'll see.
Hard-Luck Henry said:
You are joking Henry, correct? The Catholic Church has been persecuted in Cuba for decades. What makes you think the Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI supports ending the embargo against Cuba. I haven't heard any such thing. Quite the contrary, I would suspect the Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI to remain neutral on this issue.
No joke, James. You may be correct about Benedict, given his fascist background, but you wouldn't know, since you seem to be completely ignorant about the Vatican's stance on a lot of issues. John Paul II went on record several times to call for the lifting of the embargo, as did the Vatican's ambassador.
Here is one example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/50516.stm
Here is one example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/50516.stm
Hard-Luck Henry said:
The current Vatican administration in no way supports ending the Cuban embargo, Henry. Unless you show me evidence otherwise, the new Vatican administration will not appease Cuban officials that have systematically abused the Catholic Church.
James, I'm sorry to see that you have so little respect for the recently departed Pope's express views, but does your ignorance of your own Church really know no bounds? Relations between the Catholic Church and Cuba have been improving for over a decade. Even your own trustworthy msnbc has reported as much:
http://www.newsweek.co.uk/id/7359150/page/3/
Let's face it, it matters not what Ratzinger or the Vatican think where you're concerned - their view is only ever your view when it reflects your own vindictive, mean-spirited attitudes. Be big enough to admit that, rather than continually hiding behind somebody else's vestments.
http://www.newsweek.co.uk/id/7359150/page/3/
Let's face it, it matters not what Ratzinger or the Vatican think where you're concerned - their view is only ever your view when it reflects your own vindictive, mean-spirited attitudes. Be big enough to admit that, rather than continually hiding behind somebody else's vestments.
systematically abused the Catholic Church. 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O
Boy! talk about pot/kettle. Ehm....I think there are a few choir boys that might have something to say about that.
Boy! talk about pot/kettle. Ehm....I think there are a few choir boys that might have something to say about that.
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.
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.
Ocean Breeze said:
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.
gimmy back that wiskey ocean :twisted: 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 :wink:
Nascar_James said:
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. :x
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 said:
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.
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.
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.
anne applebam.. 8O 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. :roll: :roll:
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
Did these indivduals get their property back?? oh I see..uh huh..its different when another country does it :roll: :roll:
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. :roll: :roll:
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
Did these indivduals get their property back?? oh I see..uh huh..its different when another country does it :roll: :roll:
peapod said:
Don't bet on it peapod.............the bloke left Canada for the US.... (doesn't that speak volumes??? :wink:
(dang.......could not resist that one..... :wink:
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.