Slashdot Mirror


Cuba Getting Internet Upstream Via Venezuela

An anonymous reader writes "Seems like Cuba is working around the US internet embargo by teaming up with Venezuela: A confidential contract released yesterday on Wikileaks reveals Cuba's plan to receive internet upstream via an undersea cable to Venezuela, thus circumventing the enduring embargo of the US, denying Cuba access to nearby American undersea cables and overcoming the current limits of satellite-only connectivity. The connection, to be delivered by CVG Telecom of Venezuela, is to be completed by 2010 and will provide data, video as well as voice service for both the public and governmental services."

486 comments

  1. Surprised? by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I figured they arranged for something like this years ago.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No kidding. It is only a couple hundred miles of submarine cable. The only reason that I can think that it wasn't done sooner might be because Cuba's credit is so bad (due to refusal to pay contracts) that nobody was willing to do the job without cash upfront.

    2. Re:Surprised? by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What amazes me is WHY would the USA government have been involved in such socialistic crap such as embargoes, rather than letting the citizenry sample the good and bad of all and choose for themselves. Unless of course, one notes that a citizen is another term for a "loyal subject"... an "oath of citizenship" is the same thing as the "oath of fealty" once was.

      Amusing, yes, very amusing. Too bad it takes all of us so long to learn all this.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    3. Re:Surprised? by baldass_newbie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the USA government have been involved in such socialistic crap such as embargoes, rather than letting the citizenry sample the good and bad of all and choose for themselves

      I don't think the USA gets a choice in what the good people of Cuba see or don't see. I think the Cuban government does and jails those who try to shine the light.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    4. Re:Surprised? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, considering the Bay of Pigs, the attempts to assassinate Castro, and all the other plots, maybe it's time for the US to formally renounce such stupid behaviour.

      Then again, I don't think pigs are going to fly any time soon, either ...

    5. Re:Surprised? by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You probably haven't noticed all the restrictions in place to travel to Cuba, have you? USA nationals/citizens are denied a LOT of the freedom they are proclaimed to have. Technically if our government was OUR government then it wouldnt' distrust us to make up our own minds about "good" or "evil", would they?

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    6. Re:Surprised? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I figured they arranged for something like this years ago.

      They didn't need it until recently because until recently very few people were allowed to even have Internet (or cell phones or many types of things that allow people to communicate with the outside world).

      Remember this is Cuba we're talking about, not some free Socialist utopia...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:Surprised? by chill · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I was thinking about Raul and Fidel and some cigar pr0n addictions. Pics of Monica Lewinski acting as humidor to the President of the United States has to command some serious pesos down there.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    8. Re:Surprised? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I think they could probably get access to the Internet if they wanted, just like Kim Jong Il apparently does.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    9. Re:Surprised? by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      tomhudson

      I think you misspelled Jimmy Carter.

      But I agree - The embargo is idiotic. We (the U.S.) screwed up the same way in Iran. The people liked us shortly after the revolution and blue jeans and MTV could have really made for a good relationship, in my arm-chair general opinion. (Disclaimer - the notion that the general populace liked the U.S. comes from a single native Iranian who was teaching a Programming Patterns course that I attended, and I chose to believe him. Fell free to correct me.)

      Cuba is similar - Give 'em YouTube, uncensored Google, porn, Wikipedia, streaming reality TV and show 'em the stuff that a lot of people in the world enjoy (for whatever reasons). It'll do a lot more good than what we've tried so far...

      On a side note, if you're willing to drag a floaty toy to the beach and paddle your ass to Florida, I say we turn our heads and let you stay - You're obviously more dedicated to being an American than most of the folks that were born here.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    10. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was in response to the seizure of US companies in Cuba. The original plan was to lift the embargo when those companies were compensated for their losses. Eventually it was maintained due to human rights issues and Cuba's alliance with the Soviet Union. Carter lifted it during his Presidency, but Reagan reinstated it stating that no progress had been made and that Cuba had no intention of changing itself. It would have probably have been lifted during Clinton's second term if Cuba hadn't shot down the Hermanos al Rescate planes. After that incident, the Cuban vote in Florida solidified in support of the embargo.

    11. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Do you actually understand the reasoning that brought Castro to power in Cuba? I suggest you learn what it is Castro DIDN'T want in Cuba... HINT: Americans.

    12. Re:Surprised? by Curtman · · Score: 5, Funny

      it wouldnt' distrust us to make up our own minds about "good" or "evil", would they?

      That's what is great about GWB.. He'll just come right out and tell you who the evildoers are. You don't have to worry about whether they are evildoers. He's got it all figured out. The plan is well into action, and everything will be rectified, justice will be served real soon now.

    13. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking IDIOT, they HAD access vis sat dishes. CAN YOU FUCKING READ? Holy shit, Sherlock!

    14. Re:Surprised? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmmm... Lets see... Which is the better way to get rid of a dictatorship A) don't allow any material into the country that tells of a better life or B) Flood Cuba's shores with artists, with musicians, give them Google, and the Wikis, give them /., blogs, The Pirate Bay, give them an uncensored internet and things start working themselves out. Think of it this way, if after we nuked Japan, we didn't help rebuild, and still called it evil, Japan would have most likely rebuilt a dictator-style empire. But we didn't do that, we gave them animation which turned into Anime, we gave them our technology which was taken and now Japan is a leader in technology. We could have done the same with Cuba, but instead we preferred to call names and run and hide.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    15. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fell free to correct me.

      *Feel

    16. Re:Surprised? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      What amazes me is WHY would the USA government have been involved in such socialistic crap such as embargoes, rather than letting the citizenry sample the good and bad of all and choose for themselves.

      Because it's not about keeping the citizenry from sampling. It's about economic pressure.

      Granted - the original reasons for the embargo may no longer hold true. You could even argue that history has shown that the overall strategy was flawed. The policy offers a lot for critics to focus on.

      But if you're going to be critical of the policy, at least educate yourself about it. Or, having been educated, be honest about it.

    17. Re:Surprised? by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Cuba is similar - Give 'em YouTube, uncensored Google, porn, Wikipedia...

      Exactly. give them what Jerry Pournelle calls "weapons of cultural mass destruction" and let those weapons do their job. Within a few years, either the Cuban government will lighten up, or the people will throw them out when they realize how much better their lives could be. People are only willing to put up with repressive regimes if they don't know there's anything better out there, which is why countries like Cuba, Iran and North Korea limit the amount of information about the rest of the world that their people can get their hands on.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    18. Re:Surprised? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They didn't need it until recently because until recently very few people were allowed to even have Internet (or cell phones or many types of things that allow people to communicate with the outside world). Remember this is Cuba we're talking about, not some free Socialist utopia...

      But honestly, if you are going to control people, the internet would be an excellent tool to have. Think about it, educate people in public schools that you go to *insert government controlled website here* to search for everything. Use that to give people propaganda, and replace popular search engines such as Google and Yahoo with Cuba-controlled ones that look like Google and act like Google but only searches the government sites. For just about anything else, just put a generic error such as a "time out error". The best way to control the public isn't to make it look like they have such a horrible life, but that they believe they have the best life out there so there is no use trying to find a better life.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    19. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read that somewhere? or did you learn everything you know about Cubans from Scarface?

    20. Re:Surprised? by jaxtherat · · Score: 1

      Please mod parent up. For better or for worse (depending on your point of view), this is exactly what the west managed to do to the USSR.

      --
      http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
    21. Re:Surprised? by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you... That may be the most ironic (flag the def. of irony nazis) typo I've had. Especially since my post started with "I think you misspelled..."...

      Damn you spell-checker that only knows the proper spelling of dictionary words and not what I meant to say!!!

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    22. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget you also gave Japan censorship which still lives on today.

      In effect it means you can also be blamed for Japan's obsession with tentacle-pr0n among other fetishes.

    23. Re:Surprised? by Skreems · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how much I believe this, but I've heard from several sources that the reason ex-pat Cubans in Florida want the government gone is so they can get back their ancestral estates, which are currently property of the government / public. The ones who left were the landowners who admittedly get the short end of the stick under Communism. Of course Donald Trump and Bill Gates (or at least their equivalents) want the embargo to continue.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    24. Re:Surprised? by Zebai · · Score: 1

      I know someone who travels to cuba every 4 or 5 years as a missionary/humanitarian of sorts, albeit she has to take a non direct route of travel. The US State dept is fully aware of what she's doing and they "advise" her many times that she should not do it. They can't do a damn thing about it unless she brings stuff with her to there or back from there to the US. If there is something that they can do it about I would of assumed they would have by now.

    25. Re:Surprised? by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Within a few years, either the Cuban government will lighten up, or the people will throw them out when they realize how much better their lives could be. People are only willing to put up with repressive regimes if they don't know there's anything better out there, which is why countries like Cuba, Iran and North Korea limit the amount of information about the rest of the world that their people can get their hands on.

      Actually, according to a Mr. Moore documentary that I saw not too long ago, it's the U.S. government that's limiting our access to know how good life is in Cuba. If I understood his statements correctly, part of the reason that the U.S. is cutting Cuba off is to keep the U.S. populace from learning how socialized health care turns Cuba into such a paradise and keeps us from demanding it.

      Not trying to weigh in on socialized heath care, just trying to troll based on a complete BS Moore line implying that the US is trying to prevent it's citizens from learning about the beautiful life Cubans enjoy thanks to socialized health care. Cheers.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    26. Re:Surprised? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Switch to decaff. And go outside for a while. This is the internet and I'm just some anonymous commenter. If my comments are making you that angry, you are taking it too seriously.

      YHBT by the way, albeit inadvertently.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    27. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the US is trying to prevent it's citizens...

      Damn it... s/it's/its... I've been drinking...

      -gnick

    28. Re:Surprised? by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not trying to endorse either the Cuban lifestyle or Michael Moore here, but that is actually partially true. The Cuban healthcare system runs far more efficiently than the one in the US, at least as far as the numbers are concerned.

      For example, the average life expectancy of a Cuban (77.23 years) is roughly on par with the average life expectancy of an American (78.1 years), but the Cuban government spends ~US$5/year/person on healthcare. In comparison, the amount spent in the US on healthcare (by individuals, government, businesses, etc..) is ~US$7200/year/person.

      Given that they have embargoes on American medical technology, doctors, etc.. they must be doing something right.

      Disclaimer: I'm from a country which has a nationally supported healthcare system alongside a private system, and they seem to work equally well together. I also don't understand why so many Americans hate Cuba so much..

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    29. Re:Surprised? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      We should beam Jerry Springer into the enemy territory 24-7:

      Je-Ry!!
      Je-Ry!!
      Je-Ry!!

      They ain't got a prayer.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    30. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are of course ignoring the fact that Cuba wanted to launch missiles tipped with nuclear warheads at the U.S. during Kennedy's presidency.

      Maybe the U.S. has had good reason to act the way it has.

    31. Re:Surprised? by spisska · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But honestly, if you are going to control people, the internet would be an excellent tool to have. Think about it, educate people in public schools that you go to *insert government controlled website here* to search for everything. Use that to give people propaganda, and replace popular search engines such as Google and Yahoo with Cuba-controlled ones that look like Google and act like Google but only searches the government sites.

      Yeah. That might work. Just because Cubans are clever enough to set up and run samizdat thumb drive networks doesn't mean that they'll find out about the onion net.

      And cesnsorship and state control of media worked pretty much flawlessly in the old Soviet bloc. I mean everybody there was pretty well convinced that Soviet communism was the greatest thing ever, Moscow was the center of the universe, and that they had absolutely the highest living standard on earth. That's why it was such a shock to everyone in 1989 when Reagan singlehandedly punched through Berlin Wall and gave everyone a case of Coke and a two-year subscription to Playboy.

      We all know how solid China's great firewall is. No way around that puppy, you'd better believe it.

      And of course the real goal of the US isn't to prevent companies from doing business in Cuba in contravention of the law (however stupid you think that law may be), but to actually prevent Cubans from getting any information at all. That's probably why there are honking big transmitters in Florida broadcasting news 24-7 towards Cuba.

      Castro's done a great job of blocking all that information. Nobody in Cuba has ever heard of El Duque, for example, or Alexei Ramirez. Both of their families still believe the official explanation that they accidentally drowned themselves while shaving.

      Indeed we all know that controlling information is much like building a dam: It's very cheap and easy to do, it takes hardly any effort to maintain, and it's virtually indestructible. And the best way to control the flow of water through a dam, much like controlling the flow of information, is to drill a very small hole and use a finger to carefully control how much gets through. Information, like water, tends to stay put and hates to travel.

      I cannot possibly see any problems with your plans for CubaNet. Sure, the richest and most ruthless software company on the planet has spent 10 years and billions of dollars trying and utterly failing to come up with something "that look[s] like Google and act[s] like Google". But with a decent project manager Cuba should have the whole thing up and running within about six weeks or so. That'll show those yanqui bastards what's what.

    32. Re:Surprised? by azgard · · Score: 1

      I doubt that Cuba has enough resources to control the internet this way effectively. China may have, but in Cuba, it will be probably controlled by hardware and connection access, than by firewalls and propaganda.

    33. Re:Surprised? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I think the intent is to keep us from going there and spending money. Hence the term embargo. You're reading too much into it if you think they don't want us going there for any other reason.

      I do agree that the embargo is retarded. It should have ended with the Soviet Union.

    34. Re:Surprised? by gnick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not trying to endorse either the Cuban lifestyle or Michael Moore here, but that is actually partially true. The Cuban healthcare system runs far more efficiently than the one in the US, at least as far as the numbers are concerned.

      For example, the average life expectancy of a Cuban (77.23 years) is roughly on par with the average life expectancy of an American (78.1 years), but the Cuban government spends ~US$5/year/person on healthcare. In comparison, the amount spent in the US on healthcare (by individuals, government, businesses, etc..) is ~US$7200/year/person.

      Given that they have embargoes on American medical technology, doctors, etc.. they must be doing something right.

      Disclaimer: I'm from a country which has a nationally supported healthcare system alongside a private system, and they seem to work equally well together. I also don't understand why so many Americans hate Cuba so much..

      Neither do I support the embargo. It was a bad idea that has demonstrated itself as a failure. And I'm not sure that (educated & intelligent) Americans really have a problem with Cuba (they're cool by me) - That doesn't necessarily include our legislators. But, my life expectancy would go up if I could afford neither steak nor beer. Instead, I'm sitting here well-fed, half-drunk, and on an uncensored internet connection (at least as uncensored as most of the world - and I have no objection to most of what people are being arrested for).

      I'd still rather pay less for my medical insurance - Especially since the patents I'm paying for are being ignored on both my Canadian and Mexican borders. But socialism and capitalism are both nice ideas in theory. I just think that the US & Cuba are bad examples on either side. I'd love to find a country that's figured out how they should be balanced and needs a MSEE grad with PM experience that can look past a late-night semi-inebriated /. post...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    35. Re:Surprised? by Warll · · Score: 1

      But we didn't do that, we gave them animation which turned into Anime,

      Oh yes leave to a geek to list anime first when making a list regarding the great things about Japan.

    36. Re:Surprised? by niktemadur · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Considering the Bay of Pigs, the attempts to assassinate Castro, and all the other plots, maybe it's time for the US to formally renounce such stupid behaviour.

      You got that right.

      Whenever I hear or read about the Cuba embargo, I am instantly reminded of a story Pierre Salinger (Press Secretary to John F Kennedy) used to tell:

      One day, Salinger is summoned to the Oval Office, where JFK tells him "Pierre, I want you to go out and buy as many Petite Upmanns as you can" - "Yes, Mr President".

      Next day, Salinger goes back into the Oval Office. "Well, Pierre?" JFK asked. "We rounded up (several hundred, can't remember the exact number) through our contacts all over the country, Mr President".
      JFK let out a reluctant sigh, opened the top drawer of his desk, pulled out the Cuban embargo document, and signed it right there and then.

      That's the executive branch in action for you, hoarding the last legal stash before making it a crime to buy it. And that's how much they believe in the laws they enact in our name.
      My guess is that the embargo still exists if only to politically pacify the noisy Batista Cubans that make up a large chunk of the Florida electorate. Remember the Elian Gonzalez incident? I'm pretty damn sure that incident cost Gore the election, made the margin narrow enough to allow Jeb Bush to steal the election. We've all heard about thousands of African-Americans purged from the voting lists. How many Cuban-Americans were? I'd guess the number is disproportionately low.

      As for the effectiveness of the embargo where cigars are concerned, I live in Mexico, where tourists from north of the border puff away at heart's content. Then buy them to take home, change the paper rings and boxes, and presto!, a Cuban Cohiba has been transformed into a Mexican Te Amo.

      There's a cartoon that made the rounds a few years ago, with Bush Jr jumping up and down in the tip of Florida, yelling "I'm going to bury you, Fidel!" Meanwhile, Fidel quietly stands on Cuban ground, beside a blackboard with a bunch of crossed out names: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr and Clinton.

      Inter-generational, institutionalized stupidity is what I call it.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    37. Re:Surprised? by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cuba's credit is so bad (due to refusal to pay contracts

      Is it refusal to pay, or simply lack of funds? Cuba's economy has been a basket case since the Soviets collapsed and quit propping them up.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    38. Re:Surprised? by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, if we help Cuba, we get weird tentacle porn, only with Spanish subtitles?

    39. Re:Surprised? by compro01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      46 years ago. Just 20 years before that, you were in a little shooting & bombing war with a little place called Japan.

      Fast-forward to today and how much of the tech sold in the US was developed in that country?

      FFS, you're now friendlier with the country that was controlling those missiles than you are with Cuba!

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    40. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not all iranians loved the US. we did overthrow the socialist prime minister that they would have democratically elected, as well as propped up the facist thug that they worked so hard to revolt against.

    41. Re:Surprised? by praksys · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The people liked us shortly after the revolution and blue jeans and MTV could have really made for a good relationship, in my arm-chair general opinion.
      That's probably true. There were many different groups behind the revolutions in Iran and Cuba. The Fundamentalists and Communists respectively were in the minority for a while afterwards. But then they started killing and torturing the people who held different views. In both cases lots died, more fled into exile, and pretty soon the Fundamentalists and the Communists had complete control.

      So the idea that the US unnecessarily soured its relationships with both countries is simply wrong. The groups that murdered their way into power hated the US with a passion and, short of invading to crush those particular groups, there is nothing the US could have done to maintain good relations.

      What the general populations in Iran and Cuba thought of the US simply didn't figure. Anyone who continued to voice positive views of the US soon got a bullet in the head.

    42. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, he's a complete ass of a president, so I'd say things are pretty rectified by now...

    43. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're allowed to go only for humanitarian purposes. Travel for general tourism is not allowed.

    44. Re:Surprised? by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      It should not have existed. Communism would've fallen apart MUCH faster ideologically and it wouldn't have taken root in the West if these embargoes hadn't been in place. Isolationism means that westerners in general didn't SEE how socialistic the west has become... because they didn't visit/live there during the outright socialistic phase. In a way, the embargoes were done to keep the westerners ignorant of what was growing in their own back yard.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    45. Re:Surprised? by jgeeky · · Score: 1

      are you saying that embargoes are socialistic? i may have misunderstood what you said, but if not, please try to not further the already piss-poor education that most of us have regarding socialism. while embargoes (or even walls a la Berlin) may have played a large historical part in societies which called themselves socialist, communist, marxist, or otherwise, it certainly does not mean that embargoes and the likes are inherent or even remotely related to socialism. it happens far too often where someone takes an element of a society or government that labeled itself as one of the aforementioned groups, and uses that element metonymously with socialism. regurgitating misconception effects miseducation. of course, if i misunderstood your post, please disregard the previous.

      --
      in the immortal words of socrates, "i drank what?"
    46. Re:Surprised? by wellingj · · Score: 1

      The US if far from ideal capitalism. We have industrial well-fare for some companies, and over-regulation of others, which has created the nearly all the overpricing problems in the US. Or at least that's my general theory. The problem with capitalism is that while I can hold myself to the ideals that make it work, most people can't. They want to take value and not give in return*. It's called trade for a reason...



      *Incidentally, I think the same problem exists in Socialism as well. The problem isn't capitalism or socialism, it's just human greed that fucks them both up. But given the choice, I'll go capitalism.

    47. Re:Surprised? by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly. give them what Jerry Pournelle calls "weapons of cultural mass destruction" and let those weapons do their job. Within a few years, either the Cuban government will lighten up, or the people will throw them out when they realize how much better their lives could be.

      If that's true, how come Bush got a second term?

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    48. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Japan was doing a fine job of developing technology all on their own before we nuked them and subsequently won the war.

    49. Re:Surprised? by niktemadur · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You probably haven't noticed all the restrictions in place to travel to Cuba, have you?

      There's a bit of wisdom that's been passed around, all over Latin America, for the last thirty years: Visit Cuba before the North Americans can get back in, 'cause they're gonna drag along McDonald's, Hard Rock Hotel & Casinos, Starbucks and shopping malls.

      Can you imagine a fucking Cinnabon in Havana? You have no idea just how many people, non-US citizens by and large, consider that image to represent a Faustian Pact, because it represents Washington's economic doctrine of neo-liberalism that's screwed over every other country in the continent, as well as Africa, over the last several decades.

      You can pontificate about how Cuba's living standards are lower than so-and-so, but just compare to El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, etc, all of whom toed the Washington (which is to say, Exxon and DuPont) line, and whose dictators were mostly alumni of the US-sponsored School Of The Americas.

      Furthermore, if Cuba had not been embargoed, it would be quite prosperous today. Within the limited means that the embargo created, the Cuban population is managing better than most countries victimized by Washington's neo-liberalism.

      So yes, visit Cuba before it's too late, while the population is still relatively innocent, crime levels are extraordinarily low, and an extended vacation can be had for a song (or two).

      No offense intended, just food for thought about an absurd situation: Curious that the only people restricted from traveling to Cuba are the citizens of The Land Of The Free. So how Free (as in speech, not beer) are you, really? Think about it, I believe it's really an important question.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    50. Re:Surprised? by jlar · · Score: 1

      "It should not have existed."

      As a non-american my impression is that the embargo was mainly put into place to prevent economic growth in Cuba which would have allowed Castro to buy or develop advanced weaponry targeted at the US. If that was/is the goal the embargo must be considered a success.

    51. Re:Surprised? by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      No, that is EXACTLY the traits it has.

      Any government that tells its EMPLOYERS (read: we the people are supposedly the masters of our government in a so called "free" country, right?) where to go and what to do, and how to spend THEIR resources, is NOT a free country, or a free people. It is socialism, collectivism or whatever you wish to call it form of authoritarianism.

      When the collective "society" or "government" or "nation" or "state" tells people what they can or cannot do with their own lives and resources, that isn't freedom... that is the utter tyranny that we're supposed to have kicked out of America before 1791 (when it was recodified in a strong central government, an "energetic government" as Hamilton put it).

      Yes siree, it is as socialistic as it gets when a government tells you what you can and can't do. If you don't create victims, and IF by your travel abroad as a "free man" you can show examples of what free men are capable of, both "good" and "evil" you may get people over there to stop NOT questioning things. To start wanting to be free. But if you aren't free, and you don't ACT free and THINK free, then how can you spread freedom. How can you spread something you don't have? When your government tells you to not do something, or denies you the right to do it, that is collectivist tyranny. I call it socialism because that's the collectivism I'm familiar with, the velvet gloved ones here in the West, and the iron fisted ones I was born under.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    52. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some of them were land owners. Some were regular peasants. When Castro took control, he did so violently. He wasn't a freely elected president who decided to stay over.

      Also, there was/is a lot of persecution on the people who saw the free market system as a good system. These people were locked up in jails and when Reagan was in office, many of them as well as their families were thrown into make shift rafts at gun point and told what direction to go if they wanted a chance to live. There have been some other things too. Like in the 90's (94-95) when Clinton upped the embargo when cuba had another mass exodus.

      The thing is, the people of Cuba are old enough to remember living in a free and democratic Cuba or have heard first hand stories about it. Cuba was a very prosperous country back in the day. When presented with an opportunity to leave, quite a few of them jumped on inner tubes or whatever and left. They held on to what little American money there was in hopes of being free again. It wasn't until recently that Cuba outlaws it's use in the country.

    53. Re:Surprised? by wellingj · · Score: 1

      There was a book covering the same subject...

    54. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Are you purposing something different? That was the battle cry against Batista wasn't it?

    55. Re:Surprised? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      If that's true, how come Bush got a second term?

      Maybe because the majority of voters were more objective than you are?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    56. Re:Surprised? by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't indict the u.s. health care system for lower life expectancy among americans. Its not the fault of the system that americans stuff their faces with double whoppers meals, super-sized coca-colas and serving sizes at restaurants that could feed a horse. No matter what medicine or treatment is available those people will die a lot sooner than a cuban.

    57. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Fell free to correct me.

      Since you're American it's actually rather important that you understand, so at least go read a few Wikipedia articles about Iran and your conflict with it, please?

      But yes, your viewpoint is rather lopsided. Your teacher is quite right about there being a lot of Westernized Iranians. But to say the population "liked us shortly after the revolution" is kinda off. The popular revolution was against a US backed dictator. Also there was more than one group rebelling. There was a student rebellion, which is who did the hostage taking, and were generally West oriented kids, though very pissed with the US backed dictatorship, and thus the US. Also there was a hardline Muslim rebellion against it. Eventually (and naturally) those guys organized a power structure quicker than the students did after the fall of the Shah, and are thus on top today.

      But that's just a quickie of a very complex situation. It's just to give you an idea. Please go read at least the relevant Wiki articles to get a start on knowing about the situation.

      Why? Well just for starters the current trouble is /because/ Americans were generally ignorant of Iran before, essentially not having a clue or a care that they were directly keeping Iranians under their puppet dictator.

    58. Re:Surprised? by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 1

      That's partially valid, of course, but i didn't say that the healthcare system was to blame for diet.. i don't think it's accurate to say that the average Cuban has an ideal diet either.

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    59. Re:Surprised? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the people of Cuba are old enough to remember living in a free and democratic Cuba or have heard first hand stories about it.

      Free and democratic?

      Under Batista?

      GTFO, moron - Cuba was neither free nor a democracy before the revolution, and the major factor in delaying democracy in Cuba has been the US embargo and the failure of successive US regimes to engage the Cubans diplomatically.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    60. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Read some history. Batista was democratically elected before WWII and the revolution didn't happen until the 50's. Batista also sided with the US and went to war with Japan durring WWII too.

      And yes, Batista wanting to stay in office was part of it but Cuba was free and democratic for a lot longer under Batista then they weren't. Abount two thirds of his rule was by popular vote with the consent of the people.

    61. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go refresh your History.

      Japan had animation before WW2. Japan had technology before WW2. American /did/ do a hell of a lot to rebuild Japan as a friendly nation, but they quickly reneged on the Freedom & Democracy they started to teach the populace when the populace took it at face value and started organizing labour unions. To deal with that the Amerian occupation administration restored a whole bunch of rather evil dudes to power that they had removed. This laid the foundation of postwar Japan characterized by strong unassailable bureaucracies and weak democratically elected bodies. The fall of their economy and the rise of Koizumi has finally turned this around a little, but it's certainly still a feature of Japan. You clearly haven't got a clue. Hit the books, man.

    62. Re:Surprised? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's not forget the small matter of bringing the world to the brink of WWIII by allowing our arch enemy to secretly place nuclear missiles within range of Washington D.C. and the fact that until recently the same man who did that was still in power. Just having an embargo is a small price to pay for such stupidity. Times have changed since then, and I think we should be working some sort of diplomatic solution now. But an embargo was a perfectly reasonable alternative to going to WWIII at the time and for the duration of the Cold War.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    63. Re:Surprised? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And living in gorgeous, wonderful Cuban weather probably has nothing to do with longevity, either. Clean Atlantic ocean air, gentle tropical island weather, fabulous beaches that Florida residents _wish_ they had nearby, etc. probably have no effect on aging joints and keeping fit in old age.

      When I get as old as the ex-Cuban cancer surgeon I met visiting an ill friend a decade ago, I want to retire to the house he grew up in, where he could fish in the ocean by walking 100 yards and watch the girls on the beach. The doctor had pictures, on the walls of his office, too. For 40 year old pictures, those were really, really stunning women. I can see why Castro refuses to retire, much less die, as long as he has that kind of scenery to live for.

    64. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuba isn't for everybody and the ONLY problem is that the people who do not like Cuba can't leave the place!

      Some people move there and love it. Some do not and try to leave the place. It is nowhere near as bad as the USA represents it but it is far from perfect; ironically its the USA that is more corrupt and jails and kills the more people (and harbors terrorists-- while labeling cuban spies as terrorists.)

      The REAL reason is that cuba can't be allowed to openly succeed or be viewed favorably with its refusal to be an exploited colony-- Cubans likely are better off now than they would have been--- so bad that the poor have taken over south american nations after being exploited for far too long.

      Political speech in the USA is allowed for now; although its recorded for future use and in most states its legal to discriminate on political grounds (blacklist.)

      there is a whole lot going on that its hard to believe any product of the american educational system could understand the complex situation that is cuba.

    65. Re:Surprised? by rapiddescent · · Score: 2, Informative

      maybe for your country - but for the rest of us Cuba is a rather popular tourist destination with as many tourists leaving the UK for cuba as, say, dominican republic.

      The westernised cuban resorts are fairly well organised and tourists can expect a little more of the "off the beaten trail" feel without the risk.

    66. Re:Surprised? by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US didn't give Japan animation, they've been able to draw pictures for centuries before the US even existed. Films and photography were made in Japan prior to world war 2. The US didn't give a lot of technology to Japan, Japan reversed engineered a lot of it and even recreated some technologies from observation. Saying that the US gave modern technology is an insult to Japanese engineers and scientists who laboured to create modern Japan, especially since the Japanese planes and warships fielded in WWII were technologically superior to those fielded by the United States (the US had superior numbers, resources and on occasion, training).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    67. Re:Surprised? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      And Robert Mugabe was 'democratically elected' in Zimbabwe. There was nothing 'free' about Batista's elections, he was a US-friendly banana republic dictator with torture, far worse human rights abuses than Castro has ever committed, and massive Mafia involvement in his economy and his federal policies.

      Cuba did what the people of Iran did to the Shah: kicked out the US-friendly, anti-Communist, corrupt bastard and let in a new dictator with a different set of standards. Castro, at least, is as technically competent as any US president of his lifetime.

    68. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      But we beat the spirit out of Japan. Their populace was frightened of the bomb, Their military was beat. Their leaders, the one who didn't kill themselves, left power and a new government was put in place with a heavy US presence all along. Their country was in economic ruin because it expended all it's resources and lost all the territories that it took to make up for it.

      Think about what made the US and japan friends and tell me if an embargo is a little better given what has taken place. BTW, Russia was what stopped us from invading for what it's worth.

    69. Re:Surprised? by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure you'll be welcome here in Australia, tho i hear that welfare and healthcare are even better in some EU countries.

      I also think that a balance is probably a better approach.. taking the good aspects of Capitalism and Socialism and working them together.. So businesses are free to trade, medical care is catered for, and people who can't get work don't starve to death.

      It's a pretty weak simile, but i see a country as roughly like a person. If they want to stay active they have to stay healthy.. expecting them to take care of it themselves is like expecting your cells to organize themselves so you have Olympic-level fitness on demand. Pretty much the same goes for education..

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    70. Re:Surprised? by nacturation · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a bit of wisdom that's been passed around, all over Latin America, for the last thirty years: Visit Cuba before the North Americans can get back in...

      Americans, not North Americans. Canadians and Mexicans have the freedom to visit Cuba.
       

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    71. Re:Surprised? by uncqual · · Score: 0, Troll

      Of course, much of the extra $2200/year probably goes to "excessive" tests to avoid litigation and to fund treatments of people who have little chance for survival anyway -- one advantage of socialized medicine is that the government gets to decide when further treatment doesn't make "economic sense" - when an insurance company in the US tries to do this, the family sues too often. Arguments can be made that either way is "right" - US residents are used to getting care that is really futile - some sort of "life at any cost" bias (why, for example, should a system spend millions of dollars saving one child even though they are so severely disabled that they will never be able to even communicate with their own family or even understand they have a family?)

      From drug cost standpoint, this discrepancy is not too surprising. US pharmaceutical companies rely on profits from US sales to fund research -- without those profits, quite a few hi-tech drugs simply would not exist or would not be available in the US (due to the cost of meeting FDA requirements and the tort risks). If they can sell slightly above cost of production in countries with socialized medicine, they might as well do so, but the miserly returns from those markets would never have justified development costs of the drug (also, it means they still have a supply of human guinea pigs for trials for drugs still in development).

      Thus, the "excessive profits" the US patients (and Federal government, State governments, and insurance companies) pay for these drugs should really be classified as a tax that is directed to foreign aid.

      The pharmaceutical companies heavily use, for example, Europe for trials because there the national health care system sometimes offers the patient two choices (1) the "standard treatment" which, with your advanced form of cancer has little chance of working or (2) adding ONE other experimental drug which might increase your chances of remission. Of course, aggressive US patients can sometimes pick from a variety of trials so they tend to pick the ones that they feel are in their best interests rather than the pharmaceutical company's best interests.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    72. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      The people of Cuba already knew what a free Cuba was like or had first hand accountings from relatives. This is why there is/was a mass exodus when Castro allowed anyone who wanted to- to leave by the port of Mariel.

      We have also been broadcasting radio and TV signals to Cuba since the late 50's

    73. Re:Surprised? by Augusto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Cuba, there is basically no real freedom of expression or any respectable level of political organization that doesn't toe the government line.

      The "visit Cuba" thing is kind of sad, foreigners love to vacation in Cuba and often forget (or don't even care) that these places are can not be enjoyed by the locals.

      http://www.desdecuba.com/generationy/

      --

      - sigs are for wimps.
    74. Re:Surprised? by orzetto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd love to find a country that's figured out how they should be balanced and needs a MSEE grad with PM experience that can look past a late-night semi-inebriated /. post...

      Norway. It's also the most peaceful place in the world. I lived there until March, I moved since I got a one-of-a-kind job elsewhere. That's still a place I would recommend, though. The health care system is universal, tax levels are supposed to be the highest in the world, but that's not true: they are high for the rich bastards, I never paid more than 29.5% of my income and my last salary was about $7500 a month before taxes.

      And, yes, they are desperate to find people there. With the current oil prices their economy is on the way up, but you cannot improvise engineers in a few months, so chances are you can find a job there fairly easily. They also have movies/TV in original language (mostly English) and most people speak decent English too, so you are not completely lost in a foreign country until you learn Norwegian. Norwegians are also efficient as Germans, but without the rudeness; pretty nice people to work with.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    75. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You must get pissed off all the time when the government doesn't do what you want it to do. You probably are pissed all the time, Right?

      We are not the masters of the government. We are not their employers. I don't know where people seem to get that idea from but it is simply false. We have a government that rules by the consent of the people.

      You also seem to be confused about a lot of other things in your post, I won't touch them because they all fall apart anyways when you realize you have a complete misconception about the government and the country. BTW, I don't believe I ever heard Hamilton as supporting a strong central government. HE was a federalist after all. (I guess I should note that a federalist isn't someone who thinks the federal government should be concentration of power or that the federal government should run everything)

      The reference you are making was with regard to raising an army and funding the forces and making sure the federal government has the powers to maintain the Union. It was for the common defense of the country and the "energetic government" was about solidifying as much of the constitution as possible to make the Union hold. It wasn't about power over the citizens except in only what the government was given by the constitution. That is a principle long gone, but I believe is was Hamilton who also said why would we need a bill of rights when the government is already restricted to only what is allowed by it's constitution.

    76. Re:Surprised? by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

      THOUSANDS of Canadians travel to Cuba every year on vacation, so don't be surprised if it's now Westernized already!

    77. Re:Surprised? by Maxmin · · Score: 4, Informative

      one advantage of socialized medicine is that the government gets to decide when further treatment doesn't make "economic sense"

      Oh really? Have you got anything to back that statement up?

      You believe that doctors in countries with state-run medicine can say to patients and their families, "Look, this is getting expensive, and it looks like s/he is going to die in a few weeks anyway. Checkout is on down the hall on the left" ... etc.?

      I can't imagine where you're getting your ideas from. Personal experience: my ex is a doctor from a country with "socialized medicine" ... from what I saw and heard during my time there (Germany), it doesn't work like that at all. End-of-life was one of the biggest issues she dealt with, because -get this- they saw patients through to the end. Preventative care and perhaps the much lower obesity rates probably have a little *something* to do with their lower per-capita medical costs..

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    78. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how Free (as in speech, not beer) are you, really? Think about it, I believe it's really an important question.

      Australia - for one - certainly gave up a -hell- of a lot of freedoms for the last 'Free' Trade Agreement with the US.

      You yanks and your crazy double-speak.

    79. Re:Surprised? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd still rather pay less for my medical insurance - Especially since the patents I'm paying for are being ignored on both my Canadian and Mexican borders.

      Woah. We pay through the ass for pharmaceuticals in Canada. We don't even get a free ride on pharms or medical procedures developed here. It either comes out of our taxes or our wallets.

      Meanwhile, at least 20% of our medical graduates take jobs in the US or abroad. And we're facing a health care crisis ourselves.

      I know there are a lot of industrialized countries that do not enforce medical patents, but Canada isn't anywhere near that list.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    80. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visit Cuba before the North Americans can get back in

      North Americans? Buddy, last time I checked, Mexico and Canada were both part of North America. And nobody minds if we travel there. Its common knowledge in those countries that Cuba is a popular travel spot because there are no Yanks.

    81. Re:Surprised? by kamikaez · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd still rather pay less for my medical insurance - Especially since the patents I'm paying for are being ignored on both my Canadian and Mexican borders. But socialism and capitalism are both nice ideas in theory. I just think that the US & Cuba are bad examples on either side. I'd love to find a country that's figured out how they should be balanced and needs a MSEE grad with PM experience that can look past a late-night semi-inebriated /. post...

      Sitting in a Social Democratic nation in the north of Europe, I can say this: Cuba is going in the right direction at the moment, mostly thanks to Raul it seems. US on the other hands is standing still, it has distanced it self from it allies after selecting conservatives** a few years back. Even though the economic race in Kina and India has made us (Europe) less dependent on US economy, it still has a large impact on our lives and culture, and thats why we like to have an opinion on what you select for government.

      Some of the flaws in US government, from an outside perspective:

      * The patent system (Select someone for office that is less conservative and cooperate founded and a change might happen..)

      * The health care system (Again, select someone a tad more social, and they'll do something about it long term)

      * The war on everyone, to either "crush" taliban or more preferably invade and give Iraqi oil to one of my friends oil companies (Select someone less aggressive towards the world around you, and the world will most likely be less aggressive back)

      * Intelligent design (Select someone that doesn't mix religion with politics that much, and you might get out of the dark ages too(again)..)

      * Environment cowards (Select someone that doesn't found scientist to come up with objections to global warming to keep their corporate friends safe from having to do something about their unfiltered pollution)

      ** this is a bit ironic with all the public spending (war), budget deficit problems and restriction on peoples freedom.

      --
      This is a signature..
    82. Re:Surprised? by vidarh · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You really need to go back and read some history. Castro, for example, had no major problem with the US, despite US support for Batista. What he did have a problem with what major US companies having been given control over large part of the Cuban economy through deals with Batista. Castro turned to the Soviet union largely as a result of the US reaction when he seized property from US companies.

      Time and time again we've seen this happen. Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam was a nationalist. He refashioned his politics in terms favored the only backers available to him and became "communist" when it was clear the US would continue supporting it's puppets in the south, for example.

      A large part of the rebel movements that started spouting communist slogans etc. over the last few decades did so first when that was how they got support because the Soviet Union and others saw it as an opportunity. Many of them would have preferred or were open to support from the West, but were ignored or branded terrorists because the dictators they went up against were supported by the West, and turned to whomever were willing to fund them or provide weapons.

    83. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I visited Cuba a few years ago and was told by one of tour guides that the rumour is that all of the buildings on the MalecÃn that runs along the seafront in Havana have already been secretly purchased by McDonalds etc ready for the Americans getting back in. I would encourage anyone whose government does not restrict foreign travel to experience Cuba for themselves before it is too late.

    84. Re:Surprised? by vidarh · · Score: 5, Informative
      There's a vast difference between not wanting to be a puppet state controlled by a US supported dictator who hands property over to US corporations whenever he felt like it, and not wanting Americans.

      If you can't understand that difference you'll have a big problem understanding Cuba.

      Castro was fiercely nationalistic, not unlike a lot of US politicians, and had a lot against US influence on that basis. His opposition to the US and to Americans only strengthened as a result of the US response after he took power and started taking back what had been stolen from the Cuban people by Batista, a lot of which had been handed over to US companies.

    85. Re:Surprised? by Saffaya · · Score: 1

      Anime and its associated culture has done infinitely more to heal the wounds stemming from WW2 between Japan and Korea, or Japan and China, than all the official gestures, discourses, intents put together.

      Ask a young Korean what he thinks about Japan, and compare with the general feeling of 40 years ago.

    86. Re:Surprised? by Saffaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So ... Turkey can harbor US nuke missiles pointed to Moscow, but Cuba can't have a few pointed to the US ?

      The winner of the Cuban missiles crisis was the USSR who negociated the removal of the plethora of US missiles in Turkey, in exchange of the few missiles in Cuba.

    87. Re:Surprised? by vidarh · · Score: 4, Informative
      Batista was elected in '40, yes. But he lost the '44 election, and then took power again in '52 through a coup. He was then overthrown in '58. So Cuba was "free and democratic" under Batista for 4 years, and a dictatorship for 6.

      If you are trying to imply the '54 election when he ran unopposed was free and fair, then the other reply you got comparing him to Mugabe was quite fitting.

    88. Re:Surprised? by Stooshie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't remember the quote exactly, but Tariq Ali, talking about Iraq, said something like:

      ... If we give each and every family a new house, car and job, it would be far more effective and would cost a lot less ...

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    89. Re:Surprised? by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      As a European who sees his (online) privacy and rights diminished by the day, I'd say: Let's keep those "artists" and their megalomaniac publishers away from the Cuban shore. As for the Pirate Bay: did you ever notice that there is considerable effort done by your free world leaders to stop perfectly legal incentives like TPB? Why not suggest sending Team America World Police over while you're at it.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    90. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Cuba, there is basically no real freedom of expression or any respectable level of political organization that doesn't toe the government line.

      So, in essence, Cuba is exactly just like the US.

    91. Re:Surprised? by tumbleweedsi · · Score: 1

      erm... the majority of voters were in favour of the other guy. same in the UK, the majority of voters did not want Tony Blair to stay in at the last election. Nobody apart from nu labour itself voted for Gordon Brown. The massive immigration problem in the UK is not because the UK is the best country in europe, it's because it's the *easiest welfare state to exploit*. People don't flee cuba for the US because the US is *best*, they flee to the US because the US is *closest*.

      --
      Be nice, sponsor me: http://jailbreak.ragabonds.org.uk
    92. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check the other way, the embargo had been installed because the very essence here was "capitalism" vs "socialism".

      What would have happened without embargo is that companies would have made business with "cuba" . That's capitalism you do business where you can, the political system is not important; check out China, Burma and so on.

      Now behind that there was a political war in between the "capitalist system" and the "socialist system" now if your capitalist companies fuels the socialist economy you happen to shoot yourself in the feet.

    93. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because some imperialist pigs were thrown out of Cuba?

    94. Re:Surprised? by mrogers · · Score: 5, Informative

      > The groups that murdered their way into power hated the US with a passion

      Ever wondered why? In both cases, the groups were fighting to overthrow dictatorships supported by the US:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#The_Second_Coup
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

      I'm no fan of Khomeini or Castro, I certainly don't support their repressive governments, but the US-backed governments they overthrew weren't necessarily any better.

    95. Re:Surprised? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Paradise is going a bit far, but it definitely true that the US 'vision' of cuba handed down by the authorities is not the same picture that people in europe or other parts of the world see.

    96. Re:Surprised? by mastropiero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      United Statians, not Americans. Americans as in Ecuadorians, Colombians, Venezuelans, Brazilians, etc have the freedom to visit Cuba.

    97. Re:Surprised? by oliderid · · Score: 2, Informative

      They had the luck to discover oil and the wisdom to carefully manage the revenues ... I heard Norwegian institutional funds are ones of the biggest investors in European stock markets such as Euronext Paris.

      30% of income taxes(?), (almost?) free healthcare, no state budget deficit, effcient pensions funds and capitalism...I'm all for that form of communism any day.

    98. Re:Surprised? by SimonGhent · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cuba is similar - Give 'em YouTube, uncensored Google, porn, Wikipedia...

      Exactly. give them what Jerry Pournelle calls "weapons of cultural mass destruction" and let those weapons do their job. Within a few years, either the Cuban government will lighten up, or the people will throw them out when they realize how much better their lives could be.

      I note you left "streaming reality TV" off your quoted list.

      I imagine most people would prefer a repressive communist regime to streaming reality TV.

      --
      simon
    99. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he was pinging for the fjords ? Or in the pocket of an RIAA representative.

    100. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The reason that US Citizens can't go to Cuba is because there would be too many demonstrations outside Guantanamo Bay which would force the closure or US' torture chambers...

    101. Re:Surprised? by aplusjimages · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also don't understand why so many Americans hate Cuba so much..

      I thought we were hating the Mexicans and Iraqi/Anyone-Who-Looks-Middle-Eastern. Damn my hate agenda is getting to full now I have to squeeze in Cubans.
      But seriously, I'm not sure I agree that "Americans" hate Cuba, more like the "American Government" hates Cuba.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    102. Re:Surprised? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I guess you could look at it that way. But the USSR was caught in a lie on live TV. Adlai Stevenson showed U2 photographs in front of the world showing the USSR was lieing when it said there were no missiles in Cuba. USSR had some egg on its face after that, to say the least. And we agreed to remove the missiles in Turkey because they were aging and needed to be replaced anyway. It really wasn't much of a concession.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    103. Re:Surprised? by djinnn · · Score: 1

      You're starting with a wrong assumption: the point of the embargo is not to make Cubans like the US (i will deprive you of food and you'll love me, right?) or dislike their government, it is to show surrounding countries what happens when one dares not comply with the US foreign policy plans.
      It is a pure demonstration of imperialist power, which "marketing" goal is working very well.

    104. Re:Surprised? by xaxa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't indict the u.s. health care system for lower life expectancy among americans. Its not the fault of the system that americans stuff their faces with double whoppers meals, super-sized coca-colas and serving sizes at restaurants that could feed a horse. No matter what medicine or treatment is available those people will die a lot sooner than a cuban.

      Because most healthcare is paid for by taxes in the UK, techniques to prevent people getting ill are used. For instance, free vaccinations, monitoring of babies/children's health, screening for cancers, STI checks, diet advice, stop-smoking stuff, etc.

      Also, if you have to pay to see a doctor, you're less likely to go, and any problem you have might get worse. If you don't get free advice during pregnancy your child might be less healthy (infant mortality is quite high in the USA).

    105. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. US lifestyle just sucks so much. Pity is, that just the Americans don't see this :) Whole other world is laughing on USA :)

    106. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably haven't noticed all the restrictions in place to travel to Cuba, have you?

      There's a bit of wisdom that's been passed around, all over Latin America, for the last thirty years: Visit Cuba before the North Americans can get back in, 'cause they're gonna drag along McDonald's, Hard Rock Hotel & Casinos, Starbucks and shopping malls.

      Absolutely, I've been a couple of times and it's nice to visit somewhere non-Americanised. I love visiting the US, but when Cuba is opened up to US visitors, it's going to be wrecked!

      There are already several months of the year where most of the Caribbean (Cuba aside) is one big spring-break!

      FYI, I have met a number of US citizens in Cuba, it is possible to visit (from Mexico or Canada) and the Cubans don't even mark the passports with their visas (available in the arrivals lounge)!

    107. Re:Surprised? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      s/it\'s/its/ ;)

    108. Re:Surprised? by Tragedy4u · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the US just have to look north to Canada for govt health care here? Up here it's not as great as you think and debates about a "two tiered healthcare" system have been tossed around the last few years due to long waiting lists for certain medical services. Maybe I've missed something but is "socialized health care" any different than government health care?

    109. Re:Surprised? by angry_norwegian · · Score: 1

      Some corrections/supplements:

      -Regular income tax range from 30-39%, depending on salary and capital.
      -Free healthcare, except patient's charge of ~200 NOK per visit to general practitioners
      -Subsidised medicines for most chronic illnesses (I have bekhterev, and get free medicine and physical therapy twice a week)
      -Sadly, dental care not subsidised
      -Pension fund of ~80 mill USD per capita (probably enough to cover future pension obligations)
      Source: http://www.norges-bank.no/templates/Article____41397.aspx

    110. Re:Surprised? by downix · · Score: 1

      I think it's more to do with US Citizens seeing 50+ year old cars running absolutely beautifully for 20+ MPG with loads of room while their new SUV's are breaking down after five years while getting 8MPG and there's still that annoying console that prevents you from stretching your legs....

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    111. Re:Surprised? by elkto · · Score: 4, Funny

      Meanwhile in the news, officials from both Venezuela and Cuba indicated they are seeking Chinese firewall and human rights technology. Not to be undone, the Obama campaign has offered propaganda technology that calls for change.

    112. Re:Surprised? by hedu · · Score: 1

      I'd still rather pay less for my medical insurance - Especially since the patents I'm paying for are being ignored on both my Canadian and Mexican borders. But socialism and capitalism are both nice ideas in theory. I just think that the US & Cuba are bad examples on either side. I'd love to find a country that's figured out how they should be balanced and needs a MSEE grad with PM experience that can look past a late-night semi-inebriated /. post...

      I recommend moving to Italy. It's living the good life. The food is fantastic; healthcare is good in my experience, even though somewhat chaotic at times (as is the rest of public life). But it's largely paid for by public funds. The government is as moronic as that of the US, but at least they are so inept at getting things done that you get a lot less BS to put up with as a citizen. I love the overall experience - and I moved here from one of those well-organized northern-European countries. ;-)

      I don't know about the MSEE part, but if you're good at what you do, you'll find a spot. And the philosophy here is to think less about work and more about living!

    113. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because Cuba has nothing to offer and the rich people from the US are still pissed that their casinos have been plucked from their hands.

      When you remove the toy from the baby, it can cry a lot until it grows up.

      I mean Cuba is not worst than China but does the US creates embargo against them? No fucking way, they are too scared of any nuclear attack or economic problems that might occur if they eve lifted a finger.

      US just sucks ass and you can FLAME me for it, it's the plain truth

    114. Re:Surprised? by eharvill · · Score: 1

      The "visit Cuba" thing is kind of sad, foreigners love to vacation in Cuba and often forget (or don't even care) that these places are can not be enjoyed by the locals.

      Sounds a lot like Jamaica....

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
    115. Re:Surprised? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You're obviously more dedicated to being an American than most of the folks that were born here.

      Hell I say also we give them $25,000 as well.

      OMFG! New reality show... CBS this fall has a new show for all of you.... "MAKE IT FROM CUBA!"

      Will little elean be eaten by sharks this time as his father tries to make it to Florida? Can they evade the dangerous Coast guard?

      Tune in tonight to see what happened in week 4!!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    116. Re:Surprised? by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      If wanting to have missles equals wanting to launch missles, then the USA has been wanting to launch a whole lot more missles, for a whole lot longer.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    117. Re:Surprised? by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what job did you get?

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    118. Re:Surprised? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In Cuba, there is basically no real freedom of expression or any respectable level of political organization that doesn't toe the government line.

      So, it's just like China and Saudi Arabia, countries on which we are so dependent our economy would fail if we ever decided to embargo them.

    119. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Japanese citizen, I agree that the help in rebuilding did have it's strengths. However...

      ... we gave them animation which turned into Anime...

      No, that's not how it worked. Anime and Manga were part of the culture far before WWII. Manga, actually, has it's roots back several hundred years from the "Choju Giga" scrolls. Anime was also made far before WWII, with very famous characters like "Nora-Kuro". These anime, which admittedly were part of military propaganda for children, were shown during the Russo-Japanese wars, and also during WWII.

      No, you didn't give us Anime. Anime and Manga are not based on American Comics. (I won't say either one is better than the other, I enjoy a lot of the comic book movies, but just simply stating that Anime is not an evolution of American art.)

    120. Re:Surprised? by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      So yes, visit Cuba before it's too late,

      If you're an American, you're putting yourself at risk. But, hey, Fight Da Powa... right?

      while the population is still relatively innocent,

      That is, isolated and deprived.

      crime levels are extraordinarily low,

      As reported by the Communist government. Potemkin village, anyone?

      and an extended vacation can be had for a song (or two).

      Exploit 'em before the rest of the West gets a chance!

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    121. Re:Surprised? by Bombula · · Score: 1

      Isn't it ironic how our retarded embargoes facilitate tyrannical governments when the stated goal is the opposite? By helping tyrants keep their citizens in the dark and giving them a big target to point at and say "enemy" it makes you wonder what the real goals of these embargoes are...

      --
      A-Bomb
    122. Re:Surprised? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, considering the Bay of Pigs, the attempts to assassinate Castro, and all the other plots, maybe it's time for the US to formally renounce such stupid behaviour.

      Impractical.

      Remember how President Bush had those public minutes of deer-in-the-headlights not knowing what to do after the first reports of the attacks on 9/11? Now that's a reasonable, human reaction. Here you are are, supposedly the most powerful man in the world, and the truth is that there is almost nothing you can do about what is unfolding at this moment. This brief lapse of humanity could have been a career ender for Bush, but he turned it around by getting up, grabbing the bullhorn, and invading Iraq. The left tried to use this incident to stick the indecisive label on Bush, but they couldn't. They couldn't accuse Bush of not doing enough at the same time claiming that he was doing the wrong things on an unprecedented scale, even though these are perfectly consistent.

      The moral of the story is that you win in politics by doing things, things that (a) involve the greatest possible immediate activity, (b) appear bold yet at the same time (c) sound safe and easy. Put this together, and this usually spells "stupid".

      It's a well known fact that if you bring together enough intelligent, reasonable people together, you are one panic inducing incident away from having a mob. That's why democracy doesn't work without a skeptical, adversarial press. Unfortunately, panic sells programming.

      The Cuban regime would have collapsed years ago, but American actions have propped it up. No matter what their failings, they could point to US meddling and hostility, even though that meddling was (as in this case) ineffectual. When times are tough, people learn to live on pride and solidarity.When pride is hard to come by, you can substitute resentment in the recipe because there's sure to be plenty available.

      If we wanted to destroy the regime, we should have had policies that increase the material wealth of the Cuban people to the greatest degree possible. Then, like well off people everywhere, they'd see the government as an obstacle to obtaining more wealth.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    123. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it this way, if after we nuked Japan, we didn't help rebuild, and still called it evil, Japan would have most likely rebuilt a dictator-style empire.

      I agree. As soon as Castro is dead, let's open up relations with Cuba and run internet from that nearby cable. Screwing Chavez in the process.

    124. Re:Surprised? by clark0r · · Score: 1

      try the UK. patients who are denied expensive life saving treatment pop up in the news all the time.

    125. Re:Surprised? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      50% income tax, 25% sales tax, but free healthcare that's correct and free universities etc.

    126. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can blame capitalism.

    127. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Quite simply, Cuba is communist. If you lived during the 50s or 60s or 70s as an adult, you would fully appreciate that embargo against Cuba; as we witnessed the entire destabilization of all Central America, and not just Cuba. Do you understand why Cuban Americans hate Castro so? 48 years of terror. Ask them about firing squads. Elsewhere, government suppression in Guatemala. Sandinistas gutting pregnant women in Nicaragua, leaving both bodies alongside road ditches. So forth and so on. So, in part, you are correct (by pure accident of visceral hatred for America no less) to say the US is sending a message. We're sending a message to all of Central America; still to this day. Quite simply, we won't tolerate the past. And not until Communism is wiped clean from our Hemisphere will that embargo be lifted.

    128. Re:Surprised? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Its not the fault of the system that americans stuff their faces with double whoppers meals, super-sized coca-colas and serving sizes at restaurants that could feed a horse.

      While I endorse your sentiment, it is not completely true. You see we have these things called "agricultural policies" that ensure we have massive agricultural surplus. Take price supports. The economic function of low commodity prices is to reduce the production of overabundant goods (very roughly speaking). Prevent the price from dropping, and you will be producing food that we don't need. Or take crop insurance, which make it advantageous to have as much crops planted as possible when disasters strike. If it doesn't (which on average it won't in any financially viable insurance program), you end up with more crops than you want.

      I'm not saying these don't perform some kind of social function, but if they do, it isn't a need to produce more crops. Our American values make us see the problem in terms of productivity, but the Europeans might have it more correct when they talk about this in terms of land and cultural stewardship.

      So, if you are a food company, and are awash in cheap raw materials, you market like crazy to get people to eat more. If prices were higher you might concentrate on quality, but the path of least resistance is to move the greatest amount of food. This doesn't absolve individuals of their responsibility, but companies engage in marketing for a reason: statistically, it works.

      Still, the truth is Cuba does deserve credit for achieving what they do in health care with what they have. Naturally it's a bit of a bananas to pears comparison vis a vis America, but that doesn't make it an invalid one if you keep in mind the other differences between the countries.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    129. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your patents are ignored in the US as well. Read "The Case Against Patents" and "Patently Horrible" by Don Lancaster (google it). In a nut shell, unless your a fortune 500 company, patents will fuck you in the end. Do you honestly think you have the capital to litigate against patent infringement? You don't and neither do most companies. A few rounds of depositions and other delay tactics and you'll be bankrupt. Just something to think about. Don't get worked up about the injustices of Canada and Mexico. Wag of my finger, tip of my hat.

    130. Re:Surprised? by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      Especially since the patents I'm paying for are being ignored on both my Canadian and Mexican borders.

      Are they being ignored or are they invalid in those countries? The U.S. patent system is notorious for granting patents on things that are not patentable in other countries. Why should those countries respect patents that their systems would not grant?

    131. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that they have embargoes on American medical technology, doctors, etc.. they must be doing something right.

      Yes. They have an embargo on American medical technology, doctors, etc... in general stuff like this makes things pretty cheap to run.

    132. Re:Surprised? by gravyface · · Score: 1

      Having traveled to Cuba before, I certainly hope all that's "good" about Western culture stays out. Walking the streets of Havana, not seeing a 7-11, Pizza Hut, or IHOP? Priceless...

      --
      body massage!
    133. Re:Surprised? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We (the U.S.) screwed up the same way in Iran.

      We did the same in Vietnam. There was a study done in the 50s after the Vietnamese had managed to drive the French out of the country. It suggested that we could pull Ho Chi Minn into our orbit if we had been inclined to engage him instead of isolating him. We opted to let our paranoia rule the day (remember the Reds are coming...) and look what happened -- we wound up fighting a decades long war with a movement that quoted our own Declaration of Independence (while trying to free themselves from French colonial rule) and which had actually been on our side against the Japanese in WW2.

      I love my country dearly but it's amazing how many decisions we've allowed ourselves to make out of fear. Fear of Communism. Fear of Socialism. Fear of Terrorism. How did we go from "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" to being afraid of "isms"? I can at least understand it in the context of the 50s and early 60s -- when it appeared the that Soviet Union was beating us in science and space exploration and the memory of Pearl Harbor was still fresh. What the hell is our excuse now?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    134. Re:Surprised? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Yeah right... because...

      We're all living in America,
      America ist wunderbar.
      We're all living in America,
      Amerika, Amerika.

      I'm trying to say this friendly: GTFO our culture.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    135. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not every American's heart is swelling with pride, you know...you're looking at a country of immigrants who literally stole land from the Native Americans, and forced Africans to work on it. So I guess EVERY SINGLE DESCENDANT of these people are just supposed to shed a tear and hold a hand over their heart every time the anthem is played. Get real.

      The U.S. is a land of opportunity. That's it. Nothing more. When illegal immigrants make it over here, the first thing they're thinking of doing is making money to send back home, then upgrade their own lifestyles. That has little to do with American 'patriotism'.

      Please get over yourself.

    136. Re:Surprised? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Raoul Castro only recently started opening the country up to new technology. It's hard to believe, but until he came to power computers, DVD players, and cell phones were banned.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    137. Re:Surprised? by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Back in the late 60s, when I was a kid, I went with my friend to visit his uncle, who was a WW2 combat vet. He was dirt poor, living in a filthy one room apartment, because he couldn't hold down a job. He was a nice guy, but you could see why he couldn't keep a job. Underneath the niceness, there was this layer of craziness that was continually bubbling. It wasn't a scary kind of crazy, it was sad, and haunted. Employers tried to help him out, but he was unreliable.

      It was like he had one eye focused in the present, and one twenty five years in the past. What he was looking at were war atrocities, which would have been bad enough, but they were atrocities committed by soldiers on our side. When they happened, he couldn't accept what his eyes were telling him, and he continued seeing and not accepting those things every day of his life. He was proud American, and nothing could ever shake that, which was what made the shame inescapable.

      This is what history is made up of: Details that inevitably don't fit into the big picture, even if that were the truest possible big picture. It was the Germans who committed atrocities, so an atrocity committed by Americans doesn't fit. When we hear of something that doesn't fit, we set out to disprove it, or failing that justify it. If you can't disprove or justify it, you just have to accept it. If you can't accept it, you become a little crazy.

      Still, that doesn't mean the big story about the greatest generation going to war to save civilization isn't true, or at the least the truest way of fitting everything together in a nutshell. There will alway be details that don't fit. Some of them will be horrific or tragic, some ironic, and some just inexplicably perverse.

      It's hard to say which was the bigger 20th C story, the fight against fascism or the struggle to hold the line against Soviet style communist totalitarianism. But the cold war was a much longer, generational story and so is messier. I'd say that on the whole the saving the world from Communism story is true, but there are enough contradictory incidents to turn that view on its head if you want to. The radicalization of Iran by undermining its secular democracy, for example. Vietnam, for example. Cuba is a rich source of paradoxes.

      A lot of what we did in the Cold War looks now like mistakes, although we'll never know for sure on all of them because there's alway those bits that don't fit. Certainly some of the things we did were at least grossly unfair to some of the people involved.

      Accepting this doesn't make the big story untrue, it just means that we should learn from them and try to do things better next time. What's the point of history, otherwise?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    138. Re:Surprised? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trying to shine the light? You mean like this guy?

      Considering the behavior of Cuban dissidents in the past (multiple attempts to overthrow the government or assassinate Castro, terrorist attacks targetting civilians, etc.) I would throw their asses in jail too. Do you think if a group from outside the U.S. kept coming in and trying to overthrow the government, bomb markets, and kill the President that we'd just let them run around free?

      Fuck that trash down in Miami. Just contrast their behavior with that of actual Cubans during the Elian Gonzalez scandal for a good look at who the real scumbags are in THAT fight.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    139. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell did you get modded insightful? What insight do you have with Japan's history or culture?

      Typical American arrogance (and you do sound like an American).

      All the US did was nuke the shit out of two Japanese cities (granted, during wartime). Now you want to TAKE CREDIT for their culture and perseverance.

      Is there no end to American arrogance?!

    140. Re:Surprised? by orzetto · · Score: 1

      A position at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Can't really say no to that.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    141. Re:Surprised? by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      Whoa whoa. Fealty ? You have much more right under a feudal systems and much less taxes than with the current system. Comparing current democratic governments to feudalism is offensive to feudalism.

      The word you're looking for is not loyal subject but serf, but serfdom was less common then than it is now.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    142. Re:Surprised? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Raul Castro has been moving surprisingly quickly to open up Cuba since he took full power. He removed the ban on cell phones, computers, electronics, etc. and now he's cut this deal to bring the internet into the country. Pretty gutsy moves for a man who has every right to fear that increased freedoms could make it easier for the anti-Castro forces in Miami to assassinate him (this was why Fidel kept the screws on for as long as he did).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    143. Re:Surprised? by mc900ftjesus · · Score: 1

      Americans don't hate Cuba at all. No one under 60 even gives a crap about "evil" communists. Hell, socialism is only "evil" because American politicians are paid by insurance companies to say it is. I'd hate to have guaranteed health care for everyone, it's not like all men are created equal.... crap.

    144. Re:Surprised? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      * The patent system (Select someone for office that is less conservative and cooperate founded and a change might happen..)

      Agreed.

      * The health care system (Again, select someone a tad more social, and they'll do something about it long term)

      This is a tough one. Our health care system as it stands stinks for a lot of people but we are still the World leader in pharmaceuticals and we still have the best doctors in the World -- there's a reason why so many foreign leaders/rich businessmen come here for their operations. Personally I think we could improve our health care system far more if we worked to make it less expensive -- and this could be accomplished without nationalizing the system (tort reform and patent reform both come to mind)

      * The war on everyone, to either "crush" taliban or more preferably invade and give Iraqi oil to one of my friends oil companies (Select someone less aggressive towards the world around you, and the world will most likely be less aggressive back)

      Don't give us grief for the war in Afghanistan. Lest we forget, the Taliban did harbor the man who murdered 3,000 Americans (and others -- people from over 50 countries died that day) and refused to hand him over to face justice. We have a legitimate chance at building a better nation there and the mission in that country is supported by the UN and our NATO allies.

      I won't argue with you on Iraq but we are where we are -- so what do you want to do about it? I'd love to see our troops brought home -- but I also don't want to see that country turn into the next failed-state (the next Afghanistan) if it collapses when we leave. Again it would seem that we actually have a chance at building a better nation here -- we owe the Iraqi people something after we knocked off their Government and turned their country into a whirlpool of violence and murder.

      * Intelligent design (Select someone that doesn't mix religion with politics that much, and you might get out of the dark ages too(again)..)

      This isn't fair. It seems to me that you are only receiving news that portrays us in a bad light. If you looked a little bit beyond GWB or the few heavily Conservative states (Georgia and Kansas come to mind) I think you'd find that most Americans see right through ID for what it really is -- creationism with a fancier name. There's no "debate" about evolution here in the Northeast. There's no debate about it on the West coast. There isn't even a debate about it in most of the Conservative-leaning states (they never tried to teach creationism to me in North Carolina). Please don't judge us by our hicks -- even if one of them managed to become President.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    145. Re:Surprised? by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      From what I know about the UK it isn't *cost*, like the GP claimed, it's availability of specialists and donors.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    146. Re:Surprised? by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, it sounds very cool :D

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    147. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, I don't think pigs are going to fly any time soon, either ...

      Everytime GWB and his crew boards AirForce One, pigs fly.

    148. Re:Surprised? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Correction. Americans don't hate Cuba. Only bitter old Republicans and bitter old Kennedy Democrats hate Cuba. They hate it because Castro dared overthrow their corrupt puppet Batista, then refused to play ball with them and let their big businesses keep exploiting the Cuban people for cheap labor. They hate it because Castro had the audacity to refuse to die when they tried multiple times to kill him or overthrow him. They hate it because the Republican Party chose to get into bed with a bunch of Cuban exile trash down in Miami just to win some elections. And, most of all, they hate Cuba because Castro DARED to stand up to the money and might of the great U.S. empire and the Cuban people DARED to support him in that stand.

      Most Americans have absolutely nothing against Cuba at all. If the embargo were ended tomorrow, the island would almost certainly enjoy a brisk tourist trade from U.S. citizens.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    149. Re:Surprised? by orzetto · · Score: 1

      30% of income taxes(?)

      In detail, that number includes the social security tax (7.8% of gross income), "main" income tax (28% of net income), the top tax (a progressive tax, 9% on income exceeding 420k NOK, which becomes 12% beyond 682k NOK), fortune tax (1.1%), and the effect of various detractions (minimum detraction 38k NOK, plus detractions for interests paid on mortgages).

      The best part: the Norwegian state actually fills out all the paperwork for you! I was amazed that the first time I had to deliver an income report: I could just send an SMS to confirm that their data was right. If you need to correct stuff, you can do it over the Internet.

      (almost?) free healthcare,

      More precisely: if you go to the hospital, you usually pay a relatively small fee for whatever service you got. If during the same year you pay more than a maximum of about 200 dollars, you get a "free card" and the state pays for you from that point for the rest of the year. If you are in a difficult economic condition (not sure how they define that), you can get the free card from the get-go.

      Unfortunately and incomprehensibly, dental care is not covered yet, so remember to brush your teeth...

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    150. Re:Surprised? by xappax · · Score: 1

      gentle tropical island weather

      Haha, surely you're being ironic, right? Imagine your entire nation being in the path of powerful, violent hurricanes which come very year. And that every so often, will decimate a large developed area in your nation.

      Gentle weather, indeed.

    151. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Moore is a dirty capitalist. He's telling you what will make the most money for him. It has nothing to do with how my relatives are being tortured. Fuck you and your socialist gullability.

    152. Re:Surprised? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      That may be the most ironic...

      Bender says:

      That's not ironic! It's just coincidental!

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    153. Re:Surprised? by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to a Mr. Moore documentary that I saw not too long ago, it's the U.S. government that's limiting our access to know how good life is in Cuba.

      What was Mr. Moore's explanation for the number of refugees willing to paddle all the way to Miami on a rubber tire? I have not watched the documentary, I really would like to know.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    154. Re:Surprised? by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      Chinese firewall tech is made in the USA

    155. Re:Surprised? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... Never read it. What was the title? Sounds interesting

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    156. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And living in gorgeous, wonderful Cuban weather probably has nothing to do with longevity, either. Clean Atlantic ocean air, gentle tropical island weather, fabulous beaches that Florida residents _wish_ they had nearby, etc. probably have no effect on aging joints and keeping fit in old age.

      You're right, it probably has nothing to do with longevity.

      I thought we had abandoned the thought that "fresh air" helps your health in the 1800's. The environment can certainly make your health worse, but most places in the US aren't filled with Los Angeles-like smog. All the stuff you mentioned is certainly nice and fun to be in, but it won't increase your life expectancy.

    157. Re:Surprised? by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      More or less true story (some minor details may get muddled): American couple visits a couple in USSR that they'd become friends with on a previous visit. Russian couple welcomes them into their meager home, and works very hard to accommodate the American couple. They insist on sleeping on the couch so their guests can have their bed.

      On their last full day together, the Russian wife wants to make a spectacular dinner for the American couple. They all go out shopping to get ingredients... they go to the butcher, but the butcher has a very limited range of things to offer; mostly scraps and unpopular cuts of meat, but they buy the best they can and move on. The bakery is similar. Most of the shelves are empty; they look around and find the best they can and move on. It continues like this until they get everything they can to make a decent meal.

      Several years after the "fall," the Russian couple visit the American couple, it's their first time out of their native country. Instead of a meager apartment, the American couple have a nice house with a large guest suite. You'd think they were "special" rich Americans, but it turns out most people live in pretty nice houses; their house in particular wasn't anything special, this is just how many people live. The American wife decides, like the Russian one did, to make a special dinner. She takes the Russian wife to a farmer's market. There, under one roof, is a butcher with everything you could possibly want, a huge seafood section, a bakery.. the shelves are completely packed with anything you could possibly need.

      The Russian wife stood there and cried.

      I swear to you I am not making this up. People in these countries simply don't know how good "western" style living is; we'd been demonized by their governments for so long, they just couldn't believe the reality. Another lesson is that a lot of us don't realize how good we have it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    158. Re:Surprised? by praksys · · Score: 1

      Their hatred for the US had almost nothing to do with US support for the regimes they opposed.

      In Iran the fundamentalists did not care even slightly that the US had helped to overthrow a democratic regime - they despised democracy. Neither the fundamentalists nor the communists cared that the US backed regimes were repressive - both movements were authoritarian. Nor did they care about foreign interference for nationalist reasons - both movements were internationalist in character.

      In Iran the biggest problem that the fundamentalists had with the Shah was that his regime was too liberal - he allowed too much in the way of sex, drugs (well, alcohol at least), and rock and roll. In short, they hated America on principle, and they hated the Shah because he was too American.

    159. Re:Surprised? by demachina · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think Cuba had a massive dose of American "culture" in the '50's. It came in the form of a U.S. friendly, repressive dictator named Fulgencio Batista, the U.S. based Mafia that turned Havana in to the 1950's version of Las Vegas but worse, and large numbers of obnoxious Americans that flocked there to indulge all their vices, mainly gambling and prostitution. At the time Americans, being the puritanical prudes they tend to be, outlawed all these vices at home, so all their "weapons of cultural mass destruction" were focused like a laser beam on Cuba in the 50's. A lot of Cubans considered Castro and socialism an improvement at the time. Its not like Castro overthrew Batista single handed, he had a lot of support from the Cuban people.

      Part of the problem with American cultural dissemination in the past is it was targeted at keeping America and American corporations on fat street so life was good in the U.S. In much of the rest of the world it was propping up brutal dictators as long as they were willing to be a bulwark against Socialism and Communism and were friendly to American multinationals which translated in to the American companies pillaging all the countries cheap labor and resources to fatten their bottom line while they left most of their host countries in abject poverty.

      I certainly have no interest in living in Cuba. I hate governments who can't resist telling people how to live, or throwing their citizens in jail without cause, but that seems to happen in the U.S. now too. The U.S., especially under Bush has acquired some pretty scary Fascist tendencies and has been throwing people in secret prisons without trial and torturing them too.

      If you can stay clear of the Cuban thought police I imagine life in Cuba isn't all that bad especially compared to what they had in the 50's. At least they do have really good health care and education for EVERYONE, not just the people rich enough to pay for it like the U.S. Its amazing they do as well as they do considering the strangling noose America's embargo has had around them for over 40 years. The U.S. kind of forces them in to a lot of their repression. They've have to be on constant guard against U.S. schemes to destabilize and overthrow their government for the last 40 plus years, which tends to lead to an excessive security apparatus, kind of like the one the U.S. created using 9/11 as an excuse.

      I think my bottom line is both the U.S. and Cuba are deeply, deeply flawed so its a bit comical to watch them and the people in them try to contend one is god's gift and the other is Satan incarnate when they both suck about equally though in somewhat different ways.

      --
      @de_machina
    160. Re:Surprised? by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      But, my life expectancy would go up if I could afford neither steak nor beer. Instead, I'm sitting here well-fed, half-drunk, and on an uncensored internet connection (at least as uncensored as most of the world - and I have no objection to most of what people are being arrested for).

      Well, you might find that's not really true. Given your language skills, your education is probably pretty good, so you probably know that one beer a day is optimal for health, yet you are still half-drunk. So, if you were less educated or less well-off you'd probably be smoking grass or tobacco or drinking sterno. The native wild tobacco that grows on the islands is pretty bad for you and costs nothing. People with less money are far more likely to indulge in harmful vices than the rich, in my fairly extensive experience.

    161. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please go read at least the relevant Wiki articles to get a start on knowing about the situation.

      Why? Well just for starters the current trouble is /because/ Americans were generally ignorant of Iran before, essentially not having a clue or a care that they were directly keeping Iranians under their puppet dictator.

      No. I don't care about Iran and their difficulties. It's frustrating that the U.S. interfered in their affairs, but I hadn't been born at that point and don't feel responsible. I just want to ignore the whole region unless they become violent toward us or start looking like symbiotic trade partners. I do feel a responsibility to repair some of the damage we've done in the areas where we have kids stomping around with guns, but that's it.

      Other than that - I don't care.

    162. Re:Surprised? by Dr.+Hok · · Score: 1

      Its not the fault of the system that americans stuff their faces with double whoppers meals, super-sized coca-colas and serving sizes at restaurants that could feed a horse.

      Yes it is. I'd even say that this is the essence of the system: Make the people consume more than they actually need.

      The people in China and Cuba are actually quite slender.

      That's the capitalist system, not the health system, of course.

      --
      Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
    163. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you'll be welcome here in Australia, tho i hear that welfare and healthcare are even better in some EU countries.

      Actually, Australia is pretty tough to move to. They love for people to come visit and spend tourist $$. But then, they want them to GTFO.

    164. Re:Surprised? by praksys · · Score: 1

      Time and time again we've seen this happen. Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam was a nationalist. He refashioned his politics in terms favored the only backers available to him and became "communist" when it was clear the US would continue supporting it's puppets in the south, for example.
      You need to figure out the difference between history and communist propaganda. Communist revolutionary doctrine called for creating 'nationalist' fronts in the early stages of the revolution. Partly this was because communism itself was often unpopular (for religious reasons, and because peasants tend to be very attached to what little property they have). In other words, pretending to be a nationalist was the first play in the communist play-book.

      The claim that Ho Chi Minh was really just a nationalist is obviously false. Ho Chi Minh had been a communist for decades before he came to power in North Vietnam. He was a founding member of the French Communist Party, he worked for the Comintern in Moscow, he founded and organised several other communist parties in Southeast Asia. The claim that he suddenly turned into a nationalist after WWII is (to put it politely) silly and unsupported by any evidence.

      Castro has less of a paper trail, but the first place he went looking for help when he was raising money and men for an invasion of Cuba was the USSR (via KGB contacts in Mexico), and his buddy Che Guevara (who organised much of the murder and persecution of non-communist elements in Cuba) was certainly a committed communist well before the revolution.

    165. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not every American's heart is swelling with pride, you know...you're looking at a country of immigrants who literally stole land from the Native Americans, and forced Africans to work on it. So I guess EVERY SINGLE DESCENDANT of these people are just supposed to shed a tear and hold a hand over their heart every time the anthem is played. Get real.

      We didn't steal the land in most cases. We traded for it with beads and diseased blankets. "Buyer Beware" - The beginning of American capitalism.

      Mod nightmare - Funny or troll?

    166. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Batista was a communist, or ran under the communist party. I think you are completely confused and just don't know what your talking about. The Americans kicked the Spanish out in the 1890's and restructured the government. In 1933 or so, Batista was part of the sergeant's revolt which was apposing the US installed system that collapsed about the same time the American economy collapsed (the great depression). Batista had quasi ruled until the constitution in 1940 or so was in place.

      Batista was elected fair and democratically in 1939-1940. He ruled by default from 1933 until then but shared the power. It wasn't until late in 49-1950 that Batista started undermining the elections and staging a coup. It is true that in 1912 the American intervened on the side of black Cubans because of the race wars, and that there was the problems with Antonio Guiteras who was part of the sergeant's revolt. But unlike Iran, the entire Cuban issues were internal which makes it totally different then Iran (which was primarily external).

    167. Re:Surprised? by gnick · · Score: 1

      What was Mr. Moore's explanation for the number of refugees willing to paddle all the way to Miami on a rubber tire? I have not watched the documentary, I really would like to know.

      I did actually sit through that "documentary" and things like the tire paddlers were conveniently left out. As were the major problems with many socialized-medicine countries that he covered (long waits, sub-standard care, etc.)

      Like I said, I really don't care to weigh in on which system is the best - Many people on both sides have both flowering examples and horror stories, but Sicko was a disgustingly biased load of crap that really went out of its way to support Moore's preconceived conclusion rather than provide any useful/accurate information.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    168. Re:Surprised? by Aurthur · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, I haven't met a single American who truly admits to hating Cubans. It would appear (at least to me) that only our government does.

    169. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think your misinterpreting the end of slavery in 1891 when the US entered and then the races wars around 1912 (which led to the so called taking of Cuban lands) that like with the american civil war, sparked the end of slavery and the plantations and place deep resentment towards the blacks who were slaves and now taking jobs from "natives".

      But yes, I understand the differences in between being a puppet state and so on. The problem is that Cuba wasn't really one. But by the end of Batista's rule, when he stages a coup and rigged elections, it was claimed that the he was. But you also have to understand that ever since the Sergeant's revolt in 1933 or so, there has always been an apposing military element in Cuba. In fact, Castro was originally attempting to just get into a position of power. It wasn't until after he was ignored by batista that Castro got the momentum behind him. When he nationalised the american held interests, he didn't give them back to "the people" or the people who owned them first, he kept them to pay for his government.

    170. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What I am implying is that between 1940 and 1952, Cuba was free and democratic and prospered from 1933 up to that point when batista staged the coup. The 7-8 years prior to was setting up the democratic situations.

    171. Re:Surprised? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Cuba is similar - Give 'em YouTube, uncensored Google, porn, Wikipedia, streaming reality TV and show 'em the stuff that a lot of people in the world enjoy (for whatever reasons). It'll do a lot more good than what we've tried so far...

      The government would just turn the embargo around and do it the other way, North Korea-style.

    172. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should be good for the Cubans that make it onto season 1, but once they reach season 2 and have to resort to adding new plot twists to get ratings, it'll be a really crappy show to be on. Season 2 will add ocean currents that will drag unsuspecting contestants out to see. And if the show is a huge success, for season 3, they'll extend the western part of Cuba in a large crescent-shape so that there becomes land in between where the contestants start out from and the US where, when the contestants come ashore, they're greeted by Cuban police ready to take the contestant to jail for the rest of their lives.

      However things get better for the contestants around season 6 when they introduce the hidden Speedboat idol floating about 10 miles off the Cuban coast which allows contestants to forgo the traditional home-made rafts for a Miami-Vice-like boat chase where contestants are chased by Cuban police until they reach US waters.

    173. Re:Surprised? by mrraven · · Score: 1

      OTH I think you CAN say that you DO get bad outcomes sometimes with capitalism at least in regards to the food system. It was diseased meat BTW that led to FDA inspections of meat that saved many lives, see Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" to see how that looked. Perhaps we DO need a "nanny" state to tells us that living on fatburgers alone equals early death.

      Note I am not saying that pure socialism is great, I do think capitalism works well to make innovative gadgets like cell phones, computers, and cars, etc, OTH it epic fails regarding basic human rights like food, shelter, health care, etc. IMO the Europeans are way ahead of the U.S. in figuring out the right mix of socialism and capitalism to make a happy, healthy and wise population. An isolationist foreign policy like Sweden or Switzerland would help too IMO.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    174. Re:Surprised? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      McDonalds, Hard Rock Cafe, Starbucks and shopping malls survive and propagate because people like them and shop there. Not all people obviously; for example, you don't. But enough people that those businesses are successful and spread.

      There's not some evil plot, there's just millions of people who like ordering a Big Mac going there day after day.

      If you don't like a Cinnabon, create your own chain that does better than them. I've always wondered why most countries that complain about US companies don't have their own companies spreading to the US-- surely France has home grown chains, right? How come none are in Seattle? How come Starbucks, founded in Seattle, is in Paris and not the other way 'round?

    175. Re:Surprised? by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Informative

      But I agree - The embargo is idiotic.

      The embargo has been condemned by the UN General Assembly for the last 15 years or so. It's not just the US conducting the embargo though. The US government has bullied international companies and banks to join in. Recently banks in the UK have told customers they will have to stop trading with Cuba or find another bank.

      The embargo has nothing to do with Cuba not being a democracy of course. Even if Cuba was a democracy, it would no doubt be the "wrong" kind of democracy and would be subject to a US-backed coup as was the case in Venezuela in 2002 (although it failed). It's not just a case of economic embargoes either. The US waged a campaign of terror against Cuba known as Operation Mongoose. At one point a Cuban airliner was blown up, and it is believed to have been carried out by a CIA agent called Luis Posada Carriles. The US has been harbouring this man for some time and refuses to extradite him to Venezuela in case he is tortured (or at least that is the excuse). They must fear something worse than waterboarding since that apparently is ok now.

      The people liked us shortly after the revolution and blue jeans and MTV could have really made for a good relationship

      Well liking US culture is very different from liking the US government. This is why anti-American is such a stupid and propagandistic word. People who complain about US government actions are often called anti-American, which conjures up the notion that they hate US culture and American citizens in general. The US government wrecked the democracy the Iranians had in 1953, installed a dictator, then trained a brutal secret police called the SAVAK to keep him in power. The CIA-trained SAVAK tortured and murdered thousands.

    176. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying that the US gave modern technology is an insult to Japanese engineers and scientists who laboured to create modern Japan

      It's nothing of the sort and, in some cases, completely factual. What it is, however, is an indication of the large barrier of entry into many technological markets. If you'll remember, Ford recently came to Toyota asking for the same kind of help that Ford gave Toyota shortly after the war. And far from being an insult to Japanese engineers, you can look at it from the perspective that the help given by the US gave both countries roughly the same starting point and if you look at where the Japanese are in comparison with their US competitors, they've actually done better than the US.

      ...especially since the Japanese planes and warships fielded in WWII were technologically superior to those fielded by the United States...

      This is absolutely factually incorrect, at least as far as planes are concerned. Japanese planes may have out-performed American planes in many cases, but this was due to a different design philosophy that didn't value the life of the pilot as highly. Whereas American planes included a lot more armor and things like self-sealing gas tanks, Japanese planes were very lightly armored and took much less damage to be destroyed. The reduced weight meant that they had higher top speeds could climb higher, but that had nothing to do with being technologically superior.

      IIRC, shortly after Pearl Harbor when the US realized that their planes were at a tactical disadvantage against Japanese Zeroes, the US created a project which took a little over a year to complete that created a plane that was both better armored and out-performed anything the Japanese had. So for the last couple of years of the war, the US planes outnumbered AND outperformed Japanese planes in both offensive and defensive abilities. Now none of this means that the Japanese were incapable of making similar improvements to their airplanes, but they simply didn't have the reserve manpower the US had to undertake such a project, so in that sense, the superior numbers of the US were a factor.

      If you're curious about this kind of stuff, watch Dogfights on the History Channel. They cover this stuff from an entirely technical point of view.

    177. Re:Surprised? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      erm... the majority of voters were in favour of the other guy. same in the UK

      Well, at least we know that the majority of voters polled ahead of time told the polsters that that's how they were going to vote. Quite possibly, the lied.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    178. Re:Surprised? by huckamania · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should look into the Cuban missle crisis and some of the recently declassified Soviet documents from that era. I'll sum it up for you... Castro wanted to nuke the US. It wasn't the blockade or Kennedy that got the Soviets to abandon Cuba, it was Castro. But, continue to blame everything on the US. Only a vocal minority cares and you've found one of their favorite sites.

    179. Re:Surprised? by mpe · · Score: 1

      You are of course ignoring the fact that Cuba wanted to launch missiles tipped with nuclear warheads at the U.S. during Kennedy's presidency.

      Actually the USSR wanted to base missiles in Cuba. For some reason this was worst than US nuclear weapons in Europe...

    180. Re:Surprised? by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      In the UK it wouldn't be the doctors, it turns out to be the pen pushers who deny people life saving treatments on the NHS.

    181. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a side note, if you're willing to drag a floaty toy to the beach and paddle your ass to Florida, I say we turn our heads and let you stay - You're obviously more dedicated to being an American than most of the folks that were born here.

      I grew up in Florida in the 1980's.

      My doctor was Cuban. The best students in my classes were Cuban. Many businesses were run by Cubans.

      Because I love the United States, I say: Hell Yes.

    182. Re:Surprised? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      They hate it because Castro dared overthrow their corrupt puppet Batista, then refused to play ball with them and let their big businesses keep exploiting the Cuban people for cheap labor.

      Overthrowing Batista was Not A Problem. These things happen. Refusing to play ball with big business was not, in itself, a major problem. New governments did things like that all the time, back then. The big problem was how he did it. Instead of honouring the previous regime's commitments until the contracts could be renegotiated, he simply repudiated them. This is Not Done in international relations. If you don't like what your predecessor agreed to, negotiate for better terms, but fulfil the contract until you do. Why? Because if you don't, nobody will trust you. If you tear up an old contract because you don't like the terms, you'll do it to one you've signed yourself if things change. Castro didn't understand that, and quickly made it clear that he wasn't to be trusted. (One reason we never tried embargoing the Soviets is that they could be trusted to keep their word to the letter.) After a while, presidents found other reasons (human rights violations) to keep the embargo up and by now, it's probably too much of a political hot potato for anybody to mess with it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    183. Re:Surprised? by bonehead · · Score: 1

      Another lesson is that a lot of us don't realize how good we have it.

      How sadly true that is.

      This July 4th my fiance and I took the kids to a parade. As they frequently do they were passing out small American flags to the crowd.

      I couldn't believe how many of those flags I found lying on the street, carelessly tossed aside and trampled on. It choked me up, and I nearly burst into tears. Don't those people realize what it is we were all gathered together to celebrate? I gathered up as many as I could, and made sure they got a proper retirement.

      To me that flag is not a symbol of support for G.W. Bush. To me that flag is a symbol of the hardships my grandfather endured during WWII fighting so that I might live in a free country today. It's a symbol of the principles upon which the founding fathers established this nation. It's a symbol of what my father went through in Vietnam. It represents each and every one of the men and women who have died in order for us to have the freedoms and opportunities that we enjoy today.

      To see it thrown on the ground and trampled upon, especially on a day when we are supposed to be celebrating what it stands for, is sickening.

      Yes, there is much wrong with our nation today. The flag doesn't represent those things. On the contrary, the flag represents our obligation to fix those things.

      It makes me extremely sad that so many people don't understand just how good we have it in this country. They should come talk to my Bosnian neighbors, or my Iranian friend who has lived in Kansas for 20 years. The gratitude I hear in their voice when they talk about how happy they are to be here would bring a tear to just about anyone's eye.

    184. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I figured they arranged for something like this years ago.

      No surprise, we already started trading with Cuba in November 2001 (during the Bush term for that matter). In 2007, the US was the largest food supplier of Cuba and its 6th largest trading partner, all this while under GWB. Look at the wikipedia entry, it takes 5 minutes to discredit the majority of commentators on this topic.

      Are slashdotters in favor of free trade now? Why doesn't this thinking apply to Colombia, or for that matter the rest of the world?

      And really, do you think that data flowing through Venezuela then onto Cuba is going to be truly free? Where bloggers are allowed to have any opinion no matter how negative it is?

    185. Re:Surprised? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      It's cost and willingness to spend that keeps the resources limited such that some patients that would benefit from a treatment don't receive it. Thus, doctors need to prioritize who gets the treatment and who doesn't -- the closer to death you are (due to age or condition), the less likely the scarce resource will be allocated to you. It's true that politicians rather than doctors, patients, and families are making the initial economic decision that a level of care is "too expensive" given a person's age/condition -- but the decision is being made (and fairly explicitly).

      As another poster mentioned, dialysis is a classic example (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/671717.stm from 2000).

      In the U.S., we generally have available resources and some (perhaps many) patients/families demand that resources be allocated to them even when it's not "economically justified" (i.e., ROI in terms of dollars spent vs. length or quality of life) which contributes to a high "per capita" cost. We also clearly waste resources (again contributing to high "per capita" cost). For example, I've encountered cases within my own circle of family/friends where doctors "prescribed" fairly expensive treatments which clearly had no chance of saving or extending the patient's life (or quality of life) significantly. I'm pretty sure that in most of these cases it was done to make the patient/family feel that "everything possible" was being done (rather than the doctor being motivated by income). I've also seen gross incompetence in the form of misdiagnoses and inappropriate treatment by doctors necessitating subsequent "recovery" care at great unnecessary expense (reminds me of "What do they call the medical student who graduates at the bottom of his/her class?" "Doctor").

      Of course, in the U.S. we do have politicians making health care decisions via reimbursement limits - most publicized is probably in the area of Medicare. This has/is/will limit the number of resources available to Medicare patients because as reimbursement levels drop, less doctors and facilities accept Medicare patients. This probably results in some Medicare patients either not receiving care or not receiving care at an early stage of a disease due to difficulty/cost (travel or long delays) and eventually results in reduced quality/quantity of life and/or subsequently higher cost of recovery care.

      (I can't speak for how this works in Cuba, so perhaps my original post should have been modded "OffTopic", but certainly not "Troll" by the idiot mods who think "I disagree" == "Troll".)

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    186. Re:Surprised? by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      I gotta say. Whoop-dee frickin' do!

      It would be nice if they had access to the Internet, but
      what are the chances there is going to be a Gov Firewall like the
      Great Internet Firewall of China. Of course, China's doesn't work too well,
      but there still would be some severe holds for a Cuban connection.

      Everyone I talk to who has emigrated from Cuba likens the environment to living
      in a pressure cooker. Can't get out. Can't do anything about the problem.
      Those people obviously did, but at great personal and physical cost.

    187. Re:Surprised? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      We should do it anyway and suck it up, then we can rebuild our economy on firm ground instead of the shaky ground that's causing it to fall apart now. I'm generally libertarian, but this is one of the things I disagree with hardcore libertarians and the LP on...

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    188. Re:Surprised? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      McDonalds, Hard Rock Cafe, Starbucks and shopping malls survive and propagate because people like them and shop there. ...
      I've always wondered why most countries that complain about US companies don't have their own companies spreading to the US-- surely France has home grown chains, right? How come none are in Seattle?

      You answered it youself -- because Americans would prefer to go to Starbucks. (You do have Pret a Manger in the USA according to Wikipedia, that's a UK company.)

      Having visited the USA, I think chain restaurants are more common there than here (UK) anyway (I might be wrong, and just not noticing them). I prefer independent restaurants for the variety — a franchise is always the same, which is boring (of course, a franchise is reliable, which appeals to many people). I can't say if this is true in general, there are still many chains here (the American ones, Nando's (South African franchise), Wagamama (UK), Yo! Sushi, ah, a handy list) but there's a lot more independent places, or places where one person runs just three or four restaurants.

    189. Re:Surprised? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      You can pontificate about how Cuba's living standards are lower than so-and-so, but just compare to El Salvador

      Dude, my family videoconferences with my family in El Salvador every week over their high-speed Internet connection. Would you like a job in the IT sector in El Salvador?

      El Salvador has gone up more than 0.1 HDI points since the end of the civil war.

    190. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      An Embargo isn't "socialist". It's a tactic that has no connected ideology.

      It can be used for a wide variety of purposes, and in general doesn't fit with socialist ideology, although it could still be a justified tactic.

      It's like violence. It's a tactic, justified or unjustified.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    191. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to renounce such stupid behavior, but Obama and McCain openly support continuing our long tradition of terrorism against Latin America.

      They both said as much within the last month while speaking in Florida.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    192. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      The people in no way liked us after the US-UK military coup overthrew the parliamentary government and installed the Shah, who ruled with an iron hand until a popular uprising expelled him in 1979.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    193. Re:Surprised? by TheSync · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not trying to endorse either the Cuban lifestyle or Michael Moore here, but that is actually partially true. The Cuban healthcare system runs far more efficiently than the one in the US, at least as far as the numbers are concerned.

      Yes, when you pay doctors less it is amazing how efficient medical care can be! US doctors make about twice the OECD average, for example. Or you can look at how Wal-Mart medical clinics are using cheaper nurses to triage patients and treat simple problems without bringing in an expensive doctor, but of course the AMA is opposing these kinds of clinics.

      On the other hand, US Medicare just blocked reducing payments to doctors, so you can imagine that "US Socialized Healthcare" will be more expensive than anyone else's with poor results, just like our socialized education system...

      The US also isn't willing to engage in malpractice tort reform which could save nearly 50% of costs due to decreases in "defensive medicine"

    194. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      If you watched Sicko and came away with the idea that Moore believes the U.S. is limiting our access to learn how "good life is in Cuba", then you were listening with a predisposed concept of what was happening, and filled in the blanks of what is said with your own interpretation.

      Health care would be an improvement under a Cuban system than what we currently have. That doesn't extend through every topic as you have done.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    195. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      No, you can indict the u.s. health care system on the fact that companies profit for denying claims. That companies are legally binded to externalize costs, and allow people die as opposed to lose money.

      That's what indicts the u.s. health care system. Corporations.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    196. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you on your analysis of the current system, and disagree with the idea that holding to the "ideals" of capitalism, which don't actually exist will make it work.

      If you're talking about the Right libertarian version of capitalism, in every instance it's been tried the population has revolted because it is a system where the rich flourish and the population suffers worse than the current system we have of gross inequality.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    197. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      They do, insofar as the population allows leaders to make those decisions.

      Without true democratic forms that work in practice, any system will be destroyed by leaders.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    198. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      Canada is having a health care crisis because leaders are lowering funding to it in an attempt to put it in a position to privatize it.

      It's similar to what's happening to Medicare here in the states. You erode the system until it doesn't function, then use privatization as a way out. The reasons are simple, profits are there to be made if it's privatized, and unavailable if it's not, thus you must privatize because wealthy interests will pay you well to hand over the system to them.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    199. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      Then why have we in the past used, and continue to use exit polls to determine if foreign elections are corrupt or not?

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    200. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      The real goal of embargoes depends on the situation. In Cuba's situation, it's mostly retaliation for successful U.S. defiance.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    201. Re:Surprised? by gnick · · Score: 1

      If you watched Sicko and came away with the idea that Moore believes the U.S. is limiting our access to learn how "good life is in Cuba", then you were listening with a predisposed concept of what was happening, and filled in the blanks of what is said with your own interpretation.

      Actually, I was referring to a specific line toward the end of the movie. He first said that Cuban health care was superior to U.S. health care and then said something similar to "Perhaps part of the reason that the U.S. won't allow Americans to visit Cuba is so that they won't demand a similar system back home." I'm paraphrasing based on memory - There's no way I'm watching that garbage again to try to get the quote right.

      I tried to go into it with an open mind. The problem was that I was hoping to learn something, but found that impossible because it was impossibly one-sided and made glaring omissions that made me question the legitimacy of the rest of his assertions.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    202. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The quote you just paraphrased concerns a single issue, and you generalized it.

      Now, I disagree with Moore on this topic. That would be true for other countries, but less Cuba. Cuba is being punished. I think Moore is guessing at a plausable but incorrect reason based on U.S. planning documents that have been released.

      Really, when we undermine governments it isn't to protect their ideas from the U.S., we're sufficiently propagandized. It's more for what's called a "domino effect" in the literature, and it's intended for other countries, not ours.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    203. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      We started undermining Cuba before they had anything to do with the USSR. A good parallel is Venezuela (and on topic!), We committed a coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002, and recently they've been starting to work with Iran.

      The parallel doesn't extent to timeline. Cuba went towards the USSR pretty quickly, while Venezuela did other things until they were pushed that far, even with the coup attempt.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    204. Re:Surprised? by oppiano · · Score: 1

      actually the so-called independent journalists that are featured in the article that you linked to were paid by the u.s government. they were in essence acting as agents for a foreign government. in this case the u.s. government, which has as a goal the overthrow of the cuban government. i don't think that it is a coincidence that these people were arrested after the u.s arrested a group of cuban agents that were collecting info on miami based terrorist groups. have you heard of the cuban five?

    205. Re:Surprised? by jaxtherat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can beleive that, I remember my father ~1990 (we were living in Moscow at the time), making a passing joke about how pretty soon we'd be going to the food shops and asking for 300 grams of 'food', rather being more specific, as the shops were getting to the stage where on certain days you'd only have one thing (like say cottage cheese) in the entire store...

      Hooray for controlled economy!

      --
      http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
    206. Re:Surprised? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      You use the tools you have. Then, you hope that the percentage of liars is lower than your estimated margin of error. Until there's a way to make sure everybody tells the truth, that's the best that can be done.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    207. Re:Surprised? by gnick · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The quote you just paraphrased concerns a single issue, and you generalized it.

      Now, I disagree with Moore on this topic. That would be true for other countries, but less Cuba. Cuba is being punished. I think Moore is guessing at a plausable but incorrect reason based on U.S. planning documents that have been released.

      I said, "If I understood his statements correctly, part of the reason that the U.S. is cutting Cuba off is to keep the U.S. populace from learning how socialized health care turns Cuba into such a paradise and keeps us from demanding it." What did I generalize? I may have pressed it a little by implying that their health care system turned Cuba into a paradise, but I was trying to point out what a goofy assertion that was.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    208. Re:Surprised? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Given that Batista took over Cuba violently on 3 separate occasions, I hardly think you can call his election in 1939 'democratic'. If it was democratically fair, it was undoubtedly because people feared continuing chaos and felt that he could bring in money and support from his US friends, including the Mafia from the US.

      Much of this is in clear print over at Wikipedia. He was much more dangerous to Cuba and to other nations than Castro has been. Castro is dangerous, but at least he's _competent_.

    209. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your family just buzzes around town, walking to every market and cafe too, right? No, I didn't think they liked being kidnapped or murdered.

    210. Re:Surprised? by oppiano · · Score: 1

      But I agree - The embargo is idiotic.

      The embargo has been condemned by the UN General Assembly for the last 15 years or so. It's not just the US conducting the embargo though. The US government has bullied international companies and banks to join in. Recently banks in the UK have told customers they will have to stop trading with Cuba or find another bank. The embargo has nothing to do with Cuba not being a democracy of course. Even if Cuba was a democracy, it would no doubt be the "wrong" kind of democracy and would be subject to a US-backed coup as was the case in Venezuela in 2002 (although it failed). It's not just a case of economic embargoes either. The US waged a campaign of terror against Cuba known as Operation Mongoose. At one point a Cuban airliner was blown up, and it is believed to have been carried out by a CIA agent called Luis Posada Carriles. The US has been harbouring this man for some time and refuses to extradite him to Venezuela in case he is tortured (or at least that is the excuse). They must fear something worse than waterboarding since that apparently is ok now.

      The people liked us shortly after the revolution and blue jeans and MTV could have really made for a good relationship

      Well liking US culture is very different from liking the US government. This is why anti-American is such a stupid and propagandistic word. People who complain about US government actions are often called anti-American, which conjures up the notion that they hate US culture and American citizens in general. The US government wrecked the democracy the Iranians had in 1953, installed a dictator, then trained a brutal secret police called the SAVAK to keep him in power. The CIA-trained SAVAK tortured and murdered thousands.

      the u.s is not a "democracy". elections don't change anything when our choices are not independent of the undemocratic corporations that select our candidates. cuba and the united states are both dictatorships. the difference: cuba saves lives to survive and the u.s. kills to survive. great post.

    211. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmmm.

      I await your going to North Korea and telling one and all there that the fat-ass in charge of that country is "Ronry".

      Then you might get the difference.

    212. Re:Surprised? by notque · · Score: 1

      right, that was my problem with it. You pressed it into something he didn't say, and didn't assert.

      When you do that, it's easy to make someone sound like an idiot.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    213. Re:Surprised? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      So your family just buzzes around town, walking to every market and cafe too, right? No, I didn't think they liked being kidnapped or murdered.

      During the El Salvador civil war, some of my family was taken hostage by the FMLN for a week in their house, other parts of my family were taken away and killed by the right wing Death Squads (although it turns those relatives were volunteer doctors for the FMLN and trained in Cuba...not a great idea if you have kids). A friend of the family worked on unearthing a large unmarked grave of an entire village wiped out by the Death Squads.

      Now that the Civil War is over and Arena and FMLN are best buddies (no worse than Republicans/Democrats), except for the kids who grew up in the US and brought back the gang culture. And yeah, some of my family members were robbed at gunpoint at their beach house recently, but generally if you know what parts of town to go to you aren't in much danger. Much like Los Angeles. Heck, someone got shot near Hollywod and Vine a few nights ago.

    214. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your right
      michel moore doesn't need some /. moron twisting his words around to make him look like an idiot
      he does a pretty damn good job on his own

    215. Re:Surprised? by $0.02 · · Score: 1

      As well as Cubans

      --
      If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
    216. Re:Surprised? by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Is it? Can YOU personally "embargo" my home or my properties or a country's ports?

      Embargo is a governmental tactic. It is used either to cripple its own people's choices, or another people's economy, or the people's own economy or a mix of the former, or whatever the rulers have in mind.

      It is a collectivist tactic. Can't trade with Cuba, they're evil. But you can trade with Communist China and Communist Vietnam which have both killed more of their own people AND more Americans... directly and through proxies. But hey, who cares, right? Cheap Walmart goods are where its at... and so long as American Idol is on, who gives a shit?

      Collectivist tactic all the way. And for it to work, the people have to either be brainwashed or propagandized into an advanced state of Cognitive Dissonance. They have to see the hypocrisy, and yet not believe it. It didn't work in the eastern block because people still remembered. The "cultural revolution" there wasn't as effective as it was in China. In America, the cultural revolution was even MORE refined, as it didn't kill the teachers, but merely subverted them and subjugated education to the state through subsidy and collectivization. Why killem when you can grow your own and mandate them as the monopoly on education. They and their materials are the only "legit thing". You, as the state vet ALL material taught, and vet only the stuff that is favorable to your policies. Voila, canned cultural revolution without bloodshed.

      Brilliant, I might say. Embargo is a tactic, therefore, but it is one ONLY applicable by a state or other collective entity with enough resources and enough of its resources removed from responsibility for their actions. Yes, I'm referring to human lives as "resources" because to the state, humans are completely expendable and only of worth so long as they do as they're told and obey its edicts and demands. Yes, I don't hold the state in high regard... I merely respect it, as I do any weapon of mass destruction, of which the state is by far the worst. Regardless of what it calls itself... communist, fascist, socialist, monarchist... all states are collectivist in nature. The state comes first, its wellbeing is primary, regardless of whose lives it may crush. Well, so long as the individual in question doesn't stand a chance of ending up on the wrong end of that state's guns, the individual will always vote with the state's oppression of the minority in disfavor that week.

      As it was said... "He who would rob Peter to pay Paul, can always depend on the support of Paul."

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    217. Re:Surprised? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Cuba is similar - Give 'em YouTube, uncensored Google, porn, Wikipedia, streaming reality TV and show 'em the stuff that a lot of people in the world enjoy (for whatever reasons)

      I just can't shake the image of Christopher Columbus bringing colored mirrors to American natives when i read that.

    218. Re:Surprised? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      This is absolutely factually incorrect,

      I suggest you check your facts then, the 1941 Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" outperformed the F6F Hellcat in all areas, turn speed, top speed, armour and weaponry (the frontline US navy fighter in 1941 was the F4F which was superseded by the F6F). The Zero could even hold its own against the later us fighters like the P51 mustang and could still out turn any fighter of the day (in one direction only due to the nature of the radial engine) but as always with air combat, victory always depended on the pilot, pilots which Japan could not replace as quickly as the US. Guns on most Japanese warships could fire further and could stand higher temperatures than that of US or British guns and apart from the wooden decks on their carriers (This was done because Japan had few native sources of Iron and thus needed to conserve all the steel they could) they were better constructed than the venerable US carriers. The major downfall of the Japanese imperial forces was that they could not produce new equipment faster than it was being destroyed.

      One on one in the pacific theatre the only place the US was superior was in hand-held weaponry. Japanese Rifles and sub-machineguns were copies of old German design, large K98 rifles and vintage MP18 SMG's gave the decisive advantage to the allies in the pacific land battles even with the weight of the Thomson sub machine gun, the ligher and less powerful 9mm British Sten and Australian Owen guns ruled the pacific Islands due to the fact that in the jungle, at the range battles were fought, a 9mm was a dangerous as a .45. In addition to being easier to manufacture they were lighter and easier to transport which allowed the Chinese resistance and the Seri Thai (Thai resistance, similar to the Free French) to be equipped with superior weapons to the Japanese forces.

      Tanks are pretty much a moot point as so few were deployed in the pacific that they rarely faced each other. The Japanese focused on light tanks which meant they were out classed by the the medium sized Sherman tanks. The vast majority of Japanese tanks were deployed to fight against the Indians along the Burma front where they were destroyed with Piat Guns, Bazooka's and British 2-pounder guns most of which were considered useless against heavy German tanks.

      You could probably do with learning about world war II from a non-US perspective, the Seri Thai killed as many Japanese combatants as the US in the same amount of time but the Seri Thai were in combat every day (not counting material destruction, most of the casualites inflicted by the Thai were common solders where the US were fighting Japanese Sailors and Airmen as well as soldiers). The Chinese easily did twice the amount of damage to the Japanese than the US forces (including material) but they were fighting for 10 years before world war 2 even began for the US.

      BTW, a lot of the information I have about WWII comes from the history channel, including most of my understanding of the A6M, whilst entirely factual there is a slight slant towards reporting what the US did over other nations. The History Channel is not a good source when used alone.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    219. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There is no dispute over the fairness of his first election. And no, it wasn't over fear of bloodshed, that was something Cuba had already been putting up with since the Sergeant's revolt.

      I don't know, I look at history and see someone who the public supported for a while. Most likely until someone better came along but it happened.

    220. Re:Surprised? by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even go to the states and say it. I'm not afraid of the government there, just the rednecks.

    221. Re:Surprised? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      United Statians, not Americans. Americans as in Ecuadorians, Colombians, Venezuelans, Brazilians, etc have the freedom to visit Cuba.

      So if a person from Brazil went to Europe and someone over there asked "Are you an American?" they would answer "Yes"? Maybe I've seen too many movies, but in my experience the term "American" has a very specific meaning of being a citizen of the United States.
       

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    222. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, and the joke currently is the rest of the world enjoys Cuba because they aren't any U.S citizens there :)

    223. Re:Surprised? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Saudi Arabia perhaps. But I think you'd find the US economy taking the bigger hit, if it were to do a full on embargo of China.

      Look around the room you're in. How much of that stuff has been made in China or is US made from raw materials processed in China?

      A few simple examples: The vast majority of bras and zippers are made in China - not the most fun thing to have to do without on a daily basis. Same with buttons. The washing tags in your clothes are also from China.

      Quite a lot of your electronics are probably from either China or Taiwan, and it's not entirely unthinkable that if the US decided to do an embargo on China, that China would respond with either an invasion or blockade on Taiwan.

      Not sure about the US, but strangely some food items are produced in Europe, shipped to China for a bit of processing and then back to Europe for final preparation. I'm sure you can find lots of similar examples with US goods.

      Not to mention that since China has a lot of trade with countries other than the US, they would be in a good position to make them pick between trading with the US or China. Sure, you guys have fun movies, but we kinda like our food, clothes and luxury goods over here.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    224. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely OT but:

      I was actually thinking of trying to go to Norway for a year or two. I sent a letter to the ambassador to the US, explaining that I had an engineering degree, am about 25% Norwegian, and enough money to support myself for a while w/o employment.

      The guy was nice enough to reply to my email, which surprised me, but did not sound encouraging about getting a permit to come to Norway. Would a young US engineer be able to get a Visa to live there for a year or two or what?

    225. Re:Surprised? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      just trying to troll

      What is the one word that trolls aren't allowed to use?

      Back to troll school for you!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    226. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm yea I'd agree except that a lot of those paddling here are criminals. and when they come here they still continue to act like criminals. don't shoot the messenger.

    227. Re:Surprised? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      At least they do have really good health care and education for EVERYONE, not just the people rich enough to pay for it like the U.S.

      What nonsense. Good health care and education are NOT difficult to come by in the U.S. For education, there are countless grants, interest-free loans, and other incentives (like part-time military service) to help anyone go to school who wants to. Health and dental insurance is available to practically anyone who has a full time job, where the plan is paid for by the employer, and there are many other ways to get health insurance.

    228. Re:Surprised? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      What there is 'no dispute over' is his homicidal history from before the Sergeant's Revolt in 1933, until his escape from Castro's revolution in 1959. You cannot possibly have a 'fair election' of someone sandwiched between years of dictatorship and political homicide. And even with a 'fair election' once, which may have occurred in 1939 after years of coups and homicide among Cuba's leadership, he declared various forms of martial law and refused elections repeatedly in the 1950's.

      The man was practically the prototype for the pro-US, banana republic dictators.

    229. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      He didn't display any qualities that the US looks for other then being friendly to the US and US causes. As for free, it is as free as Cuba has seen, the Spanish involvement wasn't any better. Yet when castro lets people leave, they attempt to do so knowing that they stood a good chance of dieing before getting to America. Think about what inspires something likes that.

    230. Re:Surprised? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Besides being poor? Or the original immigrants being the wealthy and powerful frightened of losing their assets in Castro's regime? Or Muriel boatlift and its mix of thousands of prisoners, ranging from homosexuals to political protesters to plain old thieves and murderers?

      If you're going to refer specifically to the boat people, please do so specifically.

    231. Re:Surprised? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      How about all the boat people. They still come to this day. Somewhere on the order or 150,000 people so far.

    232. Re:Surprised? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Mostly, they're economic refugees. Cuba, while gifted with beautiful weather and a surprisingly good medical system, is quite poor. Much of this is due to the US embargo, of course. Few of the boat people, today, are anyone we really want or that Castro's government has any reason to want to keep.

    233. Re:Surprised? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Canada is having a health care crisis because leaders are lowering funding to it in an attempt to put it in a position to privatize it.

      It's similar to what's happening to Medicare here in the states. You erode the system until it doesn't function, then use privatization as a way out. The reasons are simple, profits are there to be made if it's privatized, and unavailable if it's not, thus you must privatize because wealthy interests will pay you well to hand over the system to them.

      That's one theory. The primary cause of the decline was because the health care funds were merged into the general pool by the Liberals, so they could access the funds for other initiatives, with the final goal of getting re-elected. [I'm politically liberal, but the Liberal Party is a bunch of crooks]

      I could only see your theory explaining why it's not being fixed, because neither party could guarantee that they would be in power when the situation reaches the point where privatization is appropriate.

      In the US the politicians don't have to be complicit in such a campaign (not to say they aren't), because pharmaceutical companies have an unlimited budget for lobbyists-for-hire, so they can throw enough wrenches into the system either way.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    234. Re:Surprised? by demachina · · Score: 1

      "For education, there are countless grants, interest-free loans, and other incentives (like part-time military service) to help anyone go to school who wants to."

      If that were the case why are so many students coming out of college with 6 figure debt from student loans that will be a ball and chain around their neck for most of their life. Military service is certainly an option, as I recall the Congress was trying to pass a new GI bill that insured vets a full college scholarship. John McCain and many Republicans actively opposed it because it was to generous and they didn't want to give the volunteer soldiers they are so short of in Iraq to have an incentive to leave the military to get their education. Instead they seem to favor stop loss so once you join the military its extremely difficult to get out when your enlistment is up. Being maimed or killed by an IED in Iraq is a pretty steep price to pay for an education.

      Cuba's medical education is so good they train doctors many other countries in Central and South America. The U.S. can't even provide adequate general practitioners to its own rural areas. All the doctors flock to the cities and to specialties like plastic surgery because the payoff is higher. In the U.S. you do have Medicare but most doctors don't even want to take Medicare patients because they aren't profitable enough.

      "Health and dental insurance is available to practically anyone who has a full time job, where the plan is paid for by the employer, and there are many other ways to get health insurance."

      Dude you are seriously out of touch with reality. If that were the case why are their 40+ million uninsured Americans and the number is growing every day. Employers have been gutting their health insurance benefits because they have become prohibitively expensive, especially for lower paying jobs. On the news recently I saw a piece on a wealthy Brit who started a program where he would fly in doctor's, dentists and optometrist in to third world spots to give people free health care. Amazingly he did the same thing in the U.S., in Tennessee, and their services were swamped by thousands of uninsured American's in rural America who had no insurance and couldn't afford the most basic health care. If you think health care in the U.S. is so great I think you ought to go sit in the emergency room at a hospital that takes the uninsured, if you can find one.

      Socialism sucks in a lot of ways but it does seem to provide health care better than anything Capitalism can manage. Under free markets you can get exceptionally good health care if you have the money, but if you don't is sucks.

      You should probably try getting out of your cocoon a little more often.

      --
      @de_machina
    235. Re:Surprised? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      If that were the case why are so many students coming out of college with 6 figure debt from student loans that will be a ball and chain around their neck for most of their life.

      Because they made poor choices, like deciding to go to an ivy-league school on a community college budget. That's not the system's fault.

      Instead they seem to favor stop loss so once you join the military its extremely difficult to get out when your enlistment is up. Being maimed or killed by an IED in Iraq is a pretty steep price to pay for an education.

      Or you could join the Air Force, where there is no stop loss and the chances of getting killed by an IED in Iraq are extremely remote. If you go overseas with a typical Air Force deployment, you'll most likely be sitting in safety on Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan, or somewhere similar.

      And how many Navy personnel have been killed in Iraq?

      I spent six years in the Air National Guard, up until late 2007, and I was never deployed. I also got a four year degree for pretty cheap, and a steady monthly paycheck.

      Cuba's medical education is so good they train doctors many other countries in Central and South America. The U.S. can't even provide adequate general practitioners to its own rural areas.

      By rural, you mean extremely remote. How many third world countries do you know of that have vast expanses of nothingness the size of Texas, Nebraska, etc? These places most likely would not even have telephone or electrical service if it weren't for the U.S. government requiring it with the Rural Electrification Act. This is a logistical problem, not a problem with our health care system.

      And yes, the U.S. does train THOUSANDS of health care professionals (doctors, nurses, etc) from all over the world. We have some of the best medical technology, training, facilities, etc available anywhere in the world.

      Dude you are seriously out of touch with reality. If that were the case why are their 40+ million uninsured Americans and the number is growing every day.

      Well, I can't speak for the other 40+ million, but *I* don't have health insurance because I don't need it and don't want it. I am a perfectly healthy 20-something and getting insurance is not a priority. If I wanted insurance, I could get it no problem. When I was in school I got free insurance through my mom, whose insurance plan covered any children of hers who are in school. When I was in the military I got super cheap health and dental insurance, and if I decided to stay in I could still be getting it. I can still get a great rate through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Insurance is really cheap for young folks who don't smoke, etc. We are the ones who have the least disposable income. If you can't afford insurance by the time you're 40-50+ years old, that's your own fault; perhaps you should have made some better choices in life. It's not my responsibility to pay for your health care.

      If you think health care in the U.S. is so great I think you ought to go sit in the emergency room at a hospital that takes the uninsured, if you can find one.

      What do you mean "if I can find one"? Any hospital or health care facility in the U.S. will take an uninsured patient, especially in the case of life threatening illness or injury.

      Socialism sucks in a lot of ways but it does seem to provide health care better than anything Capitalism can manage.

      Really? Kinda like the Canadian health care system, where patients wait for months or years to receive care even when they need critical operations like surgeries? Where they can travel right across the border to the U.S. and go straight to the operating room the same day? Sounds like a real paradise up there.

      You should probably try getting out of your cocoon a little more often.

      Cocoon? LOL so I'm in a "cocoon" because I disagree with you? I've travelled ALL over the world, buddy, and seen quite a few things.

    236. Re:Surprised? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Mods, please mod my previous post down, I screwed up the formatting. (Doh, should have used Preview.)

      If that were the case why are so many students coming out of college with 6 figure debt from student loans that will be a ball and chain around their neck for most of their life.

      Because they made poor choices, like deciding to go to an ivy-league school on a community college budget. That's not the system's fault.

      Instead they seem to favor stop loss so once you join the military its extremely difficult to get out when your enlistment is up. Being maimed or killed by an IED in Iraq is a pretty steep price to pay for an education.

      Or you could join the Air Force, where there is no stop loss and the chances of getting killed by an IED in Iraq are extremely remote. If you go overseas with a typical Air Force deployment, you'll most likely be sitting in safety on Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan, or somewhere similar.

      And how many Navy personnel have been killed in Iraq?

      I spent six years in the Air National Guard, up until late 2007, and I was never deployed. I also got a four year degree for pretty cheap, and a steady monthly paycheck.

      Cuba's medical education is so good they train doctors many other countries in Central and South America. The U.S. can't even provide adequate general practitioners to its own rural areas.

      By rural, you mean extremely remote. How many third world countries do you know of that have vast expanses of nothingness the size of Texas, Nebraska, etc? These places most likely would not even have telephone or electrical service if it weren't for the U.S. government requiring it with the Rural Electrification Act. This is a logistical problem, not a problem with our health care system.

      And yes, the U.S. does train THOUSANDS of health care professionals (doctors, nurses, etc) from all over the world. We have some of the best medical technology, training, facilities, etc available anywhere in the world.

      Dude you are seriously out of touch with reality. If that were the case why are their 40+ million uninsured Americans and the number is growing every day.

      Well, I can't speak for the other 40+ million, but *I* don't have health insurance because I don't need it and don't want it. I am a perfectly healthy 20-something and getting insurance is not a priority. If I wanted insurance, I could get it no problem. When I was in school I got free insurance through my mom, whose insurance plan covered any children of hers who are in school. When I was in the military I got super cheap health and dental insurance, and if I decided to stay in I could still be getting it. I can still get a great rate through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Insurance is really cheap for young folks who don't smoke, etc. We are the ones who have the least disposable income. If you can't afford insurance by the time you're 40-50+ years old, that's your own fault; perhaps you should have made some better choices in life. It's not my responsibility to pay for your health care.

      If you think health care in the U.S. is so great I think you ought to go sit in the emergency room at a hospital that takes the uninsured, if you can find one.

      What do you mean "if I can find one"? Any hospital or health care facility in the U.S. will take an uninsured patient, especially in the case of life threatening illness or injury.

      Socialism sucks in a lot of ways but it does seem to provide health care better than anything Capitalism can manage.

      Really? Kinda like the Canadian health care system, where patients wait for months or years to receive care even when they need critical operations like surgeries? Where they can travel right across the border to the U.S. and go straight to the operating room the same day? Sounds like a real paradise up there.

      You should probably try getting out of your cocoon a little more often.

      Cocoon? LOL so I'm in a "cocoon" because I disagree with you? I've travelled ALL over the world, buddy, and seen quite a few things. No "cocoon" here.

    237. Re:Surprised? by jgeeky · · Score: 1

      No, the point is that any time a government TELLS you what to do it is NOT socialism. A leader being a self-proclaimed socialist because he or she subscribes to socialist thought does not make that government socialist. The Nazis (National Socialists) were NOT socialists, they were fascists (minus the religious overtones), yet they called themselves socialists.

      This is EXACTLY what I was saying the problem was with your post. Socialism IS NOT these things your are reporting. If you understood socialism by reading true socialist thought, rather then by studying governments which have labeled themselves incorrectly as socialist because it gained popular support, then you would understand the difference. You weren't born under iron-fisted socialism, because there is no such thing as iron-fisted socialism, but you may very well have been born under a dictatorship that falsely called itself socialist because it was a grassroots label, and therefore popular. Hell, they may even have employed pseudo-socialistic programs to disguise their tyranny.

      What I'm saying is this: socialism is not inherently evil. If one wants to learn what socialism is, one should read Kropotkin, Bakunin, Chomsky, Zinn, or de Cleyre. However, most people's education of socialism comes from the known failed "socialist" societies like East Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Vietnam, China, etc. Of course, people who understand socialism also understand that these societies were CLEARLY horrible dictatorships posing as communist countries. Also, people who understand socialism understand that communism IS NOT socialism, nor is Marxism, or any other bullshit econo-socio construct that gets lumped together with socialism, which is an entirely separate school of thought.

      If I call myself a Christian and kill millions of people in the name of god, does that mean Christianity is evil, or does it mean I'm a whack job who doesn't represent Christianity? This is the same issue we have currently against Muslims in America. A group of extremist fuckheads call themselves Muslims and take actions completely actions the ideology of Islam and masses of Americans label Islam as a terrorist religion. I am in no way saying that you don't have the right to abhor socialism, or to value another school of thought. You certainly do, and you certainly should have your opinion. My problem is that your opinion is (at least ostensibly) based on complete fallacy, and you are spreading that fallacy. You experienced and/or learned about things that terrible people did while waving a socialist (or more likely communist) flag and you label socialism as the evil. If you understood socialism, you would understand that those societies could not have been further from socialism.

      --
      in the immortal words of socrates, "i drank what?"
    238. Re:Surprised? by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Marx, Engels, etc... those are your true socialists... you may also look up the Fabians if you wish, a delightful bunch of Machiavellian thinkers if there ever were any.

      I've had the dubious pleasure of torturing myself through the two installments of Das Kapital written by Marx. I've read the Communist Manifesto.

      From my reading, communism and socialism as you pretend it was "failed" or "poorly implemented" was implemented EXACTLY as designed. Their only failure was to notice that human beings have some value, and therefore some of them may, at some point, resist what you do to them "for their own good". See the whole point is that central control and "people are only of value so long as their services are needed by the state" is exactly the kind of crap that takes into NO account human nature itself.

      Marx presumed that people were machines, eager and willing only to die for their masters. He never truly broached the "who gets to run the show" issue.

      "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sounds joyfully juicy, but in typical socialist manner, fails to mention "who decides what they need, and who decides how much one is able to give? Who decides if the deciders are right?"

      People always expect others to think for them. And they get their just rewards for such utter stupidity. Personally I've seen socialism in practice, and it is EXACTLY what the early founding books promoted. Total ownership by the state, over the individual. No thanks. Keep that kind of shit in YOUR back yard, not mine.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    239. Re:Surprised? by jgeeky · · Score: 1

      Your post just further underlines the purpose of my original post. You site Marx and Engels as true socialists. Marx and Engels were communists and state socialists (state socialism is a complete misnomer since a state is by nature not socialist). Yes, some of those societies were implemented "correctly" as maoist, marxist, etc. None of these is socialism. This is the whole point. From each according to his ability... from the Communist Manifesto, not any socialist doctrine. The reason I listed the particular group of authors is because they actually ARE socialists. Many people lump socialism, communism, state socialism (again, a misnomer), marxism, et al into one group, but they are terribly far apart. I wouldn't like state ownership in my backyard either, and neither would any socialist who understands socialism, and doesn't confuse it with some other school of thought. I own the Communist Manifesto, and I've read it as well. It's a great piece of historical literature, but it's just not socialist literature.

      --
      in the immortal words of socrates, "i drank what?"
    240. Re:Surprised? by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      What is ironic is that ALL of the authors you mentioned got RICH off of their writing. They got tenure (Chomsky) and fame, and MONEY... they didn't write anything out of the goodness of their hearts or wanting to better mankind. (Last Chomsky book i've seen was "feel good" material for socialists/communists, and yet it retailed for 39.99 plus tax.) Now if Chomsky was so happy to promote socialism and a truly egalitarian society (where, of course, we're all taxed to provide for the weak or worthless...) then Chomsky would be giving away his books for 100% free... and would be living in a shack, experiencing the "glory" of socialism. Instead, I don't seem to recall him living in poverty, so as to share in "the human condition".

      The fact that he was a Klintonite, should tell you a lot about his motivations. Both he and Bill Clinton were (and to my knowledge I haven't heard them denounce) members of the Fabian Socialist club (or the dozen other names its membership has gathered under). You might recall these guys, since their one unifying factor was that they were ALL elite rich, usually of England or America, but with more recent members being drawn from a myriad other kleptocracies.

      Sorry man, I don't hold with this Chomsky is a socialist benefactor any more than I see George Bushes or Bill Clinton as the bringers of freedom to the oppressed masses.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    241. Re:Surprised? by jgeeky · · Score: 1

      Do you realize you wrote nearly 3 paragraphs about ONE author whose name I mentioned off the top of my head and didn't even address the actual content?

      Chomsky is probably fairly wealthy; he's certainly famous. Zinn is also very wealthy I would imagine. Voltairine de Cleyre? I have no idea, nor do I care. I don't recall every saying that these people were model human beings, or free from error. What I said was that the writings of these people reflected what socialism REALLY is, as opposed to marxism, maoism, etc. So, great job. Kudos on switching gears of the conversation.

      Here's the worst part for me - you further illustrate your complete misunderstanding of socialism with the following quote taken from your digression: "Now if Chomsky was so happy to promote socialism and a truly egalitarian society (where, of course, we're all taxed to provide for the weak or worthless...) then Chomsky would be giving away his books for 100% free..." Again, this is not socialism. This might be similar to communism, or even state socialism (again, a misnomer) where there actually exists a government entity or state to tax individuals, and there actually exist wages to be taxed. However, this is not similar to socialism. In socialism, Chomsky wouldn't be "giving away his books for free". To put it in crude terms, he would be providing a needed service, and others would provide needed services to him. Free (as in beer) is a concept of a society where monetary systems exist, which, again, is not relevant in true socialism.

      Also, you mention the price of Chomsky's book. I don't seek to defend Chomsky, and he's certainly not my idol. At the same time, I am pretty sure Chomsky isn't publishing his books himself. I am pretty certain it is a publishing company setting the price, and taking most of the profits from that price along with the other capitalist members of the circle, like the book store (much as performing artists receive very little money per album sold - less than 10%). Is Chomsky still making too much money? Probably. Should he be redistributing that wealth more altruistically? Probably. Is he a model human being? I don't know, and I certainly don't know where or not that or any part of your argument is relevant to the original post where I said that someone was quoting communism, or socialist-disguised fascism, and wrongfully calling it socialism.

      So, have a good week. It's been great chatting with you. I encourage you to educate yourself about socialism, or any social theory. I will be sure to do the same.

      --
      in the immortal words of socrates, "i drank what?"
    242. Re:Surprised? by mastropiero · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, yes. I am Ecuadorian, and we consider ourselves american, just as a Frenchman considers himself European.

      Then again, I am pretty pedantic, too.

    243. Re:Surprised? by orzetto · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the late reply: I think you would have no problem, their economy is going strong and they need people. My former shop is actually looking for programmers, if you know C++/Python you may be interested. They already hired an Indian so they should know the paperwork for extra-EU people. Contact me in private for the details.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    244. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PROTIP: L2subtract. The OP said $5/year, not $5000.

  2. Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by WhoIsThePumaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are those sneaky Reds still trying to use their communism-infused cigars to persuade people to become socialists? Are we still angry over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion? Or do we just have a raging hard on for the nostalgic cold war?

    1. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      The doesn't want the Cuban people subjected to.......

      Goatse.cx ...don't you have a heart, you commie?

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    2. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by Mobkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the rest of the world has somewhere to vacation without running into Americans?

    3. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by elefantstn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Warm weather, no Americans, armed thugs to keep the actual poor people at a safe distance, and you still get to come home with an undeserved smug sense of solidarity. Basically, it's heaven for Europeans.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    4. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by jonwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The embargo exists because if the embargo was lifted, there are a lot of Cuban ex pats in Florida and elsewhere that would vote the other way as a result. And because the system in the US is so screwed, those votes are enough to change the outcome of elections.

    5. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      UK magazine Marxism Today called vacations like this "Cheap Holidays in Stalinist Misery", which is cool on another level because it's a Sex Pistols reference.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by Mobkey · · Score: 1

      I'm sure any of the Caribbean countries are exactly like that, though I've only been to Dominican Republic so I'm no expert.

    7. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There's also the sugar situation. Lift the embargo and there will be pressure to buy cheap sugar from Cuba instead of using expensive corn syrup - so it would upset the sugar and corn lobbies.

      The whole continuing embargo thing is childish spite that hurts both countries and still doesn't stop some imports. A Cuban cigar even turned up in an unexpected place in the White House a few years ago.

    8. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by gnick · · Score: 1

      Actually, Americans are still allowed in the Caribbeans. And they still visit. I think that GPP was bravely and insightfully pointing out that European tourists have some of the same hang-ups as American tourists. Although, they're generally less puritanical and tend to deny desires to do things like "keep the poor people at a safe distance".

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by spisska · · Score: 1

      Are those sneaky Reds still trying to use their communism-infused cigars to persuade people to become socialists? Are we still angry over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion? Or do we just have a raging hard on for the nostalgic cold war?

      It would be nice if there were a compelling political, ideological, economic, moral, or logical reason for maintaining the embargo.

      But I think the real reason is that Bob Dole wants his damn banana plantation back.

    10. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The embargo exists because if the embargo was lifted, there are a lot of Cuban ex pats in Florida and elsewhere that would vote the other way as a result. And because the system in the US is so screwed, those votes are enough to change the outcome of elections.

      Kind of a bit like US policy towards Israel. Not that there is that much real diversity in the the US Political system in the first place. So even if the "other lizard" got in it probably wouldn't make much difference to the average American anyway.

    11. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japenese and Germans are the problem (running to them when on vacation). Americans are at home nation anyway. Unless there is a war!

    12. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Bugger - Holiday in the Sun was the first single I bought!

      I've just come over all 70's thanks to you :o)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    13. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Don't forget us godless Canadians. Although I must say that I have no idea why I would want to keep the poor people at a distance. Can you explain that to me please?

    14. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Sure as hell would mean your soft-drinks would taste better, though.

    15. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "And because the system in the US is so screwed, those votes are enough to change the outcome of elections*."

      * (implied): ...away from something that I preferred.

      You call it broken, I prefer to call it Democracy. Funny, isn't it?

      --
      -Styopa
    16. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by jonwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the ideal system, everyones vote would be treated equally (and everyone would be required to vote) and government would do what the majority wants instead of listening to minorities like sugar farmers, Cuban ex pats, Conservatives who think that Janet Jackson should be locked up for what happened on the Super-Bowl or whoever else.

      No more "I am in a marginal seat/district/area so the politicians are more likely to care about what I want" vs "I am in a safe seat/district/area so the politicians are less likely to care about what I want". No more "Because decided to support , I am going to get a bunch of people who dont normally give a rats ass about politics to vote for the other guy" type action groups (the compulsory voting would make one-issue-voting-groups a lot less effective)

    17. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nostalgic? It's only been 6 years since the last US-sponsored (attempted) coup in South-Central America...

    18. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

      There's also the sugar situation. Lift the embargo and there will be pressure to buy cheap sugar from Cuba instead of using expensive corn syrup - so it would upset the sugar and corn lobbies.

      You don't want to mess with Big Corn...

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    19. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      Don't forget us godless Canadians.

      We've made it this far without thinking about you, we're not about to change now.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    20. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by PPH · · Score: 1

      The Mafia wants its casinos and brothels back.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    21. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The embargo exists because if the embargo was lifted, there are a lot of Cuban ex pats in Florida and elsewhere that would vote the other way as a result

      Simple, allow free immigration from Cuba to the US & citizenship after two years of non-criminal residence, that should balance the scales of politics.

    22. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Lift the embargo and there will be pressure to buy cheap sugar from Cuba

      Oh yeah and make Ethanol from it rather than stupidly subsidized US corn!

    23. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      So the rest of the world has somewhere to vacation without running into Americans?

      All your beach are belong to US!

    24. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raging hard on, bro.

    25. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said Haiti?

    26. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by ignavus · · Score: 1

      No StarBucks, no McDonalds, no expensive medical system...

      Basically, it's *hell* for Americans.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    27. Re:Could someone tell my why we have the embargo? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "In the ideal system, everyones vote would be treated equally (and everyone would be required to vote) and government would do what the majority wants instead of listening to minorities like sugar farmers, Cuban ex pats, Conservatives who think that Janet Jackson should be locked up for what happened on the Super-Bowl or whoever else."

      You're contradicting yourself, and firstly assuming that the majority ISN'T made up of people that disagree with you. Are you sure about that?

      If everyone's vote is counted equally, then your enlightened, well-informed, entirely objective and fact-based vote would count PRECISELY as much as a NASCAR fan, a reactionary religious conservative, Cuban expats, or a sugar farmer.

      And if, for example, you have 20,000 (or 500,000, or 10 million...) friends who couldn't care less about a vote result on a particular farm bill (and so could be expected to split their vote roughly 50/50 on that bill), but there are 1000 sugar farmers who vote 100% in favor of it...how does the result change?

      And on the other hand, considering that US electoral participation is what, 54% or as low as 39% for non-Presidential elections, are you CERTAIN that you really want the 60%+ of the populace that doesn't care, doesn't know, and doesn't want to bother to vote, to vote? Really? What enlightened result are they going to bring to the election?

      On the one hand, you blast the ignoramuses (who happen coincidentally to usually be from the party opposite yours, right?) too stupid to vote the right way (or apparently to live their lives as urban, atheist Liberals?), yet on the other hand you want to FORCE INCLUSION on the (majority) of voting age people who have self-selected themselves out of the process? That seems at the least contradictory. Ironically, it seems that you're on the one hand condemning people I'm sure you'd assert were stupid, yet encouraging the participation of the least interested voters, who are MOST LIKELY to be vulnerable to demagoguery, bread & circuses, and pandering.

      Personally, I'd love to see a serious implementation of poll tests (Voting Rights Act of '65 be damned) - if you can't name your current Senators, Congressman, State representatives, Governor, and heck, even 8/9 of the Supreme Court, your vote DOESN'T COUNT. If you can't name them, you aren't paying attention enough to wield your vote intelligently. Oh, and if you can't read enough english to understand those simple questions in english, you're not getting enough of our domestic conversation that you ALSO don't have enough information to vote usefully.

      --
      -Styopa
  3. really? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...is to be completed by 2010 and will provide pornography for governmental family members.

    There, fixed that for you :-)

  4. Cold War left-overs by shimmyshimpson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The US embargo is stupid anyway. It's got more to do with keeping the Florida ex-cuban population happily voting Republican than anything else.

    Seems like Micheal Moore got it right.

    1. Re:Cold War left-overs by longacre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me get this straight: an embargo that was begun by a Democratic White House and continued through several more Democrats presidents, and even expanded by yet another Democrat less than a decade ago (Clinton closed some loopholes in 1999) is a Republican conspiracy?

    2. Re:Cold War left-overs by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like Guantanamo Bay, duh! Has republican all over it!

      (Note that I can't even find Cuba on the map, I just know the guys on CNN told me we do bad things there and it's all the president's fault.)

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    3. Re:Cold War left-overs by rob1980 · · Score: 1

      It's because there is an unpopular Republican in the White House that is easy to take a shot at. It'll go back to being a Democratic conspiracy if Obama is elected. Assigning blame/taking credit for the status of the economy also seems to work this way.

    4. Re:Cold War left-overs by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      It'll go back to being a Democratic conspiracy if Obama is elected. ......

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      'Scuse me while I pick myself up off the ground.

      --Toll_Free

    5. Re:Cold War left-overs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has Bush, either the younger or older, Reagan, Ford, or Nixon done about it?

    6. Re:Cold War left-overs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, except you have everything exactly backwards.

    7. Re:Cold War left-overs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get with the program. its always george w bush's fault. always.

      if it's not that then it's global warming.

      but then again, george w bush obviously has caused global warming to happen and he is ultimately to blame.

  5. Uphold the Embargo!!! by germansausage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We must uphold the embargo. Its the only way small impoverished Communist nations like Cuba can be brought to heel. We must never allow trade with communist countries, or buy their goods. Except China.

    1. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by DamienRBlack · · Score: 2, Funny

      We (the US) have some grand proclamation (I forget the name) that states "There will be no communists in our hemisphere. Stupid yuppies, get of our lawn and take your damn governmental ideas with you." That's a direct quote, I think.

    2. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by servognome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We (the US) have some grand proclamation (I forget the name) that states "There will be no communists in our hemisphere. Stupid yuppies, get of our lawn and take your damn governmental ideas with you." That's a direct quote, I think.

      No they (the Cuban exile population) is rabidly against Castro and the communist government of Cuba.
      We (the rest of the US) think, "Meh."

      Who do you think the politicians will listen to?

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    3. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just about communism, it's about Cuba being connected with our enemies (the evil U.S.S.R.) and helping them threaten the U.S.. Not to mention that Cuba has an evil dictator, Fidel Castro, that has murdered his own citizens. If we allowed trade with Cuba, everyone would be smoking cuban cigars and driving cheap vw bugs.

      China, on the otherhand, has never strengthened our enemies in the time of war, killed hundreds of millions of their own people to quell potential civil disruption, or flooded our economy with cheap products. Plus, they have demonstrated their ability to play nice on the internet.

    4. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      Who do you think the politicians will listen to?

      Politicians listen?

    5. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      But we don't need to suppress internet in China - they have their own great firewall.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    6. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by crazybit · · Score: 1

      Don't forget you buy A LOT of oil from Venezuela, who's president not only insulted yours in several ocations, but is as communist as Fidel.

      --
      - Human knowledge belongs to the world
    7. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to money.

    8. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Politicians listen?

      Only when they're in danger of losing their jobs.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    9. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 1
      Don't forget you buy A LOT of oil from Venezuela, who's president we actually overthrew, but the people forced us to put him back.

      Fixed it for you.

    10. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget you buy A LOT of oil from Venezuela, who's president we actually overthrew, but the people forced us to put him back.

      Fixed it for you.

      Thats not the way it happened. It is just the story that Chavez tells the world, apparently you bought it.

    11. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We must uphold the embargo. Its the only way small impoverished Communist nations like Cuba can be brought to heel. We must never allow trade with communist countries, or buy their goods. Except China.

      Isn't it interesting that you wrote yourself 'impoverished' ?

      Crushing the ones that can't fight back is a good thing in your eyes? can't you just let them be?

      The only reason that Cuba hasn't been crushed yet it's because it doesn't has oil.

    12. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 1
      Thats not the way it happened. It is just the story that Chavez tells the world, apparently you bought it.

      Yeah, the whole world must have dreamt up George Bush's instant recognition of the new Pedro Carmona government. The world must have continued to see fantasies; there weren't really any massive popular pro-Chavez demonstrations throughout Venezuela in the days after the coup. And Chavez did not really return, forcing Bush to recognize him again. All of that did not really happen. Our eyes were lying to us, right?

    13. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither?

    14. Re:Uphold the Embargo!!! by servognome · · Score: 1

      Christian coalition, NAACP, Cuban exiles, just get a large enough group to vote as a block and the politicians will listen.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  6. CIA says... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 0

    "I'd tap that!"

    1. Re:CIA says... by martinw89 · · Score: 0

      You mean "NSA says..."

    2. Re:CIA says... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 0

      Its hard to tell the players apart these days. Even if you have a program.

      (That's been redacted - but by someone who doesn't understand how a PDF works)

    3. Re:CIA says... by v1 · · Score: 1

      One would think they would prefer cuba to use US lines, because that would be much easier to tap than someone else's line to Venezuela.

      We may soon see a reversal in the policy. "Well, if you're going to find a way around the embargo, here why don't you use this line, we've got one all set up and ready for you."

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  7. not just cuba by alienpeach · · Score: 1

    Not just cuba: Jamaica, Haiti and Trinidad too. But, think of the millions saved by going north instead of south. Can anyone tell me why we still have an embargo with Cuba? This is stupid.

    1. Re:not just cuba by djcapelis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > Can anyone tell me why we still have an embargo
      > with Cuba?

      From what I understand the only people who care about this issue are the former cubans living in South Florida.

      Polls show them all strongly in favor of the embargo... since this is a vital voting demographic for most politicians... very few people mess with the embargo.

      Did I mention that the main people who break the embargo are those very same former cubans?

      Funny, that.

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    2. Re:not just cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Because you can't afford the "bad example" of a small country defying the USA and establishing a successul (would have been if you hadn't spent the last 50 years trying to destroy it) economy which is not free market based.

      They must not be allowed to "get away with it".

      See, among others, William Blum's Rogue State for details of the US military, biological and chemical war against Cuba.

    3. Re:not just cuba by daemonburrito · · Score: 2

      That's an extremely simplistic view. Cuban-Americans are about as far from monolithic as you can get, as are their opinions about the embargo, and their actions in light of it.

      Did I mention that the main people who break the embargo are those very same former cubans?

      Giving you the benefit of the doubt, that statement is ill-informed.

    4. Re:not just cuba by djcapelis · · Score: 1

      I didn't say they were all the same, I said polls showed them in favor of the embargo.

      As for the violation of the embargo, many cuban americans send money to relatives still residing in Cuba. This is a violation of the embargo and I would welcome you to tell me on how this might be misinformed.

      If you have information to share feel free to do so.

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    5. Re:not just cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't say they were all the same, I said polls showed them in favor of the embargo.

      As for the violation of the embargo, many cuban americans send money to relatives still residing in Cuba. This is a violation of the embargo and I would welcome you to tell me on how this might be misinformed.

      If you have information to share feel free to do so.

      You are misinformed. Cuban Americans are permitted to send money to relatives in Cuba. This is permitted under law and is not a violation of the embargo.

      Google on "remittance to Cuba" and "maximum allowed remittance to Cuba from United States" if you want more information.

      There's lot of information about Cuba out there if you know where to look. Some of it might even be accurate if you are willing to consider information from sources that don't wear Che T-shirts or who aren't fat, bearded, propagandist filmmakers.

    6. Re:not just cuba by djcapelis · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the information. I still think you'd find that quite a few of those families exceed the maximum amounts, but now we're out of an area in which I can say much.

      As for your personal attack on whether or not I'm willing to consider information "from sources that don't wear Che T-shirts or who aren't fat, bearded, propagandist filmmakers"... it seems rather unnecessary.

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    7. Re:not just cuba by daemonburrito · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Okay. Depending on who you ask, there were at least 4 distinct waves of migration. Each of these waves was a different generation or a different class.

      The article is in pretty sad shape, but here's a wikipedia article.

      The generation/class with the greatest support of the embargo is the first, the middle and upper classes (also white, mainly). Understandably so, as this was the generation who had their power and belongings taken from them and had the most to lose.

      Later migrations, like the Marielitos, balseros and "dusty feet", came from different classes and generations and have different opinions.

      The generation that constituted the first wave is slowly dying off, and opinion in favor of the embargo is eroding in relation to the change.

      Disclaimer: I'm anglo. Apologies to any cubanos if I screwed something up.

    8. Re:not just cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for your personal attack on whether or not I'm willing to consider information "from sources that don't wear Che T-shirts or who aren't fat, bearded, propagandist filmmakers"... it seems rather unnecessary.

      Please accept my apology then. Given your original response several posts up it seemed warranted. If that is not the case, then again, sorry.

      The embargo is a hot-button issue for the Cuban Americans and others besides (myself included.)

    9. Re:not just cuba by djcapelis · · Score: 1

      Apology very much accepted.

      I understand this is a very personal and sticky issue for many, so in turn allow me to offer my apologies if I caused any offense. I don't follow this issue very closely.

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    10. Re:not just cuba by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      The fact that his ignorance of the facts indicates that he went to a public school is a clear sign of a failure on your part personally and on many other people's parts, in many levels. You, though, seem to find it to be a cause of denigrating him? I don't know what school you went to, but they surely made a mess of you.

    11. Re:not just cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a room ya bumboys

    12. Re:not just cuba by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Ooh lookie! Dubya just joined the conversation!

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    13. Re:not just cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listening to ancient dictators spout anti-US retoric about tired old crap that happened to their country years ago during the cold war gets old after a while. Unless you happen to be smoking a Cuban cigar... then it *never* gets old.

    14. Re:not just cuba by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      At a guess, the embargo will last until the mafia get their casinos back. Just who do you think really runs your entertainment industries and in turn your government ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  8. Heh... by theM_xl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like one of our favorite sayings is evolving. The internet recognizes a problem and routes around it. Now also available in undersea cables rather than just software packets. Admittedly, that places US policy as the problem...

    1. Re:Heh... by RockWolf · · Score: 1

      What, because that's a rare occurrence?

      --
      February 9th, 2009 8:55pm: Slashdot becomes self-aware.
    2. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Cuban policy- Gizmodo.com> and cnet.com

    3. Re:Heh... by griffjon · · Score: 1

      Admittedly, that places US policy as the problem...

      I'd post a witty, biting remark about US policies, but there's that whole warrantless wiretapping thing, and I don't want to up my profile.

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    4. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admittedly, that places US policy as the problem...

      This would hardly be the first time that happened.

  9. Sabotage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best way to modernize any country is to connect them to the internet with a fat pipe. So expect the U.S. to sabotage this, since it would make the business of being against Cuba less profitable longterm.

    1. Re:Sabotage by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      "Best way to modernize any country is to connect them to the internet..."

      What? everyone in a country could have dedicated high-speed internet, but it wouldnt mean that country would become "modernized" unless it has the money and/or knowhow and/or capability of modernizing the country, which leads into the latter end of your comment, if Cuba has better access to outside sources, it will create a demand for "western" modernization (ie: useless shit, lol) and therefore the US could supply them with said useless shit, granted Cuba isn't that big, but business is business just like Cola and Tobacco companies do in third-world countries, get them hooked, reel in the line... what it may do is make the population less faithful in their government/culture/etc...

      But, I could be wrong...

    2. Re:Sabotage by mjwx · · Score: 1

      if Cuba has better access to outside sources, it will create a demand for "western" modernization (ie: useless shit, lol) and therefore the US could supply them with said useless shit,

      You misspelled China.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Sabotage by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Well, China manufactures it, but 90% or more of the products are probably made for US companies...

      Although... China's Shipping Routes means it has to go through Panama, and since Panama now actually has control over it...

      Though controversial within the U.S., the treaty led to full Panamanian control effective at noon on December 31, 1999, and control of the canal was handed over to the Panama Canal Authority (ACP).

      And China is the main controller of the shit that ships through it...

      Before this handover, the government of Panama held an international bid to negotiate a 25-year contract for operation of the canal's container shipping ports (chiefly two facilities at the Atlantic and Pacific outlets), which was won by the firm Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based shipping concern whose owner, Li Ka Shing, is the wealthiest man in China.

      So... yeah, uhm... I misspelt China...

  10. Can you smell what the rock is cooking? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure there will be some accidental ship-anchor-cable-cutting to be completed in 2011.

    1. Re:Can you smell what the rock is cooking? by Nemo's+Night+Sky · · Score: 1

      indeed.

    2. Re:Can you smell what the rock is cooking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps a shark attack. "Gee, It sure LOOKS like shark bites severed this cable..."

    3. Re:Can you smell what the rock is cooking? by initialE · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how there are American cables much closer to Cuba than that, what's to stop them from cutting those in retaliation?

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    4. Re:Can you smell what the rock is cooking? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Cause every time a Cuban gets his hands on a boat, he ends up in Florida. Ba-dump-bump!

  11. Dang anchors! by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

    'nough said.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    1. Re:Dang anchors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the -1 beat-to-the-punchline mod?!?

  12. You know... by RudeIota · · Score: 4, Informative
    While the U.S has reasons for the enduring trade embargo, providing them access to such information could very well have positive effects for the U.S., not to mention the cuban public.

    And yeah, it is kind of idealist, but making information readily available (potentially) gives the Cuban public a powerful tool to guide their own country... I could see how that would benefit both America AND the Cuban people. "The pen is mightier than the sword"

    What we've been doing so far has just been punishment for being non-democratic, but what could be far more useful and helpful would be only offering Cuba the tools of undoing their very own dictatorship, such as access to the Internet and other forms of communication. This is also fits nicely with Cuba's new found freedoms under Raul, including access to some new technologies (cell phones, in particular).

    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
    1. Re:You know... by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What we've been doing so far has just been punishment for being non-democratic

      Horseshit.

      What the US has been doing so far is largely punishment for nationalizing property during the revolution, somewhat overlapping with the ongoing pander to the Cuban exiles in South Florida; there's a bit of legacy anti-communist paranoia there, too. Anyone who thinks that the US maintains the embargo against the Cubans is because they're undemocratic is ignorant or deluded.

    2. Re:You know... by RudeIota · · Score: 1, Informative

      Anyone who thinks that the US maintains the embargo against the Cubans is because they're undemocratic is ignorant or deluded.

      That would be me.

      --
      Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
    3. Re:You know... by Kristoph · · Score: 3, Informative

      What we've been doing so far has just been punishment for being non-democratic

      No, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

      Consider that some of our best friends in the Middle East (such as Saudi Arabia) are not democratic and we not only not embargo them but we sell them weapons wholeheartedly.
       

    4. Re:You know... by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. It's not like the US embargoes other countries that are just as undemocratic or worse. How about Saudi Arabia: no religious freedom, no democracy whatever, nothing resembling a real legal system, no freedom of speech, and no rights for women at all, not to mention the massive export of bigotry and funding for terrorism? How about Equatorial Guinea, whose dictatorship would be funny if it weren't so pathetic? Funny how the US didn't boycott Chile under Pinochet, or Greece under the colonels or Haiti under Duvalier. Of all the countries with undemocratic political systems, can anybody seriously believe that Cuba is in the same league as North Korea?

    5. Re:You know... by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Funny how the US didn't boycott Chile under Pinochet

      Huh? The US set up Pinochet in his place!

    6. Re:You know... by belmolis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Precisely. The US helped overthrow the democratic Allende government and set up the Pinochet dictatorship. Not very consistent with boycotting Cuba because it isn't democratic.

    7. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. It's funny, the US government loved them some Castro during his fight against the Cuban regime, up until he ALSO nationalized some of the property belonging to wealthy Americans, some of whom weren't even Mob-related! (Though most of them were - the Mafia owned practically every major hotel down there, and alot else besides.)

        At that point, suddenly Castro, our friendly anti-dictatorship, not-buds-with-Stalin, wacky freedom fighter ally morphed overnight into The Hitler with an Even Bigger Moustache.
        As US attempts to kill or overthrow him proceeded, his government grew more paranoid, autocratic, and U.S.S.R. friendly in response. Our government did a lot to help create him before there even was an internet to deny to Cubans.

    8. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big reason we have a Cuban embargo?

      There's no reason NOT to. If the nation offered ONE thing that we really wanted badly enough (and Cuban cigars ain't it) then we'd find a way to deal with them. But basically, they're yet another poor Caribbean nation that managed to annoy us historically (and not just in the late 1950s and early 60s... they've been a problematic area for the US as far back as I can remember) and we put an embargo on them at one point for a punitive reason, then because we'd rather not have short range nukes pointed at us, then because they had the bad grace of still professing to be communist long after the rest of the world said "whoops, mostly a bad idea."... Now, its just inertia.

      And also, I think that many of them had a good taste of the "American life" and they still rejected it historically. Maybe the kids now would be different, but the US population treated Cuba in the late 40s and 50s as the place to go do "stuff"... Sort of an even seedier (if it can be believed) version of Las Vegas. Understandably, the nation wasn't really in love with us for THAT either.

      Still though, I wish most of you would shut up, since I suspect 90% of you who are saying "we should open trade up with Cuba" are the same group that trolls out in all the "China am bad!" threads that populate Slashdot too.

      Actually, forget the reason, I just wish most of you would shut up.

    9. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US also has access to the internet and yet the US citizens still don't quite grasp that, like the entire world is very aware, implementing social programs socialized higher education and socialized healthcare does wonders to the a country's development, social and economical. In spite of all that internet access, USians still believe that this sort of feudal system that limits access to basic human needs due to the people's income isn't only acceptable but also, appallingly, is somehow the best in the world.

    10. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's also why Canada should embargo the USA for the land taken during the US war of independance. I think all those loyalists land owner should be rewarded. With the inflation, I think you should give us 500-1000 G$.

    11. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, this has been proposed at the house of commons.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey-Milliken_Bill

    12. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuba is closer to home. It's all about the Florida votes.

    13. Re:You know... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... halfheartedly, I'd say.

      But I agree with one thing - we have some very hypocritical policies going on. Unlike a lot of other people, though, I favor boycotting those other places, too, as opposed to stopping the embargo on Cuba.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    14. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's absolutely correct, and to add to that, what is the point of an "information embargo"? Is part of America's argument against Cuba not that it should be more free, socially, politically and economically? How do they not believe, then, that the free flow of ideas into Cuba via the internet would have an effect in tune with US interest?

    15. Re:You know... by notque · · Score: 1

      On September 11th, 1973.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    16. Re:You know... by notque · · Score: 1

      Funny how the US didn't boycott Chile under Pinochet

      Huh? The US set up Pinochet in his place!

      The U.S. committed a coup against Allende, and committed a coup against Hugo Chavez. Much more successful with Allende who killed himself instead of being taken from the palace as opposed to Chavez who left.

      Chavez made the correct move as the military was able to save him from the U.S. led dictatorship. Allende wasn't, and the Pinochet reign of torture began with direct U.S. support.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    17. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US boycotts countries that threaten it, until the regime changes.

      The regime has not changed, and the US still considers the Castros to be irrational players.

      This isn't about being the worlds police - that's what the UN is for (although UN resources are chiefly american, so the US takes the blame/credit for that stuff - mostly blame).

      Pinochet, Duvalier, etc, etc, all had the good sense not to threaten the US mainland, even indirectly.

      Cuba and North Korea have both presented nuclear threats to America under their current regimes.

      It's that simple. I'm not trying to argue it as policy, but you should at least understand the distinction.

    18. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It's not like the US embargoes other countries that are just as undemocratic or worse. How about Saudi Arabia: no religious freedom, no democracy whatever, nothing resembling a real legal system, no freedom of speech, and no rights for women at all, not to mention the massive export of bigotry and funding for terrorism? How about Equatorial Guinea, whose dictatorship would be funny if it weren't so pathetic? Funny how the US didn't boycott Chile under Pinochet, or Greece under the colonels or Haiti under Duvalier. Of all the countries with undemocratic political systems, can anybody seriously believe that Cuba is in the same league as North Korea?

      Hey! Stop picking holes in this thing everyone calls the "truth" and the "facts".

    19. Re:You know... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to mention that Nationalize is a nice word for Steal.

    20. Re:You know... by Kristoph · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, 'boycotting' the largest supplier of Oil in the world would turn the US into a 3rd world country real fast.

    21. Re:You know... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      An admission to being slaves to oil...

      I disagree, the oil goes out on the open market; if Saudi Arabia, for example, cut production, they'd be hurting everyone else, too. We're not the only ones that use their oil. Moreover, not as much of our oil comes from there as you may think.

      If it's an incentive to drill more of our own and develop alternatives (as if we needed another reason), then so be it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  13. Does this mean... by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does this mean I'm going to start getting e-mails from someone who purports to be in Cuba and has thousands of cigars that they can export for a huge profit if only I front them the money to bribe some official and they'll split the take with me?

    Hmm. I was afraid of that.

    Cheers,
    Dave

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
    1. Re:Does this mean... by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      Don't give the 419 scammers any ideas. I'm still waiting for my first "There's a run on your Bank" scam email.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  14. This whole situation with Cuba is tiresome by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Florida weren't such a politically important state and the Floridians that held positions of privilege under Batista weren't so vocal, the US would have normalized its relations with Cuba long ago (and don't blame Bush for this one - both parties are equally to blame). Castro was a tin-pot dictator; but you can't convincingly argue that the situation for the average Cuban is somehow worse now than it was under Batista.

    I realize there was concern about the Soviet Union using Cuba as a springboard to threaten the mainland US (and yeah, I know about the Cuban Missile Crisis); but that connection died about 20 years ago. The world has changed. Fidel is gone, and Raul has even undertaken some small reforms.

    If we (the US) really want to rid the world of this small, tiny bastion of communism, we should engage them rather than embargo the island. Stop giving the Cuban rulers an enemy to unite the people against, and let the free market show them why they should dump their tired old system.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:This whole situation with Cuba is tiresome by servognome · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stop giving the Cuban rulers an enemy to unite the people against, and let the free market show them why they should dump their tired old system.

      Exactly! Put a McDonald's in Havana and let nature take its course, just like what we did to the Soviet Union.

      At the very least the overweight people will start to bankrupt their government run health care system.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    2. Re:This whole situation with Cuba is tiresome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and don't blame Bush for this one

      Straw man.

    3. Re:This whole situation with Cuba is tiresome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we (the US) really want to rid the world of this small, tiny bastion of communism...

      That's not the issue at all. Proof: positive relations with "communist" China.

    4. Re:This whole situation with Cuba is tiresome by dargaud · · Score: 1

      If Florida weren't such a politically important state and the Floridians that held positions of privilege under Batista weren't so vocal

      Aren't they all dead yet ? I mean, that was 60 years ago !

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    5. Re:This whole situation with Cuba is tiresome by blindd0t · · Score: 1

      but that connection died about 20 years ago

      While it may certainly seem that way, we have a habit of repeating history. The U.S. has been trying to put up a "missile defense shield" in countries near and bordering Russia under the premise of protecting those countries from threats from the middle-east. The thing is, missiles like the Shahab 3 can't even reach many of these countries (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7501498.stm), such as the Czech Republic, with whom we just signed a deal with (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7496399.stm). Add that with the tensions between Russia and Georgia (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7500772.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7499227.stm), and the fact that Georgia (and Ukraine, actually) is expressing interest in joining NATO (which Russia also strongly opposes), and I would say the ties you were talking about are much stronger now than they were at the beginning of this decade.

    6. Re:This whole situation with Cuba is tiresome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much. A few rich cubans hold on to their dreams of getting their property back. Because they live in Florida and have enough numbers to swing the state, they have political sway. So we treat Cuba differently than we've treated EVERY OTHER totalitarian regime and the approach has failed miserably fairly consistently.

      Meanwhile, our approach everywhere else has been to shine the light of capitalism on countries until the people demand it -- and we've almost always been successful.

      The whole thing is fairly messed up, but I don't sense a change happening until the older generation of Cubans start dying off which probably won't be for a while.

    7. Re:This whole situation with Cuba is tiresome by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Pointing out facts is not a straw man.

    8. Re:This whole situation with Cuba is tiresome by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call them positive. They basically steal from us by pegging their currency to ours.

  15. My experience in Cuba by RobinH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My wife and I went to a resort in Cuba back in 2003. They did have (albeit slow) internet at the resort.

    Some things about Cuba - the locals we met were some of the nicest people we've met anywhere in the world. Everyone in the country gets (at the time) the equivalent of $13 US per *month* to live, and that's it. Still, nobody ever asked anything from us (unlike Jamaica) and they would bend over backwards to do anything to help you. It was more likely for them to give *us* things, like on our first day there, one gentleman was making a grass hopper out of palm leaves on his break, and when his break was over he gave it to my wife and was offended when I reached for my wallet (I was used to the people who approach you in other places, like Peru, France, Mexico, even on our visit to New Orleans in '02, and I suppose in most major cities, doing some kind of performance to try and get some money out of you).

    One of the most poignant moments was a long discussion we had with one woman who worked on the resort. She was asking us about some of the places we'd been able to travel (mostly Europe at the time), and she was telling us about her eventual goal to travel the world. It's not particularly easy for Cubans to travel. They have to get a travel permit from the government. It's quite expensive, and I believe it has to be for an officially sanctioned reason. Still she was determined to go, and I hope she eventually gets her wish.

    But we were struck by how tragic it was that all these amazing people are practically being held hostage in their own country, cut off from the rest of the world. As far as I'm concerned, the more we can engage the common people in Cuba, through the internet, travel, trade, etc., the less time it will take for their country to reform, and for them to catch up with the rest of the western world. I really think the US embargo is completely counter-productive.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:My experience in Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely enough, opening a dialog with Cuba won't happen because of the Cubans in Miami. They (at least the majority hard liners) fiercely and blindly oppose *ANY* dialog with the Cuban government.

      Hundreds of Cubans arrive in Miami every year. Unlike other immigrants, they don't have to go through all that annoying paperwork. Just get to the shore and they're entitled to all sorts of help. In fact, they can be working within a matter of days doing things like assembling airplane parts of playing baseball. Won't happen if you're Trinidadian, Venezuelan, Jamaican, Haitian or Chinese though :D

    2. Re:My experience in Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your post, the info is appreciated. I'm an American posting anonymously who wants to travel to Cuba sometime in my lifetime, and I'm going embargo or no embargo.

    3. Re:My experience in Cuba by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was struck by how the children in Cuba were attending school, not selling "chiclets" on the buses like they are in almost every other S. American country.

      How relaxed people were in the streets of small towns. It makes many parts of America look impoverished and paranoid by comparison.

      Cuba has to be careful not to get truly shafted when the Embargo is lifted and the property market is liberalized - it won't be the regular Joe who does well out of it.

      The rest of the Caribbean is bracing to be shafted when the Embargo is lifted. Who will want to visit lovely Trinidad and Tobago when there's Cuba!!!!! to roil in.

      It will be interesting to see if the Cuban government can stand up to Organized crime. In comparison to that, the US Embargo is a nit.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    4. Re:My experience in Cuba by sasha328 · · Score: 1

      There is a tendency in the US and in some other countries with major problems, to avoid contact with "the enemy". Any one who suggests that it might be productive or useful or helpful or whatever to try and talk to the "enemy" is quickly shot down as "unpatriotic".
      I remeber hearing on the news how Barak Obama suggested that he's willing to talk to the Iranians, and he uickly had to retract those remarks because of the outcry.
      Most people (and country leaders) just want respect. One shows respect not by ignoring the others, but by engaging them.

    5. Re:My experience in Cuba by Gman14msu · · Score: 1

      To be honest, maybe the people are so amazing because they haven`t been exposed to the rest of the world? As an American myself, getting people to act more "American" or "Global"(see American) is not really a good thing. Viva Variety!

    6. Re:My experience in Cuba by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'm an American posting anonymously who wants to travel to Cuba sometime in my lifetime, and I'm going embargo or no embargo.

      Maybe you can go via Canada. Since you don't need to show your passport when crossing back from Canada into the US how is anyone going to know?

    7. Re:My experience in Cuba by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 1
      It will be interesting to see if the Cuban government can stand up to Organized crime. In comparison to that, the US Embargo is a nit.

      In the movie "Godfather II", gangsters were carving up a cake decorated with a map of Cuba. This was just before the overthrow of Batista.

    8. Re:My experience in Cuba by khallow · · Score: 1

      Googling around, I see two differences. First, the Batista government was heavily involved in the Mafia busiensses in Cuba. Second, the leadership and officer corps of the Cuban military had been severely diminished by a failed coup a couple of years earlier. It's likely that at the time of the scene above, the mobsters would have known that Cuba was a lost cause. Whatever else you can say about the current government, they seem to be less corrupt than the old Batista government and hence less friendly and susceptable to organized crime subversion.

    9. Re:My experience in Cuba by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      The previous reply is correct. I know that it's somewhat common for Americans to go to Cuba via Canada. However, the current rules are that you need to show a passport to fly over the border, but you don't need to show it if you DRIVE over the border. So perhaps a flight into a nearby American city, and a drive to Canada are in order? However, I think this final bypass is being closed on Jan 1, 2009, and you will need a passport regardless.

    10. Re:My experience in Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some things about Cuba - the locals we met were some of the nicest people we've met anywhere in the world...... ........... the less time it will take for their country to reform, and for them to catch up with the rest of the western world.

      You don't seem to understand that in catching up with the rest of the western world, the Cubans will lose all of their charm.

    11. Re:My experience in Cuba by gerddie · · Score: 1

      Actually, when you want to enter Cuba, you'll need the visa as an extra piece of paper, a so called tourist card. Usually you get it from a travel agency. You have to give back it when you leave Cuba. No stamps no nothing goes into your passport.

    12. Re:My experience in Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if those people are so amazing because of the socialist system that ensures that they will eat, their kids will go to school and they will have health care and a pension. Imagine the reduction in stress in having that security. Just like how the people who live in the Scandinavian welfare states are the happiest in the western world.

    13. Re:My experience in Cuba by mararual · · Score: 1

      They don;t ask for things because they have a lot of things you have to pay for, like food, social security (for any thing), education. All this for free, as they should be everywhere since they are basic for the growth of the society as a whole and for each individual. They are pretty proud of what they have accomplished and they know they can be better, not by "catching up with the rest of the western world", but by being unique and stand in front of the western world as an example of common sense, human love and eagerness to be better everyday as a society, not as a selfish individual.

    14. Re:My experience in Cuba by vic-traill · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can go via Canada. Since you don't need to show your passport when crossing back from Canada into the US how is anyone going to know?

      You need a passport to enter the U.S. from Canada now, and it is my understanding that it is looked at both ways. I don't know if the passport requirement is reciprocal; do you need your U.S. passport to travel to Canada now?

      --
      [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
  16. Seems backwards by neurolux · · Score: 0

    Heaven forbid Cubans learn about the outside world and find out the glorious benefits of capitalism and human rights. What next? Cubans starting up blogs and expressing themselves beyond their borders?
    ----------------
    Karma? Who needs karma?

    1. Re:Seems backwards by gerddie · · Score: 1

      Like some already do?

  17. 1997: Sprint provided internet access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny. I was exchanging emails with Cuban students and internet pioneers more then 10 years ago. I assure you this connection wasn't provided by satellite internet, it was provided by Sprint, the American company. Some clever university folks even had gopher, ftp & web sites.

    More info: http://www.cubatrade.org/eyeon2000g.html

  18. Did Fidel hire a hitman on JFK? by DigiShaman · · Score: 0

    I honestly, don't know why we still have the embargo against Cuba. I mean, there *was* a reason for it, but that reason has long passed.

    I suspect Fidel Castro had some involvment with Kennedy's assassination. I think until Fidel dies, the embargo wont be lifted. Kind of a political "Up Yours" from the US to Cuba. Still doesn't make it right to punish the rest of Cuba's population however as they don't support him, but rather fear him.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Did Fidel hire a hitman on JFK? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Well that would make sense considered how hard JFK and RFK allegedly tried to assassinate Castro. And that was LBJ's opinion [citation needed, I know, can't be arsed to look] on JFK's assassination that Castro had called the shots.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  19. Hypocritical US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, for some reason, we believe that by besieging Communist China with capitalism, that we'll eventually convert them to it, ever so slowly.

    So, are we to believe that the same is simply not possible in Cuba? I find that hard to believe.

    1. Re:Hypocritical US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, for some reason, we believe that by besieging Communist China with capitalism, that we'll eventually convert them to it, ever so slowly.

      So, are we to believe that the same is simply not possible in Cuba? I find that hard to believe.

      China already are Capitalist; they have been, for a long time, since the 80s.

      Please note that "communist" or "socialist" do not mean "totalitarian" or "oligarchy", which China, unfortunately still is.

  20. This embargo doesn't make sense by Barbarian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't a great way to spread democracy in Cuba, be to try to get the fastest, highest speed internet to their citizens, so they can hear about all the terrible deeds of their government?

    1. Re:This embargo doesn't make sense by servognome · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't a great way to spread democracy in Cuba, be to try to get the fastest, highest speed internet to their citizens, so they can hear about all the terrible deeds of their government?

      Who says it will reach the citizens?

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    2. Re:This embargo doesn't make sense by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or, as I stated in a previous post, it would make it a whole lot easier to control people. Think of it this way, educate in all the schools that you search the web with *insert government controlled website here*, that only searches government-approved sites. Now, some person is bound to know about other search engines such as Google, so you take Google, and rather then having a Google search, you use the same search as the government-controlled website one, only it looks like Google, repeat for all other search engines. Now, block all websites you don't want people to access, however rather then "This page has been blocked by Cuba" you add in a complex error message that the average citizen will think that the site is down or something like that. A person is much more likely to try to get around a block than to deal with an error message.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:This embargo doesn't make sense by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look how well that's worked for Americans. =P

    4. Re:This embargo doesn't make sense by kaos07 · · Score: 1

      Well you'd think that. But even here, Slashdot tells you about the terrible deeds of the US government and nothing's changed. Why do you expect the Cuban's to do anything?

  21. Upstream today, downstream tomorrow. by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I could see these arrangements changing in the not too distant future. Cuba is old news, and it's widely believed that as soon as Castro is gone, Cuba is going to be flung wide open to American tourism, trade, etc. Meanwhile, our buddy Hugo Chavez is working really really hard to get the United States to hate Venezuela as much as possible (he'd be the real monkey boy if Ballmer didn't do that trick so much better).

    So what could happen in a few years is that the Internet embargo for Cuba will be lifted, but a new one will be placed on Venezuela ... and that big undersea cable will find its primary use in the other direction.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Upstream today, downstream tomorrow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [Hugo Chavez]'d be the real monkey boy if Ballmer didn't do that trick so much better

      You're comparing Chavez to Ballmer? WTF has gone on around this place. This is clearly a reason to never mix basement dwelling geeks with politics. Geeks obviously have no perspective on what they're talking about.

      Well I guess we are talking about the same retards who thought a political party had a chance at a major upheaval based on their position about fucking copyright. There really is nothing to see here...

    2. Re:Upstream today, downstream tomorrow. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      our buddy Hugo Chavez is working really really hard to get the United States to hate Venezuela

      It looks really good to the voters if you yell at a tiger that is already too busy to do anything about you. That is also the tactic used by the elected President of Iran who currently has little more than a ceremonial role in Iran's Theocracy but is getting more power by increasing his public support.

    3. Re:Upstream today, downstream tomorrow. by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

      You're comparing Chavez to Ballmer? WTF has gone on around this place.

      I know, I know, it really isn't a fair comparison. Microsoft's tyranny has affected over a billion people, making Gates and Ballmer guilty of more crimes against humanity than Chavez could ever hope for.

      --
      Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  22. Until by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... someone accidentally drags an anchor.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Until by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Dang, someone (above) already said the same thing, modded +5 funny. I hate typing slow!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Until by kayditty · · Score: 0

      So don't type it.

  23. cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Cuba Gooding Jr. already had internet..

    oh.. I see...

  24. Mod Parent Up, Please. by Bieeanda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure you've got some old cold war hawks still raging against the international threat of communism, but by and large it's to keep a large, cohesive voting bloc in a politically strategic location happy. It's hardly affecting other Americans, so there's little reason to ease up on the embargo.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up, Please. by gregbot9000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hardly affects other Americans my ass. Sugar prices are much higher in the states then they would be if free trade were allowed with Cuba. It's partially because of this ban that we get high fructose corn syrup in our drinks. And what about people like me who like to eat my sugar with a little coffee in the morning?

    2. Re:Mod Parent Up, Please. by BalmyBrute · · Score: 1

      I personally would rather have high fructose corn syrup then commie sugar.

    3. Re:Mod Parent Up, Please. by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Please use the proper term: "Freedom Fructose". Thank you.

  25. Party Drift by copponex · · Score: 1

    Kennedy wasn't a great president. His administration supported MLK only when it was forced to by public opinion. He continued the idiotic tradition of using the CIA to subvert foreign government, though he may have changed his mind on that after the Bay of Pigs. And thankfully, he was intelligent enough to empathize with the Russian position on missile placement. If Reagan or Bush had been in the White House at that point, their idiotic cowboy attitude could very well have destroyed the planet.

    Either way, his foreign policy is not that different from the PNAC cabal. When it suits the US for political or financial gain, send in the troops, but back in those days it barely required a pretext. But when it came down to it, he left every option on the table, including the most effective one: diplomacy.

    I guess you could say that the embargo started out as a Democratic conspiracy, and when Republicans started following the same foreign policy for their own reasons, it continued. America could learn quite a few things from Cuba, not only in regards to their health care system, but also in the ways that they survived peak oil after the collapse of the Soviet Union - the first industrial society to do so, as far as I know.

    As recent polls show, a majority of Americans hate Fidel even though they believe Cuba will remain the same without him, the result of decades of character assassination trying to undermine his government. They also favor restoration of diplomatic relations, which means very little to the politicians still in charge. Cuba represents independence from American influence to the whole of Latin America, and it's only 90 miles from Key West. Punishing their society for refusing to let our corporations into their market is far more important than anything else, especially the freedom and prosperity of the average Cuban citizen.

  26. Parent is informative and deserves to be modded up by djcapelis · · Score: 1

    Thanks for setting me straight, I wasn't aware of the complex demographics here. :)

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
  27. yes, get it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me get this straight: an embargo that was begun by a Democratic White House and continued through several more Democrats presidents, and even expanded by yet another Democrat less than a decade ago (Clinton closed some loopholes in 1999) is a Republican conspiracy?

    Straw man. Cuban Americans militantly opposed to normalized relations with Cuba vote overwhelmingly Republican. When a Democrat panders to this constituency, they're pandering to Republican voters, just like Obama's recent moves on the death penalty and sending public money to religious organizations.

    1. Re:yes, get it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Straw man"? You mean red herring?

  28. Yes and both sides are happy with that by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The reps get the reputation of being though and so can use it to keep their backers happy. The dems get the rep that they are really against it and would change it if only they could and so keep their backers happy.

    US politics has no left and right anymore as far as the major political events are concerned. The entire trick is to keep your own backers happy enough NOT to go voting for a 3rd party or stay home while taking as much of the center as possible.

    Look at the current campaign. What is really going to be changed by either side? Nothing.

    You cannot have a two party democratic system because it will by the nature of popularity contests (which is what western style democracy really is) always tend to have both parties come together in the middle because that is where the votes are.

    The US is not alone to suffer from this. In france they recently had an election with the slogan. "Elect the crook, not the fascist". The voter could only choose between a known corrupt politician and an openly fascist one. Long live big parties, the best way to kill democracy.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Yes and both sides are happy with that by vidarh · · Score: 1

      You cannot have a two party democratic system because it will by the nature of popularity contests (which is what western style democracy really is) always tend to have both parties come together in the middle because that is where the votes are.

      I agree with this. The US electoral system is a sham which makes it next to impossible for alternatives to emerge, and as a result the US political landscape is more static than almost any other "democracy".

      In france they recently had an election with the slogan. "Elect the crook, not the fascist". The voter could only choose between a known corrupt politician and an openly fascist one.

      I suppose you are referring to the Chirac vs. Le Pen second round in 2002. But you missed the point. The voter could choose amongst a wide range of candidates. Chirac (the crook) and Le Pen (the "fascist") were the two candidates that got the most votes in the first round. When no single candidate get more than 50% of the vote, French law requires a second round with only the two top candidates.

      The voters had already discarded all the other candidates, and the people who had voted for neither accordingly saw it as a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.

      (As a side note, I don't think people outside France truly appreciates how nasty Le Pen is. May 1st 1994 I was in France with my French class, and our teacher took us to see one of the Front Nationale demonstrations to let us see what they were about, and it was absolutely an eye opener to see youth in uniforms with armbands reminiscent of the Hitlerjugend marching in the streets of Paris and using slogans that could have been used by the nazis with just a translation)

    2. Re:Yes and both sides are happy with that by dcam · · Score: 1

      US politics has no left and right anymore as far as the major political events are concerned.

      The US has not had a left and right for quite some time. There has only been the right and extreme right.

      --
      meh
  29. Help, not hinder by tenyearsgone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems like helping the Cubans get internet access might help further U.S. goals better than the embargo does.

    1. Re:Help, not hinder by argent · · Score: 1

      Hell yes. Gotta get Cuba hooked on Youtube ASAP.

  30. Great embargo! by geogob · · Score: 1

    For years, the US has been getting Cuban cigars downstream via Canada and now Cuba will be getting American Internet upstream via Venezuela.

    Would have been easier to directly get some European Internet or Asian Internet into Cuba... I heard the Chinese make them very cheap (but with the most useful things left out, was always). On the other hand, the Cuban presidency won't probably mind the Chinese "left-outs".

  31. Applies to ALL embargoes by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Technically if our government was OUR government then it wouldnt' distrust us to make up our own minds about "good" or "evil", would they?

    This is an argument against all embargoes and other economic sanctions. There is no difference — in principle — between banning you from going there yourself (propping up the regime with your tourism money), banning you from selling them shoes, and banning you from selling them advanced military technology. A free citizen — it can be argued along your lines — ought to be free to make their own decision. And free shareholders of a bank ought to decide, whether or not freeze a particular account. Etcaetera.

    So, are you against all embargoes?

    Or only against those, which target regimes you sympathize with (admit it, you own a Che Guevarra T-shirt)?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Actually I own a "Che is dead, get over it" and a "Che shot little kids in the back of the head" shirt. I'm not a fan of the scumbag. I almost was until I did some reading on the bastard.

      And no, technically, if we still had a truly free country where the government stayed the hell out of people's lives, then corporations wouldn't have this much power, because every time they did what they were started to do, their assets would be sold off, and they would be disbanded. But government gave them personhood. Blame the government and the idiots who voted.

      And again, if we still had a free market of any kind, then governments would have fallen apart long ago, and people would be back to contractual agreements amongst each other. And as you know, I don't much use a bank, so they can freeze all my accounts, all they want. I stand to lose nothing. About 50 bucks or so.

      Besides, if a business behaved badly, in a free market, it would lose its patrons fairly quickly since there would be no government to provide heavy barriers to entry to the little guys and favorable treatment to the big guys... but who am I kidding, this is probably the wrong forum to argue this.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    2. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by wellingj · · Score: 1

      Fuck embargoes. Yes all embargoes. Isolationism doesn't solve anything. Free-trade and the free exchange of ideas could solve a lot of things the world wide. US-Iran, North Korea-South Korea, Mexico-US, US-China. Ok so the US as it stands politically could solve a lot of things if we would just practice more Free-trade and the free exchange of ideas, but as it is the US barely talk with other nations before we
      1. Santion/Embargo
      2. Bomb
      3. ....
      4. Profit!

      I just expect more rationality from my government, Is that so wrong?

    3. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol... Have you looked at history at all? N.Korea invaded a friendly nation, Iran wants to wipe another friendly nation off the map. Do you actually think free trade would prevent any of that or make the world a better place because of it?

      And if you pick the later, then what's the matter with the US doing it too?

      I expect more rationality and common sense from people expecting things from my government, Is that so wrong?

    4. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by ryszard99 · · Score: 1

      Actually I own a "Che is dead, get over it" and a "Che shot little kids in the back of the head" shirt. I'm not a fan of the scumbag. I almost was until I did some reading on the bastard.

      Any online sources you'd like to quote? there isnt much on the much revered wikipedia.

      --
      -- $_='ab-bc ratvarre';tr"'a-z'"'n-za-m'";print
    5. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from the trade issue, what's with the history lesson? So Mr. rationality and common sense, you would characterize S Korea as being "friendly" towards N. Korea pre-invasion, and Israel as "friendly" to Iran? Oh, that's right thy are friendly with the US, that explains it. Good thing, the US gov't is devising ways to wipe N. Korea and Iran off the map.

    6. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by wellingj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe you are asking the wrong question. The idea that the US has to prevent any nation from attacking any other nation or the idea that the US should make the world a better place is a totalitarian idea and doomed to failure. The US should mind it's own business, and not be afraid to let it's citizens have the right of free association on a global scale.

    7. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC due to having moderated.
      To understand the reason behind of the Korean War, take a look at how and why North Korea was created in the first place.

    8. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Well, arms embargoes make sense. You don't want to sell a country the weapons it uses to attack you. Embargoes on other products end up hurting the population a lot more than the rulers, and so are only worthwhile against democratic countries where it's easy for the general public to replace the government.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by mi · · Score: 1

      Embargoing anything makes the rulers of the target country worry about producing that thing themselves — diverting their resources to it. It is also a way to punish whoever you want to punish, without outright military strikes — something the current administration is often blamed for not doing enough of.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by mi · · Score: 1

      Fuck embargoes. Yes all embargoes.

      Let me step to your level and discuss high-school behavior. So, with the above-expressed distaste for embargoes, if you really hated a guy, you would either act like nothing is happening or go all-out trying to beat him up? Right? Because the peaceful alternative — avoiding the asshole and trying to convince friends/others to do the same (a.k.a. boycott) is the near-perfect equivalent of an embargo.

      Isolationism doesn't solve anything. Free-trade and [...]

      Isolationism is bad, and free trade are good — which is why imposing the former and depriving of the latter is what you are applying to an enemy, whom you aren't (yet?) willing/able to take on militarily.

      but as it is the US

      We are talking about all embargoes in principle. Stay focused and don't change the subject to the US and the current affairs.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by mi · · Score: 1

      but who am I kidding, this is probably the wrong forum to argue this.

      Yes, answering a question like "Are you against all embargoes?" — with: "I'll only lose 50 bucks, if my bank account is frozen," — is considered too low even for this forum...

      So long...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      They havn't prevented either, well maybe indirectly in the case of Iran. With N.K, we were asked in to help. In Iran, we simple don't ignore things to a point it causes mass casualties and brings the US into another war. That theory has changed recently but out relations with the two countries involved should be kept in a historic context and not interpreted from your current observations.

      BTW, Iran and Israel were friendly at one time.

    13. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

      What a simple-minded view. That was the thinking 50 years ago, but we're finding that refusing to trade with a country isn't like ignoring a bully. Embargoes really make things worse for the civilians - families, women, children. The leaders and military will always have their toys and enough to eat. You give the leaders more power and you turn the people against you.

    14. Re:Applies to ALL embargoes by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      No, dig up the books at your local book store. Its that place they sell books. You can even read them if you got the time to stay at the book store. That's how geeks used to train in the old days. Try it, its liberating to step away from the 'puter for a bit.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  32. Democracy is a Stupid by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Democracy is the best of all systems of government, but it still sucks balls. We have got to place restrictions on government activity if we want this idiocy to end. The government should not be involved in economic regulation, or wealth redistribution, or healthcare, or education, or even emergency services. All they do is fuck everything up. We need to restrict the role of government to enforcing basic laws and providing national security in the most basic way possible. Anything that we can do for ourselves, we should do for ourselves. Keep the government out of it.

    1. Re:Democracy is a Stupid by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      [Citation needed]

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    2. Re:Democracy is a Stupid by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      You don't need to cite your own opinion.

    3. Re:Democracy is a Stupid by BrentH · · Score: 1

      You are under the mistaken impression tha your country is a democracy. It's duopolized by two parties, which are both by and large controlled by corporations and interest groups, not the people. Americans are also under the mistaken impression that strong leadership is a good thing (which implies a single party in office). In most other democracies there are many small parties, which, agreed, are not always as efficient at getting things done like in the US, but that's actually what you want, isnt it? A coalition in office (without strong leadership as opposed to a single party with strong leadership) isn't that much of an interesting target for interest groups and corporations. Instead of manipulating the government, they tend to manipulate the marketplace, the only place the should. That's capitalism after all, competing in the marketplace.

      So I ask you to look around, get yourself (or maybe not you, but many of your fellow Americans) off those high 'patriotic' horses (strong leadership and patriotism tend to go hand in hand) and realized the only way to get a government small (which is what I hear many Americans wish for, but spectacularly failed in accomplishing in the past 50 years) is by actually cutting up those mega-parties, because that's where power lies. Vote green, vote chistian, vote whatever feel like, but do not vote status quo, because then you get what you already have.

    4. Re:Democracy is a Stupid by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      And yet, other democracies end up placing the same ridiculous restrictions on personal freedom. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to vote for third parties, but the problem is our enduring faith in the fairness democracy, when it clearly isn't fair.

  33. Quick !! Make preparations !!! by unity100 · · Score: 1

    We gotta enlighten cuban people about open source before microsoft infects that country !

    start it with our warcry - "lululululululululululululululu !!!!!!"

    no, seriously. we gotta do it. it might be rather late for us, but they may actually escape the vendor lock-ins.

  34. Kewl! Venezuela has an unsecured wifi by rcasha2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...and metal cigar tubes make great antennas

  35. This has been coming for a while, it's well-known! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was in cuba about 3 months ago - see http://havana.360cities.net - The fact that the world discovers this now from Wikileaks is pretty funny, considering this was "known on the street" as a matter of fact in Cuba many months ago.

    And yes, computers were banned until recently, but they have been widespread for a long time. It's just been illegal to own a computer. But when you consider that everything in Cuba is illegal, what difference does it make.

    Same with an internet connection. You buy a dialup connection and use an SSH tunnel. Your local whizkid can help sort you out with this. Don't worry, there are computer whizkids in Cuba too :-)

  36. Keep the embargo (all/any) by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The country is ruled by the rich, as are all Communist countries. The average Cuban makes on average $10 a month and can't even dream of owning a computer, the only time the average guy sees a computer is at the public Internet cafe, if he can afford it, and it's passed through a proxy server, just like China's, that removes pages that contain subversive words like freedom, equality, democracy. Removing any embargo will only make life more comfortable for the ruling %1 of Cuba and the rest of the ordinary citizens will still have nothing. Until the Communists are removed from Cuba it will continue to be a 3rd world country, as will all Communist countries, and I don't think that's necessarily a coincidence that all Communist countries are terrible places to live.

    And please, no comments about how "the U.S. Is ruled by the rich" I'm pretty sure GWB will leave office when his term is up to allow another guy to be voted in to take his place, maybe even from the opposing party. You can't say the same for the life appointments of the dictators in Communist countries. Even if the leader mysteriously dies there is no chance of another party gaining control. And if you live in the U.S. you're making more than $10 a month even if you don't have a job!

  37. As soon as they are on line... by vorlich · · Score: 1

    I'm going to order myself 1200 H. Upmann petit-coronas. Yumm! Save me having to get Pierre Salinger to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Upmann_(cigar_brand)

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  38. Wanted to Launch? No. by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am sure that nobody actually wanted to launch them. The fact that the USSR had submarine-launched nukes slightly after that and never gave any indication that it wanted to unilaterally strike the USA proves that.

    In fact for a long time the USSR had a "no first nuclear strike" policy when NATO did not.

    I think it was the psychological bargaining power of having missiles so close to the USA that they wanted.

    1. Re:Wanted to Launch? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's not forget the US had it's own missiles in Turkey, right on the border with the USSR. Cuba wanted some security after Bay of Pigs and the USSR saw a way to get parity with the US by having missiles located equally as close. I can't blame them for that, can you?

      It's no secret now that the US dismantled it's missiles in Turkey as part of the agreement to end the crisis, so the USSR at least got something they wanted.

    2. Re:Wanted to Launch? No. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are of course ignoring the fact that Cuba wanted to launch missiles tipped with nuclear warheads at the U.S. during Kennedy's presidency.

      Maybe the U.S. has had good reason to act the way it has.

      I am sure that nobody actually wanted to launch them. The fact that the USSR had submarine-launched nukes slightly after that and never gave any indication that it wanted to unilaterally strike the USA proves that.

      In fact for a long time the USSR had a "no first nuclear strike" policy when NATO did not.

      I think it was the psychological bargaining power of having missiles so close to the USA that they wanted.

      One of the things that seems to have plaid a key role in causing Khrushchev to decide to go ahead with the deployment of missiles to Cuba was a visit to the Black Sea where a Soviet general pointed out to just how close to the Soviet border the USA had stationed it's nuclear missiles in Turkey. It must have seemed to him that if the USA felt able to put nuclear missiles into the USSR's back yard then surely the US would react fairly calmly to the USSR doing the exact same thing. After all it would have been in the best traditions of the MAD arrangement to keep the capability balance in tact. I don't think that Khrushchev fully appreciated the force of the reaction he was going to get. I watched a documentary on the Cuban missile crisis recently and I found it interesting was that one of the American ex-government types they interviewed very candidly admitted that the USA has an incredible inability to realize just how provocative it's actions can potentially be to the opposition. You don't get that kind of an admission very often from politicians. The USA felt terribly provoked by missiles in Cuba and Americans remember that provocation to this day. But that begs the question exactly what was the USA thinking when they deployed those missiles to Turkey so close to the Soviet border? Did they really think the Soviets wouldn't react? A similar thing is currently happening on a smaller scale with GWB's missile shield program. The Bush regime either seem to be oblivious to what effect this missile shield is having in Moscow or they just plain don't care if it sets off another nuclear arms race. Similarly some of the US tactics during the Cuban blockade were also incredibly incautious. Take the low level overflights the Americans did over Cuba. To the Americans they may have been just recce flights born out of an honest need to obtain hard reconnaissance. Nobody seemed to consider how low level flights over Soviet nuclear sites by RF-8 recce aircraft which were essentially indistinguishable from F-8 fighter bombers would look to the Russians and the Cubans. Did Soviet tactical recon aircraft regularly buzz American nuclear weapons installations in Turkey at ultra low level? No they didn't. What would the Americans have done if they had? To this day some of the Cuban and Soviet personnel stationed on Cuba at the time are convinced that those low level flights were a deliberate attempt to provoke a war. That of course wasn't the American's intention but unfortunately real intentions matter a lot less than perceived intentions do in a tense situation like the Cuba crisis was.

      Just my two cents...

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    3. Re:Wanted to Launch? No. by flimflam · · Score: 1

      Also, don't forget that the US had missiles in Turkey, which is what seems to have prompted the USSR to put its missiles in Cuba in the first place.

      --
      -- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
    4. Re:Wanted to Launch? No. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >But that begs the question exactly what was the USA thinking when they deployed those missiles to Turkey so close to the Soviet border? Did they really think the Soviets wouldn't react?

      I don't know if this is true, but in "Dark Sun", a book documenting the development of the hydrogen bomb, Richard Rhodes claims that from roughly 1948 to when Powers got shot down in 1960, the United States had surveillance aircraft flying over the USSR 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and in the late '50's the US ran practice bombing runs of several dozen bombers over major western USSR cities during daylight. I also recall reading, possibly in Ben Rich's "Skunk Works", that even after the Powers shoot-down, the USSR's main/only defense against spy overflights was to just put up as many aircraft as possible, flying beneath the US aircraft, to try and physically obscure the ground.

      Likewise, again from the Rhodes book, Curtis LeMay was openly calling for a pre-emptive, wide-spread nuclear strike on the USSR because he felt that it was the only reasonable defense. Lemay was the Strategic Air Command general who had the authority to launch nuclear weapons.

      So, yeah, I'd say the US perception of USSR threat was a little different than the USSR perception of US threat. I'm completely amazed we didn't end up having a nuclear war, and I think the only reason we didn't was because the USSR was astoundingly reluctant to react to the repeated US aggressions. If they'd done 1/10 the things we did, I seriously doubt we would've shown the restraint they did.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    5. Re:Wanted to Launch? No. by vuo · · Score: 1

      Whereas Western forces were inferior in numbers to Soviet-controlled Warsaw Pact forces in Europe, and so the Soviets could afford a "no first strike" policy. The United States relied on a nuclear first strike should the Soviets attack with conventional forces.

      Second, Soviet policy did not elevate nuclear weapons to the "fist of God" status as in the West. They didn't plan their policies based on the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction; Soviet doctrine fully involved the use of nuclear weapons.

    6. Re:Wanted to Launch? No. by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Sure, but ... you know ... that's different!

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  39. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sovereign country A has relations to and makes a deal with sovereign country B even though unrelated country C doesn't approve?

    *monocle* Say it isn't so, old chap!

  40. same mistakes over and over by ramul · · Score: 1
    as people are saying, the US needs to engage with its 'enemies', and do its best to spread the american way of life (insidiously) instead of strong arm tactics which turn enemies into worse enemies. its so strange that people with the drive to run a country lack the intelligence to realise that.

    im not american (aussie) but barack obama looks like he probably realises - so i guess theres hope...

  41. Rather like your "anti-missile defense systems" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just over the border of russia, with radars and interception equipment that can track aircraft and tap into communications (and shoot down the craft!).

    But that's OK, because you don't start wars in foreign countries so that you can make mucho dinero out of it, or score political goals...

  42. Free Speech? by dintech · · Score: 1
    This is of course the right solution.

    America works so hard to promote the concept of free speech and liberty and should not deny it for others, even enemies. Embargoes on Luxury goods and weapons, that's ok. But embargoes on free speech, the free press and a medium for promoting alternate views in the target country? I'm not American but I feel that those aren't American values. Anyway...

    Basil Exposition: Austin, the Cold War is over!
    Austin Powers: Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh? Eh comrades? Eh?
    Basil Exposition: Austin... we won.
    Austin Powers: Oh, smashing, groovy, yay capitalism!

    1. Re:Free Speech? by BPPG · · Score: 2

      I'm not an united states citizen, and based purely on old cold-war documentaries and movies, it seems as though americans were afraid of cultural influence coming from a communist country.

      But fortunately, their military, as posted above, has developed powerful weapons such as MTV, patriotic country music, and computer-generated action movies. We don't stand a chance.

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
  43. The cable will be "accidentally" cut by Werrismys · · Score: 1

    After all, US navy has had enough practice.

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
  44. As dictators go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fidel has been a pretty good dictator and Cuba has good healthcare and education, considering gnp... but still, you can't have fucking dictatorship!

    There are socialistic winds blowing over latin america. I'm all for socialism and I wish I could feel optimistic, but I dare not. I fear democratic socialists will want tto turn into despots. Is democratic socialism impossible in practice in this free market world of ours?

  45. The embargo is stupid by Augusto · · Score: 1

    It really can't be defended, specially today, but that's another story ...

    --

    - sigs are for wimps.
  46. Canada and drug prices by lusiphur69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Especially since the patents I'm paying for are being ignored on both my Canadian and Mexican borders

    Actually, you're quite wrong. Canadians respect WIPO patents - what they don't do, is let individual HMO's or people deal directly with drug companies who can then charge maximum rates. Instead, in a sort of collective bargaining arrangement, we buy our drugs in bulk then distribute to hospitals, etc.

    In other words the government negotiates with Big Pharma - you want to do business here (and they do), you don't charge out the nose, although there are still exceptions to this. I cannot quite understand why Amercians do not demand this from their government as well - its almost like the politicans want you to pay more.

    But that could'nt be, could it?

    1. Re:Canada and drug prices by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I believe the reasoning goes something like this:

      'Collective bargaining? That sounds a lot like collectivism. You're not a communist are you?'

      Maybe now it's terrorists, not communists, that Americans are supposed to be afraid of this will change.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  47. im from venezuela, and that was no secret contract by NelsonFx · · Score: 1

    two year ago the president announce every aspect of that paper in national Tv. fyi

  48. Communist and socialist does mean "totalitarian" by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    If you don't want to be forced into a communist or socialist system, it is very much totalitarian in the sense that it tramples our rights.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  49. This is Good, Right? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    What's the best way to fight bad ideas? With good ideas.

    What's the best tool ever devised to disseminate good ideas? The Internet.

    So... what the problem is?

  50. fascist regimes need enemies by blade.labs · · Score: 1

    Every fascist regime needs an enemy to justify any unpopular actions. I am from a former socialist country so I still remember how it was important to protect "the socialist way of life" against the "western imperialists". Fortunately, the whole communism idea was dropped all over the world(hell - even in its cradle - Russia) so now all these people can think for themselves. But there was no change in the system in the US and the owners of the country are all old men that probably still live in the 60's so they still use the same enemy to scare the simple people (u know - the rednecks that probably never left their county). That's the reason why Cuba is still officially evil.
    The situation was really bad in Cuba for some time, now they are in a better situation than cca 10years ago. The crisis even helped to cure the population - the level of obesity, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes dropped significantly.
    The American media (if accessible there) would probably help to change the regime in Cuba. But access to the internet (where people have free access to different information) could actually even strenghten the good feeling about NOT living in the USA. You know, the dollar was almost 3times more expensive 15yrs ago (and yes, we have inflation too) and when I watched M.Moore's movie Sicko (I know - I did not say he doesn't exagerate a bit) I was crying the tears of rage for the poor people that have no right for a basic health care and are told to live in the "greatest country".

  51. O RLY? by goldsaturn · · Score: 1

    Have you seen MTV recently?

    1. Re:O RLY? by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 1

      Why, have they started playing music again?

  52. Should US make peace? by nighty5 · · Score: 1

    I bet if Cuba had a ready supply of oil, this trade embargo would of only lasted a couple of years at best.

    To deny your own neighbor access to the most basic of commodities is just as bad as the fight for ownership of the West Bank.

    Cuba has dug their heels in for the past 15 years, maybe its time an olive branch is given. Why doesn't the UN step in? This embargo is hurting the people of Cuba more than the Cuban government.

    1. Re:Should US make peace? by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      Internet access is a most basic commodity?

      I wonder how our ancestors who lived in single-room sod houses out on the prairie were ever able to survive?

    2. Re:Should US make peace? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet if Cuba had a ready supply of oil, this trade embargo would of only lasted a couple of years at best.

      To deny your own neighbor access to the most basic of commodities is just as bad as the fight for ownership of the West Bank.

      Cuba has dug their heels in for the past 15 years, maybe its time an olive branch is given. Why doesn't the UN step in? This embargo is hurting the people of Cuba more than the Cuban government.

      The UN has voted in the general assambly for years now, the lift of the embargo, votes against it : israel, US, palau, marshal islands and some other puppet.... but the US dont listen to the UN when they dont want to.. and condem others when they dont listen either.

  53. tubes by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    But aren't the Cuban government afraid that Congress will send crack troops crawling through the system of tubes to invade ?

    Or is congress concerned that the Cubans may crawl through a tube and settle in MAE West instead of Key West.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  54. Now The REAL Revoultion Will Reach Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . free pr0n on the intertubes. . .

  55. Free speech? by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    So, how come Internet openness is good to China but at the same time bad to Cuba? Where are those people claiming a "free" China now?

    Someone has to be the firestarter!

  56. Gentle tropical island weather!? WTF!? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Cuba's weather must be very different from my tropical island weather. If you don't get searing sunlight with near-rainforest humidity, it's rain, rain and oh MORE FUCKING RAIN, with hurricanes and flooding! Yay! And while it rains more for half the year than the other half (they call it the "rainy season," because a proper name like "monsoon season" would scare off the tourists), it always rains a little bit. It could be a bright sunny day and suddenly you'd get a burst of torrential rain that only lasts a few minutes. Or maybe just a light drizzling all day long, that barely reaches ground level because that bastard ball of gas in the middle of the solar system is so goddamn hot. The drizzling cools you down but it also causes the humidity to skyrocket. All this crappy weather causes major suckage for anyone interested in doing anything outdoors. So if Cuba's climate is anything like this, please let me know how relentless heat, high humidity and frequent rain (all things that encourage you NOT to be active) are good for your health.

    I have a view of the ocean from my cubicle. It's pouring outside right now, just like the last couple of months. My 4x4 (which I need to get around this hellhole) is probably in a pond again at this point. Probably just a small 15-footer, not the 120-footer I found it in when I parked off the side of the building a while ago. Luckily I was able to jump across some rocks to get to it without wading in knee-deep water. Oooh it's an island paradise isn't it! Weeee!

    It doesn't snow here but I'd take some snow in exchange for more predictable and less extreme weather.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  57. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US Government can no longer prevent good Cuba citizens from getting Internet using their personal compu....

    oh wait. never mind.

  58. Someone mod this +6. Seriously. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    NT

  59. Why not let them use our cables. by Kolie · · Score: 1

    Why not give em the cables and monitor everything coming down them? Oh I remember why, surely our government would never do such a thing. /tinfoil hat time

  60. You can also travel for Journalism by billstewart · · Score: 1

    An Old Leftie friend of mine used to go to Cuba a lot as a reporter for his (US-based) union newspaper. When he was young, he'd help cut sugar cane to help the revolution; when was old, he'd go to the beach and drink rum. The US travel and spending rules were offensive, but you could work around them as long as you weren't trying to actually do business down there. I think you could go for educational purposes as well.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  61. Re:Surprised? Great Insight... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    "On a side note, if you're willing to drag a floaty toy to the beach and paddle your ass to Florida, I say we turn our heads and let you stay - You're obviously more dedicated to being an American than most of the folks that were born here."

    This just helps underscore my assertion that "citizenship" demands by governments upon citizens is somewhat stupid these days. If a person is born here or immigrates to here, the most basic things they should be subject to are reasonable taxes and abiding by most of the sane laws. Ordering them to take an oath to become a citizen, and then subjecting them to put on a uniform to fight on behalf of money-mongers in power is plain stupid.

    Now, anyone, mark me Troll if you WANT, but.... I'll go on...

    And, I was born here, at Letterman General Hospital, on the Presidio, an army base at the time, delivered by a USMC captain (named Harry C. Beaver... yes, it's on my Certificate of Live Birth), and served in the USN (and did other JROTC stuff before then), and NONE of that makes me blindly feel that just because you're drafted/expected to/are too poor to work as a civilian means you are obligated to swear an oath to a fool or puppet in office.

    But, where can I legally drop or deposit or send a dollar in the effort to circumvent the embargo on Internet in Cuba? Oh, wait, I won't get myself into jail. But, since some of the oil the US imports comes from Venezuela, I'll take comfort that SOME of that money is making its way to Cuba.

    To (as a US citizen by default/by politi-speak, (but as far as *i* am concerned, I am a citizen of EARTH, and a RESIDENT of where I happen to work and pay my taxes, and if I go overseas and end up working, I'm ONLY paying taxes to the LOCAL authorities, and NO OTHERS outside that country, declared or NOT to IRS... especially if the employer is not a US-based or US-indigenous-remote-located company)) have to live in fear of going to prison if i wee to try to/succeed in a visit to Cuba is just plain stupid. I suspect Cuba's government has committed far fewer external interference than the US has. I think the US government is just pissed that Castro outlived numerous US administrations. Castro may be a despot, but ... well, just look at how many "superpowers" ran amok/interfered with "the Americas" and Asia...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  62. Cuba's example to the world by mararual · · Score: 1

    What makes you think Cuba doesn;t know what;s going on around the world? They do know, they do have access, though it is limited due to high cost and poor bandwidth of satellite internet. And this is because of US stupid, criminal embargo. But still, they have access through educational institutions. They have prioritized internet access for education and social benefits. And even with full access they will show the rest of the world how to put the people as first priority instead of any other selfish reason. They are great supportes of free software(of course, it's their best and only choice) and Cuba has a very strong, educated society(100%) and this will only help improve this. Internet is not censored. They don't have google, why? Because Google is not allowed by the US to put their services for Cubans. That happens with everything: food, medicines, cars, money transfer... anything you can imagine(and some unimaginable things). So this will help Cuba grow even more, have access to see why their fight was/is so important and how the rest of the world put people below other interests, which is pretty cruel. So, I am pretty confident in Cuba's educated society that they will grow even more with this internet upgrade, and the world will be witness of what they are doing for themselves in terms of technology and society matters.

  63. offer them internet if they agree to not to censor by momotarosan · · Score: 1

    the most powerful weapon we have is freedom of information. we should offer them free internet if they agree not to have censorship.

  64. Bad credit? No problem. by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

    Actually, I don't think the problem is bad credit. Let's say they drop a cable and spend a few million dollars doing it. How much does it cost for a ship to drop anchor and "accidentally" drag and cut the cable, again and again and again?

  65. Laughable embargo! by carvalhao · · Score: 1

    All comunist dictatorships have shown us long ago that the thing a totalitarian government fears the most is a free flow of information. I believe that if the USA really want to get the Cuban regime on it's knees it should be PROMOTING Internet access as way to show Cubans "what they're missing".

    All politians should be forced to read George Orwell...

    On a side note: I have travelled all around the world. Altough being a democrat (notice the small "d", I'm Portuguese, democrat means someone who believes in democracy) I must admit the Cuban regime puzzles me. Cubans are poor. But none are hungry or desperate. Their health system shames any I have known. Their education system is even better!! And, all in all, they seem in average a lot happier than most "developed" countries I've travelled (in excess of 40 "first world countries"). I does make you wonder...

  66. The US is actually trading with Cuba by TheSync · · Score: 1

    In 2007 the US exported $437 million dollars in goods to Cuba, mainly agricultural products (wheat, rice, etc.).

    Funny kind of embargo.

  67. yet another castro-chÃvez con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of you guys have entirely missed the point on this one. Fidel (once again) is duping Venezuelan Pres^H^H^H^Hsock puppet Chavez into footing the bill, like the ripoff of 100 thousand or so barrels of oil transforming Cuba into an oil-exporting nation and mounting a $6 billion debt which will probably never be paid ... all of this to spit in the eye of the evil empire, USA.

  68. I'm venezuela and want more bandwith for ME!! by Skatox · · Score: 0

    as a venezuelan i would like to get more bandwidth to my country instead of giving it to Cuba. By the way, it wasn't secret.