Log in

View Full Version : A question... - Pointless, but for personal interest



Pete
23rd March 2003, 03:06
I just had a debate with someone who claimed that Cuba was an American run experiment. How many people actually believe this? I mean among the right-wingers? Or is this guy way off any trodden path?

Jaha
23rd March 2003, 03:13
it is not an experiment. if the US was incharge of cuba, it would have been the 51st state years ago.

we originally helped in their revolution so that we could take it over and it would protect the future nicaragua canal (which never happened, but the panama canal did)

Pete
23rd March 2003, 04:30
I know that it is not an experiment, I am just fielding the question to see how many people do.

Capitalist Imperial
23rd March 2003, 07:45
Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me.

Although it only exists in it current state because the USA allows it to, we by no means direclty control it.

synthesis
23rd March 2003, 07:55
Although it only exists in it current state because the USA allows it toNo, it only exists in its current state because Castro has successfully resisted reactionary U.S. imperialism.

U.S. allowing Cuba to determine its own fate - hah! That's why it has subjected the state to forty years of terrorist attacks, bombings, sanctions, embargos, isolation, assassination, and all-out military invasion. Cuba's survival is but a testament to the mighty will of the Cuban people and their leaders.

Capitalist Imperial
23rd March 2003, 08:01
Quote: from DyerMaker on 7:55 am on Mar. 23, 2003

Although it only exists in it current state because the USA allows it toNo, it only exists in its current state because Castro has successfully resisted reactionary U.S. imperialism.


U.S. allowing Cuba to determine its own fate - hah! That's why it has subjected the state to forty years of terrorist attacks, bombings, sanctions, embargos, isolation, assassination, and all-out military invasion. Cuba's survival is but a testament to the mighty will of the Cuban people and their leaders.

what I mean is that we have not invaded, bombed the shit out of them, and liberated the cuban people, as we easily could if we wanted to

and what do you mean by terrorist attacks over the last 40 years?

synthesis
23rd March 2003, 08:14
do you mean by terrorist attacks over the last 40 years?
“A former Salvadoran army commando [Raul Ernesto Cruz Leon] who was trained by the US military has confessed to six bomb attacks between July 12 and September 4 [1997] in Cuba. The attacks were aimed at five tourist hotels and a restaurant and claimed the life of an Italian businessman, who was visiting the island.”

http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb9-22/cuban.htm


what I mean is that we have not invadedWe have, remember the Bay of Pigs?

Capitalist Imperial
23rd March 2003, 08:21
Quote: from DyerMaker on 8:14 am on Mar. 23, 2003
We have, remember the Bay of Pigs?

Actually, DyerMaker, I knew you would say that. But US forces never actually participated in that. We trained some exiled insurgents to invade cuba in an effort to begin a liberation action. We promised air and naval support. This was done with some haste. Anyway, once the revolutionaries attacked, the US balked on the back up. Kind of fucked up, yes, but the fact remains that US forces themselves never attacked at the bay of pigs.

If the US themselves invaded Cuba, we would have done it right, and Havanna would once again be a great American tourist trap.

synthesis
23rd March 2003, 08:22
"Indeed Carriles has been helping them since 1961, when he was in the second wave of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba (although it never landed). In 1963, the CIA trained him and Mas Canosa at Fort Benning, Georgia in 'explosives, how to kill... acts of sabotage'. The CIA transferred him to Venezuela in 1967 where he led a state intelligence unit persecuting and torturing left-wing guerrillas.

Then in 1976, together with fellow Cuban exile and CIA operative Orlando Bosch, he blew up a Cubana jet, killing 73 people. He was gaoled in Venezuela but escaped in 1985 after bribing his guards with money provided by Gaspar Jimenez Escobedo, one of those now held with him in Panama. Another Cuban, CIA agent Felix Rodriguez, took him to El Salvador where they helped Colonel Oliver North supply arms to the Contras fighting against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua."

http://www.ratb.org.uk/frfi/159_terrorism.html

Capitalist Imperial
23rd March 2003, 08:24
oh, ok, i'll give you that

however, eventually it is my prediction that we will take back cuba

i have my bermuda shorts and sunblock waiting

synthesis
23rd March 2003, 08:26
Notice that I never said that the U.S. themselves invaded Cuba - only that they subjected her to it.

And only in a tiny fraction of U.S. subversive activities has the U.S. openly declared war. We don't like to make incriminating sounds when we're raping a country. And I don't mind if you quote me on that analogy. I rather like it.

Capitalist Imperial
23rd March 2003, 08:32
sometimes we feel that we should just dispense with the formalities of declaration

it tends to complicate things at times

synthesis
23rd March 2003, 08:36
Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:32 am on Mar. 23, 2003
sometimes we feel that we should just dispense with the formalities of declarationGot that right :biggrin:

synthesis
23rd March 2003, 08:51
what I mean is that we have not invaded, bombed the shit out of them, and liberated the cuban peopleOh, and we did bomb the shit out of them, too.

"On January 12, U.S. government protests arrive in the form of U.S. military bombers camouflaged as counterrevolutionary Cuban aircraft. The bombers drop napalm bombs on oil refineries and the sugar cane fields of Cuba, burning 10 tons of sugar cane in Havana Province. On the 21st, four 100 pound bonds are dropped on Havana, causing extensive damage. On the 28th through the 29th, U.S. military aircraft bomb and severely wreck five sugar cane fields in Camaguey Province and three in Oriente Province.

[...]

On February 7, 1960, another air attack by covert U.S. military aircraft burns 30 tons of sugar cane and several sugar mills in Camaguey, as sabotage operations of sugar production and terrorism in urban areas continue.

[...]

Meanwhile, on February 18, U.S. pilot Robert Ellis Frost is killed when his aircraft is shot down while attacking a sugar mill in Matanzas province. On the 23rd, several more air attacks are launched against sugar mills in Las Villas and Matanzas provinces. The Cuban government reaches out to the United States for peaceful negotiations on the 29th, with the condition that the United States cease the bombing campaigns which the U.S. continues to publicly and privately deny during negotiations. U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (a stockholder and longtime legal adviser for the United Fruit Company, whose land had been confiscated as a result of the Agrarian Reform Law), refuses all attempts to negotiate peace.

[...]

On April 4, Cuba readies a plan to exporpriate all Cuban land held by the United Fruit company, while on the same day a U.S. military aircraft flying from the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo drops napalm bombs in the Oriente province."

http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/subje...ct/bay-of-pigs/ (http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/subject/bay-of-pigs/)

So, to recap, the U.S. did bomb the shit out of Cuba, did subject them to invasions, oh, and Cuba has already been liberated, on January 1st, 1959. :biggrin:

Pete
23rd March 2003, 15:16
The Cuban 5 were arrested in America for foiling the plots of counter-revolutionaries in Maimi. Does the name Alpha 66 ring a bell?

I also remember reading in the news wire that Bush does not consider action against Cuba terrorsim, legitimizing it in a way.

On March 19 a plane from the Isle of Youth (am I right?) was hijacked and flown into American air space. Only BBC covered it and that was minimal.

Capitalist Imperial
24th March 2003, 04:25
Quote: from DyerMaker on 8:51 am on Mar. 23, 2003

what I mean is that we have not invaded, bombed the shit out of them, and liberated the cuban peopleOh, and we did bomb the shit out of them, too.

"On January 12, U.S. government protests arrive in the form of U.S. military bombers camouflaged as counterrevolutionary Cuban aircraft. The bombers drop napalm bombs on oil refineries and the sugar cane fields of Cuba, burning 10 tons of sugar cane in Havana Province. On the 21st, four 100 pound bonds are dropped on Havana, causing extensive damage. On the 28th through the 29th, U.S. military aircraft bomb and severely wreck five sugar cane fields in Camaguey Province and three in Oriente Province.

[...]

On February 7, 1960, another air attack by covert U.S. military aircraft burns 30 tons of sugar cane and several sugar mills in Camaguey, as sabotage operations of sugar production and terrorism in urban areas continue.

[...]

Meanwhile, on February 18, U.S. pilot Robert Ellis Frost is killed when his aircraft is shot down while attacking a sugar mill in Matanzas province. On the 23rd, several more air attacks are launched against sugar mills in Las Villas and Matanzas provinces. The Cuban government reaches out to the United States for peaceful negotiations on the 29th, with the condition that the United States cease the bombing campaigns which the U.S. continues to publicly and privately deny during negotiations. U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (a stockholder and longtime legal adviser for the United Fruit Company, whose land had been confiscated as a result of the Agrarian Reform Law), refuses all attempts to negotiate peace.

[...]

On April 4, Cuba readies a plan to exporpriate all Cuban land held by the United Fruit company, while on the same day a U.S. military aircraft flying from the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo drops napalm bombs in the Oriente province."

http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/subje...ct/bay-of-pigs/ (http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/subject/bay-of-pigs/)

So, to recap, the U.S. did bomb the shit out of Cuba, did subject them to invasions, oh, and Cuba has already been liberated, on January 1st, 1959. :biggrin:


come on, DM, marxists.org?

synthesis
24th March 2003, 05:02
It's a perfectly credible source. I provided the proof, if you want to dispute the source you're going to have to go by a lot more than the fact that the name of the site reflects my ideology. :biggrin: