Is the US to blame for all of Cuba's ills?

[Rigby5]

Yes the US is in part, to blame.

See all this white space here to type in is where you get to splain your point. I was not looking really for a short yes or no.

Continue

Okay no problem, but I just did that in another thread on this topic.

Are you aware the US has heavily sanctioned and stopped all trade with Cuba for 60 years? Now put the puzzle together. The world’s preeminent economic and military nation doing this to Cuba for 60 FUCKING YEARS, will have a negative impact.

No? Yes?

The U.S. does not stop the rest of the world from trading with Cuba, so that excuse doesn't wash.

Cuba made a calculated decision to side with the former USSR for political power against the US, so why not just take their medicine like they asked for?

They simply chose a failing ideology to side with and subsequent failing economy.

Wrong again. You’re wrong a lot.

When Castro came to power he tried to have a good relationship with the US. The US said fuck off, we love our big corporations and oil companies raping your land and controlling your people. Hence, he had no choice but to seek help from the USSR.

We’ve seen this picture before…Ho Chi Minh tried the same thing with the US, but got the same response.

Assuming you are right, Castro sold his soul to the USSR instead?

Are you saying Cuba could not survive without selling its soul to either?

Yes, all countries have been forced to choose which of the large and powerful nations they want to align with in order to prevent being destroyed by one of them, if they don'[t have a protector.
Cuba was in particular bad shape because Batista had managed to steal the entire national treasury, so was totally broke.

So now the economic and military super powers are China and the US, and both use capitalism to fuel their economies

So essentially socialism can never work without such capitalism

Correct?

Is preaching socialism then akin to convincing people to join a suicide pact of mass starvation and misery?

No, all successful countries actually are socialist.
Socialism does not mean ANY government enterprise at all, but merely enough government regulation to prevent abuses of individual rights, like laws against child labor, slavery, mandatory overtime, monopolies, usury, discrimination, etc.

But there also is no doubt that capitalism can be more individually controlled so can be quicker and more innovative, so can out perform group leadership that is slowed by consensus.

The charge was made that Cuba had to sell their collective soul to another country to survive. Moreover, without the US they can't survive

So you are saying that premise is pure BS.

So why then has Cuba failed?

Also, who are the success stories of socialism in your opinion?

Obviously Cuba was so threatened by the US military that they had to go with the Soviets.
We STILL invaded Cuba with the Bay of Pigs, even with Soviet alliance.

Who says Cuba ever failed?
Being poor after being wealthy from casinos is not failure.
It is easy to point to Scandinavian countries as socialist successes, such as heavy Swedish government investment into Volvo, etc.
But obviously the US is totally socialist.
We have laws against abusive anti-labor practices, we have public schools, etc.

 

[struth]

where did Bush do that?

the law at the time said US businesses couldn’t do business with Cuba. Bush didn’t make the law.

Yes Trump put sanctions back on Cuba after they backed the oppressive dictator of Venezuela

And properly so. That is the proper response to a nation that is an oppressive monster to it's own people
and tries to aid another dictator/butcher, Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela spread socialist misery to other nations.

You have to snicker at people who moan about the poor people of Cuba while advocating the same shit here in the US.

All I can do is smh

Who supports cutting people off from the things they need?

See Venezuela and how Socialism supplies the people's needs.

Good grief

If we couldn't have just printed, printed, printed, tell me how our needs would have been met after crashing the economy? What happens to GM if we couldn't print billions to give them?

they file for bankruptcy…like they did even after Obama and Xiden gave them billions…talk about a major f up

No idea who you are talking about.

taxpayers still gave them billions........or what we call Capitalism.

you weren’t talking about the auto bailout?

i am not sure what you are talking about.

Bank, auto, farmers, etc etc etc. If Venezuela could just print, print, print they would be fine also.

We can now but that isn't going to last.

i’m sorry you are gonna have to be more specific…the auto bailouts run by obama and xiden were stupid, and lead to the same result…agreed

what else are you talking about?

Venezuela could have, they had wealth…they have one of the largest oil reserves in the world. So it’s not that that was the issue…it’s the economic system and leftist policies

I have no idea who you are talking about.

you are the one that asked what would have happened had we not given the auto industry all that money.
i answered.


then you made this silly claim about how we are like venezuela…

it’s obvious you have no clue

 

[Rigby5]

The media is doing it's best to place a flaming bag of dog doo on Trump's doorstep when it
comes to Cuba.

As usual it's a fail.

Trump threatened the Marriott in Havana and demanded that it close down as soon as he took office.

Your point? You wanted to keep propping up the Cuban government?

Hey, I haven't seen you since you ran off to write down a list of the issues you agreed with Republicans on that made you a Republican for 35 years. Is the list done yet? How did it go?

Marriott hotels were propping up the Cuban government? I was very pleased when Obama lifted sanctions and decided to normalize relations.

What list? I don't take orders from you, asshole.

My God, you don't know what governments need money? I hope you're hot, you're not making a living other than on your back.

And exactly, you were a Republican for 35 years, and you can't come up with a single reason why. If you were not lying, it would be the easiest question in the world since you CLAIM YOU WERE ONE FOR 35 YEARS. Hello.

It's the question that you liars who claim you are former Republicans and then you switched to hard core leftists always fall flat on your face on.

I don't know why you lie about being a former Republican. No conservative says wow, a left wing moonbat switched from Republican to Democrat, count me in!

But endless Democrats do it. So I guess it makes sense in your warped head, bitch

That is silly because Eisenhower explained what was good and then wrong about being a republican.
Originally republicans were fiscal conservatives, who did not borrow and spend from the future generations.
But WWII produced such munitions profits, that republicans became corrupt and built the Military Industrial Complex that caused the illegal wars like Vietnam, Desert Storm, Invasion of Iraq, etc., that were based on lies and with the intent of huge private profits.

That isn't what Eisenhower said. It's your propaganda version of it.

So Republicans ran WWII, huh? Where do you come up with your shit?

{...
President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned U.S. citizens about the "military–industrial complex" in his farewell address. The military–industrial complex ( MIC) describes the relationship between a nation's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy.
...}

And no I did not say Republicans ran WWII.
I am saying corporations discovered the pot of gold that military spending can be, and started ensuring there was always a fake enemy in order to stoke the fears of the people into buying weapons we did not need.

I'm familiar with the speech. It was your tying it to the Republican party and WWII that was run by DEMOCRATS that is bull shit.

Democrats still today are every bit the war mongers Republicans are. You just want to be the ones behind the steering wheel.

You personally prove how totally insincere you are on this. Trump was the least militaristic President by far since Carter, and you hated him. It made no difference to you. You just hated him for what he said

Wrong.
Both parties are owned and controlled by the wealthy elite.
The parties are fake, to confuse the uninformed voters.
For example, both parties support the all the illegal wars, neither party support pubic health care.
So there really have never been 2 different parties.

 

[kaz]

So now the economic and military super powers are China and the US, and both use capitalism to fuel their economies

So essentially socialism can never work without such capitalism

Correct?

Is preaching socialism then akin to convincing people to join a suicide pact of mass starvation and misery?

No, all successful countries actually are socialist.
Socialism does not mean ANY government enterprise at all, but merely enough government regulation to prevent abuses of individual rights, like laws against child labor, slavery, mandatory overtime, monopolies, usury, discrimination, etc.

But there also is no doubt that capitalism can be more individually controlled so can be quicker and more innovative, so can out perform group leadership that is slowed by consensus.

The charge was made that Cuba had to sell their collective soul to another country to survive. Moreover, without the US they can't survive

So you are saying that premise is pure BS.

So why then has Cuba failed?

Also, who are the success stories of socialism in your opinion?

Obviously Cuba was so threatened by the US military that they had to go with the Soviets.
We STILL invaded Cuba with the Bay of Pigs, even with Soviet alliance.

Who says Cuba ever failed?
Being poor after being wealthy from casinos is not failure.
It is easy to point to Scandinavian countries as socialist successes, such as heavy Swedish government investment into Volvo, etc.
But obviously the US is totally socialist.
We have laws against abusive anti-labor practices, we have public schools, etc.

True. JFK totally fucked it up. He saber rattled Castro into Russia's arms even though Castro was not a fan of Russia. But then JFK didn't follow through and take him out. JFK totally fucked us, Democrats always do. I think ironically he was trying to do a good job. But wow, he didn't, he just didn't think it through. He either should have accepted Castro or taken him out. Not played games. JFK really gave Castro no choice

 

[Votto]

Yes the US is in part, to blame.

See all this white space here to type in is where you get to splain your point. I was not looking really for a short yes or no.

Continue

Okay no problem, but I just did that in another thread on this topic.

Are you aware the US has heavily sanctioned and stopped all trade with Cuba for 60 years? Now put the puzzle together. The world’s preeminent economic and military nation doing this to Cuba for 60 FUCKING YEARS, will have a negative impact.

No? Yes?

The U.S. does not stop the rest of the world from trading with Cuba, so that excuse doesn't wash.

Cuba made a calculated decision to side with the former USSR for political power against the US, so why not just take their medicine like they asked for?

They simply chose a failing ideology to side with and subsequent failing economy.

Wrong again. You’re wrong a lot.

When Castro came to power he tried to have a good relationship with the US. The US said fuck off, we love our big corporations and oil companies raping your land and controlling your people. Hence, he had no choice but to seek help from the USSR.

We’ve seen this picture before…Ho Chi Minh tried the same thing with the US, but got the same response.

Assuming you are right, Castro sold his soul to the USSR instead?

Are you saying Cuba could not survive without selling its soul to either?

Yes, all countries have been forced to choose which of the large and powerful nations they want to align with in order to prevent being destroyed by one of them, if they don'[t have a protector.
Cuba was in particular bad shape because Batista had managed to steal the entire national treasury, so was totally broke.

So now the economic and military super powers are China and the US, and both use capitalism to fuel their economies

So essentially socialism can never work without such capitalism

Correct?

Is preaching socialism then akin to convincing people to join a suicide pact of mass starvation and misery?

No, all successful countries actually are socialist.
Socialism does not mean ANY government enterprise at all, but merely enough government regulation to prevent abuses of individual rights, like laws against child labor, slavery, mandatory overtime, monopolies, usury, discrimination, etc.

But there also is no doubt that capitalism can be more individually controlled so can be quicker and more innovative, so can out perform group leadership that is slowed by consensus.

The charge was made that Cuba had to sell their collective soul to another country to survive. Moreover, without the US they can't survive

So you are saying that premise is pure BS.

So why then has Cuba failed?

Also, who are the success stories of socialism in your opinion?

Obviously Cuba was so threatened by the US military that they had to go with the Soviets.
We STILL invaded Cuba with the Bay of Pigs, even with Soviet alliance.

Who says Cuba ever failed?
Being poor after being wealthy from casinos is not failure.
It is easy to point to Scandinavian countries as socialist successes, such as heavy Swedish government investment into Volvo, etc.
But obviously the US is totally socialist.
We have laws against abusive anti-labor practices, we have public schools, etc.

There is no comparison to Europe and the US and Cuba in terms of socialism.

 

[struth]

where did Bush do that?

the law at the time said US businesses couldn’t do business with Cuba. Bush didn’t make the law.

Yes Trump put sanctions back on Cuba after they backed the oppressive dictator of Venezuela

And properly so. That is the proper response to a nation that is an oppressive monster to it's own people
and tries to aid another dictator/butcher, Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela spread socialist misery to other nations.

Actually what Chavez did with Petro Caribe was pretty smart.

Face facts, Socialism destroyed Venezuela... it's a cancer that's never worked....and never will.
A failed economic platform

Nonsense.
Individual corruption is what harmed Venezuela, and socialism had nothing at all to do with it.
The US also illegally caused a great deal of harm.
Most of the world is socialist, and all the good parts of the US are, like public transportation, education, social security, disability, ADC, food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc.

hahaha that's the problem isn't it? people are corrupt, people aren't angels....socialism just allows for it to flow widely, and always ends with the vast majority poor, and eating dogs.

China, USSR, Venezula, Cuba, Vietnam, every nation that has adopted Socialism.

Why do you think people being unemployment and getting UE benefits, and food stamps is a good part of America? I think it's horrible...we need less of it, and more people working.

Wrong.
China, USSR, Venezuela, Cuba were Stalinist, which is state capitalism.
Nothing socialist about them.
You can't have anything collaborative, cooperative, and communal without also being democratic.
Vietnam was not so Stalinist I believe.

Social welfare programs are always going to be temporary needs.
Without them you will have far more desperation and crime.
So they are always good to have as back up.
Without government, we would have far less work, such as no internet.
No private company could have invested what the internet took.

hahaa State Capitalism is socialism. It’s just another way to brand it that socialist came up with the deflect from the harms of socialism

The Govt owns the means and production. That’s socialism.

Social programs like welfare aren’t socialism…they don’t work the best, but they aren’t socialism

 

[Votto]

So now the economic and military super powers are China and the US, and both use capitalism to fuel their economies

So essentially socialism can never work without such capitalism

Correct?

Is preaching socialism then akin to convincing people to join a suicide pact of mass starvation and misery?

No, all successful countries actually are socialist.
Socialism does not mean ANY government enterprise at all, but merely enough government regulation to prevent abuses of individual rights, like laws against child labor, slavery, mandatory overtime, monopolies, usury, discrimination, etc.

But there also is no doubt that capitalism can be more individually controlled so can be quicker and more innovative, so can out perform group leadership that is slowed by consensus.

The charge was made that Cuba had to sell their collective soul to another country to survive. Moreover, without the US they can't survive

So you are saying that premise is pure BS.

So why then has Cuba failed?

Also, who are the success stories of socialism in your opinion?

Obviously Cuba was so threatened by the US military that they had to go with the Soviets.
We STILL invaded Cuba with the Bay of Pigs, even with Soviet alliance.

Who says Cuba ever failed?
Being poor after being wealthy from casinos is not failure.
It is easy to point to Scandinavian countries as socialist successes, such as heavy Swedish government investment into Volvo, etc.
But obviously the US is totally socialist.
We have laws against abusive anti-labor practices, we have public schools, etc.

True. JFK totally fucked it up. He saber rattled Castro into Russia's arms even though Castro was not a fan of Russia. But then JFK didn't follow through and take him out. JFK totally fucked us, Democrats always do. I think ironically he was trying to do a good job. But wow, he didn't, he just didn't think it through. He either should have accepted Castro or taken him out. Not played games

Well JFK tried to lie about it and pretend the US had nothing to do with it.

But that is how democrats roll. LBJ pulled a similar stunt in Vietnam by falsely claiming the Vietnamese attacked the US to justify that war.

But the DNC controlled media will only talk about how bad Orange man is, someone who never started a war, something unheard of in the US when discussing modern day Presidents.

 

[kaz]

Nonsense.
Individual corruption is what harmed Venezuela, and socialism had nothing at all to do with it.
The US also illegally caused a great deal of harm.
Most of the world is socialist, and all the good parts of the US are, like public transportation, education, social security, disability, ADC, food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc.

hahaha that's the problem isn't it? people are corrupt, people aren't angels....socialism just allows for it to flow widely, and always ends with the vast majority poor, and eating dogs.

China, USSR, Venezula, Cuba, Vietnam, every nation that has adopted Socialism.

Why do you think people being unemployment and getting UE benefits, and food stamps is a good part of America? I think it's horrible...we need less of it, and more people working.

Wrong.
China, USSR, Venezuela, Cuba were Stalinist, which is state capitalism.
Nothing socialist about them.
You can't have anything collaborative, cooperative, and communal without also being democratic.
Vietnam was not so Stalinist I believe.

Social welfare programs are always going to be temporary needs.
Without them you will have far more desperation and crime.
So they are always good to have as back up.
Without government, we would have far less work, such as no internet.
No private company could have invested what the internet took.

hahaa State Capitalism is socialism. It’s just another way to brand it that socialist came up with the deflect from the harms of socialism

The Govt owns the means and production. That’s socialism.

Social programs like welfare aren’t socialism…they don’t work the best, but they aren’t socialism

There is no difference between government "owning" the means of production and controlling it.

Yes, redistribution of wealth is a socialist policy. That alone doesn't make a government entirely socialist, but government is raping producers, that directly impacts the means of production and forces them into supporting government social policy

 

[Donald H]

Funny how if this isn't a Republican or a Democrat thing the only issue to you is you want a Communist government propped up.

Why shouldn't any American want to defend Cuba's communist government when that government's revolution is bringing prosperity to Cuba's people?

The only reason it took so many years is because of America's evil sanctions being used to hurt the Cuban people.

And now the US has simply lost the ability to continue with it's cruelty due to China coming to their rescue with much needed support and economic aid.

It's no coincidence that America is fomenting trouble in Cuba at this time. America sees a huge loss in influence in it's own sphere of influence, right next door!

Will China harbour its nuclear armed warships in its new Cuban naval base?

 

[surada]

where did Bush do that?

the law at the time said US businesses couldn’t do business with Cuba. Bush didn’t make the law.

Yes Trump put sanctions back on Cuba after they backed the oppressive dictator of Venezuela

And properly so. That is the proper response to a nation that is an oppressive monster to it's own people
and tries to aid another dictator/butcher, Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela spread socialist misery to other nations.

Actually what Chavez did with Petro Caribe was pretty smart.

Face facts, Socialism destroyed Venezuela... it's a cancer that's never worked....and never will.
A failed economic platform

Nonsense.
Individual corruption is what harmed Venezuela, and socialism had nothing at all to do with it.
The US also illegally caused a great deal of harm.
Most of the world is socialist, and all the good parts of the US are, like public transportation, education, social security, disability, ADC, food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc.

hahaha that's the problem isn't it? people are corrupt, people aren't angels....socialism just allows for it to flow widely, and always ends with the vast majority poor, and eating dogs.

China, USSR, Venezula, Cuba, Vietnam, every nation that has adopted Socialism.

Why do you think people being unemployment and getting UE benefits, and food stamps is a good part of America? I think it's horrible...we need less of it, and more people working.

Wrong.
China, USSR, Venezuela, Cuba were Stalinist, which is state capitalism.
Nothing socialist about them.
You can't have anything collaborative, cooperative, and communal without also being democratic.
Vietnam was not so Stalinist I believe.

Social welfare programs are always going to be temporary needs.
Without them you will have far more desperation and crime.
So they are always good to have as back up.
Without government, we would have far less work, such as no internet.
No private company could have invested what the internet took.

hahaa State Capitalism is socialism. It’s just another way to brand it that socialist came up with the deflect from the harms of socialism

The Govt owns the means and production. That’s socialism.

Social programs like welfare aren’t socialism…they don’t work the best, but they aren’t socialism

The state doesn't own the means of production, but too many on this board are whining about cheap oil at any price.

 

[surada]

Nonsense.
Individual corruption is what harmed Venezuela, and socialism had nothing at all to do with it.
The US also illegally caused a great deal of harm.
Most of the world is socialist, and all the good parts of the US are, like public transportation, education, social security, disability, ADC, food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc.

hahaha that's the problem isn't it? people are corrupt, people aren't angels....socialism just allows for it to flow widely, and always ends with the vast majority poor, and eating dogs.

China, USSR, Venezula, Cuba, Vietnam, every nation that has adopted Socialism.

Why do you think people being unemployment and getting UE benefits, and food stamps is a good part of America? I think it's horrible...we need less of it, and more people working.

Wrong.
China, USSR, Venezuela, Cuba were Stalinist, which is state capitalism.
Nothing socialist about them.
You can't have anything collaborative, cooperative, and communal without also being democratic.
Vietnam was not so Stalinist I believe.

Social welfare programs are always going to be temporary needs.
Without them you will have far more desperation and crime.
So they are always good to have as back up.
Without government, we would have far less work, such as no internet.
No private company could have invested what the internet took.

hahaa State Capitalism is socialism. It’s just another way to brand it that socialist came up with the deflect from the harms of socialism

The Govt owns the means and production. That’s socialism.

Social programs like welfare aren’t socialism…they don’t work the best, but they aren’t socialism

There is no difference between government "owning" the means of production and controlling it.

Yes, redistribution of wealth is a socialist policy. That alone doesn't make a government entirely socialist, but government is raping producers, that directly impacts the means of production and forces them into supporting government social policy

Government also bails them out from banks to airlines to industry.

 

[kaz]

The charge was made that Cuba had to sell their collective soul to another country to survive. Moreover, without the US they can't survive

So you are saying that premise is pure BS.

So why then has Cuba failed?

Also, who are the success stories of socialism in your opinion?

Obviously Cuba was so threatened by the US military that they had to go with the Soviets.
We STILL invaded Cuba with the Bay of Pigs, even with Soviet alliance.

Who says Cuba ever failed?
Being poor after being wealthy from casinos is not failure.
It is easy to point to Scandinavian countries as socialist successes, such as heavy Swedish government investment into Volvo, etc.
But obviously the US is totally socialist.
We have laws against abusive anti-labor practices, we have public schools, etc.

True. JFK totally fucked it up. He saber rattled Castro into Russia's arms even though Castro was not a fan of Russia. But then JFK didn't follow through and take him out. JFK totally fucked us, Democrats always do. I think ironically he was trying to do a good job. But wow, he didn't, he just didn't think it through. He either should have accepted Castro or taken him out. Not played games

Well JFK tried to lie about it and pretend the US had nothing to do with it.

But that is how democrats roll. LBJ pulled a similar stunt in Vietnam by falsely claiming the Vietnamese attacked the US to justify that war.

But the DNC controlled media will only talk about how bad Orange man is, someone who never started a war, something unheard of in the US when discussing modern day Presidents.

The biggest screwup was the Bay of Pigs. Leaders came to the White House and met with Kennedy. They left thinking he agreed to provide them air support.

They would not have gone without it. Then he didn't provide it and they were slaughtered on the beach.

That was the most specific thing that convinced Castro he had to accept Russian involvement even though he didn't trust Russia or their motives.

That is 100% on JFK. He should have provided the support. Or if he wasn't going to do that, he should have at least told them he wasn't going to provide it.

It's all on him

 

[Donald H]

The media is doing it's best to place a flaming bag of dog doo on Trump's doorstep when it
comes to Cuba.

As usual it's a fail.

Trump threatened the Marriott in Havana and demanded that it close down as soon as he took office.

Your point? You wanted to keep propping up the Cuban government?

Hey, I haven't seen you since you ran off to write down a list of the issues you agreed with Republicans on that made you a Republican for 35 years. Is the list done yet? How did it go?

Marriott hotels were propping up the Cuban government? I was very pleased when Obama lifted sanctions and decided to normalize relations.

What list? I don't take orders from you, asshole.

My God, you don't know what governments need money? I hope you're hot, you're not making a living other than on your back.

And exactly, you were a Republican for 35 years, and you can't come up with a single reason why. If you were not lying, it would be the easiest question in the world since you CLAIM YOU WERE ONE FOR 35 YEARS. Hello.

It's the question that you liars who claim you are former Republicans and then you switched to hard core leftists always fall flat on your face on.

I don't know why you lie about being a former Republican. No conservative says wow, a left wing moonbat switched from Republican to Democrat, count me in!

But endless Democrats do it. So I guess it makes sense in your warped head, bitch

That is silly because Eisenhower explained what was good and then wrong about being a republican.
Originally republicans were fiscal conservatives, who did not borrow and spend from the future generations.
But WWII produced such munitions profits, that republicans became corrupt and built the Military Industrial Complex that caused the illegal wars like Vietnam, Desert Storm, Invasion of Iraq, etc., that were based on lies and with the intent of huge private profits.

That isn't what Eisenhower said. It's your propaganda version of it.

So Republicans ran WWII, huh? Where do you come up with your shit?

{...
President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned U.S. citizens about the "military–industrial complex" in his farewell address. The military–industrial complex ( MIC) describes the relationship between a nation's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy.
...}

And no I did not say Republicans ran WWII.
I am saying corporations discovered the pot of gold that military spending can be, and started ensuring there was always a fake enemy in order to stoke the fears of the people into buying weapons we did not need.

I'm familiar with the speech. It was your tying it to the Republican party and WWII that was run by DEMOCRATS that is bull shit.

Democrats still today are every bit the war mongers Republicans are. You just want to be the ones behind the steering wheel.

You personally prove how totally insincere you are on this. Trump was the least militaristic President by far since Carter, and you hated him. It made no difference to you. You just hated him for what he said

How ironic that Americans still continue the shitfight against and between each other, as the Cuba situation has slipped away from any possible US influence in Cuba, and into China's and Russia's hands!

 

[Votto]

Nonsense.
Individual corruption is what harmed Venezuela, and socialism had nothing at all to do with it.
The US also illegally caused a great deal of harm.
Most of the world is socialist, and all the good parts of the US are, like public transportation, education, social security, disability, ADC, food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc.

hahaha that's the problem isn't it? people are corrupt, people aren't angels....socialism just allows for it to flow widely, and always ends with the vast majority poor, and eating dogs.

China, USSR, Venezula, Cuba, Vietnam, every nation that has adopted Socialism.

Why do you think people being unemployment and getting UE benefits, and food stamps is a good part of America? I think it's horrible...we need less of it, and more people working.

Wrong.
China, USSR, Venezuela, Cuba were Stalinist, which is state capitalism.
Nothing socialist about them.
You can't have anything collaborative, cooperative, and communal without also being democratic.
Vietnam was not so Stalinist I believe.

Social welfare programs are always going to be temporary needs.
Without them you will have far more desperation and crime.
So they are always good to have as back up.
Without government, we would have far less work, such as no internet.
No private company could have invested what the internet took.

hahaa State Capitalism is socialism. It’s just another way to brand it that socialist came up with the deflect from the harms of socialism

The Govt owns the means and production. That’s socialism.

Social programs like welfare aren’t socialism…they don’t work the best, but they aren’t socialism

There is no difference between government "owning" the means of production and controlling it.

Yes, redistribution of wealth is a socialist policy. That alone doesn't make a government entirely socialist, but government is raping producers, that directly impacts the means of production and forces them into supporting government social policy

The National Socialist Hitler perfected the modern day socialist approach to controlling corporations.

He said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?" Hitler understood that bureaucrats can't even run government efficiently, let alone corporations. The only issue is controlling what those corporations do or do not do. Just let the experts be experts and mind your own business, unless you need them for something or need them to stop something. But the old style socialists like Cuba and North Korea still don't get it.

 

[Rigby5]

So now the economic and military super powers are China and the US, and both use capitalism to fuel their economies

So essentially socialism can never work without such capitalism

Correct?

Is preaching socialism then akin to convincing people to join a suicide pact of mass starvation and misery?

No, all successful countries actually are socialist.
Socialism does not mean ANY government enterprise at all, but merely enough government regulation to prevent abuses of individual rights, like laws against child labor, slavery, mandatory overtime, monopolies, usury, discrimination, etc.

But there also is no doubt that capitalism can be more individually controlled so can be quicker and more innovative, so can out perform group leadership that is slowed by consensus.

The charge was made that Cuba had to sell their collective soul to another country to survive. Moreover, without the US they can't survive

So you are saying that premise is pure BS.

So why then has Cuba failed?

Also, who are the success stories of socialism in your opinion?

Obviously Cuba was so threatened by the US military that they had to go with the Soviets.
We STILL invaded Cuba with the Bay of Pigs, even with Soviet alliance.

Who says Cuba ever failed?
Being poor after being wealthy from casinos is not failure.
It is easy to point to Scandinavian countries as socialist successes, such as heavy Swedish government investment into Volvo, etc.
But obviously the US is totally socialist.
We have laws against abusive anti-labor practices, we have public schools, etc.

True. JFK totally fucked it up. He saber rattled Castro into Russia's arms even though Castro was not a fan of Russia. But then JFK didn't follow through and take him out. JFK totally fucked us, Democrats always do. I think ironically he was trying to do a good job. But wow, he didn't, he just didn't think it through. He either should have accepted Castro or taken him out. Not played games. JFK really gave Castro no choice

Agreed that the middle ground of being against Castro but not taking him out ensured long term failure.
But what if that was the real goal?
Cuba as a Soviet satellite allowed Kennedy the vast PR power of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which made huge profits for the Military Industrial Complex for decades to come.

 

[surada]

Funny how if this isn't a Republican or a Democrat thing the only issue to you is you want a Communist government propped up.

Why shouldn't any American want to defend Cuba's communist government when that government's revolution is bringing prosperity to Cuba's people?

The only reason it took so many years is because of America's evil sanctions being used to hurt the Cuban people.

And now the US has simply lost the ability to continue with it's cruelty due to China coming to their rescue with much needed support and economic aid.

It's no coincidence that America is fomenting trouble in Cuba at this time. America sees a huge loss in influence in it's own sphere of influence, right next door!

Will China harbour its nuclear armed warships in its new Cuban naval base?

Russia, China, Iran Warn U.S. Must Not Intervene in Cuba

Russia "stressed the inadmissibility of foreign interference" in Cuba, while China "firmly opposes foreign interference in Cuba's internal affairs."

www.newsweek.com

 

[Claudette]

I'd say the Castro boys are to blame for all of Cuba's ills. Who else.

 

[kaz]

China, USSR, Venezula, Cuba, Vietnam, every nation that has adopted Socialism.

Why do you think people being unemployment and getting UE benefits, and food stamps is a good part of America? I think it's horrible...we need less of it, and more people working.

Wrong.
China, USSR, Venezuela, Cuba were Stalinist, which is state capitalism.
Nothing socialist about them.
You can't have anything collaborative, cooperative, and communal without also being democratic.
Vietnam was not so Stalinist I believe.

Social welfare programs are always going to be temporary needs.
Without them you will have far more desperation and crime.
So they are always good to have as back up.
Without government, we would have far less work, such as no internet.
No private company could have invested what the internet took.

hahaa State Capitalism is socialism. It’s just another way to brand it that socialist came up with the deflect from the harms of socialism

The Govt owns the means and production. That’s socialism.

Social programs like welfare aren’t socialism…they don’t work the best, but they aren’t socialism

There is no difference between government "owning" the means of production and controlling it.

Yes, redistribution of wealth is a socialist policy. That alone doesn't make a government entirely socialist, but government is raping producers, that directly impacts the means of production and forces them into supporting government social policy

Government also bails them out from banks to airlines to industry.

Yes, that is socialism, not capitalism. In capitalism, if you fail you die. It's an affront to capitalism to bail out losers. Think about it, the worst companies are playing with house money and the best companies are funding it.

So how's the list of reasons you were a Republican for 35 YEARS going? I'd think since you were a Republican that long you could kill it in five minutes. But still nothing.

Or are you ready to admit you lied about being a Repbublican?

 

[Votto]

The charge was made that Cuba had to sell their collective soul to another country to survive. Moreover, without the US they can't survive

So you are saying that premise is pure BS.

So why then has Cuba failed?

Also, who are the success stories of socialism in your opinion?

Obviously Cuba was so threatened by the US military that they had to go with the Soviets.
We STILL invaded Cuba with the Bay of Pigs, even with Soviet alliance.

Who says Cuba ever failed?
Being poor after being wealthy from casinos is not failure.
It is easy to point to Scandinavian countries as socialist successes, such as heavy Swedish government investment into Volvo, etc.
But obviously the US is totally socialist.
We have laws against abusive anti-labor practices, we have public schools, etc.

True. JFK totally fucked it up. He saber rattled Castro into Russia's arms even though Castro was not a fan of Russia. But then JFK didn't follow through and take him out. JFK totally fucked us, Democrats always do. I think ironically he was trying to do a good job. But wow, he didn't, he just didn't think it through. He either should have accepted Castro or taken him out. Not played games

Well JFK tried to lie about it and pretend the US had nothing to do with it.

But that is how democrats roll. LBJ pulled a similar stunt in Vietnam by falsely claiming the Vietnamese attacked the US to justify that war.

But the DNC controlled media will only talk about how bad Orange man is, someone who never started a war, something unheard of in the US when discussing modern day Presidents.

The biggest screwup was the Bay of Pigs. Leaders came to the White House and met with Kennedy. They left thinking he agreed to provide them air support.

They would not have gone without it. Then he didn't provide it and they were slaughtered on the beach.

That was the most specific thing that convinced Castro he had to accept Russian involvement even though he didn't trust Russia or their motives.

That is 100% on JFK. He should have provided the support. Or if he wasn't going to do that, he should have at least told them he wasn't going to provide it.

It's all on him

No, I think Castro had made up his mind despite the incident.

He was rather proud that he alone was in the middle of the entire world being on the brink of a nuclear Holocaust.

Dictators get off on that sort of thing.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes the US is in part, to blame.

See all this white space here to type in is where you get to splain your point. I was not looking really for a short yes or no.

Continue

Okay no problem, but I just did that in another thread on this topic.

Are you aware the US has heavily sanctioned and stopped all trade with Cuba for 60 years? Now put the puzzle together. The world’s preeminent economic and military nation doing this to Cuba for 60 FUCKING YEARS, will have a negative impact.

No? Yes?

The U.S. does not stop the rest of the world from trading with Cuba, so that excuse doesn't wash.

Cuba made a calculated decision to side with the former USSR for political power against the US, so why not just take their medicine like they asked for?

They simply chose a failing ideology to side with and subsequent failing economy.

Wrong again. You’re wrong a lot.

When Castro came to power he tried to have a good relationship with the US. The US said fuck off, we love our big corporations and oil companies raping your land and controlling your people. Hence, he had no choice but to seek help from the USSR.

We’ve seen this picture before…Ho Chi Minh tried the same thing with the US, but got the same response.

Assuming you are right, Castro sold his soul to the USSR instead?

Are you saying Cuba could not survive without selling its soul to either?

Yes, all countries have been forced to choose which of the large and powerful nations they want to align with in order to prevent being destroyed by one of them, if they don'[t have a protector.
Cuba was in particular bad shape because Batista had managed to steal the entire national treasury, so was totally broke.

So now the economic and military super powers are China and the US, and both use capitalism to fuel their economies

So essentially socialism can never work without such capitalism

Correct?

Is preaching socialism then akin to convincing people to join a suicide pact of mass starvation and misery?

No, all successful countries actually are socialist.
Socialism does not mean ANY government enterprise at all, but merely enough government regulation to prevent abuses of individual rights, like laws against child labor, slavery, mandatory overtime, monopolies, usury, discrimination, etc.

But there also is no doubt that capitalism can be more individually controlled so can be quicker and more innovative, so can out perform group leadership that is slowed by consensus.

The charge was made that Cuba had to sell their collective soul to another country to survive. Moreover, without the US they can't survive

So you are saying that premise is pure BS.

So why then has Cuba failed?

Also, who are the success stories of socialism in your opinion?

Obviously Cuba was so threatened by the US military that they had to go with the Soviets.
We STILL invaded Cuba with the Bay of Pigs, even with Soviet alliance.

Who says Cuba ever failed?
Being poor after being wealthy from casinos is not failure.
It is easy to point to Scandinavian countries as socialist successes, such as heavy Swedish government investment into Volvo, etc.
But obviously the US is totally socialist.
We have laws against abusive anti-labor practices, we have public schools, etc.

There is no comparison to Europe and the US and Cuba in terms of socialism.

I do not have time to watch videos, but if the idea is that someone thinks socialism requires government ownership of enterprise, that is wrong. As long as you have labor protection law and laws preventing things like monopolies, that is socialism.