BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:19 AM

"Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.

Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive -- the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea's nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101518.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:26 AM

more...
"North Korea could respond to U.S. resolve by taking the drastic step of threatening all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. But it is unlikely to act on that threat. Why attack South Korea, which has been working to improve North-South relations (sometimes at odds with the United States) and which was openly opposing the U.S. action? An invasion of South Korea would bring about the certain end of Kim Jong Il's regime within a few bloody weeks of war, as surely he knows. Though war is unlikely, it would be prudent for the United States to enhance deterrence by introducing U.S. air and naval forces into the region at the same time it made its threat to strike the Taepodong. If North Korea opted for such a suicidal course, these extra forces would make its defeat swifter and less costly in lives -- American, South Korean and North Korean.

This is a hard measure for President Bush to take. It undoubtedly carries risk. But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea's race to threaten this country would be greater. Creative diplomacy might have avoided the need to choose between these two unattractive alternatives. Indeed, in earlier years the two of us were directly involved in negotiations with North Korea, coupled with military planning, to prevent just such an outcome. We believe diplomacy might have precluded the current situation. But diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature. A successful Taepodong launch, unopposed by the United States, its intended victim, would only embolden North Korea even further. The result would be more nuclear warheads atop more and more missiles."

Ashton B. Carter was assistant secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton and William J. Perry was secretary of defense. The writers, who conducted the North Korea policy review while in government, are now professors at Harvard and Stanford, respectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:34 AM

We need a series of succesful strikes before we go anywhere else in the Middle East.
For example Ronald Regan got a lot of mileage by taking over a small airstrip in the Caribean and killing the democratically elected President Bishop.
We could do the same to Vanatu.
Besides Vanatu is the offical corporate headquarters of Halliburton which qualifies Halliburton to be excepmt from US taxation.

Free the VANATUANS from the mad man tribal chief Blimtata who drinks white wine with beef.
Peace for Vanatu NOW ! Invade before they develop weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:23 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Urgent_Fury

The Invasion of Grenada, known to U.S. forces as Operation Urgent Fury, was an invasion of the island nation of Grenada by the military forces of the United States and several Caribbean nations. On October 25, 1983, six days after Prime Minister Maurice Bishop was executed by Bernard Coard's communist sect, the United States armed forces landed troops on the beaches of Grenada.Winston Bernard Coard (born August 10, 1944) was a Grenadian politician who was part of the coup d'etat that overthrew Maurice Bishop's government in 1983.
He was deposed by the United States Military in an invasion dubbed "Operation Urgent Fury."

Bernard Coard:

After completing secondary school, Coard moved to the United States, where he studied sociology and economics at Brandeis University, where he joined the Communist Party USA. In 1967 he moved to the United Kingdom, where he worked for two years as a teacher in London.

Born in Victoria, Coard first met Bishop when they were studying together at the Grenada Boy's Secondary School. Interested in the left wing politics which he shared with Bishop from an early age, the two became friends, and in 1962, they joined together to found the Grenada Assembly of Youth After Truth. Twice per month Bishop and Coard would lead political debates in St. George's Central Market Place. He also ran several youth organisations in South London.
At the University of Sussex he studied political economy. During his time as a student at Sussex, he joined the Communist Party of Great Britain. After completing his doctorate, he moved back to the Caribbean, working as a lecturer at the Jamaican campus of the University of the West Indies. During his stay in Jamaica, he joined the Worker's Liberation League. Coard even helped draft the manifesto of the League. He also worked as a visiting lecturer at the Institute of International Relations from 1972 to 1974.
Coard published How the West Indian Child is Made Educationally Subnormal in the British School System in 1971.
In 1976 Coard returned to Grenada, soon becoming active in Grenadian politics. Soon after returning home, he joined the New Jewel Movement, his childhood friend's left wing organisation. He was to run for the seat of St. George's in the upcoming elections.

The 1976 elections in Grenada were highly suspect, and accusations that the leader of the Grenada United Labour Party, Eric Gairy, had ensured that all election officials were GULP party members, and that the ballots had been tampered with. Though Coard won the seat he was running for, the NJM did not win the elections overall, and Maurice Bishop became the head of the opposition.
When Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet sent officers to train the Grenadian police and army on how to deal with civil unrest at Gairy's request, there was public outcry against the GULP leader.
In response to this, Bernard Coard and Maurice Bishop began to develop links with Fidel Castro's government in Cuba.
Aside from his support from Pinochet, Eric Gairy's mental state began to raise concerns amongst the Grenadian population. During a speech to the United Nations in October 1977, Gairy urged the UN to establish an Agency for Psychic Research into Unidentified Flying Objects and the Bermuda Triangle. He also asked that 1978 be made the Year of the UFO.

Rumours began to spread that Gairy was going to use his Mongoose Gang to kill off the New Jewel Movement's leaders, including Coard, during an overseas trip by Gairy. Deciding to take action before this could happen, the NJM took over Grenada's radio station on March 13, 1979. Before long, they had control of the entire island.
Influenced by Marxists such as Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, Bishop's NJM began to set up Worker's Councils across Grenada. Aid from the Soviet Union and Cuba allowed the NJM to build an international airport with a 10,000 foot runway in St. George's. In 1980, Coard was the head of a delegation to Moscow to formalise relations with the Soviet Union.
He also chaired the Organising Committee that decided on everyday matters for the NJM.

Bernard Coard was acting as Bishop's Minister of Finance, Trade and Industry, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister. In an attempt to keep up a good relationship with the US, Bishop allowed private enterprise to continue in Grenada, something Coard, a Stalinist who favoured a Soviet Union style command economy and detente class collaborationism, disagreed strongly with.
Among other things, Coard also disagreed with Bishop's ideas on grassroots democracy.
Deciding that action needed to be taken to remove Maurice Bishop from power, Coard enlisted the support of General Hudson Austin and thus the army, and on October 19, 1983, overthrew the government. He had Bishop and seven of Bishop's supporters rounded up and shot in the basketball court at Fort Rupert.
Austin proclaimed himself head of the "Revolutionary Military Council" and became the nation's new head of government. Governor General Sir Paul Scoon was detained.
The United States took advantage of the post-coup chaos to launch Operation Urgent Fury on October 25, an invasion to depose Coard, a Stalinist who proved loyal to the Soviet Union.
Just after Marines landed in Grenada, Coard, along with his wife Phyllis, Selwyn Strachan, John Ventour, Liam James and Keith Roberts were arrested.

They were tried in August 1986, and Bernard Coard was sentenced to death, but this was commuted to life imprisonment in 1991. He is serving his sentence in Richmond Hill Prison, located near his hometown of Victoria. In September 2004, the prison in which he was held was damaged by Hurricane Ivan and many inmates took the opportunity to flee, but Coard chose not to escape.
Bernard Coard has three children, Sola Coard (born 1971), Abiola Coard (born 1972) and Neto Coard (born 1979).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 09:39 AM

North Korea's missile tests last week caused no injuries or damage, but they sparked international condemnation. Officials in Japan -- badly shaken by the tests -- said Monday they were mulling whether their pacifist constitution allowed pre-emptive strikes on North Korean missile targets.

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe.

Japan's U.S.-drafted constitution, untouched since it was enacted after World War II, foreswears the use of war to settle international disputes, but the government has interpreted that to allow defensive forces. The question is whether such a pre-emptive strike could be defined as self-defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/us.nkorea.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 12:16 PM

Heh! I love the blatant self-serving political propaganda that is woven through those quotes, BB, and that takes itself for granted. The stuff like...

"Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it...blah, blah, blah..."

LOL! The USA is itself openly hostile toward North Korea, and has been so ever since I can remember. It was George Bush who labelled North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an "Axis of Evil", and implied that he would feel free to take military action against them at any time...and he has the literal means to do it! Why would it be surprising that countries a superpower directly threatens with the most inflammatory hostile rhetoric should themselves BE openly hostile in return?

Wouldn't that be a normal human reaction to a direct threat?

Duh.

But, no, the USA is apparently allowed to do what no one else in this world is allowed to do (except Israel?). It is allowed to threaten anyone it wants to, any time it wants to. It is allowed to pre-emptively attack anyone it wants to, any time it wants to...and why? Oh, well, because the USA is GOOD...(ha, ha)...the USA is our saviour (ha, ha)...the USA is the right hand of God upon this Earth and it can do no wrong. Bleah. The USA is just as self-serving in its own militaristic propaganda as North Korea is...but here's the key difference: the USA can pose a mortal threat to the lives of all North Koreans. North Korea cannot possibly do that to the USA. Their ability to realistically threaten the USA is comparable to an ant threatening to bit a very large man who has a blowtorch. Yes, the ant may manage to deliver one painful bite to the man...and then it will be stepped on and incinerated.

What a ridiculous situation it is, when the world biggest aggressor superpower claims the moral right to threaten and pre-emptively attack small countries supposedly to protect itself! What gall. What hypocrisy. What blantant pretensions of moral superiority.

2. Here's another marvelous piece of manipulative and totally idiotic propaganda, intended to make an American reader imagine that North Korea is really a threat to him and his neighbours:

"North Korea's missile tests last week caused no injuries or damage, but...."

Well....DUH! Missile tests are not supposed to cause any injuries or damage to anyone! Missile tests are done to see if the missile works properly, and that's all there is to it. Every country that has missiles does missile tests for that purpose. Of COURSE the missile tests caused no injury or damage to anyone. Why the hell would they??????? They were tests, remember? Tests are not done to cause injury or damage, they're done to see if the missile functions correctly.

These are examples of the way manipulative propaganda is blandly inserted into political rhetoric in order to build a mood of paranoia in a public and prepare them to go to war. Goebbels did it. Stalin did it. The North Koreans do it. The USA does it. Every aggressor nation that wants to justify its own aggressive plans to attack others does this sort of thing.

What a collection of scoundrels they all are, these politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:32 PM

Little Hawk, post World War II there only ever has been one proven "aggressor" on the Korean Penninsula and that was North Korea.

The North Koreans and their Chinese Allies and Soviet Russian "Advisors" were driven back by Allied Forces operating under the auspices of the United Nations. No Peace Treaty has ever been drawn up or signed, instead a "Ceasefire Agreement" remains in place.

In what way has the United States of America been "openly hostile" towards North Korea? That the President of the United States of America thought of countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea as representing an "Axis of Evil" has more or less been borne out by events and revelations brought to light by the exposure of Dr.A.Q. Khan's activities. What was said was not openly hostile it was merely stating fact. The people of North Korea are under far more serious threat from their own Government than they are from anything external to their own country.

By the bye LH, the long range missile they tested, you know the one that failed to be "gathered" to test course and prematurely exploded. I am fairly certain that this was not supposed to happen, and whether it exploded due to technical malfunction or by command detonantion, it would still, under most "normal" circumstances and range safety rules be classified as an undesireable "near miss" incident. Therefore don't be so astounded that the fact was reported that there were no injuries or damage caused.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:33 PM

LH,

Like Iraq, the US ( actually, the UN) is presently at war with North Korea- with a cease-fire in place based on certain behaviour by both parties. When one side violates the agreed upon behaviour, this will always bring the threat of active military conflict into consideration.

Note this is JAPAN that is considering direct military action, NOT the US. They just want to figure out if their constitution, forced on them by the US after WW II, allows for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:44 PM

...and what gives us the right to starve the people of Korea. They aren't any threat to me or to anyone else. When a country needs food and medicine, why should we cut them off economically just because we don't agree with their politics. Besides that, it is obviously is not working.

I don't like their leader but just because I don't like him does not justify starving the women and children.

Little Hawk is right. Why should the U.S. be the bully of the world and threaten other countries to the point that they feel they have to defend themselves from U.S. aggression? Whats right about that? Its just piss-poor diplomacy on the part of Bush. Haven't we hurt the people of that country enough?

Korea remembers the U.S. occupation and they do not want to relive that part of history. Everyone has a right to defend themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:51 PM

dianavan,

"...and what gives us the right to starve the people of Korea. They aren't any threat to me or to anyone else. When a country needs food and medicine, why should we cut them off economically just because we don't agree with their politics."

WE did not cut them off- THEY choose to withdraw from the agreements to stop development of nuclear weapons in exchange for food, supplies, and NUCLEAR power technology.

"Besides that, it is obviously is not working. "

And we have not yet started to enforce sanctions against them, so...




"Everyone has a right to defend themselves."

You forgot YOUR implied addition of "EXCEPT the US."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:57 PM

I'm well aware that North Korea launched a war of aggression back then, Teribus. No argument about that. And I'm aware that it has technically never ended...in the legal sense.

What I was drawing attention to was manipulative propaganda passages in what purport to be even-handed news reports, that's all. I'm saying that they ALL do it. The USA and its foes. They all do it.

When I see a dirty duck, I call it a dirty duck...and not just when it's a dirty duck on the opposite side of the argument that I happen to favour.

The open hostility of the USA I am referring to is the inflammatory rhetoric that comes from the White House and other American sources.

I am in hearty agreement with your various criticisms of North Korea's administration.

And, yes, BB, I'm well aware that the Japanese are talking about a pre-emptive strike. They have a lot of past experience in those sort of tactics, that's for sure! ;-)

South Korea has made critical remarks regarding the Japanese position on that. Koreans in general trust the Japanese about as much as the Japanese trust them. Meaning: not at all.

As far as I'm concerned, any country that publicly talks about possibly making pre-emptive strikes on anyone is an outlaw nation at the moment they say it. There's no excuse for it. They should be seen in the same position, legally speaking, as a person who utters death threats against another person. That's a chargeable offence in this society. This would make North Korea, and the USA, and Japan all outlaw nations, wouldn't it?

And that's what I'm saying. The pity is, there is no greater authority in the world that can control such international outlaws. It's still really just "survival of the strongest" out there...the law of the jungle. They dress it up and try to make it look good, but it's not good at all. Ordinary people suffer and die because of this nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 03:21 PM

"The Japanese draft under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows military enforcement, demands that North Korea immediately stop developing, testing, deploying and selling ballistic missiles.

It also bans all U.N. member states from acquiring North Korean missiles or weapons of mass destruction — or the parts or technology to produce them — and orders all countries to take steps to prevent any material, technology or money for missile or weapons programs from reaching the North. "

"Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on North Korea's missile bases would violate its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a possible Security Council vote.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told reporters his government wants a vote on the measure "as soon as possible."

"I think we must send a message that's as clear as possible" to North Korea, he said.

Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests and several government officials openly discussed whether the country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites.

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.

Japan's constitution bars the use of military force in settling international disputes and prohibits Japan from maintaining a military for warfare. Tokyo has interpreted that to mean it can have armed troops to protect itself.

A Defense Agency spokeswoman, however, said Japan has no offensive weapons such as ballistic missiles that could reach North Korea."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-10-north-korea-japan_x.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 03:58 PM

dianavan - reference your post - 10 Jul 06 - 01:44 PM

I was unaware that anyone other than that, "The little monkey turd" (Kim-Jong-Il's own description of himself by the way) of a North Korean leader/ruler/cult figure was starving the people of North Korea. He is very fussy about who he let's do that you see. Without outside aid (mostly American) thousands of North Koreans would die every year.

I am currently unaware of any sanctions, economic or trade, that apply to North Korea, but again the "lmt" is very fussy about who trades what with his regime.

"I don't like their leader but just because I don't like him does not justify starving the women and children." Very pleased to hear that it falls very much in line with the rest of the world's thinking on the matter - including that of the USA.

Common then Dianavan regale us of the dire and dastardly deeds that the US of A has perpetrated upon poor hapless, innocent, blissfully happy and contented North Korea over the past fifty odd years - I'm sure we'll all be amazed - or is this just some other outlandish, unsubstantiated claim you wanted to spout just to make yourself feel better.

Heard any complains about the US bullying people in Aceh? Or any other part of the world where disaster strikes and they are normally among the first to offer real tangible help?

This one is priceless - Dianavan at her best - "Korea remembers the U.S. occupation and they do not want to relive that part of history. Everyone has a right to defend themselves."

That honestly had me helpless with laughter for about ten minutes. Dianavan as the Korean War was drawing to a close the biggest scramble by the native population was headed South, so eager were the Citizenry of the Korean Penninsula to escape the occupation of the Americans. Now let us take at look at the differences between North Korea under it's Stalanist Communist Dictatorship - they are not a bunch of happy campers dianavan. Now what about South Korea? One of the great post war success stories, busy, thriving, one of the forefront "Asian Tiger" economies. Given the choice which would you chose to live in?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 04:12 PM

All national leaders are fussy about whom they let starve and brutalize their own people, Teribus. ;-) It's called "turf mentality" or something like that ("These people are MINE, not yours, to brutalize. Keepa you hands off!"). Nationals leaders always claim to speak for their people, but their behaviour more generally seems to indicate another assumption altogether: that they own their people, and their people's main function is to serve the system and obey orders until they die.

Those who won't obey orders find out fast what the real score is. This is true in "democracies" as well as in dictatorships, only thing is, it's a lot worse in dictatorships.

There seem to be a good many Korean voices in favour of re-unification. That would be a very good thing. Japan would not like it, because they fear a stronger Korean nation next door to them. The USA, China, and Russia would not like it, because then they could not play quite as much dirty "divide and conquer" politics in the region. The present rulers of North and South Korea probably wouldn't like it, because they might stand to lose some of their power.

It looks, in fact, as if the only people who would like it are ordinary Korean citizens. That's typical. Divide and conquer tactics are always perpetrated upon the many at the bottom by the few at the top.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 06:33 PM

Given the choice, I would not choose to live in North Korea. Given the choice, North Koreans would probably choose to live in an undivided Korea. That doesn't mean its right to let them starve.

"WE did not cut them off- THEY choose to withdraw from the agreements to stop development of nuclear weapons in exchange for food, supplies, and NUCLEAR power technology."

"They" being their politicians and "WE" being our politicians. Neither of which give two shits about the Korean people. Nuclear weapons are important only to the politicians. Food, supplies and nuclear power are important to the people. How can they become strong enough to govern themselves if we keep them weak and at the mercy of an ego-maniac?

Yes, unification would be a sane solution but the South is afraid it would then bear the burden of millions of starving people. Besides that, the political leaders will never agree to it.

My opinion is that, regardles of the politicians of the day, we should be feeding people who are starving. I don't agree with the politics of the Sudan either, but does that mean we are just going to watch them starve?

I think we need some creative solutions to this problem, not just the same worn out logic that has failed in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: gnu
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 07:40 PM

Um... I don't post to these threads much anymore, but... I see Japan is having a "debate" about whether or not a pre-emptive stike on NK would violate their constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 11:39 PM

I would tend to agree with the unification of Korea as being a good thing. So would most in the region on the proviso that the regime of Kim-Jong-Il came to an end as a result of that reunification.

If Japan can live with a vibrant and energetic emerging China (Japan has to because it can't do anything about it) a unified Korea poses no threat to them that they (Japan) haven't faced before. A reunification along the same lines as the reunification of Germany would be welcomed politically in Japan - they wouldn't then have to have debates in their Parliament about changes to their constitution to allow them to attack one of their neighbours.

The US, Russia and China in general gave up "playing dirty divide and conquer politics in the region" decades ago, this was just LH's usual anti-American dig. All would welcome the departure of the regime in the North, it has become a truly dangerous embarassment to it's allies (Russia and China) and as Kim-Jong-Il continues to play his blackmail games with diminishing effect (Now all parties agree with the US approach that no bi-lateral talks should take place with North Korea, it should involve all six parties) North Korea becomes more dangerous in respect of what it would be prepared to sell to who in order to get hard currency it needs to keep the regime alive.

Under any reunification process it would be the leadership in the North that would lose out, no one on the Korean Penninsula would opt for Kim-Jong-Il's, or Stalanist Communism. The only group of people I believe oppose reunification are those "Governing" North Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:33 AM

Well, Teribus, the one and only reason the Japanese "can live with" a re-emerging China is simple: they have no choice about the matter! ;-) They may figure, though, that they still do have some choice where Korea is concerned...and they'd much rather Korea remained weak and divided, I'm sure.

I am anti-imperialist, Teribus. That means that I am definitely anti-American when it comes to their general foreign policy at this particular time in history. It doesn't mean I anti-American in the sense of being against Americans as individuals. I am also opposed to Russian imperialism in various regions, and Chinese imperialism (as practiced in Tibet, for example). I am opposed to British imperialism. I'm opposed to Zionist imperialism. I'm opposed to the Turks beating up on the Armenians and the Kurds. If it were 2,000 years ago, I'd be opposed to Roman imperialism. Same basic deal.

The Americans are the Roman empire of the present era. They're the biggest imperialists of the moment, and they figure they have a God-given right to exercise imperial dominance...they figure that inside every human being on this Earth is lurking an "American" just waiting to burst forth. ;-) They're wrong. The Romans and all great imperialists suffered from the same conceit. They figured their way was "the best". There is no one way that's the best. There are many good ways to live.

I am opposed to imperialism on principle. I'm opposed to the great and powerful in this world dominating and exploiting the small. Don't forget that I lived in the USA for ten years...aged 10-20...through most of the Vietnam war years...as a Canadian citizen. I lived in an extremely rightwing smalltown part of rural New York State. I saw a side of their imperial policy and its gross assumptions of innate cultural and moral superiority...the hypocrisy and unreality of which most of them are unaware of, because they grow up with it so engrained in their education and media that they never question it. I questioned it. I was an outsider. I never forgot that experience and I never will.

I don't necessarily expect you to understand that, because you have had a different life than mine, with, I'm sure, different formative experiences...so different things push your buttons. That's the way it goes with people. We all reflect our past influences.

In any case, we can both agree that Korean re-unification would be a good thing, and yes, I believe its coming would herald the end of Kim-Jong-Il's rule and system. I could happily embrace that notion any time. I don't admire his rule or his system.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 04:56 PM

How can we get NK to nuke Iran? That would solve the problem and we wouldn't even get our hands dirty.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:04 PM

You could try praying to God for a miracle, pal. That's the only way it could ever happen... ;-)

Aside from that, your hands are already extremely dirty as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:37 PM

No. Seriously. Can we make it appear the Iran has lobbed a nuke at NK and hope they they actually have something that will make it all the way to Iran?

Maybe we can get the Jews to think of it first. That way they will catch all the shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:48 PM

You do have a rich fantasy life, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 06:53 AM

dianavan,

So I can presume you would be in favor of the UN removing the present government of N Korea, to allow the people of N Korea to be fed?


Gee, we ALREADY have THAT power, as the N. Korean government is STILL at war with the UN. I guess you want active combat, instead of all these messy negotiations that are not accomplishing anything...


Or is it a reunification UNDER the present N Korean government that you think will solve the problems?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 02:47 PM

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- One or more Iranians witnessed North Korea's recent missile tests, deepening U.S. concerns about growing ties between two countries with troubling nuclear capabilities, a top U.S. official said Thursday.

Asked at a U.S. Senate hearing about reports that Iranians witnessed the July 4 tests, Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator with Pyongyang, replied: "Yes, that is my understanding" and it is "absolutely correct" that the relationship is worrisome.

Hill's comments are believed to be the first public U.S. confirmation that Iranian representatives observed the seven tests, which involved one launch of a long-range ballistic missile, which failed soon after being fired, and six tests of short and medium-range missiles.

Hill said the six succeeded in hitting their target range.

But U.S. officials have long said that Iran and North Korea have been collaborating and have expressed serious concerns that cash-strapped Pyongyang was keen to sell missiles and possibly also nuclear material. "

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/20/korea.north.usa.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 04:00 PM

If I was in the administration of any small country the USA was in the habit of threatening on a regular basis, you bet I'd visit them and compare notes on military preparedness. Hell, yeah. Why not? That is what people do in the face of a common threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 01:22 PM

Well you should have been there tinyhawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:41 PM

The Rolling Stone has an in-depth article on the Administrations plans for war with Iran.

Also, a prize winning article on how they sold the war in Iraq.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:54 PM

Excerpt:

"...the man who had long been in charge of the marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.

Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson.

"They're very closemouthed about what they do," says Kevin McCauley, an editor of the industry trade publication O'Dwyer's PR Daily. "It's all cloak-and-dagger stuff." ...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 09:08 AM

John Rendon began his career as an election campaign consultant to Democratic Party politicians. According to Franklin Foer, "He masterminded Michael Dukakis's gubernatorial campaign in 1974; worked as executive director of the Democratic National Committee in the Jimmy Carter era; managed the 1980 Democratic convention in New York; and subsequently worked as chief scheduler for Carter's reelection campaign."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 10:10 AM

"Explain that, Fat Albert. You can be willfully blind if you look at a forest and see only the birch trees, because someone told you that there is no other kind of tree than a birch tree. That's what you're doing with regard to Cuban boat people."

Little Hawk:

I have a brother that lives in Cuba. He used to visit Cuba before Castro So he knows how it was before and after communism. I do not agree with his lifestyle but I tolerate it.

The reason he likes to live there is because he has quite a bit of money and he is a king there, a Rich Gringo. All of the basically OK Cubans gather around him to be his buddy in case they might end up with a few American dollars.

Here are few vignettes he has told me about life Cuba:

He tells me tales that give me a different view of your Cuban Utopia. He had a motor scooter there at one time. He was waiting at a traffic light and the police were pursuing someone on foot. They were shooting at him while he ran. He ran in front of my bros scooter and he had to drop it and hug the ground and duck the bullets. The Cuban people live in a police state.

Once he awoke in his apartment to find a cat burglar in his bedroom. The burglar fled when he sat up. Crime is rampant in Cuba.

Every time he has to do something official there like permits etc. The standard procedure is to put a $20 bill in the folded up application. that makes the rubber stamps fly. Lately it is tending more towards a $50. Corruption is rampant in Cuba.

The shelves in the stores there are nearly bare. The farmers spread their rice on the side of the road to dry it. When people want to cook beans or rice, their staples, they have to spread them out on the kitchen table and pick out the twigs, dirt and rocks before they can cook them. The food supply in Cuba is scarce and of poor quality.

The Cubans do not refer to Castro directly when they are criticizing him. They stroke their chin as if they were stroking a beard. Or they refer to the bearded one. The Cuban people do not like Castro.

He has a heart condition. Once he needed an operation to expand his arteries with the balloon, I forget what you call it but it fairly routine in the US. He knows several important doctors there that are connected to hospitals. They told him that they did not have the equipment, the facilities or the knowledge to perform such an operation. As a result, his son had to fly to Mexico and then to Cuba and arrange for an air ambulance to fly him to the Bahamas an then to Miami for the operation. Money can get you just about anything in Cuba except for the modern medical procedures because they do not exist in Cuba.

There may be worse conditions elsewhere in Latin America but Cuba is no garden of eden as you portray it.

When you go there on tour you are shown exactly what the Communistas want you to see. They like to have tourists come and spend money so tourists are treated differently from citizens.

And again I ask, why are they literally dying to get to the USA, like people from other South American countries, if it is so great in Cuba?

Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 12:05 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM

Hey Little Hawk:

I just learned tody that my brother had to return to America because of a kidney infection that they couldn't treat in Cuba.

Pretty piss poor country eh?.

Also note the celebrations of Cubans now that they see the posibility that Castro might croak.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 06:53 PM

Male Life Expectancy of All Nations of the World
2005 estimateRank Country Male Life Expectancy
1 Andorra 80.6
2 Singapore 79.05
3 Sweden 78.19
4 Iceland 78.13
5 San Marino 78.13
6 Japan 77.86
7 Switzerland 77.58
8 Australia 77.52
9 Israel 77.21
10 Norway 76.78
11 Italy 76.75
12 Canada 76.73
13 Malta 76.7
14 Greece 76.59
15 Netherlands 76.25
16 Spain 76.18
17 Austria 76.03
18 Kuwait 76.01
19 France 75.96
20 Liechtenstein 75.96
21 United Kingdom 75.94
22 Jordan 75.75
23 Monaco 75.7
24 New Zealand 75.67
25 Germany 75.66
26 Luxembourg 75.45
27 Belgium 75.44
28 Denmark 75.34
29 Cyprus 75.29
30 Ireland 74.95
31 Cuba 74.94
32 United States 74.89
33 Finland

A L O N G Chart


http://airninja.com/worldfacts/MaleLifeExpectancyOfNations.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:22 PM

Different story here:

http://www.who.int/whr/2004/annex/country/cub/en/index.html

Table 4: Healthy life expectancy (HALE) in all WHO Member States, estimates for 2002

2002         Healthy life expectancy (HALE) (years)         

Total population at birth         68.3         
At birth         Males 67.1         Females 69.5

http://www.who.int/whr/2004/annex/country/usa/en/index.html

Table 4: Healthy life expectancy (HALE) in all WHO Member States, estimates for 2002

2002                 
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) (years)         

Total population at birth         69.3
        At birth         Males 67.2         Females 71.3

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/4/66
Canada was in 11th place (72.0 years) and the USA in 29th place (69.3 years).

Other countries with reasonably high HALE in the Americas included Argentina (65.3 years), Chile (67.3 years), Costa Rica (67.2 years), Cuba (68.3 years),

Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:45 PM

Health Care in Cuba: Myth Versus Reality

    Cuba's Economic Choice: The Regime's Health Over the People's

    Cuba's economy is in disarray as a direct result of its government's continued adherence to a discredited communist economic model. This decline has directly affected the health of ordinary Cubans. Lack of chlorinated water, poor nutrition, deteriorating housing, and generally unsanitary conditions have increased the number of cases of infectious diseases, especially in concentrated urban areas like Havana.

    The grave economic problems in Cuba were exacerbated by the demise of the Soviet Union and the ending of the $5 billion in subsidies that the U.S.S.R. gave annually to the Castro government. Cuba made significant advances in the quality of health care available to average citizens as a result of these subsidies. However, it devoted the bulk of its financial windfall to maintaining an out-sized military machine and a massive internal security apparatus.

    The end of Soviet subsidies forced Cuba to face the real costs of its health care system. Unwilling to adopt the economic changes necessary to reform its dysfunctional economy, the Castro government quickly faced a large budget deficit. In response, the Cuban Government made a deliberate decision to continue to spend money to maintain its military and internal security apparatus at the expense of other priorities--including health care.

    According to the Pan American Health Organization, the Cuban Government currently devotes a smaller percentage of its budget for health care than such regional countries as Jamaica, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic.

    Health Care in Cuba: "Medical Apartheid" and Health Tourism

    Of course, not everyone in Cuba receives substandard health care. In fact, senior Cuban Communist Party officials and those who can pay in hard currency can get first-rate medical services any time they want.

    This situation exists because the Cuban Government has chosen to develop a two-tiered medical system--the deliberate establishment of a kind of "medical apartheid"--that funnels money into services for a privileged few, while depriving the health care system used by the vast majority of Cubans of adequate funding.

    Following the loss of Soviet subsidies, Cuba developed special hospitals and set aside floors in others for exclusive use by foreigners who pay in hard currency. These facilities are well-equipped to provide their patients with quality modern care. Press reports indicate that during 1996 more than 7,000 "health tourists" paid Cuba $25 million for medical services.

    Cuba's "Medical Technology Fair" held April 21-25 presented a graphic display of this two-tier medical system. The fair displayed an array of both foreign and Cuban-manufactured medicines and high-tech medical equipment and services items not available to most Cubans. The fair showcased Cuban elite hospitals promoted by "health tourism" enterprises such as SERVIMED and MEDICUBA.

    On the other hand, members of the Cuban Communist Party elite, and the military high-command are allowed to use these hospitals free of charge. Certain diplomatic missions in Havana have been contacted and told that their local employees can be granted access privileges to these elite medical facilities--if they pay in dollars.

    The founder of Havana's International Center for Neurological Restoration, Dr. Hilda Molina, in 1994 quit her position after refusing to increase the number of neural transplant operations without the required testing and follow-up. She expressed outrage that only foreigners are treated. Dr. Molina resigned from her seat in the national legislature, and returned the medals Fidel Castro had bestowed on her for her work.

    In 1994, Cuba exported $110 million worth of medical supplies. In 1995, this figure rose to $125 million. These earnings have not been used to support the health care system for the Cuban public. In fact, tens of millions of dollars have been diverted to support and subsidize Cuba's biomedical research programs--money that could have been used for primary care facilities.

More

Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 07:01 PM

I don't hear anything in your story that surprises me much, Fat Albert. I never said Cuba is a Utopia. What I do say is that the average Cuban was better off after Castro than before him, and that the average Cuban is better off than the average person in many other countries down there. They are all police states. You might just as well have to dive off a scooter and hug the ground while cops are shooting at an escaping suspect in Miami as in Cuba. What's the big deal about what happened to your brother in that respect? It would have happened in Mexico or Peru just the same.

You are quite correct that the Cubans experience a lack of goods on their store shelves, and a lack of modern equipment in their hospitals. You know why? They are being embargoed by the most powerful country in the world. That's why. Despite the embargo, they do manage to take better care of most of their people than Mexico does. Mexico is an American ally, so I'm sure you approve of them, right? ;-)

The fact is, I believe you would approve of any American ally regardless of what they did to their people. That's how bias works.

Sure Cubans are trying to get into North America. Heh! So is all of Latin America. They want more money, better jobs, and more consumer goods (and in some cases, a much safer daily existence).

So why is only Cuba "bad" in your eyes?

There are no utopias out there. Ever read any books on Castro's revolution? Try reading both the pro-Fidel books and the anti-Fidel books and comparing notes. I think you will find that there is something to be said for both points of view if you can put your own prejudices aside long enough to be moderately objective about it.

If the USA had chosen to work WITH Fidel after his revolution, instead of trying to stamp him out of existence, he would never have gone to Russia in the first place, and Cuba would be a friend and ally now, not an enemy. And it would most likely still be socialist. To be socialist is not equivalent to joining the ranks of Satan.

I was not "on tour" in Cuba, I was visiting private friends. None of my activities or intineraries there were in any way supervised by or connected with the Cuban government. I met people who didn't like Castro. I met many people who did like him. I met people who wanted to leave. I met people who wanted to stay.

It's a mixed picture in Cuba...as it is in most places.

Look, my friend, I consider downtown Detroit or Miami or Los Angeles like I would consider a piece of hell. But that's not all of America, is it? America and Cuba are both a mixed picture. Neither one of them is a Utopia. Neither one of them has a right to see itself justified in trying to stamp the other out of existence, but that's what the USA has been trying to do to Castro's Cuba ever since 1960 or thereabouts.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 09:45 PM

http://www.canf.org/Issues/medicalapartheid.htm

    U.S. Sales of Medicines and Medical Supplies to Cuba

    The US embargo does NOT deny medicines and medical supplies to the Cuban people. As stipulated in Section 1705 of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the U.S. Government routinely issues licenses for the sale of medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. The only requirement for obtaining a license is to arrange for end-use monitoring to ensure that there is no reasonable likelihood that these items could be diverted to the Cuban military, used in acts of torture or other human rights abuses, or re-exported or used in the production of biotechnological products. Monitoring of sales can be performed by independent non-governmental organizations, international organizations, or foreign diplomats.

    Since 1992, 36 of 38 license requests have been approved to U.S. companies and their subsidiaries to sell medicine and medical equipment to Cuba. Sales have included such items as thalamonal, depo-provera, pediatric solutions, syringes, and other items. The Department of Commerce declined the other two requests for licenses it received for failure to meet legal standards. Both of these exceptions to the general policy of approving commercial medical sales occurred in 1994.

    Moreover, the U.S. embargo on Cuba affects only U.S. companies and their subsidiaries. Other nations and companies are free to trade with Cuba. Should Cuba choose not to purchase from the U.S., it can purchase any medicine or medical equipment it needs from other countries. Such third-country transactions only cost an estimated 2%-3% more than purchases from the U.S. as a result of higher shipping costs.

    Humanitarian Assistance

    The Cuban Democracy Act encourages the donation of humanitarian supplies to the people of Cuba, including medicine, food, and clothing.

    Since the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act, the U.S. has become the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Cuba. Much of the humanitarian assistance by U.S. non-governmental organizations consists of medicines and medical equipment. The U.S. Government has licensed more than $150 million in humanitarian assistance to Cuba over the last four years. That is more than the total of worldwide foreign aid to Cuba during that period.

    U.S. humanitarian assistance has been distributed throughout the island, including to medical clinics. Monitoring is not required for donations of medicines for humanitarian purposes to non-governmental organizations in Cuba.

    In addition it is believed that the single largest source of medicines used in Cuba today is the large volume of "care packages" sent to Cuba by family members living in the U.S. These "care packages" are worth millions of dollars each year.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 10:04 PM

http://www.cpj.org/attacks04/americas04/cuba.html

Cuba

Six Cuban journalists jailed in a crackdown that began in March 2003 were released in 2004, but with 23 members of the media still behind bars, this Caribbean nation remains one of the world's leading jailers of journalists, second only to China. During 2004, Cuban authorities continued their systematic harassment of journalists and their families.

Article 53 of the Cuban Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression and of the press, as long as they are "in keeping with the goals of the socialist society." However, under the guise of protecting national sovereignty and state security interests, Cuban legislationâ€"including the Penal Code and Law 88 for the Protection of Cuba's National Independence and Economyâ€"effectively bars free journalism. Moreover, the judiciary lacks independence, being subordinate to the legislature and the Council of State, which is headed by President Fidel Castro Ruz.

The government arrested 29 journalists in March 2003, while the world's attention was focused on the war in Iraq, and summarily tried them behind closed doors on April 3 and 4. Many of the journalists did not have access to lawyers before their trials. Most of the defense lawyers had only a few hours to prepare their cases.

Some journalists were tried under Article 91 of the Penal Code, which imposes lengthy prison sentences or death for those who act against "the independence or the territorial integrity of the State." Other journalists were prosecuted for violating Law 88 for the Protection of Cuba's National Independence and Economy, which calls for imprisonment of up to 20 years for anyone who commits acts "aimed at subverting the internal order of the nation and destroying its political, economic, and social system."

On April 7, 2003, courts across the island announced prison sentences for the journalists ranging from 14 to 27 years. In June 2003, the People's Supreme Tribunal, Cuba's highest court, dismissed the journalists' appeals for annulment (recursos de casación) and upheld their convictions.

Most of the journalists are being held in maximum-security facilities, and they have denounced their unsanitary prison conditions and inadequate medical care. They have also complained of receiving rotten food. Unlike the general prison population, most journalists are only allowed family visits every three months and marital visits every four months. Their relatives have been harassed for talking to the foreign press, protesting the journalists' incarceration, and gathering signatures calling for their release.

Those journalists who were ill before being jailed have seen their health worsen in prison and have been transferred to hospitals or prison infirmaries. Others have developed new illnesses because of prison conditions. Some went on hunger strikes during 2004 to protest. Because prison authorities refused to allow outside contact with the strikers or to disclose information about them, their families were unable to check on their health. Some journalists managed to write articles or poems and smuggle them out of jail, and several were harassed for denouncing their situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 10:57 PM

"And did you know that every Cuban has free modern medical care and a roof over his head and safe streets and a job and nice clothing and all the basic necessities of life?"

Not true except the free part.

"I see fewer cops on the street in Cuba than in Canada, and I see safe streets at night in Cuba"

Crime is rampant in Cuba and they live in a police state.


http://www.therealcuba.com/FreeEducation.htm

On April 4, 1961 the Cuban dictator created the "Unión de Pioneros de Cuba" (Union of Pioneers of Cuba).

Almost all Cuban children, including Elian Gonzalez (above), have to become 'pioneros.' If you don't want your child to be a pionero his chances of getting an education in Castro's Cuba are almost non existent Pioneros have to participate in many extra-curicular activities, like marching in front of the US Interests Section whenever the dictator wants, or any other activities being promoted by the Castro regime.

Pioneros are also asked to denounce any counterrevolutionary activity that they see at home, or at the homes of their friends, to their teachers. Many Cuban parents went to jail because one of their children notified authorities that their parents were talking about the government or doing anything at home that was considered 'illegal.'

When the pioneros participate in a government march or any other government sponsored activity, they are given a coupon like the one above. These coupons must be given to their teachers the following day proving that you participated. If you don't turn in your coupon and don't have a very good excuse, the teacher will make a notation on the "Expediente Acumulativo del Estudiante"

(Student Accumulative Dossier) that each Cuban student carries from kindergarten until he graduates from high school. The information contained in that dossier would determine if the student is later allowed to enter a college or university.

This page reads in part "Participated in the guard of pioneros of April 4." This was when this particular student was in first grade!! All the way at the bottom it says that he also took part in the big celebration of the anniversary of the Pioneros in 1992 when he was in 2nd. grade. On the other page it mentions that he "contributed to the MTT" (Militia of Territorial Troops). The quota that has to be paid for the MTT is equivalent to one day of work per month!

In addition to information about the student participation in all political activities, the dossier also has information about his family including whether his parents are 'integrated' or not, as can be seen above. This page reads "Integración Revolucionaria" or Revolutionary Integration. The first line refers to the father and the second line to the mother of the student. It shows if they belong to the Communist Party; to the Union of Cuban Women; to the CDR (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution); the Federation of Cuban Women; and the CTC or Confederation of Cuban Workers. In pre-Castro Cuba, the CTC used to represent Cuban workers and demand new benefits and better salaries for them.

In Castro's Cuba the CTC, as everything else, is part of the regime that is exploiting the workers and treating them as if they were slaves. The poor Cuban workers have to pay a fee to the CTC from their meager salaries in order to be "represented" by them. It is equivalent to Afro-Americans paying a fee to the KKK in order for the KKK to protect their rights as Black citizens!

Now that you know the facts, Would you still consider that Castro is offering the Cuban people a 'free educational system'?
I am sure that you would not want your children to become a puppet of a maniac dictator in order for him/her to be able to study a career. And I'm sure that you would not want to be forced to become a member of an organizations that you do not want to be part of, in order for your child to attend a public school.But many foreigners who go to Cuba and are ignorant of the facts, return to their countries praising the 'excellent free education' offered by the Castro regime to all Cuban children.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:07 PM

Want to hear a suspicion of mine? If/When Fidel Castro dies - any time soon - and if there is a power struggle there - hey, Raul is 75!- what odds would you give that the United States of America won't be in there pitchin' away?

Too bad that we are already overextended...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:18 PM

Well that's what Fidel does in other latin American countries.

So does that mean the US should or shouldn't be in ther pitchin' away?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 01:40 AM

Pitchin' away militarily? No. We do not have that right.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 10:37 AM

Well suppose another latin American government tries to take over? Cuba owes Venezeula $800 mil for oil.

Or what if Red China, North Korea or Iran shows up Pitchin' away?

Does the US have less rights that those countrys?

Red China is already there drilling for oil off of Florida's coast where Liberal environmental idiots like Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson, won't allow the US to drill.

You are the sort of soft hearted whiney Liberal that would let drug addicts move in next door and then complain to the police that they were not doing anything to keep crack houses out of the hood.

Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 12:58 PM

"You are the sort of soft hearted whiney Liberal that would let drug addicts move in next door and then complain to the police that they were not doing anything to keep crack houses out of the hood." FAlbert

Must be nice to feel such complacency.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM

Having taken a good look at the websites of canf.org, therealcuba.com, etc. and the groups that back them, plus the various anecdotal "evidence" provided by our fat friend, they doubtless present only facts, free from rabid Anti-Castro, right-wing, BuShite bias.

Right.

Ho Ho Ho

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 03:29 PM

I think you are the complacent one that is happy to support Castro.

Does the US have less rights that than other countrys?

So what are the groups that back those websites? and when were the articles written and the photos taken?

Where are the dissidents in Cuba? In Jail? A good jail I hope. Much better than the ones in the US. Regularly inspected by the Red Cross right?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250052004

CUBA One year too many: prisoners of conscience from the March 2003 crackdown

I. Introduction

In the space of a few days beginning on 18 March 2003, the Cuban authorities arrested scores of dissidents in targeted sweeps. Some were subsequently released, but 75 of them were subjected to hasty and manifestly unfair trials in early April and quickly sentenced to long prison terms of up to 28 years.(1) Most appealed their sentences, but the appeals were rejected.

The Cuban authorities attempted to justify the crackdown as a necessary response to United States aggression towards the island. Dissidents were convicted either under Article 91 of the Penal Code or Law 88. Article 91 provides for sentences of ten to 20 years or death(2) against anyone "who in the interest of a foreign state, commits an act with the objective of damaging the independence or territorial integrity of the Cuban state."(3)

Law 88, the Ley de Proteccion de la Independencia Nacional y la Economia de Cuba, Law for the Protection of National Independence and Economy of Cuba, provides stiff prison terms for those deemed guilty of supporting United States policy against Cuba.(4) The law includes, for example, penalties for passing information to the US government or its agents that could be used to bolster US Cuba policy; for owning, distributing or reproducing 'subversive materials' that could be used to promote US policy; for collaborating with media deemed to be assisting US policy; and distribution of funds or materials for the above activities. (5)

In the trials, dissidents were accused of engaging in activities which the authorities perceived as subversive and damaging to Cuba's internal order and/or beneficial to the embargo and related US measures against Cuba. Concretely, the prosecution accused them of activities such as publishing articles critical of economic, social or human rights issues in Cuba; being involved in unofficial groups considered by the authorities as counter-revolutionary; or having contacts with individuals viewed as hostile to Cuba's interests. After a detailed review of the available legal documents in the 75 cases, Amnesty International considered the 75 dissidents to be prisoners of conscience(6) and called for their immediate and unconditional release.

Amnesty International has also closely followed the situation of the 75 prisoners, who are incarcerated in prisons throughout Cuba.

II. Overview of the situation of the 75 prisoners of conscience arrested in March 2003

With regard to their location of detention, Amnesty International has denounced the practice of deliberately incarcerating the 75 individuals in prisons located at extreme distances from their homes and families. This makes access to families and legal assistance particularly difficult, and can be construed as an additional penalty imposed upon the prisoners and their families. This practice contravenes the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 20, which provides that:

      "If a detained or imprisoned person so requests, he shall if possible be kept in a place of detention or imprisonment reasonably near his usual place of residence".

For example, Normando Hernandez Gonzalez, who lives in Vertientes in the province of Camagaey, is serving his sentence in Pinar del Rio province, nearly 700 kilometers away, while Eduardo Diaz Fleitas from Pinar del Rio is being held in Kilo 8 prison in Camagaey.

In addition, the exchange of correspondence and telephone communications between many prisoners and their families has reportedly been restricted, and family visits limited, according to families as a form of harassment by prison officials. Restrictions on contact with family members, if intended as harassment or a form of additional punishment, would contradict the principles of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners as laid out in paragraph 37:

      "Prisoners shall be allowed under necessary supervision to communicate with their family and reputable friends at regular intervals, both by correspondence and by receiving visits".(8)


In addition, in cases such as that of nine prisoners of conscience held in Kilo 8 prison in Camagaey province, prison authorities have reportedly made efforts to deter prisoners from carrying out activities such as studying the Bible, for example by threatening to suspend family visits. This would also contradict the principles of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, paragraphs 41.3 and 42:

      "Access to a qualified representative of any religion shall not be refused to any prisoner. On the other hand, if any prisoner should object to a visit of any religious representative, his attitude shall be fully respected ...So far as practicable, every prisoner shall be allowed to satisfy the needs of his religious life by attending the services provided in the institution and having in his possession the books of religious observance and instruction of his denomination".(9)


With regard to treatment in detention of the 75 individuals detained in March 2003, Amnesty International has received scattered allegations of ill-treatment by prison guards or by other prisoners, reportedly with the complicity of prison guards. Such instances would contravene article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that:
      "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

In one such case, reports indicate that prisoner of conscience Victor Rolando Arroyo Carmona was taken from his cell by three prison guards on 31 December 2003 and dragged to the floor while reportedly being struck in the face and body. Guards also allegedly trapped his leg in a door to immobilise him during the beating.

Some prisoners have reportedly been held in solitary confinement for extended periods. Amnesty International believes that if solitary confinement is used, strict limits should be imposed on the practice, including regular and adequate medical supervision by a doctor of the prisoner's choice and the right to appeal prison authorities' decisions. Amnesty International believes that solitary confinement can have serious physical and psychological effects and in certain circumstances can constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

For example, the Sigler Amaya brothers, Ariel and Guido, have reportedly been held in solitary confinement with inadequate light and water, in breach of international standards.

The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, paragraph 33 that states that "chains or irons shall not be used as restraints". Amnesty International has received information indicating that at least one of the prisoners, Prospero Gainza Agiero, was chained during his transfer to the prison infirmary, in contravention of these rules.

With regard to health issues, Amnesty International is concerned at numerous reports of illnesses among the prisoners which have reportedly been aggravated by prison conditions, insufficient access to appropriate medical care and, at times, hunger strikes. The UN Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states that:

      "A proper medical examination shall be offered to a detained or imprisoned person as promptly as possible after his admission to the place of detention or imprisonment, and thereafter medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary".(11)

According to reports, at the time of his arrest Oscar Espinosa Chepe had already been diagnosed with chronic cirrhosis of the liver and liver failure and bleeding from the digestive tract, among other illnesses. Since his arrest, his health has reportedly deteriorated. According to family members, the deterioration has been due in part to the poor conditions in which he is being held, including lack of running water and lack of clean drinking water, as well as by inadequate medical attention. While in detention he has reportedly been hospitalised several times due to liver problems. In July 2003, his family presented a judicial request for his release on the grounds of ill health; they have reportedly received no response from the authorities.

In addition, in some cases, family members of prisoners have reportedly been harassed by the authorities, due to their own dissident activities or their efforts on behalf of imprisoned family members. Such harassment has reportedly taken the form of threats, summons, interrogations and curtailment of access to prisoners.

Orlando Fundora Alvarez's wife, for example, was reportedly threatened with arrest and with reprisals against her husband in prison, if she attended a reception given by the Polish Embassy in Havana in November 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 03:58 PM

Never assume that the people you're debating with are insane or stupid, Fat Albert. ;-) Real life doesn't work that way. It's not that easy.

If I had my choice of living in Cuba, Mexico or Canada, which do you think I would choose?

I'd choose Canada. It's safer, it's more prosperous, and it's more democratic.

If I had my choice of living in the USA or Canada, which do you think I'd choose? Easy. Canada. But I know both countries. I did live in the USA for 10 years. Canada's safer, more peaceful, and mainly just a whole lot nicer and saner as far as I'm concerned.

As I said before, Cuba is no Utopia. I don't know about crime being rampant there, but I've been in Trinidad, and it's far more dangerous on their streets than it is in Cuba. The lot of the poor is far worse in Mexico, Guatemala, and a lot of other places in Latin America than in Cuba. The Cubans do have medical care and they have education. The Cubans I met (and I met plenty) were well educated and highly motivated people. They looked good. They were slim, trim, and active. They had a lot of imagination.

The church translator there was a very smart guy. Freddy Gonzales. He came on a visit to Canada a couple of years ago for about 6 weeks, then went back. If it's so bad there, why didn't he seek refugee status here? He believes in the Cuban revolution, and as I said, he's a very smart man. And a good man. So why does he want to stay in Cuba if it's as terrible as you say it is?

I don't see it as being half as bad down there as you think it is. I think you are simply seeing what you want to see. Your mind was made up from the start.

But, hey, that's what people are like. They have opinions that they got from someone else they trusted (parents, teachers, politicians, newspapers, etc). They then run around for the rest of their life accumulating evidence to support their rock-solid opinions and totally disregard the rest.

Anyway, when did this become a thread about Cuba?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 04:58 PM

They get education if they are a Pionero starting in the first grade and follow the communist doctrine which includes turning in their parents for doing anything "wrong"

You say you live where you choose? aren't you lucky.

"Possible victim: Cuba, if Castro dies. But that's more likely to be a velvet takeover by economic means than a shooting war. If it happens, millions of Cubans will shortly descend from being basically okay into living in desperate poverty."

Who wrote that? You? You brought it into the thread. Your statement about basically Ok is a joke. They are already "living in desperate poverty"

Why do basically OK people want to risk their life in shark infested waters to get to the "lousy" US?

How much money does a basically OK person make?: 210/21=$10
http://www.cartadecuba.com/Life%20in%20Red.htm

DAILY LIFE IN CUBA

(or "Life in Red")

by: Raul Rivero

Independent Cuban Journalist

(Published by Le Monde, Paris, France, on January 2, 1999)

..... A dollar is equivalent to 21 Cuban Pesos. The average salary in Cuba is 210 pesos a month.

Distribution of food and other products under the Rationing Card {libreta de racionamiento} in Havana:

Monthly, per person:

6 pounds of rice
3 pounds of brown sugar
3 pounds of refined sugar
20 ounces of beans (green peas or lentils)
12 ounces of coffee
Half a liter of oil (every two or three months)
10 ounces of salt
One quarter pound of ground beef/soy mixture
Half a pound of mortadella (every two months)
1 pound of fish
6 eggs
1 bar of laundry soap (every two months)
1 bar of bath soap (every two months)
1, 80-gram, loaf of soft bread, (daily)
1 tube of toothpaste (every two months for three people)

Distribution of food and other products under the Rationing Card {libreta de racionamiento} in the provinces:
Monthly, per person:
5 pounds of rice
3 pounds of brown sugar
3 pounds of refined sugar
16 ounces of beans (green peas or lentils)
4 ounces of coffee
Half a liter of oil (twice a year)
6 ounces of salt
One quarter pound of ground beef/soy mixture or of luncheon meat
8 eggs a month
2 pound of fish (every two months)
2 bar of laundry soap (every three months)
2 bar of bath soap (every three months)
1,60-gram, loaf of soft bread, (daily, in the capitals of provinces and municipalities)
1 tube of toothpaste (every two months for three people)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Raul Rivero was born in Moron, Cuba in 1947. He is one of the founders of Caimin Barbudo magazine, served as personal secretary to Nicolas Guillan (the official poet laureate of Cuba); was Moscow correspondent for Prensa Latina news agency; received the Cuban National Poetry Award, and was one of the signers of the protest document titled the Carta-Ruptura de los Diez, in 1991. In 1995, he founded the independent press agency Cuba Press, which he still directs. He also serves as correspondent for El Nuevo Herald of Miami, and as the Cuba-based editor for Carta de Cuba magazine, of which he was one of the first collaborators. Mr. Rivero has been elected regional vice president of the Committee on Freedom of the Press of the Interamerican Press Society; was awarded the 1997 prize from the France Foundations and Reportieres Sans Frontieres; is the author of the book of poems Firmado en La Habana (published in France by Maspero Publishing in 1998), and collaborates with Radio Marti, CubaNet, Ediciones Cibi and Cuba Free Press. The author has suffered arrests and acts of rejection, and has not been allowed to travel to Paris to receive his prize, nor to accept invitations from other capitals in Europe and America.

Judging from this, the author knows more about communisim that you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM

Of course I'm lucky, man! And I know it. I'm damned lucky I was born in Canada to a family which was relatively stable with no serious problems. Bloody right I'm lucky.

Where in the world did you get the idea I'm a fan of Communism?

I'm no fan of communism and I'm no fan of American corporate imperialism either.

Mr Rivero sounds like a man with a lot of guts, and a true Cuban revolutionary spirit. I wish him well.

Yes, I think ordinary Cubans would be worse off in a number of ways after a pro-American administration took over. Instead of poor, they'd be homeless. Instead of getting medical care, they'd be dying in shantytowns. Instead of getting an education, they'd be child labourers in sweat shops. Instead of eating real food in a little local cafe they'd be eating shit at McDonalds.

And would some of them be better off? Yeah. A minority would, I'm sure...the ones who got the jobs in the new infrastructure and carried the guns. The rest would be up the creek with no paddle. Just like in the rest of Latin America.

They ALL want to get into the USA. How come you only notice it when Cubans do? Open that borderline at Mexico, and you will be trampled to death in the stampede.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 07:47 PM

Falbert, I hold no brief for Castro- as an American I will probably never know what the man could have done or tried to do. The United States quite consciously elected to try to starve him out. The US has never - officially, at least - cared about the poverty the Cuban people have had to live in.

So when you or I or anyone else talks about how bad it is in Cuba and has been for 40 years we might keep that in mind.

I don't know if our Cuba policy came about because many high muckymucks in the US lost their fancy vacations in Cuba or if it just displays what we can do when we get mad at a dictator. In recent years no president has dared even take a serious look at the situation, what with the large Cuba-born bloc in Miami.

When the time comes that Castro dies I hope that that same bloc will go home forthwith.