Havana cigar, anybody?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20040503/wl_nm/cuba_usa_dc

Hmm, just when you thought that America was too occupied with slaughtering people in Iraq, they come out with another policy decision right out of the cold war.

America has been hounding Cuba ever since the said island threw them out fifty years ago in a people's revolution.

"It's recommended additional measures to help the Cuban people bring about an expeditious end to the dictatorship in Cuba, and it also outlines a plan for agile, effective and decisive assistance to a post-dictatorship Cuba,"

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher

As with the embargo on Iraq that covered women's pre and postnatal prescription medication and vitamin tablets, America's latest scheme to bring about the downfall of one of the least offensive dictators or the twentieth century appears to be squarely aimed at starving and sanctioning the people of Cuba until they are too weak to defend against an invasion or a coup.

Under current policies set at draining money out of Cuba, families of Cubans who are still living in the country are permitted to send about $1,200 a go to the island, a sum that many people in the embargo zone depend on to eat and live comfortable lives. America has decided that all together too much of this is ending up in the hands of the Cuban government, and are now looking at ways to "kill" off this flow of money. Well since the Cuban government owns the hospitals (Cuba reputedly has a pretty effective medical system that kicks Medicare in the head for quality of service), the school and the utilities (or so I believe), wouldn't restricting the flow of money mean that the people would get less? Even if the money goes into the pockets of Castro himself, he still has to spend it on something, and that's money going back to the people. All be it only a select few of the people.

As dictatorships go Castro has proven himself to be one of the least offensive leaders of the twentieth century. Aside from inviting Soviet nuclear missiles into the country, his record on torture, executions despotism, and murder is actually very good. He hasn't invaded any of his neighbors, he doesn't lead violent crackdowns on demonstrators and he certainly hasn't been involved in some of the horrendous incidents that America seems to be either suffering under or creating for other countries.

America has summarily propped up some far more horrific regimes than found in Cuba, who sold arms to Iran and propped up countless murderers in Africa, and who put in place the puppet regime in Vietnam that was overthrown to the loss of several million people. Who invaded Iraq, set up numerous coup and coup attempt in South America, still occupies large tracks of Korea and Japan, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. Who has troops stationed in Saudi and half of the other Persian Gulf nations, including Yemen which have a worse standing than Cuba on treating it's people and sponsoring bombings.

America appears once again to be tightening its grip on people who stand up to it, I wonder if England were to say no to America, how long it would be before it was considered to be a terrorist supporter and was either sanctioned or bombed.

The man that Castro replaced was pretty much a plant, supported by the US government and by various organised crime interests. Cuba might not be a democracy, and its leaders might have a record for executing a lot of people (for things that also carry the death penalty in half of the worlds other nations), but his predecessor was a whole lot more despotic.

Common Phrases and Words

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit