Has hope gone for unfettered US travel to Cuba?

[rfenst]

Much of the Embargo is the direct result of Presidental Order(s), not legislation. Any president can ease or strengthen it. This has been done several times in the past.

The real problem is American politics: Most Cuban-Americans live in South Florida. They are a strong voting group, which has overwhelmingly voted together as a block, often for Republicans. Unless Cuban-Americans vocalize their support for ending the Embargo, it will probably not occur untill Castro dies and his brother or another leader shows change.

However, I beleive the Embargo would end much soooner if Cuba were to agree to pay for the American interests seized before the Embargo. Moreover, if Cuba could actually afford to pay for American goods and services, perticularly during this recession, trade and travel would open up fast.

The matter is not high on the priority list for most Americans. Thus, Obama but cannot take the political risk of making a decision about anything other than improving the economy and restoring jobs. It would make him look bad. Also, politics are very harsh in America right now. Obama and the Democrats are accused of nothing less than being socialists, which, in many peoples' mind is just one step another step closer to alegations of Obamaand the Dems being accused of being communismt. And, Republicans will not risk allienating the Cuban American vote.

I often wonnder how much influence "big sugar", rum and NC tobacco interests might have as well...

[cigcars]

*Excellent point(s), rfenst

[PigFish]

keep this non-political and then you do the exact opposite????

was never going to happen first term.

second term a possibility but will depend on how local pollies see it affecting their chances.

i think it is as simple as that.

Ken, what say you we give Bwana his wish and burn the house down with some real political rhetoric? We have not talked guns in awhile now! -LOL

-Piggy

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

Because American corporations, both "legal" and "criminal organizations",

controlled the vast majority of Cuba's economy pre-1960,

and Cuba's governments were entirely subject to those interests.

The Cuban revolution grew out of the same basic soil as did the American revolution,

the desire of the population to overthrow foreign oppression.

Those American interests that were dispossessed of their lands, factories and monopolies

never forgave the Cubans for taking back their country.

Just as those Americans in the 1770s who remained loyal to the Crown

fled to Canada, where they became influential in that country's development

and subsequent political directions,

so those Cubans who formed the small elite class that benefitted by the US occupation,

fled to their protectors as the Cuban revolution took hold.

Those Cuban-Americans, allied with the corporate interests that previously owned Cuba,

have been able to block all attempts at Cuba-US reconciliation.

They are able to do this by their concentration in politically volatile areas such as Florida,

where they can play off both parties against the other for their support.

American capital never owned the Soviet Union, China nor Vietnam.

US disputes with these countries were geo-political, not monetary.

This appears to imply that all (or a vast majority) of those who fled Cuba were members of the small elite class that benefitted by the US occupation, and that the refugees weren't Cuban patriots. If one were to make such statements in front of the Floridan Cubans, a bloodied nose - at least - would result. What I read above sounds like the sort of rhetoric employed by the Castro Communist dictatorship to justify its long stranglehold on Cuba. Be it noted that I am not defending the American record in Cuba prior to 1959, and that island was by no means unique in this respect.

[MontrealRon]

This appears to imply that all (or a vast majority) of those who fled Cuba were members of the small elite class that benefitted by the US occupation, and that the refugees weren't Cuban patriots. If one were to make such statements in front of the Floridan Cubans, a bloodied nose - at least - would result. What I read above sounds like the sort of rhetoric employed by the Castro Communist dictatorship to justify its long stranglehold on Cuba. Be it noted that I am not defending the American record in Cuba prior to 1959, and that island was by no means unique in this respect.

Whenever an Imperial power conquers another nation, especially a power that conquers and occupies many nations, they need to encourage and develop some element or elements of the native population to aid in the administration of the occupied country.

Divide and conquer has been the rule for millenia.

There are never enough Romans, or Spanish, or British, or French, or Germans, or Russians, or Americans, to run an empire without help, so certain castes, tribes or classes are given favoured treatment, such that the maintenance of the occupation becomes in their interest.

This will stabilize the situation for some time, even for centuries, as the newly created native elites become even harsher than their Imperial masters in keeping the lower classes in their place.

In time, as empires grow weakened through over-extension and warfare, they are sometimes forced to withdraw militarily from their colonies, yet they are able to maintain political and economic dominance through the native elites that they have trained to rule in their stead.

This is what the British, French, and Belgians have done in Africa, and look at the results.

In other cases, the occupiers are forced out by a combination of Imperial weakness and native revolt.

India and Vietnam are recent examples; even more recent is Soviet-occupied eastern Europe.

Unfortunately, there are also numerous failed revolts, ending in massacre.

In Cuba's case, a popular revolt against foreign occupation caught the Empire by surprise.

Distracted by the cold war, the Americans were slow to react, and Castro was in power

before sufficient force could be mobilized to stop him. By time they woke up, it was too late.

The revolution had great popular support, and subsequent efforts to defeat it,

like the attack at the Bay of Pigs, went nowhere.

The Imperial power was effectively expelled when the foreign owned property,

which accounted for most of Cuba's economy, was nationalized.

And yes, the managerial and political class that the US had installed to oversee its interests,

as well as the remnants of the former Spanish Imperial elite,

could not and would not adapt to the new order.

They fled en masse to the Imperial homeland.

This is the truth of the matter; stating it does not make me a Communist.

It is also a fact that Castro was forced to turn to the embrace of another Empire as protection,

thereby subverting many of the gains of the Cuban revolution, which was not Communist in its origin.

Stating these truths may not make me popular in Little Havana;

so be it.

It would not make me too popular with the authorities in Big Havana either.

PS - The Americans who fought to defend the Crown in the 1770s called themselves Patriots too.

In the "Civil War", or the "War between the States", both sides called themselves Patriots.

So did those Jews who fought alongside the Romans during the two Jewish revolts.

So did those tribes that fought with Cortez against the Aztecs.

The Vichy French considered themself Patriots, and the Nazi collaborators in Eastern Europe.

Stalin's thugs in the DDR, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc., all Patriots.

Every gang of sadistic maniacs now fighting in the DR Congo, all Patriots.

If ever there was a more useless word in the English language...

[cigcars]

Whenever an Imperial power conquers another nation, especially a power that conquers and occupies many nations, they need to encourage and develop some element or elements of the native population to aid in the administration of the occupied country.

Divide and conquer has been the rule for millenia.

There are never enough Romans, or Spanish, or British, or French, or Germans, or Russians, or Americans, to run an empire without help, so certain castes, tribes or classes are given favoured treatment, such that the maintenance of the occupation becomes in their interest.

This will stabilize the situation for some time, even for centuries, as the newly created native elites become even harsher than their Imperial masters in keeping the lower classes in their place.

In time, as empires grow weakened through over-extension and warfare, they are sometimes forced to withdraw militarily from their colonies, yet they are able to maintain political and economic dominance through the native elites that they have trained to rule in their stead.

This is what the British, French, and Belgians have done in Africa, and look at the results.

In other cases, the occupiers are forced out by a combination of Imperial weakness and native revolt.

India and Vietnam are recent examples; even more recent is Soviet-occupied eastern Europe.

Unfortunately, there are also numerous failed revolts, ending in massacre.

In Cuba's case, a popular revolt against foreign occupation caught the Empire by surprise.

Distracted by the cold war, the Americans were slow to react, and Castro was in power

before sufficient force could be mobilized to stop him. By time they woke up, it was too late.

The revolution had great popular support, and subsequent efforts to defeat it,

like the attack at the Bay of Pigs, went nowhere.

The Imperial power was effectively expelled when the foreign owned property,

which accounted for most of Cuba's economy, was nationalized.

And yes, the managerial and political class that the US had installed to oversee its interests,

as well as the remnants of the former Spanish Imperial elite,

could not and would not adapt to the new order.

They fled en masse to the Imperial homeland.

This is the truth of the matter; stating it does not make me a Communist.

It is also a fact that Castro was forced to turn to the embrace of another Empire as protection,

thereby subverting many of the gains of the Cuban revolution, which was not Communist in its origin.

Stating these truths may not make me popular in Little Havana;

so be it.

It would not make me too popular with the authorities in Big Havana either.

PS - The Americans who fought to defend the Crown in the 1770s called themselves Patriots too.

In the "Civil War", or the "War between the States", both sides called themselves Patriots.

So did those Jews who fought alongside the Romans during the two Jewish revolts.

So did those tribes that fought with Cortez against the Aztecs.

The Vichy French considered themself Patriots, and the Nazi collaborators in Eastern Europe.

Stalin's thugs in the DDR, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc., all Patriots.

Every gang of sadistic maniacs now fighting in the DR Congo, all Patriots.

If ever there was a more useless word in the English language...

***A truly objective point, Mr. Ron. 'Hat's off!

[khomeinist]

Nice historical approach Ron.

Unfortunately the word 'Patriot' does have utility within the English language. It is used in attempts to enforce an unnatural, paranoid cohesiveness within a society threatened by change or perceived external theat. It aligns well with fascistic tendencies.

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

In Cuba's case, a popular revolt against foreign occupation caught the Empire by surprise.

Distracted by the cold war, the Americans were slow to react, and Castro was in power

before sufficient force could be mobilized to stop him. By time they woke up, it was too late.

The revolution had great popular support, and subsequent efforts to defeat it,

like the attack at the Bay of Pigs, went nowhere.

The Imperial power was effectively expelled when the foreign owned property,

which accounted for most of Cuba's economy, was nationalized.

And yes, the managerial and political class that the US had installed to oversee its interests,

as well as the remnants of the former Spanish Imperial elite,

could not and would not adapt to the new order.

They fled en masse to the Imperial homeland.

An interesting presentation, Ron, but you haven't proved that the majority of Cuban exiles were/are the managerial and political class that the US had installed to oversee its interests, as well as the remnants of the former Spanish Imperial elite: a gratuitous assertion that can be gratuitously denied. Have you done extensive research on the individuals who fled Cuba? You might find very ordinary people among them, who weren't part of the elite, didn't own much property, etc. Was Cuba's leading composer, Ernesto Lecuona (to name but one example), a tool of the Imperialists? Quite a few of the exiles initially supported the Revolution until Castro showed his true colours. In any case, he was already committed to Marxism before overthrowing Batista. For what it's worth, take a look at this link: http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/Ar...e=FinalWarn07-6 . It indicates that the United States, contrary to what you opine, supported Castro against Batista. I could say much, much more, but this is enough.

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

Unfortunately the word 'Patriot' does have utility within the English language. It is used in attempts to enforce an unnatural, paranoid cohesiveness within a society threatened by change or perceived external theat. It aligns well with fascistic tendencies.

It aligns well with Marxist tendencies too - but then, Fascism/Nazism and Communism/Marxism are wings of the same bird.

[MontrealRon]

An interesting presentation, Ron, but you haven't proved that the majority of Cuban exiles were/are the managerial and political class that the US had installed to oversee its interests, as well as the remnants of the former Spanish Imperial elite: a gratuitous assertion that can be gratuitously denied. Have you done extensive research on the individuals who fled Cuba? You might find very ordinary people among them, who weren't part of the elite, didn't own much property, etc. Was Cuba's leading composer, Ernesto Lecuona (to name but one example), a tool of the Imperialists? Quite a few of the exiles initially supported the Revolution until Castro showed his true colours. In any case, he was already committed to Marxism before overthrowing Batista. For what it's worth, take a look at this link: http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/Ar...e=FinalWarn07-6 . It indicates that the United States, contrary to what you opine, supported Castro against Batista. I could say much, much more, but this is enough.

It is not easy to boil down thousands of years of human history into a few paragraphs

without making some rather sweeping generalizations.

Nor is it easy on the smaller scale to examine the Cuban revolution, its aftermath,

and the origin and development of the exile community in a single paragraph.

Whenever there is massive population displacement, under pressure of war or revolution,

many different people become caught up by the force of events, on one side or the other.

Artistic and cultural communities, as well as minority groups, are particularly disrupted.

When a nation, or a family, becomes torn apart, it is always tragic.

It is also tragic that each side puts all the blame on the other, without examining their own role.

I read the article or extract that you linked to in your post.

Considering that the source is to the right of the John Birch Society,

I would take some of his assertions with a grain of salt.

The author seems to believe that Castro was supported by certain elements of the US government

precisely because he was a Communist.

If you are one of those who believe that the US government is controlled by the Great Communist Conspiracy, which is itself created and run by a cabal of International Bankers,

then I suppose it all makes sense.

Still, I did find it an interesting read, and some fascinating points were made.

[thechenman]

I think that Mark Twain said it best when it comes to patriotism. How a patriot is definied merely rests on what side of the line you stand on. Everyone has their own politcal views. If he resists the status quo he is defined as unpatriotic, a rebel a traitor. If he wins, he suddenly becomes a patriot in the eyes of the masses as people rush to join his cause.

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

I would say that Castro is a patriot...I would not argue that point. But just becasue you are a patriot does not mean you area good leader. I think Ulysses S. Grant is another example of this. Less extreme, but an example nonetheless.

[MontrealRon]

QUOTE (khomeinist @ Nov 12 2010, 08:22 AM)

Unfortunately the word 'Patriot' does have utility within the English language. It is used in attempts to enforce an unnatural, paranoid cohesiveness within a society threatened by change or perceived external theat. It aligns well with fascistic tendencies.

It aligns well with Marxist tendencies too - but then, Fascism/Nazism and Communism/Marxism are wings of the same bird.

Excellent points, both.

Patriotism is, as it is said, the last resort of the scoundrel.

[khomeinist]

Well said Chenman. Welcome back btw.

[thechenman]

Well said Chenman. Welcome back btw.

Thanks...

[PigFish]

Some key differences between the American and the Cuban revolution.

Here lies the problem with these threads. There almost always those who wish to speak for the Cuban people and that is where the trouble usually begins.

Frankly, I tend to agree with one side here more than another, but I am not quite willing to say I can speak for those who either empowered the purveyors of communism in Cuba, or fled from it. If I could speak for one party, it would likely be the voice of those who fled. My grandparents fled Eastern Europe due to political turmoil and tyranny. Tyranny, whether is democratically elected, controlled by the effects of a military coup, empowered by the ostensible authority of God, or built for the sake of the collective is still tyranny!

I have a few comments to make here. One is that I don’t speak for other people. Hell, I can’t even really speak for my own countrymen let alone those of another country. Two, I know a little about my countries history and quite a bit less about the history of other countries. I don’t claim to be an expert in any. There is a big difference between and educated laymen and an expert. I will leave it to the reader to cast his or her own judgment on what I know or don’t know.

I guess that in here somewhere I need to deal with the harsh realities of Cuba. What about her, her politics and her people? This is likely going to come out rather harsh and callous but here goes. Cuba is a place where they make my favorite cigars. That’s it for me! When Cuba comes to mind I think about cigars. I don’t know people there; I have no friends there, either of the ruling party or the enslaved party. As a country what they do over there is their business. If they like communism, the form of tyranny (my classification) that they call a government, God bless them. They chose it (maybe), they presumably like it (doubtfully), and they allow it to remain (undoubtedly). I can speculate based only on my feelings; how much I would like to be in their position, but I would again be speaking for myself and not them. But that is really all I can do. Maybe those folks down there love the Castros and communism, I don’t know, I don’t claim to know! Frankly, I don’t really care!!!

Here is where it gets dicey… once I say I don’t care. This is the form of government that others live under, it is none of my business what they like and don’t like. I have no intention on imposing my will on them; they might love their system. When I say I don’t care, it means precisely what I said in the previous sentence; I have no right to impose my will upon them. I am compelled by my own standards to simply divorce myself from it. Now does that mean that I wish to see them suffer under tyranny? Hell, no. The question then is, who is to judge their suffering? I am afraid I will leave that to you. In my eyes they suffer.

I think those that fled were damn lucky to get out of there. But again, by making those judgments I speak for myself as if I were in their shoes and not for them. Someone tell me then, those of you who know so much about Cuba and its people; are they happy? Given a real vote of choice, a gun or the hangman’s noose; what would they do with the power to change their government? I know what I would do, but again, I am not Cuban. If voting did not work I would use the gun against the tyrants and use the noose for those who survived!!! Argue over whos a patriot and who is not, I don’t give a **** about all the academia. That island is run by a bunch of genocidal mad men; enslavers of my fellow man.

Now we get to some other points; comparisons.

Ron, I am gonna’ pick on your post a bit. I am going to cast some judgments on it. At this point, while we are not personal friends, we have seen each other around here enough to know a little about each other. Frankly, we disagree a lot on these matters but I harbor no ill will to you based on our differences. I have come to like you despite our differing views. While I often don’t agree with your conclusions sometimes you make inspiring points and articulate them well. We have a common ground of cigars and that is all that I need as long as we don’t go calling each other derogatory names. With that said I would like to analyze your post from my perspective. If what I say appears to you as derogatory I will apologize now in advance. I will attempt to write carefully as to not give that impression. You are entitled to your opinion and my point is to analyze it, perhaps even argue it but not to insult you in the process.

Lets take this for instance:

The Cuban revolution grew out of the same basic soil as did the American revolution, the desire of the population to overthrow foreign oppression.

I have a few things to say about this. First, at least one American finds this offensive! Me! I know that a statement like this easy to make and easy for those who wish to give it little thought, to agree with. For that reason I don’t hold it against you. I don’t think you went out of your way to insult me with it as I can read into it or out of it what I want which is certainly outside of your control. I am not gonna’ call you names over it. If you really believe this who am I to say that you can’t? I can’t say that you are wrong from the position of your perspective, but I can state my perspective as an argument for our readers.

What “soil” are we talking about here? Here are the similarities that I see. There were two revolutions; they are similar only in that they were both revolutions. They both caused a change in the ruling government, blood was shed and treasure was spent. As I see it, that’s it.

Do you really mean to say that the two revolutions are the same, because it is easy to read that way? Perhaps I am the only party that read it that way. Anyone else? Were the results of the two events the same? Are the Cuban people and the American people equal in their ability to utilize natural rights? Are the opportunities the same in both countries? Is there no difference in the benefits of living in one country to the other? Are they born from the same soil then, or are you just saying that some disgruntled men initiated both revolutions; those hell bent on a change? I see a key difference; how about the rest of you?

Lets go a little further. In the American Revolution there were indeed disgruntled parties. Those parties, Englishmen, were disenfranchised by the discriminatory practices of their king. The truth be told, they were originally only in pursuit of justice under British law and against the arbitrary rulings regarding the colonies by King George. These people were British subjects and the British were not foreigners. These people were seeking justice from within the framework of existing British law. The cause then, the soil as you put it, in this case was to seek justice. As justice under the British system was unattainable the goal became to cast off British tyranny. But there was more to it than that, there was a goal and intent as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and it was to cast off all tyranny not just British tyranny. In the years following the American Revolution the framers of the new government set out to follow through on their intent; a new government, one that would combine the benefits of the history of governance to build a system that would promote individual liberty and reject tyranny. The resulting government proves the intent of the revolution; an intent greater than the removal of and old framework of government. As a result, just laws were written and a system was born that created the groundwork for real equality under the law. The mere fact that slavery was overthrown as the result of that framework is proof positive that human rights, innate natural rights, was the original intent of the American Revolution. The result provides proof of the intent.

I don’t know much about the Cuban revolution. I am here to be taught it if someone wants to take the time. What I can see however, is the result. My conclusions about the intent then are of no consequence to anyone but me. Regardless I will share my opinion.

Castro is a communist. He never intended to free anyone. He is a tyrant and an oppressor. I believe him to be Godless, a murdering, self-indulgent, egocentric thug. He is a gifted conman and lair. He is a gambler and a strategist. I see his successes and accomplishments on par with those of Adolf Hitler! He is a bearded Hitler with lesser ambition. Any arguments? Can any of you see sitting down with Hitler for dinner? I mean anyone other than Oliver Stone! How about Castro? This son of a ***** is not worth the nitrocellulose expended to blow him to hell!!!

Lets say we judge the intent of the Cuban Revolution by the outcome. If you don’t wish to do it that way… well rebut to me anyway you wish. This is a general solicitation now and I am not speaking directly to Ron here. But this is how I am going to approach it as no course in Cuban history is needed to prove the point. The Cuban revolution was a power grab. When I say power grab what I mean to say is, that this was not a revolution intended to free people from tyranny. Might I add, as the American Revolution was. It was a military coup designed to empower a new emperor… and simply replace the old tyrannical oligarchy with a new one.

Gentlemen… ladies, do you really not see the difference? Can any of you with a clear conscience say that the Cuban government and their rule of law is in anyway superior, unless of course you are the tyrant, to the American rule of law? Are any of my free-living friends and members here willing to put up and trade their way of life for that of a Cuban factory worker? If so please put up or shut up (rhetorically of course!)!!!

It easy to say that these two events, the American Revolution and the Cuban Revolution are the same, but they are not, not at all. While any of you can argue the benefits or drawbacks of American exceptionalism and the American form of government if you wish, please don’t try to peddle the fact that there is little difference in the founding of the two counties. It is a ******* insult!

If I have in anyway insulted those with differing views, please accept my apology and try to understand my perspective and my point of view as I have yours.

Thanks for reading. -Piggy

[BonVivant]

My eyes are blurry from reading, so a little suggestion, if you please?

What don't we swim there?

[BonVivant]

Can we swim there? 90 miles from Miami.

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

I read the article or extract that you linked to in your post. [http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn07-6]

Considering that the source is to the right of the John Birch Society,

I would take some of his assertions with a grain of salt.

The author seems to believe that Castro was supported by certain elements of the US government

precisely because he was a Communist.

If you are one of those who believe that the US government is controlled by the Great Communist Conspiracy, which is itself created and run by a cabal of International Bankers,

then I suppose it all makes sense.

Still, I did find it an interesting read, and some fascinating points were made.

I offered the link because it gave a perspective on this issue quite at odds with the commonly regarded perception. Without being sidetracked by who wrote it, consider the evidence presented - are the sources genuine and quoted correctly, etc.? The article makes it clear that the United States government wanted Batista to go, so Castro was the man for the job, whether or not he was a Marxist. Why should they worry about his political leanings? After all, Roosevelt and Truman willingly agreed that half of Europe be handed over to the monster, Stalin.

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

Frankly, I tend to agree with one side here more than another, but I am not quite willing to say I can speak for those who either empowered the purveyors of communism in Cuba, or fled from it. If I could speak for one party, it would likely be the voice of those who fled. My grandparents fled Eastern Europe due to political turmoil and tyranny. Tyranny, whether is democratically elected, controlled by the effects of a military coup, empowered by the ostensible authority of God, or built for the sake of the collective is still tyranny!

I think those that fled were damn lucky to get out of there. But again, by making those judgments I speak for myself as if I were in their shoes and not for them. Someone tell me then, those of you who know so much about Cuba and its people; are they happy? Given a real vote of choice, a gun or the hangman’s noose; what would they do with the power to change their government? I know what I would do, but again, I am not Cuban. If voting did not work I would use the gun against the tyrants and use the noose for those who survived!!! Argue over whos a patriot and who is not, I don’t give a **** about all the academia. That island is run by a bunch of genocidal mad men; enslavers of my fellow man.

Castro is a communist. He never intended to free anyone. He is a tyrant and an oppressor. I believe him to be Godless, a murdering, self-indulgent, egocentric thug. He is a gifted conman and lair. He is a gambler and a strategist. I see his successes and accomplishments on par with those of Adolf Hitler! He is a bearded Hitler with lesser ambition. Any arguments? Can any of you see sitting down with Hitler for dinner? I mean anyone other than Oliver Stone! How about Castro? This son of a ***** is not worth the nitrocellulose expended to blow him to hell!!!

Lets say we judge the intent of the Cuban Revolution by the outcome. If you don’t wish to do it that way… well rebut to me anyway you wish. This is a general solicitation now and I am not speaking directly to Ron here. But this is how I am going to approach it as no course in Cuban history is needed to prove the point. The Cuban revolution was a power grab. When I say power grab what I mean to say is, that this was not a revolution intended to free people from tyranny. Might I add, as the American Revolution was. It was a military coup designed to empower a new emperor… and simply replace the old tyrannical oligarchy with a new one.

[edited]

Thanks for reading. -Piggy

Great points, Ray!

Members of my family were expelled from their homes (never to see them again), sent into exile, orphaned, tortured and killed by the Communists when they invaded Central Europe during WW2: ordinary folk who were not members of a wealthy, oppressing elite. Fidel and his buddy, the abominable Che, acted in similar fashion. While I can sympathise with the Cuban exiles, I do not necessarily agree that American citizens should be prevented from travelling to Cuba. It's hypocritical that they can go to countries that are just as oppressive, but not to an island south of Florida. Welcome to the grubby world of politics!

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

Some folk seem to have a problem with the concept of patriotism. Correctly understood, it is to be encouraged. After all, what is a true patriot? Answer: one who defends, or is zealous for, his country's prosperity, freedom or rights. There have been genuine statesmen, men of honour - though few - in Latin America over the years. Such principled individuals were genuine patriots, who strove for the common good of their countrymen (one's motto was: Liberty for everyone and everything, save for crime and criminals). They recognised that other countries must have their patriots too. In this light, it can thus be seen that Castro is not a true Cuban patriot.

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

Can we swim there? 90 miles from Miami.

You can try! If the sharks don't get you, and you land safely on the island, you could be imprisoned as a Yanqui spy!

[El Presidente]

Some folk seem to have a problem with the concept of patriotism. Correctly understood, it is to be encouraged. After all, what is a true patriot? Answer: one who defends, or is zealous for, his country's prosperity, freedom or rights. There have been genuine statesmen, men of honour - though few - in Latin America over the years. Such principled individuals were genuine patriots, who strove for the common good of their countrymen (one's motto was: Liberty for everyone and everything, save for crime and criminals). They recognised that other countries must have their patriots too. In this light, it can thus be seen that Castro is not a true Cuban patriot.

I have a problem with the common form of Patriotism which blinds people to the their own countries faults while they have no problem raising everyone elses. Plenty of examples in Oz and NZ.

Big call about men of honour (lack thereof) in Latin America. Plenty of good people have run for Govt/spoken out only to have disappeared or shot down in a hail of bullets by govts or rebels often supported by the major powers. I am not sure you can achieve a higher level of patriotism than knowing what you say (for the good of your people) will likely mean your death.

I have no doubt Castro was a patriot to begin with. Turned into a Dictator raising the other issue. Don't put too much faith in labels.

My 2 cents

[CanuckSARTech]

I like steak! Mmmmmmm.

[PigFish]

I like steak! Mmmmmmm.

While I enjoy a great cigar from a communist country, capitalist raise the best beef!!! -LOL Cheers mates! -Piggy

[PigFish]

I have no doubt Castro was a patriot to begin with. Turned into a Dictator raising the other issue. Don't put too much faith in labels.

My 2 cents

One man's patriot is another man's partizan! -;pig: