Cuba slams 'morally decadent' US

[T_i_B]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5343510.stm

Cuba has labelled the US a "morally decadent empire" as diplomats from more than 100 developing countries meet at the Non-Aligned Movement summit.

Cuban vice-president Carlos Lage told delegates in Havana that America wanted to impose "a worldwide dictatorship".

Foreign ministers and diplomats are working on a declaration, before heads of state and government meet on Friday. The declaration is expected to attack US foreign policy, and to condemn the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon.

In a heated speech, Mr Lage slammed the United States as a "morally decadent empire". "The ideas of limited sovereignty, humanitarian intervention, preventive war and regime change are fascist; they are not modern theories to defend freedoms and fight terrorism," he argued.

[rinsd]

1. "humanitarian intervention"= fascist? Huh?

Oh I get it. These are like the ANSWER folks still pissed we stopped Slobo.

[rman]

2. Well, it's *called* humanitarian intervention,

just as the invasion of Iraq is called "bringing democracy" and "liberation".
Not to mention the long history of the US "bringing democracy" to Latin America.

[T_i_B]

4. Humanitarian intervention is often justified

Kosovo being a prime example of this, and if anything we could do with a little more humanitarian intervention in the Sudan at present. If anything Iraq is the exception rather then the rule. humanitarianism never had anything to do with why we went into Iraq, regardless of what Christopher Hitchens may say.

[rinsd]

9. I feel the same way about when its called "people's revolutions"

Which usually have little to do with the people and more with power.

[rman]

20. How did the mini revolution that brought back Chavez

after him being taken prisoner in the US supported coup by the wealthy minority in 2002, have nothing to do with the people?

Have you seen it?
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised

[rinsd]

21. Chavez has authoritarian tendencies.

Its yet another cult of personality power grab.

Is he the worst of the lot? No.

But his position is hardly something to cheer about unless you dream of the day of a one party dominated leftist state that is taking steps to ensure its position of power.

[rman]

22. You present no evidence, all you do is repeat a RW talking point

And you avoid answering my question.

[rinsd]

23. Beacuse your question was a means to change the subject

So why should I bother?

Add to that I wasn't even referring to Chavez(kind of telling that you assumed so) but to the many dictators claiming to be moving for the people when in the end its all about them. Shall we go down the list?

We've been down this road. I am well aware you have very few issues with a leftist authoritarian regime. That's fine. You're certainly entitled to your beliefs.

But I don't want that.

I want competition in parties. I want a President who considers it beneath the office to issue critiques of his opponent from the bull pulpit. I want a President who when faced with a hostile press does not seek legislation to muzzle it. I want a President who does not seek to augment the military by training and arming his supporters.

[rman]

24. It was a request for evidence to support your claim

I mentioned Chavez as an example of a people's revolution.

You keep on claiming Chavez is authoritarian, still no evidence.

[rinsd]

25. "request for evidence to support your claim"

"I mentioned Chavez as an example of a people's revolution."

It remains to be seen.

"You keep on claiming Chavez is authoritarian, still no evidence"

I already stated my issues with him. If you wish to ignore them, so be it.

[rman]

27. "issues" is not evidence

The claim that Chavez has authoritarian tendencies is not evidence that he does have authoritarian tendencies. Yet the former is all you present.

If you think it remains to be seen whether or not the Chavez counter coup is a case of a people's revolution, why don't you have a look at it?
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised

[rinsd]

29. What at a propganda flick?

C'mon now.

"The claim that Chavez has authoritarian tendencies is not evidence that he does have authoritarian tendencies. Yet the former is all you present."

Arming your supporters? Constant warnings of terra(in Chavez's version its the always imminent US invasion with our chuckle head its Osama)? Rules against speaking disrespectfully of the President(yeah I know no one's been prosecuted, that doesn't make it a bad law)? The use of Presidential address to demonizes his political opponents? His sucking up to holocaust deniers and plain bat shit dictators (NK)?

I stated my issues which have been discussed ad naseum on Chavez threads.

As usual any critique of Chavez no matter how light brings out the defense brigade(though by now I have most on ignore). I see people defending Chavez slam HRW and AI because they can't stand any criticism of him. People sop up the propaganda he issues from venezuelanlysis and call it the "truth". So color me unimpressed with Chavez and his supporters especially on this board.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

[rman]

30. How do you know it's a propaganda flick?

Do you usually judge documentaries without watching?

Some will maintain their unfounded criticism of Chavez no matter what.
For one, HRW has complaints of human rights violations by the Chavez government on record - unverified complaints. HRW also has complaints of human rights violations by pre-Chavez governments on record - verified complaints. HRW also has verified complaints of human rights violations by the US on record.

Your issues stated in those Chavez threads have all been thoroughly debunked. I don't have to bring out the Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread again, do i?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts.

[rinsd]

37. "all been thoroughly debunked" Excused, not debunked.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts."

Funny you should say that after posting the Chavez prop film. And yes I have seen it. Watched it last year.

[rman]

38. What about that docu is not fact but propaganda?

Perhaps the Chavez supporters shot by snipers, as opposed to Chavez supporters shooting at the opposition, as it was portrayed by the Venezuelan corporate media?

[rinsd]

39. If you need to be explained why that film is propaganda

Then I'm sorry I can't help you.

Its not about who shot who. Its the tone.

[rman]

40. Oh right, it's not about facts, not the contents, but the packaging.

[rinsd]

41. "packaging." What this is new to you?

What are you supposed to walk away feeling when the movie is over?

What is the obvious intent of the filmakers?

That film is the very definition of propaganda.

[Bridget Burke]

42. Sure--Irish propagandists for Chavez!

An RTÉ True Lives documentary, which broadcast to wide audience acclaim in February, was last night acclaimed by an international jury as "the best television programme in the world this year" - against competition that included Hollywood's West Wing and major drama and current affairs from BBC and CBS.

The Banff Rockie Awards 2003 were announced in Canada last night and the Global Television Grand Prize / Grand Prix Global was awarded to Chavez - Inside the Coup, Power Pictures Ltd. in association with RTÉ/ The Irish Film Board/BBC/ZDF/ARTE/NPS/CoBo/ YLE.

The documentary, which depicted the overthrow and return to power of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in a coup in 2002, was directed by Kim Bartley and Donnacha Ó Briain and produced by David Power of the Galway-based independent company. The company had secured unique access to President Chavez for an observational documentary and were with him in the Presidential Palace in Caracas when the coup took place.

www.chavezthefilm.com/html/film/banff_release.htm

Of course, RTÉ stands for Radio Telefís Éireann. Why would the Irish government help finance pro-Chavez propaganda?

[rman]

45. Must be a vast left-wing conspiracy...

Ann Coulter is correct after all.
:eyes:

[rinsd]

46. The nationality is of no matter.

No zealot like a convert.

[Bridget Burke]

48. You haven't watched that film, have you?

I'm still asking why the Irish government would help fund "propaganda."

Of course, you probably consider Michael Moore another dangerous leftist liar.

[rinsd]

50. Propaganda does not equal lies

Why can't people understand the distinction?

Propoganda is a tool to make someone believe what you want them to believe.

And yes F-911 is propaganda. It was not possible to walk out of that movie with a favorable opinion of Bush.

[Bridget Burke]

53. So--you had a favorable opinion of Bush before you saw F911?

Or you avoided watching that film, too. Because you didn't want to question your love of Bush.

Awfully weak. I've seen "Triumph of the Will." It didn't change my opinion of Hitler. I didn't like him before, either.

[rman]

44. What about the facts?

It seems you think it doesn't matter whether the alleged facts in the docu are indeed facts or are not facts. Perhaps you conclude from the "tone" of the docu that those facts can not be actual facts?

[rinsd]

47. LOL

You clearly do not understand what propaganda is.

Facts(or at least some facts) are necessary for credibility.

That doesn't change the tone or where the filmakers want their audiences to come to certain conclusions.

[rman]

49. Ah, so you agree the docu is factual,

it's just that you think it doesn't matter that it is factual (except for propaganda credibility purposes).

For the sake of argument: if you'd disregard the tone of the docu, what conclusion would you come to based on the facts that it presents?

[rinsd]

51. Where did I say it wasn't? Does anyone understand what propaganda is?

[rman]

52. So you're not going for the sake of argument?

[1932]

64. It's derogetory of neoliberalism, so you don't like it?

[1932]

63. Ok, we'll stipulate that you have an opinion.

But if you're not interested in supporting it, why waste your time posting?

[VoiceFrmThOuterWorld]

58. Incredible

Venezuela, under Chavez, should be a model for "democrats" for how to make government work for the people rather than corporations.

The choice between a government bought and paid for by AIPAC and corporate interests, and a government like Venezuela's, is a no brainer - i.e. only people with no brains would choose the former.

[enigma000]

3. They are still pissed their beloved USSR is gone n/t

[heliarc]

5. Nah

USSR is gone and now capitalism can advance towards communism a few steps further. Puts the pressure on the US to make good on all of its talk about free markets and "freedoms."

Humanitarian Intervention according to Meese, Bush (41,43), and Kissinger means destroying democracy (Chile's 9/11) and raining Depleted Uranium on civilian populations to most people in the world. Granted, I hope they aren't referring to the efforts in Pakistan re: Earthquake, and the like, though those actions make us a small percentage of US efforts around the world.

[enigma000]

7. Maybe earthquake and tsunami relief are contrary to nature's plans

Of course its difficult to argue that is it morally decadent to help others.

Didn't Cuba support rebels in Angola during the Cold War?

[heliarc]

10. Certainly they did...

I think the statement "humanitarian" is probably meant with sarcasm and poorly translated to boot

[Yupster]

11. Cuba had an actual army

in Angola which did major fighting there, even against South African forces. Their commanding general, Ochoa became a national hero, but was then executed by Fidel supposedly for "drug trafficking," though he sure didn't show any evidence of wealth during his 30 + year struggle supporting the revolution.

Cuba also had troops in Ethiopia fighting against Somalia and other African countries.

They also supported the Puerto Rican groups responsible for many bombings in the US.

[High Plains]

15. Yes, and they stopped the South Africans at Cuito Cuanavale

Thank you, Cuba.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[closeupready]

6. Not as though Castro has ever had political dissidents executed.

:eyes:

[Judi Lynn]

32. Why don't you throw some real light on this Cuba thing and post a link

to some articles concerning Fidel Castro having dissidents executed?

That would shut everyone up once and for all! Nothing like a fresh, bracing jolt of THE TRUTH.

[RangerSmith]

43. Well, hard to argue

he isn't a first degree thug.

http://www.therealcuba.com/Page7.htm

http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/protestaarresto82898.html

http://cryptome.org/cu-85+.htm

http://www.ishr.org/press/pr2005/0505/050511cuba.htm

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/hrd_cuba/alert_061406_paneque.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr250022002

http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/cubacrackdown/journ_imprisoned.html

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=14519&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

and of course there are tons more.

Would you support this here?

[killbotfactory]

54. I didn't see any allegations of executing dissidents in those articles

The most controversial executions that have taken place in Cuba were of the three hijackers, however I don't think they count as dissidents, exactly.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/04/12/cuba5937.htm

In a statement, the Cuban government said: "The maximum sentences given out ... in response to these dangerous acts by the hijackers, not only endangered the lives of many innocent people, but also endangered the security of the country."

During the hijack ordeal three passengers were released because of their physical conditions.

But the gang held knives to the throats of others and threatened to kill them if the vessel was not given enough fuel to carry them to the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americas/04/11/cuba.execution/

[RangerSmith]

55. Oh, I know

intimidating and jailing dissidents isn't the same as execution... all I said was that he was a first class thug.

I know most Castro supporters are fine with him jailing citizens and journalists who speak against him.

It's the exact same mentality we see with bushbots. People will support many different kinds of evils as long as they like the leader who is ordering them carried out.

Read this thread and any other Castro thread here. All those proclaiming their love for Castro know his history and his policies and they still have the knee pads and listerine out with his name on them.

[Judi Lynn]

57. What about your life has lead you to believe it's appropriate to

characterize people with whom you disagree as being whores who are interested in fellating political figures?

That's taking a conversation to a very ugly level, isn't it?

It was my belief that personal attacks on other posters is clearly forbidden here.

[RangerSmith]

59. I see no difference in what I said and what is said here everyday

about the bushbots.

Clearly there isn't a difference in definition.

People here that proclaim their love for Castro are doing exactly what the bushbots are doing. They have become the people they despise.

It's not about ethics or doing the right thing to them, it's only about whose side you're on and the ends always justify the means.

Castro did kill, and everyone here knows it... some will actually defend it.

Pretty clear, really.

[Judi Lynn]

60. Making crude claims about people you disagree with is low.

It's a personal attack. I don't recall ever seeing a DU'er accused of wanting to fellate anyone before. Sorry. It's STILL prohibited in DU rules, no matter what excuse you use.

Accusing them of "loving" Fidel Castro is wrong. You have no evidence for any claim like that, and you know it.

As for killing people, it has been pointed out that there are very FEW hard-fought revolutions without it.

Political opponents of the tyrant the revolution aimed to remove were tortured to death, murdered, their bodies often publicly displayed to intimidate the people of Cuba. Many of the original rebels were tortured to death, and most of the people who arrived in the boat bringing Fidel Castro from Mexico were slaughtered by the same U.S.-supported Fulgencio Batista who used tanks and fighter jets on his own people.

Misery and Repression Under U.S.-Supported Dictator Batista; Organized Crime Playground
Until the 1959 revolution, Cuba served as a virtual colony of the United States, providing a profitable venue for numerous investments, and by the mid-1930s, a protected and lucrative center for organized crime in the Western Hemisphere. Beginning in the early 1930s, Fulgencio Batista rose to become the most powerful man in Cuba, and by the early 1950s he ruled with an iron fist, suspending all political liberties, governing with utter corruption, and enforcing an ever widening gap between the multitudes of poor and the few rich. As many as 20,000 discontented Cubans were murdered by Batista's security forces in the 1950s alone.
(snip/...)

http://www.brianwillson.com/awolcuba.html#misery

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's a hollow accusation to point a gnarly finger at Cuba from within a country with such a filthy, vicious, bloody history in Latin America created by right-wing Republican Presidents.

So spend your time and DU space claiming DU'ers with whom you disagree are both groveling whores and sleazy, blood hungry ghouls. It's STILL a personal attack, and it's STILL contrary to D.U. rules.

[RangerSmith]

61. Sorry if it all seems to hit a little close to

home.

It's clear to me, you are what you despise, you wouldn't allow Bush the leeway to do any of this shit and we both know it, but yet you defend Castro and not bush.

I'm sorry, the hypocrisy here is pretty clear, IMHO.

[Judi Lynn]

62. Fidel Castro isn't trying to overthrow your government.

You're not going to change anyone at D.U.'s mind on this subject.

[RangerSmith]

65. Only cause he can't

You don't declare yourself President for life without having the same tendencies that bush has.

And who knows about some minds here at DU.... you keep posting the "gotta love Castro" stories for a reason, right?

[stepnw1f]

67. Your Personal Attacks = lost argument

I guess you are pissed that others here don't share your "hatred" of Castro. So... you call people names.

[RangerSmith]

68. No, I just call the blatant hypocrisy what it is....

blatant hypocrisy.. lol

It's not really name calling, it's more like check mate and you know that or you'd actually enter the debate with all the reasons you think Castro is a hero.

In trying to defend the likes of Castro... declaring himself president for life and jailing and intimidating dissidents and journalists... you know you would have to defend a position that is not any different than the likes of the shit we see the bush regime trying to do.

You give Castro a pass because you like him. Same mentality as the bushbots. It's all cool if you like the result.

[stepnw1f]

69. You Don't Even Know Where I Stand on the Issue

But I will tell you... after reading what you have posted and what others have posted, I'd say your "hypocrisy" is up for debate. And I'd say your objection to others not conforming to your biased view of Castro makes your own argument that much harder to digest. The name-calling is not even necessary.

I see others debating you in a way that wins my respect for their opinions... as for yours... well... they sound too similiar to a "Bushbots" (you brought that up-this is what I mean)...that is to say, condescending and rather dismissive of others. There is no hypocrisy here... just objectiveness that doesn't jive with your bias.

I am now more open to learning about Castro, then before. Have a nice day.....

[killbotfactory]

70. I don't agree with jailing dissenters, or harassing them

I also don't agree with the US illegally funding them, or the terrorist actions against Cuba we have sponsored.

If Al-Qaeda was funding political activists in the US, they would probably be arrested.

[Judi Lynn]

71. You're right, they would be arrested. It's illegal here.

In the year 2000, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) donated US$ 670,000 to three Cuban organisations to help in the "the publication abroad of the work of independent journalists from the island... and to distribute their writings within Cuba" (USAID report, Evaluation of the USAID Cuba Program, 2001).

By such means the American imperialists seek to promote the work of counter-revolutionary forces in Cuba and other countries. They constantly interfere in the internal affairs of other states when they do not like the policies they are carrying out. There is no doubt that the American embassy and the CIA were actively involved in the attempts of the counter-revolutionaries to overthrow the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

The US State Department describes this kind of activity officially as "outreach." When it comes to anyone acting in this way to defend the interests of US imperialism against a foreign government then it is regarded as legitimate. However, if any foreign power attempts to apply the same methods against the USA it is a different story. Under the United States Code, similar "outreach" activities on the part of a foreign diplomat in the United States can result in criminal prosecution and a 10-year prison sentence. This applies to anyone "who agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official" (Title 18, section 951 of the United States Code).

http://www.cjonline.org/woodsSartionCuba.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the biggest prizes in this intensified campaign against Cuba is the support of European Union governments for the aggressive stance of the US administration. After years of a policy of positive engagement with Cuba, EU-Cuba relations deteriorated dramatically with the condemnation by EU leaders of Cuba’s jailing of 65 so-called dissidents in April. A worldwide media and propaganda campaign against Cuba was whipped up in the aftermath of the arrests, leading to the European Union threatening sanctions and diplomatic isolation against Cuba.

These so-called dissidents were tried in open courts with legal representatives of their choice, not for their political beliefs but for treason – accepting money from an enemy power – under the Law of Protection of National Independence passed in 1999. .No country in the world tolerates or labels domestic citizens paid by, and working for, a foreign power to act for its imperial interests as “dissidents”. This is especially true of the U.S. where under Title 18, Section 951 of the U.S. Code, “anyone who agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official would be subjected to criminal prosecution and a 10-year prison sentence”.
(snip/...)

~~~~ link ~~~~

[Judi Lynn]

72. An element within our own goverment gleefully distributes our own

tax money to these clowns, and the amount delivered by the _Bush administration grows continually.

CUBA: Dissidents funded by US government
BY ROBERTO JORQUERA

At an April 8 press conference in Havana, Cuban foreign

minister Felipe Perez Roque presented vouchers, bank receipts and photos demonstrating the truth behind the charges against 75 dissidents found guilty of conspiring with the US Interests Section (USIS) at the Swiss embassy in Havana.

Perez exhibited vouchers of monies received last year from the US by several illegal organisations in Cuba. The Centre for a Free Cuba received US$2.3 million. The Task Force for the Internal Dissidency received US$250,000. The Program for Transition in Cuba, headed by Frank Calzon, received $325,000. Support Group for the Dissidency received $1.2 million from the International Republican Institute. Cubanet, an internet magazine, received $98,000 and the American Centre for International Labor Solidarity, whose mission is to persuade foreign investors not to invest in Cuba, received $168,575.

At a series of trials of Cuban dissidents in early April it was revealed that James Cason, the current head of the USIS, had conspired with them to provide information that Washington can use in its economic, political and propaganda war against the Cuban workers' and peasants' government.

On March 18, Cuban police began charging those involved in the US-funded dissident network. They were charged under a number of different articles in the Cuban penal code and subsequently sentenced to between 15 and 27 years imprisonment.

Article 5.1 of the penal code, under which many of those arrested were charged, states that any Cuban citizen “who seeks out information to be used in the application of the Helms-Burton Act, the blockade and the economic war against our people aimed at disrupting internal order, destabilising the country and liquidating the socialist state and the independence of Cuba, shall incur a sanction of deprivation of liberty”.
(snip)

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/535/535p21.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Information arising from the trial of the dissidents:

According to Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque (in an April 7 press conference) and to Cuban security agents working inside the dissident groups that he showed on film, the U.S. money came to recipients in Cuba 1) disguised as wired family remittances, 2) in cash mixed with the many remittances brought by couriers known as "mules," and 3) by payments to the Transcard debit card system in Canada for credit to cards held by dissidents in Cuba (the cards are good for cash withdrawals from Cuban banks). Although the Foreign Minister said that the Cuban Central Bank has followed carefully the flow of money to the dissidents, he did not reveal the total amount for any given period or specific amounts to recipient groups or individuals.

Whatever the amounts of money reaching Cuba may have been, everyone in Cuba working in the various dissident projects knows of U.S. government sponsorship and funding and of the purpose: regime change. Far from being "independent" journalists, "idealistic" human rights activists, "legitimate" advocates for change, or "Marian librarians from River City," every one of the 75 arrested and convicted was knowingly a participant in U.S. government operations to overthrow the government and install a different, U.S.-favored, political, economic and social order. They knew what they were doing was illegal, they got caught, and they are paying the price. Anyone who thinks they are prisoners of conscience, persecuted for their ideas or speech, or victims of repression, simply fails to see them properly as instruments of a U.S. government that has declared revolutionary Cuba its enemy. They were not convicted for ideas but for paid actions on behalf of a foreign power that has waged a 44-year war of varying degrees of intensity against this country.

To think that the dissidents were creating an independent, free civil society is absurd, for they were funded and controlled by a hostile foreign power and to that degree, which was total, they were not free or independent in the least. The civil society they wished to create was not just your normal, garden variety civil society of Harley freaks and Boxer breeders, but a political opposition movement fomented openly by the U.S. government. What government in the world would be so self-destructive as to sit by and just watch this happen?*

Foreign Minister Pérez Roque in his press conference gave an example of how several operations worked. He showed a film clip from the trial of Oswaldo Alfonso Valdés, President of the Liberal Democratic Party of Cuba, in which Alfonso described a meeting he had with an AID official and Vickie Huddleston (until mid-2002 the chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana), in which they discussed how to improve the way that he was getting "resources" in order to better conceal the U.S. government as the source. In the clip Alfonso also acknowledged receiving money and material resources from the U.S. government via organizations based in Miami.
(snip)

http://www.sdonline.org/34/philip_agee_3.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. ups funds for Cuba opposition
author: —Cheryl LaBash
Published Apr 6, 2005 4:16 PM

~snip~
While U.S. travelers face harassment and fines for visiting and spending money in Cuba, three separate U.S. government agencies illegally channel funds into Cuba. Since 1996 the U.S. Agency for International Development has spent more than $35 million. The National Endowment for Democracy paid $4.9 million since 2000 and proposes to double the annual sum to $2 million in the next fiscal year. The third organization is a new one, the President's Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, with a proposed budget of $29 million. (Gary Marx, Chicago Tribune, Feb. 22)

One U.S.-funded agency fronting as an online news agency spends $3,000 per month paying for freelance articles from inside Cuba. Dollars and propaganda are distributed through the U.S. Interest Section in Havana, in an effort to provoke a justifiable response from Cuba. Yet when these violators of Cuban law, like the 73 self-styled "dissidents," are charged, tried and convicted in Cuban courts it is portrayed in the U.S. media as a "human-rights violation."
(snip)

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315340.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



First photo, former economics professor and full time "dissident," Marta Beatriz Roque standing in front of _Bush-appointed U.S. Interests Section Head, James Cason. She was one of the "dissidents" on trial, whose secretary of many years was also a government agent who supplied names, dates, amounts of money she received over the years from the U.S. government.

Marta was released from prison when it was determined she was not healthy enough to continue serving her sentence.

Cason has been replaced by an equally obnoxious, non-diplomatic diplomat.

[Judi Lynn]

56. I recall reading right after it happened that some of the hostages

leaped into the sea to get away from the hijackers, too, who were holding knives to people's throats.

The propagandists had a field day folding this story into the story of the US-backed dissidents being rounded up and tried, apparently hoping to portray them as being politically victemized.

As for dissidents paid by other countries, it's strictly illegal here, although it has been a pattern of destabilization some of our more driven pResidents have pursued against lots of other countries. It's surely not the first time it has happened, but it surely is the first time a country has fought back successfully for a very long time.

Here's one of many articles on the subject:

CUBA: Dissidents funded by US government
BY ROBERTO JORQUERA

At an April 8 press conference in Havana, Cuban foreign

minister Felipe Perez Roque presented vouchers, bank receipts and photos demonstrating the truth behind the charges against 75 dissidents found guilty of conspiring with the US Interests Section (USIS) at the Swiss embassy in Havana.

Perez exhibited vouchers of monies received last year from the US by several illegal organisations in Cuba. The Centre for a Free Cuba received US$2.3 million. The Task Force for the Internal Dissidency received US$250,000. The Program for Transition in Cuba, headed by Frank Calzon, received $325,000. Support Group for the Dissidency received $1.2 million from the International Republican Institute. Cubanet, an internet magazine, received $98,000 and the American Centre for International Labor Solidarity, whose mission is to persuade foreign investors not to invest in Cuba, received $168,575.

At a series of trials of Cuban dissidents in early April it was revealed that James Cason, the current head of the USIS, had conspired with them to provide information that Washington can use in its economic, political and propaganda war against the Cuban workers' and peasants' government.

On March 18, Cuban police began charging those involved in the US-funded dissident network. They were charged under a number of different articles in the Cuban penal code and subsequently sentenced to between 15 and 27 years imprisonment.
(snip)

Since September, Cason has played the most interventionist role of any previous US diplomat in Cuba. On March 10, the Cuban government delivered a note to Cason asking him to cease his provocative statements and his role organising meetings of Cuban dissidents. Two days later, Cason organised another meeting of dissidents at his residence.
(snip/...)

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/535/535p21.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Elian Gonzalez story was the event which brought US/Cuba relations to the attention of a lot of Americans, who started keeping a very close eye on events.

You may have noticed that in the last years, HUGE amounts of money have been allocated by Congress expressly to be delivered to Cuban "dissidents," while our right-wing idiots plan and plot their re-takeover of the country. Very sad.

[Yupster]

12. I have enough problem with the US government

trying to dictate peoples's morals.

[VegasWolf]

13. Depends on how one defines morals. If one defines them the way fundies do,

then I'M MORALLY DECADENT!!!

[Yupster]

28. Which is a good reason why

government leaders and countries should stay out of morality and that goes for Cuba as well as the USA.

[Judi Lynn]

14. Since the war in Africa was mentioned, here's a good source of some

actual information on the subject.

There's no reason to take someone's word for anything. It's truly best to start looking on your own: it's your best bet of pulling out any possible scrap of truth at all. As you have seen, propagandists are ALWAYS betting you'll accept what they tell you and not look more deeply.

SECRET CUBAN DOCUMENTS ON HISTORY OF AFRICA INVOLVEMENT
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 67
Edited by Peter Kornbluh

NEW BOOK based on Unprecedented Access to Cuban Records;
True Story of U.S.-Cuba Cold fear Clash in Angola presented in Conflicting Missions

~snip~
Conflicting Missions provides the first comprehensive history of the Cuba's role in Africa and settles a longstanding controversy over why and when Fidel Castro decided to intervene in Angola in 1975. The book definitively resolves two central questions regarding Cuba's policy motivations and its relationship to the Soviet Union when Castro astounded and outraged Washington by sending thousands of soldiers into the Angolan civil conflict. Based on Cuban, U.S. and South African documents and interviews, the book concludes that:

• Castro decided to send troops to Angola on November 4, 1975, in response to the South African invasion of that country, rather than vice versa as the Ford administration persistently claimed;
  
  
• The United States knew about South Africa's covert invasion plans, and collaborated militarily with its troops, contrary to what Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified before Congress and wrote in his memoirs.
  
  
• Cuba made the decision to send troops without informing the Soviet Union and deployed them, contrary to what has been widely alleged, without any Soviet assistance for the first two months.

~snip~
In this first account of Cuba's policy in Africa based on documentary evidence, Gleijeses describes and analyzes Castro's dramatic dispatch of 30,000 Cubans to Angola in 1975-76, and he traces the roots of this policy—from Havana's assistance to the Algerian rebels fighting France in 1961 to the secret war between Havana and Washington in Zaire in 1964-65 and Cuba's decisive contribution to Guinea-Bissau's war of independence from 1966-1974.

"Conflicting Missions is above all the story of a contest, staged in Africa, between Cuba and the United States," according to its author, which started in Zaire in 1964-65 and culminated in a major Cold War confrontation in Angola in 1975-76. Using Cuban and US documents, as well as the semi-official history of South Africa's 1975 covert operation in Angola (available only in Afrikaans), this book is the first to present the internationalized Angolan conflict from three sides—Cuba and the MPLA, the United States and the covert CIA operation codenamed IAFEATURE and South Africa, whose secret incursion prompted Castro's decision to commit Cuban troops.

Conflicting Missions also argues that Secretary Kissinger's account of the US role in Angola, most recently repeated in the third volume of his memoirs, is misleading. Testifying before Congress in 1976, Kissinger stated "We had no foreknowledge of South Africa's intentions, and in no way cooperated militarily." In Years of Renewal Dr. Kissinger also denied that the United States and South Africa had collaborated in the Angolan conflict; Gleijeses' research demonstrates that they did. The book quotes Kissinger aide Joseph Sisco conceding that the Ford administration "certainly did not discourage" South Africa's intervention, and presents evidence that the CIA helped the South Africans ferry arms to key battlefronts. Contrary to what Kissinger alleges in his memoirs, the first Cuban military advisers did not arrive in Angola until late August 1975, and the Cubans did not participate in the fighting until late October, after South Africa had invaded. The book also reproduces portions of a declassified memorandum of conversation between Kissinger and Chinese leader Teng Hsiao-p'ing to show that China had refused U.S. entreaties to continue participating in Angola because of South Africa's involvement, not because the U.S. Congress refused to allocate further funding for the covert war, as Kissinger claimed.

In assessing the motivations of Cuba's foreign policy, Cuba's relations with the Soviet Union, and the nature of the Communist threat in Africa, Gleijeses shows that CIA and INR intelligence reports were often sophisticated and insightful, unlike the decisions of the policymakers in Washington.
(snip/...)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB67/index2.html

[killbotfactory]

31. Par for the course

# Castro decided to send troops to Angola on November 4, 1975, in response to the South African invasion of that country, rather than vice versa as the Ford administration persistently claimed;

# The United States knew about South Africa's covert invasion plans, and collaborated militarily with its troops, contrary to what Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified before Congress and wrote in his memoirs.

Here's an old newsreel from 1961, where the US denies involvement in the Bay of Pigs in front of the UN.

http://www.archive.org/details/1961-04-19_Cuba_Invaded

[Judi Lynn]

33. Excellent! Imagine the nerve of Fidel Castro to blame the US for

the Bay of Pigs invasion! More raving from a lunatic, apparently. It's so hard to understand why so many in Latin America hate the U.S. They probably envy us for our freedoms, just like Islamic Fascists, or whatever that new stupid term is.

It's a good thing Adlai Stevenson straightened all that out. :eyes:

[MacCovern]

16. morally decadent = individual freedom

In Cuba, it's not up for the people to decide what is morally right from wrong. In Castroland, the dictator will decide what is morally permissable.

I find it morally decadent that the leader of a country would be so pompous that he stays in power for over 45 years. No wonder millions have fled Cuba over the last few decades.

[Judi Lynn]

18. There are not "millions" of Cubans living in the States.

It's hard to grasp where you've ever gotten your figures, as there are only 11,000,000 Cubans now in Cuba, and never WERE significantly more than that at any time.

As for people "fleeing" Cuba, whom do you imagine the people of Central and South America, and the Caribbean are "fleeing" when they die annually in the hundreds, coming from as far away as 900 miles, in Haiti, and attempting to cross from California to Texas across the Mexican border. Are THEY fleeing from the Presidents of their countries, too?

Last but not least, these FAR MORE HAZARDOUS treks from far points in the Caribbean and south of the border are made, in full knowledge, that, if caught, they will be deported, unlike Cubans, who are given INSTANT LEGAL STATUS, the moment they step foot on dry land, are given instant access to social security, green cards, work visas, FOOD STAMPS, TAXPAYER PROVIDED SECTION 8 HOUSING, welfare, free medical treatment, financial assistance for education, etc., etc., etc.

What kind of numbers of dead do you imagine we'd see among the travellers from much greater distances if they were offered these inducements to come here, too?

You really need to spend some time doing some reading. Wouldn't think you'd want to embarrass yourself to this extent.

[Mika]

35. Yet another of DU's Cuba "experts".

:rofl:

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

36. But the people love him

That is why they keep re-electing him.

If they are happy with the system, then why do they need more than one party and why wouldn't Castro get 100% of the vote each time.

haven't you been reading?
:sarcasm:

[mom cat]

17. K&R for the unalligned nations and their growing srength.

[Judi Lynn]

19. Castro appears on Cuban TV, raising expectations at Nonaligned summit

Castro appears on Cuban TV, raising expectations at Nonaligned summit
The Associated Press

Published: September 13, 2006

HAVANA Fidel Castro made an appearance of sorts Wednesday on the sidelines of the Nonaligned Movement summit when Cuban state television showed photos of him wearing pajamas and chatting with a close friend from Argentina.

Argentine Congressman Miguel Bonasso came as a personal representative of Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, according to the Cuban news program "Mesa Redonda," which showed several pictures of a thin but animated Castro sitting with his friend at a kitchen table.

Cuba said Argentina is welcome to rejoin the movement. President Carlos Menem, a close U.S. ally, pulled Argentina out in the early 1990s, saying it was no longer a Third World nation, but the country was humbled by the peso crash and an economic crisis so severe that children in remote Argentine provinces faced malnutrition and other problems of the developing world.

The new Castro photos raised expectations that he may be well enough to make a more formal appearance at the summit.

Earlier Wednesday, National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon said Castro "is doing well" as he recovers from intestinal surgery, and as the chairman of the Cuban delegation, "he may participate" in any activity he chooses to.

Castro had said he would have one-on-one meetings with foreign dignitaries, and the arrivals of leaders from Iran, Venezuela and other prominent U.S. critics were highly anticipated.
(snip/...)

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/13/news/CB_GEN_Cuba_Nonaligned_Summit.php

[ItNerd4life]

26. But I need my morally decadent porn.

Oh, he was referring to other types of moral decadence. I might agree on some parts then.

[Yupster]

34. Yes as long as I get to choose

what's morally decadent, then I'm okay with it. I'll be just yet stern like a great father. I promise.

[SKKY]

66. I've never heard so many accusations by other countries over our...

...supposed "moral decadence". It's ironic that this is supposed to be the most "morally conscientious" president we've ever had that has
rejuvenated the "moral majority" and is restoring America's traditional values. Call me narrow minded, but I think I liked it better when
the President was getting hummers in the oval office. Funny how things work out...