If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Castro rejects $16.4 in aid from EU.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Should the EU have been giving Castro financial aid in the first place?
"Cuba does not need the help of the European Union to survive," Castro told an enthusiastic crowd of about 10,000 invited guests, mostly Cuban officials and party leaders gathered for the 50th anniversary of the battle that launched their revolution.
Castro was enraged in early June when the 15-member European Union announced it was reviewing its policies toward Cuba over human rights concerns. He also was troubled by Britain's support of U.S. military action in Iraq.
The European Union, Cuba's largest trade and investment partner, opened an office in Havana earlier this year to administer the $16.4 million it provides the island in annual aid.
"Cuba does not need the help of the European Union to survive," Castro told an enthusiastic crowd of about 10,000 invited guests, mostly Cuban officials and party leaders gathered for the 50th anniversary of the battle that launched their revolution.
Castro was enraged in early June when the 15-member European Union announced it was reviewing its policies toward Cuba over human rights concerns. He also was troubled by Britain's support of U.S. military action in Iraq.
The European Union, Cuba's largest trade and investment partner, opened an office in Havana earlier this year to administer the $16.4 million it provides the island in annual aid.
0
Comments
The EU likes to think of itself as standing for International Law and human rights. You can't have it both ways...either the EU stands for something or it doesn't. 'Til now, it stands for an enablering of both Saddam and Castro. Recent condemnation of Castro's actions against dissidents showed the EU stood for something...other than economic gain.
It was perfectly okay for Batista to send out death squads just as it was okay for Pinochet to do the same in Chile, but let there be a popular revolution that brings in a left wing dictator and suddenly every attrocity is recorded and publicised.
Sure Castro is another slimeball dictator, but the prolonged sanctions and lack of constructive relations between Cuba and the US has merely strengthened his hold. You get nowhere by constnatly assailing situations you would wish to improve. Change in this world muct come incrementally and through constructive rather than destructive engagement.
Given that the most vociferous voices against Castro's Cuba, and the reason we have frozen Cuba out for so long in our foreign policy dealings, are the ultra right wingers down in Florida and the Gulf states, I am curious how pampered a life your friends family had in the era preceeding Castro? Perchance its a case of ex-Batista aristocrats fuming over the removal of their prior cushy lifestyles?
But from any viewpoint, Castro didn't uphold international law. If you want your country to be the headquarters of and the EU to be the world's interpreters of international law...you have to be consistent and at least appear to be impartial.
Your government is one to ignore international law whenever it feels like it, and in addition has supported the overthrowing of democratically elected governments such as Chile's. I expect you will have staged weekly demonstrations to show your displeasure with the White House and to request the UN HQ are moved to a more fitting country.
Castro is a fool to reject the money, but let me clarify that the cash was not for him. The cash is for the people of Cuba. I hope you don't have a problem with nations sending aid to poor countries.
So why do you have a problem with it? Is it that Cuba is a godless communist state (horror of horrors, god forbid!)?
Or that it is partly the US' fault that Cuba is in such state, and you are uncomfortable other nations are willing to alleviate the suffering partially caused by your government?
If you were in a little island which although good enough has nothing like the wealth of America wouldn't you want to come over to America because you could earn a hell of a lot more.
Compare this to the situation under the Batista regime when Cuba was little more than an American holiday resort and most people lived in squalor while a corrupt government and their elite friends enjoyed a life of luxury.
And yes, I do have a problem with giving money to Cuba...and with people who are inconsistent in their humanitarism.
Kevlar, you need to investigate life under Castro for yourself away from whatever you've learned and wherever you've learned it. Just read up on it for yourself.
There are a sizeable number of people in this world who would disagree with you. PNJ just examine both sides of the argument there are a lot of people in former Communist countries like East Germany and the USSR who actually miss their old systems - yes they had the Stasi watching over them, yes there were less consumer goods than there were in the West, yes there was no democracy or freedom of speech HOWEVER everyone had a job, everyone had a home, there was a greater sense of community, there was no crime and there was a decent health and education system. No system is perfect and I believe democracy is the nearest we will ever get to that but you can't just write off a system that like it or not was one of the dominant ideologies in the world for over eighty years and still has countries following its beliefs.
PNJ we are all humans together on this little ball of rock we call the earth - why would you seek to punish the Cubans for the society they live in?
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Georgia
Uzbekistan
Israel
Pinochet's Chile
Franco's Spain
China
Just about every other terrorist or guerrilla group in Central and South America
to name but a few
Straight yes or no please.
Just an FYI Kevlar to clarify something from last week's posting. Americans don't think their culture etc. is superior to Europe's. We define ourselves from the countries we came from. So we are hybrids. I'm an English/American. There's Dutch/Americans etc. And there's tons of ethnic celebrations etc. across the U.S. all of the time. In NJ, I've read of Scottish ones, German, Irish, Polish and more. So we celebrate the European heritage...we don't feel superior to it.
My take: the world invests in America. America is still the world's making. The UK is one of the biggest investors in America. In fact, in Florida, there's entire neighborhoods owned as holiday houses for people from the UK.
I was actually speaking about people on the site being consistent.
Yes I do if they are helping us in the security against terrorists or in the fight against communists...in the past. Now I believe communist regimes can be corrupted by our influence and freedoms so there's no need for actively combating them or giving aid to creeps. I believe without the influence of the US and others, Communism would have flourished and be the dominant system of government today. And then, where would your generation be without...Madonna?
Pakistan has really helped with the WOT. European colonialsim is responsible for a lot of the nonesense in that part of the world. Look at the way Afghanistan was drawn up...dividing tribes in Pakistan and what is now Afghanistan. No wonder terrorists operate there.
PNJ nobody here rooted for Saddam - no-one ever said that he was a great guy or whatever, we all agreed he was awful - we just opposed to cost in terms of life of going to war on Iraq and the cruelty of sanctions which only affected the Iraqi people. Leaders are not their nations, something I don't think Americans generally get because of the strength of their President.
PNJ you are not English/American - you are just American. Unless you happen to hold dual citizenship and a British passport you are not English/American. You are of English descent, yes but you are American.
Also you may not explicitly say that your culture is superior but by your society's attitude I think you act like it is. How often do you have a foreign film in your cinemas? How often do you read a book by a foreign author? It's not your fault but I think that because of its global dominance foreign cultures in America get swamped by American films, books, TV shows etc. I think we in Europe are a lot more open to foreign culture than you are in America.
If America is the world's making how come it refuses to listen to the rest of the world when we want it to do something?
But anyways, for instance Kyoto. You know the baseline used for that benefited Germany cause it was the year when they took on polluted East Germany. And you know other provisions benefited China and the UK.
If Kyoto would have taken into account our forests, which are a big as countries...maybe we would have.
Georgia and Uzbekistan are doing nothing for TWAT. Uzbekistan is a brutal dictatorship that boils people alive and sends 5 year old kids to forced labour. Will you condemn G. W. Bush’s alliance with such monstrous government?
And how did Pinochet's Chile or Franco's Spain ever help to make the US more secure?
And let's not forget a certain S. Hussein who was not only sent help but actual WMDs by a very co-operative US government.
Stop deluding yourself: the US government has and is happy to form alliances with brutal dictatorships and savage murderers so long as they can be of use for Washington. A use that has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or protecting America from attack.
So I'll ask you again: Do you approve of the US' support of Saudi Arabia for the last couple of decades or so? Or of Israel for the last three? Or of the overthrowing of the democratic (yes, that word you use so much when talking about how good the West is towards oppressed countries) government of Chile in 1973 and replacing it with a bloody dictatorship?
Yes I can say that because unless you have a British passport you cannot be called English. My grandfather comes from Ireland but I don't go around saying I'm an Irish Briton, I say I have Irish blood in me and that I'm of Irish descent but I am British not Irish. You are American not English, simple truth.
The baseline was 1990 and regardless of the fact that it was at the time of German reunification the German authorities would still have had to reduce the pollution from East Germany. Which provisions benefited China and the UK?
PNJ even taking into account your forests America still produces something like 25% of the whole world's CO2 emissions because of your love affair with the car. The reason Bush didn't adopt it was because it would harm the oil industry who backed him for President. Congress didn't ratify it because of the circumstances at the time where the Republican majority in Congress were on the attack against President Clinton and saw this as a golden opportunity to embarass the President on the global stage.
we love your films and your space exploration. we love your sense of freedom and duty.
MOST OF US HATE ...the current administration in the whitehouse with it's lies, corruption and greed. along with it's dismantling of YOUR ...freedom under the bullshit W.O.T. PNJ ...you can't see it but we are arguing for young americans like you.
i see george sorros is starting an anti bush campaign now ...is he anti american then?
Bush is getting held into account more and more by the Democrats and others regarding rights, immigration policies that are deporting too many Arabs, what Iraq did or didn't have, the economy and even the WOT.
Hey Aladdin, WOT not Twat. Think about it.
A war on twat sounds like we're all Gay here...fighting against twat.
Besides, a twat does not only mean female genitalia- it is also an insult (on these shores at least), and one that in the minds of many would be fitting a way to describe our respective heads of government.
But anyway, since you have ventured back into this thread, I eagerly await your answer to my question 4 posts above.
If supporting horrible people prevents another 9/11...yes.
The end result of all of the horrible alliances we formed to fight the USSR was good.
I wish countries could be these moral icons. The reality I've seen since 2001 is that Pakistan has been one of the most helpful countries in the WOT, War on terror, and I know that's a brutal government.
I read yesterday the saddam's son fed 19 year old rivals to a girl he wanted to lions...and had it video taped to watch later. Was it better to leave someone like that in office?
Incredibly, you go on to add in the same post a comment about the brutality of one of Saddam's sons and ask how could have been better to leave such people in power. Augusto Pinochet (who was helped by the US government to overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile) had female prisoners raped by especially-trained dogs and killed and tortured thousands of Chileans. George Bush's new best friend the President of Uzbekistan boils people alive and sends 5-year olds to forcibly work the cotton fields. NONE of those dictators ever helped the US to protect itself or to fight terror.
So what do you think of that? Are you prepared to admit publicly that your government does not care about human rights or terrorism and is happy to make alliances with brutal butchers for financial or political reasons? Or are you saying that you don't care about women being raped by dogs because your sense of patriotism tells you your government should be excused in anything they do?
Oh was it pnj? Or was it merely a case of prior wrongheaded policies inspried by right wing paranoia and supported by a public denied the truth of whats going on abroad just as most in the US continue to be today.
Where do you think Osama Bin Laden came from (figuratively speaking) and how do you think he became the the threat to us that he is raised up now to be by Bush and his media spin artists? Fighting the Soviets in a thrid country that our corporations have long wanted to control merely for its strategic location en route to mid Asian oil reserves, that's what we armed and trained him and his followers to do.
Perhaps its time we stop supporting any heinous dictators, bring our soldiers home and stop trying to control the entire planet and its economy like the space age Roman Empire.
The real terrorists arent these pxy splinter cells you are endlessly warned about and told to be vigilant against (as if your vigilance makes one bit of difference anyways), they are rather the powermongers you seem to still believe are decent guys with a magnanimous agenda of protecting you. lol.
They don't give a damn about your safety or that of any of our citizens, best you started realising that and called them out as I and many other decent Americans do for the pampered, unaccountable criminals they are! One act terrorised NYC, Bush and co and their kind have terrorised (and will gladly continue to terrorise) entire nations (including our own) and regions for their own profit.
Well. I'll have you know I'm always keeping the Cape May beaches safe for surfers.:D
I believe what you Aladdin, MR and Clandestine are saying...I do also think thrown in there is preventing Al Qaeda's next attack. Think of how much money Bush and the members of the Loyd's of London lost from the attack.
PNJ Lloyd's of London went virtually bankrupt in the early 90s, I don't know too much I do know that the Lloyd's "names" (members) have been made bankrupt because as the owners of Lloyd's they are responsible for what Lloyd's has to pay out. I don't know the details, I'm sure someone else here will know it better than me - but Lloyd's has been virtually bankrupt since long before 9/11.
Trust me son, do some real research into the shady dealings of Bush and co and youll see they came out of this laughing all the way to bank.
Until the truth comes out finally and then perhaps theyll be laughing as the firing squad is given the order to fire! Godspeed that day!
They did, don't forget insurance on buildings like the WTC will be negociated for something like 25 years and in the 1970s and 80s Lloyd's looked like a safe secure institution. (just like Barings Bank which collapsed in 1995) So Lloyd's has had to take on more "names" to fund their payouts and people are actually stupid enough to take it on because it's a social status symbol to be a name of Lloyd's - shows you've got a hell of a lot of money!