BF2S Forums Michael Moore: How do you top 9/11?

usmarine2005 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Kindly expand upon why the embargo with Cuba is so necessary? I didn't quite get it other than that Cubans have first hand experience as to why it's needed.

You are just going to have to accept the fact that until Castro is dead, the ban will continue.

What will Fidel's death fix?  His younger brother will simply take over (as he already has) and the staus quo will continue.  The point of the embargo is to keep US Dollar out of the hands of the Cuban government, forcing the people to rise up, overthrow the crushing dictatorship and declare yet another win for Democracy!  This is all wrapped up in a flowery box and labelled a "Human Rights Issue" what with Fidel throwing all sorts of folks in prison for political reasons.

Ummm.... OK.

The logc is bass-ackwards.  The most potent weapon we have is the U.S. Dollar.  End the embargo and the U.S. tourist see if there really are human rights violations, then withdraw their tourist dollar support.  But, no, the Govt. would rather spend a wad of cash on enforcement of an embargo that is obviously doing no good.

Another waste of money & effort.

WOW!!!
Someone needs to read the report on Cuba from the International Human Rights Commission before they rant   ...again emotions.

Kaboom.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

......but then they did go without any prejudices that the Cubans are "baddies"

i think you misjudge the average American's view of Cuba.  nobody I know thinks of cubans as baddies.  remember it was the liberal allstar kennedy who placed the embargo.

While I disagree with carrying on with the embargo I would like to remind you that JFK instituted it when the Cubans got Soviet nukes shipped into their silos. It was not a bad thing at the time even though now it is way outdated.

And the US was never even at war with Cuba, we should embargo a country we are at war with. Namely Bulgaria (we never signed a peace treaty with them after WW1).

Since being married to a cuban woman and visiting the country at least once a year, i can tell you this.
The cuban people are quite controlled but not unhappy. Most of the people i've met are convinced communists and really believe the system could work in some form. What they do lack and desire is  a higher standard of living, which would be possible if the embargo was lifted or at least lessened.

As for michael moore he is a opportunist, but he also has a point. What do the USA actually have to gain on the embargo? Ask yourselves this: Would it really make a negative difference if it was removed? I think not. USA may even gain some benefits out of it such as better diplomatic relations and a different and more positive view from other countries who consider the embargo to be unnecessary and unjust.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

i guess its over the coup that happened there sometime last year.  Australia, New Zealand and the United States imposed it because of their non democratic gov't.  i dont know much, it didnt take me too long to find out information out there that the United States isnt the only evil empire restricting the freedoms of its citizens. evil.


the only thing the United States is missing out on from cuba is good baseball players, good cigars and good music.   at least thats my take. cuba is really a non issue in the states.

So far as I can find from stories outside of Fiji, the ban is only on members of the coup.  And Fiji news sources can't exactly be considered accurate given the situation.

UGADawgs wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Is there more places than Cuba?

You only need to ban one country to be legislating travel.

Every country has some restriction on where it's citizenry can go. You can't just waltz into every nook and cranny of a military base (surely that's true in Australia). I don't feel that my freedoms are in dire threat just because I can't go to Cuba.

That's restricting access to private property, which is completely different.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Is there more places than Cuba?

You only need to ban one country to be legislating travel.

whats the whole concept of needing a passport for travel?

That's ensuring countries can refuse entry to undesirables, again different to a country telling it's citizens where to go.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-05-21 23:44:14)

Moore is as much an attention whore as a documentary filmmaker. He chose the one country to compare the US health care system to, that he knew would stir up the most outrage on part of the US government. he could have chosen any western nation, or canada ( as he did in BFC ), but he deliberately chose Cuba.

And while Moore's methods sometimes are questionable, and the way he makes his films has often been rightfully criticized, there is also a lot of truth in his works.

What I like about his work is that he usually presents a view of America that the traditional mass media won't show. Certainly, he is not always right, but he always has a valid point, I believe.

Bubbalo wrote:

As I recall the groups was trained by one president, and his successor didn't want to go ahead, so instead abandoned them with no support.

Eisenhower may have started the  program but Kennedy gave the go-ahead to start the operation.  but he then chose to deny air support, essentially sentencing the 'freedom fighters' to death.

And those who have a job which doesn't pay enough for them to buy medical insurance?

Reciprocity wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

As I recall the groups was trained by one president, and his successor didn't want to go ahead, so instead abandoned them with no support.

Eisenhower may have started the  program but Kennedy gave the go-ahead to start the operation.  but he then chose to deny air support, essentially sentencing the 'freedom fighters' to death.

That's exactly my point: he never would have started it.  The only reason he shipped them over was because he didn't want a lot of armed and angry Cuban exiles in the US.