I was referring to our motivations and how it would be a good idea for Cuba to change our minds.

Good for you. Bad for Cuba.

During the Cold War they did. Or are you using hindsight again and judging the actions of those people based on the knowledge of the Soviet Unions's collapse.

Less than the cost of not doing it, in the opinion of our elected leaders.


So you veiw the UN as the proto-interstate? That reflects very badly on your dreams of world goverment.

It is now accepted usage.



See my previous post below which you appearently ignored.


On what scale? Got a link? And I did not say it could not be done, but that the enviroment would be risky and does not encourage wealth creation.


So now all militaries and all politics are now socialism. DOes anyone agree with you on this stuff?


And Imperalism is now socialism.

Are you aware of the role this played in the developement of ICBMs?



What do you base that on?

How can you extrapolate from the US to the UN? Did you factor in all the differances? Or are you just being optimistic and willing to take riskes with the lives and freedoms of ever man, woman and child on the planet in pursuit of your dreams of world socialism.

That is probably why I said most; instead of all.

My dreams, under the Articles of Confederation, would have reflected badly on a hypothetical US under our current constitution.

I understand that a definition of the word, "socialism" is already established by political science. The term 'refer madness' was also establish by our public sector of the time. I have no reason to believe in the accuracy of that terminology either. Considering our success with the 'War' on drugs, using ideological terminology, does not seem to be very effective at finding solutions to simple socioeconomic problems. Hence, a socioeconomic approach to those socioeconomic issues.

I thought we already agreed that it would take statism's, advantageous use of socialism to put a man on the moon. No anarchy of the private sector could hope to match the public sector business venture potential of any state.

By your own admission, the Romans were socialists, in that the state owned the means of production for many industries. I would call it a socialist minarchy. In that regard, Cuba could become a socialist minarchy by simple command economics legislation, and build first world infrastructure.

There was plenty of rocketry work being done, besides the space race. That a warfare-state would use that knowledge for furthering its interests, is no surprise.

Maglev technologies, and frictionless surfaces; could enable greater understanding of near light speed and faster than light speed technologies.

The US, under the Articles could be considered analogous to the current UN. North America, of that time, could be considered analogous to the current level of anarchy on the planet.

I understand what you mean by my use of the word 'socialism'. From my perspective, statism requires a form socialism, in order to simply exist. Without socialism (in my use of the word), no form of statism can exist.

[quote=danielpalos;870124]
I would say most should have feared it.



Agreed, it is a fine line to have a goverment strong enough to be effictive but limited enough to allow freedom. And once you get the balance, not something to lightly give up.



So you want to waste your time argueing semantics. How exciting.

America of the 1960s was not socialist.


Too bad the command economies of the world did not think to try that. Wait, they did, but somehow failed. To bad you were not there to help them.

So "warfare states" are socialist to?

No they would not.


To what end? To support your dream of world socialism? The fact that the colonies were forged into a nation does not mean the far more varied and antagonistic nations of the world can be united.

YOur use of the word? I am not sure two people could be in the same room without meeting your definition of socialism!

A warfare-state and a welfare-state are examples of the use of socialism. A welfare-state will usually promote the general welfare, and a warfare-state will usually promote the general warfare.

I would propose that any newer form of UN, be ethically, morally, and legally bound to promote the general welfare; as a form of public policy. Building infrastructure in less developed areas of the world would be a good start. Assisting less efficient economies realize greater efficiencies would also help promote the general welfare.

maybe Cuba shouldnt have thought it a good idea to host nukes to threaten the U.S. mainland? And you people forget that Castro is still alive. This will probally change after he dies.

And perhaps the US shouldn't have dabbled in the murky waters of the Mafia to depose, if not outright assassinate, Castro.

It could also be the influence of the Mafia keeping the embargo in place. I've heard they have very long memories. And Fidel did close down their casinos and prostitution houses.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

You have a communists nation and a capitalist nation and you postulate that the reason they don't get along is because of the Mafia!!!

That may be the silliest conspiracy theory I have ever heard!

What does ideology have to do with helping people improve there standards of living, through trade? I am under the impression we want to spread our, market friendly, shining beacon of democracy to the world.

And perhaps the U.S. shouldnt dabled in Cuba or tried to kill Castro? Yeah, and your point is? We dont have trade with them--case closed. Castro was and is a thug who threatened this nation with nuclear war. God forbid that we hold a grudge against the bastard, who to my knoweldge, is still alive. We have every right to not have trade with them and dont throw me this bullshit about us helping the poor of Cuba. Cuba isnt exactly Haiti mind you. Its not just some banana republic with no power, no influence, and the equivalent of a third world nation. The island received aid from Europe and elsewhere and gets alot of tourists from around the globe. Not to mention Americans who come in from other countries--estimated from 20-50,000 each year.

This country shouldnt have anything to do with Cuba until he dies and I am standing by that. Being buddy-buddy with that asshole Chavez doesnt help. I might be a bit nicer to Cuba than others--because Castro is hated by many still. People who remember the early 60's and the many Cubans who escaped the hated dictator and his thugs (supported by the liberals in this country). Just wait until the U.S. invades Cuba with capitalism, tourists, hotels etc. You will bitch that we are screwing up its beauty, culture, etc. I guarantee the world will bitch when hundreds of thousands of Americans travel there each year and the island simply becomes another tourist destination.

Damn straight!

I thought we were supposed to be the shinning beacon of Democracy in the world? With any commitment, at all, to our free trade rhetoric; Cuba could become a valuable trading partner in the Americas. I am of the opinion, that Cuba can command economize its way to first world status if given sufficient initiative.

What doses being the Beacon of Democracy have to do with anything here? The U.S. will not do anything with Cuba until Fidel dies. We shouldnt have to. I dont want to see Cuba become successful with American money under Fidel.

How much of that is due to obsolete ideology instead of having public policy goals that promote the general welfare with market friendly principles, in accordance with our less restricted trade rhetoric.

I'm all for lifting the embargo. It would deprive the old fool of his only remaining excuse for the failure of the revolution.