How world condemns USA embargo on CUBA - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Gort · #91 (**permalink**) 11-11-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma2

Gort, it was also my understanding that they were also there as a deterrent against a US invasion. Now I can't remember the exact time-line re Bay of Pigs, but it makes more sense than JP's statement did.

Yeah! yeah! But if JP can state that the nukes in Turkey were the only thing 'protecting' western Europe from the Evil Empire then please give my assertion some 'screen time'! LOL

While Castro may have wanted them there as a deterent, that had nothing to do with why Krushev sent them there. He more than likely did send them because of Turkey, however when we installed the weapons in Turkey the USSR did nothing until after the fact. That was what Krushev was hoping to accomplish in Cuba. He got caught, confronted and in the end backed down, but it had nothing to do with rational and reasonable behavior. It was a game that was played on both sides of the Iron Curtain, by pretty much every nation involved in NATO or the Warsaw Pact. Where the missles put there initially to provide the umbrella for western Europe? Absolutely, there was no other real reason for them to be there. While the general public bought the bomber gap and latrer the missle gap, those in the government knew how far behind us the Russians were at that time. Cuba was their attempt find an equalizer.

If it was to protect Cuba from invasion they completely misjudged the reaction because it almost caused an invasion. In fact there were well over 250,000 troops in Florida waiting for the word to go during the height of the crisis. No as far as Russia was concerned this had nothing to do with Cuba itself, and everything to do with the proximity of those missles to the US.

enigma2 · #92 (**permalink**) 11-11-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

While Castro may have wanted them there as a deterent, that had nothing to do with why Krushev sent them there. He more than likely did send them because of Turkey, however when we installed the weapons in Turkey the USSR did nothing until after the fact. That was what Krushev was hoping to accomplish in Cuba. He got caught, confronted and in the end backed down, but it had nothing to do with rational and reasonable behavior. It was a game that was played on both sides of the Iron Curtain, by pretty much every nation involved in NATO or the Warsaw Pact. Where the missles put there initially to provide the umbrella for western Europe? Absolutely, there was no other real reason for them to be there. While the general public bought the bomber gap and latrer the missle gap, those in the government knew how far behind us the Russians were at that time. Cuba was their attempt find an equalizer.

If it was to protect Cuba from invasion they completely misjudged the reaction because it almost caused an invasion. In fact there were well over 250,000 troops in Florida waiting for the word to go during the height of the crisis. No as far as Russia was concerned this had nothing to do with Cuba itself, and everything to do with the proximity of those missles to the US.

There were many 'truths' in the murky world of the Cold War. Although I'm not a post-modernist, (or Foucauldian) by any means, it was one of the tools used to explain it all. In post-modernism each 'truth' has validity.

I doubt that the missiles had anything to do with 'protecting' Europe, but more to do with an American hubris and one-up-manship. As has been pointed out, these missiles were trained on cities in the USSR. Why is it not sauce for the goose as well as the gander? However, when the safety of the world was hanging by a thread, it was the USSR which acted reasonably.

That is a 'truth'.

enigma2 · #93 (**permalink**) 11-11-2006

Oooops! I forgot to give acknowledgement to the actions of Robert Kennedy which also helped at that frightening time.

Gort · #94 (**permalink**) 11-11-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma2

There were many 'truths' in the murky world of the Cold War. Although I'm not a post-modernist, (or Foucauldian) by any means, it was one of the tools used to explain it all. In post-modernism each 'truth' has validity.

I doubt that the missiles had anything to do with 'protecting' Europe, but more to do with an American hubris and one-up-manship. As has been pointed out, these missiles were trained on cities in the USSR. Why is it not sauce for the goose as well as the gander? However, when the safety of the world was hanging by a thread, it was the USSR which acted reasonably.

That is a 'truth'.

Actually we did not need the missles in Turkey to hit the Soviet cities Enigma, we already had intercontinental balistic missles as well as over 500 B52's, of which 62 were constantly airborne back then. We could hit their cities in a matter of hours without the missles in Turkey, so your expalnation leaves a little to be desired and misses the bigger picture. I can look at almost any historical event using the benefit of hindsight and find mistakes. It is not really all that useful when trying to determine the thought process of the time to go that route however. It is useful to see where we made mistakes, but at the time since yu so not have the benefit of hidsight you do not know they are mistakes, at least not usually.

enigma2 · #95 (**permalink**) 11-11-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

Actually we did not need the missles in Turkey to hit the Soviet cities Enigma, we already had intercontinental balistic missles as well as over 500 B52's, of which 62 were constantly airborne back then. We could hit their cities in a matter of hours without the missles in Turkey, so your expalnation leaves a little to be desired and misses the bigger picture. I can look at almost any historical event using the benefit of hindsight and find mistakes. It is not really all that useful when trying to determine the thought process of the time to go that route however. It is useful to see where we made mistakes, but at the time since yu so not have the benefit of hidsight you do not know they are mistakes, at least not usually.

Gort, on the contrary, you have reinforced my point. I agree with you entirely that you did not need those missiles in Turkey. So why put them there if not as a provocation and threat?

Further, my point about them being a deterrent, perhaps I should have added - not necessarily for the defence of Cuba, but as a warning and deterrent to the US to not put more missiles in other places pointed at the USSR. Cuba could have been merely the pretext, especially with its close proximity to the US mainland.

danielpalos · #96 (**permalink**) 11-11-2006

How far can we go wrong if we simply conduct mutually beneficial trade, with a nearby state?

enigma2 · #97 (**permalink**) 11-11-2006

I agree Daniel, especially as the US is the chief proponent of trade! Why not with Cuba?

enigma2 · #98 (**permalink**) 11-11-2006

Especially in the light of China being a major trading partner. Although, it is problematic whether they are still communist. <g>

Slartibartfas · #99 (**permalink**) 11-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

Slarti, had the Russians been acting rationally and reasonably they would have tried harder to go a different route in addressing the nukes in Turkey. They knew the US would not stand for the weapons in Cuba, they were just hoping we did not see them until it was too late.

Well, WWIII did not break out after you stationed your rockets in Turkey, did it? Russians knew you would not like them, but they in no way had an idea how mad you would defend this strategical advantage of yours, going even so far as to cause nuclear extermination for that cause.

And in fact if not for the Russians reacting on the unbelievable strong American answer to it, that rational your JFK would have let armaggeddon begin.

What gave the US the right to declare nuclear war on Russia for positioning missiles that target your cities, when you have done so already before with theirs and no war broke out therefore? Is here nobody that sees the double measurement applied here? Is it because we were the "goods" and they the "evil communists", so of course we had the "right" to be in an strategical advantage?

To put it otherwise, I can also thank the Russians that the world is today not a nuclear waste place not only the US, because if the leaders of the Soviet Union would have been as closed minded and inflexible as the American ones, WWIII would have been inevitable.

enigma2 · #**100** (**permalink**) 11-12-2006

That's not quite true, Slarti. Robert Kennedy and his advice regarding the second letter helped JFK to save face. So it was probably a combination of both country's efforts which averted WWIII.

laca · #**101** (**permalink**) 11-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma2

Good lord, Calvin X. I must admit I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time. How do you think that Cuba is going to go about 'destroying' you? Is it with their 1950's cars? Their incredible music? Or perhaps they are going to storm "Gitmo" and free David Hicks? Then again there could be free sugar for your MacDonalds 'sesame seed buns'? Diabetes, anyone?

For goodness sake, catch up with the rest of the world, matey! Nobody sees Cuba as a threat except those influential Cuban rightwing immigrants in Florida! Oh! and you!

Why does the US always have to have an 'enemy'?? First of all it was England, which you, rightly, got rid of; then it was the turn of some pirates lurking around wherever; Mexico had the cheek to try and hang on to the piece of land which metamorphosed into Texas; then it was Spain's turn, in Cuba, of course; putting aside WWI and WWI it was then the turn of the USSR; then it was the People's Republic of China; Korea got into the act; Vietnam was a terrible threat, however, after 'winning' they haven't exactly been assiduous in sending an armada to invade LA or San Francisco; in a 'Lethal Weapon' mood South Africa looked a front-runner, but they then had the stupidity to collapse.

The world mourned with you after 11 September. But unfortunately, when you needed the guidance of a real woman or man you had the 'photo op' president. Yes, it was a very profound moment when he carried that turkey to the troops on your Thanksgiving day. As for 'Mission Accomplished' I'm still stunned.

I'm sure I've left several 'enemies' out in the interval before Iran and then Iraq became 'threats to world peace'! North Korea has faded away lately, I would say, mainly because as your southerners aver "that dog wouldn't hunt"!

Whose turn is it next?

I really, really wish that some of the people writing in this forum would take a reputable class in Sociology and/or history.

Well, if I've offended anyone I apologise but I'm one of those Australians who believe in calling a spade a 'bloody shovel'! Besides it's Fridee night and I'm winding down for the weekend ahead!

Just call me Sugah, I love your signature. I hope in the future we can find some common ground as I think we have a similar outlook and sense of humour! Do you like Australian wine? Further, we are both opinionated with strong likes and dislikes! LOL

Well this is how they justify aggressive and gun mentality bully behavior towards others.

Slartibartfas · #**102** (**permalink**) 11-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma2

That's not quite true, Slarti. Robert Kennedy and his advice regarding the second letter helped JFK to save face. So it was probably a combination of both country's efforts which averted WWIII.

Hm, a lack of my knowledge on this, but I'll take that as point as I dont know any better

Still the crises of an immenant WWIII would not have come into existance at all, if the US did not tried to force an strategical advantage on Russia.

Gort · #**103** (**permalink**) 11-12-2006

Quote:

[Slartibartfas;848655]
Well, WWIII did not break out after you stationed your rockets in Turkey, did it? Russians knew you would not like them, but they in no way had an idea how mad you would defend this strategical advantage of yours, going even so far as to cause nuclear extermination for that cause.

No Slarti a war didn't break out, and do you know why it didn't break out or why the missles were puit there in teh first place? Or are you simply reacting to things you have seen and read here without thinking of them in the context of the timeperiod.

Quote:

[Slartibartfas;848655]
And in fact if not for the Russians reacting on the unbelievable strong American answer to it, that rational your JFK would have let armaggeddon begin.

And had the Russians not tried to place the missles there in the first place none of this would have happened either. Well hell while we are assessing blame using todays hind sight lets go even further. Had the Russians not tried to starve the people of west Berlin into submission we may not have gotten to where we placed missles in Turkey. Had they not put down the Hungarian uprising as ruthlessly as they did in 1956 the Turks may have agreed when we suggested that the Jupiter missles should be withdrawn in 1961 since they were obsolete anyway. Now why might the Turks have wantd teh missles in the first place? In March 1945 the USSR indicated it would not renew the Treaty of Nonagression and Neutrality with Turkey with dated back to 1925. Clearly this told Turkey the USSR had some expansionist aims. The USSR also indicated it wanted bases on the Turkish Straights for joint defense of those Straights.

Yep Slarti all rational moves designed not to make anyone worry so far on the part of the Russians wouldn't you say? But wait there is more. The rational Soviets provided aid and arms to the two nations outside of the USSR that provided the biggest threat to Turkey at the time, Iran and Syria. When you add the fact that Greece was on the other side, an ally in name only at the time, and Turkey was surrounded. Yep all of these moves on the part of the USSR at the time were rational and only aimed at keeping the world at peace.

Quote:

[Slartibartfas;848655]
What gave the US the right to declare nuclear war on Russia for positioning missiles that target your cities, when you have done so already before with theirs and no war broke out therefore? Is here nobody that sees the double measurement applied here? Is it because we were the "goods" and they the "evil communists", so of course we had the "right" to be in an strategical advantage?

Slarti the strategic advantage at that time had nothing to do with the missles in Cuba or Turkey and had everything to tdo with in the late 50's the US had over 4,000 nukes, Russia around 400 and GB 15 or so. That was th strategic advantage. The nukes in Turkey had less to do with US security than it did Turkish security. And whoever said anything about evil communists? If I think something is evil Slarti I can identify that for myself, I do not need you to do it for me. So please lets stick to the issue and forget the hyperbole shall we?

Quote:

[Slartibartfas;848655]
To put it otherwise, I can also thank the Russians that the world is today not a nuclear waste place not only the US, because if the leaders of the Soviet Union would have been as closed minded and inflexible as the American ones, WWIII would have been inevitable.

Yep you can do that if you like, you wold be wrong of course, but hey everyone is entitled to their own opinions right or wrong.

Calvin X · #**104** (**permalink**) 11-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma2

Good lord, Calvin X. I must admit I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time. How do you think that Cuba is going to go about 'destroying' you? Is it with their 1950's cars? Their incredible music? Or perhaps they are going to storm "Gitmo" and free David Hicks? Then again there could be free sugar for your MacDonalds 'sesame seed buns'? Diabetes, anyone?

For goodness sake, catch up with the rest of the world, matey! Nobody sees Cuba as a threat except those influential Cuban rightwing immigrants in Florida! Oh! and you!

Why does the US always have to have an 'enemy'?? First of all it was England, which you, rightly, got rid of; then it was the turn of some pirates lurking around wherever; Mexico had the cheek to try and hang on to the piece of land which metamorphosed into Texas; then it was Spain's turn, in Cuba, of course; putting aside WWI and WWI it was then the turn of the USSR; then it was the People's Republic of China; Korea got into the act; Vietnam was a terrible threat, however, after 'winning' they haven't exactly been assiduous in sending an armada to invade LA or San Francisco; in a 'Lethal Weapon' mood South Africa looked a front-runner, but they then had the stupidity to collapse.

The world mourned with you after 11 September. But unfortunately, when you needed the guidance of a real woman or man you had the 'photo op' president. Yes, it was a very profound moment when he carried that turkey to the troops on your Thanksgiving day. As for 'Mission Accomplished' I'm still stunned.

I'm sure I've left several 'enemies' out in the interval before Iran and then Iraq became 'threats to world peace'! North Korea has faded away lately, I would say, mainly because as your southerners aver "that dog wouldn't hunt"!

Whose turn is it next?

I really, really wish that some of the people writing in this forum would take a reputable class in Sociology and/or history.

Well, if I've offended anyone I apologise but I'm one of those Australians who believe in calling a spade a 'bloody shovel'! Besides it's Fridee night and I'm winding down for the weekend ahead!

Just call me Sugah, I love your signature. I hope in the future we can find some common ground as I think we have a similar outlook and sense of humour! Do you like Australian wine? Further, we are both opinionated with strong likes and dislikes! LOL

I never implied that Cuba has the ability to destroy the US. I was asking if, as a Communist nation, does it not have as part of it's defining ideology the belief that it has a mission to do so.

My point, which should have been obvious, is why should we be nice to a nation which is dedicated to our destruction.

danielpalos · #**105** (**permalink**) 11-12-2006

Why should we believe all of the propaganda? How much our own government's propaganda would we have been better off ignoring, instead of reacting to it?

According to your logic, some of the ME could be considered justified in their use of terrorism, since the US has called some of their membership an "Axis of Evil".

We should be promoting the general welfare, not the general warfare.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode