So, we should be giving the Black Hills back to the Sioux pretty soon? Then they can dynamite those sculptures?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It would also signal that the end of Cuban Communism will not usher in a tangled mess of old-property-claims litigation. That reassurance would make the present leaders just slightly less reluctant to let go of the reins, I think.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve noticed that it’s always easier to give away someone elses rights and property (and money, let’s not forget that), no? You would probably feel differently about things if it had been your house, property or assets seized in the name of the people, no doubt.
-XT
I can only speak for my own opinion here - I won’t presume to answer for Little Nemo. But I will point out two things - that human rights abuses take large and small forms, and that the conversion of state property into privately-held property on terms extremely favorable to party leaders and apparatchiks has accompanied regime changes in many places - from Russia to Nicaragua, and everywhere it has happened it has not been a healthy development for these societies.
On preview I see Little Nemo has made additional good points. You don’t seem to be answering with many that are at all convincing. I am not saying that every claim from Miami must be upheld, I am merely saying that letting the Castro regime off the hook for sixty years of unaccountable rule isn’t wise.
Besides, property rights are human rights.
Certainly the various murders and oppression of the monstrous Castro regime are not as bad as his thefts, but that doesn’t excuse theft.
Regards,
Shodan
From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
I think it’s pretty much understood by everyone that the land property seized by the Cuban government is never going to go back to its original owners, but that doesn’t mean that what the Cuban government did was appropriate or legal under international law.
What in hell is the point of a revolution that doesn’t change anything?
What, you don’t want to celebrate any more birthdays?
You say that as if it were an utterly shocking, alien idea, when in fact it is the default position of Anglo-American common law and always has been. See “The King Can Do No Wrong.”
Of course, the state repression regimes of fascist dictators in South and Central America never justified sanctions. Or those of crony states across the world.
So maybe the sanctions really don’t have anything to do with human rights at all? We seem quite happy to trade with oppressive regimes, even Communist ones, provided of course they don’t nationalize US business.
Re: Cars.
This is something about Cuba people don’t understand. It’s not because of the embargo that Cubans are still driving American cars from the 50s. After all, even if Cubans couldn’t buy new American cars, they could still buy cars from Japan and Germany. And even if they couldn’t buy new cars, there is a vast international market for used cars. They could go to Mexico, buy a bunch of used cars, and put them on a barge for Havana.
So why do Cubans drive 50 year old cars when they could import used cars from Mexico? Why aren’t Mexicans making money buying and selling cars in Cuba? Because it is illegal for private citizens to own cars in Cuba, with the exception of cars that were owned at the time of the revolution. Even Cubans with money can’t buy a new car, because that’s illegal. And so, every existing car has to be carefully maintained and kept running, because if that 50 year old car dies, the owner will never ever get another one.
And in consequence, there aren’t any “classic cars” in Cuba, because every car has to be kept running. The classic car market in America is only interested in original cars. But the cars in Cuba are all frankensteins, with parts and pieces from all over. Collectors want cars that are all original. If you want a car from the 50s, you can go to any junkyard and pull out a rusted chassis, and put in a new engine and replace any broken parts, and get a car that runs for a few thousand dollars. But that car won’t have any collectible value. And this car is like all the cars in Cuba, because nobody in Cuba gives a shit about how original the car is, they just need to keep the car running by any means necessary.
After all, it’s not like the only car collectors are Americans. So why don’t people (who aren’t American) go to Cuba and buy up the classic cars? Because they could lash together a car from the chassis of a junked American car for a lot cheaper, and because the Cubans won’t sell because that’s the only car they’ll ever be allowed to own.
Because it is not up to the US to have jack shit to do with anything in Israel, our concern is with Cuba, stop being an ass.
And again, Castro’s seizing and nationalizing anything in Cuba is legal, it is Cuban territory. Any American property there other than Gitmo, which we still hold by treaty] can be seized and nationalized quite legally. Just like we could seize and nationalize anything on American turf.
My point is that I see a lot of people acting like the embargo is a great wrong that the United States has done to Cuba. That we need to admit our error and move on.
That has no basis in fact. The United States was the wronged party in this situation. So maybe the Cuban government should step forward and admit its error and offer a public apology for what it did. That would be a big step forward towards ending the embargo.
Years ago, I read an article (Esquire Magazine) which talked about the Sicilian Mafia, which was planning on opening hotels and casinos in Cuba. The site is ideal-Cuba has nice beaches and low prices. In addition, with the Mob in charge, sex and prostitution will flourish.
It’ll be the 1950’s all over again, only the Sicilians (not the American Mafia) will be running things.
You’re complaining about the United States not being relevant to a post in which the United States wasn’t mentioned. Maybe you should switch to decaf.
How did that work out for Charles I of Britain?
Yep, just like the Mafia ran Las Vegas in the 50s, and still do.
Oh wait, the Mafia doesn’t run Las Vegas anymore.
What advantage does the Sicilian Mafia have over any other legal organization? Why doesn’t the Sicilian Mafia run casinos in other countries?
In any case, it sure isn’t the American Embargo that keeps the fricking Sicilian mafia out of Cuba.
The Cuban government runs Cuba, and already has as many foreign investors as they can handle, these investors are legitimate European, Canadian, and Latin American firms. The mafia isn’t going to run Cuba anymore than they’re going to run Jamaica, or Puerto Rico, or the Dominican Republic.
I’m on board with that.
And this is why:
The sculptor who did that, Gutzon Borglum, was, in fact, doing it in part as a giant F-you to Native Americans in general and the Sioux in specific.
Andrew Jackson was a genocidal maniac-and that’s what got him elected president-his willingness to kill Native Americans and seize their land. George Washington was a land speculator-that’s how he made his money in colonial America.
Borglum was a white supremacist, and that was, if I remember correctly, part of his motivation for using that particular mountain-to deface what, in essence, was someone else’s version of a cathedral, to prove that his race was superior.
Which I find kind of sickening.
Heck, if the Sioux get the Black Hills back, I’ll chip in for the explosives.
OH and about Cuba…whatever gets trade flowing again-it’ll put some sugar in our tank-literally-sugar ethanol, and then they can have our modern medicines
See post #26.
In Cuba?! Nonsense! Never happen!
Proved to be a pain in the neck.