What is Cuba doing with respect to biological weapons? Nothing? Building them? Capable of building them? There are several different versions, according to the N Y Times
There is incontrovertible evidence that Cuba has, in fact, exported bio-active agents to the US. These bio-active agents are primed to explode into frothing rage at the very mention of the word “Castro”. They are programmed to vote in lock-step with whatever administration promises the most agressive antipathy towards Cuba. They are an even more powerful political bloc in Florida than Jews for Buchanan!
My God, are Pinky and the Brain working at the NSA now? Exposing dastardly Cuban plots for World Domination? Are we to hear about the threat of nuclear proliferation posed by Chad and Upper Volta? One is remided of the quote “Pity poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the USA”.
They have survived everything, from hurricanes to plots by the Joint Chiefs to start a war from scratch (I am not making this up!) Give them a friggin’ break!
december, in the display of even-handedness that has become his trademark, presents this theme for our “debate”, without stating any personal slant. Merely pointing out that there are two sides to every story, you know.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
In the same interview Rice was asked the simple question, “Do we have evidence that Castro has such weapons?”
Her answer was, at best equivocal, and was at least evasive. She said that we have reason to believe that Castro is capable of using such weapons. This equivocates on the word “capable” which can either mean that he actually has them or that if he had them he wouldn’t hesitate to use them. Her “answer” also contained a lot of verbiage about the ease of delivering such weapons and the devastation they could cause. Of course the answer was evasive in that the question wasn’t directly answered but rather evoked a whole bunch of words that talked all around an answer without giving one.
I guess the quotation marks indicate some sort of sarcasm? 
Anyhow, I have no position. I know only what I read in the paper, and those reports are contradictory. I have a lot of repect for posters on this panel, and I’m hoping some of you can provide some insight. Here are some other
[quotes]
(http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/front/1409609):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1986000/1986074.stm
Yet (from reuters this morning):
Therefore, the ground is old, yet still too fresh to even tell a former president about it mere weeks ago ?
If that doesn’t trip your bullshit sensors, they are probably broken and in need of servicing.
Not really. In any event, how in the world does Carter know all about the Cuban biological weapons program (existing or no) via smoking cigars and getting photo ops with Castro?
Pay attention to the messenger; what’s their perspective and what’s their motivation for saying what they are saying. Foreign affairs and security experts working in this administration are well known for their ultra conservative viewpoints. Condoleeza Rice’s interview on PBS was enlightening.
Also, I think that the administration would have pitched a security fit if there was any hint of personal danger for Carter and his wife. His overseas visits tend to be closely coordinated with the American Embassy on the spot. I’ve met both Carters several times overseas always at the American Ambassadors residence.
So any hint that Cuba was part of the axis of evil is probably smoke up someone ass.
You’ve MET the Carters? WOW!!!
december-I wouldn’t trust Otto Reich as far as I could throw him.
He was part of the whole Iran-Contra dealie and a notorious liar.
I mean, why not just ask Oliver North to inspect Castro’s house?
Well, like someone said, look at the messenger. On one hand you have Jimmy Carter, a man known on both sides of the aisle for his integrity; on the other hand you have the Bush administration. Gee, I just don’t know who to believe…
No, that was post-modernist irony.
But, one is so, I mean soooooo relieved that Our Leader, the Man Who Would Be Churchill, is on focus with this. We face Castro, the Caligula of the Carribean, with his massive stockpile of strategic cigars…
That’s sarcasm.
Everybody, but everybody knows we’re full of crap on this one. We tried to kill the guy for… twenty? thirty? years. Have we even stopped? As I mentioned, the Joint Chiefs in the early sixties even tried to conjure up a war! Enough, already! At this point, Cuba is only marginally more “revolutionary” than Sweden. “Dual use”? Who says a Volvo can’t be used in a drive by shooting?
“Dual use” is a multitude of smoke and mirrors, tucked sublimely away in a couple of syllables. All tools are weapons, its merely a question of the intent of the user. Any technology that can be used to create medicine can be used to create bio-terrorist agents. All it takes is money.
Which Cuba ain’t got. Diddly-squat, is what they got.
Prove Cuba is a threat to us, I’ll fuck a shit souffle! At the Mall of America, high noon on the 4th of July.
This is just another example of the World Police not minding it’s won buissness. Bush is trying to justify with any argument, however lame, the embargo which is actually Castro’s greatest ally in his strategy to remain in power till death.
I don’t know how can U.S.A blame anyone for developing mass murder weapons considering that:
a) They are developing them too, in fact they have a enough nukes to smoke the world
b) To my knowledge U.S.A was the only country in the world that actually drop two mass destruction devices.
This stupid allegations, Bush administration attitude regarding Venezuela, the embargo, the pressures it always exerts at human rights votings. Only manage to anger the whole of Latin America.
Not to mention our entire history in Latin America.
what exactly, if you please, constitutes “They have the capacity to produce BW”?
CDR’s comments, as quoted here amount to a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors - ‘we believe they have the capacity, we believe that would use them’
Frankly if there is a viable risk, then why on earth are we/they all being so calm? If there is a viable risk - why are Bush/Cheany not in the bunkers? why, indeed, did they allow a former Pres to go there (especially since it wasn’t Clinton 
)
Now, on to why would they underscore this?
Frankly, it beats the hell out of me. To continue to expand on this ‘axis of eeeeeeeeeeevil’ and allude to potential threats so regularly brings about more of an image of a ‘boy crying wolf’.
I’ll be interested in how our friends over seas see this play out.
‘War on terrorism’/reds under the bed/justify the expenditure with little reminders and “let me clarify” retro get out clauses…prayig on public paranoia …Colin Powell towing the party line with little enthusiasm…Bizarro world. Again.
Cuba is an increasingly popular (and great) holiday or Honeymoon destination where the closest thing to BW’s is a rather savage white rum (i’ve not been but several friends have, and gone back for more). Lovely, friendly locals, great music, bad plumbing…If they had better hotels and infrastructure, it could be the number one Caribbean destination, apparently.
I sometimes think (under this Administration) the US is not just living in a different decade but a different decade on different friggin planets.
Excuse me while I take this foxy temptress for a spin around the dance floor…
Erm, isn’t it a bit hypocritical to accuse America of not minding its own business and then telling them they’re wrong to embargo Cuba?
That said, I really do wonder what the point of the embargo is?
I’ve been to Cuba and my experience is very much in line with L_C’s friends’. We travelled throughout the island and stayed with local families. There was no attempt to control our movements or interactions with locals. Cubans were very well educated and have a first class health system (many Europeans go there for cheap medical procedures). Developmentally, it compares well with the rest of latin america. The people are friendly and great fun to be with - their devotion to music and craic had a familiar feel to an Irishman. One advantage of having only crappy State TV is that everyone learns an instrument. It doesn’t feel like a repressive society but that could just be the sunshine, music, cigars, rum etc.
However, there is no point in idealising the place. Cubans are starved of information on the outside world as there is only one official newspaper and there’s nothing much in it. The exception to this is Cubans who work in the tourism industry, who have access to satellite TV. Because of the dual peso/dollar economy, anyone with access to dollars - tour guides, cigar hawkers etc.- are better paid than doctors, public servants and other professionals. This has resulted in a drift from the professions and from education into the black economy. In Havana, buildings are crumbling and, as L_C said, the plumbing isn’t exactly state of the art. We were also a bit shocked at the extent to which a self-styled socialist country (I’ve always felt that Castro is more nationalist than socialist) operates a two-tier locals/tourists system.
There is a huge army and police force for the size of the country but they are fairly benign. Basically, every family has someone in the army or police and they are too much ‘of the community’ to be repressive. There can be jail terms doled out for overstepping the mark in terms of political opposition and this is to be deplored but Cuba has never been a place where people disappear off the streets and never show up again.
After our admittedly somewhat limited look at the ‘real Cuba’, we hit the beach for a week and went to a German owned all-inclusive resort. It was full of Canadians who liked it because it was cheap and because ‘there’s no Americans’. These internationally owned resort hotels compare favourably with the best the Caribbean has to offer, although they are not really my cup of tea. Cuba is already a huge tourism destination and the potential for growth is massive.
Overall, the system has serious flaws but in no way justifies the embargo. Reform has been underway since the fall of the eastern bloc and would be accelerated if the US engaged constructively with Cuba. Cubans do feel genuine affection for Castro and the post-Castro Cuba may be a very different place, but not necessarily a better one. A regime without the popular acceptance of Castro’s may resort to more heavy-handed tactics. The embargo does nothing to make that less likely.
One look at the many and varied CVs of the USA’s trading partners suggests that ethics and human rights weren’t too far up the list of priorities. So the only conclusion I can draw is that Cuba is a convenient local bugbear to advance the securocrats’ agenda. US tobacco growers, Cuban exiles etc. keep the pot boiling. Now that ‘Reds under the Bed’ doesn’t have the same emotive power it once had, new demons such as biological weapons are required.
I agree. Once Castro dies, Cuba will be exposed to a quite immense (and irresistible) capitalist vacuum. I suspect it’s going to be a gold rush and I can’t see any way at all a US Administration would deny those investment opportunities to US citizens.
Anyone investing now must surely grab the best real estate and retire the day Castro dies.
Actually, the main problem is the Cubans in Florida. Florida is a very important state when it comes to presidential elections, as our last one clearly showed. If you’re running for the White House and you don’t carry Florida, it’s damn likely you’re not to win. Now, when Castro first came to power, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled to the States. Many if not most of 'em settled in Florida. They and their children eventually became a very important voting bloc, they have a well-organized lobby, and they want Castro’s head on a stick. Sooooooo – the embargo remains in place.
I’m no fan of Castro. He’s just another Third World dictator, and I wouldn’t mind seeing him hang. But the U.S. has a lot more to gain from building healthy economic ties with Cuba than from ham-fisted pressure tactics like the embargo.
But tell me something. Stalin killed tens of millions, Mao killed tens of millions more. It would be fair to say that the communists brought tyranny and poverty to every country in which they came to power. Just how bad would they have to have been before you would admit taht they were really were dangerous?
Thanks for the history lesson but that’s why I mentioned Cuban exiles in the first place.
**
I would never defend Stalin or Mao and I don’t think I was defending Castro to any great extent. But it’s a pointless comparison to draw. Cuba has never seen mass disappearances (unless you count Batista’s regime).
Tyranny is not the the preserve of communist leaders - Pinochet, Botha, Amin etc. weren’t exactly card-carrying members of their local communist party. And there was that German guy - what’s his name again?
In any case, I’m not defending communism - in case you hadn’t noticed, that particular ideological battle is long over. Also, my earlier comment about Castro’s communism being secondary to his nationalism stands. You have to remember that he only declared the revolution to be socialist over a year after the overthrow of Batista had taken place and he needed powerful friends to counteract the threat from the US.
**
**
Couldn’t agree more. But don’t think that ‘healthy economic ties’ will be a return to 1950s style exploitation.
**
But you mentioned them only in passing when in fact the Cuban exiles are the heart of the problem. Eliminate their pressure to maintain the embargo, and the embargo would pretty soon disappear.
**
Nevertheless, according to human rights watchdogs such as Amnesty International, Cuba is one of the very worst offenders in the Western Hemisphere. They’ve had and continued to have plenty of plenty of political prisoners who have been both tortured and arbitrarily executed.
**
And this somehow excuses what the communists did? Does it mean they somehow weren’t a threat to the West? The communists were a political cult every bit as dangerous as the Nazis. To suggest that they weren’t (i.e. your “reds under the bed” crack) is a serious misrepresentation of history.
What got under my skin was that “reds under the bed” remark. Yes, sometimes the American reaction to communists was a dreadful (sometimes even comical) overreaction. You see, while right wing totalitarianism (the fascists) was the chief threat to liberal democracy during the 30s and 40s, left wing totalitarianism (the communists) was the chief threat to liberal democracy in the 50s, 60s and 70s. If you took all the wrongs commited by all Pinochets and Batistas in the world and piled them all together, it would still be only a fraction of the misery inflicted on the world by the communists. To suggest that this danger was a mere figment of the imagination of right wing Americans is grossly dishonest.
**
Not quite. There are still many who try to misrepresent the cold war as somehow being entirely due to American paranoia. There’s still some mopping up to do.
**
That doesn’t make his commitment to Marxist-Leninist ideology any less sincere. Cuba’s economic problems stem largely from Castro’s moronic refusal to abandon Marxian economic and political theories.
**
Well, he chose the wrong friends. Attempting to spread left-wing totalitarianism to the rest of Latin America and allowing his country to be used as a Soviet missile base did an awful lot to justify Yankee mistrust and suspicion. I note that plenty of other Latin American countries managed to go their own way without having to ally themselves with the Soviet bloc.
(shrug) I’m immensely skeptical the people of Cuba are politically or economicly better off today than they were under Batista. At least there seemed to be a helluva lot fewer Cuban boat people risking their lives on rickety rafts and boats on the open sea to get to Florida.