News Fidel Castro Resigns: Tuesday Marks Historic Moment

[CaptainQuasar]

Bogus. You didn't read that in any respectable news source because it never happened.

Because respectable news sources would definitely report something like that.

I would agree that there isn't ironclad evidence - but that's not the same as “bogus”. There's an entire documentary, made by a team that was in Venezuela when the coup happened, about how cozy the coup leaders and American interests were.

Would you at least concede that the U.S. government did not exactly denounce the coup? And it's not exactly like we don't do things like that. You aren't disputing Mossadegh or any of the other stuff I said, I notice.

Have you seen the photographs of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Most people in leadership positions in the U.S. do not give a rat's behind about democracy and freedom. I am not kidding and these things cannot be dismissed as fantasies of conspiracy theorists. It's completely ridiculous for the U.S. to pretend to be critical of Cuba for not pursuing or defending freedom.

⚛​

 

[mheslep]

Because respectable news sources would definitely report something like that.

Eh? NY Times etc would not absolutely run over your grandmother to get a story on how the US was staging a coup somewhere? Every opposition Senator would not run over your dog to get the same?

I would agree that there isn't ironclad evidence - but that's not the same as “bogus”. There's an entire documentary, made by a team that was in Venezuela when the coup happened, about how cozy the coup leaders and American interests were.

There's an entire documentary on how Bush blew up the WTC.

Would you at least concede that the U.S. government did not exactly denounce the coup?

Its evident that the US publicly opposed Chavez, diplomatically. With regards to force, I know first hand that the US DoD sent people down there that told the V. military the US wanted no coup. Further, US got word to Chavez directly warning him of a possible coup, though he'd have to be an idiot to not see it coming w/ the mass protests in the streets. As for sympathy for Chavez, I have none. I hope the US foreign policy was and is to do everything diplomatically possible to peacefully oppose that wannabe tyrant (https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11840&d=1196721676") and every other tyrant be it in Burma, Cuba, or anywhere else.

And it's not exactly like we don't do things like that. You aren't disputing Mossadegh or any of the other stuff I said, I notice.

Like you say, that was the cold war, give it a rest. The cold war, in order to keep from becoming a hot war, involved using proxies, sometimes foolishly. If there's some other innocent grand plan hidden away to contain the Soviet Union I'm unaware of it. BTW, proxies, some of them equally loathsome, are still touted by some (Paul) as the way Saddam Hussein should have been contained. I fail to see how it would have been so pure and good to contain Saddam and at the same time so evil to use proxies back in the cold war. And no, since the cold war AFAIK we don't do things 'like that'.

Have you seen the photographs of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Most people in leadership positions in the U.S. do not give a rat's behind about democracy and freedom. I am not kidding and these things cannot be dismissed as fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

I hope we can get away from assertion based posts and back to the excellent, well referenced ones I've seen in the past.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Like you say, that was the cold war, give it a rest.

Ah, the old “you've got to break eggs to make an omelette” justification. Tell me, how far does that go? At what point is it not okay to depose elected governments, support people like Saddam Hussein, be an arms merchant around the world, train religious radicals in terrorist tactics and arm them, torture people in secret prisons, etc.? And was it okay when the Soviets did it or was it bad when they did it but okay when we do it 'cause we're the good guys?

And would you accept “give it a rest” when someone uses the War on Terror to justify things like that?

In any case - I'm not out to prove that the U.S. is itself an Evil Empire, I don't really think that. But we have enough blood on our hands from very ignoble pursuits that for us to say that the Cubans are insufferable bad guys - that we have really super-duper important reasons for doing this kind of stuff and they don't - is more than just the pot calling the kettle black, it's ridiculous.

'I am not kidding'? I hope we can get away from assertion based posts and back to the excellent, well referenced ones we've had in the past.

BTW, you say this after presenting first-hand anecdotal evidence about the Chavez thing?

You requested references for the Chavez thing and I responded: it's not ironclad, I don't have any, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I will take your anecdote into account in thinking about that in the future.

But that's one of many different historical occurances I have cited to demonstrate that freedom and democracy very frequently rate pretty darn low on our list. The other ones I thought were reasonably established fact, but feel free to ask for references on anything you want.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Eh? NY Times etc would not absolutely run over your grandmother to get a story on how the US was staging a coup somewhere? Every opposition Senator would not run over your dog to get the same?

On this point I'm thinking back to during the Iraq invasion when I compared coverage of it between U.S. television, French Canadian television, and the BBC (while in Britain). On the BBC and on the Canadian channels you saw a heck of a lot more wounded Iraqi children and Iraqis running around in the streets and screaming with blood all over them. I saw almost none of that, by comparison, on the U.S. networks - there was lots more footage of press conferences and artillery targeting and firing and steel-jawed Marines gazing out over the desert or being attacked.

The point being, the press here is not always tripping over themselves to make the administration look bad.

Have you ever seen Democracy Now!, that absurdly left-wing, internet-only nightly news broadcast? It's way too boring to watch regularly but they often run fairly significant stories that don't really appear in the mainstream press.

⚛​

 

[mheslep]

BTW, you say this after presenting first-hand anecdotal evidence about the Chavez thing?

You requested references for the Chavez thing and I responded: it's not ironclad, I don't have any, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I will take your anecdote into account in thinking about that in the future.

I apologize if I sounded condescending. Hey if you, or anyone else on PF that's been here awhile has 1st hand non public info that furthers any discussion I'm interested to see it, esp. if its about specific US officials opposing democratic initiatives. I'm not interested in broad sweeping, stated as irrefutable assertions about all US leadership.

But that's one of many different historical occurances I have cited to demonstrate that freedom and democracy very frequently rate pretty darn low on our list. The other ones I thought were reasonably established fact, but feel free to ask for references on anything you want.

Yes agreed those events in the 50's etc are historical. I don't see that it follows necessarily that freedom and democracy are well down on our list because: 1) As I said those events were rightly and wrongly done as part of the cold war. Again, I ask given the Soviet Union what should have been done instead? Nothing? Have 'regime change' in a nuclear Moscow? 2) The whole neocon argument is to spread freedom and democracy, even at the cost of violently intervening, the idea being that puppet tyrants don't work, never did, they inevitably breed instability and the only true stability in the world comes via democracy. I think this policy was taken up recklessly and with some hubris, but one certainly can't say that freedom and democracy was low on the list of neocon policy.

 

[mheslep]

On this point I'm thinking back to during the Iraq invasion when I compared coverage of it between U.S. television, French Canadian television, and the BBC (while in Britain). On the BBC and on the Canadian channels you saw a heck of a lot more wounded Iraqi children and Iraqis running around in the streets and screaming with blood all over them. I saw almost none of that, by comparison, on the U.S. networks - there was lots more footage of press conferences and artillery targeting and firing and steel-jawed Marines gazing out over the desert or being attacked.

The point being, the press here is not always tripping over themselves to make the administration look bad.

See where your'e going but no, don't agree even with that. I speculate that the press is not always out to make US soldiers look bad, and seems to be confused as to when to lay into them or off. I think they're very clear on the administration. Yep, good gotcha story on the administration and grandma gets run over by the news van.

Have you ever seen Democracy Now!, that absurdly left-wing, internet-only nightly news broadcast? It's way too boring to watch regularly but they often run fairly significant stories that don't really appear in the mainstream press.

⚛​

Yep. Occasionally listen. Don't care for the local carrier here, never will: few days after 9/11 driving pre-dawn the station DJ went off on a rant about 'how did these moslem guys get flight training? why can't blacks get flight training in AmeriKa...' while the building's were still smoking.

 

[russ_watters]

Well I'm all for bashing the Brits! They've got big ears and silly swear-words.

⚛​

I'm so stealing that one.

 

[russ_watters]

Freedom isn't when they build a McDonalds, or a Burger King. Its when they build both of them and one goes out of business.

That one too.

 

[fourier jr]

Bogus. You didn't read that in any respectable news source because it never happened.

Well, nobody could have read it in an American news source. The BBC & the Guardian/Observer covered it though.


re: Cuba, Cuba will never be able to have free & fair elections as long as the CIA & their mafia collaborators operate in Havana.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm probably getting played, but you aren't serious, are you? My point was that they already have freedom in Cuba, it just isn't our kind of freedom.

⚛​

There's been so much sarcasm in this thread so far, I'm not certain I'm reading you right. Are you saying in Cuba Cuba there's freedom? Not just in 'Gitmo?

There is no freedom in Cuba by any meaningful definition. Their "election
results of the last 50 years paint the clearest picture of that.

 

[russ_watters]

We are not some kind of experts on freedom.

See the Kosovo thread: They were waving American flags at their demonstrations.

See: Eastern Europe. And I don't mean the Cold War, I mean the aftermath. Countries like Lithuania asked for our help setting up their democracies. [I went there once with the Navy 10 years or so after they democracized. They treated us like rock stars just because we were Americans.]

Yah, we are the experts on freedom and democracy and democracy-seekers worldwide know it.

We are willfully and intentionally the enemies of freedom whenever it suits our purposes.

The fact that the US also acts, externally, out of selfishness is utterly irrelevant here. All countries do. That has nothing to do with how our system of government/economy works. It has nothing to do with this thread: This thread is about Cuba and it's need for freedom. Whether you like the US or not, Cubans should be free.

The Cold War ended almost twenty years ago. There's no need whatsoever to pretend that Cuba is the minion of an Evil Empire that is the enemy of everything good and pure.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that. No one is saying Cuba should change because they are a threat (who'se still thinking about the Cold War, us or you?). What we are saying is simply that the Cuban people (all people, but these are only 90 miles from us so it irks us especially) should be free.

Because respectable news sources would definitely report something like that.

I'm not sure you see the irony in that. Yah, respectable news sources would not report something so bogus. That's where the word "respectable" comes in.

 

[russ_watters]

More on Lithuania:

Good speech by the President of Lithuania on the subject of transition to Democracy. http://adamkus.president.lt/en/one.phtml?id=2459
Article about Lithuania/US relations: http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=50016BD8-DC15-414F-9EF0-98F640E7C0B0

I suspect the fact that the US never recognized Lithuania as a part of the USSR and continued to fly a Lithuanian flag in US State Department is part of why they regard us so highly. It's also why I expect similar treatment from the Cubans when they finally become free.

 

[fourier jr]

See the Kosovo thread: They were waving American flags at their demonstrations.

See: Eastern Europe. And I don't mean the Cold War, I mean the aftermath. Countries like Lithuania asked for our help setting up their democracies. [I went there once with the Navy 10 years or so after they democracized. They treated us like rock stars just because we were Americans.]

Yah, we are the experts on freedom and democracy and democracy-seekers worldwide know it.

"You were our heroes after the War. We read American books and saw American films, and a common phrase in those days was 'to be as rich and as wise as an American'. What happened?" -- Vietcong officer to his American prisoner

I'm a democracy seeker & I agree with Raul Castro here: "We could say in Cuba we have two parties: one led by Fidel and one led by Raul, what would be the difference? That's the same thing that happens in the United States ... both are the same. Fidel is a little taller than me, he has a beard and I don't."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-24-cuba-castro_N.htm

 

[russ_watters]

"You were our heroes after the War. We read American books and saw American films, and a common phrase in those days was 'to be as rich and as wise as an American'. What happened?" -- Vietcong officer to his American prisoner

There's plenty wrong with that quote, but again, it's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether Cubans should be free.

I'm a democracy seeker & I agree with Raul Castro here: "We could say in Cuba we have two parties: one led by Fidel and one led by Raul, what would be the difference? That's the same thing that happens in the United States ... both are the same. Fidel is a little taller than me, he has a beard and I don't."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-24-cuba-castro_N.htm

You're right. Overall, the difference between Raul and Fidel is probably similar to the difference between McCain and Obama. But that also doesn't have anything to do with whether Cubans should be free. What matters is the difference between McCain and Raul. I can't believe you would miss how huge that is. Then again, did Raul miss it too or is he just being coy? Sometimes it is hard to tell if they are deluded by their own system or if they know they are criminal despots and act coy on purpose.

 

[mheslep]

Ah, the old “you've got to break eggs to make an omelette” justification. Tell me, how far does that go? At what point is it not okay to depose elected governments, support people like Saddam Hussein, be an arms merchant around the world,

This all has some ivory tower feel to it, as if the cold war was some fantasy. The US was country coming out a world war that killed some 60m people, then engaged in nuclear chess with an empire that said blatantly 'we will bury you'. Mix in some paranoia and some parochialism and some foolish decisions were made. When have they not given those stakes. You tell me what should have been done.

train religious radicals in terrorist tactics and arm them,

I think you are confusing the Mujahadeen (local Afghans, yes funded by US), with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Arabs" - the Wohabist radicals. The latter was the Bin Laden crowd.

torture people in secret prisons, etc.?

AFAIC find: a) US military (DoD) does not torture, b)CIA water boarded three people (one of them KSM) and now college kids water board each other for kicks. Still water boarding is torture because McCain said so and that's good enough for me. I happy to see these incidents investigated and debated, but they do not define a country IMO, rather the debate does.

And was it okay when the Soviets did it or was it bad when they did it but okay when we do it 'cause we're the good guys?

Yes compared to the Soviets the West was the good guys. Just ask an E. German defector or try http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/02/0...m&ex=1171170000&en=7c16e59fe81b2a1d&ei=5087 "

In any case - I'm not out to prove that the U.S. is itself an Evil Empire, I don't really think that. But we have enough blood on our hands from very ignoble pursuits that for us to say that the Cubans are insufferable bad guys - that we have really super-duper important reasons for doing this kind of stuff and they don't - is more than just the pot calling the kettle black, it's ridiculous.

Disagree for all the reasons above. The Cubans imprison their own people for speaking out against El Jefe, and they'll take all that you have or can be.

 

[fourier jr]

There's plenty wrong with that quote, but again, it's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether Cubans should be free. You're right. Overall, the difference between Raul and Fidel is probably simila to the difference between McCain and Obama. But that also doesn't have anything to do with anything. What matters is the difference between McCain and Raul. I can't believe you would miss how huge that is. Then again, did Raul miss it too or is he just being coy? Sometimes it is hard to tell if they are deluded by their own system or if they know they are criminal despots and act coy on purpose.

Are Americans missing it? At least Raul just says it & all Cubans accept it, but Americans don't seem to see one party masquerading as two parties. Maybe it's the Americans who are delusional.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

1) As I said those events were rightly and wrongly done as part of the cold war. Again, I ask given the Soviet Union what should have been done instead? Nothing? Have 'regime change' in a nuclear Moscow?

At the moment I'm not particularly trying to say that anything should have been done differently. Again, I'm just saying that given that list of things we've done, I have difficulty believing that the list of things Cuba has done is so dramatically worse as to justify the upturned nose and air of superiority.

But I definitely haven't drilled deeply into the misdeeds of Cuba. If there are comparable or worse things they've done, don't assume I know of them, please serve them up even if they're the kind of thing you would regard as basic history.

2) The whole neocon argument is to spread freedom and democracy, even at the cost of violently intervening, the idea being that puppet tyrants don't work, never did, they inevitably breed instability and the only true stability in the world comes via democracy. I think this policy was taken up recklessly and with some hubris, but one certainly can't say that freedom and democracy was low on the list of neocon policy.

I'm actually pretty skeptical of this. But I'll again admit that I haven't really investigated neocon political philosophy. What kinds of non-military actions have the neocons taken to promote freedom and democracy, if they do indeed value it highly?

Another thing that I would find convincing is what you say about puppet tyrants. I'm kind of wondering what was going on with Musharraf, though I guess he doesn't directly qualify as a puppet. But if what you say is true and the neocons have taken steps to ensure that under their influence the U.S. has been refusing to deal with or accomplish foreign policy objectives through dictators, evidence of that would definitely sway me that we've had a national change of heart.

(You've made lots of other posts but I want to hit up one of russ's since he has joined in, I don't think I'll get to your others tonight.)

 

[dr_d_is_cool]

who cares about Cuba seriously, they are no threat no any nations, they are far to small and far to idealistic to do any damage to anyone. Cubas only good for two things, cigars and cocaine

 

[CaptainQuasar]

See the Kosovo thread: They were waving American flags at their demonstrations.See: Eastern Europe. And I don't mean the Cold War, I mean the aftermath. Countries like Lithuania asked for our help setting up their democracies. [I went there once with the Navy 10 years or so after they democracized. They treated us like rock stars just because we were Americans.]

Definitely a point. Kosovars and Lithuanians like us. And I'm sure we have helped them.

Yah, we are the experts on freedom and democracy and democracy-seekers worldwide know it. The fact that the US also acts, externally, out of selfishness is utterly irrelevant here. All countries do. That has nothing to do with how our system of government/economy works. It has nothing to do with this thread: This thread is about Cuba and it's need for freedom.

This thread was started because Ivan posted the news article that Fidel Castro resigned. But if you feel a need to redefine the thread in some way that makes your point for you, and excludes mine, go ahead. I'm going to say whatever I'm going to say.

So when the US does selfish stuff like what I've mentioned it's understandable in one way or another, but when Cuba does selfish things that makes them the bad guys? Cuba has helped other countries too, probably more than some of its capitalist neighbors.

Whether you like the US or not, Cubans should be free.

I do not hate or dislike the US. I think it's the best country in the world. I just don't think there's any reason to view ourselves and our history through hyperbolic-nationalism-tinted glasses or put down other countries to make ourselves feel good.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that. No one is saying Cuba should change because they are a threat (who'se still thinking about the Cold War, us or you?). What we are saying is simply that the Cuban people (all people, but these are only 90 miles from us so it irks us especially) should be free. I'm not sure you see the irony in that. Yah, respectable news sources would not report something so bogus. That's where the word "respectable" comes in.

All right, fair enough, Cubans should be free. What does that mean? What should they be able to do that they cannot do now, and is the ability to do those things something we really work towards around the world? And as I'm sure you picked up above I don't think that “being able to buy the products of U.S. companies” qualifies as freedom. And go ahead and tell me what's so ironic about it, I'm on the edge of my seat.

What do you mean with the news sources and the bogus thing? We were talking about a coup in Venezuela.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Thinking about it more, I realized that this has totally spun out of control as threads are won't to and it's mostly my fault. My real objection was to jimmysnyder's [post=1616169]assertion[/post] that gift of true freedom that the Cubans need is a commercial gift, the gift of McDonalds and Burger King. It was a visceral reaction really, that if there's a last place untouched by billboards and franchises it ought to be preserved. This http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29413" says it better.

Basically, everything I've seen about Cubans from music stuff to doctors and scientists to a couple Cubans I've known has shown me that they're really great people and they've got a rich and vibrant culture on their own. I think they ought to get free elections and more freedom of the press and other things. But I think that they ought to be able to remain communist if they want to, or shift to capitalism if they choose to.

And I think it would totally not be cool if after rapprochement we somehow end up ramming our culture down their throats and they really do end up with McDonalds and Burger Kings all over the place, unless that's really what they want. And I think we should prevent our corporations and multinational corporations from ramming it down their throats too.

At whatever point in the future the Castro regime really ends, if corporations gain a foothold there, it will probably be difficult to discern between what the Cubans really want and what the corporations want. I hope it works out best for the Cubans, whatever happens, and maybe that is for American-style capitalism to take hold there.

I don't think that American culture is a pestilence on the world or anything, I just don't think it's freedom in and of itself. And I think it would be very easy to give Cuba lots of trappings of American culture without really giving them more freedom.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And I think it would totally not be cool if after rapprochement we somehow end up ramming our culture down their throats and they really do end up with McDonalds and Burger Kings all over the place, unless that's really what they want.

Freedom isn't when they build a McDonalds, or a Burger King. Its when they build both of them and one goes out of business.

Two different ways of saying the exact same thing. I think you've been playing us.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Two different ways of saying the exact same thing. I think you've been playing us.

Saying that Cuba should only have McDonalds and Burger Kings and other corporate incursions if Cubans want it, and should be able to remain communist if they so choose, is not by any stretch of the imagination the same thing as saying that commercial competition between McDonalds and Burger King is freedom.

I would still say that the United States has proved through many of its actions that we are far from the paramount authority on or champion of freedom. Saying that Cuba ought to have more freedom of the press or more internal political activity is not the same thing as saying it needs to be taught some lessons about freedom and democracy by the United States.

The United States is particularly bad about teaching lessons of freedom and democracy to 3^rd world countries, it always seems like somehow in the course of the lesson whoops! all of the wealth and natural resources of the 3^rd world nation somehow ended up in the hands of U.S. corporations and banks, or the corporations and banks of other 1^st world nations.

If Cuba isn't careful they'll find themselves selling the island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan#Colonial".

If China, for example, in its transition from communism to capitalism hadn't made laws restricting the foreign ownership of domestic enterprises to something like 25% the country would be entirely owned by Western concerns by now. And believe me the United States and other Western nations lobbied pretty darn hard to have that restriction and others lifted; if we'd gotten away with it we'd have crowed about breaking the power of the Communist Party at the same time we were carting away all the oil and coal and any other resources and profit margins we could get our hands on, rather than the Chinese now having more small businesses and corporate ownership than anywhere else on Earth¹. Instead they're now out there predating on the poor nations of the world with the rest of us - they've actually learned the lessons pretty well! Why I remember when the Chinese had to use military force to dominate another country.

¹ That's purely an in inference by me based upon their population size, economic growth, the off-track-betting way the Chinese stock markets work, and the activity I've seen in the course of China watching, it's not something I've read somewhere.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Saying that Cuba should only have McDonalds and Burger Kings and other corporate incursions if Cubans want it, and should be able to remain communist if they so choose, is not by any stretch of the imagination the same thing as saying that commercial competition between McDonalds and Burger King is freedom.

How do you propose to find out if 'they want it'. Pure inference based on population size, etc.? Don't be silly, there is, of course, only one way. Stretch your imagination a bit and you will see how to do it.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

How do you propose to find out if 'they want it'. Pure inference based on population size, etc.? Don't be silly, there is, of course, only one way. Stretch your imagination a bit and you will see how to do it.

All I said in what you're quoting is that commercial competition between McDonalds and Burger King is not freedom. If you meant something different than that when you said it, stretch your writing skills a bit and elaborate.

And if you think that Cuba should be able to remain communist if its citizens choose, despite your implication that freedom has something to do with commercial activity, go ahead and say that too. Because otherwise it seems to me that you're making silly statements about what freedom is - you're really saying something more along the lines of “git ridduh th' commies! LOLCOMMIES heheheh!” - and expecting echoes of Cold War rhetoric to fill in the actual details about freedom for you.

And if you feel like retracting the claim that I'm playing you, that would be welcome too.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And if you think that Cuba should be able to remain communist if its citizens choose, despite your implication that freedom has something to do with commercial activity, go ahead and say that too.

There is no freedom without economic freedom.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

There is no freedom without economic freedom.

My, spare on the words, aren't we? I get the feeling you're still expecting something someone else has said to make your arguments for you.

Since you didn't bother to elaborate further despite my request that you do so, I will take the liberty to do it for you. You're saying that capitalism has to be forced on Cuba regardless of what the Cuban people might decide collectively, and that's freedom.

If you want to live with the fantasy that the U.S. invading and intervening in other countries and deciding for them how they ought to be governed somehow makes us champions of freedom, be my guest. But somehow I don't think that the people whose affairs we go mucking around in would have such high praise for it.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Since you didn't bother to elaborate further despite my request that you do so, I will take the liberty to do it for you.

I prefer you take the liberty of thinking about what I write. I have been clear as a bell. You can't say to people that they are free, but they are not allowed to eat at the restaurant of their choice. What other freedoms do you intend to tell them they have but that they don't really have.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You're saying that capitalism has to be forced on Cuba regardless of what the Cuban people might decide collectively, and that's freedom.

I emphasized the word 'forced' in your post. I see that you have not been reading my posts carefully enough. Let me repeat:

Freedom isn't when they build a McDonalds, or a Burger King. Its when they build both of them and one goes out of business[/size][/color].
Is this too terse? It went out of business because people didn't eat there. Still too terse? They didn't eat there because they didn't want to and weren't forced to.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I prefer you take the liberty of thinking about what I write.

You asked for it, dude. I put a direct question to you about whether Cuba should be allowed to remain communist and you ignored it. And in fact, you still haven't answered it, you've simply pretended as if I've been somehow unreasonable in response to your evasion.

I have been clear as a bell. You can't say to people that they are free, but they are not allowed to eat at the restaurant of their choice. What other freedoms do you intend to tell them they have but that they don't really have.

Why do you think that Cuban people can't eat at the restaurant of their choice? You realize that most people in countries that poor, capitalist or communist, don't eat at restaurants very often, right?

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I emphasized the word 'forced' in you post. I see that you have not been reading my posts carefully enough. Let me repeat:

Freedom isn't when they build a McDonalds, or a Burger King. Its when they build both of them and one goes out of business[/color].

What part of my paraphrasing - “freedom is commercial competition” - doesn't address your statement so that you have to throw your little font properties temper tantrum?

⚛​