Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nealm who wrote (6187)	5/24/2000 9:26:00 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 9127

>The US hasn't been shy about overthrowing dictators in the past, so it seems a bit strange that the situation with Fidel was a complete failure.< We tried really really hard to change the government of a tiny country called Vietnam- we didn't do so well there either. The US is stupid to meddle in the internal governmental affairs of other countries. We invariably pick the side the "people" hate- and then we buttress, by our aggression, the very governments we seek to change. With our track record we would be better off befriending our enemies- for we would surely destroy them.

To: nealm who wrote (6187)	5/24/2000 11:37:00 AM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

"...Castro took over power in 1959 from a corrupt Batista..." Castro may not be the ideal leader but he is nonetheless the product of a people's rebellion against a corrupt government. Some will argue that despite the less than ideal situation, Cubans are much better off today than they were under Battista. On the other hand, many of those who thrived under the corrupt regime of Battista are most vocal against Castro and as such I give very little credibility to their "biased and self-serving" criticism. Vince

To: nealm who wrote (6187)	5/24/2000 6:06:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

My point was that the US has been inside Cuba's business from Day 1 (The Spanish American War). So it's bit ironic that there are folks complaining now about Cuban Americans influencing American foreign policy. In other words, because we did it in the past, we are entitled to do it forever? As far as that criminial Castro, I believe the US did "lose" Cuba to him. Castro took over power in 1959 from a corrupt Batista with a relatively small group of rebels. Later on he consolidated his power. By the time Kennedy came to power, the criminal Castro's government was in complete control of Cuba, and was by any definition the government in power in that country, having ousted the criminal Batista by means as legitimate as most changes of government in Latin America at that time. You can't lose something to someone who's already got it. The US hasn't been shy about overthrowing dictators in the past, so it seems a bit strange that the situation with Fidel was a complete failure. The US hasn't been a bit shy about overthrowing elected governments either, or about installing dictators. The Cuban intervention failed because it was incompetently planned and executed, because it was so wildly illegal that the American government was embarrassed to support it fully, and, most of all, because the popular uprising that the Miami Cubans assured the CIA would follow it didn't happen. There are quite a few details and theories that have come out as to side deals that JFK made to the Russians that guaranteed Fidel's regime. The conspircay theories that are always with us. I see no credible grounds for a deal there.