Castro admits his economic model doesn't work for Cuba!

[markabilly]

back to the subject of this thread


500,000 government workers to get laid off in Cuba

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article...rkers/19632611





sorry to have been quilty of hijacking this thread back to the original topic.......

[glauistean]

Socialism in any form is to use your term, "left-wing", so what is your point?

More to the point, what's yours? The boogeyman man of socialism is not out to get you and sneak in. It is already here.

[Bob Riebe]

More to the point, what's yours? The boogeyman man of socialism is not out to get you and sneak in. It is already here.

Ah you do not have a point, as you cannot back-up your rhetoric, or you are ignorant of facts.
You are simply trolling.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The US military spending was understandable during the Soviet times. There really was an arms race, but there isn't anymore, so they could easily cut back some military spending. Plus the threat is different now than it was back then. For example, an unmanned drone is far better in fighting terrorism than a stealth bomber, and much cheaper.

Shockingly, I will agree with you partially on this one Eki. I do think the US has not always spent wisely on military matters. That said, they also have more geo political commitments. Is South Korea still a free democracy without a tripwire of 50000 or so American soldiers on the 38th?

You take away the war with Iraq and you still had a logical operation to deal with in Afghanistan. I don't think their military could pare back that much when faced with the many weird and unique committments. I don't think the USA should have to be the policeman of the world in a sense, but in the face of the weak response and milquetoast actions of many of the nations in Europe towards terrorist threats, economic threats, and yes now something like Iran; I think it still may be too soon for the USA to back down.

Whether you like it or not Eki, without them, you would have been speaking Russian likely by now against your will. The threat of MAD kept major wars from flaring up; and the USSR's territorial ambitions wouldn't have been so careful if there was no major democracy able to take them on.

Underestimating the American's capacity to come back and find ways to finance their ambitions is also silly. They fought WW2 and still had the money to basically rebuild the economy of Western Europe. What they are facing now is more serious, but not irreversible...

[Eki]

Whether you like it or not Eki, without them, you would have been speaking Russian likely by now against your will. The threat of MAD kept major wars from flaring up; and the USSR's territorial ambitions wouldn't have been so careful if there was no major democracy able to take them on.

It's not about liking but about believing. I don't believe it. The US did nothing when Soviet tanks rolled to Hungary in 1956 and to Czechoslovakia in 1968. I believe they would have done nothing if Soviet tanks had rolled to Finland either.
It was the resistance that Finland put up in 1939-1944 together with our friendly relationship with the Soviet Union after the war that kept them away. They realized the benefits of invading Finland again wouldn't have been worth the costs. They simply benefited more from Finland as a friend as Finland as an enemy.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's not about liking but about believing. I don't believe it. The US did nothing when Soviet tanks rolled to Hungary in 1956 and to Czechoslovakia in 1968. I believe they would have done nothing if Soviet tanks had rolled to Finland either.
It was the resistance that Finland put up in 1939-1944 together with our friendly relationship with the Soviet Union after the war that kept them away. They realized the benefits of invading Finland again wouldn't have been worth the costs. They simply benefited more from Finland as a friend as Finland as an enemy.

In otherwards, you had nothing they wanted....

The fact remains, The Russians "invaded" Hungary and the Czech's but they were already there and that part of the world was under their more or less control. Eki, that little thing Churchill called the "Iron Curtain" was a de facto line dividing Europe into their side and our side....and the Russians invading and attacking those people was an unpleasant reminder that they were there all along and that part of Europe was their domain as was drawn up at Yalta.

Finland was on the other hand, not part of that. Finland was the only democratic nation to border the USSR that wasn't invaded. It means two things. You guys gave them such a bloody nose that they didn't want to go back, or two, they felt keeping Finland out of the alliances one way or the other would serve as an example of the USSR's "friendly" ways.

This by the way Eki is the Same USSR that killed 10's of millions before WW2, during WW2 and after WW2...millions of their OWN CITIZENS. Believe me, if they wanted Finland and figured it wouldn't provoke a serious response from the USA and NATO, you would be speaking Russian.

The only thing The USSR feared was internal dissent, and American nuclear might....