Cuban Fencing

[MikeHarm]

I guess I'm cynical on it. I don't really think we have the bans on Cuba to fight communism. If that was true, why wouldn't we have sanctions against China and Russia? I think its all about Castro.

[Soldier]

Hey, I lived in the midwest for about ten years preceding coming here - and things still look a lot better on the outside. Granted, you do have to see obesity (something I have the luxury of not seeing here), but, there are actual good-looking girls, too.

[afc fencer]

Hey, I lived in the midwest for about ten years preceding coming here - and things still look a lot better on the outside. Granted, you do have to see obesity (something I have the luxury of not seeing here), but, there are actual good-looking girls, too.

What countries does the U.S. support that treats its citizens worse than cuba does?

[afc fencer]

Eh. The only reason Bush has put forth these new tougher on cuba law-things ( ) is that he wants to court the cuban vote in Florida, because it's a swing state. I hate this 'small minority in insignificant state controls global policy' thing. Hell, I don't even see why we care that they're communist. They're not expansionist, and they treat their citizins better than some nations we support. Bah.

What nation does the U.S. support that treats its citizens worse than cuba does?

[Philistine]

What nation does the U.S. support that treats its citizens worse than cuba does?

Well, off the top of my head--China, Pakistin, Yemen, Columbia, Congo (both), and several others.

--Philistine

[esskreemr]

As for seizing property. Take a look at what we did to Japanese immigrants and descendants during the Japanese internment. Thousands of people lost property that was never returned to them. We don't exactly have a pristine record when it comes to property seizure. Take a look at the so-called drug war. I've heard numerous horror stories about what constitutes a drug seizure.

[ReverseLunge]

Cuban fencing? Everything they do we do 10 times better. That's why we are in American and they aren't. We should go over there and chinga them good.

[epeemike81]

While Castro does not run everything anymore he still has power and what he wants done will get done.

Here is an article about the reasons to have the embargo. It can explain things much better than i can.
http://www.cubainfolinks.net/Articles/seven_bad.htm

from the chart on that website comparing china to cuba:

"A stabilized Cuba would serve as model to others in Latin America to engage in armed conflict"

yeah, okay... that is one of the most convaluted assessments I've ever seen. btw, what, exactly, is UNstable about Cuba? impoverished? yes. unstable? no.

"Cuba’s ¾ of the exports would be sugar, negatively impacting the socio-economic status of sellers of sugar domestically."

oh, so we should also have embargoes against any nation that produces cotton, tobacco, grain, or pretty much anything else we grow here? This is NOT a reason to have an embargo.

-m

[epeemike81]

What nation does the U.S. support that treats its citizens worse than cuba does?

well, according to the Guardian circa 2003, quite a few. here's a partial list of their rankings:
1. Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
2. North Korea
3. Indonesia
4. Algeria
5. Libya
6. Colombia
7. Egypt
8. Israel
9. China
10. Iran
11. Congo (Democratic Republic)
12. Sudan
13. Iraq (this is pre-war, so...)
14. Burma
15. Turkey
16. Mexico
17. Congo (Republic)
18. Venezuela
19. Syria
20. Saudi Arabia
21. Rwanda
22. Pakistan
23. Bahrain
24. Sri Lanka
25. Philippines
26. Peru
27. South Korea
28. India
29. Cambodia
30. Cameroon
31. Nepal
32. Yemen
33. Brazil
34. Burundi
35. Cuba
36. Morocco
37. United States of America

As you can see, we're not exactly in a good position to judge (at least according to this ranking). among the nations they list as better than us: Uganda, Russia, Lebanon, Senegal, Nicaragua, and Jordan.

As for how many countries we support are worse than Cuba, the meaning of "support" is kinda vague... I'd conservatively say at least 18, though.

-m

[afc fencer]

well, according to the Guardian circa 2003, quite a few. here's a partial list of their rankings....

First the Guardian was wrong to list these as human right violators. From the un site as to how the HDI is to be used:

How is the Human Development Index used?

To capture the attention of policy makers, media and NGOs and to draw their attention away from the more usual economic statistics to focus instead on human outcomes, not economic data. The HDI was created to re-emphasize that people and their lives should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth or interest rates.

To question national policy choices - asking how two countries with the same level of income per person can end up with such different human development outcomes (HDI levels). For example, Viet Nam and Pakistan have similar levels of income per person, but life expectancy and literacy differ greatly between the two countries, with Viet Nam having a much higher HDI value than Pakistan (see p. 13, figure 1.3). These striking contrasts immediately stimulate debate on government policies on health and education, asking why what is achieved in one country is far from the reach of another.

The HDI can be used as well to highlight wide differences within countries, between provinces or states, across races, language or religious groupings. Highlighting internal disparities along these lines has raised national debate in many countries.

Im talking about torture and execution with out trial and things like that. Not about things like how litterate children are or how high the unemployment rate is.

[epeemike81]

First the Guardian was wrong to list these as human right violators. From the un site as to how the HDI is to be used:


Im talking about torture and execution with out trial and things like that. Not about things like how litterate children are or how high the unemployment rate is.

right, the HDI is just what they used to weight scores, otherwise we wouldn't be anywhere near as high on the list. they actually DO address the specific abuses on the cite I link to as well. check it out, and you'll find that Cuba isn't NEAR as bad as most of the countries listed above it. See how the last column on the table is "Total*HDI"? "Total" is a total rank of human rights violations. I don't know why they multiply by HDI, but if you adjust for that you'll find that Cuba is still way down the list. I think they do it on the theory that the worse off a country is, the more forgivable the abuses are. I don't think I agree.

-m

[epeemike81]

Okay, here's the list arranged by a total of ratings of various human rights abuses. the rating of each type is based on "intensity" of occurance of that particular type of abuse:

1. Congo (Democratic Republic)
2. Rwanda
3. Burundi
4. Algeria
5. Sierra Leone
6. Egypt
7. North Korea
8. Sudan
9. Indonesia
10. Yugoslavia (Federal Republic)
11. Pakistan
12. China
13. Libya
14. Burma
15. Iraq (pre-war)
16. Afghanistan (note, interestingly, that this list was compiled POST Afghan war)
17. Iran
18. Yemen
19. Chad
20. Congo (Republic)
21. Uganda
22. Somalia
23. Angola
24. India
25. Saudi Arabia
26. Syria
27. Cambodia
28. Colombia
29. Ethiopia
30. Nepal
31. Israel
32. Cameroon
33. Peru
34. Senegal
35. Turkey
36. Bahrain
37. Equatorial Guinea
38. Morocco
39. Nigeria
40. Palestinian Authority
41. Philippines
42. Cuba

Thanks for the heads up AFC Fencer! I had unfairly maligned Cuba. there are actually 41 countries, not 34, worse in terms of human rights. btw, USA drops to 65th on this list, though we're still worse in terms of human rights than Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Djibouti and Kuwait. I don't know that being worse than Djibouti means anything, I just like saying Djibouti.

my guess is that the US will climb on the list if updated, as we aren't penalized at all in the category of "Detentions without Charge or Trial," and we've started doing that.

-m

[Sabresque]

I don't think it's fair to fight about who is worse in terms of human rights abuse. It's like saying "oh man, he shot him once. I guess that's not as bad as the guy who got shot 3 times."

[epeemike81]

I don't think it's fair to fight about who is worse in terms of human rights abuse. It's like saying "oh man, he shot him once. I guess that's not as bad as the guy who got shot 3 times."

the question "who that we support is worse than Cuba?' was asked, I felt it deserved an answer. Does that mean Cuba isn't bad on human rights? of course not! but, it does show one of the hypocrisies in our embargo of them in particular.

besides, it's more like saying "oh man, he shot three people. I guess that's worse than the guy who shot one." seems like a pretty logical statement to me...

-m

[The0ne]

There is no point in embargo-ing Cuba anymore. The Cold War is over, communists aren't really as bad as McCarthy said they were. Cuba could be a good place to practice helping other countries get out of poverty, so next time we invade somewhere, we can get it right!

And on the girl issue, there are plenty of hot girls in New England. I would know, I'm going out with one of them.

[afc fencer]

First I have no idea what these take into acount. Do these take abuses that were commited by pirson officals or do they take into acount things that were orrdered by the leader of the country? I can make a list and have any country I want on the top of it. The report didnt know about the stuff that happend in Iraq, so how can we be sure it knows about stuff that goes on in other countries. Plus it lists its sources as: Amnesty International Report 1999; Amnesty International Country Reports; US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights 1999; I have to look up the amnesty report, but it probally just gets its info from things that were reported.

[afc fencer]

A qoute from the Amnesty International web site.

AI last visited Cuba in 1988. The government did not respond to AI's requests to be allowed into the country.

[epeemike81]

First I have no idea what these take into acount. Do these take abuses that were commited by pirson officals or do they take into acount things that were orrdered by the leader of the country? I can make a list and have any country I want on the top of it. The report didnt know about the stuff that happend in Iraq, so how can we be sure it knows about stuff that goes on in other countries. Plus it lists its sources as: Amnesty International Report 1999; Amnesty International Country Reports; US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights 1999; I have to look up the amnesty report, but it probally just gets its info from things that were reported.

how do you know they didn't know what happened in Iraq? As for what it takes into account, it treats things ordered by leader instead of courts as WORSE, as indicated by the category "Detentions without trial or charge".

-m

[epeemike81]

A qoute from the Amnesty International web site.

the list I cited doesn't use AI, to my knowledge, and thus wouldn't be hindered by AI not being allowed into the country.

-m

[afc fencer]

the list I cited doesn't use AI, to my knowledge, and thus wouldn't be hindered by AI not being allowed into the country.

-m

Fine you gave a list with no sources. And since it has no sources it is null. I got ai from the front page of the whole litte report thing and it listed ai.