babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » rabble news features   » Is Martin ready for a U.S. attack on Cuba?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Is Martin ready for a U.S. attack on Cuba?
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 11 June 2004 01:40 PM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Prime Minister Paul Martin chatted with George W. Bush at the G8 meeting this week and apparently talked about the same old topic — American bullying on the trade front — with predictable results. What he should have added to the list was the U.S. plan for military action against Cuba. What plan, you ask? Good question. And it is one that Martin and his policy advisors and foreign affairs analysts ought to be asking themselves right now.

Full story


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 June 2004 01:49 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
According to Halifax-based Cuba scholar and author Isaac Saney the plan for a broadcasting platform is an “act patently illegal under international law, violating various treaties constituting a deliberate provocation aimed at creating the pretext for a military strike.” Cuba would be perfectly within its rights to shoot down any of these planes if they violate Cuban air space, as such a violation is an act of war in international law. That, of course, is exactly what the Bushites want.

I did not know this. My, my, those busy little persons in the USian administration. As Dobbin observes, failure seems to embolden rather than chasten them.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Green Bastard
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6060

posted 11 June 2004 03:22 PM      Profile for The Green Bastard     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"its incredible achievements in human development"

Sure, just don't be gay and don't open your mouth against the system. Otherwise you'll find they also have made incredible achievements in prisons and torture.

Bush would be doing Cuba a big favour by overthrowing the Castro regime, but it won't happen. Why bother? The old bugger will die sooner or later.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 11 June 2004 03:49 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Green Bastard:
Bush would be doing Cuba a big favour by overthrowing the Castro regime...

Here is Fidel's answer from May 2003...

quote:
...it does not worry me in the least. The ideas for which I have fought all my life will not die, and they will live on for a long time.

If the solution were to attack Cuba like Iraq, I would suffer greatly because of the cost in lives and the enormous destruction it would bring on Cuba. But, it might turn out to be the last of this Administration's fascist attacks, because the struggle would last a very long time.

The aggressors would not merely be facing an army, but rather thousands of armies that would constantly reproduce themselves and make the enemy pay such a high cost in casualties that it would far exceed the cost in lives of its sons and daughters that the American people would be willing to pay for the adventures and ideas of President Bush. Today, he enjoys majority support, but it is dropping, and tomorrow it could be reduced to zero.

The American people, the millions of highly cultivated individuals who reason and think, their basic ethical principles, the tens of millions of computers with which to communicate, hundreds of times more than at the end of the Viet Nam war, will show that you cannot fool all of the people, and perhaps not even part of the people, all of the time. One day they will put a straightjacket on those who need it before they manage to annihilate life on the planet.


Dr. Fidel Castro Ruz, President of the Republic of Cuba - May 2003

[ 11 June 2004: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Green Bastard
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6060

posted 11 June 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for The Green Bastard     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So like I said, why would Bush bother? I doubt anyone in Washington wants to give Castro the satisfaction of going out in a blaze of (at least in his mind) glory.

In a few years he'll die quietly, his government will wither away without him, the sanctions will be lifted and Cubans will actually have a future to look forward to.

And I have no doubt his ideals will live on...in the usual places: in universities, Rabble.ca, the guys who hand out flyers at Bloor/Bathurst, etc.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 11 June 2004 05:19 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Green Bastard:
In a few years he'll die quietly, his government will wither away without him, the sanctions will be lifted and Cubans will actually have a future to look forward to.

Yea...like mass unemployment, increasing infant mortality, a gigantic drug trade, decreasing life expectancies and so on. All the benefits of bourgeois civilisation. I bet they just can't wait. Come to think of it, maybe they could welcome back the Mafia.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
RickW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2868

posted 13 June 2004 12:02 AM      Profile for RickW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Green Bastard:
Bush would be doing Cuba a big favour by overthrowing the Castro regime, but it won't happen. Why bother? The old bugger will die sooner or later.

Castro did Cubans a big favour kicking out the mafia in 1959(?), and the literacy rate skyrocketed, etc. So how would kicking out Castro "help" Cubans today? Put back the Mafia?


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
RickW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2868

posted 13 June 2004 12:07 AM      Profile for RickW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gee! An invasion plan hatched just in time to "help" Cuba develope it's offshore oil.........and according to The Economist, there is enough there to make Cuba self-sufficient.

http://www.cubaliberal.org/english/040610-oilincuba.htm


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 June 2004 12:30 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fidel Mocks Dubya and Banana Republican Economy

I wonder how many Latin American shitholes where U.S. corporations have foreign interests have a biotechnology industry and more physicians per capita than another nation in the western hemisphere ?
U.S. Company Seeks to Liscence Cuban Cancer Drug


"The U.S. has an average of 1,000 meningitis cases every year and more than 100 people die, but researchers in Cuba have developed a vaccine against the disease. Already sold in some countries, it may soon be available in the U.S."
Cuban Meningitis Vaccine Will Save hundreds of American Children's Lives Each Year


Harvard: Cuba's Education System a Role Model for the U.S

Castro Offers Six Years of FREE Medical Education to Poor American's

Cuban Cancer Drug to Compete With IMClone's "Erbatux"

Uncle Sam's 36 Friendly Dictators Whom You Would Not Want in Your Kitchen

[ 13 June 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 13 June 2004 03:48 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
According to Halifax-based Cuba scholar and author Isaac Saney the plan for a broadcasting platform is an “act patently illegal under international law, violating various treaties constituting a deliberate provocation aimed at creating the pretext for a military strike.

Radio and TV broadcasting is subject to international regulations set by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) which is a UN body based in Geneva. Member states of the ITU are supposed to follow its rules.

Under ITU regulations, AM and FM radio as well as "over the air" VHF and UHF television transmissions are supposed to be used for domestic broadcasting only. While its quite true that radio signals don't respect international boundaries (there are some laws of physics involved here), AM/FM & TV can't be used for the sole purpose of broadcasting to another country unless that country decides to permit it.

Needless to say the Cuban government has not granted permission to the U.S. government to broadcast propaganda to its citizens (nor to any of the other radio stations operated by the "Miami Mafia") and so therefore they are illegal under international law.

In fact the television transmissions from the US C-130 aircraft disrupted signals on Cuba's domestic educational TV channel. I understand alot of Cubans take university courses through this particular station. Deliberately disrupting another countries' domestic broadcasting is an even more serious matter. One could call this an act of aggression.

The other thing that Cubans find offensive about the U.S. propaganda stations is that they call them "Radio Marti" and "Tele-Marti". Jose Marti was a national hero of Cuba's independence movement.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 June 2004 08:37 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for that very clear explanation, radiorahim.

Fidel, I can't make your link for the 36 dictators work, and I would like to.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Saskatoon Student
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5729

posted 13 June 2004 04:15 PM      Profile for Saskatoon Student     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Yea...like mass unemployment, increasing infant mortality, a gigantic drug trade, decreasing life expectancies and so on. All the benefits of bourgeois civilisation. I bet they just can't wait. Come to think of it, maybe they could welcome back the Mafia.


Hee hee hee!!! Ha ha ha!!!

Surely sir, you are not serious. I must give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this statement is made in jest.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 13 June 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is Martin ready for a U.S. attack on Cuba?

Is Harper drooling over the opportunity to send Canadian troops to show support for "our best friends"; to let Canadian soldiers kill & be killed so that Tom D'Aquino can have his economic integration with the US?


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 June 2004 04:27 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Try this one, Skdadl

Right wingers in the States have not onll tried to stop American's from traveling to and spending money in Cuba, but they've blocked humanitarian aid to Cuba every chance they get, and that;s illegal according to the UN. Canadian and American church groups have had a bitch of a time getting stuff to Cuba that they cannot manufracture there, like needles and certain medicines. They've pulled the same crap on North Korea for years. N.Korea is mainly a mountainous country with about 14% of its land being arrable enough to grow food. If anyone pulled an embargo on the effin Yanks they'd declare war on'em. A handfull of right wingers down there are a pox on humanity.

I think this is the original site. It isn't updated too often, but the material I've read there is stuff I've read in other sources. The Yanks have been treating latin American countries
like colonies and waging proxy wars on them for many years now. Do a search on School of the Americas - SOA when you've got time.

cheers!

[ 13 June 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 June 2004 04:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Got it, Fidel -- thanks.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 June 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Green Bastard says:
quote:
In a few years he'll die quietly, his government will wither away without him, the sanctions will be lifted and Cubans will actually have a future to look forward to.

And there is plenty of incentive for Cuban's to want to share in American colonialism in Latin America. The Sandinista's laid down their weapons and just look how affluent they are in Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador today. You'll find that there are still soldiers with machine guns and right wing death squads hunting vagrants and children at night.

I've been to Cuba several years ago, and friends tell me that children can still be seen in Havana laughing and chasing coco taxis.

Children in El Salvador and Honduras will greet you with outstretched hands, right there on Uncle Sam's back door step.

There are several American companies doing business in Cuba and ignoring the archaic cold war embargo. The fines imposed by their fascist regime for doing business in Cuba are ineffective. The market will strive towards freedom in spite of fascist attempts to manipulate it for their own asinine political reasons.

Fidel Castro will still be there in Cuba when American's dethrone these banana republican's come November. Cuban's love Fidel. They hate the handful of American oligarchs trying to return Cuba to the bad old days of mafia control under a dictatorship. Castro has world opinion behind him. The American fascists do not.

[ 13 June 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 14 June 2004 01:26 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's probably true that it's no picnic being gay in Cuba. But then, it's no picnic being gay anywhere in Latin America, near as I can make out. Didn't we have a case recently of a gay guy from Mexico making a refugee claim, which they denied because he didn't look swishy so they figured he could stay in the closet? Now leaving questions of the competence of the people making that decision aside, they seem to have conceded that being known gay in Mexico would be grounds for refugee status.

And while people are sometimes jailed for dissent, that dissent often turns out to consist of taking money from the American embassy to make trouble--what if it was any other country jailing 'em would be called "espionage" or "treason". I've never actually heard any credible claims of torture, although it could happen. But certainly not on the scale or nastiness of the average Latin American US ally trained in torture at the Army School of the Americas (or whatever they changed the name to).

But generally it seems clear that despite (I sometimes wonder: partly because of?) the rigid trade embargos, life in Cuba, while not as affluent as life in say Canada, is way better than life in pretty much any other Central or South American country--including ones with way more natural resources than Cuba has. There is less poverty, no starvation, no street kids, lotsa education, amazing medicine, high life expectancy, not a lot of crime, all that jazz. People aren't being forced off their land left and right, there's power in rural areas. It ain't perfect. A certain bureaucratization has set in, and I get the impression they're a tad short on spare parts. The former happens in every country that isn't falling apart, the latter is again true everywhere in Latin America.

I'd be happy if Cuba went democratic. But I'd be happy if a lot of places went democratic, and if a lot of theoretical democracies went real-world democratic. When it comes to reform, there's a few dozen countries which would be ahead of Cuba on my list. And the US would be one of them. And if the US did reform, and commit to leaving other countries the hell alone, it might be easier for Cuba to become democratic.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 14 June 2004 01:55 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gay people were brutally and viciously treated in Cuba in the 1960s and 70s, and people with AIDS were herded into concentration camps in the early 1990s. That's mostly over, but there is still a lot of trouble with institutionalized homophobia -- more than the cultural homophobia of parts of Mexican society, for instance, and certainly more than in a country like Brazil.

Gay Cuba? Not yet.

My biggest human rights complaint about Cuba is not so much internal as external. Cuba ran for a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission so it could vote against human rights resolutions. Here, it makes common cause with regimes like Sudan in opposing any effective Human Rights Committee actions. When Brazil tried to have the HRC pass a gay-rights resolution, Cuba failed to offer any support. In that, it had the same stance as Bush's USA.

I really hope supporters of Cuba are able to send Castro a letter asking him to stop coddling dictatorships abroad.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 14 June 2004 02:54 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why wouldn't he be ready. He was ready for Haitian regime change.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
RavenDarke
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5160

posted 17 June 2004 10:34 AM      Profile for RavenDarke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The critical feature missing from any real discourse on American intentions towards Cuba is the respect for her sovereignty. The current pre-emptive posturing of the Bush Administration alerts Canadians to a threat that few of us are willing to envision, let alone sponsor, but one that is vital to our understanding and national survival.

If the United States is unwilling to respect nations sovereignty then we have to wonder exactly how long it will be before they stop respecting Canada’s. While there are fundamental differences between the government of Fidel Castro and ours, one point remains. The United States would scream bloody blue murder if anyone dared to do to them what they freely and happily do to hundreds of other nations. From assassination to socio and economic coercion, the American national symbol should be the albatross and not the eagle.

Funny thing though about eagles, they appear as symbols for governments that desire expansion and aggressive military policies. What exactly is the difference between Ancient Rome, Nazi Germany and the United States? From my perch right now all I can see are three societies that at varying stages in the slide from elected representation to dictatorship.

Raven Darke
Copyright © 2004 Raven Darke Productions


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 17 June 2004 12:45 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RavenDarke:
If the United States is unwilling to respect nations sovereignty then we have to wonder exactly how long it will be before they stop respecting Canada?s.

. . . What exactly is the difference between Ancient Rome, Nazi Germany and the United States?


The Americans don't respect Canada's sovereignty. Simply, Canada rolls over like a puppy and acquiesces without struggle.

I see the similarity between Ancient Rome, Nazi Germany and the United States, but I think there is greater similarity with the Vikings and/or other raiders. The US sends in the Marines and then loots every which way it can. Ancient Rome, Nazi Germany were both imperialist powers; both were determined to expand their territories and govern them. The Americans don't want empire; they just want the loot.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 June 2004 07:10 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
TRO launches board game aimed at U.S. regime change

www.gatt.org


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 17 June 2004 07:36 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Cougyr noted:
The Americans don't want empire; they just want the loot.

Yes indeed. Just the loot. And none of the consequences. But they have discovered the horrible consequences of their hubris anyway.

The great Kirghiz writer Chinghiz Aitmatov (1928- ))wrote the most elegant denunciation of U.S. hubris I have ever read. It ended like this:

quote:

An evil-doer can find justification for any evil. The swift development of military technology for outer space is the ultimate evil. They can go no further. All that remains is for them to raise their hands against God, the very God in whom they claim to believe.


Why is there no thread specifically about the foreign policy consequences of a Conservative government? OK...besides Iraq.

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
RickW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2868

posted 25 June 2004 10:07 AM      Profile for RickW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:

to let Canadian soldiers kill & be killed so that Tom D'Aquino can have his economic integration with the US?


Yes. Historically, the military's chief purpose is to support industry. I doubt there would be warfare in the world, if every conflict had to be resolved without the profit motive.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
RickW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2868

posted 27 June 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for RickW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:
The Americans don't want empire; they just want the loot.

That's about it! Shallow thinkers.

From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 27 June 2004 02:53 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickW:
That's about it! Shallow thinkers.

I dunno. There's evolution on the right as well as the left. After all, neo-colonialism (grab the loot only) replaced colonialism (empire).


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 June 2004 02:57 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why is there no thread specifically about the foreign policy consequences of a Conservative government? OK...besides Iraq.

Possibly because the likely Conservative foreign minister would be Stockwell Day.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't care to contemplate the consequences of that without a stiff drink to hand, preferably two. And it isn't yet noon here.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 June 2004 03:15 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why is there no thread specifically about the foreign policy consequences of a Conservative government? OK...besides Iraq.

N. Beltov, you might better ask what has happened to all the foreign-policy discussions on babble. The consequences for Canada of a Harper-Day foreign policy used to be at least implicit in all of them.

For some reason, the people who focus madly on Canadian electoral politics seem to have no interest at all, as in NO interest, in the rest of the world. Strange, but true.

And for the time being, those are the people who run babble, simply by running it over. The regulars who think about foreign policy have mostly gone to ground for the duration.

It's an interesting problem. It tells us something important about the activists in all of our political parties, and what it tells us is not, in my view, anyway, very happy.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 27 June 2004 03:39 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
For some reason, the people who focus madly on Canadian electoral politics seem to have no interest at all, as in NO interest, in the rest of the world. Strange, but true.

The idea that foreign policy mostly flows from domestic policy is a reasonable one. And Canada is not the world player that our neighbour to the south is. Perhaps it's not seen as all that important because whoever forms the government will likely continue on in the same vein.

I just mentioned foreign policy because it seems a weakness of the Conservatives that could be attacked with some success.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 June 2004 03:55 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The idea that foreign policy mostly flows from domestic policy is a reasonable one. And Canada is not the world player that our neighbour to the south is.

btw, N. Beltov, I wasn't aiming at you at all in my last comment -- but you just keep raising such interesting issues.

To me, the idea that domestic policy should arise from considering the situation of the whole rest of humanity seems an even more reasonable one.

"World player" -- hmmmn. Well, I'm sure that Cheneyfeld would think that wee Canadians are not. Somehow, though, I do not see the future in terms of Cheneyfeld-thought, and I rather wish that my fellow Canadians didn't, especially the dippers among them.

Precisely because our electoral politics are so localized a thing, I should have thought that most young democrats in Canada would want to be thinking about the wider world too. Others elsewhere do.

We must have a thread on this problem sometime.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 27 June 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
To me, the idea that domestic policy should arise from considering the situation of the whole rest of humanity seems an even more reasonable one.

Reasonable, yes...but I think it's a more "enlightened" view that we've had on planet Earth ever since (a)the astronauts went up in space and could see the planet as a whole...as well as (b) the contemplation of global annihilation by the new weapons of the 20th century.

In 1988 John Turner, the then-leader of the Liberals, asserted in the television debate that giving up the economic levers of control would inexorably lead to the loss of political sovereignty. That's a simplified recapitulation of the primary thesis of marxian socialism. The idea that foreign policy, in the main, flows from domestic policy is a similar assertion in my books.

So I guess everybody is now a marxist and doesn't know it. Ha ha. Call me a Groucho-Leninist!


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 June 2004 04:43 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In 1988 John Turner, the then-leader of the Liberals, asserted in the television debate that giving up the economic levers of control would inexorably lead to the loss of political sovereignty. That's a simplified recapitulation of the primary thesis of marxian socialism. The idea that foreign policy, in the main, flows from domestic policy is a similar assertion in my books.

I disagree.

Much as I hate even to half-agree with John Turner, I half-agree that any proper Canadian leader is forced to that position while we live in the age of the USian empire.

For any serious socialist, that is not a healthy position on either domestic or international politics, but then it isn't a healthy position internationally that we are in.

To me, a certain kind of national politics is forced upon socialists everywhere because of the USians. At the same time, we should be remembering what is still possible internationally.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 27 June 2004 05:43 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I made the point that foreign policy comes mainly from domestic policy to suggest a reason (among others)for the relative disinterest in foreign policy in this election...that, basically, Canadians are more interested in the main course than in dessert. Perhaps I'm wrong...

Mind you, if we look at Cuba (topic that started this thead) then it is easy to see how Cuba's foreign policy reflects a radically different domestic policy. Cuba has bugger all in terms of economic relations with the USA and that shows in Cuba's foreign policy.

Could Canada continue to have close economic ties with the USA and have Cuban-style foreign policies? How independent could we be? And, more radically, what sort of economic "arrangements" would we need to have in Canada in order to have the kind of independent foreign policy that we desire?

That could be the way to pose a left-of-centre foreign policy debate for babble after the election.

Time to enjoy some sun!


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca