End of Castro Dynasty in Cuba as Raul Steps Down

Aww, muffin -- questioning dear leader gets your brown shirt and panties in a bunch??

So you're disputing oxfam reporting:

The British development organisation Oxfam recorded the arrest and torture of trade union leaders in 1987.[29] In 1984, seven individuals associated with the previous régime were accused of treason and executed after a summary trial. "

Well, yes, to the extent that I can, since I can't find anything outside of Wikipedia.

I'd absolutely love to rag on Oxfam as an imperialist rag, but the only thing I could find directly stating that was (literally, I wouldn't make this up) a message board for Autism, which was just citing to Wikipedia.

As far as the provisional government and, by the definitions of rich Western liberals, "summary" trials, I invite you to travel to the poorest countries in the world and try to advocate for the good of the people against the current of millions of dollars of foreign influence attempting to corrupt your designs. If you want to sacrifice your mission and the independence and prosperity of your countrymen and family to conform to the liberal standards of the much, much richer countries tries to disrupt you, you are a man of principle. A stupid man of principle, but nevertheless.
 
you have to favor an end to the fucking Castro regime

anything less and fuck you
 
Wow.

The Castros running Cuba is like grass being green. It's just been... THERE. This is an EPIC moment in history.
 
Well, yes, to the extent that I can, since I can't find anything outside of Wikipedia.

I'd absolutely love to rag on Oxfam as an imperialist rag, but the only thing I could find directly stating that was (literally, I wouldn't make this up) a message board for Autism, which was just citing to Wikipedia.

As far as the provisional government and, by the definitions of rich Western liberals, "summary" trials, I invite you to travel to the poorest countries in the world and try to advocate for the good of the people against the current of millions of dollars of foreign influence attempting to corrupt your designs. If you want to sacrifice your mission and the independence and prosperity of your countrymen and family to conform to the liberal standards of the much, much richer countries tries to disrupt you, you are a man of principle. A stupid man of principle, but nevertheless.

I would love to read anything you have disputing Oxfam's claim -- as well as the reviews OECD gave towards Tommy's human rights records and freedom house rankings:

upload_2018-4-18_22-23-31.png

Is that "grade A character slandering" on their part -- or do you acknowledge that he did pretty horrid things to achieve his goals, and that you view those with rose tinted glasses because your love of him -- which as a lawyer yourself, is pretty disgusting.
 
I would love to read anything you have disputing Oxfam's claim -- as well as the reviews OECD gave towards Tommy's human rights records and freedom house rankings

You haven't given me anything to dispute. I have not denied political suppression by the Sankara government, so the latter mentions are irrelevant: I just pointed out that you relied on a Wikipedia page which contained claims that I cannot verify.

I'd love for you to prove to me that you're not in a sexual relationship with your father. See how difficult that might be?


Is that "grade A character slandering" on their part -- or do you acknowledge that he did pretty horrid things to achieve his goals

Yes, it is, since you're saying things that you have yet to prove. That is pretty definitive of slander.

As far as "horrid things" re revolutionary criminal process, I would say that Sankara's wrongs pale greatly in comparison to those committed by rich countries such as my own which were not demanded by economic or political duress.

and that you view those with rose tinted glasses because your love of him -- which as a lawyer yourself, is pretty disgusting.

LOL, remember when you openly said you don't care about people who are born poor, with disease, or under dire living conditions? That widespread poverty and suffering that is readily addressable is just the "break of life"?

Go fuck yourself. You try to pass off intellectual and moral laziness as legitimate political philosophy.
 
Yes. I'm always hesitant to "attribute" huge developments like that to individuals specifically, as that is very much contrary to my philosophy and the philosophy of Sankara himself. However, his enthusiasm, commitment, and ability to connect with people was undoubtedly very beneficial to his cause and to greasing the wheels of his revolution. Would it have nevertheless achieved the same without him? Who knows.

But, to cover all bases and touch on all spurious variables, pseudo-nationalist rhetoric always has a mobilizing effect, as does the stimulation of female labor and female political participation, which was perhaps his most trailblazing policy in the region.

Now, some people may look at Mr. Sankara's work and think "hey, he just killed and tortured his political opponents." If true, that would definitely make it easier to push through his desired reforms. Those same Sankara critics probably have similar criticisms of Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Guevara, etc. They see this whole "kill your opponents for the greater good" refrain as sort of, like, evil or wrong. Are those people wrong? Or is killing/torturing people for the greater good a necessary evil?
 
You haven't given me anything to dispute. I have not denied political suppression by the Sankara government, so the latter mentions are irrelevant: I just pointed out that you relied on a Wikipedia page which contained claims that I cannot verify.

You said there was no evidence of torture, and that you never heard any accusation of union supression -- i provided a source that uses legitimate sources as a counter and you can't dispute them, so you address them as slanderous -- amnesty international is a slanderous organization?


Yes, it is, since you're saying things that you have yet to prove. That is pretty definitive of slander.
I am saying things that i read on a reputable source -- thats slanderous? 3 different organizations are stating the human rights violations -- their sources are listed, feel free to look into it -- he is a personal hero of yours, that should drive you to dispute their claims and show me whats what.

As far as "horrid things" re revolutionary criminal process, I would say that Sankara's wrongs pale greatly in comparison to those committed by rich countries such as my own which were not demanded by economic or political duress.

right, you're ok with violations as long as they meet your personal agenda. Everyone knows this.


LOL, remember when you openly said you don't care about people who are born poor, with disease, or under dire living conditions? That widespread poverty and suffering that is readily addressable is just the "break of life"?

Go fuck yourself. You try to pass off intellectual and moral laziness as legitimate political philosophy.

Im honest, you're a phony. I never once ever proclaimed to be of moral superiority and that my views can be seen as selfish and deplorable -- i just dont give a shit. Im totally cool with Tommy's methods to get the job done, as i am with imperialist methods to get their agenda met. You're the one who is getting his panties knotted because someone pointed out the negatives to your hero -- which you conceded to with "would say that Sankara's wrongs pale greatly in comparison to those committed by rich countries such as my own which were not demanded by economic or political duress"

Don't get all blue because someone pointed out the negatives and your wittle fweeeling got hurt.
 
You said there was no evidence of torture, and that you never heard any accusation of union supression -- i provided a source that uses legitimate sources as a counter and you can't dispute them, so you address them as slanderous -- amnesty international is a slanderous organization?

You didn't provide any sources that I could vet, you fucking moron. Both of your claims that I rejected traced to a single line that you read on Wikipedia, which I cannot verify. Like I said, I'm more than happy to put my hooks into Oxfam, but they somehow failed to make public any such findings at all. So you're asking me to rely on a Wikipedia sentence just because it says it cites to Oxfam.


I am saying things that i read on a reputable source -- thats slanderous?

But you didn't. You read it on Wikipedia and didn't care that the source cited was irretrievable. You're relying on someone else's unverified reliance on a source and then saying "prove me wrong."

That's incoherent.



Im honest, you're a phony. I never once ever proclaimed to be of moral superiority and that my views can be seen as selfish and deplorable -- i just dont give a shit. Im totally cool with Tommy's methods to get the job done, as i am with imperialist methods to get their agenda met. You're the one who is getting his panties knotted because someone pointed out the negatives to your hero -- which you conceded to with "would say that Sankara's wrongs pale greatly in comparison to those committed by rich countries such as my own which were not demanded by economic or political duress"

Don't get all blue because someone pointed out the negatives and your wittle fweeeling got hurt.

By including that you believe it's "pretty disgusting" that I admire Sankara, you were implying that I should give a shit about your normative opinions on morality. Which I don't, due to your moral failings that I cited.
 
  • "Communism is the very definition of failure."
  • "Communism is a temporary setback on the road to freedom."
-Liberty Prime

Lol, if you believe in communism and socialism you are a failure.
 
You didn't provide any sources that I could vet, you fucking moron. Both of your claims that I rejected traced to a single line that you read on Wikipedia, which I cannot verify. Like I said, I'm more than happy to put my hooks into Oxfam, but they somehow failed to make public any such findings at all. So you're asking me to rely on a Wikipedia sentence just because it says it cites to Oxfam.




But you didn't. You read it on Wikipedia and didn't care that the source cited was irretrievable. You're relying on someone else's unverified reliance on a source and then saying "prove me wrong."

That's incoherent.

But you authoritatively stated my claims (that i got from wikipedia) were slanderous and false -- and its multiple sources:

  1. Amnesty International, Burkina Faso: Political Imprisonment and the Use of Torture from 1983 to 1988 (London: Amnesty International, 1988).
  2. Jump up^ R. Sharp, Burkina Faso: New Life for the Sahel? A Report for Oxfam (Oxford: Oxfam, 1987), p. 13
  3. Jump up^ R. Otayek, 'The Revolutionary Process in Burkina Faso: Breaks and Continuities,' in J. Markakis & M. Waller, eds., Military Marxist Régimes in Africa (London: Frank Cass, 1986), p. 95.
  4. Jump up^ C. Morrisson & J.-P. Azam, Conflict and Growth in Africa, vol. I: The Sahel (Paris: OECD, 1999), p. 70.
  5. Jump up^ "Country ratings and status 1973–2014" (XLS). Freedom in the World. Freedom House. 2014. Retrieved 11 February 2014.

You have access to a library, right? Disprove the claims i quoted earlier -- hes a personal hero of yours, im sure you would love to set the most viewed resource site on the web, record straight no? I mean its not like i pulled the claims out of thin air, they are all there for everyone to see.




By including that you believe it's "pretty disgusting" that I admire Sankara, you were implying that I should give a shit about your normative opinions on morality. Which I don't, due to your moral failings that I cited.

Thats fair, i feel the same anytime you bring up economics or inequalities

But, i didn't say its pretty disgusting that you support Sankara, i said its disgusting that you got so sensitive and more triggered than the National Womens Org on nov 9 2016 - when i brought up the negatives about him. I mean, grade A slanderous for bringing up what the most popular general reference site on the web has to say about your hero.

Not a good look, man.
 
But you authoritatively stated my claims (that i got from wikipedia) were slanderous and false -- and its multiple sources:

  1. Amnesty International, Burkina Faso: Political Imprisonment and the Use of Torture from 1983 to 1988 (London: Amnesty International, 1988).
  2. Jump up^ R. Sharp, Burkina Faso: New Life for the Sahel? A Report for Oxfam (Oxford: Oxfam, 1987),
Only these two are cited in support of the disputed claim. The others are just you padding your post

You have access to a library, right? Disprove the claims i quoted earlier -- hes a personal hero of yours, im sure you would love to set the most viewed resource site on the web, record straight no? I mean its not like i pulled the claims out of thin air, they are all there for everyone to see.






Thats fair, i feel the same anytime you bring up economics or inequalities

But, i didn't say its pretty disgusting that you support Sankara, i said its disgusting that you got so sensitive and more triggered than the National Womens Org on nov 9 2016 - when i brought up the negatives about him. I mean, grade A slanderous for bringing up what the most popular general reference site on the web has to say about your hero.

Not a good look, man.

Amnesty's public 1989 report cites only impermissibly long prison terms before trial (we literally have there in the US right now) and "some reports" of torture between the beginning of Sankara's reign to the beginning of Compaore's reign, the latter of which we know had at least some torture at the outset in weeding out Sankara loyalists.

If I can track down that specific 1988 Amnesty report, I'll let you know.
 
Only these two are cited in support of the disputed claim. The others are just you padding your post



Amnesty's public 1989 report cites only impermissibly long prison terms before trial (we literally have there in the US right now) and "some reports" of torture between the beginning of Sankara's reign to the beginning of Compaore's reign, the latter of which we know had at least some torture at the outset in weeding out Sankara loyalists.

If I can track down that specific 1988 Amnesty report, I'll let you know.

My claims surround: torture, farce trails and union suppression -- all which ordinarily you would find reprehensible. Those five sources touch on those claims, not all focusing on all of them.
 
I have a hard time telling whether you're a troll or not, but yeah, this about describes the prospects of the region.



At this point, Venezuela has three hopes:
(1) China comes to their aid, which = shitty deal in the long-run
(2) They elect a right-winger who allies with US/oligarchic regional interests, which = REALLY shitty deal in long-run
(3) Maduro survives Trump's term, the US elects Bernie Sanders, and then the sanctions are revoked upon negotiation of some liberalization of the Maduro government, which = good for everyone but US corporations and Latin American oligarchs.

Im both and my country has been victim of US funded right wing terror squads.
 
I have a hard time telling whether you're a troll or not, but yeah, this about describes the prospects of the region.



At this point, Venezuela has three hopes:
(1) China comes to their aid, which = shitty deal in the long-run
(2) They elect a right-winger who allies with US/oligarchic regional interests, which = REALLY shitty deal in long-run
(3) Maduro survives Trump's term, the US elects Bernie Sanders, and then the sanctions are revoked upon negotiation of some liberalization of the Maduro government, which = good for everyone but US corporations and Latin American oligarchs.

Which sanctions? the US is still the most important trade partner of Venezuela considering China only collects interests and the rest of his "friends" dont give a fuck, the US is the only source of hard cash at the point.
 
See above. If this improves US relations, it will be purely because the US hasn't had rational opposition to the country in years and was just using the Castros as a bogeyman. I do not expect any meaningful economic reforms to what is already one of the most stable Latin American countries, and happiest Caribbean island.

Stability brought by an incredibly oppressive political suppression.

You seem to think that Latin Americans seem to be unable of governance and thus require brutal suppression.
 
Which sanctions? the US is still the most important trade partner of Venezuela considering China only collects interests and the rest of his "friends" dont give a fuck, the US is the only source of hard cash at the point.

At the end of August, the Trump administration imposed harsh sanctions on Venezuela that prevent the country from borrowing or selling assets in the US financial system. The new embargo will exacerbate shortages of food, medicine, and other essential goods, while severely limiting the policy options available to pull the country out of a deep depression.

Prior to these sanctions, it was possible for the Venezuelan government to launch an economic-recovery program that could have restarted economic growth. Unlike most countries suffering from a balance-of-payments crisis, Venezuela would not necessarily have to go through a period of “structural adjustment,” as it used to be called before IMF programs gave this term a bad reputation. In this kind of adjustment, living standards typically fall, at least temporarily, because the country has to cut imports in order to balance its external accounts. Venezuela has already cut imports by about 75 percent since 2012. This is an astounding number; Greece, for comparison, has reduced imports by about 31 percent after suffering through a depression for most of the past seven years, which is twice as long as Venezuela’s current crisis.

This means that Venezuela’s economy could begin to recover fairly quickly in response to the appropriate reforms, without having to endure further declines in output or employment. Or at least that was true until Trump’s August 25 executive order.

The adjustment that Venezuela needs is primarily of relative prices, most importantly its exchange rate. We can see this by looking at what has happened over the past five years. In October of 2012, inflation was running at an 18 percent annual rate, and the black-market price of $1 was 13 BF (the domestic currency). Over the past year, inflation has been more than 600 percent, and $1 costs more than 17,000 BF.

These two trends reinforce each other in an “inflation-depreciation” spiral. As inflation increases, more people want to hold dollars; as they buy dollars, the black-market price of the dollar rises. This increases the cost of imports, which drives up inflation, and the cycle continues.

If we look at the data from the past five years, this process has been more or less constant. Today the government still gives away more than 90 percent of its dollars at a rate of 10 BF per dollar. This is supposed to be used for the import of food, medicine, and other essential items. But you can imagine the incentives for corruption when a dollar that costs 10 BF can be sold for more than a thousand times that on the black market.

Of course, the collapse of oil prices made everything much more difficult for Venezuela, since oil accounted for 95 percent of its exports and the majority of government revenue. Yet Venezuela went into recession in 2014, when oil was still more than $100 a barrel. Policy failures, not an oil shock, precipitated the country’s financial decline. But the response to the oil-price collapse, especially maintaining the economically deadly exchange-rate system, ensured prolonged catastrophe.

The only way out of this mess is to let the currency float and allow it to reach an equilibrium. When it has hit bottom, we would expect that much of the savings that Venezuelans have in dollars, mostly abroad, would come back, because everything is cheap in dollar terms and they would know that the exchange rate has stabilized. This is what happened in Argentina after it floated its currency, resulting in a large devaluation, at the beginning of 2002. In Venezuela’s case, stabilizing the currency would put an end to the inflation-depreciation spiral, and eliminate the black market for the dollar altogether.

This exchange rate, however, is not the only adjustment in relative prices that the economy would need. There are many dysfunctional price controls that have not worked and should be removed. By 2015, for example, inflation was 180 percent annually, but food prices, which were subject to price controls, greatly surpassed that. And billions of dollars of subsidized food were going over the border to Colombia.

The government’s subsidies to domestic energy, including electricity and gasoline, would also have to be reduced over time. Right now these handouts are about as big a share of the economy as total income tax collection is in the United States. This money could be used to directly subsidize food for consumers.

But with Trump’s executive order, even if Venezuela were to stabilize the exchange rate and return to growth, it would be cut off from borrowing, investment, and proprietary sources of income such as dividend payments from Venezuela-owned but US-based Citgo Petroleum. This makes a sustained recovery nearly impossible without outside help—or a new government that is approved by the Trump administration.

The sanctions also push the country toward default, which would cause a new set of severe financial problems, including the potential seizure of Venezuela’s international oil assets and a drastic drop of the price of the country’s oil.

The sanctions also prevent recovery by making debt restructuring impossible. Debt restructuring would give Venezuela some breathing room, as it would involve a voluntary agreement with creditors to postpone current payments in exchange for new bonds. But the Trump executive order prohibits US financial institutions and individuals from participating in these bond issues.

gold held in Central Bank reserves could be quickly collateralized for a loan; in past years, the US Treasury department used its clout to make sure that banks who wanted to finance a swap, such as JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, did not do so.

Venezuela was already mostly prevented from accessing international bond markets before Trump’s executive order, but this was not irreversible. If the Venezuelan government made some reforms and the economy began to recover, they could begin to access financial markets again. And, as recently as last year, a restructuring of the debt was nearly concluded that would have deferred billions of dollars of debt payments and opened the way to new borrowing. Now Venezuela is blocked from international financial markets as long as Trump or his successor wants it to be.

What can be done? Now that the Trump administration has made an open and firm commitment to regime change through the destruction of an already debilitated Venezuelan economy, it seems clear that Venezuela will have to seek outside help in order to survive. So far, no governments other than Trump’s have expressed support for these sanctions, and, with the largest economy in the world, China is best placed to come to Venezuela’s aid.

China issued a strong statement against Trump’s latest prohibitions. China supported the latest UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea in August, which were led by the US government. But, as does most of the rest of the world, China likely understands that the sanctions against Venezuela are a transparent attempt to overthrow a sovereign government. After all, Washington has been trying to oust the Venezuelan government for more than 15 years, including supporting the 2002 military coup that briefly toppled Hugo Chávez and providing hundreds of millions of dollars to opposition groups since then.

China has over $3 trillion in reserves and has loaned tens of billions of dollars to Venezuela—most of which has been repaid with the outstanding amount to be reimbursed in oil shipments. There is no way to know what Beijing would be willing to do to help, but the Venezuelan government should approach them with an economic plan that could provide some assurances that their money would not be wasted. This proposition should include the basic reforms necessary to stabilize the exchange rate and inflation. The Chinese are famously reluctant to tell a sovereign government what their economic policies should be, and they won’t put such conditions on any loans or investment—unlike the US government or the US-dominated IMF and World Bank. But China may be more likely to assist Venezuela if it is presented with a sensible recovery plan. It would also be smart for Venezuela to approach the Chinese Communist Party, since it influences government decisions and has sometimes shown more solidarity with other leftist parties and governments.

Countering Trump’s illegal (under US as well as international law) sanctions would be beneficial for all Venezuelans. In terms of immediate effects, any aid that relieved shortages of food and medicines would be important. But Chinese loans and aid could also help lead to a negotiated solution. Although neither the Venezuelan opposition nor the government made substantial concessions during talks last fall, there is little incentive for the opposition to negotiate so long as it can count on continued economic deterioration. A recovering economy would restore that incentive for the opposition.

China has its own national interests in not wanting all of South America to be dominated by the US government again—as it was in the last century—let alone an administration that is headed by an increasingly aggressive, volatile, and disturbed president. But in this case its interests coincide with the general interest of the world, in which national sovereignty is an important, hard-won right. And as Trump looks around the world for possible military action to save his doomed presidency, the American people also have an interest in anything that can help resolve a conflict that he has already announced as a possible military target.

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...omic-recovery-in-venezuela-nearly-impossible/
 

So prohibiting a country from getting into more odious debt is what caused the Venezuelan crisis?

These assets are unpayable and predatory US lenders are aiming at seizing the Venezuelan assets in the US.

The only reason Venezuelans suffer is because Maduro wants to achieve complete control over the financial system in an effort to destroy any possible resistance against his regime.
 
Stability brought by an incredibly oppressive political suppression.

Stability brought by refusing economic colonization and political subversion by foreign interests, to which political suppression is incidental. I think the disparate impacts of the 08 financial crisis in the Caribbean and Central America was a nice insight into that. Political suppression in itself doesn't build a functional state or economy.

You seem to think that Latin Americans seem to be unable of governance and thus require brutal suppression.

You seem to draw fantastical conclusions.

EDIT: Also, do you disagree that Central and South America has been ravaged by US funding of political subversion toward its economic and political interests? El Salvador doesn't seem to be doing real well right now, for instance.
 
Back
Top