How similar is North Korea to pre-invasion Iraq?

[iolo]

No.

When Castro first took power he came to the US. He wanted friendship and trade.

The US told him he could be friends if US corporations could continue to exploit the people of Cuba.

Castro refused.

The illegal embargo began.

What Castro wanted was to steal and yet remain friends.

What President Castro wanted was what most people want - to control their own countries safe from foreign meddling.

 

[J842P]

No.

When Castro first took power he came to the US. He wanted friendship and trade.

The US told him he could be friends if US corporations could continue to exploit the people of Cuba.

Castro refused.

The illegal embargo began.

What Castro wanted was to steal and yet remain friends.

If a US corporation does business with some authoritarian dictator, and that dictator is ousted by revolution, and the new government decides that the previous government's agreements are invalid, then that is not "stealing." There is no reason why the American Government should be using military force and changing our foreign policy to protect large corporations from their bad decisions.

The whole thing is about as asinine as if some US Corp did business with the Mafia, and when the Mafia is arrested, the Sicilian government takes their assets, some of which they had sold some right to said US Corp, the government says to the US Corp: "Sorry, this is not a valid agreement", and then the US invades Sicily on behalf of US Corp.

In any event, none of that has *anything at all to do with the issue in Cuba*, which was all about countering anything that could be considered "pro-socialist" because of the insanity of the Cold War.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What Castro wanted was to steal and yet remain friends.

When has the US ever been bothered by foreign leaders who want to steal?

When they want to steal the property of Americans.

- - - Updated - - -

What Castro wanted was to steal and yet remain friends.

What President Castro wanted was what most people want - to control their own countries safe from foreign meddling.

Nationalization is almost always theft. It was in this case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What Castro wanted was to steal and yet remain friends.

If a US corporation does business with some authoritarian dictator, and that dictator is ousted by revolution, and the new government decides that the previous government's agreements are invalid, then that is not "stealing." There is no reason why the American Government should be using military force and changing our foreign policy to protect large corporations from their bad decisions.

This isn't a matter of agreements (although it is theft if they are changed without due compensation), but rather nationalization.

The whole thing is about as asinine as if some US Corp did business with the Mafia, and when the Mafia is arrested, the Sicilian government takes their assets, some of which they had sold some right to said US Corp, the government says to the US Corp: "Sorry, this is not a valid agreement", and then the US invades Sicily on behalf of US Corp.

In any event, none of that has *anything at all to do with the issue in Cuba*, which was all about countering anything that could be considered "pro-socialist" because of the insanity of the Cold War.

So, because you don't like companies you don't care if they are stolen from?

 

[funinspace]

If a US corporation does business with some authoritarian dictator, and that dictator is ousted by revolution, and the new government decides that the previous government's agreements are invalid, then that is not "stealing." There is no reason why the American Government should be using military force and changing our foreign policy to protect large corporations from their bad decisions.

This isn't a matter of agreements (although it is theft if they are changed without due compensation), but rather nationalization.

The whole thing is about as asinine as if some US Corp did business with the Mafia, and when the Mafia is arrested, the Sicilian government takes their assets, some of which they had sold some right to said US Corp, the government says to the US Corp: "Sorry, this is not a valid agreement", and then the US invades Sicily on behalf of US Corp.

In any event, none of that has *anything at all to do with the issue in Cuba*, which was all about countering anything that could be considered "pro-socialist" because of the insanity of the Cold War.

So, because you don't like companies you don't care if they are stolen from?

I'd say it has much more to do with the reality that the US jumped into the Cuban almost won independence from Spain, and then radically interfered with Cuban independence for the next half century. The 1901 Platt Amendment was clearly an imposition of US will upon Cuba in return for partial independence, followed by many US military interventions. Businesses did deals in Cuba with the full knowledge that we were making an imperial arrangement upon Cuba. The 'theft' was by the US government long before the revolution/nationalizations. I'm sure if the US government had returned the illegitimate Gitmo and paid reparations (less compensation to US companies) to Cuba for our abuse, the poor pitiful companies could have been compensated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment

It read:

I.-That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgement in or control over any portion of said island.

II. That said government shall not assume or contract any public debt, to pay the interest upon which, and to make reasonable sinking fund provision for the ultimate discharge of which, the ordinary revenues of the island, after defraying the current expenses of government shall be inadequate.

III. That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba.

IV. That all Acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected.

V. That the government of Cuba will execute, and as far as necessary extend, the plans already devised or other plans to be mutually agreed upon, for the sanitation of the cities of the island, to the end that a recurrence of epidemic and infectious diseases may be prevented, thereby assuring protection to the people and commerce of Cuba, as well as to the commerce of the southern ports of the United States and the people residing therein.

VI. That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty.

VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.

VIII. That by way of further assurance the government of Cuba will embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States.

 

[ZiprHead]

North Korea just fired a missile.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/28/north-korea-test-fires-ballistic-missile-report.html

Appears to be another failure.

 

[blastula]

"There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely,"

Of course there is, because you are both amoral sociopaths.

 

[bilby]

North Korea just fired a missile.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/28/north-korea-test-fires-ballistic-missile-report.html

Appears to be another failure ultra short range device.

FTFY.

 

[ZiprHead]

North Korea just fired a missile.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/28/north-korea-test-fires-ballistic-missile-report.html

Appears to be another failure ultra short range device.

FTFY.

My wife asked me "How do we know if it was only supposed to go 25 miles?".

 

[Tristan Scott]

Iraq under Sadam Hussein was a nation under the thumb of a dictator. So is North Korea today. Both seem(ed) to me to be content to keep to themselves, harming really only their own people. The invasion of Iraq and killing of Sadam arguably opened Iraq up and created a considerably worse problem for other nations in the area, and for terrorism against the west. Would an invasion and displacement of North Korea on Trump's order do the same there?

Ain't much awl in Korea.

 

[iolo]

When has the US ever been bothered by foreign leaders who want to steal?

When they want to steal the property of Americans.

- - - Updated - - -

What Castro wanted was to steal and yet remain friends.

What President Castro wanted was what most people want - to control their own countries safe from foreign meddling.

Nationalization is almost always theft. It was in this case.

Nationalisation can't be theft, since it merely takes workers property back from thieves. The question is who is doing the taking.

 

[BH]

If a business (it's owners) have not engaged in any crimes then I think you should give just compensation if the government nationalizes it. However, if the government can prove the owners and the business engaged in willful criminal activity then I have no problem with the government simply taking it away from the owners as punishment for their crimes.

Taking a gas station away from mom and pop in order to sell gas non-profit and at cost to operate levels without compensation in order to help the community would not be right in my opinion. If IBM had a factory in Israel and it came out IBM developed tools to help Germans process Jews during the Holcaust, did it for profit and was not coerced, and then tried to hide it, I'd have no problem with the Israelis taking it over (at least what was in their territorial jursidiction) and not giving IBM anything.

Take Cuba. When Castro came to power if an honest businessman had a business the government felt it should run and could for the betterment of everyone it is okay to take it if the man or woman was paid fairly for it. However, the if the owner and his business was crooked and did illegal stuff I have no problem with Castro taking it and giving the owner nothing. Not getting compensated it part of the punishment for committing the crime.

 

[funinspace]

Take Cuba. When Castro came to power if an honest businessman had ...

What kind of American "honest businessman" would get involved in a Caribbean nation rife with corruption and coupes, rampant American interference, and lacking a stable government for even a single decade since their partial independence in 1902? Castro didn't take over until 1959. To ignore the history of previous 6 decades seems pretty strange to me....

 

[untermensche]

Nationalisation can't be theft, since it merely takes workers property back from thieves. The question is who is doing the taking.

Yes.

Any equipment costs are paid for by the takings from workers or the taking of resources.

I say it is better to turn enterprises over to workers than to have the government take them over.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When they want to steal the property of Americans.

- - - Updated - - -

What Castro wanted was to steal and yet remain friends.

What President Castro wanted was what most people want - to control their own countries safe from foreign meddling.

Nationalization is almost always theft. It was in this case.

Nationalisation can't be theft, since it merely takes workers property back from thieves. The question is who is doing the taking.

Most of us do not agree with this position.

And note that this position is a big part of why most people hate communists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a business (it's owners) have not engaged in any crimes then I think you should give just compensation if the government nationalizes it. However, if the government can prove the owners and the business engaged in willful criminal activity then I have no problem with the government simply taking it away from the owners as punishment for their crimes.

Seizure as part of punishment is a very different issue than nationalization.

Take Cuba. When Castro came to power if an honest businessman had a business the government felt it should run and could for the betterment of everyone it is okay to take it if the man or woman was paid fairly for it. However, the if the owner and his business was crooked and did illegal stuff I have no problem with Castro taking it and giving the owner nothing. Not getting compensated it part of the punishment for committing the crime.

But we don't have evidence of those businessmen doing anything unduly out of line. All that's been claimed was the property tax assessments were too low--but you fix the assessments, you don't seize the businesses for something like that.

- - - Updated - - -

Take Cuba. When Castro came to power if an honest businessman had ...

What kind of American "honest businessman" would get involved in a Caribbean nation rife with corruption and coupes, rampant American interference, and lacking a stable government for even a single decade since their partial independence in 1902? Castro didn't take over until 1959. To ignore the history of previous 6 decades seems pretty strange to me....

Just because a place is corrupt is not a reason nobody honest would do business there.

Furthermore, I would not punish a business that was no more corrupt than the norm for the situation.

 

[iolo]

When they want to steal the property of Americans.

- - - Updated - - -

What Castro wanted was to steal and yet remain friends.

What President Castro wanted was what most people want - to control their own countries safe from foreign meddling.

Nationalization is almost always theft. It was in this case.

Nationalisation can't be theft, since it merely takes workers property back from thieves. The question is who is doing the taking.

Most of us do not agree with this position.

And note that this position is a big part of why most people hate communists.

Most of your people know bugger all about it, and confuse communism with Stalinist state capitalism, which is much the same as the monopoly sort as far as working people are concern. You are just posturing about matters of which you know nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Nationalisation can't be theft, since it merely takes workers property back from thieves. The question is who is doing the taking.

Yes.

Any equipment costs are paid for by the takings from workers or the taking of resources.

I say it is better to turn enterprises over to workers than to have the government take them over.

Wholly agree.

 

[iolo]

If a business (it's owners) have not engaged in any crimes then I think you should give just compensation if the government nationalizes it. However, if the government can prove the owners and the business engaged in willful criminal activity then I have no problem with the government simply taking it away from the owners as punishment for their crimes.

Taking a gas station away from mom and pop in order to sell gas non-profit and at cost to operate levels without compensation in order to help the community would not be right in my opinion. If IBM had a factory in Israel and it came out IBM developed tools to help Germans process Jews during the Holcaust, did it for profit and was not coerced, and then tried to hide it, I'd have no problem with the Israelis taking it over (at least what was in their territorial jursidiction) and not giving IBM anything.

.

If what we are talking about is workers' control, family businesses are hardly central to the argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of your people know bugger all about it, and confuse communism with Stalinist state capitalism, which is much the same as the monopoly sort as far as working people are concern. You are just posturing about matters of which you know nothing.

Disagreeing with your conclusion doesn't mean we don't know what we are talking about. Your fantasies of theft do not make a viable system.

 

[iolo]

Most of your people know bugger all about it, and confuse communism with Stalinist state capitalism, which is much the same as the monopoly sort as far as working people are concern. You are just posturing about matters of which you know nothing.

Disagreeing with your conclusion doesn't mean we don't know what we are talking about. Your fantasies of theft do not make a viable system.

What does then? Capitalism is a pure collapsible pile of shit, which produces slumps, colonialism, world wars, world overheating and the destruction of humanity. You may be for this total idiocy, being McCarthy-brainwashed, but educated people prefer democratic socialism, when they know what it is, which you manifestly don't.