myata

I have an itch in my left buttock - is it scientifically divine inspiration?

To B-C: I don't think mixing up private businesses (Inco, Falconridge) with state policies is going to help us clarify this matter. I've little doubt that Canada had its own foreign policy faults but none on the scale of arbitrarily prohibiting all business with a country which did it no harm. If you know otherwise, please share. To jbg: OK, you can't come up with better examples than Chile and Costa Rica. The first enjoyed massive US aid following CIA sponsored coup d'etat. The other does enjoy touristic influx but I'm not sure how it translates into welfare of the average population. My friends who visited the country recently reported seeing extreme poverty (people living in cardboard boxes) which I haven't noticed in Cuba. If you have any credible statistics, please share. That, in your own admission, brings Cuba to the top of performing countries in the region. I'd say, it's not too bad for half a century of total embargo.

What a wonderful leap of logic! Care to share how did you divine that?

I hold all countries to the same standard. However, which particular episode do you have in mind? Afganistan? Personally, I was in doubt from the start that the mission has much chance of success, but it's a different situation. Going to Afganistan was a collective decision, authorised by the UN. American embargo of Cuba is unilateral, condemned by the UN multiple times. BTW, I'm really curious to know what was (is) the formal cause for the embargo in the first place?

The problem is american hypocrisy which preaches freedom, free enterprise, whatever, while never failing to drop a few crumbs to any brutal dictator which happens to do their liking, or flex muscles against harmless even democratic states that don't. But people aren't stupid, and at this point of time, most of this "liberty/freedom" professing falls on deaf ears (outside of land of free that is). Walk the walk, everybody knows how you do the talk.

Ah! People seeking the right to return to their own homes from which they were expelled by force in a coup d'etat! Such an outrage, really!

The fact that the regime survived withdrawal of its most import lifeline of support in the 90s, tells us that perhaps it enjoys more popular support than US propaganda would want us to believe. It is being eroded slowly not by the american "liberty" hoopla but rather by the very low level of individual income, which state run economy is only able to provide. It may lead to the problems for the regime in the future, if it does not come up with some kind of working economic liberalization strategy. But I doubt that Cuba would rush to swap their socialist state for the corrupt and extremely polarized social systems of its neighbours which bring nothing but extreme poverty to the majority of population.

No it's more simple than that. With all the oppression, they're doing better than most of the South America, majority of population wise. That is with all the money, help, assistance and "advice" invested by the US over the decades. I'm sure Cuban people can and will do with the regime in the appropriate manner, but on their own terms. US simply don't have the standing to tell them what to do. Its hands are too dirty for that. (I could also go on and draw your attention to the multiple instances of brutal dictatorships in Latin America, which also happened to be America's friends because they pledged to fight communism. Just to question, whether it's really liberty and democracy US is looking to promote? Or, perhaps, absolute submission to their interests, by another name?)

Would that mean that some brains are wired differently than others? (quelle nouvelle!) Also, have you considered evolution of "moral" e.g. even through last century? Evolution works over much longer timescales. I agree with Liam, morals are no more than a convention imposed by the society on the individuals with an aim to achieve cohesion and order. And certainly, bad (i.e counter productive, overly restrictive or plain stupid) morals would probably make the society less competitive among its peers.

OK, Liam, carrot for what exactly? What has US to show for about 100 years of free hand in the region and all the (cheap) liberty talk? Mexico? Guatemala? Bolivia? What is there for the people of Cuba in the capitalist paradize other then serving foreigners and the rich elite and seeing their land and resources sold out for pennies? I cannot pretend being an expert on Cuba, but we did travel around a bit, to several villages, a city, on foot as well as in the car. Yes their houses look run down and in disrepair. But they do have houses. Yes cars are of 2-5 generations back. But buses are running (and people can take them). Yes their salaries are very low (~ 15 Can, general worker), but they do have jobs. And the kids generally look taken care of. Not eating garbage from the dumps. How can you say they want to exchange what they have for the life of perpetual poverty for the huge majority of population, like in the rest of South America? I can't, in all honesty. Maybe sticking in with their "prison state" (or whatever you want to call it) is their best bet, here and in this time? In any case, whether or not communism is good for Cuba is not the question here. At issue is that self righteous urge of America to teach other people what they should do (and force them into doing it if there's a chance). That is wrong and counter productive for the US itself in the long run. As we begin to see right now, e.g. in the recent credibility rating where it's tied down right there with its arch enemy, Iran.

You mean, forcing them to change at the point of starvation? We aren't talking aid - it's about trade and free enterprise, of which the US professes at every corner and opportunity. Whether it was a majority (which I agree I cannot prove with my less than complete knowledge of the region's history) is beyond the point - the bottom line is that the choice was made by the people and it's up to them to change it in their own time and on their own terms. US has no business going around telling people how they should go about their lives - maybe way in the future when they have cleaned their own act and most importantly, are asked for advice. And finally, if you can recall, bayonnettes were in the game too at one point of time or another (Bay of Pigs; clandestine operations; etc). It's just that they proved less efficient and too embarassing, I guess.

Wouldn't / Shouldn't the "safe third country" agreement solve this problem? I mean, if a country is a member of the EU, it's got to be "safe"? Everybody who tries to claim being a refugee arriving from the EU should be detained at the airport and sent back on the next flight.

I thought business was a voluntary contract between two parties? If someone desired to trade with Cuba (which is done by many others from Europe, Canada, Latin America, etc), why should the state intervene to prevent them from it? Is it, like, the last cry of democracy and liberty, etc, that's so ahead of its times that everybody else fails to understand?

Is it really so hard to understand, Liam? The question is not whether or not Communism is a good philosophy or not. Rather, why should US make it their business to teach others what to do, given their own not so stellar moral record in the matters? How many people (outside of US) do you think are there to take all those cermons on peace, democracy and liberty seriously? After Iraq, Chile and with Guantanamo in their backyard.

If it's not the foreign corporations, then why US should make it their business to take care of individual citizins who did not accept the results of revolution? At some point, the majority of Cuba has made choice to become communist (or socialitst, whatever). It may very well have been a wrong choice which they would correct in time. But how and why it's up to the US to tell them what to do? Sponsor terrorist activities and a direct invasion? First of all, let's be frank and not hide under the broad and vague concept of the "West". What you're saying is, "you have to accept our rules to deal with us, or else". That's a profoundly wrong approach that US never fails to repeat in their foreign policies. Policies that may (and have) included terrorist like activities, support of brutal dictatorial regimes, overthrowing legitimate governments and so on. The same one which consistenly results blowbacks costing human lives. Including american lives. Will you say that one shouldn't lose much sleep over it either?

You must be right. Sorry, can't seem to change the topic now. To Liam: Sure, the issue of compensation is legitimate. I'm not in on the history of it, but surely rightful owners should be compensated for their loss - fairly. The question is, what should be considered as fair and how it's to be measured? Much of that accumulated wealth was under the corrupt marionette governments which finally pissed off its own population into a revolution. Or internationals which obtained resources for peanuts through corrupt governments or direct pressure. Then, there's an issue of US (CIA) sponsored and supported sabotage - including explosions and multiple civilian casualties. Something we now call - er, forgot the word ? and declared a global war on. Shouldn't it be somehow / anyhow dealt with too? Finally, I don't think it's up to the US to dictate other people what they shoud (and shouldn't) do in their own countries. Even if with best intentions - Iraq shows how quickly they may turn sour.

Just came back from a vacation in Cuba, had a blast of a time. No I won't idealize the country's system - the poverty and the lack of individual freedom are quite apparent everywhere if you care to look. Yet, it's not a legal cause for the longest economic blockade in the recent history. The US has no case against Cuba, other than that it did not and does not do their liking. Yet it was involved directly, and in proxy, in the acts of sabotage of the same kind as what it likes to call another name (the t - word) when it's done by someone else against their interests. I was already quite sceptical about the whole "war on terror" affair, and having heard (and read) about US's involvment in Cuba, will from now on discard it from my attention as plain propaganda. Canada should have no part in it whatsoever and I'll vote for the first party that will officially drop the dumb thing. Also, and until the blockade is withdrawn, I won't take any vacation in the US and will avoid buying their goods if another choice is available.

Agreed (on this rare occcasion). One does not have to scoure the world to find people in real distress who need instant help. Wasting resources on cheeters who go around every nook and cranny to get in is counter productive. Those who like to cry loud about any case of deportation must face their hypocrisy: for every case that goes around the levels of bureacracy on endless appeals and reconsiderations, there would be dozens of people in desperate condition whose cases are delayed because the resources are tied up in the slow process.

I'm not sure why this thread drifted into a discussion of capital punishment. No matter its benefits (or otherwise), this country can no more solve the problem of the world that supports it, than can it deal with the universal hunger. Sure we should not send these people to certain death, but I'm strongly against inviting them here with open arms either. If we really want to help people in distress (to the extent of possible), a plane to Darfur, Thailand, any other "hot spot" can bring in hundreds of people who'd otherwise have slim very chance of surviving. Not wasting precious resources of thugs who committed all kind of crimes in their countries, then went around abusing the system courtesy of Canada's and the people they robbed in their home countries. Think of it: a regular genuine refugee simply wouldn't have the money or documents to buy a plain ticket to get here. Or pay thousands to immigration lawyers.

Was / will his citizenship be stripped? (Not to ask how he's gotten it, with a murder conviction - but from the stories I hear from time to time, any miracles are possible in this country's immigration wonderland, so a big long sigh here). If anyone was really interested in immigration system that would give genuine refugees a chance to get out of the hell, we would have negotiated deportation agreements with several safe third world countries, Canada paying for each individual deported. Each claimant would get a hearing, and, possibly, and if warranted, one review by a panel, then if it's denied, get on the plane to the "safe haven" next day. That may well be the money best spent by this country - not to mention that it would go to help many more real refugees as opposed to a few abusers who go round in circles trying (often, successfully) to dope the system.

Better idea. Invest the money we would blow on credits (international or provincial) in the technology and infrastructure to reduce our own emissions. How would that affect massive emitters like oil companies or coal power plants, anytime soon (not next generations which may have more urgent tasks of rebuilding their habitations e.g. under the ocean? Bother to clarify why? I thought pretty much everybody is in consensus that the only way to achieve any actual reductions is to make the economy (i.e. business and consumers) aware of the cost of GHG. If the aim is to feel good, I agree, money should be spent on "research" and "awareness programs".

Well, doesn't it prove that this effort should be coordinated on the international level? One cannot impose a GHG cost tax on the main GHG producers (fuel and manufacturing) without hurting their international competitiveness (against countries which do not impose such taxes on their producers). If tax is imposed on domestic consumption only, the producers would turn more and more toward export, nullifying the reductions effect. Looks like we're either stuck doing nothing, or in the need of an international agreement that would impose similar accross the board rules on all players. Which, in the essense, was the intent of Kyoto I. How about this idea instead: fully commit to Kyoto I; cut as much as possible before 2012; buy the rest in credits from whoever is willing to sell; and pass the cost on to the provinces on per capita basis. The provinces will then recover it (the cost) from the individuals and businesses as they see fit and fair.

On CBC this morning, there was a long decumentary about Iraqi refugees in Syria. Apparently over 1 mln of them fled to Syria only from the violence and instability at home. According to the documentary, Syria has been quite generous to the refugees so far, but it's causing tensions with the local population as people compete for the same resources and jobs. Now, shouldn't those who created the problem also pay for the results, in full? I think it would be proper (and moral), if the countries of the US led coalition - namely, US itself, UK, Italy, Netherlands, and a bunch of the "new Europe" states had to take full care (financial and otherwise) of these people, if they cannot guarantee their security at home, as they are obliged as occupying forces by the Geneva convention? Maybe allow unhindered immigration for the refugees if they so desire?

Should I point out the obvious, that Ignatieff making a particular comment doesn't mean his opionion is that of the party, nor that it's shared by all party members. Your choice of the title for this topic is misguided.

No, that was a very legitimate question, so, again, why should Federal govt collect twice as much taxes as my provincial one, if I barely ever get any service from them? Sure provinces can raise taxes, but the real question is why feds should keep theirs and roll in billions in annual surpluses. Here's a suggestion: every time Feds come up with a surplus (OK, consecutive surplus, to account for possible fluctuations), they pass a number of tax points to the provinces (in proportion to the size of the surplus, exact formula can be worked out). The opposite can happen too, but only by consensus of all provinces. I just don't see how we can continue to shell in to the fed government which does not know where to put these money, while provinces are struggling to support essential services.