A Conversation for The Cuban Missile Crisis

Fidel and Fulgencio

Post 1

Researcher 170889

As it had many other convenient, but oppressive rulers, the USA supported Batista in power for many years. Batista was an oppressive and fairly cruel leader, and Cuba shared the common Latin American social situation of the time where a fabulously wealthy few lived off the backs of the desperately poor many. The USA quietly withdrew its support from Batista and did not entirely withhold support for Castro when it became apparent that Batista was fatally weak and that either Castro's Revolution or another would succeed. The USA never picked up on Castro's Communist bent ahead of time (or didn't take it seriously) - possibly because he had attempted to become a US professional baseball player - Castro is (or was) a baseball fanatic. When castro came to power, many wealthy Cubans fled to the USA. The Cubamn immigrants, unlike nearly every other immigrant group, were comparatively well off - and had they been able to return to Cuba as a result of e successful invasion, would have immediately restored the old upper class oppression. It is noteworthy that alone among immigrant groups, they are strongly Republican - the party of wealth, privilege and untrammeled business - a party which often finds jobs for the hopelessly idiotic sons of the rich such as George Bush. Immigrant groups such as the Irish and Italians at least started out as Democrats until they amassed enough of the world's goods to see advantage in keeping newer groups down. Castro now serves the US governments requirement for a bad guy bugaboo (He's Communist! He will eat your children!) to frighten the voters with in order to ensure that a healthy portion of the government's budget can be diverted to big industries for defense, the military and research facilities; which not so incidentally ensures that the rich can become richer and US society can grow to resemble the 1950 Latin American model as much as possible.

Fidel and Fulgencio

Post 2

Yowuzupman- New Top Speed 122 (thats mph you metric fools)

Curious question, how do you figure that Republicans are "the party of wealth, privilege and untrammeled business"? And should we not spend money on defense? With our military crumbling you can still say we spend too much? Keeping new groups down, hmmm........not following too closely, help me understand if you would.

Fidel and Fulgencio

Post 3

Researcher Who Refuses to Come Up With a Self-Consciously Ironic Name

the republicans are a party of wealth and privelige because most welthy, priveliged people are republicans. this figures because the republicans are well known for being in favour of tax cuts for the rich. they are also well known for being in favour of the free market, or untrammelled business, as they like to point out all the time. hell, i know all this and i'm not even an american.

and you *shouldn't* spend more money on defence, because you already spend far too much and there are so many better things it could be spent on. like health, eduaction, third world poverty reduction..... but it's no use pointing this out to republicans because they never listen.

by the way, fighting terrorism with bombs is like putting out fires with petrol. just thought i'd add that...

Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more