 |
|
Add to My Group
|
February 21, 2008 at 22:56:57
The Truth about the U.S. and Castro by Ed Tubbs (Posted by Ed Tubbs) Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
Castro — Let’s set this record straight: the US never objected to him because he was a dictator; brutal or otherwise. I doubt I’ll never cease being amazed at how, by and large, gullible and uninformed Americans are. With Fidel Castro’s passing from the scene, the tabloids, the mainstream media and the talk shows are all a twitter over the history of our past un-relations with Cuba, ostensibly because Castro was a brutal dictator. Man! Have I got this waterfront property you’ve just got to see. Let me pose a circumstance to you. Let’s say you’ve been hauled in by the authorities. (I don’t care why.) And wires are connected to sensitive parts of your anatomy, and your captors are “ringing you up.” You’re screaming at the excruciating pain. Do you care, do you give the first damn, what the political orientation is, of those brutal tormentors who are rending your mind to oozing mush? The history of the United States government reports that it makes all the difference in the world. What has never bothered the United States government is the brutality of the dictatorship, only whether those ringing you up, whether those imprisoning its citizens, whether those engaging mass murder and torture are communist. If they’re not, they didn’t and don’t merely get a pass, so very often they got and get help and assistance. 
Indeed, on more than one occasion, the US government put them in power! Indeed, on more than one occasion, the US government effected “with extreme prejudice” the removal of a democratically elected leader, to effect the installation of the most execrable bastard; “He might be a bastard, but he’s our bastard.” Just maybe, do you think? one of the reasons “they hate us,” isn’t because they hate our freedoms, but because of a history of our duplicity, of hypocrisy, of mingling in the internal affairs of governments well beyond our shores? Not the only reason, of course; but just maybe one of the reasons. Ya think?
Example: although some love to point to it as a smoking gun, there does not exist a shred of strong evidence that George Bush’s grandfathers, Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker, collaborated with the Nazi regime, as far into that loathsome government as 1942. What is incontrovertible, however are that the corporate boards they served on — Union Banking Corp, Brown Brothers Harriman, Selesian-American — were kissing-kin close.
What else is beyond question is what, via Mein Kampf, the tome’s author and German leader had in mind. Neither a Jeffersonian or Jacksonian democracy was among the candidates. Brutal to the most inhumane, unimaginable extremes dictatorship was. Until the United States declared war on Germany, a fact that was prompted only as a consequence of Germany’s alliance with Japan, business as usual was, after all, business. And as the mantra waxed, “The business of America is business.”
However our unseemly addiction to foreign dictatorships precedes the 40s, since then it has been virtually constant and terribly vile; like prostitution, pimps and the mob bosses who reign over all, collecting their cut, with neither the pimps nor mob lords giving one damn about the prostitutes — their age, their physical and/or emotional conditions, the morality of it, right or wrong . . . nada a single damn. The only concerns have been: How much money can we make off it, and for how long?
Without much asking whether the inhabitants wanted it, we subdivided Columbia into two countries, Columbia and Panama because we wanted a canal. With but a single exception (saved for last because of relevance), follows is a list, in alphabetical order of the countries, of the brutal dictatorships the United States supported and/or installed. (Where noted as “Democratically elected replaced by . . .” the “replacement” was via or accompanied by direct CIA intervention.)
Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina.Hugo Banzer in Bolivia.Humberto Branco in Brazil.Democratically elected Salvador Allende was replaced with Augusto Pinochet in Chile.Chiang Kai-Shek in China.Rafael Trujillo in The Dominican Republic.Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez to Alfredo Cristiani in El Salvador.Bavadra to General Rabuka in Fiji.Democrtically elected Andreas Papandreou was replaced by George Papadopoulos in Greece.Democratically elected Jacob Arbenz was replaced by Rios Mont, then by Vinicio Cerezo in Guatemala.François “Papa Doc” Duvalier and Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier in Haiti.Suazo Cordova in Honduras.Suharto in Indonesia.Saddam Hussein in Iraq.Democratically elected Mossadegh was replaced by Shah Pahlavi in Iran.Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua.Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq in Pakistan.Manuel Noriega in Panama.Ferdinand Marco in the Philippines.Ian Smith in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).The House of Saud in Saudi Arabia.Park Chung Hee in South Korea.Turgut Ozal in Turkey.Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam.Democratically elected Patrice Lumumba was replaced by Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire.
And now the most relevant, since the current talk is all about Cuba: The ties between US gambling and agricultural interests (most especially United Fruit), as well as the illegal associations with United States’ crime syndicates, and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Alan Dulles, John Foster’s brother and head of the CIA, and Fulgencio Batista, the pre-Castro dictator were verily incestuous. Young girls were used as sex slaves for visiting Yankees and other businessmen.
Those who worked in the sugar plantations, not only had no protections whatsoever, complaints were met with horrendous beatings. Suspicions of union interest or activity were met with torture and sudden disappearances. Similarly, any form of protest or the expression of an opinion that might be construed as hostile to Batista or his corporate backers resulted in fates not unlike those of suspected union organizers.
It is no stretch to conclude that it was the Eisenhower administration’s look-the-other-way, solid backing of Batista that directly facilitated Fidel Castro’s overthrow of the hated regime, and to Cuba’s diametrically opposite swing to a Communist dictatorship. It is an exquisite example of the unintended consequences of a foreign policy that utterly betrays the ideals upon which this country was founded!
Thus, all the nails-raking-a-blackboard, hate-speech of Cuba because it has been a “brutal dictatorship,” all the ultra-grating screeching hype that has been a running chord through successive American administrations is disingenuous at best, and a catalog of intentional lies, fulminated to deceive the American public at worst. And everyone who has permitted him- or herself to be taken in by the orated rationale has proven him- or herself to be an utter fool, one informed or uninformed, over what was actually going on, and why it was going on!
Not one administration objected that much to Fidel Castro’s brutality or the fact he was a dictator. What they objected to were two truths. The first is that he nationalized US corporate interests; nightclubs and gambling, and the agriculture — most particularly United Fruit. The other was that he had the audacity to flash us the bird, he would not play the game, the rules of which we had written and established and regarded as sacrosanct. In Republican-oriented corporate boardrooms across America it was a chorus of “How dare that bearded little sonofabitch? Doesn’t he realize who the hell he is, or who we are?”
That’s what it was 100% about.
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Editor |
|
|
|
|
| 10 comments |
|
The Truth
If only Americans would take the time to really read history they would find the truth. The question is would they do anything about it. For most, probably not. Our history shows that. Most Americans don't care. If they did, the Native American would still have most of their lands. Everything we have been taught regarding the goodness of America, our rights to be free and the myth of the Constitution are only illusions that Americans see. Many of the atrocities that have occurred in other countries America has been a part. Once I saw the movie Matrix it reminded me that most Americans are living their lives blindly and with this illusion of us being free. by Rick Theile (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:00:14 AM  (0+)
|
|
Americans?
I don't know what it means to be an American any more. By now, most "residents" must know that our history books teach nothing but propoganda and that everything that our government has taught us in the past 75 yrs are lies. This infuriates me and I do everything possible to try to excite people to try to fix the wrongs, educate the unknowing, make changes and stand up to the government. No one listens, no one cares. This is why we have a failing middle class, a tragically flawed health care system and a corporate run government. It's horrible for the majority of Americans yet they vote bush into a second term (because the majority didn't vote) and dismissed the one candidate (John Edwards) who told them the truth about the government and how he was going to go about fixing it. No one listened. They were too psyched by the spectacle of an election between a black man and a woman, as though they were actually speaking with any substance. I don't care which of them wins just so long as he/she can beat a republican white male, which to my chagrin and dismay may be neither one, just because of what they are. I don't believe though, that either one can or will serve the real needs of the country and believe that they both know it and don't care, just so long as they win. They may make a great show of it but they both know that nothing can change as long as lobbyists keep buying politicians. It's a shame that Americans couldn't recognize that. Is it apathy, ignorance or just simple stupidity? Look at the fact that only one other person read your article and took the time to comment. They don't even have an interest in one of the biggest propoganda fiascos in history. No questions whe we can't buy communist cigars but communist China accounted for 13.4% of our imports in 2004. There are no current figures available but we all know that it has grown each year. What would that be called, hypocricy or lie? Good luck getting the truth out to Americans, they're too busy with important matters like watching people eat bugs and dung or race each other on unicycles through a junkyard. That's the only reality that interests them! by PeterJ (16 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 236 comments [53 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Suggested viewing...
See the documentary "Fidel" to get a little more background. I rate him right up there with Mandela and Gorbachev as the most influential leaders of the 20th century. by Cinderfella (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 248 comments [95 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:56:01 PM (0+)
|
|
and it ain't over
Well stated article. Now just pay attention to the goings on in So. America today. Nations are moving more toward nationalizing their industries and US corporations aren't going to stand for that. by Angelo (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 209 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:02:25 PM (0+)
|
|
ADDENDUM
It should be noted that Fidel Castro was not a Marxist; he was a revolutionary, and only became a Marxist after Eisenhower turned him away when he sought US help in establishing a post-revolutionary government. Eisenhower, being a supporter of Batista, couldn't see the outcome of his pique, because the only other support to be found was the Soviet Union. And the Soviets, like the US has done to others, tied many strings to Castro that took him into the socialist camp. Castro remembers all that. This is similar to the relationship the US had with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the US and Great Britain invaded Russia up around Murmansk and Archangel and in the Pacific at Vladivostok in 1918 ~ under the cover of protecting American and British lives, of course. Soviet leaders never forgave the West for such actions, but we were told in the West that it was always the Russians who were the bad guys. OK; Soviet leaders weren't nice guys either, but probably no worse than leaders in the West. by tabonsell (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 318 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:31:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Addendum II
It should also be noted that revolutions have to be financed. I still think Cuba was a hands-off silent test study of how to rule after Peak Oil. Hubbert's Peak Oil was in 1955 (for America) and Castro took over in 1959. Castro was broke and in Mexico trying to raise some cash. How convenient. Those at the top of the financial pyramid are sociopaths, but they're not stupid. Their time horizons are much different than the rest of us. http://greatreddragon.com/commentary/060706_Cuba.htm :: by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 232 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:08:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reading your kids history books
will show you what is being fed our students. I was shocked at the distortions that are in our nation's school books and what they are making them learn. For those, who don't go on to college and learn what really happened and why, are left with a total distortion. Of course for those who only get their news from MSM, they will remain ignorant of the truths. The USA has not been good at bringing "democracy" to any other country. by shanti (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments) on Friday, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:14:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Soviet Union
The Soviet Union was communist not socialist. Cuba is also communist not socialist. Communism is where the government owns and controls everything. Socialism is economic democracy where businesses are collectively owned and managed by the workers. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:39:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: SAMENESS OR DIFFERENCES
Karl Marx called his philosophy "scientific socialism"; that is the ancient socialist system of primitive tribes cooperating in all things being applied to a modern, technological economy. The mixture of ancient and modern is why it didn't work. Also, Marx never advocated the police state used by the Bolsheviks.
by tabonsell (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 318 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:43:03 PM (0+)
|
|
The Simple Truth
Many good comments. The simple truth is that our government and the large controlling corporations lie. They cannot be trusted and this is a very sad state of affairs. by Rick Theile (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:47:20 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
