[quote=dude]I'll add that I know that the US places between #6 and #10 on various quality of life studies.  I'll note that many of the various studies out there are primarily weighing GDP, per capita income, life expectancy and a lot of factors that clearly advantage more industrialized and developed nations.  I'm hoping that the majority of you who have an interest in the above info are open to the idea that people can be very happy and satisfied with life without a lot of luxuries.  Some of the most satisfied people I've known live off the power grid and live very minimalist lives.  [/quote]

i've been to many places where the fruit is low hanging and the people are very laid back- they don't seem too bothered that they are missing out on all that we in the US seem to consider so important-
me? i spend my days dreaming of getting back to those places for a visit- but i live where i want.

[quote=dude]

I lied.  I'll finish by saying that most of Cubas problems are actually due to the US embargo, which is soooooo necessary because Cuba is such a major threat (rolls eyes).  I think it's BS that we restrict any companies that do business with us from doing business with Cuba. 

Yeah, let's hit 'em on the head and then criticize and demonize them for being hurt. Great logic guys/gals.  Keep it comin' America, you never cease to amaze.

[/quote]

to an extent i agree-
BUT- if Cuba had the resources that Iran has, we'd be living in a state of much higher stress-
Better if they are poor and nuetralized until they can prove that we can all get along?

Heres a link that you might like Tex:

http://www.energybulletin.net/3384.html

more info supporting my view.

Tex, how exactly is Cuba a threat.  What interest do you think they have in fighting us (bay of pigs was 40 years ago).  I have never bought into the us vs. them attitude just because of differing ideologies.  I definitely don't believe in socialism but I support those who prefer to live in that manner.  I believe the "your either with us or against us" and "black or White" attitudes create a lot of problems that needn't be.  Look at Vietnam as an example.

Oops, wrong link:

http://www.energybulletin.net/13171.html

[quote=dude]

Tex, how exactly is Cuba a threat.  What interest do you think they have in fighting us (bay of pigs was 40 years ago).  I have never bought into the us vs. them attitude just because of differing ideologies.  I definitely don't believe in socialism but I support those who prefer to live in that manner.  I believe the "your either with us or against us" and "black or White" attitudes create a lot of problems that needn't be.  Look at Vietnam as an example.

[/quote]

i can't determine what's up in Fidel's mind, or Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the 9/11 terrorist crowd, but if we agree that for some reason Fidel is hostile towards the USA, then why help strengthen him into becoming a powerful, hostile enemy?
As for ideologies, who cares anymore?

I guess I'm not an expert on Cuba vs America politics but I'd bet that Fidel has little interest in starting conflict w/ the US.  Iran and the 9/11 crowd have broader and deeper cultural and religious issues with us and can understand sanctions and various actions against them.

As far as Fidel's hostility, how exactly do we define that?  Gosh, I'd say that there are plenty of countries out there which have an equivalent "hostility" towards us, yet have no US economic sanctions.  From what I've been reading, it seems that Cuban hostility has good reason.

http://www.stwr.net/content/view/38/37/

Actually, it seems that Castro has been a postive influence for the people of Cuba.  It's US policies that have been bad for Cuba.

i'm no expert either-

i'd guess tho that:

hostility+proximity+past actions= no McDonalds.

once Fidel dies, i'm thinking that we release the "past actions" part of the equation and our relationship will begin to normalize- allowing us to smoke better cigars and drink tastier rum-

 Yeah, a Cuban cigar would be nice.

[quote=dude]

I guess I’m not an expert on Cuba vs America politics

but I’d bet that Fidel has little interest in starting conflict w/ the US.

[/quote]



Again with the same bullsh*t. Dude, you’re dead wrong again.



Published Tuesday, January 9, 2001, in the Miami Herald

Jailed Cuban spy identifies his `handlers’



He said both directed him to get a job at the Southern Command’s Miami

headquarters.



BY GAIL EPSTEIN NIEVES

[email protected]





A former Cuban intelligence agent on Monday identified two more

defendants in the Cuban spy trial as his handlers'' and said both of <br />them directed him to get a job at the Southern Command's Miami <br />headquarters so he could snoop for the Cuban government. <br /> <br />The testimony of acknowledged ex-agent Joseph Santos, 40, was the first <br />to link accused spies Ramón Lavaniño and Fernando González with in- <br />the-trenches intelligence activity. On Friday, Santos similarly implicated <br />co-defendant Gerardo Hernández. <br /> <br />The trial's opening weeks focused on documentary and physical evidence <br />against the five accused spies. With Santos, jurors are hearing firsthand <br />accounts about the inner workings of Cuba's intelligence apparatus, from <br />spy recruitment to training to work assignments. <br /> <br />In the case of Santos and his wife, Amarylis -- also a Cuban agent -- <br />their achievements were far less illustrious than their assignments, <br />according to testimony. <br /> <br />Santos said he successfully completed a research project on the Southern <br />Command while its new headquarters were being built in Miami's Doral <br />section in early 1997. <br /> <br />He and his wife took photographs of all the surrounding buildings, <br />between Northwest 87th and 99th avenues and 25th and 40th streets, <br />to provide a pretty clear idea to anyone’’ what the area looked like.



Santos said he gave the report to his handler Lavaniño, an illegal <br />agent'' or ranking Cuban intelligence operative who also went by the <br />name Luis Medina. <br /> <br />But more importantly, Lavaniño told the Santos couple that their <br />supreme task’’ was to get jobs at the Pentagon’s SouthCom

headquarters, which directs U.S. military operations in Latin America and

the Caribbean.



Accused spy González – who also went by the name Rubén Campa –

gave them the same task, Santos testified. Penetrating'' SouthCom was <br />a high priority set by Cuba's intelligence chiefs, according to Havana-to- <br />Miami directives seized by the FBI and read to jurors Monday. <br /> <br />MISSION FAILED <br /> <br />The Santos failed at that assignment. They were too busy trying to make a <br />legitimate living and never found a place to apply for a job, Santos said. <br /> <br />But on cross-examination, the defense attorney for accused spy <br />Hernández scoffed at the notion that Santos could have obtained anything <br />important -- let alone national defense secrets, a key factor for proving <br />espionage -- even if he had managed to get hired at SouthCom. <br /> <br />Santos does not speak English. Before his arrest, he was working as a <br />laborer at Goya Foods and the Miami Arena. <br /> <br />Attorney Paul McKenna read jurors a report in which Hernández directed <br />Santos to obtainpublic information’’ about SouthCom. In fact, none <br />of your handlers ever tasked you with getting national security <br />information, did they?'' McKenna asked Santos. <br /> <br />Santos responded that it was implicit that he was supposed to get <br />information that could not be obtainedby conventional means.’‘



SERVING SENTENCES



Santos and his wife are already serving prison sentences after pleading

guilty to one count of conspiracy to act as a foreign agent.



Their terms are likely to be cut short for their help testifying against

Hernández, who prosecutors say conspired with the Cuban military to

murder four Brothers to the Rescue fliers in 1996.



McKenna cross-examined Santos about the plea agreement for a long

time in an apparent bid to undermine his credibility. Under sentencing

guidelines, Santos faced 60 months but prosecutors recommended he

serve 48. U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard agreed.



So these people here,'' McKenna said, naming prosecutors Caroline <br />Heck Miller, John Kastrenakes, David Buckner and FBI Agent Al Alonso -- <br />are all your friends that are helping you, correct?’‘



They're not my friends,'' Santos responded through an interpreter.I

met those people during the investigation of the case.’'





Copyright 2001 Miami Herald

In case you didn’t hear about this:



Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective

machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and political rights is

written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed security forces,

aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence dissent with heavy

prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or exile.



Cuba’s political prisoners, held for exercising their fundamental rights of

free association, free expression, free opinion, or freedom of movement,

provide the government’s repressive machinery with credibility,

demonstrating that opposition to the government engenders the genuine

risk of serving time in prison. The inhumane conditions and the punitive

measures taken against prisoners have been, in several instances

researched by Human Rights Watch, so cruel as to rise to the level of

torture.

Whatever Skee.  The US is not hot on matters of Civil or Human rights either, what do you call abu Gharaib or Guantanamo, how about domestic spying or imprisoning people "indefinitely" without charges or how about the McCarthy era?  We probably jail a higher percentagage of our citizens than Cuba does.   

I'm not defending Cuba here, they certainly have their problems (some of which you cited), but so do we.  I don't buy into the America superiority complex that the vast majority of our population buys into (and probably most posters on this board as well).  I used to, but then I lived in a foreign country for a while and started making friends in many different countries.  It became clear just how mislead I was.  

Just as history is written by the victor in a conflict.  Information is filtered through the prevalent paradigm of a given culture.  Our news biases the bad and misses the good in regards to Cuba.

We're probably guilty of using the same strategies Cuba is using when it comes to planting spys, why are they bad and us good?

America is guilty of a long list of unmentionables, including VERY destructive economic policies toward developing nations (especially in the 1970's, pick up the book confessions of an economic hitman), which have undoubtedly resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

What about the US's support of Pinnochet, Batista and other tyrannical dictators throughout history.

All I can say is that if you read the book, your attitude about US policy will change dramatically.  This is a book written by a former CFO in the energy consulting business who is also very well respected in the energy business.  His book is cited in many academic papers and is veeeerrrryyy eye opening.

When we're taught to see in Black and White, it's unfortunate all the possible outcomes that lie in the gray area we miss out on. 

That's what I dislike about Bush.  His vision is Black and White.  The problem is that reality exists in shades of gray and those who only see the extremes tend to keep the wheel spinning instead of slowing or halting it's progress.  The more polarized a situation is the more drastic the potential outcome.

You began by suggesting that we can learn a lot from Cuba and that the

quality of life is good there “contrary to popular opinion”. Just because a

few Spanish or German tourists go to Cuba to sunbathe topless and score

a hooker for five bucks does not make Cuba a nice place. I felt the need

to correct your misstatements. That’s all.



Also, referencing dictators like Idi Amin, Slobodan Milosevic, and Papa

Doc Duvalier does not help your case either. Pinnochet, by the way, drove

out the socialists/Marxists from Chile. Obviously, if the US is in the

middle of a Cold War, we going to support anyone that stops the spread

of Marxism in the Western Hemisphere. Which brings me back to Castro.



Castro and his buddy, Che Guevara, were actively spreading a Marxist

revolution throughout South America, but Che was shot and killed by

government forces in Bolivia in 1967. Castro then supported the

Sandinistas, which helped overthrow the Somoza regime in Nicaraqua in

1979, until he was stopped by one of the greatest presidents of the U.S.,

Ronald Reagan (the reason I’m a registered Republican).



I am disappointed with Bush as well. What I find curious is that many of

the administration’s insiders are the same folks from the Reagan era.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Bush Sr., Greenspan etc., but the chemistry is

not there. His leadership skills are a far cry from those of Reagan.



We could continue this, but then you’d remind me of MikeB. So I’m willing

to let go if you are.

Do y’all suppose that if Cuba had a couple million BBLs/day of oil, we’d be embargoeing them? We do biz with dictators all over the world simply for their hydrocarbons.

Anyone who states death to AMerican or terms similar (Iran, AlQueda and Chavez) needs to go. If people like Fidel support these people then they are not with us... So their against us. Black and white is the only way to go on this issue. Bush said it best "your either with us or against us. (meaning the leadership not every person in a country)"

This is not to say that the majority of the people from these countries are bad.

For sure Cuba has nicer weather then New England so I believe people have a better life. :)

AHHHHHH.... Stupid computer or is it user?

Cuba has a much better standard of living. In fact their winter weather is much nicer then New England.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02 /26/AR2006022601265.html

Last week I appeared on a radio show with an author named John Perkins. This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," is a runaway bestseller. So now, out of concern for thousands of sufferers across this great nation, I offer up a Perkins antidote. If you see someone reading him, I want you to be prudent, approach cautiously and wait until the victim's fevers cool. Then administer these arguments.

[quote=dude] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Whatever Skee.  The <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US is not hot on matters of Civil or Human rights either, what do you call abu Gharaib ... [/quote]

The night shift, unsupervised, going midevil on detainees, going to trial, then going to jail.

 [quote=dude]

…or Guantanamo,…

[/quote]

A place where terrorists, captured on the battlefield are detained, given three hots and a cot and a copy of the Kuran.

[quote=dude]

 how about domestic spying

[/quote]

Hey, RFK and Hoover have been dead for a while now. No one said the nation’s history is spotless.

[quote=dude]

…or imprisoning people "indefinitely" without charges…

[/quote]

Something that rational people can disagree about as we face a new form of warfare where the biggest threats are often people in civilian clothes. In place, I’d suggest a swift military tribunal followed by the execution authorized by the Geneva Convention.

[quote=dude]

 or how about the McCarthy era?

[/quote]

You mean the romanticized version where there was no Cold War, there were no Soviet spies and the whole thing was the sole creation of a crazed US Senator? Or the version where there really were Soviet spies in various levels of the US government and a very flawed US Senator leveraged this fact for political gain and dragged some innocent people into it all?

[quote=dude]

  We probably jail a higher percentagage of our citizens than Cuba does.   

[/quote]

Does it matter that they jail people for exercising what’s generally considered basic human rights, like freedom of speech and we jail people for things like car jacking? 

Ahhh, lame “moral equivalency” arguments, they never do completely fade away…

[quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02 /26/AR2006022601265.html

[/quote]

looks interesting- but its not the type of conspiracy i was referring to-

no, mine was much more mundane- washington / detroit/ big oil, all doing what lobby’s do everyday in washington, on both sides of the aisle- ignoring the greater good for the quicker buck- a wager which looked good for awhile, since detriot proved adept at building bigger better than the others- but has left them “leasing from the gods at Toyota” when, time was, THEY were THE auto god-

GM has the big bet on Hydro- but it could be a bridge too far.

[quote=TexasRep]

looks interesting- but its not the type of conspiracy i was referring to-

[/quote]

That post had nothing to do with any of yours.

[quote=TexasRep]

no, mine was much more mundane- washington / detroit/ big oil, all doing what lobby’s do everyday in washington, on both sides of the aisle- ignoring the greater good for the quicker buck-

[/quote]

You realize, of course, that your little conspiracy makes little economic sense, right? You're asking us to believe that auto makers buried a high-mileage technology, something that would give them a massive competitive advantage, and for what? To keep friends in the oil business?

[quote=TexasRep]

 ...but has left them “leasing from the gods at Toyota” when, time was, THEY were THE auto god-...

[/quote]

You should also realize that for your theory to work, every car maker on the planet has to be in on it, since none of them have rolled out this technology you're so certain isn't being used today only because Detroit didn't pursue it.

That means every maker, from every nation on Earth is more concerned with being pals with others in the industry than gaining a massive, massive advantage. Hell, that means countries where gas costs $6/gal are driving cars 1/2 as efficient as they could be because Toyota and Renault and VW don't want to upset the world-wide auto maker botherhood.

Sorry, that one doesn't make sense. Perhaps the simple theory is the correct one, the technology isn't in place for the same reason that the drug companies haven't cured cancer. Or have I hit on another conspiracy theory of yours?