IT would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing the speech Obama delivered on the afternoon of May 23 at the Cuban American National Foundation created by Ronald Reagan. I listened to his speech, as I did McCain’s and Bush’s. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly.

What were Obama’s statements?

"Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. (…) This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century – of elections that are anything but free or fair (…) I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba," he told annexationists, adding: "It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime. (…) I will maintain the embargo."

The content of these declarations by this strong candidate to the U.S. presidency spares me the work of having to explain the reason for this reflection.

José Hernandez, one of the Cuban American National Foundation directors whom Obama praises in his speech, was none other than the owner of the Caliber-50 automatic rifle, equipped with telescopic and infrared sights, which was confiscated, by chance, along with other deadly weapons while being transported by sea to Venezuela, where the Foundation had planned to assassinate the writer of these lines at an international meeting on Margarita, in the Venezuelan state of Nueva Esparta.

Pepe Hernández’ group wanted to return to the pact with Clinton, betrayed by Mas Canosa’s clan, who secured Bush’s electoral victory in 2000 through fraud, because the latter had promised to assassinate Castro, something they all happily embraced. These are the kinds of political tricks inherent to the United States’ decadent and contradictory system.

Presidential candidate Obama’s speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it.

How does he plan to address the extremely serious problem of the food crisis? The world’s grains must be distributed among human beings, pets and fish, the latter of which are getting smaller every year and more scarce in the seas that have been over-exploited by large trawlers which no international organization has been able to halt. Producing meat from gas and oil is no easy feat. Even Obama overestimates technology’s potential in the fight against climate change, though he is more conscious of the risks and the limited margin of time than Bush. He could seek the advice of Gore, who is also a democrat and is no longer a candidate, as he is aware of the accelerated pace at which global warming is advancing. His close political rival Bill Clinton, who is not running for the presidency, an expert on extra-territorial laws like the Helms-Burton and Torricelli Acts, can advise him on an issue like the blockade, which he promised to lift and never did.

...

We have never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the United States our help when Hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our internationalist medical brigade bears the glorious name of Henry Reeve, a young man, born in the United States, who fought and died for Cuba’s sovereignty in our first war of independence.

Our Revolution can mobilize tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilize an equally vast number of teachers and citizens, who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfill any noble purpose, not to usurp people’s rights or take possession of raw materials.

The good will and determination of people constitute limitless resources that cannot be kept and would not fit in the vault of a bank. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.

Fidel Castro Ruz

May 25, 2008

10:35 p.m.

quote:

---

Obama said he would maintain nearly 50-year-old trade sanctions against Cuba as leverage to push for democratic change on the island. But he also vowed to ease restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba and sending money to relatives.

He repeated his willingness to meet with Raul Castro, who in February succeeded his elder brother Fidel to become the nation’s first new leader in 49 years.

Castro said Obama’s proposals for letting well-off Cuban Americans help poorer relatives on the island amounted to “propaganda for consumerism and a way of life that is unsustainable.”

He complained that Obama’s description of Cuba as “undemocratic” and “lacking in respect for liberty and human rights” was the same argument previous U.S. administrations “have used to justify their crimes against our homeland.”

---

The regime and the people of Cuba are not identical, except in the fevered imaginations of Castro sychofants (of whom you are one).

Pretending that Obama is "the same" as Bush, or that his policies will be identical, is just silliness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
sychofants (of whom you are one).

---

And when it comes to Cuba, nobody has to "pretend" that Obama is the same as Bush.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
That's just the usual claptrap.

The regime and the people of Cuba are not identical, except in the fevered imaginations of Castro sychofants (of whom you are one).

---

The people of Cuba don't want U.S. managed elections. And they don't want American-style health care or repressive Taft-Hartley labour laws either.

In fact, Cubans don't want their sovereign island nation to look anything like those "bastions of freedom" and democracy just a few day's drive from Texas. And I'm sure you're familiar with those long-time banana republics, Jeff?

quote:

---

Pretending that Obama is "the same" as Bush, or that his policies will be identical, is just silliness.

---

Obama knows full-well that any U.S. president must be on-board and "right" in mind with the project for vicious empire. Can you possibly imagine a U.S. president succeeding to trim Defense spending? All those purse minders doling out billions and billions of taxpayer dollars every year to prop up Pentagon capitalism? In your silly dreams maybe.

An Italian businessman once told JFK that America, too, would have to deal with fascism at some point. Socialism or barbarism? The hawks have already chosen, Jeff.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Third party presidential campaigns in the US will always be pointless as long as the Electoral College is in place. 2000 proved this for the rest of eternity.

No third-party presidential candidate will ever succeed in moving the U.S. political spectrum further left. This is because no losing presidential campaign can ever again have a positive effect.

Third party presidential campaigns mean permanent Republican rule. I know it. You know it. Why pretend otherwise, Spector?

(assuming you actually WANT the U.S. to move left, which you clearly don't if you think that it doesn't matter if the right wing stays in power forever.)

Oh and Jeff, since you and I both know the overthrow of the existing Cuban state could only lead to a right wing takeover, why do you keep calling for it? Nothing is ever good if it puts the right in power. You should join all of us in pushing for an end to the embargo, since Cuba will be a right-wing dead zone if the Miami people ever come back. All of them are soulless pigs. None of them want anything positive or progressive for Cuba. They couldn't, if they want privitization.

Free speech for Cuba yes. The embargo, no.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
A vote for Nader is also a vote to continue the embargo, since a vote for Nader is a vote to keep the right wing in power and prevent anything progressive from ever happening.

---

But like our Liberals, your own Liberal Democrats have moved further to the right, Ken.

And I know the Dems moved right. But voting third-party can't make them move left and they will never be replaced by a third party. I'm not saying vote for them and then ask nothing of them.

I'm saying tactically vote the right out, then have a massive and continuous series of protest activities(activities that can only succeed when the less right-wing party is in power) to move them left and move the whole discussion left.

I want to move the country to the left.
For Spector, U.S. politics is an abstraction that doesn't actually affect him. It doesn't affect him if voting third-party for president simply leads(as it has to)to keeping the most reactionary forces in the US in power with no constraints.

Voting for Nader(especially him, since all he's able to do these days is alienate people) or other third-party presidential candidates can never cause anything positive in the US.. The Electoral College prevents that. That needs to be changed first. And I work in my to try to change it.

Spector's approach would be the path of permanent defeat south of your border. And I'm pretty sure he actually knows that. But he doesn't mind making things worse for workers, the Rainbow, the poor, LGBT people(this list is in no order of precedence, for anyone asking)or the half of each of the above groups that are women.

The independent action in the US must come in the form of massive and continuous and innovative protest actions and mobilization. That can work. Third party presidential campaigns that nobody would support and that no one ever listens to can't. Nobody remembers anything Ralph said in any of his presidential campaigns, and none of his presidential campaigns have led to any positive development. If they haven't by now(especially since his personal support is now in personal decline)they can't in the future.

If you're in a safe state, it doesn't matter as much. But it does go without saying that voting third-party presidential in marginal states only makes things worse for the most vulnerable and powerless people. A Republican president is always the worst outcome.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

In the United States of America we are allowed to pick a president from Column A or Column B. We may have a Republican or we may have a Democrat. There are differences in style and demeanor, or course, but both parties are more interested in perpetuating their dominance than they are in making the world or this country or the lives of its citizens better or happier. The press is almost wholly committed to this affair, even producing editorials from time to time in praise of the glories of “Our Two-Party System.”

Third-party candidates are variously flaky, far-out, insubstantial, light-weight, or sometimes just too short. They are always, by definition and prophesy, unelectable. Do not vote for one, the parties and the press tell us. Don’t waste your vote.

So we dutifully vote for a Democrat or a Republican and get one or the other. And we get, over and over and over again, corruption, lies, waste of resources, willful ignoring of desperate problems, wars and invasions and illegal clandestine operations oversees, and erosion or violation of domestic rights. In our country children still go hungry.

My desperate liberal friends tell me there is a difference between the parties. And so there is. The amount and degree of misery is apportioned differently under the alternating regimes, but every fundamental problem or issue that has irritated or devastated this country and planet since I was a child has gotten worse, and not one has been solved or retired or even markedly improved in my almost fifty-nine years.

All my life I have seen the establishment parties in control and I have seen war and lies and theft and incompetence and murder, and more poison in the air and water and land, and more money in the pockets of the poisoners and thieves and their friends in high places. And every Democratic and every Republican presidential candidate has given over his or her normal, whole, sane life, made bad deals with evil interests in furtherance of that candidacy and with the results that you and I have seen. I hold no faith or optimism that turning out these admittedly disgraceful Republicans and letting Pelosi and Reid and Rahm Emanuel and an assortment of investors and CEOs in consultation with whatever operatives Obama or Clinton will bring to the meetings build a government will get us out of the pattern our love of these parties and their methods has laid so heavily on our land and our lives.

---

So by all means, Ken, carry on voting for the "lesser evil". Just remember that it's still evil.

I want Cuba left alone. The candidate you'd have me case a pointless vote for, a candidate who will never be popular, wouldn't help that.

Why can't you admit that third party presidential campaigns are useless? No campaign that doesn't elect its candidate can be of use.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

I'm saying tactically vote the right out, then have a massive and continuous series of protest activities(activities that can only succeed when the less right-wing party is in power) to move them left and move the whole discussion left.

---

Let's say for argument's sake that right-rightists have embedded themselves in the Democrat Party and-or into Democrat Party advisory groups as some believe is the case today. And not just a few conservative-minded Liberals or even social conservatives but real red, white and blue hawks. And we'll even suggest that they've already begun collaborating with Republican conservatives on which resource-rich countries need a good shellacking.

quote:

---

For your information, it's not just Canadians who think voting for the Democrats is worse than useless.

---

"Canadians" don't think this. They favour Democrats over Republicansd four-to-one.

If you are referring to some tiny subset of "Canadians", like "pro-Communist Canadians", then you should say so.

quote:

---

Decima surveyed 1,028 Canadians from Jan. 4-8 and found that 47 per cent wanted a Democrat to replace Bush in the White House in 2008, compared with just 12 per cent who wanted a Republican

---

I shouldn't be shocked. He's just pledging his allegiance to the Democrat-Republican dictatorship, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned about although he still served. He's just following up his threat to chase Al Qaeda into Pakistan, his support for Israel against the Palestinian people, his vicious attacks on Rev. Wright for saying that racism is endemic to "America", his fawning slavish pledge of allegiance to the bloodstained flag which he can't wait to unfurl against his own people and the peoples of the world.

I shouldn't have been shocked at this latest atrocity, but I admit I was and I am.

ETA: Please excuse me. I forgot to mention Obama's website, which still brandishes his disgusting "I am not now and never have been a Muslim" - "I am a Christian!". He should rot in hell with the rest of them.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

What I find incredibly hard to believe is that anyone on the left would like to see Cuba crushed by the far right Miami goons and the money barons. You'd have to be a complete fool not to see what will happen to Cuba once the right wing nut bars get to steal it resources and offer it up as a playground for crass rich Americans.

---

With respect Stargazer, you are posing a false dilemma. Suggesting this is the only possible outcome of democratization in Cuba only plays into the hands of the Castro dictatorship.

Obama has pledged to continue the blockade against Cuba - a blockade that was begun under John F. Kennedy and continued by every president ever since. A blockade which no other country supports. A blockade which is a continuing but failed attempt to starve Cuba into submission. A blockade which, in international law, would be considered as an act of war.

That is the criminal act which Obama has promised.

As to whether anyone hopes for change in Cuba, I personally couldn't give a shit - as long as they leave Cuba alone. That is what Obama has sworn not to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
ETA: Please excuse me. I forgot to mention Obama's website, which still brandishes his disgusting "I am not now and never have been a Muslim" - "I am a Christian!". He should rot in hell with the rest of them.

---

quote:

---

OBAMA IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN A MUSLIM

---

...

quote:

---

OBAMA IS A PRACTICING CHRISTIAN

---

...

quote:

---

OBAMA'S MIDDLE NAME IS NOT MOHAMMED

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
However, until Cuban Americans come to realize their hard line helps prop up the Cuban dictatorship, any candidate who hopes to win Florida can only go so far in changing American policy toward Cuba.

---

quote:

---

Posted by unionist: Obama has pledged to continue the blockade against Cuba - a blockade that was begun under John F. Kennedy and continued by every president ever since. A blockade which no other country supports. A blockade which is a continuing but failed attempt to starve Cuba into submission. A blockade which, in international law, would be considered as an act of war.

---

It is more accurate to describe US Cuban policy as an embargo, not a blockade. Other than a ham-fisted attempt to keep companies doing business in Cuba from doing business in the US, the US does not overtly interfere with other countries (including Canada) having normal trading, travel and diplomatic relations with Cuba. Airplanes take off every day from Canadian cities and fly over US airspace on their way to Cuba. This would not be the case if the US was blockading Cuba.

That said, the decades old US embargo against Cuba has - by any yardstick - been an abject failure. The embargo has only served to give the Castro dictatorship a handy excuse to blame Cuba's economic poverty, dismal human rights record and lack of political freedoms on the "evil" USA. This outward casting of blame even seems to work on some babblers.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited to correct typos ]

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: John K ]

But this is pretty fabulous as well:

"Our Revolution can mobilize tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilize an equally vast number of teachers and citizens, who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfill any noble purpose, not to usurp people’s rights or take possession of raw materials.

The good will and determination of people constitute limitless resources that cannot be kept and would not fit in the vault of a bank."

The most damning remark, of course, is one that exposes the spiritual impoverishment that capitalism provides to its victims. This spiritual impovershment cannot be hidden:

quote:

---

The only form of cooperation the United States can offer other nations consist in the sending of military professionals to those countries. It cannot offer anything else, for it lacks a sufficient number of people willing to sacrifice themselves for others and offer substantial aid to a country in need (though Cuba has known and relied on the cooperation of excellent U.S. doctors). They are not to blame for this, for society does not inculcate such values in them on a massive scale.

---

The US is a moral disgrace on this planet. And we, Canadians, are their closest ally. And this current government, and its Liberal predecessor, wants us to snuggle ever closer to this depraved and indifferent beast.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:

That said, the decades old US embargo against Cuba has - by any yardstick - been an abject failure.

---

Relaxing travel restrictions and allowing Cuban Americans to send money to their relatives in Cuba are reforms that are least likely to do significant political damage to Obama in Florida.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
The embargo has only served to give the Castro dictatorship a handy excuse to blame Cuba's economic poverty, dismal human rights record and lack of political freedoms on the "evil" USA. This outward casting of blame even seems to work on some babblers.

---

That's just not true. I could repeat the long list of harms done to the Cuban economy and hardships suffered by the Cuban people as a result of the vicious U.S. trade sanctions, but I don't think it's necessary a second or third or however many times we've posted about it.

The U.S.-led medieval siege of Iraq over ten years, a desert nation dependent on trade, resulted in the premature deaths of over 750, 000 children and anywhere from one million to 1.5 million human beings. And the world stood by and did nothing.

In addition to having used trade as a weapon, the vicious empire has been guilty of blocking humanitarian aid to Cuba and North Korea since dissolution of the Soviet Union. This is illegal and criminal behaviour according to the U.N.

I'm not even going to label anyone an apologist for the vicious empire. No matter how many examples are dropped in their laps demonstrating the vicious nature of the beast, they refuse to believe the empire of light is capable of shining them on.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

About Venezuela, Bolivia, etc:

quote:

---

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua.

---

On Obama as Chief of Police of all the Americas:

quote:

---

The person living in fear of violence doesn’t care if they’re threatened by a right-wing paramilitary or a left-wing terrorist; they don’t care if they’re being threatened by a drug cartel or a corrupt police force. They just care that they’re being threatened, and that their families can’t live and work in peace. That is why there will never be true security unless we focus our efforts on targeting every source of fear in the Americas. That’s what I’ll do as President of the United States.

---

Support for Colombia and threats to its neighbours:

quote:

---

We will support Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders. And we will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and – if need be – strong sanctions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:

It is more accurate to describe US Cuban policy as an embargo, not a blockade. Other than a ham-fisted attempt to keep companies doing business in Cuba from doing business in the US, the US does not overtly interfere with other countries (including Canada) having normal trading, travel and diplomatic relations with Cuba. Airplanes take off every day from Canadian cities and fly over US airspace on their way to Cuba. This would not be the case if the US was blockading Cuba.

]

---

former CIA specialist on Latin America,Philip Agee talked about Project Varela and the Cuban "dissidents" arrested in Havana for sedition a number of years ago. In the end it was a CIA ploy to put the kibosh to improving Cuban relations with the EU. The CIA knew full well there was no momentum for counterrevolution in Cuba, and so they resorted to shit-disturbing as usual. And it worked - the EU condemned Cuba as per U.S. shadow gov's intended result.

An Italian contingent tried to provoke an international incident in Havana last year and succeeded in making asses of themselves instead.

And all the while the EU condemns Cuba, they've said nothing about allowing secret CIA torture flights over Europe or the secret gulags for torture in Eastern Europe. And definitely no condemnation of the torture gulags at Abu Graihb, or massacre at Fallujah, and pledge solidarity of silence for the torture gulags at Guantanamo. Trade and hypocrisy as weapons.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Right here on his official campaign website:

This man truly belongs in the WHITE House.

---

I gather you don't want Obama in the White House.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
However, an adult would consider the reality of the situation.

---

When you asked me where "I am not and never have been a Muslim" was written, I thought you were doubting that Obama would have said them.

Now that you know it is authentic, it seems you are quite content with his statements, indeed even suggesting that it is immature to question them.

quote:

---

In fiscal year 2008-2009 the United States government has budgeted $45,000,000 to finance the opposition against the revolutionary government in Cuba. The money is used to fund rightwing exile organizations, eastern European rightwing politicians involved with Cuba and money oriented "civil society" promoters. Some of the money ends up in Cuba. The details of such counterrevolutionary program is little known by the world. The Cubans within the island who receive the so-called "assistance" claim to be involved in promoting "civil society" and "democracy." They maintain that what they are doing is not subversive. The official line from the United States government is that the money it supplies has a humanitarian intent. The recipients, however, are agents of a foreign power if we follow US law definitions.

---

quote:

---

The relationship between the Miami promoters/bourgeoisie and the Havana "dissident"/proletarians is a very unique exchange. Miami has US-government supplied financial capital; Havana "dissidents" claim to have political capital. The latter is seemingly correlated with time served in a Cuban prison or openly challenging the Cuban authorities; both generate more political capital in the eyes of the Miami and Washington DC promoters of long-distance "democracy". Those who have been arrested or answer to the behest of the US Interest Section have a higher exchange value than those who do not. Moreover, those who served some prison time but do not continue their day to day "demonstration politics" then do not get pay as much as those who do. Tia McPato who is the money distributor among the "dissidents" claims the political leadership over the proletarians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:

I gather you don't want Obama in the White House.

---

I don't care. He will be no different from previous presidents. I question those who think otherwise.

quote:

---

If one believes that religion should never play a part in politics, and that in fact it doesn't, then strongly denying that you have ever been a member of some specific religion might seem a bit tacky, even backward.

---

My personal favourite is this:

quote:

---

Barack Never Attended a Muslim School

---

quote:

---

Posted by thorin bane: Actually John, Helms-Burton Act says they may sue our companies that operate in both cuba and the US so yes they do affect our corporations.

---

To the best of my knowledge no Canadian or other non-US company has been successfully sued using Helms-Burton.

You might find this amusing. Falls into the ham-fisted category.

quote:

---

They are blue chip members of the British business establishment. But they are banned from the US, which ranks them alongside drug-dealers and terrorists.

Are they accused of corruption? Violent crime? No, the C word that has got them into trouble with the world's self-appointed policeman is Cuba.

Take Rupert Pennant-Rea, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England and a past editor of the Economist. Take Sir Patrick Sheehy, former chairman of British American Tobacco. Both are deemed to be 'traffickers'. Along with their wives and their children under 18, they are not welcome in the land of the free.

Pennant-Rea and Sheehy are directors of a Canadian mining company, Sherritt International, which has interests in Cuba, where communist President Fidel Castro survives despite US sanctions. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, those interests are legitimate. But in America, where politicians have been trying since President Kennedy's time to isolate Cuba and, more recently, to cosy up to the powerful Florida Cuban voters, it's a big deal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
In the US of A, you must be white, preferably a man, support the War on Terror (TM), proclaim your love for the Christian Jesus, speak aggressively of bombing other countries, be a complete hypocrite and sell yourself out, and every principle you ever held to the contrary must be denied and quashed.

The US of A - not democracy, a fool's paradise.

---

If the genocidal effects of a U.S.-led medieval siege on Iraq over ten years weren't enough to aggravate anyone's sense of justice, then who knows what their motivations are for attempting to ameliorate the devastating effects of a decades-long trade sanctions regime against the Cuban people? Perhaps they just don't want their own personal political convictions exposed to the light of day. Who knows?

Vicious sanctions against Cuba a violation of international law demockracy in the real world

Sign the Petition to Oppose Curtailment of Humanitarian Aid to Cuba

Crimes of war

quote:

---

Sanctions Against Cuba Are Excessive, GAO Says 2007

U.S. sanctions against Cuba are more restrictive than those imposed on any other country, including Iran and North Korea, and their rigorous enforcement risks diverting government attention from higher-priority counterterrorism tasks, a new government audit has found.

---

Michael Ring writing for MIT News said in 2000, "Helms-Burton raises yet more barriers for those wishing to travel or do business in Cuba and even places obstacles to sending the most basic humanitarian aid to Cuba."

U.S. Embargo costs Cuba 4 billion in 2006 - $86 billion dollars since 1960.

Imagine a Canadian province floating in the Caribbean but receives no equalization payments from Ottawa - no advantages of interprovincial trade - and the most powerful and influential nation in the world is blocking aid, and even diverts international oil shipments and other commodities away from the island to its own sea ports, and digging deep into its own taxpayer's purse to compensate shipping companies for cooperating in economic warfare.

And there are many essential items that just aren't manufactured on the fictitious provincial island, everything from medical equipment, insulin needles, computers, therapeutic drugs, wooden crutches, and so on which are imported to the islands of Newfoundland, PEI, and Vancouver Island, but for some strange reason aren't allowed to go to the one special province. And it's because a vicious, nuclear-powered empire continues to wage genocidal economic wafare against the islanders who want nothing more than to maintain sovereignty apart from Yanqui imperialism ever since 1959. But the island is real, and it is the sovereign nation of Cuba. They have a right to exist outside the clutches of a vicious empire. Socialismo O Muerte!

[ 27 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged