this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
372 points (93.9% liked)

World News

38936 readers
2171 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

On more than 30 occasions, the United Nations Assembly has discussed the blockade against Cuba, which costs the island 5 billion dollars annually, according to some estimates. Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.

edit: result of the vote: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/system/cache/media_attachments/files/113/398/372/180/881/996/original/82c4d1f509e933fa.jpg

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 122 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.

And just like every year, the vote will do nothing.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it'll add up to a hell of a lot of justified reparations when the US backs down.

[–] Kroxx@lemm.ee 12 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

US backs down

Does the US back down? We definitely double down

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 17 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

yeah, The US backs down.

they backed down in Vietnam, they backed down in iran, somalia, they backed down investigating the Saudi Arabian terrorists in 9/11(which is almost all of them), and the list goes on.

the US is not often gracious about backing down or wise enough to back down prudently, but they do back down.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

You left out Afghanistan to be irrefutable, but…gestures at $3TRILLION bill with nothing to show for it.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I was just happy to act as a downvote lightning rod while adding to your excellent list :)

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 51 minutes ago

you are in company.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Well, we successfully shifted all the wealth my generation will ever create over to ultra-rich Defense contractors.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because it’s Russia advocating to lift the embargo which was put in place because of the Cuban missle crisis right?

[–] wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world 19 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Since the 1960s, the United States has systematically punished the Cuban people through a stringent blockade on its economy for having declared and built a political and economic model different from the one advocated and directed by the United States.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 13 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

It's not about the economic model or the US wouldn't be buddies with Vietnam. This is about United Fruit (now Chiquita), this is about Bacardi, all expropriated without a dime of compensation, and rightfully so for using de facto slave labour under the watchful eye of US-backed dictators, administrating the island as a de facto colony.

The Cuban revolution wasn't socialist, it was one for independence. The guerillas, once in power, were eyeing vaguely DemSoc politics and a good relationship with the US. The US answered with the Bay of Pigs invasion etc, driving Cuba into the arms of the Soviet Union and acquiring an unhealthy habit of authoritarianism and non-industrialisation in the process, becoming dependent on the block overpaying for their sugar, them underpaying for oil, fertiliser, etc.

The difference to Vietnam? Vietnam was a French colony. The US got over the domino theory which made them wage war there, they never got over the expropriations and losing control over the colony, worst of all, driving it into the hands of their mortal enemy. To relent on the sanctions would mean reflecting on all that and I don't think the US is politically capable of admitting such a gigantic mistake, both humanitarian and strategic, to themselves.

In a parallel universe, with saner heads in Washington prevailing, Cuba would now be negotiating alongside Puerto Rico about the details of US statehood.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 12 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The Cuban revolution wasn’t socialist, it was one for independence. The guerillas, once in power, were eyeing vaguely DemSoc politics and a good relationship with the US. The US answered with the Bay of Pigs invasion etc, driving Cuba into the arms of the Soviet Union and acquiring an unhealthy habit of authoritarianism and non-industrialisation in the process, becoming dependent on the block overpaying for their sugar, them underpaying for oil, fertiliser, etc.

This is somewhat inaccurate. The guerrillas, once in power, were a broad coalition, but the Castro brothers and Che consolidated power under a ML-leaning regime, and despite claims otherwise to some of their less ML compatriots, this seems to have been the plan more or less from the start. Several of the revolution's leaders were executed for not being ML-leaning. The Bay of Pigs invasion occurred only after that.

This is not to say, mind you, that US hostility didn't drive Cuba into the arms of the Soviets - it very much did. But that hostility was before the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the idea of a demsoc Cuba was dashed by the very men who freed Cuba from Batista.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

despite claims otherwise to some of their less ML compatriots, this seems to have been the plan more or less from the start. Several of the revolution’s leaders were executed for not being ML-leaning.

Confirmed by William Alexander Morgan, who became disillusioned with Castro, and was then executed despite how much he'd helped the revolution.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Seems like he was executed for leading a rebellion against Castro's forces. It wasn't just because he wasn't communist enough.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 4 points 17 hours ago

He was charged with planning to lead them, though I'm not sure if that was actually true or just a charge to slap on him before the execution. He did smuggle arms for the counter-revolutionaries, but only after his comrades and friends were being arrested for counter-revolutionary activities.