Castro allows Cubans to buy 'banned' goods

[1prophet]

Castro allows Cubans to buy 'banned' goods

HAVANA - Communist Cuba has authorized the sale of computers, DVD and video players and other electrical appliances in the first sign President Raul Castro is moving to lift some restrictions on daily life.

"Based on the improved availability of electricity the government at the highest level has approved the sale of some equipment which was prohibited," said an internal government memo seen by Reuters.

It listed computers, video and DVD players, 19-inch and 24-inch television sets, electric pressure cookers and rice cookers, electric bicycles, car alarms and microwaves that can now be freely bought by Cubans.

Raul Castro, 76, has led Cuba since July 2006 when his older brother Fidel Castro provisionally handed over power after intestinal surgery from which he has never fully recovered.

The younger Castro formally became Cuba's first new leader in almost half a century on Feb. 24, and promised to ease some of the restrictions on daily life in Cuba.

"The country's priority will be to meet the basic needs of the population, both material and spiritual," Raul Castro said as he replaced his brother, a staunch critic of capitalist consumer society.

Last year, under Raul Castro's provisional government, customs regulations were eased to allow Cubans to bring in some electronic equipment and car parts.

And here we were led to believe it was the embargo from the US holding them back and somehow they couldn't make it with the rest of the world which had no embargo against Cuba.

 

[Atreus21]

Don't worry. I'm sure the US is to blame for SOMETHING. There's no denying it.

 

[Lemon law]

What is wrong with Cuba easing restrictions? And where does the idea come from that this is the fault of the US. The fact is that Raul Castro is showing some hopeful signs but will soon go the way of his brother. And Cuba will have new leadership that most likely will come from a younger generation. If the USA is willing to work with that younger generation we can finally start progress to a more rational Cuban policy that will benefit both the US and Cuba. And even better, we may have an opportunity to work with Raul Castro now. Either way its an opportunity that should not be squandered because stupidity on either side can prevent that progress.

Granted it may be a small step, but still a symbolic first step that could continue.

 

[Jaskalas]

Our dealings with China completely confuse any morale stance against dealing with Cuba. I find myself conflicted. There are reasons to favor either side of this argument for normalized relations.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our dealings with China completely confuse any morale stance against dealing with Cuba. I find myself conflicted. There are reasons to favor either side of this argument for normalized relations.

US still pissed over the bay of pigs? Who knows. It's actually puerile--childish--that the US still has an embargo against Cuba. It's a clear case of bullying, really.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our dealings with China completely confuse any morale stance against dealing with Cuba. I find myself conflicted. There are reasons to favor either side of this argument for normalized relations.

US still pissed over the bay of pigs? Who knows. It's actually puerile--childish--that the US still has an embargo against Cuba. It's a clear case of bullying, really.

Naw, they just didn't want to deal with a two-bit dictator that was OK with the Soviets putting nuclear missles off our shores. Once you put something like that on, how do you get rid of it? It'd be like a politician saying he thinks we should raise the DWI alcohol limit for driving. Nobody is going to sponser that.

Maybe now with a new leader??? If it wasn't another Castro then I'd say it would happen, but I wouldn't bet either way right now.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our dealings with China completely confuse any morale stance against dealing with Cuba. I find myself conflicted. There are reasons to favor either side of this argument for normalized relations.

US still pissed over the bay of pigs? Who knows. It's actually puerile--childish--that the US still has an embargo against Cuba. It's a clear case of bullying, really.

Naw, they just didn't want to deal with a two-bit dictator that was OK with the Soviets putting nuclear missles off our shores. Once you put something like that on, how do you get rid of it? It'd be like a politician saying he thinks we should raise the DWI alcohol limit for driving. Nobody is going to sponser that.

Maybe now with a new leader??? If it wasn't another Castro then I'd say it would happen, but I wouldn't bet either way right now.

The US was buddy-buddy with Bin Laden and Saddam more recently than the cold war and had no problem making enemies with them. I don't see why it couldn't befriend a previous enemy, too.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The US was buddy-buddy with Bin Laden and Saddam more recently than the cold war and had no problem making enemies with them. I don't see why it couldn't befriend a previous enemy, too.

We were never 'buddy-buddy' with Bin Laden.

Both sides have stated this, look it up on the net.

 

[ProfJohn]

Don?t they know that computers will lead to internet forums?

Before you know it they will be arguing over which 24inch TV has the best picture.
From there we know it is just a matter of time before the whole regime falls apart.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our dealings with China completely confuse any morale stance against dealing with Cuba. I find myself conflicted. There are reasons to favor either side of this argument for normalized relations.

US still pissed over the bay of pigs? Who knows. It's actually puerile--childish--that the US still has an embargo against Cuba. It's a clear case of bullying, really.

Naw, they just didn't want to deal with a two-bit dictator that was OK with the Soviets putting nuclear missles off our shores. Once you put something like that on, how do you get rid of it? It'd be like a politician saying he thinks we should raise the DWI alcohol limit for driving. Nobody is going to sponser that.

Maybe now with a new leader??? If it wasn't another Castro then I'd say it would happen, but I wouldn't bet either way right now.

The US was buddy-buddy with Bin Laden and Saddam more recently than the cold war and had no problem making enemies with them. I don't see why it couldn't befriend a previous enemy, too.

Khaddafi(sp)

 

[Nebor]

Sweet. They can get computers. Too bad no one is allowed home internet access. And DVD players! Too bad they're not allowed DVDs from the outside world. And Televisions! Too bad they can only watch Cuban TV, as only foreign enclaves are allowed global television networks.

 

[senseamp]

Of course we still can't get Cuban cigars or visit Cuba.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I applaud this small step. Hopefully there will be more so we can eventually normalize relations.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our dealings with China completely confuse any morale stance against dealing with Cuba. I find myself conflicted. There are reasons to favor either side of this argument for normalized relations.

US still pissed over the bay of pigs? Who knows. It's actually puerile--childish--that the US still has an embargo against Cuba. It's a clear case of bullying, really.

Naw, they just didn't want to deal with a two-bit dictator that was OK with the Soviets putting nuclear missles off our shores. Once you put something like that on, how do you get rid of it? It'd be like a politician saying he thinks we should raise the DWI alcohol limit for driving. Nobody is going to sponser that.

Maybe now with a new leader??? If it wasn't another Castro then I'd say it would happen, but I wouldn't bet either way right now.

The US was buddy-buddy with Bin Laden and Saddam more recently than the cold war and had no problem making enemies with them. I don't see why it couldn't befriend a previous enemy, too.

Khaddafi(sp)

It's a lot easier to go from a friend to an enemy then vice-versa.

And i wouldn't call Gaddafi a friend just yet. From an interview on Al-Jazeera TV. Qatar, April 10, 2006.

"We have four million Muslims in Albania. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe ? without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims."

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our dealings with China completely confuse any morale stance against dealing with Cuba. I find myself conflicted. There are reasons to favor either side of this argument for normalized relations.

US still pissed over the bay of pigs? Who knows. It's actually puerile--childish--that the US still has an embargo against Cuba. It's a clear case of bullying, really.

Naw, they just didn't want to deal with a two-bit dictator that was OK with the Soviets putting nuclear missles off our shores. Once you put something like that on, how do you get rid of it? It'd be like a politician saying he thinks we should raise the DWI alcohol limit for driving. Nobody is going to sponser that.

Maybe now with a new leader??? If it wasn't another Castro then I'd say it would happen, but I wouldn't bet either way right now.

The US was buddy-buddy with Bin Laden and Saddam more recently than the cold war and had no problem making enemies with them. I don't see why it couldn't befriend a previous enemy, too.

Khaddafi(sp)

It's a lot easier to go from a friend to an enemy then vice-versa.

And i wouldn't call Gaddafi a friend just yet. From an interview on Al-Jazeera TV. Qatar, April 10, 2006.

"We have four million Muslims in Albania. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe ? without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims."

Well, I have no problem with that possibility. Not that I would ever become a Muslim, but history is full of one Philosophy/Religion overtaking another. It's just Social Evolution at work and usually involves the failure of a corrupt Philosophy being overtaken. The only problem with it I would have would be the failure of Secular Democracy and the possibility of a Theocracy taking over. That might be unavoidable if Roman History is any indicator though. The best defense against such an onslaught is to ensure the survival of the Secular Institutions.

I view the Philosophy/Religious ebb and flow similar to the Racial ebb and flow. Many used to lament the possibility of non-White domination. That made all kinds of things taboo, from treating non-White Races as second class, to making Inter-Racial Marriage taboo. On the whole though, what difference does it make if a Race(or all for that matter) disappears due to extensive Racial mixing? If all my Descendants end up Euro-Afro-Asian-etc, how does that affect me? Not at all. Same goes Philosophically/Religiously, if my Descendants are Muslim and most of their neighbours are Muslim, what difference is that to me?

Our energy is best spent shoring up the strengths of our Secular Democracies and letting the chaff of our Corrupt and Corrupting Philosophies blow off into the wind. The only problem with that though is, what if it is also our Secular Democracies which are corrupt? In that case we'll enter a new Dark Age as all is dismantled to be built up again. I think that is a real possibility, I don't like the idea of it, but I doubt the Romans liked the idea either, if they were even aware of the possibility.

This all assumes that Islam will overtake Christianity in the West though. All the indicators certainly make it a likely scenario. We got to think about this though: If Islam takes over without Violence or Force, then what does that say of the Philosophies/Religions it overtakes? Also, to what extent are you willing to go to prevent Islam winning out in that situation and does it seem reasonable to protect something so weak as to be overtaken through simple non-violent means? I say it is not worth it as the Masses will have rejected the very thing being protected, not only rejected but the Masses will adopt the other Philosophy/Religion anyway no matter how much you try to prevent it.

The only way for Christianity to survive the onslaught is for Christianity to get its' shit together. The outlook is bleak when you consider that the most powerful Christian groups place the likes of Bush in places of Leadership and whose spokespersons are of equal "ability" as him. It is also not surprising to me how those same "Christians" encourage Violence to the Muslims through Secular means and washing their hands of it, while pointing out every small desperate act by Muslims as evidence of "violent Islam". The only ones not seeing the Hypocrisy of that are the "Christians" themselves. They are merely accelerating their own demise and doing nothing to avoid destiny.