But the only time an actual invasion actually became likely was during the crisis, which tells something about the deterrant quality of those missiles.
Indeed, and JFK displayed stunning irresponsibility during the conflict, taking US close to an “ultimate doom”. That’s one of the reasons why I despise the man.
The rhetoric existed much before the revolution.
Yes --- because a US backed tyrant ruled over Cuba, just like strong anti-Russian and pro-independence rhetoric existed in Finland during the Sortokausis. Before and after the civil war, strong anti-bolshevist rhetoric existed --- but here comes the difference, after the Second World War, Soviets did not aggress against Finland, unlike Americans who pursued a policy of stubborn aggression against Cuba – thus relations improved and the anti-soviet rhetoric calmed down in Finland.
They were a strongly anti-american group before taking power, naturally after they did take power relations with the US were damaged.
Just like the high classes of Finns who ruled over Finland were strongly anti-soviet.
And the difference is, Finland chose to largely ignore the Soviet Union
No, no, no, Finland never ignored Russia.
while Cuba adopted an openly confrontationist approach that lasts untill today, in a watered-down manner.
No, Cuba adopted the policy due to American aggression and support for the previous Cuban dictatorship. If US had chosen a more rational policy towards Cuba, relations would’ve eventually calmed down – they usually do.
Well of course during the war the finns would try to gain controll of soviet lands. But after the war, did they send money and trained troops of rebels in Poland or Hungary?
No – but as I said, Finland was a significant threat to the Soviets – much greater than whatever the American establishment could conjure to regiment their people and to punish their puppets. The difference is substantial but largely irrelevant --- the form the threat took was different from what Cuba posed to the Americans... but what is essential is that the Soviets evantually solved it by peaceful means. If Soviets had chosen to pursue more aggressive policies towards Finland after their failed assaults on Finland, like US did in the case of Cuba, than obviously there would’ve been far more organized anti-soviet movements in Finland.
Panama is probably the one who suffered the most american intervenions and it seems to be doing fine.
I'd say Nicaragua. The death toll in Nicaragua from the U.S. terrorist war (which was lead by no other than John Negroponte) per capita, relative to population, would be the same as about 2.5 million dead in the United States, which is higher than the total number of American deaths in all wars in the U.S. History, including the Civil War. Thus to Nicaragua, the war was immensely destructive.
The war was waged from Honduras -- where US had its mercenary armies camped. It was Negroponte's job to supervise those contra camps in Honduras, from which the C.I.A. mercenary army was attacking Nicaragua, which wasn't exactly a small affair, since he had to insure that congress didn't get upset about the fact that the Honduras run security forces were carrying out tortures and massacres. US terrorist war in Nicaragua isn't even controversial... but nevertheless rarely mentioned.
When the democracy which was favoured by the US and Soviet elites (the democracy where you have virtually a gun pointed to your face and if you vote for a candidate they don't like, another terrorist war will be waged against your country) was established in Nicaragua and a US backed candidate won, propaganda rags like The pravd.... uh I mean, the New York Times had big headlines saying ‘Americans united in joy…’, sort of like the North Koreans.
Since the U.S. took it over again, Nicaragua declined to the second poorest country in the hemisphere after Haiti, which was the main target of U.S. military intervention in the 20th century. Malnutrion is widespread, with children suffering from likely brain-damage. Almost half of the active labour force has moved away etc.
Colombia? So aiding the government against drug-dealing rebels is "aggression"?
United States has been financing death squads to protect its interests in Colombia. The US backed; corporate playthingie government is extremely oppressive and has a long record of crushing popular movements, dissent and all forms opposition to its kleptocratic rule. The brutal paramilitaries (which are some of the worst human rights violators in the world today) and the repressive military collaborate and wage war against the civilian population and resistance movements with US backing. They fight for the interests of the multinational corporations, not to root out drug production -- which is the usual pretext. Indeed, many of them are undoubetly involved in drug trade.
What about Chile? I don't remember ever seen a picture of an american tank in Santiago.
But I remember one certain US backed dictator with a ridiculous name.
No nation is forced to take their loans.
Yes well, I’m too tired now to explain the workings of IMF (structural adjustment etc) but lets just say that their irresponsible policies contribute greatly to world poverty.
The Soviet Union was the state that killed the most in the history of the human race.
Now when you say that Soviet Union did it, you imply that the state killed them all --- which I sincerely doubt: Although I do not defend Soviet state capitalist totalitarianism, there were undoubtedly other unintentional factors like disaster, famine, incompetence etc, which played greater role in causing the number of deaths.
While for example, United States has through deliberate acts of aggression in Vietnam, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, East-Timor, Palestine, Central America etc caused the deaths of millions. Deliberate US sanctions and aggression against Iraq has no doubt resulted in the deaths of several millions. US aggression and irresponsible support for mass murderers, when all the cases are combined, leaves US at least partly responsible for the deaths of tens millions of people and for massive poverty, political and economic upheaval. To say that US was, in any conceivable way, more benign than the Soviet Union, is quite frankly ridiculous--- In fact, US was probably the far more aggressive and expansionist side of the cold war.
When the US starts building gulags, and executing "enemies of the people" after a half-hour trial we can discuss this.
Well, you know, I think funding death squads to secure corporate interests in sufficiently close.
Are you saying that trade with the US is necessary to avoid poverty? That the entire rest of the world is not enough?
No --- again, is it so hard to comprehend? US government and corporations have huge sway in world politics and finance… if they decide that no one should trade with Cubans without suffering consequences, trade to Cuba remains limited.
Besides, it’s not only that. Do you know why US still controls Gitmo? I know why, it is a major port in the area – thus controlling it will severely hamper development in Eastern Cuba. Also, US has for decades waged a terrorist war against Cuba, which continues today.
Anyway, considering how much Castro hates and criticises the US, his burning desire to trade with them never made much sense to me.
Well, obviously much doesn’t make sense to you. Usually when a foreign power terrorizes your people for decades and strangulates your economy you kinda start disliking the power. However --- your argument is based on the ridiculous notion that socialists oppose trade, which is not true as long as trade is genuine.
Specially when he has repeatdly criticised Latin American nations with strong trade relations with the US.
Well, obviously for a very good reason. The Latin American rich elites often irresponsibly embrace the neoliberal economic order, with the cost of their poor. Given the nightmarish past of the so-called US “trade” in the South America, one should be careful when trading with them.