|
1. He could have been A LOT HARSHER about the U.S. U.S. actions toward Cuba and South America in general have been nothing short of HORRENDOUS, including past support for fascist regimes that tortured and slaughtered tens of thousand of people, and, more recently, Bushite support for a violent military coup against the elected government of Venezuela, and an effort, this March, to instigate a war between Bushite client state, Colombia, and Ecuador/Venezuela. Castro was toning things down.
2. He could have been A LOT MORE CRITICAL of Obama's speech. He picked up something I picked up as well--that this speech of Obama's had a lot of U.S. "Manifest Destiny" in it. I found it very striking--and rather shocking, actually. WE are to provide "leadership" to South America? WE--of the School of the Americas' torture school? WE who have fucked over the people of South America, time and again, raped and ruined their economies, and destroyed their democracies, and are still trying to do so? In any case, they are doing very well without our help--and in spite of every dirty rotten scheme of the Bush Junta--and have embarked on the most amazing bloodless revolution in history, with leftist governments elected in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, and a progressive government (their first) in Guatemala. They just this week formed the foundation for a South American "Common Market" and--importantly--a common DEFENSE, without the U.S. Obama wants to "lead" them to "democracy." Give me a break. But, aside from having picked up on the blatant condescension in Obama's speech, Castro omitted a number of things he could have said, for instance, the utter hypocrisy (not to mention bald-faced lying) of Obama calling Hugo Chavez "authoritarian" --when it is the U.S. that has become "authoritarian," and, indeed, dictatorial. It is the U.S. that is torturing prisoners. It is the U.S. that has suspended habeas corpus. It is the U.S. that is spying on the reading habits and emails and phone calls of its citizens. It is the U.S. that has a "unitary executive" who writes his own laws. Hugo Chavez does none of these things. He is NOT "authoritarian." Castro could also have balked at Obama saying that his fascist Miami mafia audience was a bulwark of democracy. Good god! Is Obama completely clueless or what?
I considered that, in taking the message to the Miami fascists that the U.S. must open talks with Cuba, Obama was walking into a minefield, and had to cushion the message with what, to me, was unpalatable bullshit. But it seemed over the top to me, even in that circumstance. And what struck me most about it was its delusional quality--its lack of reality. The South Americans don't need--and don't want--our "leadership." They are on their own path, chosen by THEM--by the people--with their OWN, freely chosen, democratically elected leaders (in elections that put our own to shame for their transparency). We need them. They don't need us. We need their oil. We need their forests. We need their water. We need their ag land for biofuel production. We need their vast populations of potential slave labor. Or, I should say, our global corporate predators need them. They don't need our global corporate predators! Our war profiteers need them--as an excuse for the corrupt, failed, murderous "war on drugs" boondoggle to continue. They don't need it! And they don't want it! Country after country has rejected U.S.-dominated "free trade," because it is ruinous to them. Many countries have also rejected the U.S. "war on drugs" because it's become apparent to them that it is merely a means of militarizing their societies--and also spying on them and causing trouble. It is a violation of their sovereignty. They don't need the 4th Fleet (a nuclear fleet) to be running around off the coast of Venezuela. They don't need our goddamned plots to instigate fascist secessionist movements in Venezuela and Bolivia--to split off the resource rich provinces. And why should they accept these things even if the U.S. puts a nicer face on them (Obama's), maybe not so blatant in "divide and conquer" tactics, but "divide and conquer" nonetheless? Read his speech. He wants to split up the alliance of Argentina and Brazil with the Bolivarians (Venezuela, Ecuador). He also wants to flood the region with U.S. consulates and Peace Corps volunteers. Those were the preliminaries to fascist dictatorships in the past. Obama lays the groundwork--as Clinton did with "free trade"--then he's out, and Jeb Bush gets Diebolded into the emperorship, and the consulates and the Peace Corps volunteers become active agents of fascist coups.
I found Obama's speech more alarming than Castro did! Why? Castro seems to see something more positive in it than I do. Perhaps it's that core of Obama's willingness to "talk to our enemies." It just burns ME up that the Bushites and the global corporate predator press have succeeded in painting a DEMOCRATIC leader, Hugo Chavez, as an "enemy" and are working hard to do the same thing to Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, and Daniel Ortega, president of Nicaragua. But I guess that Castro, who has lived his entire life with a U.S. bull's eye target on his back, has a different, and perhaps wiser, perspective. It is a great advance over the Bush Junta that Obama doesn't just declare war on the oil-rich democracies of South America, and proceed to "divide and conquer" them with the 4th Fleet. That's what the Bushites have been planning--with their demonization of the democratic leaders of two OPEC nations, Venezuela and Ecuador (biggest oil reserves in the hemisphere), and their backing of secessionist movements in Venezuela and Bolivia. Grabbing the oil by splitting these countries up! Obama will at least TALK TO THEM first. From Castro's point of view, that's significant progress. And maybe he's right. Maybe I UNDERESTIMATE the danger of the minefield that Obama walked into, in Miami.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(525 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
