Breaking News Protests across Cuba against the Cuban Regime

[Galloism]

Wait, what? Is this a thing?

Yes. Cuba has intervened quite a lot in Africa and Latin America, usually with the intention of destabilizing non-Soviet-aligned governments.

So, I totally didn't know this.

[Nilokeras]

Yes. Cuba has intervened quite a lot in Africa and Latin America, usually with the intention of destabilizing non-Soviet-aligned governments.

So, I totally didn't know this.

I mean lets be clear here, 'non Soviet aligned governments' is doing a lot of euphemistic heavy lifting there considering that said 'non Soviet aligned' states were things like apartheid Rhodesia and the colonial government of Portugal.

[Fahran]

I mean lets be clear here, 'non Soviet aligned governments' is doing a lot of euphemistic heavy lifting there considering that said 'non Soviet aligned' states were things like apartheid Rhodesia and the colonial government of Portugal.

In some cases, it's literally China, Angolan Maoists, or Bolivia. We also should observe that in many instances Apartheid South Africa's involvement had next to nothing to do with propping up racism or racial hierarchies. UNITA wasn't a white supremacist force in Angola. They were literally a left-wing political party comprised principally of Bantu-speaking Angolans, one of several groups attempting to establish themselves in the country. So, yes, "non-Soviet aligned governments" is an exceedingly accurate description to encompass liberal democracies, apartheid states, Maoist dictatorships, left-wing militant movements, and military juntas because being anti-Soviet is literally what brought them together in their direct or indirect enmity with Cuba.

I should specify that this isn't really intended as a serious critique of Cuba's government. One may describe this policy as a bit hypocritical, but it is in keeping with their ideology when we put the blinders on and, to some degree, it wasn't completely irrational. The USSR, the US, Cuba, and other such powers often behaved in a very similar way when it came to the Cold War, seeking to spread their own ideological model while containing that of their enemies. Even when it meant doing rather questionable things to people or making alliances that, at first glance, didn't make a lot of sense.

[Fahran]

Not for the locals and especially not if they do any kind of dissent. Just for foreigners.

Tell it to the Saudi women who now have the right to drive in spite of many in the Ulema still objecting to the practice. In any case, Mohammed ibn Salman isn't a champion of human rights or a democratic leader. I never intended to imply that he was. I merely explained why the Saudi government, as presently constituted, is likely better than realistic alternatives for people who want things like women having greater autonomy and a higher degree of secularism. For what it's worth, Khashogi, the guy the Saudis had murdered, was an actual liberal and a persistent gadfly to Arab governments who seriously deserve the criticism.

You can do good things or closely represent your political community's culture while being a horrible dictator. Castro, for instance, promoted literacy and healthcare to a significant degree while having people tortured and disappeared. You take the good with the bad in analyzing these sorts of figures. Realistically, of course, a liberal doesn't want to live under either regime. Because of all the torture and lack of customary human rights. It's quite distinct from making moral judgements about politics or who these people are.

As I mentioned, I don't think dictators are usually good people. Good people don't order torture or abuse or murder. But not every political culture demands good people as leaders. In fact, it's often quite the opposite.

[Galloism]

Not for the locals and especially not if they do any kind of dissent. Just for foreigners.

Tell it to the Saudi women who now have the right to drive in spite of many in the Ulema still objecting to the practice. In any case, Mohammed ibn Salman isn't a champion of human rights or a democratic leader. I never intended to imply that he was. I merely explained why the Saudi government, as presently constituted, is likely better than realistic alternatives for people who want things like women having greater autonomy and a higher degree of secularism.

I read an interesting article when that happened (Saudi made the early 1900s great again and all that). Biggest opposers to women being allowed to drive? Saudi women, by and large. The men like it because they no longer have to hire drivers and they save money.

[Fahran]

I read an interesting article when that happened (Saudi made the early 1900s great again and all that). Biggest opposers to women being allowed to drive? Saudi women, by and large. The men like it because they no longer have to hire drivers and they save money.

That's actually not altogether surprising. Despite the high degree of social conservatism and religious extremism present in Saudi Arabia, Saudi women are very highly educated and often express deeply pious views on social issues. It's not too dissimilar to how women and evangelical preachers teamed up to push through prohibition.

[Gravlen]

The Saudi state really isn't comparable to Iran or Cuba in terms of constituting an active belligerent and directly sponsoring terrorist movements that conflict with our interests. For one thing, Mohammed ibn Salman, the guy who had the dissident journalist chopped up in the Turkish embassy, is actually going to be the person who shifts Saudi Arabia towards modernization, secularization, and human rights in the long-term if he succeeds in his current ongoing reforms. He's not a good person in the slightest, but he's not a dye-in-the-wool Wahhabi either.

If you really believe he's going to make any significant shift in Saudi Arabia towards human rights, you're being surprisingly naive. The human rights situation in SA has by many accounts worsened under his leadership, even if he's allowed some reforms to distract from the massive condemnation he was facing after the murder of Khashoggi. He has no desire to strengthen human rights in SA, he just wants to make largely cosmetic changes so the country appears softer and more friendly in order to increase tourism and investments in accordance with his Vision 2030.

The crown prince was once considered a reformist. On a U.S. tour months before Khashoggi’s killing, he was feted for moving to usher in social changes such as allowing women to drive. But that same year saw the start of a concerted crackdown against rights activists, including more than two dozen campaigners for women’s rights arrested since 2018.

Many are accused of terrorism-related crimes for their activism, denied contact with family or legal representation. Rights groups and relatives have made credible accusations of torture, including sexual abuse. One prominent women’s activist, Loujain Hathloul, was offered release if she made a public denial that she had been tortured in custody.

Critics cite worsening Saudi repression two years after journalist’s gruesome slaying

This quote is a good summary of things:

"There have been some changes but no real difference in the way that political prisoners are treated, or the extent to which freedom of opinion is possible," Dhainy concluded. "They [the reforms] don't impact the human rights situation in a meaningful way and until they do, it is really just propaganda."

[Fahran]

If you really believe he's going to make any significant shift in Saudi Arabia towards human rights, you're being surprisingly naive. The human rights situation in SA has by many accounts worsened under his leadership, even if he's allowed some reforms to distract from the massive condemnation he was facing after the murder of Khashoggi. He has no desire to strengthen human rights in SA, he just wants to make largely cosmetic changes so the country appears softer and more friendly in order to increase tourism and investments in accordance with his Vision 2030.

Saudi Vision 2030, if properly realized, would represent a long-term shift away from many of the social and religious policies adopted following the 1979 Grand Mosque Seizure. The multifaceted plan aims to diversify the economy, reduce the influence of Wahhabism on the country's political culture, and develop multiple public sectors. It's not necessarily a shift towards liberal democracy, but those "largely cosmetic changes" still encompass potentially important reforms and cultural shifts. They also serve to illustrate the point that Mohammed ibn Salman, unlike the Ayatollahs, isn't a dye-in-the-wool Islamist hellbent on spreading his own brand of the faith globally through often unscrupulous means.

Mind you, political repression in the name of preserving autocratic power isn't really a leg above social repression to impose a fundamentalist sect and worldview on the masses. It is a shift all the same, and a potentially game-changing one if we look two or three generations down the road.

The crown prince was once considered a reformist. On a U.S. tour months before Khashoggi’s killing, he was feted for moving to usher in social changes such as allowing women to drive. But that same year saw the start of a concerted crackdown against rights activists, including more than two dozen campaigners for women’s rights arrested since 2018.

Many are accused of terrorism-related crimes for their activism, denied contact with family or legal representation. Rights groups and relatives have made credible accusations of torture, including sexual abuse. One prominent women’s activist, Loujain Hathloul, was offered release if she made a public denial that she had been tortured in custody.

Critics cite worsening Saudi repression two years after journalist’s gruesome slaying

I'm well aware of the ongoing campaign of repression in Saudi Arabia. I believe I even posted on this forum about Loujain Hathloul's ordeal. As I mentioned before, Mohammed ibn Salman isn't a champion of human rights or a good person. With regard to Saudi Arabia though, he's the person at the helm and, given the political culture in place, he's a pretty big improvement over past rulers - at least based on the direction he seems to be moving the country. And he might well prove superior to what an elected government would give the country in spite of surprising grit, organization, and determination by liberal and human rights activists in Saudi Arabia.

This quote is a good summary of things:

"There have been some changes but no real difference in the way that political prisoners are treated, or the extent to which freedom of opinion is possible," Dhainy concluded. "They [the reforms] don't impact the human rights situation in a meaningful way and until they do, it is really just propaganda."

Again, that isn't surprising. Mohammed ibn Salman isn't a liberal or a democrat in any sense. He does represent secularization and modernization in the context of Saudi Arabia though.

That said, we should probably engage in a shift of our own - back to the topic of Cuba.

[Sungoldy-China]

Just look at the Arab Spring,
What you didn’t have before democracy, you still don’t have after democracy.
And because of the amazing corruption in the process of supporting other puppet governments by U.S , you may loss more after democracy.

[Ifreann]

ngl turning off the internet and asking your supporters to show up and counterprotest seems a lot better than deploying chemical weapons and other things that maim, wound and sometimes kill people on a large scale like our police do lol

It was mentioned in another thread that federal agents deployed chemical weapons in such quantities in Portland that they're poisoning local waterways with deadly carcinogens. Every instance of a Cuban cop responding to acts of protest with violence is obviously unacceptable, but baton charges pale in comparison to what the US cops do to American protesters regularly.

---

ngl turning off the internet and asking your supporters to show up and counterprotest seems a lot better than deploying chemical weapons and other things that maim, wound and sometimes kill people on a large scale like our police do lol

Given some people have allegedly been shot and beaten by the police in Cuba, I'd be really surprised if the police weren't employing batons, rubber bullets, and chemical weapons to disperse rowdy crowds.

Where would the Cuban regime get rubber bullets and chemical weapons? The country is under an embargo, and tear gas isn't an extract of the leaves of the weeping willow.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Yes. Cuba has intervened quite a lot in Africa and Latin America, usually with the intention of destabilizing non-Soviet-aligned governments.

So, I totally didn't know this.

Because the current narrative is one sided.

[Punished UMN]

So, I totally didn't know this.

Because the current narrative is one sided.

Cuba was intervening against Apartheid regimes that were trying to maintain their dominion over the indigenous population in already-existing wars.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

The Cuban rhetoric about Angola rings a little hollow considering their role in crushing the FLEC and maintaining Angolan imperialism in Cabinda.

[Fahran]

Just look at the Arab Spring,
What you didn’t have before democracy, you still don’t have after democracy.
And because of the amazing corruption in the process of supporting other puppet governments by U.S , you may loss more after democracy.

Depends on the country, really. Tunisia has been a success in a lot of metrics. Jordan literally avoided a crisis because Abdullah II is a complete chad. Libya and Egypt, not so much. Surprise, Arabs are a diverse group with diverse political cultures.

The Cuban rhetoric about Angola rings a little hollow considering their role in crushing the FLEC and maintaining Angolan imperialism in Cabinda.

It's almost like Cuba was all about that delicious communist neo-imperialism.

I don't think Cuba is really remarkable in that regard. As I mentioned, the US engaged in similar policies on a much broader scale - such as with Operation Condor. It was a pretty consistent pattern in the context of the Cold War.

[Fahran]

Cuba was intervening against Apartheid regimes that were trying to maintain their dominion over the indigenous population in already-existing wars.

UNITA wasn't an apartheid regime. Neither were a lot of the governments Cuba deliberately destabilized. And, arguably, Cuba does retain a racial hierarchy even to this day, which has received recent expression in Cuban police beating Afro-Cubans protesting shortages that, probably, fall disproportionately on black Cubans - at least if we should pay the Economist and local reporters any heed.

[Fahran]

Where would the Cuban regime get rubber bullets and chemical weapons? The country is under an embargo, and tear gas isn't an extract of the leaves of the weeping willow.

Old Soviet-era stockpiles are always an option. That's likely how Syria managed to employ chemical weapons. I doubt the Marxist-Leninist one-party state is struggling when it comes to ensuring their police can properly brutalize protestors. That's one of the first things you fund if you want to keep the capitalists and liberals from staging a counter revolution through demonstrations and demands for elections.

And baton charges can be just as bad as tear gas or rubber bullets, especially if the intention is to seriously harm or maim, which we have some indication is the exact intention. Mind you, I'm certain some of these tactics, as in the US, are in response to actual riots. But the American and Cuban people are in different political and economic situations to a significant degree.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Because the current narrative is one sided.

Cuba was intervening against Apartheid regimes that were trying to maintain their dominion over the indigenous population in already-existing wars.

I have my doubts about that description.

[Fahran]

I have my doubts about that description.

It's probably most accurate when discussing the Rhodesian Bush War, and the funding of militant movements in South Africa, but even these activities can and probably should be perceived as proxy wars intended to spread ideology - as evidenced by the continuation of the Sino-Soviet Split in terms of who got support from who. And the fact that Americans were often seen supporting local strongmen with aversions to old school colonialism.

[South Reinkalistan]

Cuba was intervening against Apartheid regimes that were trying to maintain their dominion over the indigenous population in already-existing wars.

I have my doubts about that description.

what "doubts", it's literally what happened as per the historical record

[The Reformed American Republic]

I have my doubts about that description.

It's probably most accurate when discussing the Rhodesian Bush War, and the funding of militant movements in South Africa, but even these activities can and probably should be perceived as proxy wars intended to spread ideology - as evidenced by the continuation of the Sino-Soviet Split in terms of who got support from who. And the fact that Americans were often seen supporting local strongmen with aversions to old school colonialism.

I wasn't taking about Apartheid South Africa or Zimbabwe. Cuba was probably involved with the destabilization of non-Apartheid governments like pre-Chavez Venezuela.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I’ve been out of the loop. Did the Miami Cuban expats go on their silly “support cruise” already?

[Kowani]

I’ve been out of the loop. Did the Miami Cuban expats go on their silly “support cruise” already?

They did, yes

at least no one sank this time...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I’ve been out of the loop. Did the Miami Cuban expats go on their silly “support cruise” already?

They did, yes

at least no one sank this time...

I just choked in my Sprite. Thanks.

[Kowani]

They did, yes

at least no one sank this time...

I just choked in my Sprite. Thanks.

i do my best

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I just choked in my Sprite. Thanks.

i do my best

Poseidon was in a good mood, I guess.