Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Cuba?
From: s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov)
Date: Sun Jan 4 19:00:08 2009
References: <20090104020812.ZRBE18445.eastrmmtao103.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net><4DD8FFE3-B9B1-40F9-80CA-C0DD5F09ECBC@frozenlight.eu><D7989D94-10EF-48D3-A3C3-515CAD6160C8@charter.net><533B27A025014DD4B6B3D81E047CB7BE@precisionm50> <95D7C53D-67B1-460D-AB0B-5127889C04FA@charter.net> <6494856C861E4C9C99735C446B2BEEEF@precisionm50> <COL119-W944F8F53B051890231E4682E00@phx.gbl>

Well,  the point wasn't of origins of causation. It was more on how  
it adds a piece to a complex relational mosaic.
The possibility of a substantive improvement in the relationship  
between the two has long since evaporated. The role of a population,  
in Florida, raised on a virulent hatred, can not now be undone.
sd

On Jan 4, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Greg Lorenzo wrote:

>
> IMHO the US reaction to Cuba has nothing to do with the Spanish  
> American War but rather the nationalization without compensation of  
> property owned by US citizens after Castro came to power 50 years  
> ago (including mob owned casinos).
>
> I suspect that relations will improve between both countries in the  
> near future.
>
> Greg Lorenzo
> Calgary, Canada> From: leica@web-options.com> To: lug@leica- 
> users.org> Subject: RE: [Leica] Cuba?> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009  
> 17:05:31 +0000> > That's as may be, but it doesn't actually answer  
> the question, which was> "why do you think a large contingent of  
> Cubans fighting in the Spanish Civil> War 'makes sense' of the  
> 'American reaction(s) to Cuba'?". I'm interested to> learn, because  
> to me it doesn't make sense.> > Bob> > > -----Original Message----- 
> > > From: lug-bounces+leica=web-options.com@leica-users.org > >  
> [mailto:lug-bounces+leica=web-options.com@leica-users.org] On > >  
> Behalf Of Slobodan Dimitrov> > Sent: 04 January 2009 15:49> > To:  
> Leica Users Group> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Cuba?> > > > The reaction  
> to Cuba predates any Marxist carbuncle. While currently > > seeming  
> irrational to Europeans, the attitude is firmly > > grounded in a >  
> > long standing interventionist position, or point of view.> > Self  
> determination, within a people who are perceived as a subject > >  
> people, is usually seen as a disease which needs to be cauterized.  
> > > The Caribbean has been a hot bed of self determination from the  
> very > > beginning. With Haiti and Cuba leading the charge.> > When  
> I was in the service, I remember Gen. Westmoreland being taken > >  
> out of Viet Nam and given the Southern Command. I thought > > that  
> at the > > time it was a demotion. But in spit of the Asian hot  
> conflict, the > > Southern Command position was considered more  
> important, > > hence a reward.> > Some time ago, I had the chance  
> to hear a particular speech by Rev. > > James Lawson. It was at an  
> MLK event. He said a sentence which I'll > > never forget, that the  
> job of the US military in Latin America is to > > make sure no 14  
> year old ever grows up to become a Martin Luther > > King. That  
> speech was made in the late 2000's.> > sd> > > > > > On Jan 4,  
> 2009, at 3:00 AM, Bob W wrote:> > > > >> Some time ago, I became  
> acquainted with a veteran from the Spanish> > >> Civil War. He was  
> lucky enough to have been repatriated to> > >> the United> > >>  
> States. That was before, and just barely, Petain had those  
> interned> > >> on the French side of the border sent to the  
> Mauthausen-Gusen camp.> > >> So while we were talking, I asked a  
> question for which I > > could never> > >> get a straight answer.  
> That was whether the Mexican> > >> contingent in the> > >>  
> Republican forces were the largest group of foreign volunteers, as>  
> > >> most historical presentation would have it. Without  
> hesitation, he> > >> said the Cubans were. I stood there, somewhat  
> transfixed for a> > >> moment, and said to him, now it makes sense.  
> That is, the American> > >> reaction(s) to Cuba.> > >> sd> > >> > >  
> I don't understand how this makes sense of the US attitude towards  
> > > > Cuba, and> > > I'd be grateful if you could explain.> > >> >  
> > I don't know a great deal about this, but I sutudied a bit > > of  
> Spanish> > > history when I was learning Spanish at college, and  
> some of > > my school> > > teachers were veterans of the civil war.  
> Here is how I figure it - > > > please> > > correct me if I've got  
> things wrong:> > >> > > The Spanish Civil War (73 years ago) was a  
> long time before > > the Cuban> > > revolution (50 years and 3 days  
> ago), and before the revolution > > > Cuba was a> > > banana  
> republic client of the USA. Since the USA was > > neutral about  
> the> > > Spanish Civil War it's likely that the Cuban government's  
> position > > > would> > > also have been officially neutral, and  
> Cubans who went to Spain > > > would have> > > been volunteers,  
> even if unofficially helped by the government. > > > Given the> > >  
> historical relationship between Spain and Cuba it would be  
> entirely> > > understandable for many Cubans to wish to be involved  
> in the civil > > > war on> > > one side or the other, but they  
> would, officially at least, > > have been> > > volunteers who went  
> under their own steam.> > >> > > The current attitude of the US  
> towards Cuba arises from the > > time of > > > the> > > Cuban  
> revolution and the relationship between Cuba and the > > then  
> Soviet> > > Union. The Cuban revolution did so a great deal of  
> damage to US > > > interests> > > over there; Cuba, with Soviet  
> backing, tried to export the > > > revolution to> > > other parts  
> of Central and South America, and Cuba became a > > potential> > >  
> bridgehead for the Soviets into the US, so the USA took a > > hard  
> line > > > about> > > relationships with Cuba.> > >> > > Since the  
> collapse of the Soviet Union the hard line is > > continued not> >  
> > because of any real threat to the US from Cuba, but because of >  
> > > continued> > > vested political interests.> > >> > > I'd be  
> interested to find out why you think the Spanish > > Civil War has>  
> > > anything to do with the US attitude to Cuba.> > >> > > Bob> >  
> >> > >> > > _______________________________________________> > >  
> Leica Users Group.> > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> lug for more information> > > > > >  
> _______________________________________________> > Leica Users  
> Group.> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more  
> information> > > > > > >  
> _______________________________________________> Leica Users  
> Group.> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more  
> information
> _________________________________________________________________
> It?s the same Hotmail?. If by ?same? you mean up to 70% faster.
> http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail? 
> ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_122008
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] Cuba?)
Message from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan) ([Leica] Cuba?)
Message from s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov) ([Leica] Cuba?)
Message from leica at web-options.com (Bob W) ([Leica] Cuba?)
Message from s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov) ([Leica] Cuba?)
Message from leica at web-options.com (Bob W) ([Leica] Cuba?)
Message from gregj_lorenzo at hotmail.com (Greg Lorenzo) ([Leica] Cuba?)