Authorities investigate Moore on Cuba

24567…13

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Man, I despise Michael Moore, but this is just silly.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Man, I despise Michael Moore, but this is just silly.


    I just think it's utter bullshit that our government believes it has the right to tell us where we can travel.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    onelongsong wrote:
    and the perfect candidate to make an example of. we'll see how it plays out. i'll bet it's not just a slap on the wrist though.

    I bet he gets zip...and millions to boot...

    my prediction...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    mammasan wrote:
    I just think it's utter bullshit that our government believes it has the right to tell us where we can travel.

    Very much so.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I despise Michael Moore

    Why?
  • MLC2006
    MLC2006 Posts: 861
    the embargo is not illegal, there's nothing in the wikipedia copy/paste that says it's illegal. it says it's condemned by the UN. and the US doesn't answer to the UN when it comes to an embargo on a hostile nation that had WMDs pointed at the US. so no, you're wrong.

    as far as Moore, I couldn't give a shit one way or the other. half of what he says is truth, half is absolutely fabricated. he's a douche, Bush is a douche. 2 douches don't make a non-douche.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    MLC2006 wrote:
    the embargo is not illegal, there's nothing in the wikipedia copy/paste that says it's illegal. it says it's condemned by the UN. and the US doesn't answer to the UN when it comes to an embargo on a hostile nation that had WMDs pointed at the US. so no, you're wrong.

    The U.S has had missiles pointed at every other country on earth for the last 50 years. So what's your point? The embargo is condemned by every country on Earth but the U.S has repeatedly used it's power of automatic veto to reject the will of the international community. The embargo is illegal because - it does not fit the criteria of a justified, and therefore legal embargo in the terms set out by the U.N.
    But then when has the U.S ever respected international law? Answer: Never.

    Edit: And for your information, those missiles belonged to the U.S.S.R and were placed there in order to ward off a planned invasion by U.S forces. They were removed in 1962, and since that time Cuba has posed no threat to the U.S, despite what your media may tell you.

    http://pd.cpim.org/2005/1113/11132005_sitaram.htm
    The embargo means the imposition of economic sanctions. These do not appear to stand the test of international law. Jurisdiction outside national boundaries has to be based on acts that have “substantial or grave effects within the territory” of the State exercising such jurisdiction. “Trafficking” in nationalised property cannot be said to have a substantial effect on the United States or its economy and, therefore, the extra-territorial jurisdiction cannot be justified by the doctrine of grave effects. Similarly, the embargo’s limitations on the export and import of goods contravenes multilateral trading regimes and cannot be grounded on the GATT exception clause of “essential security interests” since there is neither a state of war nor a military threat.

    Sanctions, irrespective of their purpose, have to comply with the customary international law principle of non-intervention and proportionality. The American Association for World Health concluded that, in the case of the impact on the Cuban health system, the embargo “caused a significant rise in suffering with patients going without essential drugs and doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment.”
  • MLC2006
    MLC2006 Posts: 861
    again, you are talking about UN law, not US law. you seem to think UN law overrides US law, and it does not. if the US somehow pressured other nations to blockade against Cuba, then you could talk about it being illegal. also, the US hasn't had missiles pointed "at every other nation on earth", that's bullshit. there's a few, sure. and if those nations want to start an economic boycott of the US, by all means.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Don't Do As We Do...do As We Say!!
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    MLC2006 wrote:
    again, you are talking about UN law, not US law. you seem to think UN law overrides US law, and it does not.

    Really? The U.S is a signatory of the U.N, and therefore must abide by decisions made at the U.N.

    And for your information, those missiles belonged to the U.S.S.R and were placed there in order to ward off a planned invasion by U.S forces. They were removed in 1962, and since that time Cuba has posed no threat to the U.S, despite what your media may tell you.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    Part of me is skeptical that this letter even exists and that's it's just a PR stunt by Moore.

    Eitherway, this is stupid, and so is the damn embargo in the first place.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    MLC2006 wrote:
    if the US somehow pressured other nations to blockade against Cuba, then you could talk about it being illegal

    'In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending the practice of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies trading with Cuba in dollar amounts totaling more than 700 million a year.'

    Pity any country that doesn't toe the U.S line.
  • MLC2006
    MLC2006 Posts: 861
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Really? The U.S is a signatory of the U.N, and therefore must abide by decisions made at the U.N.

    And for your information, those missiles belonged to the U.S.S.R and were placed there in order to ward off a planned invasion by U.S forces. They were removed in 1962, and since that time Cuba has posed no threat to the U.S, despite what your media may tell you.

    Castro supported the Russians and the US has been clear for almost 50 years that they want the Castro regime out of power. they've done nothing physically to the Cuba, so they have broken no law, national or international. that's why it's only a condemnation by the UN, because they can't do anything about it because no "law" has been broken. aside from supporting the USSR, Castro has murdered and caused his people to suffer all these years. I'm sure you'll disagree, despite the thousands of Cubans that sail for the US on makeshift rafts every year.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    MLC2006 wrote:
    again, you are talking about UN law, not US law. you seem to think UN law overrides US law, and it does not. if the US somehow pressured other nations to blockade against Cuba, then you could talk about it being illegal. also, the US hasn't had missiles pointed "at every other nation on earth", that's bullshit. there's a few, sure. and if those nations want to start an economic boycott of the US, by all means.

    There's only one reason for the continued embargo. It has nothing to do with Cuba being a threat to the U.S. Only a monkey would believe that.
    This is simply another way of sending out a message that anyone who follows Cuba's example of becoming too independent and of adopting policies that benefit it's own population - as opposed to benefiting American big business - will suffer for it.
  • MLC2006
    MLC2006 Posts: 861
    Byrnzie wrote:
    'In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending the practice of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies trading with Cuba in dollar amounts totaling more than 700 million a year.'

    Pity any country that doesn't toe the U.S line.

    um, "foreign subsidiardies of US companies". what part of "US companies" don't you understand? it's a US company, so they can't deal with Cuba. if the foreign country that the US company happens to be in doesn't like that, they should expel the US company and the millions or billions of dollars that goes along with it. they can work with Cuba up to $700 million. it doesn't say all trade is blocked off completely. so if they don't like it, send the company and the jobs back to the US.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Make sure Gitmo stays....keep that thorn stuck in deep...twist that Cuban nipple...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • MLC2006
    MLC2006 Posts: 861
    Byrnzie wrote:
    There's only one reason for the continued embargo. It has nothing to do with Cuba being a threat to the U.S. Only a monkey would believe that.
    This is simply another way of sending out a message that anyone who follows Cuba's example of becoming too independent and of adopting policies that benefit it's own population - as opposed to benefiting American big business - will suffer for it.

    yes, it's reason is that Castro is still in power. he's still anti-US and his people are still suffering under his power. if he died tomorrow and a more US friendly leader came into power (socialist or not), I believe the embargo would be lifted. but it's not going to be lifted as long as Castro or one of his cronies are in power.
  • Rushlimbo
    Rushlimbo Posts: 832
    Hehehe. But it is OK for Halliburton to deal with Iraq and Saddam under Cheney's rule against U.S. law. Michael Moore kicks ass.

    http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/041603_halliburton_and_the_dictators.htm
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • sicnevol
    sicnevol Posts: 180
    MLC2006 wrote:
    again, you are talking about UN law, not US law. you seem to think UN law overrides US law, and it does not. if the US somehow pressured other nations to blockade against Cuba, then you could talk about it being illegal. also, the US hasn't had missiles pointed "at every other nation on earth", that's bullshit. there's a few, sure. and if those nations want to start an economic boycott of the US, by all means.
    do you even know how the UN works?
    That's two things we've got, Tape and Time.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    MLC2006 wrote:
    yes, it's reason is that Castro is still in power. he's still anti-US

    Exactly as I said above. He favours benefiting his own people over exporting his countries wealth to the U.S. Most of central America has been whoring itself to U.S multinationals for too long. Castro has almost singlehandedly stood up to the U.S for 50 years. Other countries are now following suit - Venezuela. Castro set a bad example in the eyes of the U.S. This is why his country continues to be punished.

Categories