from the when-playing-politics,-lives-saved-or-lost-are-incidental dept.
Common Dreams reports that for the 23rd time, the United Nations has rejected the embargo of Cuba. This time the vote was 188 - 2 (the same as the previous year) with USA and its dependent, Israel, the only No votes. One major reason Cuba gets such respect is its singular commitment to providing medical assistance where it is needed, worldwide.
Despite having suffered cumulative economic damages of more than $1 trillion at U.S. hands over the last half-century, the island nation of 11 million people has made itself a medical superpower that shares its life-saving resources with the world. No country or combination of nations and NGOs comes close to the speed, size, and quality of Cuba's response to the Ebola crisis in West Africa. With 461 doctors, nurses, and other health professionals either already on site or soon to be sent to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea, Cuba sets the standard for international first-response. The Cuban contingent of medical professionals providing direct treatment to sick people outnumbers that of the African Union and all individual countries and private organizations, including the Red Cross. (Few of the 4,000 U.S. military personnel to be deployed in the region will ever lay a well-protected hand on an Ebola patient. Instead, the troops build field hospitals for others to staff.)
Doctors Without Borders is second to Cuba in terms of health professionals. But the French NGO is a swiftly revolving door, churning doctors and nurses in and out every six weeks because of the extreme work and safety conditions. Cuba's health brigades are made of different stuff. Every volunteer is expected to remain on duty in the Ebola zone for six months. Moreover, if any of the Cubans contract Ebola or any other disease, they will be treated at the hospitals where they work, alongside their African patients, rather than sent home.
[...] Cuba has been selfless in defense of others, whether against marauding microbes or imperial aggression.
[...] For the United States, military adventure and the imperative to seize other countries' natural resources or strangle their economies, are defining national characteristics--in complete contrast to Cuba. The U.S. embargo of its island neighbor is among the world's longest-running morality plays, with Washington as villain.
To begin to equal Cuba's effort, USA (population: 316 million) would need to commit 11,950 medical personnel.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:31PM
When the problems in Haiti happened, a few years ago, the US were pretty quick in sending a few thousands soldiers. Cuba sent hundreds of doctors. Now, with the Ebola crisis, the same pattern repeats.
Funny that my country's "free" and "democratic" press never mentions it. Actually, the rare times Cuba shows up in the news it's always some negative thing. Fortunately I have other means of getting informed, but the vast majority of the people here don't have a clue. I believe that the intoxication in the US is even harsher. And then they tell us we live in democracy. It's a lie. If people can't make informed choices, it's not democracy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:02PM
Marines hate being called soldiers, but yeah.
What was sent by the USA was a military force to protect the property of the elites.
USA demonstrated once again that to a guy with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The poor people of Haiti (the vast majority of Haitians) weren't thinking about how to victimize each other; they were trying to figure out what was left that they could use for survival.
...and, as you said, the USA corporate press failed massively.
Pacifica Radio was the place I found worthy if you wanted broadcast information of any value.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:20PM
Marines hate being called soldiers, but yeah.
Because "Baby killers" is more accurate.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:21AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcE6CdR60NY [youtube.com]
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday November 05 2014, @09:47PM
I'll be happy to buy you a one-way ticket to the Islamic State so you can beg for Marines to save you. War is a dirty business and innocent people die. The ideal of a just war is just that - an ideal - because it will never happen.
Also, linking to a documentary endorsed by Michael Moore is not going to win over your skeptics.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:33PM
You so gung-ho? Here's your rifle. Go steal some one elses' country from them.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:02AM
It's a tangent, but that's both true and absurd.
Marine is, after all, a shortened form of 'Marine Soldier.'
At some point they dropped the soldier, and then at some point later on (not sure exactly when, but it would have to be roughly a generation at minimum) memory got bad enough to allow 'Marine' to be perceived as a term opposed to 'Soldier' rather than as an adjective applied to it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:06PM
If only we had a "health-industrial complex." We would never have to worry about "weapons" falling into the wrong hands and being used against us. We wouldn't be killing children as "collateral damage." Blowing shit up is so much easier. You can't build a hospital by pressing a button...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:50PM
You'd be amazed at what USA can do when it puts its mind to it.
Mobile Army Surgical Hospital [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:59PM
What are you talking about? The US *does* have a health-industrial complex ("big pharma"), which *does* kill children as "collateral damage", in their international patent and trade wars.
The military-industrial complex gets all the press though, because blowing shit up makes for good TV.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 04 2014, @10:39PM
If only we had a "health-industrial complex." We would never have to worry about "weapons" falling into the wrong hands and being used against us. We wouldn't be killing children as "collateral damage." Blowing shit up is so much easier. You can't build a hospital by pressing a button...
Reply to This
If the health-industrial complex had the same budget as the minitary-industrial complex we probably could build a hospital with the click of a button!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:36PM
(Few of the 4,000 U.S. military personnel to be deployed in the region will ever lay a well-protected hand on an Ebola patient. Instead, the troops build field hospitals for others to staff.)
i could quite figure out the slant to that statement, but given the overall flavor of the summary, it looked to be a slight.
All those medical people need a place to work and from reports I heard, Liberia was not generous with hospitals or secure areas to treat Ebola. The President made a decision that was able to be performed reasonably quick since he controls the Military. I seriously doubt the military has 4000+ qualified doctors/nurses t hat they can afford to send, but they can send a contingent of SeeBees to build places for all those nice Cuban doctors to perform their tasks in relative safety.
Also keep in mind the the US has contributed a lions share of funds to battle this virus on the front lines, not so much at home and we have tried to beat the drum to get others on board. I applaud Cuba for their efforts, but it may be4 easier to get volunteers(?) to go from Cuba then you can from the US. Not saying that makes us look good (it does not), but the reality is that most doctors/nurses here cannot afford to take off 6 months or 6 weeks to help. Consider that upon return they now face a hostile government wanting to imprison them for 21 days whether or not they are infected (which adds to their life discomfort), so while many may want to help, our blessed POS country won't pay or assure medical staff they can take the risk without losing business, money, and quality of life.
tl;dr - Yea to the military for building places for Doctors to work, Boo to the US for being an Asshole to medical personal to the point they won't want to help.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:06PM
Is it a surprise one's response is proportional to one's strengths? For the US, it is the strength of its military infrastructure and the quickness that it can be deployed. Every major and many minor disasters across the globe, the first ones to arrive to help are the US military. Tsunamis, earthquakes, etc., the first humanitarian relief is from the US. The UN sits and argues and the EU wrings its hands hoping that someone will lead some effort, and most of the other countries that give assistance take too long to get organized and they can only contribute a small amount.
What a fucking load of crap that story is. What is the situation for these Cuban doctors? Are they conscripted into service, or do hundreds of them volunteer to go around the world for months at a time? How about we turn the argument around and criticize the Cubans for sending out so many doctors and nurses but not providing them a place to work? Sounds like a pretty crappy job of planning, doesn't it? Let's criticize them for not building the hospitals and clinics they're going to need to handle that kind of workforce. Or maybe, just maybe, the Cubans are long on health care workers and short on construction equipment, and vice versa with the US military. Doesn't it just maybe make a little sense to send thousands of people over to build up the infrastructure?
Common Dreams can go fuck themselves. They'll be the first ones to criticize the US for running around the world meddling in other countries' business, except when THEY want them to go and meddle in other countries' business.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:10PM
Common Dreams can go fuck themselves. They'll be the first ones to criticize the US for running around the world meddling in other countries' business, except when THEY want them to go and meddle in other countries' business.
You say that as if you know of examples. Please share examples of Common Dreams advocating for military and/or clandestine meddling in other countries' business. I don't believe you can cite such a case but I would like to be proven wrong, it is how I learn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:54PM
They are criticizing that though the US is sending thousands of people over, they aren't doing enough and should get more involved in various West African countries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:23PM
Solving the problem THERE is going to be a -much- better solution than having it show up here and then trying to solve it.
(Isn't it odd how USA takes the exact OPPOSITE tack with militaristic operations?)
The silly screening/quarantine stuff in USA airports is more stupid security theater.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @11:03PM
So wait, the US are the bad guys because they send thousands of people to deal with the problem over there, but Cuba are the good guys because they send people over there too, and if they get ebola they get bonus points in the summary since they keep them over there? I suppose those hospitals and clinics would be more effective if they built them on US soil? Or maybe the problem is better served if we take all the ebola cases and distribute them to countries all over the world, because hey, it is fucking imperialism if we try to deal with the problem at the source, and not politically correct to boot.
Just fucking say you hate the US but can't find a brush narrow enough that it doesn't paint over everyone else. Stop trying to jinn up inconsistent arguments otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:12AM
So basically you are just ranting about random shit and have no coherent point to make.
As I expected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:51PM
Wow, dare to speak against the anti-US crowd and suffer the mod bomb.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:16AM
This AC post isn't off-topic. He is completely on-topic. He just happens to have an unpopular opinion that a moderator disliked. SN is not Reddit. It should be modded back up so that we can discuss the points raised. If the points are false then that can be pointed out.
It's great that Cuba has such a large deployable medical organization. That does not detract from the United States' contribution to containing the outbreak. China sent 170 medical workers. That's great! They don't score lower just because Cuba with their small population sent more people. The US has committed a lot of support: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123336 [defense.gov] Then there's the money: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/09/ebola-outbreak-response-breakdown-key-funding-pledges [theguardian.com] The US' relationship with Cuba is not a consideration in any of this.
I have to disagree with your points against the Cuban doctors. They are quoted as being "doctors, nurses and other health professionals". They aren't just conscripts or "walmart greeter" volunteers. There's no need to put Cuba down for their contribution. That is just as bad as the article putting the US' contributions down.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @09:24AM
if Halliburton was Cuban they probably would have sent thousands to build infrastructure
oh wait... first they would have to bomb the crap out of it
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 04 2014, @11:40PM
Let me drag out my Evils of the AMA soapbox>
The American Medical Association has created an artificial scarcity of MDs, in the name of keeping demand high enough to maximize incomes - it is an immoral and hurtful game they are playing. The MCATs and other arbitrary requirements to enter and graduate medical school aren't improving the quality of our doctors, they are degrading the performance of our healthcare system.
Not that I want anybody who wants to become an MD to be able to get the degree without demonstrating competency, but what they are testing for isn't competency, it's just throttling the candidate pool.
This from the perspective of someone who never had any desire to get into medical school, but knows lots of people who succeeded, and failed, getting through the MD gauntlet in the past 20 years.
So, yes, the US _might_ be able to spare 11,000 doctors for a medical crisis in Africa, if the AMA permitted every competent applicant to become an MD.
/soapbox
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:41PM
USA and its dependent, Israel
Typo, they're swapped in practical real politics.
(Score: 3) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:29PM
Anti-SEMITISM!
Mods! MODS! Will somebody please ban Hitler, Jr. to whom I am responding? He is advocating extermination of God's chosen people! Six million! Never forget!
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:07PM
"Anti-SEMITISM!
Mods! MODS! Will somebody please ban Hitler, Jr. to whom I am responding? He is advocating extermination of God's chosen people! Six million! Never forget!"
Yep, sounds like an ethanol fueled rant to me. I hear they have a 12 step program for that.
IF on the other hand you were trying to be funny you really need to work on your sense of humor. I hear they have 12 step programs for that too.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:14AM
I take it you haven't met efueled before.
He likes to claim the mantle of professional instigator but at a minimum he can't take what he gives out.
He's a thin-skinned imbecile and is usually modded appropriately.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @03:30AM
The best of trolls keep it from being known that they are trolling you. Which requires wit, knowledge of the subject and especially knowledge of logical fallacies, and a skillful way to manipulate somebody's emotions. Somebody in a post a week or so back said he was well versed in the art of trolldom. I think not. And agitator, yes, a troll at the highest level? Not even close.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Wednesday November 05 2014, @05:59AM
God bless the trolls and their steady warty hands on the levers of sarcasm
(Score: 1) by monster on Wednesday November 05 2014, @05:01PM
At the time of my comment, VLM's is marked as Troll, giving a lot of insight to Ethanol's sarcasm.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by VLM on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:49PM
The U.S. embargo of its island neighbor is among the world's longest-running morality plays, with Washington as villain.
After JFK tried (failed) to kill Castro as part of the bay of pigs, Castro's like "same to you" and JFK takes his incoming fire and isn't as lucky as Castro was. That's why the utterly irrational hatred exists even decades post-cold-war. In public we "cant say why" but in private theres some file all about how Castro funded the whole thing, bought the rifle, paid the dude to do it, etc.
Now once the last Castro-ite member of his inner circle or whatever finally dies of old age and goes away, then, and only then, will the USA finally drop the whole charade. Probably.
I wonder how long it'll take to declassify the whole story.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:30PM
Oh and as a follow up to my own conspiracy theory, a possibly more plausible explanation is the Cubans had nothing DIRECTLY to do with JFK but it was a massive related coverup.
So a couple months before JFK croaks maybe the Cubans really did try something and they miserably failed and it was all covered up for geopolitical reasons. Then 2 months later JFK croaks from a lone gunman. Whoops. That would be a little embarrassing that we only catch half the assassins.
Or in some ways even worse, what if Cuba had operatives on the ground seriously planning to get JFK, or do terror in general, or merely spying, but someone else got JFK first, and the coverup is that we didn't put 2+2 together about the cuban operatives in the USA until weeks/months after the assassination and the Cuban teams ran for it. Would be kind of embarrassing to finally find evidence of Cuban teams operating all over the country at the time of an assassination. There could be boxes of paperwork about Cuban spies infiltrating the Texas public library, even though they had nothing to do with the assassination, thats going to totally freak people out. You think about it, a librarian would be a heck of a job for a cuban spy... calm, quiet, nobody but VLM suspects them, a bazillion dead drop locations in all those books and shelves, boxes continually shipping in and out, nothing unusual about members of the general public walking in and having weird conversations...
I could also see some kind of extreme form of diplomatic ... disagreement. Like Castro sends a telegram to Johnson along the lines of "ha ha had it coming you're next". That could kind of chill relations for awhile. So the white house gets 50000 condolence telegrams and one big F U telegram from Castro, leading to decades of hatred. Even funnier, imagine if Castro had nothing to do with it, but sent a telegram to the US taking responsibility, just to piss us off and slow down the investigation. "I'm not saying my guys did it, but IF they did, (insert Simpsons ha ha laugh)"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @08:49AM
what if Cuba had operatives on the ground seriously planning to get JFK, or do terror in general
High risk, high cost, nothing to gain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @01:07AM
The explanation that makes the most sense to me:
The CIA had their connections in The Mob hire 2 Italian assassins (both unmarried orphans).
One was positioned in the upper levels of the Dallas Textiles building, [google.com]
the other was behind the grassy knoll.
Days later, on their way back out of the country, those 2 were rubbed out.
The only connection with Cuba was that The Mob had major operations there before Castro.
N.B. Another CIA/Mob effort in Tampa days before and one in Chicago 2 weeks before that were both aborted. [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:52PM
I mean, this embargo is just weird. Cuba pissed of the US more than 50 years ago. Lots changes in 50 years.
The US put Guantanamo on Cuba. Outside the reach of the US legal system, but...why does the US have a Naval base on a country it has embargod for 50 years? Why hasn't Cuba told the US to get lost?
This whole situation is just really, really bizarre.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:07PM
The US naval base at Guantanamo Bay was founded in 1903 [wikipedia.org] after the Spanish-American War. The short version of that history is that, pursuant to the Munroe Doctrine, the United States forcibly drove the Spanish government out of Cuba and replaced it as the occupying power.
Up through the 1950s, Cuba was a US economic satellite. Haven't you ever seen The Godfather, Part II?
They have, but only with words. My guess is that the Soviet Union didn't want to get into a nuclear war with the US over Cuba [wikipedia.org] so when Castro said "help me get these gringos off my island," Krushchev said something to the effect of "let sleeping dogs lie."
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:23PM
As to the embargo, I believe the reason was that back in the early 1960s, the Kennedy administration was hoping the communists would just go broke and lose control of the country if trade with the United States (which was then Cuba's largest trading partner, by far) was cut off. Cold War rivalry played its part up until the Cold War ended. Since then, rational explanation seems elusive but there is a school of thought that diplomatic and economic contact with the United States is some kind of precious blessing that magically bestows prestige and prosperity upon the recipient, and "axis of evil" nations don't deserve the privilege of getting to talk to or trade with the United States.
Myself, I think that attitude is both childish and anti-capitalist. If I were an American corporation and I were denied the opportunity to exploit Cuba for profit, I'd be pretty upset and I'd want a better explanation that "they're run by bad people." (The US has normal diplomatic relations with plenty of countries that are run by bad people.)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:37PM
This is known as the "Berlin blockade" or "Berlin Airlift" argument, and the problem with it is, well, look at the Berlin airlift. The commies were gracious enough to give up after one winter, once it became apparent the blockade was an utter failure. Kind of like USA's Cuba policy, other than the whole "we're apparently unnaturally stubborn" thing. Now if we tried the Cuban blockade for six months and gave up, in a role reversal of Berlin, that would be a pretty awesome analogy.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:59PM
I knew the rationale for the embargo was stupid, but I didn't know how stupid until you pointed it out.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1) by srobert on Tuesday November 04 2014, @10:56PM
Wouldn't it be great if we could locate sweatshops in Cuba to manufacture stuff to sell at Walmart?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @04:45AM
Save the world from communism by embargoing Cuba. Meanwhile, China has replaced Canada as America's biggest trading partner. American politics is so logical.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:53PM
Why hasn't Cuba told the US to get lost?
Talk to some "grognard" military wargame enthusiasts. An invasion into or out of the base vs Cuba is a topic of occasional discussion. It would make an interesting game.
Today, the Cuban military out numbers the USA base members almost exactly 8 to 1 but there's a technological mismatch and after a hundred years things are kind of dug in.
Its the kind of war scenario where honestly nobody can say what would happen, no matter if its us invading them or them invading us. Its probably a good solid 50:50 odds either way. Which means the outcome would almost certainly depend on attrition / logistics / economics / diplomacy rather than actual fighting.
In the cold war days, the Russians had their Cuba and we had our bases in Turkey and Berlin was encircled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @03:22PM
It would be interesting. However, backup is but 100-200 miles away (cuba has to have seen our aistrikes in iraq carried out from nevada). I think airstrikes would turn the problem to the US very quickly. They may take the base for a few days. But they would not be able to hold it.
It would be a bloodbath.
(Score: 1) by Gravis on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:51PM
Why does the USA embargo Cuba? I mean, this embargo is just weird. Cuba pissed of the US more than 50 years ago. Lots changes in 50 years.
actually, it was only recently (2008) that Fidel Castro left power. however, his brother Raúl Castro has taken power. as long as a Castro is in power, that embargo is going to stay. though it may stay in place until there is a change of government. as for the initial reason for the embargo, see United States embargo against Cuba [wikipedia.org]. the cuban missile crisis just made things worse.
however, most recently, they haven't taken up Obama's offer on a conditional lifting of the embargo.
After taking office, President Barack Obama outlined a series of steps that Cuba could take to demonstrate a willingness to open its society, including releasing political prisoners, allowing United States telecommunications companies to operate on the island and ending government fees on U.S. dollars sent by relatives in the United States.[8] [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by monster on Wednesday November 05 2014, @05:10PM
So, the embargo is lifted but Cuba gets PRISMed? doesn't look like a good deal.
(Score: 1) by Gravis on Thursday November 06 2014, @01:03AM
So, the embargo is lifted but Cuba gets PRISMed? doesn't look like a good deal.
i'm sure that cuba's systems got the PRISM treatment a long time ago and actually, if they weren't in opposition to democracy it would be a good deal even still. what being referred to is having phones and internet that wont be used to hunt political dissidents. cuba and china have much in common in such matters.
(Score: 2) by monster on Thursday November 06 2014, @07:34AM
Since the outbound connections in Cuba seem to be mainly satellite and an underseas cable to Venezuela [huffingtonpost.com], I doubt the PRISM treatment is as effective as USA's agencies would like.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:21AM
> I mean, this embargo is just weird. Cuba pissed of the US more than 50 years ago. Lots changes in 50 years.
The embargo is because of all the rich cuban families that had their property nationalized when Castro took over.
They fled to south florida and have been a very potent voting and fundraising block. They have a long memory.
The naval base is the result of a historical treaty/lease that predated castro. It seems to remain simply because Cuba does not have the military strength/will to push them out. They have not cashed any of the rent checks except one by accident. Looking at it on google maps it seems to be in the boonies so other than an issue of pride it doesn't look like Cuba is losing much.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday November 05 2014, @02:10AM
Because Cuba is an undemocratic dictatorship. Just like China. Oh, wait.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:54PM
A country which over a million people have risked life and limb to leave does not strike me as a roll model for anything --- even at the height of the Vietnam War, U.S. expatriates only hit 100,000 --- turn that around for the larger population and you've a minuscule percentage leaving.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:15PM
An accurate count of the total of USAians renouncing their citizenship and/or defecting to other countries over the years would be an interesting bit of data.
Entire states saying they want to be independent of USA is another interesting data point.
There are always going to be people who would rather leave than change the system from within.
With USA bombing, invading, and occupying more and more places, every USAian should consider himself in the retaliatory crosshairs of a really pissed off somebody.
As I see it, the desire to be identified as NOT American when traveling is at an all-time high.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:30PM
People leave for economic reasons. With over $1-trillion in embargo costs to Cuban economy over last 50-odd years, they are not exactly rich.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 04 2014, @11:11PM
But there are at least eleventy million illegal people coming into the United States, and they are mostly illegal because they are not coming from Cuba!
(Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:15AM
Quote TFS:
Moreover, if any of the Cubans contract Ebola or any other disease, they will be treated at the hospitals where they work, alongside their African patients, rather than sent home.
------
That doesn't say much for their home medical capabilities. All it says is their military is full of half trained doctors (little better trained than nurses) which they will shovel onto any fire, and let them fend for themselves.
The wisdom of sacrificing your first responders seems a tad suspect to me.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jackb_guppy on Wednesday November 05 2014, @12:56AM
You not seeing the bigger picture. By leaving the doctors and nurses there for treatment, in builds respect and trust from the local population. "We are treating you, like we treat ourselves"
Western method of bring them home for treatment say, "We have better medicine at home and you can't have it!" Boy, does that build trust!
Cuba is showing, they are better at politics than the West.
(Score: 1) by Darth Turbogeek on Wednesday November 05 2014, @04:17AM
I honestly never thought of that.
Bravo for the astute observation! Pity I dont have mod points today
(Score: 1) by jmorris on Wednesday November 05 2014, @06:30AM
It might be 'bad PR' but it also happens to be true; the US does have far better medical facilities.... apparently so long as no more than about ten people need treatment at the same time. We have always placed a higher value on our people and will move heaven and earth to save them. Which probably helps get a few more volunteers and that fact also has to be weighed in the balance of whether it is a good or bad thing.
And no, Cuba sends no volunteers because nobody there gets to make the decision willingly. Everybody there is a slave to the Dictator For Life, just like in every other "People's Republic" in history. The article referenced is obviously just propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @09:59PM
And no, Cuba sends no volunteers because nobody there gets to make the decision willingly. Everybody there is a slave to the Dictator For Life, just like in every other "People's Republic" in history. The article referenced is obviously just propaganda.
That is bullshit. Any doctor unwilling to go can at very least quit. Just like anyone in the US military unwilling to go can run away, though probably going AWOL from military probably has bigger problems than quitting a job in Cuba.
http://news.yahoo.com/cuba-sends-91-more-doctors-fight-ebola-205320035.html [yahoo.com]
Despite a recent set of pay raises, most Cuban doctors' salaries don't top $75 a month, less than many workers who work in tourism or other sectors that bring in money from abroad. The foreign missions almost uniformly offer the chance to earn extra pay, in many cases enough to buy a bigger home or new car.
Critics of Cuba's communist government have accused it in the past of exploiting the doctors by giving them only a meager portion of the money paid for their services and keeping the lion's share for the national treasury.
As you can see, the medical doctors that would be volunteers earn extra money above their standard salaries.
Anyway, Cubans elects their leaders at local level who then vote for things higher up. You, as someone that is most likely unwilling to understand other political systems than "2 party US panacea" probably thinks that such system is not a democratic system. For the rest of us, democratic systems are the ones where leaders do not rule by decree. Now, whether you call that "presidential decree" or "executive action", those are both equally undemocratic, irrespective if you directly elected said president or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_by_decree [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @01:26AM
...or, just maybe, all their people with the best ability to deal with an Ebola infection are, y'know, WHERE THE EBOLA IS.
Thanks for playing.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @02:38AM
ok, soylentnews, your gonna make me want to login if you keep it up.