which he can't refute. He just snips them out and declares that HE has
"debunked" them. As if HE had such an ability in the first place.
I also noticed, Mr. Christensen, that you snipped all about the food
import dependency of Cuba.
I had posted proof that even the official Cuban press had confirmed
that 80% of all food consumed in Cuba is imported.
I other posts that has been confirmed with other sources from Cuba and
with a range of other sources including the aforementioned WFP and
EIU.
You must see that in the face of this overwhelming proof your
increasingly feeble attempts to claim it is less only show that you
are completely insincere in your statements.
You have been crawling from one fall-back position to another in a way
that one would have started to pity you if one could see that it was
all nothing more but ill-intended pride that keeps you from accepting
the facts.
Cuba imports 80% of its food. That is a fact. Of that 80% the largest
proportion comes from the USA, more than Cuba produces itself, and the
USA does not interfere in any of the shipments of food to Cuba by any
other nation.
That clearly shows that your statement that the USA is blocking
shipments of food to Cuba with genocidal intent is ludicrous.
You should learn when to quit, Mr. Christensen, it will save you a lot
of embarrassment.
As above, there is a "180-day prohibition from loading or unloading
in
US territory of any vessel that had entered Cuba to trade goods or
services." (snip)
Then please explain how the direct lines work if they can only do two
round trips a year?
Why would, as recently announced, someone want to set up a ferry to
Havana if it would only be able to sail trice a year?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13cuba.html
This is not a foreign freighter. Still, special permission is required
that is by no means assured.
Mr. Christensen, isn't it so that special permission is needed from
both the USA and the Cuban government?
Probably just the usual co-ordination of ship traffic.
Like from the USA you mean?
As far as I know neither of them has.
The fact this man invests in this shows he is reasonably convinced he
will get at least USA approval.
So what? (snip)
Mr. Christensen, it shows what the current climate is.
Note that there is no hint about how the Cuban government will react.
Various ferry lines have disappeared in the past like the one from
Santiago to Jamaica.
I would also remind you that the USA has given its permission for the
internet link between Key West and Havana, the Cuban government
hasn't.
Various fixed shipping lines exist already. This adds the passenger
aspect to it. That is all.
That may prove a very hard nut to swallow for Cuban authorities,
though.
What's your point? (snip)
We both know the movement of people is highly regulated in Cuba with
exit visas, blockades for certain people and lots of other
impediments.
Miss. Sanchez wasn't allowed to leave Cuba. the son of the deceased
comandante isn't allowed to leave Cuba.
Just some examples.
Note that the USA has already given the authorization for the fiber
optic cable from Key West to Havana. The Cuban government still
hasn't.
Cuban assets in the US remain frozen in the US. And there are many
large US lawsuits outstanding against Cuba.(snip)
What is the issue.
Cuba would just pay the company for the use of the cable and the whole
problem is solved.
Whether a call is routed via line A or B isn't relevant to what is
happening.
Telecuba could sell calling cards in Cuba. It could sell internet
access in Cuba and pay the Cuban government for the use of local
systems.
It is in fact an opportunity for Cuba.
But we agree then that often not USA approval, but Cuban approval is
the problem.
How come that Cuba then has shipping agreements with ports like Corpus
Cristi?http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-75154323.html
It is now shipping tons of
food:http://cubajournal.blogspot.com/2009/01/corpus-christi-bean-trade-wit...
Since 2003 US even ships are going in and put of Cuba on a regular
basis.
These are US, not foreign ships,
Not true in fact.
The agreements are for the handling of goods and transshipment thereof
on ships from all nations.
Lots of goods ware being shipped on non USA ships.
Of course.
So you now accept that foreign ships freely can enter and leave USA
ports to go to Cuba.
The aim of this policy was to discourage shipping to Cuba (snip)
Yet as far as you could prove only once the law has been used.
- in 50 years you have only one case of a ship stopped
- USA ports have shipping agreements with Cuba that allow both USA and
foreign shippers to use the ports freely
- set shipping lines with a regular turnaround exist between the USA
and Cuba
It seems that reality is very different from what you stated, Mr.
Christensen.
Post me something that says that any effective interference
happened..
"The Bush administration for the first time has enforced a new
regulation denying foreign ships entry to U.S. ports if they are
trading with Cuba, State Department officials said Monday. A Greek-
flagged freighter carrying Chinese rice to Cuba was turned away from
the harbor at Long Beach, Calif. on Saturday after U.S. Customs
agents
alerted the Treasury Department, the officials said. The ship, which
had sought servicing at the port, was ordered away under a
5-month-old
U.S. policy..."
"Stiffer Rules on Cuba Enforced," The Miami Herald, September 15,
1992
17 years ago.
It shows how your beloved embargo is enforced,
Mr. Christensen, it says the opposite.
It said this rule has only been enforced once in over 30 years.
It says nothing of the sort.
An exception to the rule.
[snip]
Back your "exceptions-to-the-rule" rationalizations again! (snip)
Mr. Christensen, I deal with reality, not the figments of your
propaganda imagination.
Need a container USA to Cuba, Mr. Christensen?
http://www.shipping-worldwide.com/cuba.htm
The 30 year policy was not to interfere with shipping.
Recent laws all have made things easier.
That policy is clear and it is the opposite of what you claim.
I will pose the question to you, "Chris." It makes your friend
shit
What purpose, other than killing people, is served by trade
sanctions
that deprive a nation of vital access to medicines, new
scientific and
medical technology, food, chemical water treatment and
electricity?
as Amnesty has shown: the USA does not deprive Cuba of food.
Some deals went wrong, most went though.
Very evasive, "Chris." (snip)
This is a general question about ANY two countries. (snip)
Mr.Christensen, the thread is called: "Challenge toDanChristensen
on
"genocide" and Cuba".
As far as I am concerned you are on your own with your theoretical
games
and hypothetical cases. They stay in the realm of imagination.
Evasive as ever, "Chris." (snip)
If you have nothing to hide, please answer
the question. If, as you claim, it has nothing to do with Cuba, why do
you hesitate to answer this question that no thoughtful and decent
person would hesitate to answer? (snip)
Stop wasting people's time, Mr. Christensen.
You tried to play this game and miserably failed.
The miserable failure here is you, "Chris." (snip)
Nope, "Dan", you are.
You maliciously accused others of snipping and running and you have
shown that that is your modus operandi.
You claimed the embargo was genocide but failed to post even one
corroborating mail from a respected source.
No, "Dan".
You are the evasive one. you try to steer clear of discussing the
facts about Cuba and try to remain in a wishy washy world of
imagination where your think the facts can't hurt your case.
Again,(snip)
Again deal with reality Mr. Christensen.
That reality says that Cuba imports 80%
[snip]
Already debunked here. (snip)
No, Mr. Christensen.
You again confuse snipping and hoping nobody notices it with
debunking".
That reality says that Cuba imports 80% of the food it needs and that
the USA supplies the largest part of that without hampering arrival of
any other food.
All the shows that the USA is not blocking food to Cuba
The 80% figure has been confirmed by both Cuban and international
sources.
How is obtaining the source for a claim made at GW's website
"lobbying?" According to you, every researcher is a "lobbyist???" You
are pathetic, "Chris." How can we take you seriously? (snip)
But you did more than that, didn't you?
You have already shown that you tried to convince people to change
statements.
[snip]
I have never asked anyone to "change statements." (snip)
So you did not try to have Genocide Watch change their position?
I am just not buying it, Mr. Christensen.
Neither does GW.
You are a dedicated lobbyist.
That is clear from your admissions.
No mainstream
group like AI or the UN would support it. They STILL don't. Must be
frustrating as hell for you.
Actually to each his own, Mr. Christensen.
Amnesty International, whom you attacked in a paper over this issue
showing that the frustrated one are you, does a great job of reporting
individual abuses of human rights.
They also report on genocide, the ultimate abuse of human rights. From
Google, I see there are about 4,120 hits on "genocide" at their
website. (snip)
The fact a word shows up doesn't mean the dedicate their work to it.
I think 4,120 hits is an indication (snip)
Show me their charter where it says that they dedicate their work to
genocide, Mr. Christensen.
Genocide Watch's charter says it exclusively dedicates itself to
genocide.
Genocide Watch does and is very respected at it.
They why are they not cited on Cuba by AI, (snip)
I guess that Amnesty sticks to its charter.
What is clear Mr. Christensen is that again you haven't shown that
anyone but you doubts them.
Again that lonely anomaly that is Dan Christensen.
I haven't been able to find anyone attacking them but you, Mr.
Christensen.
[snip]
Of their own work on Cuba, (snip)
I haven't found anyone but the lonely Castro lobbyist Dan Christensen
attacking them on anything.
You can now argue whether that people forced to flee by despair
and
that die along the way are victims or not.
They were not forced onto a boat at gunpoint. Cuban authorities
even
try to prevent their deaths by attempting to stop them, as they
are now actually obliged to do under an agreement with the US.
(snip)
I think they want to prevent people leaving.
They are required by agreement with the US to do so.
Mr.Christensen, since when do you claim the USA rules in Cuba?
They made an agreement with the US government.
So it is the Cuban government that decides in Cuba as I said.
And, it is the US government that decides in the USA. What is your
point?
My point is, Mr. Christensen, that the Cuban government decides what
it does on its soil. Don't try to claim the USA is responsible for the
Cuban laws.
[snip]
They made an agreement. Both promised to do their part to stem illegal
immigration from Cuba.
If you look closely the USA only agreed to apply their law by
qualifying it while Cuba had to give up, at least in theory, part of
it's sovereignty.
But we agree that before this agreement and with respect to all other
countries this agreement has no bearing on Cuban laws. These
repressive laws have clearly nothing to do with the USA, only with the
fear of the Cuban government that lots of people actually want to
leave.
Mr. Christensen, even during the Mariel boat lift and this episode the
Cuban government surely tried to dissuade people from going.
I have read reports of members of the CDR going at night to the parks
where prospective marielitos were sleeping before leaving to try to
convince people not to go.
I read the Cuban government was emptying their jails, packing
prisoners onto boats (snip)
because it wanted to get rid of them to spite the USA and give them a
problem.
Are you now saying that the Cuban government was actively assisting
all people to leave or was it just dumping some criminals on the USA?
Thousands of people left, not just criminals.
But only the criminals were coerced, others were discouraged.
That was exactly my points Mr. Christensen.
You are right they dumped people on the USA, but again, that was the
exception and not the rule.
Lots of efforts were made to dissuade the marielitos to leave.
Says you. But how is this relevant?
Read up on Mariel, Mr. Christensen.
Nothing was done in the way of transport to help them.
I recall stories of the Cuban Coast Guard giving boaters fresh water
to make the trip, even wishing them luck.
again no link or quote I see.
Your desperate game of trying to mislead people by trying to claimed
You tried, and failed miserably, to argue that those who drowned at
sea are somehow the fault of the Cuban government (snip)
Actually, Mr. Christensen, I made that point very clearly and you
desperately tried, and failed, to refute it.
I their actions to stop people leaving people were killed.
Do your homework, "Chris." They are dying due to boating mishaps --
capsizing in rough seas, etc
As documented: shots, ramming, ...
What shots?
Various posts in this group refer to shots fired at people trying to
flee.
Just one
example:http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Deta...
Did you even read this, "Chris????"
yes, "Dan".
(snip)
(snip)
I snipped it because it was a needless diversion, Mr. Christensen.
You proved the point people were shot.
The fact that a paid boat was there to ensure they could have a safer
crossing doesn't change the basic facts.
It turns it into a criminal offense under international law.
So that excuses the killing of people trying to flee.
The sad truth is, Mr. Christensen, that these smuggling efforts of
people in to the USA is often the safest way to go.
If the boat left from Mexico, it would only be a crime in the USA.
Here it is crime in both countries as only Cuba has these laws against
illegal exit to control the people.
Thanks for making that clear to all.
Ramming -- you mean the sinking of the "13 de Marzo?" No
credible evidence was ever produced that this was anything but a
hijacking gone tragically wrong.(snip)
Mr. Christensen, the testimony of the survivors was very clear.
Their testimony was not very credible. S(snip)
Believed by all but the dogmatically handicapped.
Why was no international investigation allowed, Mr. Christensen?
[snip]
None was needed. (snip)
Amnesty International called for one.
The UNO and other international organizations as well if I remember
correctly.
I agree with that stance.
In Cambodia there were no life threatening natural defenses as the sea
in Cuba is for those that have no access to a good craft and they had
to lay mine fields in areas that were easy to pass through.
The only minefields are around enemy-occupied territory in Guantanamo
(snip)
Clearly intended to keep Cuban is as they would hardly stop USA
troops.
Minefields will stop the advance of any ground troops or armored
vehicles.
No.
They won't.
Look at what happened in Iraq.
The coalition troops busted through them.
anti people, not anti tank.
Indeed, Cuba has its own man made killing fields.
As with the boaters (above), no one has even been forced onto the
minefields.
(snip)
You mean like Pol Pot didn't "force" any Cambodians to flee?
Indeed, like Pol Pot Fidel castro tries to prevent them from leaving.
That doesn't absolve either of them of genocide.
Cuba is an island.
That means that for both entering and leaving the sea is a natural
barrier that provides risks for all.
By creating a situation of despair that leads people to want to flee
So the Mexican government is guilty of "genocide"
(snip)
(snip)
No, Mr. Christensen.
I addressed that failed argument.
Not for this in any way.
Unlike Cuba Mexico has no mine fields nor does it deny its people to
freely leave the country.
Irrelevant. (snip)
No.
The main issue.
Regimes, like Cambodia and Cuba, that try to stop people from fleeing
while repressing all freedom within the country are the ones guilty of
genocide.
I have never heard of Mexican police ramming fishing vessels that
leave for the USA.
Cuban police don't do that either.
According to all witnesses they did.
You should better accept that fact, Mr. Christensen.
They also don't shoot people trying to cross in to the USA.
Neither to Cuban police.
That is a lie, Mr. Christensen. In this thread facts that show you are
lying were posted.
That sets Cuba and Mexico apart.
The only thing that sets them apart (snip)
What sets them apart, Mr. Christensen, is that one, Cuba, desperately
and with lethal means tries to stop people leaving while the other;
Mexico, doesn't.
Chris.