"I saved Reagan's life," claims Castro

[American TG Man]

HAVANA - Fidel Castro claims Cuba’s government saved the life of President Reagan by giving American officials information about an assassination plot in 1984.

The essay published Wednesday in the Communist Party newspaper Granma appeared to be the first time Cuba has made the claim. It seemed aimed at showing Cuba has cooperated with the United States in the past.

Castro, who has not appeared in public for more than a year, wrote that a Cuban security official stationed at the United Nations told the then U.S. mission security chief about an extreme right-wing group that was planning to kill Reagan during a trip to North Carolina.

“The information was complete: the names of those implicated in the plan; day, time and hour where the assassination could occur; the type of weapon the terrorists had and where they kept their arms; and along with all that, the meeting place of those elements planning the action as well as a brief summary of what had occurred in said meeting,” Castro wrote.

He did not say how Cuba obtained the information.

Newsom Summerlin, a special agent with the FBI in Charlotte, N.C., said late Wednesday that he had no immediate information pertaining to Castro’s claim.

Castro said Cuban authorities learned the FBI had arrested several people in North Carolina and he said several days after that Robert C. Muller, the U.S. security chief at the U.N., expressed America’s thanks to the Cuban official over lunch. Castro didn’t identify the Cuban official.

Reagan visited Charlotte on a campaign stop Oct. 8, 1984, accompanied by Sen. Jesse Helms, and he attended a reception for local Republican leaders, according to Reagan’s presidential papers.

Reagan expert skeptical
A database search Wednesday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif., found no reference to an assassination plot in North Carolina, said Lisa Jones, a library archivist.

“I’ve never seen anything like that,” said Jones, who added that Reagan made only that one stop in North Carolina in 1984.

David Flaherty Sr., North Carolina’s state Republican Party chairman in 1981-85, said that he didn’t recollect details of the Charlotte event but that he never heard of any potential threat to Reagan during any of his visits to North Carolina.

Federal authorities “would normally alert us if there was any significant warning and I don’t remember hearing any warning,” he said.

Castro has not been seen in public since mid-2006, when he released a statement saying he had undergone intestinal surgery and ceded power to his younger brother Raul. In late March, he began writing occasional essays, mostly on international themes.

source

[zenkidori]

interesting.

[Firecat]

If Castro knew this information, it begs the question...who was behind the plot? If true, it obviously wasn't just some Joe Schmo.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Firecat

If Castro knew this information, it begs the question...who was behind the plot? If true, it obviously wasn't just some Joe Schmo.

Definitely. And why would Cuba put this out there now? Are they hoping to give some presidential candidates the idea of lifting trade restrictions?

[zenkidori]

they should, I want to vacation in Cuba and pay less money for their cigars.

what am I saying? I'll never take a vacation.

[nomix]

Well, first of all, I get the impression that Cuba is very good when it comes to intelligence via persons.

Secondly, it might have been a gesture to get the blockade lifted.

After all, if one was to justify the blockade, then the US has to stop all trade with dictatorships. First of all, it's time the US begun a blockade of Saudi Arabia, and deny all trade with the Saudis. C'mon, do it! Freedom for all!

[zenkidori]

it's not a blockade, it's an embargo. also, it's not an embargo against dictators, it's an embargo against Cuba.

now, I'm not for the embargo, but seriously now, you can't paint with such broad strokes, especially in politics. if I remember my english 1010 that's either straw man or association fallacy.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by nomix

After all, if one was to justify the blockade, then the US has to stop all trade with dictatorships. First of all, it's time the US begun a blockade of Saudi Arabia, and deny all trade with the Saudis. C'mon, do it! Freedom for all!

Lol, well Saudi Arabia never held a nuclear gun to our head. But I do believe the trade embargo should be lifted, from the sound of things life there is shit anyway, lifting the embargo is the least we can do; from a humanitarian perspective.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by zenkidori

it's not a blockade, it's an embargo. also, it's not an embargo against dictators, it's an embargo against Cuba.

now, I'm not for the embargo, but seriously now, you can't paint with such broad strokes, especially in politics. if I remember my english 1010 that's either straw man or association fallacy.

I don't care. The embargo against Cuba will be perceived as an embargo against a Cuban dictator, at least that would be the only reasonable reason now 16 years after the end of the cold war. Then it seems like double standards. And if I really wanted to compare, well, Saudi Arabia versus Iraq? Yes, Saddam was a bit more badass mofo, but in the end, they are both dictatorships, and both discriminate horribly against women.

I am fully capable of understanding why the United States doesn't bomb Saudi Arabia, that's my whole point. My point is, that the United States has no morals and no standards in international politics.

And it really hurts the idea of the US as a democracy on wheels.

Originally Posted by tigger

Lol, well Saudi Arabia never held a nuclear gun to our head. But I do believe the trade embargo should be lifted, from the sound of things life there is shit anyway, lifting the embargo is the least we can do; from a humanitarian perspective.

Castro didn't, Khrutsjov did. And that was your fault too. Vice President Nixon told Ike not to talk to Castro "cause he's a commie". Which he wasn't, but because Castro wished to return some farm land to the people, he had to be a commie.

As a result, the obvious trade partner, the United States, didn't want to trade. That forced Castro into the arms of Khrutsjov. Castro didn't have much of a choice, and after all, the missile crisis happened not long after the Bay of Pigs.

So who's to blame? Go figure.

[zenkidori]

Originally Posted by nomix

I don't care. The embargo against Cuba will be perceived as an embargo against a Cuban dictator, at least that would be the only reasonable reason now 16 years after the end of the cold war. Then it seems like double standards. And if I really wanted to compare, well, Saudi Arabia versus Iraq? Yes, Saddam was a bit more badass mofo, but in the end, they are both dictatorships, and both discriminate horribly against women.

The Saudis don't gas thier own people, rape and murder for fun and generally piss us off as much.

Originally Posted by nomix

I am fully capable of understanding why the United States doesn't bomb Saudi Arabia, that's my whole point. My point is, that the United States has no morals and no standards in international politics.

Name one country in the entire world that has ANYTHING besides self interest in the international political arena.

Originally Posted by nomix

And it really hurts the idea of the US as a democracy on wheels.

I don't much like that idea. IMO democracy and political, religious, and economic freedom come "when you're ready" and you have to work for them. Name one country in all of history that was handed a democracy and succeeded. There aren't any as far as I can tell, which is why I don't think it's going to work, running around and setting up democracies around the globe and just leaving them alone. If they don't fight for it themselves then I just don't see it working. Now what we're doing in Afghanistan I really think is a good thing. Even though the country isn't as well off as we'd like it to be, there are actual schools where girls can get an education, clinics being built, etc. but after we get rid of the nutters I think we should leave it for them to run. The only other way I can see the "democracy on wheels" working is if we start making places US commonwealths, which presents even more problems.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by zenkidori

The Saudis don't gas thier own people, rape and murder for fun and generally piss us off as much.

It's still a dictatorship.

Name one country in the entire world that has ANYTHING besides self interest in the international political arena.

None. But some countries do more than others. The United States is one example.

I don't much like that idea. IMO democracy and political, religious, and economic freedom come "when you're ready" and you have to work for them. Name one country in all of history that was handed a democracy and succeeded.

Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1952.

And if that's not what the US is after, Iraq was just a war of aggression? You know, the type of war which Herman Göring was sentenced to death for.

There aren't any as far as I can tell, which is why I don't think it's going to work, running around and setting up democracies around the globe and just leaving them alone. If they don't fight for it themselves then I just don't see it working. Now what we're doing in Afghanistan I really think is a good thing.

From what I've heard, it's not that good in Afghanistan, not even compared to under Taliban.

Even though the country isn't as well off as we'd like it to be, there are actual schools where girls can get an education, clinics being built, etc. but after we get rid of the nutters I think we should leave it for them to run.

Well, one of the problems is the fact that the US gives money and guns to the Afghan warlords. Who act as the new "leadership".

The only other way I can see the "democracy on wheels" working is if we start making places US commonwealths, which presents even more problems.

It probably would.

[zenkidori]

Originally Posted by nomix

It's still a dictatorship.

and?

Originally Posted by nomix

None. But some countries do more than others. The United States is one example.

some countries are higher up on the international totem pole and have more interests abroad, the US is one example.

Originally Posted by nomix

Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1952.

I'm not sure that's a good example, the Nazi regime can't really be compared to any other dictatorship in history, and it took the concerted effort of most of the world powers to smash it.

Originally Posted by nomix

And if that's not what the US is after, Iraq was just a war of aggression? You know, the type of war which Herman Göring was sentenced to death for.

First, you're making the assumption that I'm pro war in Iraq, which I'm not. Second, the goal is indeed to set up a democracy, but I'm not sure about it. There were elements of a resistance before even the first Gulf War, and there are many Iraqis who desire the freedom and democracy we're trying to set up, and are fighting for it, but with all the outside influence from islamic radicals I just don't know. I think we should have just helped the resistance with the coup plot during the first gulf war, while kicking him out of Kuwait.

I'm wondering something, so let's talk hypotheticals, pick one of these worst case scenarios:

• We never kicked Sadaam out of Kuwait, he annexes Kuwait, and remains in power
• We set up a US "colony" in Iraq
• We let radial Islamics take over Iraq and set up their own theocracy, Iran possibly annexes Iraq

Originally Posted by nomix

From what I've heard, it's not that good in Afghanistan, not even compared to under Taliban.

I would say keep checking if you're really interested, talk to some soldiers who've been there(I dunno of Norway has anyone there), read reports by people other than newsroom desk jockeys, etc. Any country in conflict is going to have problems, especially when there is a brutal minority desperately trying to regain control, however things are indeed improving, albeit slowly. I really wish we could have just focused 100% of Afganistan instead of spreading thin into Iraq, but wish in one hand...

Someone posted an article written by an Canadian soldier on here, read that.
Try and torrent the show "Lifting the Veil"
talk to soldiers, etc.

I think the fact that there are women getting an education speaks volumes just by itself. Women still have it very hard, but that one thing to me shows that there is hope for the future.

Originally Posted by nomix

Well, one of the problems is the fact that the US gives money and guns to the Afghan warlords. Who act as the new "leadership".

That's one of the problems with being spread so thin, but having these "warlords" that we can more or less control(they're dependent on us, and thus try to cooperate somewhat) is better than some alternatives. not perfect by all means.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by nomix

Well, one of the problems is the fact that the US gives money and guns to the Afghan warlords. Who act as the new "leadership".

Don't forget, while we had an official embargo against Iran, and still rather pissed off at them, we funneled them guns and money through Israel, while at the same time officially, and heavily, supporting Iraq during the Iran Iraq war.

The US weapons manufacturers make a LOT of money off of people being at war.

It's still a dictatorship

But is it an unwanted one? If the king has a high approval rating and is doing good for the people, I personally see no issue. Last I heard Saudi Arabia had a pretty awesome education and public health system for all citizens... both of which the US lack.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by zenkidori

First, you're making the assumption that I'm pro war in Iraq, which I'm not. Second, the goal is indeed to set up a democracy, but I'm not sure about it. There were elements of a resistance before even the first Gulf War, and there are many Iraqis who desire the freedom and democracy we're trying to set up, and are fighting for it, but with all the outside influence from islamic radicals I just don't know. I think we should have just helped the resistance with the coup plot during the first gulf war, while kicking him out of Kuwait.

I don't the United States has much to gain from setting up (or trying to set up) an actual democracy. I think they are looking for something that resembles a democracy but is really just a puppet regime. And that has proven to be just as difficult, not that there is any shortage of corrupt people there.

There is an interesting debate about whether Iraq is better off without Hussein, and that is going to all come down on whether the violence quells.

I agree with your last point. You can't really impose a politcal change from outside as well as an actual revolution can motivate the masses. I'd say that it would have been the best move in Iran as well, but the United States is lacking so much credibility, that supporting an Iranian revolution may not be as effective as it might once have.

I'm pro-democracy. I want to see Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan...and many other nations change. But back to my original point, I don't think the United States has much to gain from this.

[zenkidori]

That may indeed be true. Why set up a buddy who might be your friend and pay you back down the road when you can set up someone you can force to be your friend?

My hope would be that since we were instrumental in setting up the democracy, that would forge strong ties between the two countries, benefiting both. of course we do make fun of the French quite often...

[Firecat]

The USA has good relations with Germany and Japan too. Hmmm....what year did those fences begin to mend?

[nomix]

Originally Posted by zenkidori

and?

Then it's ironic of Bush to say that Iraq will act as a beacon for liberty in the region.

some countries are higher up on the international totem pole and have more interests abroad, the US is one example.

Only natural. I'm stronger than the average bloke, and I love to chat. That doesn't mean I have to punch people in the face and call them idiots.

I'm not sure that's a good example, the Nazi regime can't really be compared to any other dictatorship in history, and it took the concerted effort of most of the world powers to smash it.

That's not the question. The question is which countries which was able to make a proper democracy after being liberated. Germany did.

First, you're making the assumption that I'm pro war in Iraq, which I'm not. Second, the goal is indeed to set up a democracy, but I'm not sure about it. There were elements of a resistance before even the first Gulf War, and there are many Iraqis who desire the freedom and democracy we're trying to set up, and are fighting for it, but with all the outside influence from islamic radicals I just don't know.

Well, I've seen reports by other sources than just the US government that many of the 'insurgents' are simply common Iraqis wanting the US to leave. Didn't surveys show that something like 70 percent of Iraqis wanted the US to leave?

I think we should have just helped the resistance with the coup plot during the first gulf war, while kicking him out of Kuwait.

I totally agree. The question is, why didn't you? (If you excuse my use of 'you'.)

I'm wondering something, so let's talk hypotheticals, pick one of these worst case scenarios:

• We never kicked Sadaam out of Kuwait, he annexes Kuwait, and remains in power
• We set up a US "colony" in Iraq
• We let radial Islamics take over Iraq and set up their own theocracy, Iran possibly annexes Iraq

That would be bad, no doubt.

I would say keep checking if you're really interested, talk to some soldiers who've been there(I dunno of Norway has anyone there), read reports by people other than newsroom desk jockeys, etc.

Norway has soldiers in Iraq, I even believe your president has publicly thanked us for them several times, not to mention the special forces we have in Afghanistan.

War is hell, and it is. I've talked to some guys who was in Lebanon in the 80s. He was one of the guys in the Norwegian UN camp in Lebanon which got bombarded by Israeli artillery, actually. War is hell, that's the insight I got from him.

And besides that, I still think wars of aggression are wrong. One thing I will always be wondering about, is why the US didn't back up the resistance in 91. Guess we'll know more in 20 years or something.

Any country in conflict is going to have problems, especially when there is a brutal minority desperately trying to regain control, however things are indeed improving, albeit slowly. I really wish we could have just focused 100% of Afganistan instead of spreading thin into Iraq, but wish in one hand...

To be honest, I really get the impression that the US presence isn't very well liked in Iraq.

I think the fact that there are women getting an education speaks volumes just by itself. Women still have it very hard, but that one thing to me shows that there is hope for the future.

Which is why I hope Saudi Arabia becomes a free country soon.

That's one of the problems with being spread so thin, but having these "warlords" that we can more or less control(they're dependent on us, and thus try to cooperate somewhat) is better than some alternatives. not perfect by all means.

You might be right. But they're not so dependent that they're not totalitarian in their own regions. Which is bad.

Originally Posted by thedguy

But is it an unwanted one? If the king has a high approval rating and is doing good for the people, I personally see no issue. Last I heard Saudi Arabia had a pretty awesome education and public health system for all citizens... both of which the US lack.

And what about the women?

[chaos386]

Originally Posted by nomix

And what about the women?

Er, they get free university and health care too. Granted, my university is male-only (much to the chagrin of the students ), but other ones are for both genders.

[nomix]

What about freedoms such as driving a car, riding a bike and dressing the way the want?

I don't know if women can vote in Saudi Arabia, can they?

[chaos386]

Originally Posted by nomix

What about freedoms such as driving a car, riding a bike and dressing the way the want?

I don't know if women can vote in Saudi Arabia, can they?

Driving a car: No
Riding a bike: I don't think so
Dressing the way they want: Sure, in private. In public they have to cover from their ankles to their wrists and necks, just like the men do (actually, guys can get away with short sleeves, but that's about it).

Voting: Er, you don't vote for kings...