Latin American countries unsuspend Cuba at the OAS unconditionally - U.S. against it
- Thread starter ColdBlooded
- Start date
Bullshit
Just their relatives
A. Some were offered compensation, but either left without it or turned it down
B. Some things aren't meant to be owned
C. Many of them stole the land their business was on
D. Many of them didn't pay taxes or refused to pay the new taxes
E. Many of them were criminals (domestic and international)
Just their relatives
A. Some were offered compensation, but either left without it or turned it down
B. Some things aren't meant to be owned
C. Many of them stole the land their business was on
D. Many of them didn't pay taxes or refused to pay the new taxes
E. Many of them were criminals (domestic and international)
I get that a lot of the mafia had business in Cuba. But that doesn't mean every single American company acting in Cuba was a criminal, a relative of a rapist, someone evading taxes, etc.
Some of them were legitimate companies. They paid their taxes and paid their dues and set up shop in Cuba because Batista told them it would be all good. Then Castro took over and stole all of their stuff.
It blows my mind how some of you think that its perfectly legitimate for a government to just take over the company of a foreigner, without any compensation, because of what some other Americans did a couple hundred years ago.
Every country should be held accountable. The US government should be held accountable for what they did to the Native Americans, and for how they ass raped South America. But that doesn't mean other countries should be off the hook. Two rights don't make a wrong. Let the US pay for their sins, let Cuba pay for theirs.
Cuba violated international law. You're trying to justify violating the rules of international law because another country violated the rules of international law. With that kind of reasoning, we might as well have a complete breakdown in international relations and start nuking each other right now.
That would be the minority of whom I was referring.
The majority of these so called "legit" businesses that you claim were expropriated by Cuba were stealing, were not paying taxes, were not paying employees, did steal land, did duck, dodge, and dip every opportunity given to not have their businesses expropriated.
They instead chose options like embezzlement, continued tax evasion, funding terrorists, sabotage, and just leaving their shit behind willingly and waiting for people like you to take up their banner so they could go back to the illegal immoral and straight evil shit they were doing before.
The majority of these so called "legit" businesses that you claim were expropriated by Cuba were stealing, were not paying taxes, were not paying employees, did steal land, did duck, dodge, and dip every opportunity given to not have their businesses expropriated.
They instead chose options like embezzlement, continued tax evasion, funding terrorists, sabotage, and just leaving their shit behind willingly and waiting for people like you to take up their banner so they could go back to the illegal immoral and straight evil shit they were doing before.
Well I agree, if they came across it illegitimately, then they have no claim against the Cuban government, and they were right to take it over. You're totally right about that.
But the "minority" who came across that legally shouldn't get fucked like that. An investor who hears that Cuba is gaining in tourism decides he's gonna go down there open a cigar business. He gets all the legal paperwork done with the Cuban government, puts down $100,000, and starts legally selling Cuban cigars. Then a new government takes over Cuba and they say they want to control all the corporations in their country. That's fine, that's their choice. So if this cigar company brings in 1 million a year, the Cuban government is absolutely right to take it over and have those 1 million dollar profits. But they might as well fork over the $100,000 to the owner of the cigar company because (1) the cigar owner didn't do anything wrong (2) international standards require it and (3) they would have made that $100,000 up very quickly if they weren't subject to trade restrictions based on illegal takings. Instead they cut off their nose to spite their face.
So "people like me" are not taking up the banner of people who embezzle, evade taxes, fund terrorists, sabotage, etc. I just happen to have an opinion that's different than yours.
But the "minority" who came across that legally shouldn't get fucked like that. An investor who hears that Cuba is gaining in tourism decides he's gonna go down there open a cigar business. He gets all the legal paperwork done with the Cuban government, puts down $100,000, and starts legally selling Cuban cigars. Then a new government takes over Cuba and they say they want to control all the corporations in their country. That's fine, that's their choice. So if this cigar company brings in 1 million a year, the Cuban government is absolutely right to take it over and have those 1 million dollar profits. But they might as well fork over the $100,000 to the owner of the cigar company because (1) the cigar owner didn't do anything wrong (2) international standards require it and (3) they would have made that $100,000 up very quickly if they weren't subject to trade restrictions based on illegal takings. Instead they cut off their nose to spite their face.
So "people like me" are not taking up the banner of people who embezzle, evade taxes, fund terrorists, sabotage, etc. I just happen to have an opinion that's different than yours.
You: What about the guy that owned the house before me? Native Americas weren't exactly born with the land they occupied when Europeans took it from them, there were many territorial conflicts between Native Americans long before they were loosing their land to Europeans.
Me: And? Probably Americans might have had the right to use that argument but when we decided to group them as one ethnicity/racial group vs. European American Colonialist, we loss the right to use their intra-feuding as a legit argument to take their land.
Me: And? Probably Americans might have had the right to use that argument but when we decided to group them as one ethnicity/racial group vs. European American Colonialist, we loss the right to use their intra-feuding as a legit argument to take their land.
That is some baby crying over spilt milk shit if I ever heard it. Investing is risk based. You put money in the stock market you might lose it. You invest in other countries you might lose it. It is part of the game. Shit happens all over the world. This whole every country should be accountable shit is more Utopian than any capitalist could say about communism. You play the game and sometimes you get burned. But every country burns people because that is how the game is played.
As an American you should know international law isn't real. Law (international or domestic) is written by the winners and is only beneficial to those powerful enough to enforce it.
Wake up, reality may not smell good, but there is comfort in it.
As an American you should know international law isn't real. Law (international or domestic) is written by the winners and is only beneficial to those powerful enough to enforce it.
Wake up, reality may not smell good, but there is comfort in it.
LMAO
What kind of ultra-subjective BS is that?
"they lost the right to use that argument"
Says who? you? lol
Also, you are not understanding what I am saying. I am not arguing that using their conflicts with other Native Americans is justification for taking their land, I am asking if we give it back to them, which ones are we giving it back to? The first one to see it?
I wouldn't doubt the majority of your possessions couldn't be "stolen" using the logic of your argument that Cuba can't steal from US. Do you live that way?
International law is real in the sense that if you don't follow it, there are consequenes. If a country wants to play in the international community and be accepted, they need to (a) follow the few universal rules that exist or (b) do whatever they want and piss off the people who made the rules.
One of the rules is that just, adequate and prompt compensation is required for any nationalization. Cuba didn't follow the rule. Now Cuba isn't allowed to play with the world community. That's how the world really works. And feeling bad for Cuba is crying over spilled milk.
One of the rules is that just, adequate and prompt compensation is required for any nationalization. Cuba didn't follow the rule. Now Cuba isn't allowed to play with the world community. That's how the world really works. And feeling bad for Cuba is crying over spilled milk.