[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I’ll bet Senator Cruz is gonna get loud about this…if only to pacify his constituents. [/quote]
His father, who was tortured and beaten by the Castros (and actually also Batista), probably has more to say.[/quote]
My point was, he will be in the minority, but he was elected to be a voice for his Cuban ex-pat constituency.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So Cuba gets full diplomatic relations, while not renouncing any of their principals, keeping liberty again under Castro’s boot.
Hmmm, sound like a win for Cuba.
And sounds like Obummer’s typical concession foreign policy. [/quote]
You should read the article I posted.
China has an abominable human rights record, and is communist, and we trade with them as well as South American gov’ts.[/quote]
And the Left correctly bitches about trade with China.
Two wrongs do not make it right. At least we could be a little correct on the issue.
That said, the Left has long had a love affair with communist murderers and tyrants who have a sexy Latin flair. So what the Castros were butchers that would have made Mengele jealous?!@ Castro had sex with Barbara Walters! He’s cool! He has a beard! He sticks it to the white man!
Valarie Jarrett (the real POTUS) had a framed picture of so-sexy Che Gueverra in her office behind her desk as she worked for the Obama campaign. I suppose the Castros are the next best thing to her star-crossed love.
So capitulating to communist murderers should come to no surprise.
It’s just the “hip” thing to do in the ivy-lined wombs in which he was formed. And Obama governs according to what is “hip” and “cool.”
[/quote]
You’ll get no argument from me on the morality of trade with human rights abusers. They are correct to bitch yes. However, China is simply too big to practically ignore and sanctions against Cuba have not achieved any of the goals we had for them and instead have pushed them further from our influence. I would argue that returning to relations with Cuba is a proper first step to getting stronger influence with them and achieving change within their government if that is what we desire. It is obvious that the sanctions have done nothing positive for our national goals.
Also, I’m pretty sure that not many people sporting Che shirts actually know what he did. They just like revolutionaries with cool logos…they are entirely ignorant as to his ethics.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So Cuba gets full diplomatic relations, while not renouncing any of their principals, keeping liberty again under Castro’s boot.
Hmmm, sound like a win for Cuba.
And sounds like Obummer’s typical concession foreign policy. [/quote]
Bullshit.
What about China and Nixon?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I’ll bet Senator Cruz is gonna get loud about this…if only to pacify his constituents. [/quote]
His father, who was tortured and beaten by the Castros (and actually also Batista), probably has more to say.[/quote]
My point was, he will be in the minority, but he was elected to be a voice for his Cuban ex-pat constituency. [/quote]
I think you are thinking of Marco Rubio from Florida.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Well in fairness, his job is to represent the people who elected him to the U.S. Congress.
If they are pissed, he is obligated to say something.[/quote]
How many Cubans-Americans are there vis-a-vis Mexican-Americans in Texas?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So Cuba gets full diplomatic relations, while not renouncing any of their principals, keeping liberty again under Castro’s boot.
Hmmm, sound like a win for Cuba.
And sounds like Obummer’s typical concession foreign policy. [/quote]
Bullshit.
What about China and Nixon?[/quote]
Yeah, similar economies and trade opportunities. Lol
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Also, I’m pretty sure that not many people sporting Che shirts actually know what he did. They just like revolutionaries with cool logos…they are entirely ignorant as to his ethics.[/quote]
I don’t doubt this is true, including in the case of Valarie Jarrett, Che flag waiver and Senior Advisor to the President of the United States and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs in the Obama administration.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I’ll bet Senator Cruz is gonna get loud about this…if only to pacify his constituents. [/quote]
His father, who was tortured and beaten by the Castros (and actually also Batista), probably has more to say.[/quote]
My point was, he will be in the minority, but he was elected to be a voice for his Cuban ex-pat constituency. [/quote]
I think you are thinking of Marco Rubio from Florida.[/quote]
Ahhhh quite correct, my mistake.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Well in fairness, his job is to represent the people who elected him to the U.S. Congress.
If they are pissed, he is obligated to say something.[/quote]
How many Cubans-Americans are there vis-a-vis Mexican-Americans in Texas? [/quote]
Yep, I switched them up.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So Cuba gets full diplomatic relations, while not renouncing any of their principals, keeping liberty again under Castro’s boot.
Hmmm, sound like a win for Cuba.
And sounds like Obummer’s typical concession foreign policy. [/quote]
You should read the article I posted.
China has an abominable human rights record, and is communist, and we trade with them as well as South American gov’ts.[/quote]
And the Left correctly bitches about trade with China.
Two wrongs do not make it right. At least we could be a little correct on the issue.
That said, the Left has long had a love affair with communist murderers and tyrants who have a sexy Latin flair. So what the Castros were butchers that would have made Mengele jealous?!@ Castro had sex with Barbara Walters! He’s cool! He has a beard! He sticks it to the white man!
Valarie Jarrett (the real POTUS) had a framed picture of so-sexy Che Gueverra in her office behind her desk as she worked for the Obama campaign. I suppose the Castros are the next best thing to her star-crossed love.
So capitulating to communist murderers should come to no surprise.
It’s just the “hip” thing to do in the ivy-lined wombs in which he was formed. And Obama governs according to what is “hip” and “cool.”
[/quote]
You’ll get no argument from me on the morality of trade with human rights abusers. They are correct to bitch yes. However, China is simply too big to practically ignore and sanctions against Cuba have not achieved any of the goals we had for them and instead have pushed them further from our influence. I would argue that returning to relations with Cuba is a proper first step to getting stronger influence with them and achieving change within their government if that is what we desire. It is obvious that the sanctions have done nothing positive for our national goals.
Also, I’m pretty sure that not many people sporting Che shirts actually know what he did. They just like revolutionaries with cool logos…they are entirely ignorant as to his ethics.[/quote]
I never saw the movie, but I suspect the firing squads and prison Che presided over were not a big feature in The Motorcycle Diaries.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So Cuba gets full diplomatic relations, while not renouncing any of their principals, keeping liberty again under Castro’s boot.
Hmmm, sound like a win for Cuba.
And sounds like Obummer’s typical concession foreign policy. [/quote]
Bullshit.
What about China and Nixon?[/quote]
Yep, and while we are at it. We are buddy buddy with the Saudi’s. We fight terrorists who try to impose Sharia law on the world all while being good buddies with a nation whose current laws are based on Sharia law, which calls for some pretty stone aged punishments that include stoning people to death, flogging and decapitations. We really seem to have little moral authority on this, seems more like arbitrariness.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
You’ll get no argument from me on the morality of trade with human rights abusers.
[/quote]
There’s nothing necessarily “immoral” about trading with regimes who have a poor human rights record. US has no sovereignty outside its borders and it’s not the duty of the US government to enforce international human rights law. The government’s duty is to facilitate trade and maintain an environment in which US trade and security interests are met. This entails stability first and foremost. And the environment of International Relations, as Bismarck oft likes to point out, is inherently anarchic and lawless. Essentially, a “state of nature” exists in which nation states act without regard to international law when it serves their foreign policy interests to do so. The US, indeed any nation state, must act in consideration of its own interests foremost.
From our influence? Cuba? The Cuban regime is in a state of defacto war with the US and openly and vocally supports Islamic terrorism against the US. The purpose of sanctions initially were to prevent Batista and the revolutionaries from arming. However, after the revolutionaries won they began a massive rearmament from the Soviet Union and Cuba became the world’s leading exporter of left-wing terrorism and Marxist insurgencies against the west; they funded, backed and trained groups all over the world that were a threat to the West. Then they brought in Soviet nuclear missiles. The sanctions were and are a reactive response to the threat of the Castro regime.
This statement reveals that you don’t really have an understanding of IR and the realities of the postwar Pax Americana. Cuba is one of the main enemies and threats to the US and the US has and no influence whatsoever given the fact that Cuba’s foreign policy and grand strategy is in fundamental opposition to the security and economic interests of the US. The question should be, has the embargo achieved its goal of harming the Cuban economy? And the answer to that is yes.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
You’ll get no argument from me on the morality of trade with human rights abusers.
[/quote]
There’s nothing necessarily “immoral” about trading with regimes who have a poor human rights record. US has no sovereignty outside its borders and it’s not the duty of the US government to enforce international human rights law. The government’s duty is to facilitate trade and maintain an environment in which US trade and security interests are met. This entails stability first and foremost. And the environment of International Relations, as Bismarck oft likes to point out, is inherently anarchic and lawless. Essentially, a “state of nature” exists in which nation states act without regard to international law when it serves their foreign policy interests to do so. The US, indeed any nation state, must act in consideration of its own interests foremost.
From our influence? Cuba? The Cuban regime is in a state of defacto war with the US and openly and vocally supports Islamic terrorism against the US. The purpose of sanctions initially were to prevent Batista and the revolutionaries from arming. However, after the revolutionaries won they began a massive rearmament from the Soviet Union and Cuba became the world’s leading exporter of left-wing terrorism and Marxist insurgencies against the west; they funded, backed and trained groups all over the world that were a threat to the West. Then they brought in Soviet nuclear missiles. The sanctions were and are a reactive response to the threat of the Castro regime.
This statement reveals that you don’t really have an understanding of IR and the realities of the postwar Pax Americana. Cuba is one of the main enemies and threats to the US and the US has and no influence whatsoever given the fact that Cuba’s foreign policy and grand strategy is in fundamental opposition to the security and economic interests of the US. The question should be, has the embargo achieved its goal of harming the Cuban economy? And the answer to that is yes.[/quote]
If the embargo’s goal was to pressure Cuba into changing one way or another. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. impact the everyday citizen, one way it can bring on change is Political Pressure all the way up to revolution from the citizens. The other way it could bring change is the pressure from the people onto the government, and the government responding positively (ideally) to sanctions, neither happened. Financially crippling Cuba likely weakened their ability to project power in places where they had influence. The thing is when it comes down to it, a lot of the poor in Cuba and other nations that Cuba was involved with see guys like Che as a martyr.
Unfortunately we have a long reach, the industries we have set up like Copper in S. America make capitalism look like imperialism. If your reality is working in a mine, Che would be your hero.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If the embargo’s goal was to pressure Cuba into changing one way or another. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. impact the everyday citizen,
[/quote]
The sanctions serve an overall containment strategy that is a necessary reality due to the regime’s fundamental opposition to the foreign policy interests of the US. 99% of the time the vote against the US and the west at the UN. They choose to oppose everything the US does internationally, in the name of human rights and otherwise, as a matter of course. This is the reality of much of the third world and the “developing” world of which Cuba represents an old and implacable foe. Castro and Che did much to bring about the downfall of French and Belgian colonialism for which the West is now paying the price, in terms of the regimes that have replaced them in North Africa and the Middle East; and also on your doorstep in South and Central America. At the very least Cuba must be contained, and if an opportunity presents itself to destroy the regime we should do it.
Yes, but not enough. After Bay of a Pigs the West got scared off and the left forced them into a “hands off” approach even though the Castro boys probably assassinated a sitting US President(JFK). Another reason not to underestimate the threat this regime poses.
And they’re fundamentally hostile to the US and the West and when people like that gain power, like Hugo Chavez for instance, they become a national security threat to the US. And when that sort of mentality comes across the Southern border you get the sort of problems you’re seeing now, not to mention the massive burden on the US taxpayer and the strain on public services.
[quote]
Unfortunately we have a long reach, the industries we have set up like Copper in S. America make capitalism look like imperialism. If your reality is working in a mine, Che would be your hero. [/quote]
US companies brought the technology and skills needed for those countries to take advantage of their own natural resources because they can’t do it on their own. And they’re so corrupt all their politicians and top civil servants are on the take. That’s not our fault. That’s their fault and their problems and now they’re exporting it to the United States.
The Castro’s are smelly piles of shit, but they are old and maybe its time to start building relations with the generations coming up so they don’t oppose us on 99% of issues like SM pointed out. I’d rather have improving relations with neighbors 90 miles away than have to “contain” them for the next 50-100 years.
The free flow of people, information, and capital might help the people in Cuba change relations between the U.S. and Cuba and give them the tools necessary to move towards a better form of government. The Bay of Pigs was a huge fiasco and helped solidify support for the revolution there. Killing Castro then or just not invading might have stopped the revolution, but invading and stopping without removing Castro was maybe the 2nd worst foreign policy move we have made in the last 50-years.
But that was 50 years ago. It might be harder to keep a stranglehold on the population if the population has access to information that shows the U.S. isn’t actually Cuba’s enemy. Maybe that is wishful thinking, but we can always go back to “containment” if things don’t move in a positive direction.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
My suspicion is most people in the U.S. don’t give a shit about relations with Cuba one way or the other except for a few swing voters in Florida. [/quote]
The Cubans are pissed and rightfully so considering what they had to go through to get out of Cuba and escape the tyranny of Castro.
That being said, I don’t think this was a bad move. The embargo never worked. And we can have more sway over Cuban politics if we have relations with them than if we don’t. I wouldn’t look at this as a win/ lose thing. Castro has regularly made a fool of the U.S. since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
If we want to affect events in Cuba, it’s better we have a relationship than be from the outside looking in.
We can get the people hooked on American goods and culture, it will affect change there.
I guess it all depends on goals. Do you want to ‘win’ some ideological battle, or do you want to change a hostile nation close to the border.
I want to open up Cuba and make them less hostile. The best way to do that is from the inside.
This is one of the very, very few times I agree with obama. An embargo put in place over the politics of 1960 has little to do with the politics of today. It made sense in 1962, now there is not even a Soviet Union anymore.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
My suspicion is most people in the U.S. don’t give a shit about relations with Cuba one way or the other except for a few swing voters in Florida. [/quote]
The Cubans are pissed and rightfully so considering what they had to go through to get out of Cuba and escape the tyranny of Castro.
That being said, I don’t think this was a bad move. The embargo never worked. And we can have more sway over Cuban politics if we have relations with them than if we don’t. I wouldn’t look at this as a win/ lose thing. Castro has regularly made a fool of the U.S. since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
If we want to affect events in Cuba, it’s better we have a relationship than be from the outside looking in.
We can get the people hooked on American goods and culture, it will affect change there.
I guess it all depends on goals. Do you want to ‘win’ some ideological battle, or do you want to change a hostile nation close to the border.
I want to open up Cuba and make them less hostile. The best way to do that is from the inside.
This is one of the very, very few times I agree with obama. An embargo put in place over the politics of 1960 has little to do with the politics of today. It made sense in 1962, now there is not even a Soviet Union anymore. [/quote]
I agree with pretty much all of this.
My Parents’ Path to Freedom: Why the Cuba Embargo Stands for Democracy:
^^ Good article.
This is a good article from 2009 when Obama first began lifting restrictions on the Cuba embargo:
Of course the corrupt Castro regime even siphons off much of the essential medical and food supplies that are allowed through. Obama’s attempts to get rid of the embargo restrictions on Cuba constitutes a fundamental foreign policy error. This is a despotic, anti-Western, hard line Marxist regime(Castro’s regime that is…not Obama).
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If the embargo’s goal was to pressure Cuba into changing one way or another. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. impact the everyday citizen,
[/quote]
The sanctions serve an overall containment strategy that is a necessary reality due to the regime’s fundamental opposition to the foreign policy interests of the US. 99% of the time the vote against the US and the west at the UN. They choose to oppose everything the US does internationally, in the name of human rights and otherwise, as a matter of course. This is the reality of much of the third world and the “developing” world of which Cuba represents an old and implacable foe. Castro and Che did much to bring about the downfall of French and Belgian colonialism for which the West is now paying the price, in terms of the regimes that have replaced them in North Africa and the Middle East; and also on your doorstep in South and Central America. At the very least Cuba must be contained, and if an opportunity presents itself to destroy the regime we should do it.
Yes, but not enough. After Bay of a Pigs the West got scared off and the left forced them into a “hands off” approach even though the Castro boys probably assassinated a sitting US President(JFK). Another reason not to underestimate the threat this regime poses.
And they’re fundamentally hostile to the US and the West and when people like that gain power, like Hugo Chavez for instance, they become a national security threat to the US. And when that sort of mentality comes across the Southern border you get the sort of problems you’re seeing now, not to mention the massive burden on the US taxpayer and the strain on public services.
[quote]
Unfortunately we have a long reach, the industries we have set up like Copper in S. America make capitalism look like imperialism. If your reality is working in a mine, Che would be your hero. [/quote]
US companies brought the technology and skills needed for those countries to take advantage of their own natural resources because they can’t do it on their own. And they’re so corrupt all their politicians and top civil servants are on the take. That’s not our fault. That’s their fault and their problems and now they’re exporting it to the United States.[/quote]
It’s partially our fault as we are the country that is projecting power. It’s not just corrupt politicians, it’s been our money and efforts to install people who do things that we want, and when that fails all of a sudden there are military elements involved. It’s fucked up but ultimately the cold war was being fought all over the world when it came to resources, and the poor people really got fucked over by the U.S. companies that were supposed to drag them up from under water and give them new life just ended up being international monopolies. :S Makes me sad. Copper Monopolies | Article about Copper Monopolies by The Free Dictionary
And what sort of sucks worse is I’m digging Pope Francis. But it was just a couple Popes ago that Pope JPII was all about supporting the sort of oppression of the above that happened to the people, which brought about people in history like Cardinal Oscar Romero who the Pope basically ignored until after he was murdered.
All I can say is I’m glad this page is turning. I’m glad Pope’s are using their influence in ways that aren’t killing people anymore or supporting pedo’s. But really the sudden change in the Church brings my eyes right to the infallibility doctrine of the Popes. Kinda bugs me so many Catholics are clueless about it, really this deal was struck by the Pope it seems.
[quote] Severiano wrote:
It’s partially our fault as we are the country that is projecting power. It’s not just corrupt politicians, it’s been our money and efforts to install people who do things that we want, and when that fails all of a sudden there are military elements involved. It’s fucked up but ultimately the cold war was being fought all over the world when it came to resources, and the poor people really got fucked over by the U.S. companies that were supposed to drag them up from under water and give them new life just ended up being international monopolies.
[/quote]
Only that’s not true. It was the Soviet Union and despotic Marxist regimes who “fucked over the poor”. Without the West the third world wouldn’t have hospitals or schools or even running water for that matter; something the Greeks and Romans mastered but most the third world never did. Everything the third world has is because of the West and to a lesser extent advanced Eastern civilisations. The West brought immense prosperity to the third world, cured them of disease - literally saving billions of lives - created the conditions for commerce and education and healthcare and a civil society. The only reason they have any of that is because of us. There are places on earth where the wheel was never invented; indeed, there are places and people who never even learned how to create fire. White Man’s Burden has been to civilise the ones that can be civilised and throw aid at the rest. We’re now the ones being screwed over by corrupt despotic native regimes that replaced largely honest colonialist civil services and institutions. Your narrative about the third world being exploited by Western investors is nonsense. Where regimes were replaced it was because they were radical, anti-Western Marxist regimes.
You’re “digging” him?
You’re attacked John Paul II now? You little Commie sonofabitch! I’m not interested in your hard-left radicalism. Eastern Europe was a fucking hellhole. That’s why they had a wall to keep people in - to stop them fleeing. It was a brutal, repressive, tyrannical regime responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of their own people.
[quote]
All I can say is I’m glad this page is turning. I’m glad Pope’s are using their influence in ways that aren’t killing people anymore or supporting pedo’s. But really the sudden change in the Church brings my eyes right to the infallibility doctrine of the Popes. Kinda bugs me so many Catholics are clueless about it, really this deal was struck by the Pope it seems. [/quote]
I think you’re deliberately trying to be provocative. You know I hate Communists and you’re trying to get a rise out of me.
Edited to fix quotes