Friends, please have a look at the following article
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/c … html?ml=po
The sclerotic bags of dust, wanting to relive the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. For heavens sake, those people and their constituents so desperately cling to the past, instead of moving forward. Everyone has normalized relations with Cuba over the last 50 years. Is the GOP stubbornness practical or is it about ego? We have since normalized relations with China and have more engagement with North Korea than Cuba. Since 1959, we have climbed into bed with tyrants that make Castro look like a teddy bear. Life is short and time is limited, there is not enough to continue to nurse old wounds. Can you imagine taking that attitude regarding the Axis powers at the end of WWII?
We would have been talking about establishing relations in 1995, no one could believe it. Obama is right to normalize relations regardless of the sclerotic bags.
Any thoughts, pro or con?
1)"For heavens sake, those people and their constituents so desperately cling to the past," Cuba is a contemporary villain.
http://blog.panampost.com/editor/2014/0 … onnection/
2)"instead of moving forward." Forward into what? The Castro Brothers may have freed some of Cuba's political prisoners but nothing prevents any future round up. What does it benefit the Cuban people to grant legitimacy to a repressive regime?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/pre … 2014-01-27
3) "We have since normalized relations with China and have more engagement with North Korea" And both are working out so well for the US and for the average person in both communist states.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/coun … ific/china
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/co … orth-korea
4) "Can you imagine taking that attitude regarding the Axis powers at the end of WWII?"
THIS MAKES NO SENSE - Italy, Germany and Japan were smashed in brutal wars, their repressive governments replaced and their countries occupied for years following WWII. If we had done the same to Cuba, then Obama's desperate attempt to grasp any kind of foreign policy success would make sense.
Perhaps we should treat Cuba like Japan, smash it, depose the government, strip it of its military, replace the ruling elite, occupy Cuba for years and keep a large, permanent military base in Havana. That might really work out to everyone's benefit.
I disagree, of course. Your imput is appreciated. Seems to me that the term 'repressive regime' is selectively used by the right. there is certain amount of arrogance in presuming you can smash things to get what you want, the neo-conservative mode of thinking. Cuba, a contemporary villain, yes, like my greatgranny's corset?
So, it's back to the days of red scare, I ask the right why Cuba and not any of the many tyrannical regimes out there? I guess as a lefty, I neither abide hypocrisy nor double standards.
Reminds me of Reagan and his constructive engagement with the South African apartheid regime in the eighties . Was this not a 'repressive' regime?
I thought you already had a large permanent military base on Cuba!
Yup, being founded in 1903 it easily fulfils the bit about permanent and at 45 square miles it's definitely large. But it's OK, you pay Cuba a very generous $4,000 a year for the use of it!
I spite of this, the right will never be satisfied until Cuba has become an American colony or at least can be made pliant to the whims of American multinational firms. Seems like that was the kind of stuff that gave rise to Castro in the first place!
Yes, the pundits have been making great play of bringing democracy to Cuba but do you really have true democracy in the USA? And what right do you have to impose your political system on other countries?
I have been asking our right wing conservative posters this for sometime and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer. What we appear to have here in the states to an ever greater degree is a plutocracy. And the vestige of democratic processes that remain is being undermined by our right wing adherents
Don't worry the plutocracy will find a way to bastardize the recent events with regards to normalizing relations with them.
If the plutocrat can be given credit for anything, it is the ability to distract and misdirect the unsuspecting. Resurrecting old-time bogeymen, inciting people to march to the drum beat while they fleece us and help themselves to the national treasury.
I am glad you didn't mention the two mob families that run the country as there is a veil of difference between them.
Seems your plutocracy has grown far more powerful with the aid of Obama. A dying middle class, growing poverty class dependent on handouts and a government protected and fostered class of supporters growing wealthier with Obama's assistance is the legacy of Hope and Change. Obama has transformed America into a banana republic, no wonder he has such warm feelings for Castro.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial … -obama.htm
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … class.html
Yeah 30 years is about right, the author and instigator of this current state affairs is your hero Ronald Reagan, this directly from the article in your right wing propaganda sheet. So whatever you blame Obama for, Reagan started, with his supply side tinkle down nonsense. but, of course you say AMERICA is doomed because the enlightened left has and will continue to prevail. He, Reagan,created the deficit spending, building the trough that the fat cats use to obtain their sweat nectar at the expense of everybody else.
That's a good one.
They, (enlightened left), keep leading us to the water, but...
You only need to put quotation marks around "enlightened" to make this statement true. The leftist transformation of America, and consequently the world, continues a pace. The balkanisation of America continues as Eric Holder and Barrack Obama pits one racial group against another. The economy limps onward as the left plots the elimination of coal, oil, gasoline.
You may blame Reagan all you wish and ignore Obama's failure to undo the vile racist right wing hate monger destruction of the dream of the workers paradise. Before long everyone but the contributor class, beloved of Obama and the primary beneficiaries of Obama legalizing, through imperial declaration, millions of people who are dragging down the wages of the working poor, while all the time squeezing the rapidly shrinking middle class with demands for a higher minimum wage that threatens small business owners most, destroying the 40 worker and supplanting his will for that of the electorate.
We should all adopt your attitude toward Political-Economic History because it won't be long before the only thing to distract us from the long lines for government cheese or the privations of life on the dole will be rich fantasies.
Yes, the transformation of reason over barbarism, who would not welcome that? Obama is not a dictator, he was re-elected, remember? All the points in your comments are best directed to 'the right' and Republican policy and ideology. From my point of view, it is they that are working feverously toward the goal of a feudal America
Who has Cubaphobia? I grew up in Ft. Lauderdale, Fl, never once did I fear Cuba
Ha! "sclerotic" - a new word of the day? (yep, I had to look it up)
I am in a safe, and probably interesting seat for this topic. Other than general history knowledge, I have not "examined" this situation. Which means I have the safety of potential naivete for a helmet.
What does the Cuban government gain from this move? What do the Cuban people gain?
The same questions apply to the U.S. With the additional question of what does the U.S. lose from this change in relations?
It seems to me that both would gain. The increased exposure of Cubans and Cuban businesses to Western capitalism and opportunities might expose some cracks in the philosophy of Communist rule. As for what else the U.S. might gain, (or lose), from this... I will have to give it some thought.
Hmm... Seems like there should be a pretty serious downside to the U.S. to counter the potential upside to both nations.
GA, no problem. I will provide a little background on Fulgencio Batista, Castro's predecessor: "Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with the American mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large multinational American corporations that had invested considerable amounts of money in Cuba. To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his anti-Communist secret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing anywhere from 1,000 to 20,000 people. For several years until 1959, the Batista government received financial, military, and logistical support from the United States."
AMERICA was not happy that Castro came along and deposed Batista. He nationalized industries and kicked out the multinationals. Of course, once he did that the Cuban regime was branded as "Communists" This being the kiss of death in the midst of the Cold War" That is a convenient oversight that the anachronistas of the right would like to think that we all have forgotten.
If we were so concerned about human rights, political prisoners and such why did we not take action against Batista when he was in power? I believed that Cuba allied itself with the USSR for its own protection. At that time, the threat of an American invasion was quite real. The right loves to tell half of the story, playing on ignorance to assume that most of us do not know the other half.
Next: the future
Castro's hands are as bloody and his grip on life in Cuba is total. The most brutal regimes have been America, and humanities enemies. Why should Castro be any different?
You mean like you leave out the missile bases being built in Cuba? Like you leave out that Kennedy did NOT avoid war, he in fact, practically caused it with his barricade of Cuba.
The only reason war was avoided was the capitulation of Russia when they got caught in a lie before the UN and, therefore, the world because they denied the bases and the US provided the proof in pictures.
Kennedy merely agreed not to invade Cuba in return for Russia not building the missile bases.
Those are the actual facts, not the fantasies of the liberal left. It's called having hutzpah and believing that might will lead to dialogue from a position of strength. The very hutzpah which is completely lacking in our current President.
Like you leave out all the blood that Castro has on his hands? You think all those Cuban immigrants are lying now? Is that what you're saying? Those that sought asylum here? They made up stories?
Get a grip. It really isn't even a left/right thing at all. It is an American thing but you can't let go of the partisan game long enough to realize it.
Yes, as a new found ally of the Soviet Union, Cuba was harboring offensive missiles.
And, no, Kennedy avoided war with blockade. Kennedy was given kudos for taking the prudent course between nuclear confrontation and doing nothing. The USSR backed down because they were not anxious for nuclear exchange. Brinksmanship, who blinks first was the game. Nikita was just as concerned about mutually assured destruction as we were. Yes, I know the story, I lived through it. But all of that was 1962, what does that have to do with today?
Hutzpah? What is that, is it a synonym for a strident, belligerent attitude without any real purpose? Why isolate Castro, the amount of blood tyrants have on their hands never seem to be an impediment for our constructive engagement with regimes as bad or worse in the past.
The fact that we see this issue in entirely different ways with clear ideological and partisan lines on one side or the other on a national level, shows more than anything else that it is a'left-right thing. Maybe, you had better check on your own 'grip'.
No it is not a left/right thing which you would know if you read actual news instead of creating your own version of events inside your head.
Not everyone on the right is in agreement. Not everyone on the left is in agreement. I repeat - it is not even a partisan thing. You made that up. I guess so you could find some obscure reason to insult the other side.
The GOP is sharply divided and so are the Democrats.
The people are divided as well and not along partisan lines.
I don't care what you lived through personally - because your facts are incorrect. You brought up Kennedy as some progressive hero who took the high road when that isn't the case. Sure, he didn't push the button, he sent war ships. Pretty sure any sane President from either political party would choose the latter as well.
Russia caved as soon as the US confronted them on the world stage with the pictures. You can make up whatever other stories you'd like but those are checkable facts.
Castro's daughter has already said Obama is living in a fantasy world if he thinks Cuba is going to turn from communism or embrace capitalism. What brought on this comment? The President saying Cuba would not have US businesses at a disadvantage.
You should check it out. Again, please read and comprehend. Dialogue is great. No one ever said to isolate him. But you have to have that dialogue from a position of strength. Not bending over for Castro like Obama. We've got nothing for leverage at all now.
I mean, Nixon did the same. Haven't we just turned the tide of all that horror in China? NOT! Because there is nothing left to bargain with at all. Nothing to give any incentive for change.
You have your own opinions which are quite subjective and not substantiated. Maybe you might check Gallop polls and look at the newscasts and see if you can find one member of the GOP leadership with the noted exception of Ron Paul that supports the president's proposal? Which prominent democrat in Washington is logged on as opposed? Polls show a marked distaste for engagement with Cuba among Republicans when compared to democrats. Or is it that any objective source of information that the two sides are not identical is by your equivocation reduced to merely 6 of one and half a dozen of the other in all the critical issues of our times? The ideological and partisan divide is not just some figment of the imagination. The gridlock in Washington should attest to that and any cogent observer could not deny it. There are liberals and there are conservatives, and one of the political parties is either more conservative or liberal than the other. That is evident to anybody that takes the time to open their eyes and look. If there are sharp divisions in the GOP, it is not coming from the leadership. In my opinion, with a GOP dominated congress, Obama would be lucky to get any of policy initiatives regarding Cuba passed. Then we will see how 'sharply divided' the GOP will actually be. Who knows, maybe it is all anti-Obama? Your Mr. Peabody version of world history is suspect on its face. We disagree on this point. I did not say that he(Kennedy) was an overall hero, there are many with a stronger performance rating. But if you read history you would know that his handling of the crisis was seen in a positive light by most historians. However, perhaps not from the view of the flat-earth people on the right. There is a list prepared by Presidential historians that rate each President's effectiveness relative to the others. All presidents are not equal and all decisions are not equally prudent. You sure make that is evident in your attitude regarding the current president. You would have to gather evidence, document and be more than 'pretty sure'. The Soviet Union had a nuclear arsenal that was more than capable of destroying the United States, so 'cave in' is a strong word. Why is Castro's daughter an authority? Everybody knows that Castro has moderated his hardline socialist dogma over the years, everybody except conservatives. Your conjecture is always more credible than anybody's documented evidence. Certainly...
The change in Cuba will not happen overnight under Obama's proposal, but perhaps we do not have to wait 50 years to see if it can work? Why is it every time Obama engages in diplomacy, the right's point of view is that he capitulates? That goes right up there with his being a Muslim, not born in the United States? A half century says that we obviously have not had much leverage in Cuba. So you were against Nixon's engagement with China, you are quite the cold warrior aren't you. But failure to ratchet down hostility is the invitation for disaster.
Well thanks for the background. But... I think you misunderstood what I was claiming to be naive of.
I am familiar with the history of Cuba's "change of government," and the mostly legitimate reasons for the need, (the part you say the Right" leaves out), but I am also familiar with the Marxist rule that Castro imposed, and the _____ (pick a number), of non-military and civilian deaths and murders caused by Castro and Guevara to consolidate their power. (the part the Left leaves out).
Your "background" was a little like a bargain bin paint-by-numbers set - on sale because some of the colors are missing.
My point, (the one I claimed to be uninformed about) was just as stated; In today's world, what are the pluses and minuses for either side?
ps. I am tempted to offer you a "Nice try!" but you inclusion of "The right loves to tell half of the story, ..." made it impossible for me to not mention the half of the story the Left likes to not tell.
C'm on Cred, you were so close to purple. I had such high hopes. I am quite worried about this Blue bleed-thu I am seeing in your comments.
Yep, there is a lot of blue there. I am aware that Castro did not assume power with breaking a few eggs. But why did the American government support the previous regime and said nothing? Was it the conservatives in the cold war era that distinguished between tyrants as to whether they were authoritarian or totalitarian? The ones that did not cooperate with US geopolitical and economic objectives were the latter. The distinction used to justify the terrorist regime of South Africa or Marcos in the Philippines, yet condemn Cuba. The question no one has really addressed, why the double standard?
"...breaking a few eggs."
Ha! if those eggs you refer to weren't human lives I would chuckle at such an understated analogy.
As for the rest of your comment, and ending with reference to our "double standard," I would ask that if it were your responsibility to guide our nation through the perils of a developing world, and protect and promote our national interests and security - how else would you do it?
Altruism and a pure heart are noble attributes, and should be everyone/nation's goal in an ideal world. But that is not the world we live in. The reality is that if a tyrant can be beneficial to our national interests - then his is an authoritarian rule, and if a tyrant is or supports our enemy - then his is an unacceptable totalitarian rule. That truth may be ugly, but it is still the truth of the real world we live in.
We, Americans speak of moral justification for our actions. But the philosophy is 'might makes right'. If you subscribe to that philosophy let's not hide behind Castro's 'terrorist' regime as an excuse for no engagement. We are protecting America's multinationals, and our economic and geopolitical interests. Then, we have no case if China, Russia, Iran, Israel, etc. does the same, do we not?
I once read an account in an magazine about Castro's visit to the U.S. immediately after he deposed Batista, but before he embraced Moscow. He visited Harlem in 1959 and was met with cheering crowds. The police there could not understand how the Black community had this affinity toward this revolutionary when the national press reported on his 'brutal' assumption of power. When asked about it, one man replied, " yeah, man, I dig Fidel the most, anyone that can kick whitey's a** has got to be ok in my book". This was one time in the international conflict between 'cowboys and indians', that the Indians won. We, at that time, knew who our tyrants were and we did not have to go far to find them. We are different in many ways, one example being consideration of what constitutes true benefit to our national interest. Those kinds of questions are brought forth by the 'naive' left regarding much of our military and economic outreach (middle east for example) around the world. It is hypocritical to say we are for freedom, when we are really about self-interest that does not necessarily benefit those with whom we are dealing. If I were in charge, and I choose to succumb to a' right makes right' approach with no altruistic basis, I would at least admit it. The Nazis did. That attitude today between so many' self-interested' world powers guarantees conflict well into the future.
I admit to being perplexed that you would include this quote as any type of rationalization:
"When asked about it, [his praise for Castro] one man replied " yeah, man, I dig Fidel the most, anyone that can kick whitey's a** has to be ok in my book. "
I see the idealism of your position, but I would strongly urge you to put it in context with the realities we have to live with.
Try this. Find access to Kissinger's book "The White House Years", and at least read chapter one where he describes the realities of the world a president, (any president), must cope with. I am not suggesting that you read it all, because after chapter one he gets into the nuts and bolts of Nixon's administration. And I am sure that wouldn't be your cup of tea. (although the mechanics of the Nixon-era foreign relations efforts and goals might interest you)
*Even though he is addressing the realities of the late 1960s, I think a few name substitutions will show his evaluation to still be relevant in today's geo-political times."
The point is, I think you will be impressed by his honest description of the reality that must be addressed by any nation dealing with other nations. A reality that generally accommodates self-interest rather than idealistic actions.
As for our claim to be for freedom when we are really acting for self-interest - I don't see an incompatibility. It is obviously in our self-interest to see a world of free nations. It it just as obviously a matter of self-interest and humanity to want to see other nation's citizens living in a free nation. Self-interest isn't always a bad thing.
I seem to recall some old adage or admonition about the message sent when "Nazis" are introduced to a non-Nazi discussion. Hmm...
Self interest and the claim to be for freedom is at the heart of hypocrisy regarding this issue. The two in American history is incompatible. Freedom consistent with allowing others self-determination, is what I called freedom.
I remember, Henry Kissinger and 'realpolitik' of the Nixon era. I will do a little web investigation and check into it. Is freedom as we define it or the right to self determination by a nation and its people the more important? Saudi Arabia is not 'free' by our definition but we have allowed it the right of self determination. If there is a conflict between freedom and say, a nation's willingness to cooperate with the petroleum industry and American multinationals , there are a few example where the latter prevailed. The authoritarian dictator was supported over a free society that was not welcoming to American economic interests. This has occurred.
Don't mean to startle, I am trying to show the distinction and make a point.
The best way to dispense with bogey man and the pariah state known as Castro's Cuba, is to inundate them with AMERICAN tourists and long awaited family reunions. With the exchange of hard currency, business opportunities. Cuba could not remAin in the dark, even if it wanted to. Would not both economies benefit from the exchange.
As with the People's Republic of China, who once boasted of the superiority of their "command economy". Today and with each passing day, they are "communist" in name only. Even though you will never get them to admit it, they have had to embrace western style capitalism as the prerequisite for a growing economy. Innovation which is a byproduct of capitalism can only come from free people. Free people will eventually insist on a free society. It may not happen overnight, but it is coming, it has to.
We benefit by burying the bones of a bygone era and eliminating one more glaring example of hypocrisy in our foreign policy. I get to see the old guard, many who are neo-colonialists brought to heel.
We have done it 'their' way for over half a century, with what result? I say that it is time for a new course, and if there is a downside, tell me what it is.
So, I chide my friends on the right to GO FORTH, LEARN THINGS!
Thanks for your attention!
PS! I had watched William Buckley's "Firing Line" program years ago past. I had always admired his mastery of the English language.
Yep, your comment reflects the type of "cracks" I was referring to. I too am still looking for the horrific downside that would offset the apparent upsides for both nations.
There is no immediate horrific downside. Some Cuban immigrants disagree and believe we are condoning the actions of a vicious dictator.
I would ask though, do you trust Castro? I certainly don't. I tend to be more cautious about American lives I guess because I don't consider it beyond any realistic realm to see kidnappings of tourists and embassy attacks.
They do it now whenever given the chance and I don't think we've given them any incentive to change that behavior.
I think it was Rubio who said it wasn't warming the relations between the countries that was the issue - it was that Cuba offered nothing in return.
The biggest threat of kidnapping in Cuba is from anti Castro groups.
And as for Cuba having nothing to offer, how long before MacDonalds appear on the island?
With an average wage of $20 per month, hard to see how any American exports, even management for MacDonalds, could be made.
I understand what you are saying, but...
First, let's understand that we are talking about changes involved in Pres. Obama's Executive order - not a complete throwing open of the doors, (yet).
The American citizen dangers you mention are not restricted to Cuba alone. So unless you see validity in barring American travel to many other countries, I don't see that objection as a reason against a change in our country's relations with Cuba.
At this point I think this change in perspective, combined with a cautious and vigilant attitude by both our citizens and government might be a beneficial first step for both countries.
Just remember, I did qualify my perspective with the caveat that I am looking at the visible picture, not the unseen machinations or subterfuge that may be involved, or any deep understanding of relevant issues.
I believe having a relationship with Cuba will do more for Cube than the fifty years of banishment. Let the Cubans meet democracy and Americans to give them choices to make within their country. If they wish to have democracy let them do so from within. Our perspective of doing it from without the country has certainly fed into the Castro's regime of martial control. This can only help the people of Cuba effect change on their own incentives and initiatives.
Tourism is tourism and you are correct. Placing an embassy there, is quite another. What a beautiful big target every time the US does something they don't like!
The "offer" Rubio was referring to though was more something along the lines of their human rights violations. Pretty much we've capitulated for zero in return.
Despite what Credence believes I don't see we've created any effective change in China in all these years since Nixon did much the same there, outside of an economic one. They're still an oppressive government and one of the worst offenders when it comes to human rights.
I see much of the same in this arrangement.
The fact that China nor Russia have not been provoked to use its nuclear arsenal in an environment of terror is why you and I are still here to debate the merits. I have no right to insist on a political change in China any more than China has a right to demand that we make political changes in our system to accommodate them. Castro has made that clear, that the warming of relations is not predicated on regime change of a change of its Socialist/Marxist lenin approach to Government any more than he can make demands about how we do things here in the United States. I simply say that the Cuban socialist model will fall by itself without our need for arm twisting. I think that that is fair enough.
You are talking a manner of governing. I am talking human rights. You misunderstand the point. No, it isn't become a democracy before we will talk with you. It is stop the senseless slaughter of innocents who've done no more than perhaps utter a single word against Castro.
At least take a step in that direction. Certainly there is a middle ground somewhere between capitulation in the face of abhorrent violations of human rights and isolation. We've done nothing to be an effective avenue towards change in that regard in all these years of relations with China and in fact, I could argue that our very opening of that economic avenue for them has lessened any effect we could once have had in that regard.
Now we will do the same with Cuba.
I hear you, but we talk about human rights when it comes to totalitarian regimes like China, North Korea or as of late Cuba. In spite of this we have embassies in China, Liberia, Cambodia, and a large swath of the planet where there are plenty of authoritarian governments which could have been a focus of our crusade for human rights. Nothing wrong with it, just like to avoid differing standards with no justification to support the difference
Those on the outside could look at the number of incarcerated here in the states and its employ of the death penalty as barbaric in modern times among developed nations. It depends on your point of view, I suppose.
China will eventually become a more open society based on the ideas I expressed earlier, it will take time to run the full course. How are we going to pressure a society of over 1 billion to release political prisoners or else? We must take what we can get, as opposed to nothing. Which will be as much on their terms as ours.
We are in a position to employ as middle ground in Cuba by going in through the back door. Oppressive dictatorships are bad for business, tourism and trade, generally. The power through influence of the United States, so close to Cuba, will prove a much more effective persuader than what was possible with China. After over 50 years, it appears that another route to relax the need for the regime to hold political prisoners and such will have to be employed. This will work for us and unbeknownst to them, the' hard line' will have to dissolve in many aspects of Cuban life
I have lost track. Are we agreeing or disagreeing?
I agree with your comment's last line;
"I see much of the same in this arrangement. "
But regarding China, I think our post-Nixon interactions have created some new opportunities for China's citizens. The bulk of their Communist rule may still be the same, but I think our more open relations with them are having an affect. Even if it isn't the "turn over a new leaf" human rights behavior we desire.
I feel the same about the Cuba situation. So maybe we are agreeing.
I guess because I am middle of the road on the entire thing really. I don't think the total isolation works either. I just feel we should have gotten some agreement on their human rights atrocities within the extending our relations package.
We're having an effect on China's citizens, and certainly an economic affect, but is that really helping them or hurting them? Right now I see China's government cracking down harder as their citizens fight for more freedoms. Not sure that is a change that is good as far as the cost of human lives.
In the bigger picture, do we have any pull at all with China? No we don't. They could care less really. What happened when we threatened to pull favored nation status? They threatened us with far more economic harm didn't they? That is the position we've placed ourselves in. With absolutely zero influence within the world. Not a good one to be in IMO.
Gee , Uuhh wasn't every liberal's favorite God on earth President , Kennedy that originally freakin invaded Cuba ? Yeea Obama .wow , Might as well grasp at any straw at all to show you accomplished ..........anything at all............... in foreign relations !
Kennedy was a progressive, the antithesis of being 'conservative'. Conservatives always told me that Kennedy was the last Democrat with whom they had some kinship. Kennedy did his job as Commander and Chief, deftly averting a nuclear confrontation with Soviet Union. My point is that it is not 1962 anymore, and this back to the future stuff from the right winger turns the stomach.
No it is not 1962 anymore. Perhaps you could spread that message to the Cuban government who is still one of the biggest violators of human rights. What do the enlightened left think this move does for that problem?
It is another appeasement from this President to a vicious dictator. Right wing? Really? Is that what you call all those Cuban immigrants who despise this move? Right wing?
You won't get more to drink - because quite simply, it isn't working. Not for the country, not for the majority of Americans, not for the middle class. It's all beginning to crash and burn.
On social issues I'm pretty middle of the road. On economy though, the liberal left's tax, spend and redistribute is an utter failure and only getting worse.
The foreign policy is a joke and making us a joke to the rest of the world. No one even listens to us anymore because they know there is nothing to fear from this Administration. No guts. No pride. No loyalty to our allies. Just appeasement to governments with a human rights record that is appalling.
That is my two cents worth.
Your contribution to this forum is appreciated. I always like to get educated as to the reasoning of you right wing conservative types.
There are no nations in the world that treats Cuba as a pariah, so what are we holding on to?
Political prisoners? So what else is new? Any political system that does not operate under the rule of law are going to have these, have we made them all pariahs politically and economically?
what about China, Russia, Pakistan, the world is of full tin-horn dictators. Reagan talked about "constructive engagement" with the notorious and criminal South African apartheid regime. If we could do this with them why can't we do it with Cuba? I am more than certain that South Africa before the liberation in 1994, had plenty of political prisoners. So, what is the standard? Or is it just a double standard with the 'right'?
So, what is it you people want? A return to the Bush cowboy diplomacy approach, that dragged us into Iraq?
As for tax and spend, the only difference is that the right gives the money to the fat cats that are already plundering the economy. The difference is just in who are the benificiaries. If Obama could have done what he wanted without right wing interference,we could have got the ship on course away from Reagan's tinkle down and GW. Bush's 2008 meltdown taking place on his watch.
The right's obsession about beating dead horses will neither address domestic concerns nor be the road map for a sensible foreign policy.
There's my two cents, thanks!
Bush, Bush, Bush. It is really all the left has now. Six years. The argument no longer holds any weight.
The President had two full years with a Democratically controlled Congress to "do what he wanted". What did he do? Shove an unwanted Obamacare down the throats of the American public. That public responded by voting out those who played moderate and then caved to the left Reid & Pelosi. They couldn't get rid of the President so they purged the Congress. He failed to get the message and continued to shove unwanted policies down the throats of Americans with his pen. So they purged the rest of his lapdogs from Congress.
Sorry, the majority do NOT want the policies of this President. It is plain in both the mid-terms and his approval rating.
Talking with Cuba is one thing - opening an embassy in Havanna is another. Dialogue does not require capitulation, which is what this President just did.
I'm always curious about how you left wing types justify ignoring the will of the People too. It's interesting!
biggest violators of human rights... CIA? :-)
Here is an interesting perspective on Cuba.
http://kellybjester.hubpages.com/hub/Un … ile-Crisis
The great cold war ending ! , All capitalist haters and naysayers of free enterprise ! Watch what happens now , the cruise ships , spring break for your spoiled college kids , gambling and some wicked good Cuban cigars in trade . Cuba will soon be one of the new super powers everyone just loves to hate .
by Jack Lee5 months ago
What are your thoughts if any. Please share your personal experiences.
by GA Anderson12 months ago
In a conversation about racism in America today, a young relative, made this statement'"It is worse than it was six years ago!"It took me a moment to catch his drift. He is a young, (many times naive),...
by RKHenry7 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091222/ap_ … 1lc2FsZXNzGot anymore you would like to add???See how far we can get concentrating on the positives of this administration thus far. He has done a really decent...
by RKHenry8 years ago
"The president has directed the secretaries of state, treasury and commerce to carry out the actions necessary to lift all restrictions on the ability of individuals to visit family members in Cuba and to send them...
by IslandBites2 years ago
President Obama and cuban president Raul Castro met for an hour Saturday. This is the first time the two nations' top leaders talk in more than 50 years.President Obama: "The Cold War has been over for a long...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.