U.S To Normalize Relations With Cuba
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
From the "news source":
More likely he's having his diaper changed while some nursemaid wipes the Horchata de Avena off his chin.
Cuba Is A Kleptocracy, Not Communist Premium Link Upgrade
Whatever they are they need to stop, and embrace freedom.
That's the point Will. By normalizing relations, they will embrace freedom, just like China and Vietnam. Both are still communist, but both have a free market system that only exists because they have diplomatic and trade relations with us.
No stop being simplistic.
Next up for the imperial president: Disregard the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903 and give Gitmo back to the Castros.
Any conservative that truly believes in the free market system should break from the ranks and embrace what Obama is doing in regard to Cuba. The Law of Competitive Advantage is at play here and is what makes the free market system work. We can allow companies to operate in and with Cuba that haven't done business with them in 6 decades and help pull them out of the economic dark ages. The greatest chance for a revolution in Cuba is to give the oppressed Cuban people a taste of 21st century technology and products and stop isolating them from the rest of the world. I understand the sentiments of the old schoolers and the Cuban people that are against this, but it is not realistic to keep Cuba cut off from the rest of the world. Any argument against this because Cuba is a communist country is an intellectually dishonest one in light of our dealings with China and other countries who don't have exactly a stellar human rights record. First thing I have agreed with Obama on in quite a while. Now if he will just tuck that pen back in his pocket and not start issuing executive orders banning Cuban cigars and giving away Gitmo, I will be giving him an atta boy on this.
Do you know what ****** communism in CCCP and china ? Capitalism.
If Cuba is isolated from the capitalist world, it won't have any influence on Cuba and the country will stay communist. If they are part of a capitalist world, if they are a lone communist spot in a capitalist world, capitalism will, slowly but surely, spread into Cuba.
It's not by accident that the two countries that are the most isolated from the capitalist world (Cuba and North Korea) re the last two communist states : Isolation allows communism to survive. From the moment you allow communist countries to do business with the rest of the world, communism starts to collapse. Just like it happened in China.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
:goodpost:
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Cuba Is A Kleptocracy, Not Communist Premium Link Upgrade
Whatever they are they need to stop, and embrace freedom.
Oh, we should stop supporting nations that have corrupt governments, huh? This page isn't long enough to list them all but I'll start with Mexico and let you build around that. And don't forget about our own elected officials here in the good old USA that are being caught on a regular basis with their hand in the till.
I go hot and cold on Bill Maher. He recently tweeted something like, Obama is going down the list of correcting stupidity Healthcare, Gays, Immigration, and now it is Cuba. I tend to agree.
It was one of those things hanging out there not really doing anything any more. Changing policy may actually help.
It was one of those things hanging out there not really doing anything any more. Changing policy may actually help.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
On one hand the Castros are totalitarian dictators that have repressed human rights. On the other the embargo and the stopping relations with Cuba have done absolutely nothing to solve that and will do nothing to solve that in the future. It certainly hasn't made the general Cuban public better off or more free. It's also not like we have a problem with having relations with China and others who are worse. It doesn't suddenly become okay to interact with a ****** abusive regime because they can give us economic or tactical support, so our position on Cuba has been pretty hypocritical for a long time.
I would have less of a problem with the way we treated the country before if we were really honest about ourselves and treated everybody else the same way instead of rationalizing certain actions.
I would have less of a problem with the way we treated the country before if we were really honest about ourselves and treated everybody else the same way instead of rationalizing certain actions.
ApolloBalboa
Was King of the Board for a Day
I can freely admit that I don't know much about Cuba's isolationist history nor do I fully understand the Cold War mindset that had a part in shaping it, but I've got a few thoughts on the matter.
Rapprochement is the term that I guess would be used to describe this, and I have to wonder if it's really been used since the Nixon days. I know as far back as 2009 Obama wanted to have a "new beginning" with Cuba, and I suppose that relaxing travel between countries was an opening act. I think America, as well as other countries, have/could stand to learn that playing the role of enemy doesn't work in their favor or serve to advance democracy (whatever your definition may be) in Cuba, but involvement with other countries besides us haven't had much difference either, and that can be attributed to Cuba's own internal workings, not outside influences.
As far as I know, Cuba is under no real obligation to change or dismantle its style of governing but it does now have to deal with justifying it to another (sometimes overbearing) audience. Not doing so endangers it building any kind of relationship with us. However, doesn't doing so also endanger their current regime? Agreements with us allow them to accept our visitors and our money, at whatever point the embargo(es) are lifted, allow them to enter trade deals with us, but all that may/will most likely depend on more communication and reforms than their government has allowed so far. If they were to renege on the opportunities offered now, they may instigate anger not only from us, but possibly even from their own citizens.
In short, while I'm in favor of opening relations with a country that's long been closed off to us, I guess I can also realize that this new course of action could prove to be a big ****** on both governments' parts, with one winning and one possibly losing. I don't like to think that that could be what ends up happening, but maybe it's not as difficult for me to be more straightforward because, as I mentioned before, I didn't grow up with us being newly afraid of Cuba, I've always known them to be just....*****.
:dunno:
Rapprochement is the term that I guess would be used to describe this, and I have to wonder if it's really been used since the Nixon days. I know as far back as 2009 Obama wanted to have a "new beginning" with Cuba, and I suppose that relaxing travel between countries was an opening act. I think America, as well as other countries, have/could stand to learn that playing the role of enemy doesn't work in their favor or serve to advance democracy (whatever your definition may be) in Cuba, but involvement with other countries besides us haven't had much difference either, and that can be attributed to Cuba's own internal workings, not outside influences.
As far as I know, Cuba is under no real obligation to change or dismantle its style of governing but it does now have to deal with justifying it to another (sometimes overbearing) audience. Not doing so endangers it building any kind of relationship with us. However, doesn't doing so also endanger their current regime? Agreements with us allow them to accept our visitors and our money, at whatever point the embargo(es) are lifted, allow them to enter trade deals with us, but all that may/will most likely depend on more communication and reforms than their government has allowed so far. If they were to renege on the opportunities offered now, they may instigate anger not only from us, but possibly even from their own citizens.
In short, while I'm in favor of opening relations with a country that's long been closed off to us, I guess I can also realize that this new course of action could prove to be a big ****** on both governments' parts, with one winning and one possibly losing. I don't like to think that that could be what ends up happening, but maybe it's not as difficult for me to be more straightforward because, as I mentioned before, I didn't grow up with us being newly afraid of Cuba, I've always known them to be just....*****.
:dunno:
Basically, I can allay your concerns by once again bringing up Vietnam. I believe the two countries are analogous in the valid concerns you raise.
Fidel is a non-factor anymore. Raul is soon to follow him down the path of mortality. But either way, you can't stop a tidal wave of money any more than you can stop a tidal wave. Once businesses prosper, once **** have actual baseballs to play with, once industry gets the tools and expertise to function efficiently; nobody is going to be able to stand in the way of the inevitable no matter what their last name is.
The problem with him and Stewart are that they portray themselves as satirists or comedians. Then they weigh right into serious issues. They are often right and well informed. They sometimes aren't and are factually wrong. When that happens they run back to their comedian roots and claim that they are comedians and aren't as bad as the guys they are making fun of. I have no real issues with most of the shots they take. However, I have absolutely no respect for either of them (as funny and as intelligent as they are) since they take the cowards approach. This opinion seems to be very unpopular here in NY with my friends. I think Bill O'Rielly is a jackass, often on the wrong side of things and knows it, but I do give him more respect because he will stand out there. -- Maybe that is a bad example. Howe about Peter King. Often wrong on the wrong side of a topic. I'd put money on it (if there was a way to prove it) that Bill and John have some IQ points on Peter, but Peter is a guy I could trust in a fox hole. He isn't going to squrim - He makes a statement and right or wrong stands there.
Colbert on the other hand - I appreciate sarcasm. Much better approach!
Similar threads
