PDA

View Full Version : US/Cuban Relations


Davian93
12-17-2014, 11:12 AM
Looks like Obama is making a push to reopen relations with them.

All I can say is...about damn time. The Cold War is over and the embargo has been and will always be stupid.

Ivhon
12-17-2014, 11:28 AM
Looks like Obama is making a push to reopen relations with them.

All I can say is...about damn time. The Cold War is over and the embargo has been and will always be stupid.

Derp! Comminist! Derp derp threat to security derp! Derp sphere of influence derp derp look weak DERRRRRRRRRP!

GonzoTheGreat
12-17-2014, 11:30 AM
At the moment, I don't see how to tie this in to Benghazi. Can anyone help me with that?

Davian93
12-17-2014, 11:44 AM
At the moment, I don't see how to tie this in to Benghazi. Can anyone help me with that?

Just more appeasement of rogue regimes and terrorists.

WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS?!?

At least that's the early talking points being floated by the right wing.

Southpaw2012
12-17-2014, 01:18 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/17/nyt-controversial-ecuadorian-family-donated-about-100000-to-obama-and-the-state-department-returned-the-favor/

The word illegal doesn't mean a damn thing to this corrupt and incompetent administration. As long as you can help them win elections (by allowing illegals to enter and stay in the country to help gain their votes) to taking money to allow crooks to come and stay. Of course, you all will have another stupid ass excuse about this but facts are facts.

Davian93
12-17-2014, 02:24 PM
The linked story has nothing to do with the thread header or topic.

Please stay on topic or do not post in this thread...thanks!

Kimon
12-17-2014, 05:18 PM
Long overdue, but at least one incredibly stupid foreign policy blunder is finally being rectified. Hopefully a full rapprochement will be completed with Iran before the end of his term as well.

The Unreasoner
12-17-2014, 05:27 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71eYSp1q0mL._SL1500_.jpg
*looks expectantly at Res*

Davian93
12-17-2014, 05:33 PM
Long overdue, but at least one incredibly stupid foreign policy blunder is finally being rectified. Hopefully a full rapprochement will be completed with Iran before the end of his term as well.

It's almost as if he desperately wants his legacy to be something positive and he's smart enough to not try and bother with "Peace in Israel" unlike the last few Presidents who went full bore into that quagmire in their final 2 years in office.

Reapproachment with Iran and full relations with Cuba would go a long way to fixing two major foreign policy blunders we made during the Cold War.

Note, the blunder I'm referring to in regards to Iran was our toppling of the Iranian government in favor of the Shah and then propping up his murderous regime for a couple decades, not our breaking of relations with its Islamist gov't. We made that bed to begin with...something many Americans conveniently ignore when ripping into Iran for hating us.

Kimon
12-17-2014, 05:52 PM
It's almost as if he desperately wants his legacy to be something positive and he's smart enough to not try and bother with "Peace in Israel" unlike the last few Presidents who went full bore into that quagmire in their final 2 years in office.

Reapproachment with Iran and full relations with Cuba would go a long way to fixing two major foreign policy blunders we made during the Cold War.

Note, the blunder I'm referring to in regards to Iran was our toppling of the Iranian government in favor of the Shah and then propping up his murderous regime for a couple decades, not our breaking of relations with its Islamist gov't. We made that bed to begin with...something many Americans conveniently ignore when ripping into Iran for hating us.

If he were truly courageous, he would also formally recognize the state of Palestine and openly call for Israel to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank, abandon the blockade of Gaza, and give full autonomy to Palestine.

That admittedly is probably too much to hope for, hence just the prior mention of normalizing relations with Iran...

Ozymandias
12-17-2014, 06:13 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/17/nyt-controversial-ecuadorian-family-donated-about-100000-to-obama-and-the-state-department-returned-the-favor/

The word illegal doesn't mean a damn thing to this corrupt and incompetent administration. As long as you can help them win elections (by allowing illegals to enter and stay in the country to help gain their votes) to taking money to allow crooks to come and stay. Of course, you all will have another stupid ass excuse about this but facts are facts.

Whoa whoa whoa. Did you read the story? Lets put aside the fact that it is totally irrelevant to what was being discussed.

You are aware, I hope, that the campaign donations which you are alleging are corrupting the administration (which is probably true, as it is of every person who has ever taken a campaign donation, one of the many reasons they should be abolished) didn't influence giving the alleged criminals asylum, but rather getting their relative a visa to visit them?

It would be one thing if the family was giving hundreds of thousands of dollars and receiving political asylum in return. That would be a scandal. All they're doing is getting a visa for a relative who wants to visit, not anyone accused of wrongdoing.

This highlights the essential difference between conservatives in this country and liberals, and why I have such disdain for most Republicans. Without making a judgement on who is right or wrong, Democrats tend to lean much more humanitarian than Republicans.

There is a legitimate debate as to the role of government in providing a safety net to disadvantaged members of society, and how far that should go, but when push comes to shove, it is more ethically and morally responsible to err on the side of being more generous, not less. Ditto gay marriage. Ditto the death penalty. Ditto immigration. So on and so forth. If there is a God, and it comes down tomorrow and decides one side or the other is right, who comes out looking worse? If Democrats are right, Republicans have consigned to miserable poverty or death or deportation thousands if not millions of people. If Republicans are right, then Democrats have just spent a little extra money and made people's lives unnecessarily easier.

ShadowbaneX
12-17-2014, 06:26 PM
Save your breath Ozy. Southpaw just comes in here, drops his turd and then vanishes until it's time to drop another.

Terez
12-17-2014, 11:30 PM
Yes, he's not here to discuss. He's just here to express his opinion, as if anyone gives a shit about his opinion.

Nazbaque
12-18-2014, 01:31 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/17/nyt-controversial-ecuadorian-family-donated-about-100000-to-obama-and-the-state-department-returned-the-favor/

The word illegal doesn't mean a damn thing to this corrupt and incompetent administration. As long as you can help them win elections (by allowing illegals to enter and stay in the country to help gain their votes) to taking money to allow crooks to come and stay. Of course, you all will have another stupid ass excuse about this but facts are facts.

And you were doing so well in the 3 Days Without Power thread. Now you're back to the mindless parroting. Granted this thread was about politics, but that was hardly on topic in the more specific sense.

What do you think you'll get out of this anyway? Foreighners that would vote republican if they were allowed to vote in US elections?

Davian93
12-18-2014, 05:59 AM
And you were doing so well in the 3 Days Without Power thread. Now you're back to the mindless parroting. Granted this thread was about politics, but that was hardly on topic in the more specific sense.

What do you think you'll get out of this anyway? Foreighners that would vote republican if they were allowed to vote in US elections?

This thread is more about foreign relations of the US and its history with Cuba. The political side of it is secondary as this was an issue that was constant through the last 10 Presidencies.

His thread-sh!tting was completely off-base which is why I reported it to the Mods...who I hope will simply delete his post and/or temp ban him.

ShadowbaneX
12-18-2014, 08:13 AM
Yes, he's not here to discuss. He's just here to shit.

Fixed that for you.

Nazbaque
12-18-2014, 08:21 AM
This thread is more about foreign relations of the US and its history with Cuba. The political side of it is secondary as this was an issue that was constant through the last 10 Presidencies.

His thread-sh!tting was completely off-base which is why I reported it to the Mods...who I hope will simply delete his post and/or temp ban him.

Nah you can't get him with that. Hi-jacking threads is what the Non-WoT is all about. But it should be done with style.

*sets himself on fire*

GonzoTheGreat
12-18-2014, 08:53 AM
Nah you can't get him with that. Hi-jacking threads is what the Non-WoT is all about. But it should be done with style.
Is style really a good topic for discussion around here?
From what I remember, everyone seemed to agree that Uggs are not very stylish, that Kim Kardashian isn't very stylish, and that were the only discussions on the topic that were even marginally memorable. Which one did I forget?

Nae'blis
12-18-2014, 09:04 AM
Look, there will be no banning or other moderation for off-topic posts unless they reach such extreme proportions that they threaten to flood the board. If we were to head down that road, we'd have to ban Gonzo for his countless failed attempts at humor, like the post immediately above this one, and a lot of other veteran posters for similar reasons.

If you find a particular poster annoying, just ignore him or her and be glad you're not a moderator so you can't simply ignore them.

Davian93
12-18-2014, 09:36 AM
He craps over every thread.

Nazbaque
12-18-2014, 10:18 AM
He craps over every thread.

No he doesn't Dav and you know he doesn't. There is a recent thread mentioned in this thread where he posted with perfect behaviour. A thread you started I might add. If you want him banned it has to be over something legitimate, merely being annoying isn't enough. And considering the way you provoke him, I'd say he's got a few free passes for insults too.

Personally I find him easy to tolerate as he seems to be such a good argument for limiting the right to vote to people with sufficiently high IQs. The problem is of course in finding a way to make sure the tests are accurate and the people doing the testing can't be corrupted.

Nae'blis
12-18-2014, 10:18 AM
He craps over every thread.

He's made one post in this thread. Besides, a lot of you, and, of course, Gonzo in particular, make snide remarks every chance you get, which might just as easily be called thread-crapping. Don't let the fact that you dislike this poster cloud your judgement, however good your reasons for disliking him might be.

Nazbaque
12-18-2014, 10:24 AM
He's made one post in this thread. Besides, a lot of you, and, of course, Gonzo in particular, make snide remarks every chance you get, which might just as easily be called thread-crapping. Don't let the fact that you dislike this poster cloud your judgement, however good your reasons for disliking him might be.

Hey! Why do you single out Gonzo? I feel left out!

GonzoTheGreat
12-18-2014, 11:13 AM
Personally I find him easy to tolerate as he seems to be such a good argument for limiting the right to vote to people with sufficiently high IQs.Having a high IQ is by no means a guarantee for being sensible, nor is having a low IQ necessarily proof of not being able to make any good decisions. There is no doubt some correlation, but nowhere near enough to justify anything other than a very stringent cut off point (something like "no voting with an IQ beneath 40" or the like). I would be hugely surprised if anyone who was sort of a regular poster here even came close to being in such a category.

Hey! Why do you single out Gonzo? I feel left out!You, obviously, just aren't good enough to be noticed by the upper management.

Nazbaque
12-18-2014, 11:21 AM
Having a high IQ is by no means a guarantee for being sensible, nor is having a low IQ necessarily proof of not being able to make any good decisions. There is no doubt some correlation, but nowhere near enough to justify anything other than a very stringent cut off point (something like "no voting with an IQ beneath 40" or the like). I would be hugely surprised if anyone who was sort of a regular poster here even came close to being in such a category.
I was thinking more along the lines of 120. And it's not supposed to bring immediate results, though I'm not surprised that you can't spot the subtleties.
You, obviously, just aren't good enough to be noticed by the upper management.
Or I'm too scary.

GonzoTheGreat
12-18-2014, 12:02 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of 120. And it's not supposed to bring immediate results, though I'm not surprised that you can't spot the subtleties.Perhaps it's because I've met too many high-IQ idiots.

Or I'm too scary.Technically speaking, that possibility can't be excluded.

Nazbaque
12-18-2014, 12:18 PM
One of the possible results would be those idiots actually using their brains (hopefully for the good of society)

The Unreasoner
12-18-2014, 05:01 PM
I'm surprised Nazbaque puts so much faith in IQ tests. There isn't a whole lot of data backing up their utility for something like this. Even their ability to measure intelligence has been seriously doubted in recent years.

I might be able to get behind a system where people who are more valuable to society got more votes, but disenfranchisement is disenfranchisement. Frankly, the intelligent people should be able to win over the masses anyway.

Davian93
12-18-2014, 07:37 PM
I'm surprised Nazbaque puts so much faith in IQ tests. There isn't a whole lot of data backing up their utility for something like this. Even their ability to measure intelligence has been seriously doubted in recent years.

I might be able to get behind a system where people who are more valuable to society got more votes, but disenfranchisement is disenfranchisement. Frankly, the intelligent people should be able to win over the masses anyway.

Considering the huge "anti-intellectural" movement that exists in the United States, that is a bit laughable...we would rather have a President who we can "have a beer with" than one who is actually intelligent.

The Unreasoner
12-18-2014, 08:14 PM
Considering the huge "anti-intellectural" movement that exists in the United States, that is a bit laughable...we would rather have a President who we can "have a beer with" than one who is actually intelligent.

What part is laughable? The votes beimg allocated according to usefulness is a hypothetical for a possibly distant future. As for intelligent people being to influence outcomes, of course they can. They can persuade friends, give money, campaign, lots of things. None of these paths are barred to the unintelligent, it's just the intelligent will probably have an easier time of it. It doesn't perfectly reward intelligence, but like Gonzo I am skeptical of the wisdom in a system that rewards intelligence alone. And any system that disenfranchises over 90% of the voters, like the one Nazbaque advocates, seems especially bad. Quite apart from the obvious limitations of the yardstick used.

Oatman
12-18-2014, 09:30 PM
As for intelligent people being to influence outcomes, of course they can. They can persuade friends, give money, campaign, lots of things.

Intelligent people DO influence outcomes. Unfortunately they influence the outcomes for personal gain, not for the greater good of community, country, humanity, future, or planet. I mean, who gives a shit about those things when you can buy a private jet, am I right?

The votes beimg allocated according to usefulness is a hypothetical for a possibly distant future.

And who gets to determine usefulness? Though this is a hypothetically good way to determine power, based on the current way of the world I suspect the measure of usefullness would end up being wealth. If this was implemented it would just be giving political power entirely to the supremely wealthy. The way it currently is there is at least the illusion that the less wealthy can make a difference with their vote.

The Unreasoner
12-18-2014, 09:52 PM
There are reasons it was only suggested as a hypothetical, the main one being what you just pointed out. I don't know how to measure usefulness.

And I'm not the one saying only the intelligent shoild have political power. I'm aware of high-IQ idiots (pointed out here by Gonzo), and of selfish assholes who happen to be intelligent as well.

Nazbaque
12-19-2014, 12:21 AM
I'm surprised Nazbaque puts so much faith in IQ tests. There isn't a whole lot of data backing up their utility for something like this. Even their ability to measure intelligence has been seriously doubted in recent years.

I might be able to get behind a system where people who are more valuable to society got more votes, but disenfranchisement is disenfranchisement. Frankly, the intelligent people should be able to win over the masses anyway.

No he doesn't Dav and you know he doesn't. There is a recent thread mentioned in this thread where he posted with perfect behaviour. A thread you started I might add. If you want him banned it has to be over something legitimate, merely being annoying isn't enough. And considering the way you provoke him, I'd say he's got a few free passes for insults too.

Personally I find him easy to tolerate as he seems to be such a good argument for limiting the right to vote to people with sufficiently high IQs. The problem is of course in finding a way to make sure the tests are accurate and the people doing the testing can't be corrupted.

I did point that out myself you know. That's why this is all hypothetical.

And I'm well aware that at best the IQ is only a measure of potential efficiency. It only makes mental efforts easier; it doesn't magically get them done for free. Nor does it indicate in anyway how that efficiency is used.

Also the word 'advocate' is not quite right here. It's more that I'm interested in seeing the results. Would it actually work out better than the current systems and prove that you get better decisions out of smarter people? Or would it perhaps be just the same proving that the smartest peson anywhere is too stupid to be allowed to vote?

The Unreasoner
12-19-2014, 12:47 AM
I did see your bolded bit. It's just that I took it at face value. Uncorruptible testers administering accurate IQ tests doesn't address any of my issues with the hypothetical practice. But I see in your last post you do recognize the issues involved, so we can put that to bed.

But why all of this love for Southpaw? You and yks. And civility doesn't seem good enough. Especially when you consider the enormous incivility in his selective use of energy. I don't want him banned, but he doesn't deserve or need your support.

Nazbaque
12-19-2014, 01:03 AM
I did see your bolded bit. It's just that I took it at face value. Uncorruptible testers administering accurate IQ tests doesn't address any of my issues with the hypothetical practice. But I see in your last post you do recognize the issues involved, so we can put that to bed.

But why all of this love for Southpaw? You and yks. And civility doesn't seem good enough. Especially when you consider the enormous incivility in his selective use of energy. I don't want him banned, but he doesn't deserve or need your support.

My love is for what is right. Your methods define what you are and the way you and Dav resort to insults, exaggeration and downright lies doesn't give me any reason to support you. I really don't care that much what Southpaw does, but you two should be better than this.

yks 6nnetu hing
12-19-2014, 02:18 AM
I did see your bolded bit. It's just that I took it at face value. Uncorruptible testers administering accurate IQ tests doesn't address any of my issues with the hypothetical practice. But I see in your last post you do recognize the issues involved, so we can put that to bed.

But why all of this love for Southpaw? You and yks. And civility doesn't seem good enough. Especially when you consider the enormous incivility in his selective use of energy. I don't want him banned, but he doesn't deserve or need your support.

well I'm a mod. Not here on the Non-WoT board but most of everywhere else on this site. Southpaw hasn't done anything wrong, most importantly: he hasn't engaged in personal insults against other posters. In fact, he is the target of personal insults.

Aside from that, there are a few posters here that I've had much more of a problem with in the past which in the end turned out fine (yourself included, btw), but even so I am in principle against banning or modding anyone unless they're spambots or engaged in wildly inappropriate personal insults against other posters. On the main boards also when threads get constantly derailed by the same person to the same topic; but here - if we started banning for THAT, there'd be no one left to post at all. look at this thread, for instance. The third post was a reference to some other event (Benghazi. Gonzo.), the last post to actually mention the topic at hand was #9 (Dav's response to Kimon); and after that it's been... unrelated.

GonzoTheGreat
12-19-2014, 03:39 AM
Actually, my post was not meant as a reference to the Benghazi event, but rather as a reference to the way in which the Republicans and their Tea Party stooges try to use that (and everything else) to attack Obama. It was a subtle (possibly too subtle, though that'd be for others to say) prediction that much of the opposition to this new Cuba policy will not be based on facts and reason but purely on "Obama does it so it has to be bad". I might be wrong about that, of course, but I felt that it was fairly safe to bet on Republicans being unreasonable.

Davian93
12-19-2014, 06:58 AM
well I'm a mod. Not here on the Non-WoT board but most of everywhere else on this site. Southpaw hasn't done anything wrong, most importantly: he hasn't engaged in personal insults against other posters. In fact, he is the target of personal insults.

Aside from that, there are a few posters here that I've had much more of a problem with in the past which in the end turned out fine (yourself included, btw), but even so I am in principle against banning or modding anyone unless they're spambots or engaged in wildly inappropriate personal insults against other posters. On the main boards also when threads get constantly derailed by the same person to the same topic; but here - if we started banning for THAT, there'd be no one left to post at all. look at this thread, for instance. The third post was a reference to some other event (Benghazi. Gonzo.), the last post to actually mention the topic at hand was #9 (Dav's response to Kimon); and after that it's been... unrelated.

Because his steaming pile derailed the entire thread...

Nazbaque
12-19-2014, 07:20 AM
Because his steaming pile derailed the entire thread...

Not really. It's more your complaining about his steaming turd that's derailing the thread. And Unreasoner too. And of course me being more moral than thou like always. And then Gonzo just messing about. And yks just being generally exasperated with the lot of us.

Davian93
12-19-2014, 07:21 AM
Not really. It's more your complaining about his steaming turd that's derailing the thread. And Unreasoner too. And of course me being more moral than thou like always. And then Gonzo just messing about. And yks just being generally exasperated with the lot of us.

I think its more your complaining about my complaining...

yks 6nnetu hing
12-19-2014, 07:31 AM
Because his steaming pile derailed the entire thread...

he only posted once in this thread. You addressed it immediately as it happened (in an appropriate way, I may add). Then, the discussion seems to have gone on topic again, and somehow... we're now busy talking about it for the majority of the thread.

so. Cuba, huh? think they'll allow the cigars again?

Davian93
12-19-2014, 07:36 AM
he only posted once in this thread. You addressed it immediately as it happened (in an appropriate way, I may add). Then, the discussion seems to have gone on topic again, and somehow... we're now busy talking about it for the majority of the thread.

so. Cuba, huh? think they'll allow the cigars again?

Yes, up to $100 for personal use or something like that. Though there will still be a ban on any commercial importation until Congress rescinds its part of the Embargo (which likely never happens in the current political climate)

Remember, we can have relations with Communist China and countries with otherwise horrible human rights track records (the entire Middle East) but Cuba is a big no-no.

GonzoTheGreat
12-19-2014, 09:30 AM
so. Cuba, huh? think they'll allow the cigars again?
Yes, up to $100 for personal use or something like that.Is "personal use of cigars" only the way in which Clinton employed them, or does it cover more?

Remember, we can have relations with Communist China and countries with otherwise horrible human rights track records (the entire Middle East) but Cuba is a big no-no.
It has nothing at all to do with human rights, and never did. It was and still is about property, and specifically corporate assets. Cuba did not want to be a banana republic, and that's why there is all this enmity.

That said, the human rights track record in the Guantanamo Bay camp on Cuba is indeed lousy, so there is a lot of room for improvement, if anyone wants to improve human rights.

Kimon
12-19-2014, 11:19 AM
Yes, up to $100 for personal use or something like that. Though there will still be a ban on any commercial importation until Congress rescinds its part of the Embargo (which likely never happens in the current political climate)

Remember, we can have relations with Communist China and countries with otherwise horrible human rights track records (the entire Middle East) but Cuba is a big no-no.

It does underscore just to how great a degree one small, but very loud, community (the Cuban exiles in S Florida) can hijack foreign policy. At least the tide here has turned, and while Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and a few other vocal Cuban-Americans have vociferously made clear their disapproval, the vast majority, seemingly even of Republicans, has long since concluded that this policy has been stupid and a failure. I imagine that some of that criticism, specifically from this one tiny community, here might actually be legitimate, and not just empty rhetoric, but that doesn't change the fact that their stance is dumb. The embargo wasn't working. We could either continue to bury our head in the sand and pretend that there was some point to what we were doing, perhaps wait for all the Castros to die (a long wait which has ironically demonstrated that even Cuba has better health care than we do...), or do something different to try to change Cuba. Infusing money from tourism and investment in Cuba will likely do a lot more to force change in Cuba than our isolation experiment ever managed to achieve.

Frenzy
12-19-2014, 03:28 PM
My great-grandparents were English colonials living in Cuba. They were fairly well-off, owning a car dealership & involved in road construction (y'know, so you could drive cars). My grandmother & her younger brother were born in NYC, because my great grandmother would take a ship up to the better hospitals & so her kids could be US citizens if needed (she miscalculated with her youngest, so Uncle Willy was born in Havana).

In 1930, when my grandmother was only 14, the Cuban Revolution happened, & they all barely got out with what they could carry or wear, with the help of their native employees. They went to NYC in the midst of the Great Depression. It broke my great grandfather: he went from a prosperous business owner to a translator (since they spoke Spanish). My great grandmother found work as a maid. They were lucky to have what little work they could find, and they had to sell off a lot of jewelry to help make ends meet.

Except for one piece: 3 small diamonds that were a family heirloom even back then, passed down from mother to eldest daughter. I'm the 6th generation to wear them. Even with war, poverty, and hunger stalking them, they held onto something that could've eased their burden. I like to think it's because it reminded them to stay strong.

Pretty sure this anecdote isn't relevant, other than to maybe point out that there are real people just trying to live their lives that are impacted by these policy decisions and political bullshittery. It's entirely too easy to forget that.

Terez
12-20-2014, 01:31 AM
It does underscore just to how great a degree one small, but very loud, community (the Cuban exiles in S Florida) can hijack foreign policy. At least the tide here has turned, and while Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and a few other vocal Cuban-Americans have vociferously made clear their disapproval, the vast majority, seemingly even of Republicans, has long since concluded that this policy has been stupid and a failure.
It's a narrow majority in the polls I've seen, but it's the vast majority of Cuban-Americans under 30. Unless you were talking about Americans in general rather than just Cuban-Americans. The older folks still hang on to the policy because they see it as their only way to fight the Castro regime. The younger ones are a little more pragmatic about what exactly that accomplishes.

Cool story, Frenzy.

Res_Ipsa
12-20-2014, 01:39 AM
*looks expectantly at Res*

I think his point was that he thinks Obama did something illegal and he used another story to support his idea its a long train of illegal activities (you might find that is too generous to give him). Its a point, but I disagree, but there are prominent legal scholars that would take his side. The President's powers are the least well defined of the federal branches. Basically the Youngstown Steel case is on point and depending on some basic assumptions about federal power and policy, you will fall where you fall. A good policy point is that any President should seek Congress's approval for most things, and, if successful, will insulate the President from judicial reversal in most instances. So, in this case, the President is free to normalize relations as that is his traditional power.

What about enforcement of Helms-Burton? Can the President choose to not enforce a law. Again, there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides. If the President thinks a law is unconstitutional, must he still uphold the law? He takes an oath to defend it, and faithfully execute the laws. Are these complimentary or opposing provisions of the oath? You will fall where you fall.

Even still, the embargo was bad policy. Free trade has ended more wars and forestalled future ones with more surety than weapons and ammunition. Although I tend to agree with Ludendorff that peace is just the period between wars, free and open trade has been the great equalizer between formerly antagonist powers. Cuba is no different, as is any other collectivist government. Marx was right about money being behind everything, but wrong in all of his predictions. He failed to see the rise of the middle class created by open and free markets.

Another interesting thought is that if there is some form of meaningful rapprochement between Cuba and the US, then Cuba will be unable to stop using the sanctions as a scapegoat and its people may have an easier time gaining true independence. The Cuban people have suffered for too long under colonial powers, then self-titled dictators and Marxist revolutionaries.

I am busy, so I tend to miss a lot of posts or respond to an earlier post in a thread even if the conversation has changed.

GonzoTheGreat
12-20-2014, 03:49 AM
Note to those who failed to spot this: the Cuban revolution in 1930 that Frenzy told of is not the one that brought Castro to power. Instead, it is the one that led to the rule of Batista, the dictator against whom Castro (and others) staged revolts. It was only in the late 1950s that Castro was successful. And then he decided to legalize the Communist Party. This, of course, was disapproved strongly by the USA, which even then had a policy of "do as we say, not as we do" (the Communist Party was legal in the USA, though it was subject to a lot of harassment).