This is nothing but your own opinion. I am only interested in the results and the goal. The goal was to keep Castro from attacking the US or allowing others to use Cuba for their pruposes. The goal was reached no matter what your opinion is about how it came about the results are the same.
Hmm, so am I to understand that you believe sanctions against Cuba were designed to prevent Castro from attacking the US? And since Castro has not attacked the US that means the sanctions worked? Free country think (and say what you like) . . . the history of US involvement in Cuba does not depict support for benevolent representative government. Castro was a revolutionary with broad popular support of Cubans (with the exception of wealthy elite). He did not deliver on the freedom promised by his crusade but the people still support this
murderer and dictator. We have a colorful history when it comes to those Pinochet, Noriega, Sandinistas, Suharto, our newest MFN partner China.
Your statement defies logic. You support sanctions b/c they worked but your only proof they worked is that the desired outcome (no Red Dawn) came to pass. That's not causation its correlation. Furthermore, USSR using Cuba as a staging ground to invade the US is ridiculous in part b/c the US already has a military installation on the island (which we've occupied since Teddy R. was in office). A far better choice would be from the northern and souther borders. Cubans have roamed south Florida for decades. Yes they are spies. But their role is far more likely to be destablization of the Cuban-American and US plans for Castro than forwards intel preceding the invasion of South Beach. Gators and crocs in the Everglades might have been more of a deterrent than sanctions. I have no proof but since those reptiles occupy FL and Castro hasn't invaded it must be true. Oh and don't forget near-sighted retirees with arthritis that vote for Pat Buchanan but meant to vote for Gore. I'm sure they've protected the front for decades.
Without a shred of eviendence. Can't say I'm suprised. Speculation is speculation. Deal with the facts.
Do you know what speculation means? The tapes either exist or don't. I qualified my statement by giving its source. If my friend is lying . . . well damn he's a lying leftist liberal. I haven't fact checked him yet. But I will call him and ask for proof today. If I verify his account then he's just a leftist liberal. Without a shred of evidence . . . strong words considering I don't see anything resembling evidence or citings for your musings.
Ah but WHY couldn't he invade his neighbors? Because of the embargo. You are trying to complicate something that really very simple.
Umm, no money no troops no desire. Castro's war with America has always been primarily support for guerillas and propaganda b/c that's all his tiny island could afford. One more time . . . Cuba . . . tiny island . . . in the Carribbean. Which of his neighbors would you care about him invading anyway? . . . Mr.
Because its NOT the US. Stick to the subject. We are not comparing situations. We are talking about the US' setps to project itself. Stick to the point. After establishing a Socialist regime on the island of course Castro supported like-minded groups in the region. And we opposed his efforts. I support a nation's right (the peoples' right) to self-determination and if that is to reject capitalist and/or democratic principles fine . . . it's your bed lie in it. But my simple reading of Castro/US relations is that he's bad b/c he's Castro . . . and a Socialist. It can't be murderous dictator b/c well we aren't beyond active economic/diplomatic engagement with murderous dictators. I can roll off another list if you like . . .
We were talking about OPEN war. For the third time, Stick to the subject
Dude, where are you . . . ATOT . . . this thread was originally about dead Afghanis and we're discussing Castro. Are we fighting an OPEN war? What exactly is a closed one? Castro PROBABLY does not fight OPEN war with the US b/c he can't possibly win. Oh he could have shot some nukes (but I think the Kremlin actually controlled the trigger) and erased DC (big deal considering the USSR regularly ventured along the Eastern Seaboard in international waters with nuclear subs) but what would the US response be? We would raze Cuba. Conventional war, no. At best they might capture the Everglades . . . at which point we would have continued to dump agricultural runoff from sugar plantations and draining water for various uses until damage to the ecosystem would require billions of dollars to correct . . . oh nevermind we did that anyway.
proof?
Are we currently engaged in a New War? Open War? Or New Open War? Is that anything like New Coke?
Openly trading? I must admit I did not know that it was open trading.
Yes, the same trade we engaged with the USSR and now Vietnam; two paradigms for democracy and freedom in action. Russia and France currently do it with Saddam. But the goodies we would bitch about primarily come from China and Russia as well as intermediaries willing to smuggle oil via the Gulf. Best evidence I have is an analyst on Fox but I will look for someting more credible later.
The one that keeps Castro in power. He's not a good guy Genius. He's a murderer and a dictator and until his government is out, the sanctions stay
I think I've covered this but just in case. Castro stays in power b/c the people allow it. Yes he brutally puts down dissent. But in general the people appear to believe he acts in their best interest even when it is clear to external observers that he is not. If you don't believe me read/review anything current by Robert McNamara. If you know his story it will be clear to you he is NOT a Castro cheerleader just as I am NOT. When I said we made and sustained Castro in Cuba via our policies I believed it well before McNamara used the same phrasing during an interview he gave for the History Channel.
Iran youth and SA youth are COMPLETELY different with COMPLETELY different governments. Iran's youth left the country to the west for education and returned home to an oppressive governemnt rule. They are on our side.
The SA youth saw a drastic drop in school attendence outside their country and their opposition is to a governemnt that has been a friend to the US. They are not on our side.
Umm proof. Link enrollment statistics please. Yes SA is a monarchy and Iran is a theocracy which are the ultimate authorities. But both have rudimentary representative governments. The influence of radical fundamentalism is static in Iran and on the rise in SA. Iran's youth are not on our side. They are on their side. Their cultural beliefs are based within their religion just not the overbearing version endorsed by the theocracy. I can't test the hypothesis at my computer but I would wager (a penny) that Iranians think of themselves as closer to their Saudi brethren than us. SA youths have a different perspective b/c their fortune is on the downside b/c of poor management by the ruling family. Iranian youths that can afford a foreign education left oppressive rule for education and returned to bring about change using the tools of democracy and the elected offices already in place. They've been stymied b/c of the rigid nature of the society but change is coming. But I think they might consider their changing society a result of civilized, progressive ideals not Western or American ideals. The majority of youths in both countries will never see a Western school. Hence I repeat those that learn to hate learn it at home as do those who learn to explore and respect differences. It's just easier to promote hate and ignorance in the homebound.
Much like your previous argument about sanctions and the impending storm troopers from Cuba. You have correlation not causation.
LOL!!! Spoken like a true liberal. Have you even watched the O'Reilly factor? He is against the death penalty, is for taxing SUVs and his favorite politican of all time is Robert Kennedy. Yep sure sounds like a Republican! LOLThe ignorance you are displaying here is very very sad.
It's good that you laugh alot. Try reading between giggles. What the hell is a true liberal? Why would I reference O'Reilly without having seen his show? That would be stupid . . . it would totally discredit my argument. Is being for the death penalty, duty free SUVs, and disliking RFK the litmus test for being a Republican? As a former VP of my high school Young Republicans I'm quite offended. As a practical matter your typical New England Republican is to the political left of a Southern Democrat . . . Guiliani couldn't wish for a primary victory anywhere south of Mason-Dixon. And Texas . . . whoa don't get me started on how the Republican Party in Texas has been hijacked by the drooling . . . ok enough of that. O'Reilly has very reasoned, researched perspectives on many issues but sometimes he has the tendency to over-generalize and relies on his "common sense" when what he really needs are actual facts. People have a tendency to get defensive when challenged with a perspective outside of their experience.
Republican governor of Illinois . . . moratorium on the death penalty.
Democratic governor of North Carolina . . . led the nation for a few months in executions . . . in case you were wondering the previous governor was also a Democrat.
Do you remember Forbes beating Dubya over the head with a claim that he proposed hundreds of tax increases? Well like most of your arguments there was a grain of truth. The legislation promoted by Dubya (little actual influence due to the weak governorship) was designed to make the TX tax code more equitable by closing loopholes that favored a few. The net effect would have been no change in tax revenues. So will you revoke his membership b/c he expected some to pay their fair share so he increased their taxes while reducing somebody elses?
Former Republican governor of CA Pete Wilson. . .pro-choice, pro-gun control, or if you like (anti-life/pro-baby killer and anti-Bill of Rights/pro-gun)
Former Republican governor of CA . . .
Reagan on free speech and taxes (EDIT read the paragraph on Reagan's first term as governor)
Libertarian principles would deem that we respect a person's right to do pretty much whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and probably most Democrats (albeit possibly for different reasoning) would contend that SUVs are more costly b/c they consume greater amounts of natural resources to produce and operate. And if we have to spend billions in the Gulf yearly to protect the gas guzzlers then maybe the choice to guzzle gas should come with the comensurate responsibility to foot the cost.
My favorite politician of all time is Jefferson but he was a total hypocrite when it comes to individual liberty save the anachronistic relative morality crap for a kindergartener. Either slavery is an evil act then, now, and forever or not; regardless of who practices it Egyptians, West Africans, white AND black Americans. Lincoln is a close second but I think emancipation was a political necessity considering the strength of Democrats in the South so he only gets 1/2 credit for doing the right thing but he did re-unite the nation amongst other
accomplishments. Love Teddy but he's got some issues. JFK is great b/c he averted WWIII and he knew how to sample hooch while avoiding the dogs. And I'm a great fan of Nixon; the man had flaws but he was usually country first not GOP. I loved Reagan until I truly got to know Reagan. Now I consider him at best a good president. I think of Clinton as Elder Bush with vision, Reagan with intelligence but without goals, and Carter without the moral compass.
When you show me your qualifications to judge what makes a
Good Republican I will concede to your weak verbal volleys. Everything in the Republican Oath (with the exception of the last statement) would make most Americans Republicans. I live in NC; a bastion for liberal thought (OK Chapel Hill is). Democrats still hold a slim majority in registration while Republicans are still under 40%. Almost a fifth of my state registers independent like me. The national party sounds great until raving lunies like Pat (I'm not a Republican anymore) Buchanan or Pat (Jesus was not a socialist fairy) Robertson speak at the convention.