Well, I have the moral high-ground, since I didn’t support the war in Iraq, I didn’t vote for war criminal George Bush, and I don’t support torture.
But there are a lot of people who did all of these things who are now running around lecturing us about human rights in Cuba (e.g., Mr. Boehner). These people don’t give a shit about human rights.
Nice sidestep. Clearly, you believe the morally tainted US is justified in boycotting the countries you dislike, but lacks the moral standing to boycott countries you like better.
Right back at ya!
Well, you said it yourself- we’re an eeeeevil nation that tortures people. What right had we to put on airs and to boycott South Africa?
I have not expressed an opinion one way or the other in this thread on any of the countries you listed. But I can see that you approach both foreign policy and human rights issues with easily-seen through simplistic gotchas. However, we are not talking about your little games, we’re talking about actual real people with actual real human rights. We’re talking about different countries with different histories, governmental structures and political establishments. And we’re talking about unique security interests for each country. I refused to be lectured by someone spouting simplistic nonsense like you are.
Please quote the part where I said “we’re an evil nation.” Oh, you can’t. Do you really think you can make up words for me when anyone can go back and see what I posted?
What? Who is talking about “rights” in this context? Countries don’t have “rights” to do anything. Countries either have the ability to do something or they don’t. Come back when you can make a coherent argument.
I spent my lunch hour today talking with a boatload of Cuban migrants who are at the beach just down from my house waiting for the weather to turn before continuing their journey.
When I told them of Obama’s announcement they insisted it was meaningless to them, their families, and their communities. To them, the Cuban people would think this is just politicking that increases the current government’s power.
And any notion of waiting for the Castro brothers to die was absurd. They have children, nieces, and family explained one of the migrants. The Castros aren’t going away when Fidel and Raul die.
I don’t see where we have the moral high ground or the moral low ground. I just think it’s foolish of us to mend fences with the Vietnamese and Chinese and refuse to talk to a nation that never did us any harm. There are plenty of dictatorships that we do plenty of business with, all embargoes do is strengthen the power of those we oppose. Neither the Kim regime nor the Castros suffered as a result of US policy, but their people certainly have.
I was completely unsurprised to listen to the whackiest of the Hate Radio whack-a-doodles, Michael Savage, blast the move as having been orchestrated by the “communist Pope” and our “communist government”. He swore that this must somehow hurt the American middle class, which he swears it behind every Obama decision. Other Republicans are jerking their knees quite predictably, though I suspect if you got Boehner drunk he’d admit that he would have praised Bush for the same decision.
Well, if history has shown us anything, the moment the US takes baby steps to normalize relations with a communist country, not only does that country become more communist, the US turns communist as well. Or was that Hunger Games? I can’t keep any of these stories straight anymore.
Are you under the impression that the United States severed diplomatic relations with apartheid South Africa? That American companies were prohibited by law from doing any business there? That American citizens were restricted in traveling there?
Because none of that actually happened. There was an arms embargo, and there were, eventually, certain economic sanctions, the latter only because the House and Senate overrode Reagan’s veto. There was never the kind of brick-wall disengagement we practiced toward Cuba, let alone clandestine operations to destabilize the objectionable government.
As for the “airs” put on by the non-governmental international disinvestment campaign, there Americans were merely joining, belatedly, the prevailing moral stand of much of the world.
If they would only stop trying to pollute my precious bodily fluids, I might give the commies some slack.
From Rubio’s speech:
Yeah, Marco! You tell the Pope what’s what! That’ll do… something… I think.
So what is the reaction of the various Presidential candidates?
They’re going to wait for a full round of polling, including in Iowa and NH.
Ted Cruz isn’t happy (he’s running, right)?
Um… what? Which of our allies wants us to maintain the embargo?
I was raised in Florida and my grandfather was an immigrant from Cuba. I am thrilled about this and hope to someday be able to travel to Cuba.
I thought the fence came about because some Americans thought that Castro was behind the Kennedy assassination.
There’s no going back on this, not a strong enough constituency for the obstructionists to worry about, just a few bitter old men in Miami who miss the mansions and servants their parents had back in Havana. The campaign contributions from Carnival alone have to much more than offset theirs.
What little of substance remains is now much easier to be dismissed as a harmful anachronism, damaging to the business interests of the DC TPTB, and the death of Fidel will be all it takes to end the rest.
I think the JFK CTers are as loony as the 9/11 truthers. But unless I’m mistaken the embargo preceded the assassination.
The embargo began in 1960, in the waning days of the Eisenhower administration.