Making Baby Jesus Cry

[nononono]

Originally posted by Spanky
For the past forty years Castro has condemned his entire nation to abject poverty. In addition, to stay in power he has imprisoned thousands and tortured thousands. He is one of the top human rights abusers in the world. He also has tried and keeps trying to promote his wonderful system of government throughout the world.

The main reason for not taking him out before was his backing from the Soviet Union. He no longer has that backing. His military is pathetic and his people don't support him (otherwise he wouldn't have such a problem with calling elections). Taking him out would not be that difficult.

So do you think Cuba is the most pressing place the U.S. should apply its interventionist capital?

FWIW, I am partly - even mostly - on your side here. I think human rights and the unique place America occupies in the world give us reason and even obligation at times to intervene where there is disaster and degradation. However, there are a million places we could go, so you have to have other factors, or at least some special ones. Is being Western Hemisphere sufficient? Or desire for democracy (which I assume in Cuba, though I don't know)? Why there and not some other place with horrific human rights conditions?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
For the past forty years Castro has condemned his entire nation to abject poverty. In addition, to stay in power he has imprisoned thousands and tortured thousands. He is one of the top human rights abusers in the world. He also has tried and keeps trying to promote his wonderful system of government throughout the world.

The main reason for not taking him out before was his backing from the Soviet Union. He no longer has that backing. His military is pathetic and his people don't support him (otherwise he wouldn't have such a problem with calling elections). Taking him out would not be that difficult.

So Castro's just like Milosevic, without the genocide, ethnic cleansing, and warring on your neighbors part. Got it.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
For the past forty years Castro has condemned his entire nation to abject poverty. ... Taking him out would not be that difficult.

Why stop there? Tibet, Haiti, most of central Africa, much of South America (bonus: Venezuela has oil!), central Asia (bonus: more oil!).

I mean, if we're going to just make shit up as a pretext to invasion because the country is led by a bad, bad man, we've got a lot of ground to cover.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you want to talk about the merits of CAFTA, I'm happy to do that. You seem to support anything that has the free trade label. My loyalties are not so blind. Why was CAFTA good for free trade? Business says so, and that's good enough for you. Not for me. CAFTA has, e.g., provisions concerning intellectual property that reasonable people can disagree about.

l

As I said before, people generally act in their own self interest. If CAFTA were not about free trade businesses would not support it. Why would American businesses suppport CAFTA if it were not a free trade agreement. And I am not talking about some business, I am talking about 99% of American businesses. In addition, if CAFTA was not about free trade why does almost every economic and business journal support it: the Economist, FEER, Fortune, WSJ etc. It is not that complicated, over the next twenty years CAFTA significantly reduces tariffs on over 98% of the trade between the US and the CAFTA nations. Can you name just one business journal that is pro-free trade, or one business group that is involved in international trade that is against CAFTA? On the internet you can find opinions to support any idea. You need to look at who really has a vested interest in free trade and where they stand. And they all support CAFTA. Ellen Tauscher went before the manufacturers association and tried to justify her position on CAFTA. In an auditorium full of manufacturing representatives the moderator asked if there was anyone that believed Tauscher's justification. Not a single hand was raised. When asked if they though Tauscher's position was just political partisanship almost every person in the room raised their hand.

[nononono]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Why stop there? Tibet, Haiti, most of central Africa, much of South America (bonus: Venezuela has oil!), central Asia (bonus: more oil!).

I mean, if we're going to just make shit up as a pretext to invasion because the country is led by a bad, bad man, we've got a lot of ground to cover.

We did Haiti, and it was the right thing to do. We didn't stick it out or follow through, which is one of the great big questions for any intervention. Haiti didn't have enough money, organization, education, infrastructure or leadership to make it work, despite the unbelievable desire by the people and their (speaking generally) utter faith in democracy.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Shit all Reagan needed to do was take office and they got out, because they knew he wouldn't pull the plug on something he started.

Yep, I'm sure that's what it was, and not a secret deal. I mean, it's not like the Iranians were later rewarded with weapons with which to fight their infidel neighbors (whom, conveniently, we also supplied, albeit more openly).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by nononono
So do you think Cuba is the most pressing place the U.S. should apply its interventionist capital?

FWIW, I am partly - even mostly - on your side here. I think human rights and the unique place America occupies in the world give us reason and even obligation at times to intervene where there is disaster and degradation. However, there are a million places we could go, so you have to have other factors, or at least some special ones. Is being Western Hemisphere sufficient? Or desire for democracy (which I assume in Cuba, though I don't know)? Why there and not some other place with horrific human rights conditions?

It is all about cost benefit. Considering it is right of the coast of Florida, its military sucks and we have millions of Cuban emigres who would jump at the chance to go back and help.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by nononono
We did Haiti, and it was the right thing to do.

Yes we did. And yet the country is run by armed gangs, for exactly the reasons you cite. Intervention is not as simple as knocking some tinpot dictator off his throne. It's a lesson we failed to learn in Somalia, in Haiti, and even to some extent in the Balkins, with disasterous effect now in Iraq.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Yep, I'm sure that's what it was, and not a secret deal. I mean, it's not like the Iranians were later rewarded with weapons with which to fight their infidel neighbors (whom, conveniently, we also supplied, albeit more openly).

Just so we're clear- you feel Jimmy Carter handled Iran intelligently and it became a non-issue for Reagan just because of some alleged deal that cropped up several years later?

Shape Shifter- slow down on the posting- i think as long as you don't screw up loberry might move your crown.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Why stop there? Tibet, Haiti, most of central Africa, much of South America (bonus: Venezuela has oil!), central Asia (bonus: more oil!).

I'd be really, really worried about Hugo Chavez if I were to worry my pretty little head about foreign policy. He's a lunatic with money, and he's buying out other South American countries' debt, making deals with China, and generally causing all sorts of trouble.

Plus, the church thinks he needs an exorcism. But his people love him, except the several I know who've fled to the US because they can't stand what's happened to their country in the last 7 years.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
millions of Cuban emigres who would jump at the chance to go back and help.

then we'd lose Fla in the next election, no??

or do they retain citizenship?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is all about cost benefit. Considering it is right of the coast of Florida, its military sucks and we have millions of Cuban emigres who would jump at the chance to go back and help.

Their military sucks? Tell that to the Marines and Rangers who fought the construction brigade in Grenada.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'd be really, really worried about Hugo Chavez if I were to worry my pretty little head about foreign policy. He's a lunatic with money, and he's buying out other South American countries' debt, making deals with China, and generally causing all sorts of trouble.

Plus, the church thinks he needs an exorcism. But his people love him, except the several I know who've fled to the US because they can't stand what's happened to their country in the last 7 years.

Would they do precautionary exorcisms? I mean even if don't need one there's no harm, and it might do some good. How often can you get them, and do you have to go to confession first to receive that sacrement?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is all about cost benefit. Considering it is right of the coast of Florida, its military sucks and we have millions of Cuban emigres who would jump at the chance to go back and help.

So it's a matter of winnability? Not that that's wrong to consider, but it seems awfully thin to base major efforts on.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is all about cost benefit. Considering it is right of the coast of Florida, its military sucks and we have millions of Cuban emigres who would jump at the chance to go back and help.

So much for the raising of the IQ.