BREAKING: FIDEL CASTRO undergoes surgery in Cuba, hands over power to brother Raul. - Page 2

IminWonderland · 08-01-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

that's what he's called

Imperialistic Presidents tend to name themselves things that aren't in their job titles.

IminWonderland · 08-01-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by TheMrs

Sorry, but I'm of the belief that the U.S.A. could better help Cuba by opening up trade. I don't understand why suddenly, we are to be the bandages on every previously wounded and now healing country?

We can't even take care of the citizens here in the United States - and we're supposed to help fund another country's coup?

I think not.

I agree. Why can't we trade? Go there? I mean, holy moly, this embargo thing is so childish.

"We don't like you so we aren't talking to you..."

It's very 3rd grade.

ballz2wallz · 08-01-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Imperialistic Presidents tend to name themselves things that aren't in their job titles.

bush didn't name himself that...

(assuming that is the 'imperialistic president' you're referring to)

The President is sometimes referred to as "the leader of the free world," although the usage of this phrase has declined since the end of the Cold War.

IminWonderland · 08-01-2006, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

bush didn't name himself that...

(assuming that is the 'imperialistic president' you're referring to)

I didn't say Him. That term as been thrown around since the start of Imperialistic Presidents, and I believe a long row of them started with FDR, and then on down.

IminWonderland · 08-01-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

bush didn't name himself that...

(assuming that is the 'imperialistic president' you're referring to)

Besides, all that slogan is, is marketing for our international nosiness.

Concept · 08-01-2006, 03:08 PM

The embargo is more of a statement than anything else.

The statement? 'Communism, Fidel are bad. The USSR was bad.'

and the embargo has carried on to today's world. We don't want to lift it. Doing so would make Fidel richer.

A president should not be considered imperialistic for aiding a nation whose citizens are being oppressed. Many across the world believe that the United States has an obligation as the most powerful nation in the world to help poorer nations; which is way the world cries out for the United States when a natural disaster occurs. Iraq is a different issue; oppression was ambiguous there. In Cuba, oppression is evident and clear.

IminWonderland · 08-01-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Concept

The embargo is more of a statement than anything else.

The statement? 'Communism, Fidel are bad. The USSR was bad.'

and the embargo has carried on to today's world. We don't want to lift it. Doing so would make Fidel richer.

A president should not be considered imperialistic for aiding a nation whose citizens are being oppressed. Many across the world believe that the United States has an obligation as the most powerful nation in the world to help poorer nations; which is way the world cries out for the United States when a natural disaster occurs. Iraq is a different issue; oppression was ambiguous there. In Cuba, oppression is evident and clear.

Who gets to decide who is opressed enough for our money? Opressed by our standards? We can't hold every country up to the standards we have for our own country. I believe that if you are a citizen in a dictator ran country, or you are in a facist country, that if you want your freedom, you fight for it. If this country ever got to be that bad, I would want to fight for it. You don't get freedom handed to you, it's something that blood is spilled for, and sacrificed for, and when you do that, it makes worth more.

Concept · 08-01-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Who gets to decide who is opressed enough for our money? Opressed by our standards? We can't hold every country up to the standards we have for our own country. I believe that if you are a citizen in a dictator ran country, or you are in a facist country, that if you want your freedom, you fight for it. If this country ever got to be that bad, I would want to fight for it. You don't get freedom handed to you, it's something that blood is spilled for, and sacrificed for, and when you do that, it makes worth more.

But even the French offered the Revolutionaries assistance to rid Britain from America. I'm not saying Americans were depressed in the 18th century, my point is that Revolutions are insured through a third party assisting the Revolutionaries. Americans received much help after Saratoga.

I agree with you. Revolution must be a thing done by the people against their oppressive government, but aiding their Revolution is not taking away from their outcome.

Should American indirectly help Cuba, I believe a new relationship between the new government and the United States would come about and prove very prosperous for both sides.

IminWonderland · 08-01-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Concept

But even the French offered the Revolutionaries assistance to rid Britain from America. I'm not saying Americans were depressed in the 18th century, my point is that Revolutions are insured through a third party assisting the Revolutionaries. Americans received much help after Saratoga.

I agree with you. Revolution must be a thing done by the people against their oppressive government, but aiding their Revolution is not taking away from their outcome.

Should American indirectly help Cuba, I believe a new relationship between the new government and the United States would come about and prove very prosperous for both sides.

I think 200 years ago, it was feasible. But when I look at the countries we've aided, invaded, and "helped" we have only made things worse. I don't think that America is a "Very Good helper" as my son would say.

Ardentfrost · 08-01-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I think 200 years ago, it was feasible. But when I look at the countries we've aided, invaded, and "helped" we have only made things worse. I don't think that America is a "Very Good helper" as my son would say.

We haven't always made things worse. We supported the opposition to Melosovich (through money and education) in the 90's and they were able to get him out of office using his system.

But for the most part, you're pretty much right... installing dictators, tearing down governments, entering treaties with unpopular nations.... probably not the best policies

IminWonderland · 08-01-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

We haven't always made things worse. We supported the opposition to Melosovich (through money and education) in the 90's and they were able to get him out of office using his system.

But for the most part, you're pretty much right... installing dictators, tearing down governments, entering treaties with unpopular nations.... probably not the best policies

Well, yeah, sure there are SOME countries that have benefitted from our "help". But, we don't have that great of a track record, especially recently, and as mentioned before, isn't there ever going to come a time where we admit that we can't afford it?

I swear, we are like that Timothy of Athens. We spend our money winning our friends, and when we need the help in return, they are no where to be found, and what happened to Timothy? He dug his own grave.

motivez · 08-01-2006, 06:38 PM

Somewhat unrelated, but can someone please explain to me how exactly we have a military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba while having a trade embargo and publically saying that after their leader is dead we'll help undermine the new Government?

Ardentfrost · 08-01-2006, 06:41 PM

The US Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, sometimes called "GTMO" or "Gitmo", covers 116 km² (about 45 square miles) on the western and eastern banks of the bay. It was established in 1898, when the United States obtained control of Cuba from Spain at the end of the Spanish-American War, following the 1898 invasion of Guantánamo Bay. The U.S. government obtained a perpetual lease that began on February 23, 1903, from Tomás Estrada Palma, an American citizen, who became the first President of Cuba. The newly formed American protectorate incorporated the Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution. The Cuban-American Treaty held, among other things, that the United States, for the purposes of operating coaling and naval stations, has "complete jurisdiction and control" of the Guantánamo Bay, while the Republic of Cuba is recognized to retain ultimate sovereignty.

from wiki. I remember learning that in HS now too.

Ardentfrost · 08-01-2006, 06:44 PM

Also

Platt Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

motivez · 08-01-2006, 06:48 PM

I meant more the politics of it. How is it viewed in Cuba? Why do they continue to allow us to have it while we publically say we're going to undermine Castro at every opportunity and continuing a trade embargo

Ardentfrost · 08-01-2006, 06:53 PM

They have to... the Platt Amendment guarantees our ability to lease that land. Relations with Cuba only soured once they declared independance from Spain in 1959 and Castro took over. Before that, we were good buddies.

It seems to me that we were so pissy with them because they threatened some of our agarian industries. They were going to be communist, so they were going to heavily subsidize the few industries they were good at, namely sugar and tobacco. We didn't want that because we're big sugar producers, so we started sanctions (starting with sugar to "protect" our industry, which is pretty bullshitty). Eventually, we interrupted our oil trade with them, which really fucked their economy, and since then, they haven't liked us too much. So, we don't like them, they don't like us

Just another example of failed American foreign relations.

Kytro · 08-02-2006, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Why do they continue to allow us to have it while we publically say we're going to undermine Castro at every opportunity and continuing a trade embargo

So they don't get invaded / bombed

archangel003 · 08-02-2006, 01:09 AM

I can't wait for the embargo to be lifted. I think it should have been a long time ago.

JaJae · 08-02-2006, 01:15 AM

They're saying now he's in stable condition and he says he feels fine now.

archangel003 · 08-02-2006, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

They're saying now he's in stable condition and he says he feels fine now.

He's 79. Even if the surgery went flawlessly, it's still a pretty risky time for him.