Why is the US Picking on CUBA???

[Pax]

Originally posted by Felch


Nobody is talking about Chinese internal history. It's like saying that our annexation of Hawaii is internal history -- we annexed an independent country with which we shared strong ties. Same with China and Tibet.

The only difference is that we don't engage in a policy of terror, ethnic cleansing and political repression in Hawaii.

Public Law 103-150, 103d Congress Joint Resolution 19, November 23, 1993: "To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii."

I'm not sure if you're saying that what we did to Hawaii is wrong or right, but just to clarify...IT WAS WRONG.

Additionally, I see no reason why Cuba should give back to U.S. companies what was taken from them under questionable circumstances. The U.S. ownership of Cuban resources would have led Cuba into a situation similar to that of African States that do not have control of their Nations resources.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is the US Picking on CUBA???

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yeah, this one was written by those aggressive people of Tibet.

Oh look it even has pictures!

Just to add to the PWNAGE:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3000989#post3000989

Specifically:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There is no justification of using excessive forces against civilians. None.

PWNED!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Why is the US Picking on CUBA???

Originally posted by Ted Striker


I really don't get it.


I think they have some nukes trained on us!!!

There are plenty of other enemies to worry about such as the dumbasses in Sudan.

So what exactly has Cuba done in the last 20 years that is such a threat to national security. Leave the little guys alone.

Castro has been giving the finger to the US since he arrived. Between pimping for the exile vote in Florida, and the notion that some greasy little spics would defy their Great White Father in the north (remember that ol' Monroe Doctrine?), the US "leadership" can't tolerate that.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by VJ
When it comes down to international politics between US and a random hostile nation, I have a history (=one case) of completely misunderstanding the actual situation and meanings of different events when talking with you.

Interesting. What was the case? It's not often I get to change someone's mind.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Cuba is "the threat of a good example".

Good example of what?

[Agathon]

Independent development rather than kowtowing to the United Fruit Company or other US interests.

[DinoDoc]

Good job that!

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


It has nothing (or very little) to do with Bush (thats not to say that Bush doesnt benefit from the status quo). Anti-Cuban sentiment runs throughout the congress on both sides of the aisle. There is nothing anyone can do to normalize relations with Cuba until Castro dies.

And yet this is false. Congress, including this Republican congress, has voted to try to ease up on travel and trade restrictions with Cuba:

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0208/19/a04-565614.htm

Congressional support for a tough embargo comes from only 2 sides- the extreme right jihadis in the Republican party, like Delay, and people who represent districts with large Cuban populations, be they republican or democrat.

Moderates and farm state legislators, plus the leftwingers, have tried to ease of, specially since it is obvious the embargo has failed. They have not succeded thanks to the fatc the Jihadis control the House republican leadership and cause Bush pushes the hard line.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Feeling a bit frisky today GePap vis-a-vis Jihadis references?

Normally you don't have to stoop to such rhetoric.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Independent development rather than kowtowing to the United Fruit Company or other US interests.

I thought you said "a good example?"

And if the Great White Fraternal Socialist Brothers in the USSR hadn't subsidized Cuban sugar and banana production until the USSR itself went by the boards, then Cuban "development" would be sucking wind even worse than it is now.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Feeling a bit frisky today GePap vis-a-vis Jihadis references?

Normally you don't have to stoop to such rhetoric.

Hey, I hope it's catchy

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


And yet this is false. Congress, including this Republican congress, has voted to try to ease up on travel and trade restrictions with Cuba:

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0...a04-565614.htm

Since I wasnt aware of that vote I took a look around and found similar quotes such as:

"Last year, both the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives approved an initiative that would have halted enforcement of the ban on travel to Cuba; however, in a last-minute maneuver, the text was removed from the bill in question after a veto threat from President Bush."

Although it was difficult to find any hard facts, the problem is that the the Cuban travel initiative was attached as a rider to an appropriations bill! So guess what, Bush said he would veto it. It looks to me like typical half truths.

Originally posted by GePap Congressional support for a tough embargo comes from only 2 sides- the extreme right jihadis in the Republican party, like Delay, and people who represent districts with large Cuban populations, be they republican or democrat.

Moderates and farm state legislators, plus the leftwingers, have tried to ease of, specially since it is obvious the embargo has failed. They have not succeded thanks to the fatc the Jihadis control the House republican leadership and cause Bush pushes the hard line.

IIRC I watched the senate committees debate about the current changes to the travel to Cuba, and I was surprised to see the number of Dems who supported it. If you have better hard evidence than my memory I'd be happy to look at it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Since I wasnt aware of that vote I took a look around and found similar quotes such as:

"Last year, both the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives approved an initiative that would have halted enforcement of the ban on travel to Cuba; however, in a last-minute maneuver, the text was removed from the bill in question after a veto threat from President Bush."

Although it was difficult to find any hard facts, the problem is that the the Cuban travel initiative was attached as a rider to an appropriations bill! So guess what, Bush said he would veto it. It looks to me like typical half truths.

Half truth? What "half truth"? That the rider would have made it by if it were not for a president veto threat? How is that a half truth to say the president backs the hard line? The issue being that as a rider, passing the whole budget was more important than just that one measure. And maybe it was inserted as a rider cause as a bill on it's own it would face the opposition of the president and House leadership. Nice attempt at spinning the simple reality that the President is pushing a hard line and it isn't due to congress.

IIRC I watched the senate committees debate about the current changes to the travel to Cuba, and I was surprised to see the number of Dems who supported it. If you have better hard evidence than my memory I'd be happy to look at it.

HELLO! I said any representative from sections with lots of Cubans, democrat or republican. Maybe if you read my posts better that would help form the start...

Face it- you tired to make it look as if Bush were not the one in the driver seat on this but that it was the Congress who was behind this. You were wrong. Congress, or at least more than 50% of congresspeople would prefer a lessening of restrictions. It is Bush with the support of a minority of Congressmen, many with important posts, who back the hard line and Bush who with his power of presidential orders keep trying to tighten the noose.

[Dis]

Bush again. This crazy mother****er might even invade Cuba.

I think it's time to let bygones be bygones. Let the the country be a stupid commie nation, and embrace their stupidity. Open up tourism. Bring american products like coke and McDonald's in.

This has affected even our local economy. A cuba travel center has closed down now they can only go to cuba once every 3 years.

[Dis]

This recent ban on travel from expatriots to Cuba is the nail in the coffin for me. There is no way in hell I'm voting for Bush.

They are stuck in some time warp. This issue is so 60's. Why are they enforcing this ****.

There is money to be made in Cuba. Lift the embargo!

I will be voting for Kerry/Clinton or Kerry/Edwards (despite the fact Edwards is a slimey lawyer who uses junk science in frivolous lawsuits)