Mark & Juanita--"the cost of freedom is constant vigilence" does not warn agaist the powerless. It warns us about the monied, landed, corporate, military, powerful elites who do whatever it takes to maintain their advantage, including lie about their motives. I am afraid our current pres. is a sad example (BTW, this is not a partisan affliction by any means). As far as "praising" and "criticising" while the guest of a communist dictator: 1) Carter was once again only 'telling the truth' some of us don't want to hear; 2) Castro need not have become such a pain in our arse had U.S. policy been more favorable (and, as Charlie points out, the history of Viet Nam is but another classic example of the U.S. fumbling the diplomatic/policy ball early (1940s-50s) and paying the price later--both Mao and Minh really loved the U.S. at one time, and hoped we'd see the justice of their causes); 3) It doesn't take a "nuclear engineer" to see how far down that same road we've bumbled in the middle east. We keep proving H. G. Wells correct: "Those who learn nothing from history are doomed to repeat it."
If our founders had sided with the rich and powerful of their day, we'd still be a British colony.
I've been in Cuba, you don't want it, trust me. THEY don't want it.
So what we need are good economic embargos, like the ones Kerry says he'll impose on those trading partners who don't pay union wages, and follow our environmental and labor laws?
How ill-informed can you be?
As for Carter, if he were on the other side of the aisle he'd be just another "narrow-minded fundamentalist - horrors - CHRISTIAN."
50 years? Was I asleep? I distinctly remember Castro marching into Havana around New Years Day, 1959. That's only 45 years (and ½, if you're quibbling). I was living in South Florida at the time. It made all the papers.
Exactly how long does it take for you to figure out that whatever you're doing is not working? Is it a fixed number of years or a fixed number of drinks?
If the objective is to be self-righteous then by all means continue the embargo. If the objective is to get rid of Communism in Cuba then try something else.
A person smoking marijuana in the privacy of his own living room is not demonstrably causing harm to any individual other than himself, or to society at large. There is therefore no basis for the government to prohibit his doing so.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
I asked this in all seriousness - I'm a youngster at 42 and some of the reasoning behind these types of long term international relationships are confusing.
Can you shed light on what appears to me to be a great contradiction? Are our intentions to force the Cuban people to reject Communism? If we're so against Communism why do we so extensively trade with China - why are US companies moving manufacturing of all types to China?
My criticism is on the propagandizing of his education without filling in some needed information, but your caveats below make me suspend judgment, however sceptical I may remain.
If you're making a distinction between "The Navy" and "The US Naval Academy" then you may well be correct. My point was about the USNA, and they claim to offer engineering degrees.
Perhaps the misconception is mine. But at Chicago if you study experimental physics one of your possible fields is nuclear physics
formatting link
), UNH has what they call a "Nuclear Physics Group", Tex A&M has nuclear engineering?those are just the ones I've heard of, there might be others, and I would be very surprised if several leading foreign universities did not have similar programs. Perhaps I'm not sure what you mean by "discipline": are you saying that there are no university programs wherein an advanced student would study nuclear physics as the predominant course of study? Or that there is no degree entitled nuclear physics? Or something else?
You clearly have a better grasp of this than I, but given what these schools advertise, I'm not sure what you mean. By "program" above, I meant a course of study, not necessarily a degree.
Are you aware of Union College's program? Did it ever have anyone noteworthy teaching nuclear physics? Did they ever offer anything more than *part* of *a* course that included content on nuclear physics? That was my point. They may have for all I know, but I find that with all the exaggeration common in politics it's more likely that Carter's supposed "graduate work in nuclear physics at Union College" [the USNA quote] is a bit hokey.
I've found no source that make such a claim?only that he did "graduate work in nuclear physics at Union College". Now, given what you yourself have asserted about the nature of such study, don't you find it disingenuous for *anyone* to claim "graduate work in nuclear physics at..."? Doesn't that statement contradict what you're saying?
Perhaps, although I'd wonder about the quality of different schools. Is Union College a powerhouse of physicists? I'd love to know what Carter's actual course of study was?on this your questions are my questions and they're right on the mark. Until I see it I'll remain sceptical.
Very well put. Carter's education could be the real deal.
Well, Rickover was no stranger to political strife (he got his promotion at Congress' behest against the wishes of Navy administration): are you sure he wouldn't wink at Carter's misleading claims as long as they weren't outright lies and in the context of political pufferupery?
Yeah...but what I don't get is why he or his camp feels a need to do the same kind of trumping now. The race if over. Maybe they're thinking of legacy....
That's an even more interesting question...(whether he intentionally promoted that personna with the pronunciation of nucular).
I think you have not read the OED carefully on this one. Show me the example from 1601: it does not have a direct object?that's an ugly neologism that first comes into usage in the 20th Century. The OED's earlier listings, which you apparently trusted in, are mostly participial adjectives that have no direct objects. So, find me an early quote with impact + direct object and I'll have to reconsult. But last time I did, there was no salvation there for the ignoscentes verborum.
Thanks for the physics history lesson, I had neglected to consider the perspective you give on nascent nuclear physics.
Exactly. Our "principles" are often determined by our economic self-interests and expediency. Witness our changing stances towards countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.
Cuba is a tough one. We were fine with dictators like Machado and Batista; in fact, we propped them up as long as we were able to get cheap sugar from Cuba. And we had no problems as long as Cuba was a playground for the rich/famous/mob.
But Castro got in and started taking land back from the American companies (I believe that at the time of the Cuban revolution it was estimated that American interests owned ~75% of the arable farmland in Cuba). He also changed Cuba's reliance on sugar and actually had farmers start growing *food*.
He wasn't even aligned with the commies when he first came to power, but we effectively pushed him in that direction by our policies towards Cuba.
So here we have a small island nation just a few miles away that refused to buckle under when confronted by the world's superpower. Add to that the fact that it is un-repentantly communist, traded with the Soviet Union until its demise, sent troops to Angola (even though there's some question now about how Cuba's role was depicted by Kissinger/Reagan), etc., and generally thumbed its nose at the U.S.
Ironically, since Cuba is no threat to us, and in this day-and-time, no real economic benefit comes from normalization, we can probably afford to maintain our stance in the name of "principles" or "anti-communism". (Compare and contrast that to China.)
Also, I have to believe that the Cuban-American community has quite a bit of influence on our relations with Cuba. They present a vocal, united front, and are (for the most part) a well-educated and powerful voting block.
Personally, I think we should drop the whole charade and re-establish relations with Cuba. (Of course I have selfish motives; I'd like to visit the land where my father was born.) But I think there's too much history and desire to save face on both sides for anything to happen in the short term.
You'd be appalled if you did visit, unless you're a classic car fan.
The book I recommended, _ One Hell of a Gamble_ has some good information on the courting of Fidel. In there, with the data from archives to support it, it's said that if Fidel had not come around, Che and the other communist moles would have taken him out.
What is so appalling about Cuba? Is it worse than poor areas anywhere else? Has the natural beauty of the island been destroyed? Has the culture disappeared? (These are serious questions, not flame-bait.)
I understand from your posts that you are no fan of socialism, but did you find Cuba to be any different than you would expect for an island state with limited resources that has effectively been left to fend for itself? (Actually, worse than that, it's been embargoed by its closest neighbor.)
Thanks for the pointer. Sounds worth checking out.
Back to your original premise:
How do you reconcile those "principles" with our actions towards China? And do you agree or disagree that our posture regarding Cuba is probably due in a large part to the fact that they aren't a threat, and at the same time, don't offer enough economic incentive for us to normalize relations? In other words, we get to play the anti-commie card without having to take a hit by losing potential markets/goods or angering someone who is powerful enough to cause us problems.
The contrast, in the same view, between the state of the state, if you will, and the state of the people is what gets me. The state looks to be doing well for itself, even though there are state plates on '49 Kaisers. The people, excepting high officials, are uniformly threadbare, shifty-eyed and tired-looking. The "culture" is the only one allowed. For example, where the statues of the virgin once stood in little grottos, now stand busts of Jose Marti. The "natural" beauty of the island is variable, beaches for foreigners are well-maintained, the rest shift for themselves. Inland, it's food which is important, but sugar which is produced.
Cuba has not been left to "fend for itself." It has had immense support from the Soviets, trade with some capitalist countries, and a modest tourist industry. What it has done is shoot itself in the foot with a non convertible currency, a policy of no foreign ownership, and militant Communism. Even the French would find it hard to justify selling there, much less building.
As to principles, the conditions for ending the embargo are well known, it has been modified as well. Reciprocity is what's missing.
OK, contrast that to when Cuba was under Batista: They produced nothing but sugar, the beaches were maintained for tourists or not at all, and the people who weren't high-ranking officials were poor. Land was also owned mostly by foreign interests.
So things were better then?
The key word being "had".
Reciprocity towards the country that used them for years and then turned their backs on them when they kicked out a brutal dictator.
You still haven't responded to the idea that the major difference between China and Cuba is that Cuba is no threat and offers very little in the way of economic incentive for normalization. Why are we able to overlook China's abysmal human rights record?
Chuck Vance (who's trying to think of a way to get this thread to be about woodworking :-)
Sorry, you're not interested, I guess. What was -Batista- is compared as if it were relevant to what is. Then you try to have the argument from the other side, that what was -Soviet treasure- is not germane. I see you're convinced, and not thinking.
Bottom line, the embargo was an answer to nationalization and confiscation, threats and an attempt to export "revolution." You don't try to embrace people who spit on you.
You sound like the press, merciless to those who favor us, forgiving of our enemies. I can only say that if you hate the US so badly that you champion her enemies, like former president Carter ....
Look, I'm not the one who's throwing out the same old tired party line about Cuba. I'm trying to look at it rationally, and see what purpose our continued sanctions serve. Also, I'm trying to evaluate it versus our policies towards other communist nations.
Read a little more about the history of Cuba and how the U.S. used it before Castro. It was little more than a playground for the rich and a source of cheap sugar for the U.S. The U.S. showed with its actions before and since that it could care less about the welfare of the Cuban people. What we were interested in was propping up dictators who served our own interests, no matter what happened to the country in the process.
And you expect the Cuban people to just "relax and enjoy it"?
Actually, I love my *country* so much that I don't blindly accept every policy that comes from our *goverment*. (Note the distinction between the two highlighted words.) And I am willing to come out and express my views when I do disagree with a policy. Funny how a democracy works like that, eh?
I checked downstairs in the box, and the university said I had read enough History and written of it well enough to please them. I suppose you know about 1898, though, of course, it has nothing to with why the embargo - the original question.
You may disagree with the policy all you want, but the points you were trying to score - as opposed to getting an answer as to why the embargo - show a too common tendency to blame the US for everything wrong with the world. If we "supported" one dictator, we should support the next? Even if he's the vocal and sworn enemy of the country you love? Sorry, save your breath for another cause. As long as Castro's there, he'll use the embargo (hell, if he knew it would work so well against his enemy, he'd have created one if it didn't exist) to influence folks like you into thinking he's anything but what he really is - pleased to isolate his nation from a world where people can dissent, lest they pick up the habit. He's already seen what glasnost' brings.
You know, of course, that those living there don't have the privilege of dissent, which, BTW, is one of the reasons, getting back to topic before you slide away again, for the embargo.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.