roger
Why not? There is no consistency in US policy between civil/human rights and US trade in any case (examples too numerous to mention). The domino theory has now been kidnapped by Wolfowitz, and is being forced to spread peace and joy out like little wavlets from burning Iraquis, so it's not available as rationale. They need beefsteak and Texans need cigars. I think we ought to rethink.
Maybe, it is possible to wait a bit with removal of sanctions. Castro is very old, and he is a type of boss that the company he ran bankrupts immediately after he leaves. So, the Cuban model of Communism is in its last years before being dismantled, maybe, even without any violence.
its quite possible that the only reason Castro is still in power is the US sanctions.
If there are no sanctions, all the revenues stemming from improvement of the economic situation will be appropriated by Castro and his cronies.
Steissd
Don't you just hate it when political leaders use their position for personal gain? By the way, what is the latest on Netanyahu and wife's trial for fraud and corruption?
the only nation imposing sanctions on Cuba is the US. make sense?
You favor sanctions against Cuba, blatham? I would have predicted otherwise.
What corruption? I do not recall any accustaions in bribery against Mr. Netaniahu. Maybe, you confused him with Mr. Dery (the former Interior Secretary in the government of Mr. Netaniahu) that really was convicted for bribery and public money abuse and served 3 years in jail?
The sanctions against Cuba should have ended years ago. The only reason they are in place is to placate the Cuban Americans in Fla. There can be no other reason for the embargo. China is a communist nation and we have no restrictions on trade with it. IMO the best way to defeat communism is free trade and interchange.
This is just one more instance of Americas failure in the realm of diplomacy. I am beginning to think the inmates are running the asylum.
Even as a teenager, I thought it was hypocritical to have sanctions against Cuba, and not Russia, and then later China....... Oh I'm sorry, that wouldn't be profitable would it?
Booman - That we should be less open with China does not mean we should be more open with Cuba.
Each is unique. Of course, I know less about Cuba than I do about China. I would move away from China until their human rights record improves. As to Cuba, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion, but my uninformed opinion leans towards opening relations and beginning to eliminate sanctions. (Perhaps someone else can tell me why we shouldn't do that?)
There were sanctions against the USSR as well. For example, Jackson-Vanick's amendment that conditioned granting of the most-favored status in trade by the human rights issues, namely fredom of emigration. Or grain embargo that was imposed, if I am not mistaken, by administration of President James E. Carter.
I like your signature line, Tres.
Jimmeh, was one of my favorite Presidents. I hated it when he withdrew from the Olympics, but I had to respect him, because he didn't believe in "moderation in principle". :wink: Great man...lousy politician.
Booman wrote:Jimmeh, was one of my favorite Presidents. I hated it when he withdrew from the Olympics, but I had to respect him, because he didn't believe in "moderation in principle". :wink: Great man...lousy politician.
I used to agree with this whole-heartedly, though some of his actions and statements of late have reduced my estimation of him. Of course, the fact that I disagree with him doesn't necessarily mean he is not a "great man". :wink: At least he seems to stand up and say and do what he believes.
Just beside the lines:
re. Cuba: I know that US-citizens meanwhile can travel there. But I've heard, they are not allowed to spend money being there.
Is this really true or just another form of Anti-Americanism of our media here?
......STOP THE PRESSES...TRES AGREES THE BOO!!!
Quote:At least he seems to stand up and say and do what he believes.
It seems to me that Mr. Bush also sincerely believes in his program. Then, what are the differences between him and Mr. Carter in this particular aspect?
Striessd,
...You caught me there. I believe Dubya is a man of conviction also. And here's the irony, I wish we wern't at the brink of war, but I begrudgingly respect him for intending to back up what he promised.
...I'm sure you were kidding, when you asked what was the difference between he and Carter. Hitler was a man of conviction also. Slight difference, right?
Well, Hitler really was a man of conviction. But I would prefer him to be an opportunist. Let us agree that convictions of Mr. Bush strongly differ from these of Hitler, from one side, and from these of Mr. Carter, from the other one. By all means, they are much closer to these of Mr. Carter than to these of the late Reichskanzler.
But my question implied the following: why Mr. Carter's being a man with convictions makes you respecting him, while you do not look like a person that strongly respects the current President?
