Obama really wanted a danish pastry, more specifically a blonde Danish Prime Minister. Wow, picking up white women at a funeral with your wife right next to you. Now that takes some balls. I think Obama has a bit of Tiger Woods in him. Hope he didn't bring his 3 iron with him. Michelle looked a little pissed off.
Of course this reminds me of.............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGQ-ISsDm8M
"The brief greeting came as Obama made his way to the podium, past the VIP seating section of the soccer stadium. Castro appeared to speak to Obama, who acknowledged Castro and the encounter left Castro beaming, even as Obama moved over to warmly greet Brazil's president, Dilma Rouseff with a kiss on the cheek."
Perhaps Obama will reach out to his new friend, and impose a new round of sanctions on Cuba.
Please send a memo to the simpletons over on Faux News and their minions who are throwing a hissyfit over this handshake.
First, I am not talking about the merits of whether we should or should not talk to or boycott Cuba. I am only commenting on a double standard that is particularly ironic at this exact time.
A lot of people say that we can't change Cuba unless we engage them, end the boycott, and try to change them with diplomacy and economic ties.
I just find it ironic that anything along these lines is suggested during the time of the funeral of Mandela.
The theory at that time was boycott, minimal (if any) ties, isolate until the regime collapses.
I would like to ask Mandela's ghost if he supports boycotts in principl
The difference between South Africa and Cuba is that no one else in the world boycotts Cuba like we do. Cuba regularly trades with Europe. The strategy in Apartheid South Africa was to isolate that country not just from the USA, but from the entire world.
Yes, countries other than the United States actually matter, particularly when you're talking about international affairs!
Aparthteid has no poligical affect on an island.
The question is the merits of boycotts as an economic/diplomatic tool. You are talking about the effectiveness.
Funny thing though, Every time someone points out the economic disaster of the Cuban economy, the left blames the U.S. for the boycott.
No you tell me they can get everything they need from Europe. AND YOU ARE RIGHT.
So if they can trade with the rest of the world, why are they still a basket case.
Just like Venezuela, which despite all it's natural resources is still a basket case, or at least it is for it's citizens, where something as simple as a 32 inch TV will cost the equivalent of about three months salary for the average Venezuelan.
Breathing too much carbon dioxide and sulphur from crude oil does that to the brain.
Let's see here, I explain a not so subtle difference when it comes to the application of a certain strategy that is sometimes used in international affairs, and Phil replies with a demand that I defend Cuban style communism. Why? Did I ever endorse communism of any kind? I guess if you're not a capitalist sycophant, then by default you're a communist. Which, of course, proves that I'm an idiot, because Cuba is a basketcase. But hey, at least they have a lower infant mortality rate than....drum roll please....the United States.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
So let's see Phil defend this. If Cuba is a "basketcase", as you put it, then does that mean that Beijing is a paradise?
I am not asking you to defend international communism. The question that I posed applies equally to any particular system that one is against.
The question is "Do boycotts work?" Not do they work against communism or Xism, or Yism.
My only comment, which I thought was clear, but is apparently to complex, was isn't there an irony in attending the funeral of the man who came to symbolize economic boycotts of a nation (in Mandela's case, for the good) and not realizing the value of boycotts to attain a diplomatic goal.
Whether you like the target or not is a distraction, which you keep falling into.
And to imply that I like the Chinese, like you do with you photo, is to dance away from the subject again
The subtlety, which seems to have gone over your head, Phil, is that isolating a nation sometimes works and sometimes it does not. The details (gasp!) actually matter.
No one else was willing to boycott Cuba, because no other country woke up each day having a little hissy fit over them. Kennedy tried to get Mexico on board with this hissy fit, but Mexico's ambassador had to tell President Kennedy that, "If we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing".
If you can't implement and enforce sanctions, then they will NOT work. If the nation you're putting sanctions on has a lot of natural resources, then sanctions will NOT work. Theoretically, if we wanted to put sanctions on Iceland, it would be far more effective, than if we placed sanctions on Australia. Yes, details matter!
This is only ironic if you're utterly ignorant of international affairs and foreign policy.
You say "If the nation you're putting sanctions on has a lot of natural resources, then sanctions will NOT work." I hope I am not stretching your point, but I assume you would agree the converse is true as well.
If that is your standard, S.A. had tons of resources and Cuba had few, if any. Therefore, Cuba would have been more effective since they meet your standard for when sanctions would work.
Likewise, it would have been easier to isolate a small nearby island nation.
I also love the Usual Left Insult stream. Yes, I have a degree in Soviet Studies and another degree in history. And I am "utterly ignorant." Not that we disagree. Nope. Utterly ignorant.
I again have to be clear. I AM NOT TAKING A STAND ON THE PROPRIETY of any one case. In fact, I never really supported sanctions against Cuba, for the same reasons that I favored trade with the Bad Old USSR.
No one else was willing to boycott Cuba, because no other country woke up each day having a little hissy fit over them. Kennedy tried to get Mexico on board with this hissy fit, but Mexico's ambassador had to tell President Kennedy that, "If we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing".
If you can't implement and enforce sanctions, then they will NOT work. If the nation you're putting sanctions on has a lot of natural resources, then sanctions will NOT work. Theoretically, if we wanted to put sanctions on Iceland, it would be far more effective, than if we placed sanctions on Australia. Yes, details matter!
This is only ironic if you're utterly ignorant of international affairs and foreign policy.
I was hoping that you would understand that the details matter, not that geography matters.
Sanctions against Cuba was never effective as long as the Soviets were around. Today, Cuba regularly trades with Japan and Europe. What's worse, is the embargo costs the USA more money than it costs Cuba.
South Africa was a special case. There has been a social movement since the 60's to urge everyone to divest from South Africa. This idea was quite slow to catch on in the USA. By the time Congress finally passed the The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986, things had already reached a critical mass. Of course, conservatives, always standing in the way of progress, did just that. Reagan VETOED the sanctions, and Congress passed it over his veto. Gee, I wonder why the GOP can't get very many blacks to vote for them with a history like that?
So there's your not-so-subtle difference, Phil. There was a world-wide social movement to divest from Apartheid South Africa. On the other hand, Cuba has always had trading partners.
in the U.S. Cuba relationship?
I'm not sure if U.S. Foreign Policy, is a major factor as to why Blacks don't vote GOP.
Sanctions against Cuba was never effective as long as the Soviets were around. Today, Cuba regularly trades with Japan and Europe. What's worse, is the embargo costs the USA more money than it costs Cuba.
South Africa was a special case. There has been a social movement since the 60's to urge everyone to divest from South Africa. This idea was quite slow to catch on in the USA. By the time Congress finally passed the The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986, things had already reached a critical mass. Of course, conservatives, always standing in the way of progress, did just that. Reagan VETOED the sanctions, and Congress passed it over his veto. Gee, I wonder why the GOP can't get very many blacks to vote for them with a history like that?
So there's your not-so-subtle difference, Phil. There was a world-wide social movement to divest from Apartheid South Africa. On the other hand, Cuba has always had trading partners.
As usual Willy is reaching, not grasping of course, but reaching.
As for Mexico, they have almost nothing to do with US/Cuba relations. Venezuela is most likely the most influential player actually in the Pan American arena.
I was aligning my comment with Willy's post.
True Venezuela is a large regional player, especially when it comes to oil. I was thinking more along the lines of contraband, along with NAFTA legislation.
U.S. Cuba sanctions have a greater impact on America, than they do Cuba.
U.S. Cuba sanctions have had a huge impact on Cuba, where a "new" car is most likely a 60's model.
Mexico is also a big oil producing nation, but projects little influence in the region compared to Venezuela.
Although it is different today, in the old days when their trading partner was Russia, they were trading with one of the richest nations in the world. Oil, gas, gold, coal.......
And if Cuba has always had trading partners, why can't they have cars or other goods post 1960. The list of items that their people lack is too long to list.
Of course, their main stay could not afford coffee or toilet paper, two products that could not be found in the RICHER cities of Moscow and Leningrad.
As for GOP and Blacks, talk about subtle. In any international decision there are multiple reasons. If you can't understand why some people did not favor sanctions and can only go "racist," you are the shallow one. In the international arena, you may support people you don't like because you reasonably see the alternative as worse. (The word "reasonable" is intentional, If you don't understand why I used it, I will explain.)
The choice to side with Stalin did not make people communists. Same applies elsewhere in principle
Sanctions against Cuba was never effective as long as the Soviets were around. Today, Cuba regularly trades with Japan and Europe. What's worse, is the embargo costs the USA more money than it costs Cuba.
South Africa was a special case. There has been a social movement since the 60's to urge everyone to divest from South Africa. This idea was quite slow to catch on in the USA. By the time Congress finally passed the The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986, things had already reached a critical mass. Of course, conservatives, always standing in the way of progress, did just that. Reagan VETOED the sanctions, and Congress passed it over his veto. Gee, I wonder why the GOP can't get very many blacks to vote for them with a history like that?
So there's your not-so-subtle difference, Phil. There was a world-wide social movement to divest from Apartheid South Africa. On the other hand, Cuba has always had trading partners.
There is no big deal about a hand shake, especially at an event like that.
Hell I would even shake your hand, I would wear a rubber glove but I woyld sahke your hand.
....And no one is having a hissy fit about it excet you in your failed effort to get people to believe your lies and bullshit.
You're Welcome
2014 - GOP house and Senate
-- Modified on 12/10/2013 1:03:24 PM
A Marxist, a socialist, anti capitalist then a Muslim so spoke Lambaugh, the great one
Obama really wanted a danish pastry, more specifically a blonde Danish Prime Minister. Wow, picking up white women at a funeral with your wife right next to you. Now that takes some balls. I think Obama has a bit of Tiger Woods in him. Hope he didn't bring his 3 iron with him. Michelle looked a little pissed off.
Of course this reminds me of.............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGQ-ISsDm8M
I believe he did it to shore up his base. His approval ratings are plummeting and in his style of doing things he made a friendly gesture to Raul Castro , a known homosexual. Yes Raul Castro has a family however it was forced upon him by Fidel to save face. His daughter is a strong supporter of gay marriage and gay rights in Cuba and she has spoken internationally on the subject several times.
A truth about the Castro brothers which may make you think twice about applauding Mr. Obama's actions . Fidel killed for business if you will. Raul kills for the pure pleasure of it. He enjoys watching people be tortured to death and has done it himself on more than one occasion.
He is a sick and twisted sociopathic killer. This is the person Mr. Obama chummed up to yesterday