- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Re: Cuba - Was Nixon wrong to visit China in '72?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:02 pm
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:02 pm
Nixon opened up relations with the People's Republic in a time when the U.S. was firmly pitted against Communism. While this interpretation overlooks the fact that China was largely at odds with Moscow and fought over border disputes, the move by Nixon is largely seen as a wise diplomatic move today.
That being said, whenever a Republican adamantly declares we should not negotiate with Iran, or now Cuba, I look back at this move and wonder if they would have opposed Nixon's detante with China. How is Cuba and Iran different?
That being said, whenever a Republican adamantly declares we should not negotiate with Iran, or now Cuba, I look back at this move and wonder if they would have opposed Nixon's detante with China. How is Cuba and Iran different?
9
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:22 pm to south bama tiger
What about when Reagan went to Moscow in 1988?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:25 pm to south bama tiger
Nixon was a R though
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:30 pm to south bama tiger
The old Vulcan proverb "Only Nixon could go to China" means that Nixon's anti-communist bona fides from the Alger Hiss investigation allowed him to open relations with them without being undercut as a commie stooge.
He probably would get called on the carpet for it by some today, but he at least had a history of staunch anti communism to show he wasn't just getting rolled by them.
Obama? Not so much. Guy hasn't met an anti American country he can't suck up to.
He probably would get called on the carpet for it by some today, but he at least had a history of staunch anti communism to show he wasn't just getting rolled by them.
Obama? Not so much. Guy hasn't met an anti American country he can't suck up to.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:32 pm to teke184
It sounds like Draconian Sanctions had you pegged.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:48 pm to teke184
quote:
The old Vulcan proverb "Only Nixon could go to China" means that Nixon's anti-communist bona fides from the Alger Hiss investigation allowed him to open relations with them without being undercut as a commie stooge.
He probably would get called on the carpet for it by some today, but he at least had a history of staunch anti communism to show he wasn't just getting rolled by them.
Obama? Not so much. Guy hasn't met an anti American country he can't suck up to.
Isn't this pretty much defending bias -- that it doesn't matter the man's actions, only your preconceived notions of who he is?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:04 pm to south bama tiger
As you point out, the point of opening up China was to split the perceived Soviet/Chinese alliance in the real-politik world of Kissenger. Whether this was smart or moral is debatable.
I don't see any grand geopolitical strategy with Cuba, Obama administration just doing liberal-socialist shite just to do it.
I don't see any grand geopolitical strategy with Cuba, Obama administration just doing liberal-socialist shite just to do it.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:13 pm to OleWar
quote:
I don't see any grand geopolitical strategy with Cuba, Obama administration just doing liberal-socialist shite just to do it.
There's nothing grand about it, but I think it's not coincidental that this move occurred just as things went to hell with the Russian economy. Cuba's not going to suddenly re-align with the U.S., but some free market capitalism crossing over from Florida may do more long-term to destabilize the Castro regime than an embargo apparently could.
Curious to see what happens to Cuba once the Castro brothers are gone.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 10:14 pm to efrad
I see it as a reason to put trust in people doing something I disagree with in Nixon's case. The man made a career out of fighting communism and then negotiated normalized relations with China to triangulate against Russia.
There are only three entities I have seen Obama take a hard line on negotiations with... The UK, Israel, and Republicans. Not Cuba, NK, the Taliban, Iran, etc, just our own countrymen and major allies.
Doesn't give me much reason to trust that he did something right in this case. And from what I have seen of the negotiated terms so far, I'm not sure that Obama did anything but sign the Castro brothers' demand list.
There are only three entities I have seen Obama take a hard line on negotiations with... The UK, Israel, and Republicans. Not Cuba, NK, the Taliban, Iran, etc, just our own countrymen and major allies.
Doesn't give me much reason to trust that he did something right in this case. And from what I have seen of the negotiated terms so far, I'm not sure that Obama did anything but sign the Castro brothers' demand list.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 6:38 am to trackfan
What about when Reagan went to Moscow in 1988?
We were the two military superpowers with enough nuclear warheads to blow up the entire world, over and over and over.
It would have been irresponsible for any US President not to maintain communications and relations with the USSR.
We got concessions from Moscow.
I'm still trying to figure out what Cuba has conceded to us?
We were the two military superpowers with enough nuclear warheads to blow up the entire world, over and over and over.
It would have been irresponsible for any US President not to maintain communications and relations with the USSR.
We got concessions from Moscow.
I'm still trying to figure out what Cuba has conceded to us?
Posted on 12/22/14 at 6:58 am to south bama tiger
No, for the sake of corporate America we needed all that cheap labor to enhance profits, took awhile but we finally outsourced our industrial/manufacturing base to the commies. China is now the largest economy in the world and I expect they'll be calling the shots in the near future 
Posted on 12/22/14 at 7:27 am to south bama tiger
Why should we not negotiate with Cuba now?
Posted on 12/22/14 at 7:43 am to JoeMoTiger
It took the real Manchurian Candidate Bush senior, and the Arkansas Walmart Clinton cartel to do that though.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 9:12 am to south bama tiger
I totally agree. Nixon going to China was the single best thing he did during his time in the White House. Obama should personally go visit Cuba since that would send a strong message like Nixon did. Not so sure about Iran, since I don't know what exactly we'd get out of that one.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 11:28 am to teke184
quote:
Obama? Not so much. Guy hasn't met an anti American country he can't suck up to.
Jimmy Carter has a similar affliction.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 11:41 am to a want
quote:
Why should we not negotiate with Cuba now?
Outside of mexico and canada, its one of the closest countries geographically speaking to us. We should endeveaor to have passable relations with our neighbors.
50 years of embargo has done nothing, might be time to try something new. Yes, its not perfect but a little capitalism has a unique way of destroying communism (see china).
Posted on 12/22/14 at 12:50 pm to south bama tiger
Nothing about the 1972 Nixon trip smacked of surrender. We sought an opportunity to reopen China under favorable terms. We secured an agreement on the Taiwan question (and at least kicked the can down the road a ways.)
We got nothing out of this status change with Cuba. It is a de facto surrender in the U.S.-Cuban Cold War, 1959-2014. And make no mistake about it, Cuba is an enemy of the United States - one with few equals on this planet - maybe Iran, North Korea and AQ - politically, ideologically - their interests are opposite ours on virtually every issue. They're the single biggest threat to stability and liberty in the Western Hemisphere - period - and we just surrendered to them without even terms.
Surrender does not pacify an aggressor, it emboldens him.
We got nothing out of this status change with Cuba. It is a de facto surrender in the U.S.-Cuban Cold War, 1959-2014. And make no mistake about it, Cuba is an enemy of the United States - one with few equals on this planet - maybe Iran, North Korea and AQ - politically, ideologically - their interests are opposite ours on virtually every issue. They're the single biggest threat to stability and liberty in the Western Hemisphere - period - and we just surrendered to them without even terms.
Surrender does not pacify an aggressor, it emboldens him.
This post was edited on 12/22/14 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 12/22/14 at 12:53 pm to teke184
quote:
Obama? Not so much. Guy hasn't met an anti American country he can't suck up to.
like I said, this isn't about helping out Cuba, Zero is looking for pointers from the experts on how it's done.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:17 pm to a want
Did we negotiate anything or just give them what they wanted?
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:27 pm to Radiojones
I've noticed that a lot of critics of this Cuba deal seem to believe that everything must be a zero-sum game. There's no such thing as a win-win for these folks, so in order for us to win, someone else has to lose. Therefore the only way for the U.S. to benefit is for the Cuba to suffer, and any outcome that doesn't end with the overthrow of the Cuban government and Castro swinging from the end of a rope, a la Saddam Hussein, is considered a defeat for these folks.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News