- 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: Re: Cuba - Was Nixon wrong to visit China in '72?
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:28 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:28 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:I understand this take, but I disagree. I'm a staunch realist, and I believe Obama's move is asserting economic strength to overpower Cuba. It's the best, and likely only geopolitical maneuver that will allow America's superior might to overcome this particular enemy (if we can even call Cuba that). We can't simply invade or bomb them given the international backlash that would follow. Even if we did, there is no guaranty of success. Fighting a clandestine military engagement certainly never worked in the past in Cuba.
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
As such, trade them to death. This is pure "Art of War" strategy here, and it's baffling that it wasn't attempted earlier. Cuba is at its weakest economically given falling oil prices and the prices influence on the Venezuelan economy, which has been subsidizing Cuba for years. In essence, this is Cuba's acute weakness, and even the most fledging geopolitical scholar realizes the intelligence of attacking an enemy at its weakest point.
This is the smart, simple and most effective approach to "beating" Cuba and furthering U.S. interests. There is little downside besides the intractable old Cuban men in Miami who are bitter they have to give up "the struggle". Rubio is their megaphone and his opinion should be disregarded given how transparent and threadbare his motivations are.
1
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:30 pm to OleWar
quote:
split the perceived Soviet/Chinese alliance
lulz
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:31 pm to trackfan
quote:
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.
Exactly - because surrendering to them is the only alternative to this - there was no possible "in-between".
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:33 pm to MetArl15
quote:
In essence, this is Cuba's acute weakness, and even the most fledging geopolitical scholar realizes the intelligence of attacking an enemy at its weakest point.
So, why surrender at this precise point, again? Why not wring some concessions on human rights, economic reforms - SOMETHING?
quote:
There is little downside
Except now we've demonstrated to the world (AGAIN) that our word means nothing and all you have to do is outlast us in any confrontation, military or otherwise.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:36 pm to south bama tiger
TOTALLY different. China 72 was the right move because IT SERVED AMERICAN INTERESTS. Nixon didn't do it to be in a "We are the world" video, he did it for Realpolitik. It furthered American Interests. It was bold and it was brilliant.
Lumping Cuba in the same sentence with Iran is sophistry. But when we can normalize relations with either/both AND YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WILL BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST, then you will have Republican support.
I think Obama needs to make his case artfully with Cuba and when he does that, and shows us WHY THAT IS A GOOD THING FOR AMERICA, he will have won the argument. Iran is another story altogether.
Lumping Cuba in the same sentence with Iran is sophistry. But when we can normalize relations with either/both AND YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WILL BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST, then you will have Republican support.
I think Obama needs to make his case artfully with Cuba and when he does that, and shows us WHY THAT IS A GOOD THING FOR AMERICA, he will have won the argument. Iran is another story altogether.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:38 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:We're not surrendering anything.
So, why surrender at this precise point, again?
quote:No, I think we're demonstrating to the world that we can actually maneuver geopolitically and wield our considerable power without starting another military quagmire.
Except now we've demonstrated to the world (AGAIN) that our word means nothing and all you have to do is outlast us in any confrontation, military or otherwise.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:38 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
single biggest threat to stability and liberty in the western hemisphere
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:50 pm to MetArl15
quote:
We're not surrendering anything.
I don't know what else to call it. There was a cold war between Cuba and the United States. We just ended it without getting anything in return - a war we were winning, by the way.
If you don't like "surrender" - Capitulation? Retreat? Withdrawal?
It certainly wasn't a "win" - and it certainly wasn't a "draw" - there is no question that Cuba "won" something in the deal. I wouldn't have a problem with that if I felt like we got some progress for our efforts.
Therefore if they won something and we didn't win anything, pretty sure we lost. And since we did it completely voluntarily, arbitrarily and unilaterally, sure reads like a surrender.
And the same week we lost the first all out "cyber war" in history.
Just a band trend.
This post was edited on 12/22/14 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:56 pm to trackfan
quote:
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.
Did Cuba promise free and open elections? Did it promise a free press? Did it promise to stop imprisoning political opponents and homosexuals? Did the Castros promise to stop taking a cut off the remittances of USDs being sent over? Are the Cuban people free to come and go as they please? Did the Cubans agree to stop seeking to undermine the US at every turn, giving aid and comfort to America's enemies? Did it agree to extradite the Americans convicted of murder and other crimes?
So if you consider the above things as Cuba losing, then yes, I want them to lose.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:56 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I don't know what else to call it. There was a cold war between Cuba and the United States. We just ended it without getting anything in return - a war we were winning, by the way.
IMO, either Bush 41 or Clinton should have done this 20-25 years ago, and if all we get out of it a peaceful neighbor and trading partner, I'm okay with that. Why must everything be a zero-sum game with you folks? Why must everything be framed as win-lose?
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:59 pm to redandright
quote:
Did Cuba promise free and open elections? Did it promise a free press? Did it promise to stop imprisoning political opponents and homosexuals?
No, no and no, and neither have Saudi Arabia, China, Egypt and many other couuntries that we have normal relations with.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:59 pm to redandright
double post
This post was edited on 12/22/14 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 12/22/14 at 2:00 pm to Ace Midnight
We're winning hearts and minds throughout Latin America. Without losing 1 American soldier. If only we could have done that everywhere else for the past 25 years.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 2:01 pm to trackfan
quote:
Why must everything be framed as win-lose?
Because they're enemies. If they were friends, yeah - you cut a friend some slack - particularly if you don't value the outcome as much as the relationship. However, here, we (presumably) want a postive outcome for us. And that can't be another Caribbean vacation destination for fat Americans and Cuban cigars.
This is a Stalinist - old school - dictatorship - literally closer to Miami, Florida, than Shreveport is to Lafayette.
They were at their weakest when we did this. That's when you WIN - not LOSE. It didn't have to be "zero sum" for me, but this was one-sided, completely.
We lost, they won. There is no other way to spin it. Argue all you want about timing, etc., but this is another foreign policy defeat for the U.S. under Obama's watch - and much like Clinton and W's failures, these will be with us for decades.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 2:03 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Preposterous
I agree. Surrender of such magnitude by the U.S. to Cuba can hardly be described better.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 2:08 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Because they're enemies. If they were friends, yeah - you cut a friend some slack - particularly if you don't value the outcome as much as the relationship.
Evidently you believe in the concept of permanent friends and permanent enemies. I reject that concept and so did George Washington.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 2:09 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
This is a Stalinist - old school - dictatorship - literally closer to Miami, Florida, than Shreveport is to Lafayette.
and this is why we needed a change of policy.
They are a very closer neighbor to us! We have had 50 years of embargo and while isolated from the US, they continue to limp along. That isn't going to change.
normalizing relations and giving the people a true taste of capitalism is the best way to provide leadership change their. The castros are on their last legs, this is playing the long game.
In 5 years cuba will be a capitalist economy, maybe trending towards democracy.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 2:14 pm to Ace Midnight
Gen. Jack Ripper, ladies and gentlemen.. The Cubans are gonna poison our bodily fluids! This super power will crush the US because we might send some tourists down there, and might buy some of their sugar! Crank up the sirens, to the shelters everyone!
Posted on 12/22/14 at 2:15 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
There was a cold war between Cuba and the United States. We just ended it without getting anything in return - a war we were winning, by the way. If you don't like "surrender" - Capitulation? Retreat? Withdrawal?
What are you, 12?
We were not at war with Cuba, we only caved in to wealthy Cubans exiled to this country who wanted their capital back from Castro. They never got it - they probably never will. IDGAF. That's the only reason for the embargo though. And now Miami area Cubans are just over 50% approving lifting the embargo for the first time since it started. Young Cubans don't GAF about property left behind in the Old Country, and old Cubans are dying off.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News