Whenever someone makes the comments like you’ve made referencing people who bitch about Jews’ and Israel’s influence on “bending” our foreign policy, I just roll my eyes. I have seen this tactic in other boards and it does nothing but sidetrack the issues at hand and dares anyone from saying anything critical about Israel for fear of being dismissed as being anti-semitic, even if they are Jewish. But, how would you know who is and isn’t in a forum like this with any great deal of certainty?

The reality is that in some areas i.e.Middle East, Israel DOES exercize a great deal of INFLUENCE over US policy. AIPAC is CLEARLY a very powerful and influential lobbying group with strong ties to Israel.

It is important to not make the mistake of equating Israeli interests with the interests of the people of the state of Israel. Much like the stated US interests by our current and past administration is always shared by the average citizen of the US.

Now, getting back to Cuba, it does seem to serve the political goals of right wingers, republicans and conservative democrats, particularly in Florida, to maintain a “mini cold war” inre Cuba.

It has been a very self serving effort that is marked by the support of not ONLY Cubans, but many retirees who still remember the Cuban missile crisis and southern whites.
There are many former military and intelligence retirees who ALSO lend their support for anti-Castro policies as laid out by the past & current administration.

An entire right wing infrastructure has been erected in Florida to assist the goals of republicans and southern conservative democrats.

The changing demographics of Florida keeps things interesting and there have been good results for some
“liberal” political leadership.

The chauvinism of US policiy is more than obvious as it is always stated in terms of how the US can influence Cuba to do what is right,...not so much for Cuba but for those with future plans to exploit a post Castro Cuba.

^ reached your goal with Marshall.  I remember from another post with Dr., Dr., you were remorseful regarding your previous posts.  High fives, you’ve done it.

For some strange reason I am glad to see you are still around, even though we seem to disagree with how the grand plan should play.  The concept of imperialism is unacceptable to me, because we become the bullies.  You may not see it that way. 

Iraq was bogus from the start, as a Vietnam vet (we should not have been their either) I could see the same hand writing on the wall before the start of the “shock and awe show” .

Ike called attention to the military complex needing to be kept in check, Gravel is the only person running for president and maybe Ron Paul who seem to understand this. Of course to no avail, because it has become commonplace and way to powerful.

Seems folks love to wave a flag and go to war while sitting in the comfort of their homes it becomes a game, just like watching football wearing their flag pins.

Gene,
It took 20 years for any mainstream op-ed columnist to figure this out???  At least ONE of you did.

When the Soviet Union collapsed the best strategy would have been to abandon the idiotic, unsuccessful embargo and trade EVERYTHING with Cuba.  The way to weaken Castro was ALWAYS clear—let the Cuban people be “poisoned” with American consumerism.

So why the insanity?  Simple! You can’t win in Florida without South Florida.  And you can’t win in South Florida against virulent opposition by the Cuban ex-pats and the Cuban-Americans there.  They, as a community have been irrational and insane in their hatred of all things Castro—kinda like Chiang Kai-Chek in the 50’s and 60’s pretending Formosa was China and Mao didn’t exist.

Ask Janet Reno what happens in Florida when you piss off the Cubans, as she did when that father from Cuba wanted his 6 year old son back—in Cuba—and the old guard fought it bitterly claiming this 6 year old (or was he 4?) was struggling for his freedom—as if we were to believe he had ANY idea of what it was.

People on Truthdig bitch about Jews’ and Israel’s influence bending our foreign policy, but it is NOTHING compared to how a very small group of Cuban ex-pats have managed to keep us from a sane policy with a neighbor that is 90 miles away, and, by far, the largest island in the Caribbean.  If you laid Cuba on the US it would EASILY reach from New York to Chicago—yeah, it’s that big!

This actually isn’t the case at all Marshall. Your responses are not at all informed, because they are based on myth and lacking factual reference. Even your assessment of Libya is not fully informed.

But, here’s where you do miss the boat entirely, and of course this isn’t a matter of just one particular technicality for which you may not be aware, but in all honesty and sincerity, simply the mindset to which you strongly adhere, which is the mindset of the neocons, having developed along with the ideology of the US as an Empire, who should in fact control the world.

You’ve made this clear in other posts, as you do again here, in response to iQ

““Use violence to get your way” is what you mean.
•  When necessary - absolutely.  Our military should be used to defend our nation and national interests.  At times, this will require preemption.  That’s an unavoidable fact, and we must be prepared to follow through.

You approve of ‘pre-emption’ when in fact ‘pre-emption’ is clearly the Bush Doctrine, which makes it a major departure from the laws of the land that were adopted in the wake of WWII, to prevent such widespread destruction from ever occurring again.
I have suggested before, an excellent book that is easy for the lay person to read and understand. The book is “War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict”, by Michael Byers.

The bottom line here Marshall, is that most of us know perfectly well, that there was no need to ‘take out’ Saddam Hussein, because there are in fact methods and procedures that allow for the international community to deal with international bullies. The US decision to undertake the ‘taking out’ of Saddam Hussein when he became a threat to the interests of the US Oligarchy, (he was about to start selling that oil to whomever he wanted to, and he was gonna do business in the Euro, NOT the dollar)  IOW, NOT a threat to anyone OTHER than the US oligarchy. Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat to “our” national interests, because ‘our’ national interests are not on Iraq’s sovereign soil.

You continue to advance that our military should defend our nation and our national interest, but you refuse to accept that it is beyond all logic and reason, that we would need to have our military DEFENDING our nation, 12,000 plus miles away from where our nation is situated. That is the same issue with our ‘national interests’. How did our ‘national interest’ find their way to Iraq’s soil?

So, let’s cut to the chase on this Marshall, since we know that you’re an Imperialist and believe in aggressive wars for the purposes of obtaining control over global resources, regardless of what is involved in that effort. So, let’s just recognize that for what it is, and stop trying to claim that violations of int’l law that result in the deaths of millions, and the destruction of entire societies can be made legal by your pompous hypocrisies.
Yes, we do need a military to DEFEND our nation. When we take that military and put it on a minimum of 60 other nations of the globe, and maintain over 800 military bases world wide, that is not ‘defending our nation. It is IMPERIALISM. It is forcing global hegemony at the point of a gun, and you can’t call it anything other than what it is.

Read up on pre-emption Marshall, because it is unlawful without a resolution from the UN Security Council, and as we know, it was all LIES that claimed the need for it in Iraq, which is why the UN Council failed to grant the resolution.

We aren’t so naïve as to be unaware that terrorism is a global issue. The concern however, is that the terror perpetrated by the US since the 9/11 treason and the so-called ‘war on terror’, has actually left us far MORE vulnerable to global terror than we were before.

By i,Q, May 27 at 6:58 am #
How’s that workin’ out for ya?

“Khaddafi capitulated to diplomatic measures.”

Which measures were those?  Qaddafi capitulated to the threat of U.S. military action, with Iraq as his example next door, in Dec. of 2003 after the U.S. intercepted a Kahn-designed nuclear enrichment facility, the month before, being shipped through the Suez canal to Libya.  This was not a negotiation, since the only thing Qaddafi got was freedom from worry about being attacked by the U.S..

“The Taliban still harbors terrorists in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan too.”

And would be the official government of Afghanistan, harboring far more had we not removed them from power.  Your point speaks only to the difficulty in removing the last vestiges of a failed state, not to my greater point about our willingness to confront them which was obviously the right choice.

“The dumbass neocons made Saddam, and now that he’s dead we’re stuck paying the rent.”

I can see that your historical understanding is limited and your desire to blame the U.S. instead of Saddam is great.  Of course, Saddam made himself.  He was treated as an ally through both Democratic and Republican administrations from his rise to power in the 1960’s until his invasion of Kuwait in 1990.  He chose to use chemical weapons on his people and neighbors, attempted genocide on his Shiite population, and attacked neighboring states.  Those were his choices.  We finally chose to end his regime as a result.

“You glorify the willingness to take Saddam out, but concede that removing Saddam from power was a strategic mistake.”

No - I applaud our willingness to remove him, but point out that there’s a downside as well, which we’ll have to deal with.  You’re trying to parse my point into a contradiction, and it isn’t.

“Use violence to get your way” is what you mean.

When necessary - absolutely.  Our military should be used to defend our nation and national interests.  At times, this will require preemption.  That’s an unavoidable fact, and we must be prepared to follow through.

“progressives are pussies and are wrong no matter what, and no matter the consequences, conservatives are strong and have a monopoly on moral certitude.”

You’ve chosen to put a pretty broad generalization in my mouth, so I’ll focus it: the progressive left is divided about how to handle the world’s bullies (that is, when it’s not calling the U.S. the world’s bully).  It is divided between a decidedly pacifistic idealism, and the reality that there are groups that cannot be negotiated with and are dedicated to our destruction, even at the cost of their own.  This doesn’t make the progressive left “pussies”, it makes it naive.

“You and StepenL should concentrate on forming consistent, logical arguments instead of gleefully taking uninformed pot-shots at a nebulous political construct.”

I think my responses have been sufficiently reasoned and informed, thank you.

You said it here Gmonst:

”...One key would be for the United States to start dealing with other nations like equal peers rather than subordinates….”

This is the key. (or at least one of them) Equals being treated equally. That’s what all of the International Stucture is supposed to be about. That’s why the laws and the treaties and the conventions.

But, when the geopolitics of power say that might makes right, and we hold all of the fire power, and ignore the structure…this is what we get.

Still, that’s what the Totalitarian thing is all about. It’s always a GLOBAL goal. When it was Hitler and his Nazism, it was intended to be a GLOBAL movement. He was gonna make the whole world a ‘perfect race’, by exterminating anyone who wasn’t.

There is one unique thing about Totalitarian movements/regimes though..they never groom ‘successors’. It could be our only hope.

I am a staunch Obama supporter in this election, but I think you got this one right Curandeiro.  Obama is wrong on this issue, plain and simple.  I personally think that embargoes are not in general good policy.  All I have ever seen from them is an increase in the suffering of the citizens who have no say in the policies which are being “punished”.  It seems to increase isolation and insecurity in the embargoed nation, and allows dictators to tighten control over the population.  It seems that we often have strange notions of helping people under authoritarian rule, dropping bombs, and cutting off supplies.  Its always seemed counter-productive to me.  I often wonder what would happen if we dropped shipments of food into those countries we don’t like instead of bombs and threats.  It seems like we could have a much more mature and thoughtful approach to foreign affairs on all levels.  One key would be for the United States to start dealing with other nations like equal peers rather than subordinates.  The last 8 years have proved that our shit stinks plenty enough, so we should at least drop the charade of being some kind of God ordained king of the globe.

Delighted as usual Tao!! We were just talking about you the other day. We’d missed you, and sort of ‘wished you up’ I guess, and there we have it. Ask and we shall receive - this wisdom from you.

I agree. The Cubans haven’t nearly so far to fall, or to ‘adjust’ to. They are far closer to free wild natural Human Beings than theamericanpeople I’m sad to say. Way farther along the learning curve as well.

In other words, (and in looking at the whole) I’d say things were far more ‘balanced’ among them than they are here. I suspect that there aren’t any homeless Cubans, though their homes may be small. I suspect that there aren’t any starving Cubans, though they may not have as much to eat as they want, or even - in some cases, need. They ALL have access to health care if they want it, and they all have access to all levels of education, if they want it.

I’ve read recently that there is a problem with many farms lying fallow though, and I didn’t get the full details to understand why. So, that’s worth checking on, since they obviously need to provide for themselves, to the extent that they can, and for so long, have.

So, what makes life so allegedly ‘difficult’? Humm..toys are expensive. No huge mansions for the average Cuban. Not much ‘consumerism’ and alas..no Wal-Mart.

But they live long lives in Cuba, and generally escape major natural disasters. How is that? Ah, maybe because they pay attention to the sounds and the signs. The hurricanes announce their arrivals in time to get everyone to safety. (higher ground). (It’s a very organized operation). The hurricane passes, and everyone is moved back to their spaces, and life continues, on Turtle Island.

I agree with you.  But if you read the posters below you would think I’m a “neocon devil”.  LAUGH.

It’s time to understand why Russia like capitalism.  Why China is moving toward capitalism.  Why India is moving to capitalism.  This is the way to take a nation and turn it around, this is the UP SIDE of globalism.  No body really wants to live in a hell hole of a nation surrounded by nations swimming in wealth…sooner or later they will move toward the market place if we let them.  And once they are more concerned about what they can sell us than how they can destroy us…..then we all win.

Too often, US foreign policy as espoused by the party in power (democrat or republican) does no represent the will of the American people.

But on these blogs we get only hard core left vs right nonsense…or right vs left nonsense.  Obama says the embargo must come down….hooray!  Wait, Obama now says it stays up for awhile because it’s “wise”  Oh Boy, what genius!  And when he says, after his first term, it must stay up….such wisdom!

He’s already backing down on Cuba and he isn’t even in office yet.  I noticed he’s wearing his flag pin again and covering his heart too….I guess taking pot shots at bitter Christan patriotism may not be electable and it’s time to pander patriotism as well as Cuba Embargo?

I don’t need the benefit of a doubt from a smear monger.  You are such an obama groupie you can’t deal with reality.  If I give you an Obama lie, would you admit he lied…or recontextualize it because it’s “your duty” to “defend” Obama from himself?

I’ve been waiting for Decades through Republican and Democratic administrations for the US to have a more responsible Cuba policy.  Obama was promising loud and clear to deliver it, now that he’s in Florida he’s suddenly choking up and kissing up to the hard right view on Cuba.  So Obama needs Florida no matter how hard he worked to keep their votes from counting in the primary….and that means he has to pander to the anti-Cuba\Castro cubans.  Well, Obama has learned to pander.

Communists, Socialist, Progressive radicalized smear mongering liberals….I know who they are.  They are offensive people who inhabit blogs and mindlessly attack their “enemies” because any logic that may not work for your candidate makes that person an enemy.

You are stuck, hopelessly in the mindless left vs right paradigm.  Grow up, learn to think, no one is standing up for you, why are you covering up for a failed congress, a failed party, and a candidate who has embraced that failure and is part and parcel of it?

Obama has promoted a campaign that claims to depart from “politics as usual”. The remarks he made in front of the very right wing CANF group in Florida was more of an affirmation of business as usual. He has stated he will NOT end the embargo when he becomes president but will continue to “use it” as a “bargaining chip”.  Who the hell is advising him and WHY? 

There needs to be a message sent to Obama that a continuation of the totally disasterous embargo against the Cuban people is ill advised. It also perpetuates the beliefs of many that there is another level of government that seems totally removed from the wishes of the people and the best interests of the nation.

It is good that he is willing to engage in direct contact with Raul or even Fidel Castro. But simply stating the obvious won’t be enough.

The US history of intervention in the internal affairs of Latin American and Caribbean nations in our hemisphere is replete with horror stories usually left off the pages of American media.

The Iran/Contra fiasco opened up a can of worms.  Many of those gusanos have come back to infest the Bush administration in a robust way.

Obama needs to get a clue on this issue and think outside of the box. Otherwise, he will be no different than Hillary Clinto or George Bush or Ronald Reagan inre their policies in the the Western Hemisphere.

Expecting anything BUT “insane policy” from an ersatz “nation” that is itself stark raving mad in its very blood-drenched and money-loving foundations calls into question the mental health of anybody who suggests the Cuban manifestation of it is in any way remarkable.  By way of further illustration, this old Savage offers the schizophrenic and confused character of so many of the comments below.

This Old Man visited the forbidden Island of Dr. Castreaux briefly earlier this year.  The Cuban people surely have difficulties aplenty to cope with, but their chances of making it through the coming socio-economic cataclysm are better than americans’....if only because they haven’t nearly so far to fall.

Americans are so screwed-up by their own devices it’s no wonder their purchased politicians and industrial-waste-product purveyors are doing so splendidly for their respective “bottom-lines” just jerking theamericanpeople’s chains “Every Which Way But Loose!”  The “ground” upon which americans are trying and failing to stand is itself a mere mirage….a figment of their fevered collective imagination.  There really is no such place as “America,” so anybody who tries to engage the world from there is already floundering around in deadly delusion.

This is Turtle Island.  It is all Indian Country.  Step outside the allamericandreamland house-of-mirrors, for a REAL change, and us free wild natural Human Beings will gladly show you what you’ve been missing.

HokaHey!

This is very close to what should be our Cuba policy. For openers, all restrictions on trade, travel, and monetary transfers should be abolished. Secondly, no talks between the U.S, and Cuba should be demanded or proposed from our side; let’s just sit back and observe further developments in Cuba. Lastly: if the Cubans ask for talks let us tell them: “fine with us,let’s talk about issues of mutual interest such as eradicating poverty, hunger, and disease in the world, and on global warming. That’s all folks!!!

I remember when the CIA tried to do Castro in with exploding cigars.  Such finesse!!!

Always disputed but never disproven, Chile’s
Allende did himself in/was done in by CIA-trained Chilians in the early ‘70’s.  Pinochet took power, the Boys from Chicago (UofC) arrived whereby laissez-faire, free-market, neoliberal, fiscally conservative policies were put in place. 

Naturally, Chile went from democracy/socialism to oligarchy and Washington and corporate America were happy as clams.  Of course the vast majority of poor and very poor Chilians were now appropriately suffering. 

Chances are quite good that had Castro been assasinated and subsequently replaced by an American toady Cuba would now be a nice, little obedient oligarchy. The fate of the vast majority of the Cuban people?  Who cares.

Amen to this Eric Barth!!

And ESPECIALLY THIS…

”...what the U.S. Government doesn’t like is the example set by Cuba or Venezuela which challenges the neoliberal economics of Milton Friedman and the “Washington Consensus…”

This is exactly what it boils down to, and it’s the SAME reason the CIA has overthrown Iran’s democratically elected government way back in 1954, (when they ousted Mossadeq (when he decided to nationalize Iran’s oil industry) and replaced him with their own) and Chile, (allowing for the terror reign of Pinochet) and Guatamala, and I could go on and on.

Even as we speak/write, this current batch of Thugs is still harassing Hugo Chevez, (he calls it legal terrorism…which it is) and of course they’re backing the dictatorial regime of Uribe in Columbia.

So, anytime any nation or leader of any nation rejects these neo-liberal economics and/or the Washington Consensus, they are ‘made an example of’.

Obama probably hasn’t had time to read Naomi Klein’s excellent work, so maybe he needs to find a reader to do it for him, and then brief him on the important stuff.

Reading your post, I have to bust my own self imposed exile from writing to say this: “Obama intends to keep the embargos (sic) in place initially, to use as a diplomatic negotiating tool with Cuba”. To think that you questioned my veracity when I brought this up a few days ago.
You are so far in the tank for Obama, your alibis are starting to sound as silly as those put forward by Hillary Clinton supporters. As far as “Obama’s ready willingness to DO this diplomacy”, when it comes to Cuba, Major League Baseball could do more, by simply creating a franchise team in Havana. But that would be business diplomacy, not quite as colorful as pandering to the Cuba Libre gang.

Castro is Convertible, all american household knows that, except white house occupants.

We use dictators until they become naughty, then we take them out with shock and awe. So people of these backward countries die but we are providing our defined hanging chad Democracy, shoved down their throats.

How about taking care of business here?  It seems we have a few problems of our own.

Khaddafi capitulated to diplomatic measures.

The Taliban still harbors terrorists in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan too.

The dumbass neocons made Saddam, and now that he’s dead we’re stuck paying the rent.

You glorify the willingness to take Saddam out, but concede that removing Saddam from power was a strategic mistake. So which is it? Apparently whatever ism you subscribe to doesn’t help you to know when to negotiate and when to “confront.” What a bullsh!t euphemism. “Use violence to get your way” is what you mean.

Look, you don’t have to dress your ignorance up with a bunch of contradictory pseudo-intellectual rationalizations. Just say what is so transparently on your mind: progressives are pussies and are wrong no matter what, and no matter the consequences, conservatives are strong and have a monopoly on moral certitude. Just look where that false bravado gotten us.

i’m tired as hell at having my nation’s integrity co-opted by shortsighted chicken-hawks and their shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality. It’s that attitude which has exacerbated the situation with Iran while simultaneously straining our military to a point where it could do precious little should we find ourselves in a position where we actually have to defend ourselves or our allies on yet another war front. The threat of force only works if there is force to be threatening.

You and StepenL should concentrate on forming consistent, logical arguments instead of gleefully taking uninformed pot-shots at a nebulous political construct.

i might be on that raft! All this language on the premis that Cuba is not a “free market” democracy so it is not worthy of acceptance is bullshit. Obama, Clinton Mccain, are cowards. Imagine the U.S. prioritizing social spending with defense spending taking the back seat as in Cuba’s case whom have a miniscule budget and arguable should spend more on defense considering US agression, better yet Cuba should just trade spending on health and education on getting everyone the god given right of having a FKN CELL PHONE! Give me a fkn break,

Because we say they were naughty. We have gone around the world ridding it of scourge and vermin in the name of Capitalism and Democracy.  Neither of which, we practice according to the pure real things, which are supposed to be Capitalism and Democracy.

Now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, China is no longer a pure communist state, and there are no nuclear arms on the island, Cuba is no threat to our country. Maintenance of the embargo of Cuba as a chip for future negotiations with the regime (who guarantees that Raoul will ‘talk’ while the embargo is in place?)is therefore not only Byzantine; it probably retards rather than accelerates the development towards greater political and personal freedom in Cuba. Today the embargo of Cuba is akin to parents telling their child: “you will get a lollipop if you finish your homework.” Yes folks, it is that ridiculous. It is disturbing to me that all three of the presidential wannabes seem to support this infantile policy. If a wise wannabe needs to hedge he/she can always fall back on: “I will review this policy with my advisers once I am elected President.”

So, let me get this straight, you’re disappointed with Obama because he changed his mind about lifting the embargo with our enemy, Cuba, whose leader is a bad man… and this is evidence of the liberal progressive left appeasing our enemies?

Riiiiight…

You clearly don’t know the difference between communists, socialists, liberals, progressives, fantasy or reality.

You should ask more questions, then you won’t sound so much like an idiot.

Actually Marshall, we don’t turn these blind eyes at all. And, contrary to what StephenL has claimed, there is no comparison to the abuses that have been perpetrated by our ALLIES in the Middle East, and for decades. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Jordan, all of them. Yes, Iraq under Saddam. He didn’t just start butchering, and when he was useful to the Regan regime, and the Bush I regime, everything was honkey dorey, and the US turned a blind eye, even after supplying him with some of the chemical weapons that he used on the Kurds.

Bush I told the Shia to rise up agaist him,(Saddam) and then we stood by (our troops were there)while Saddam crushed them. So, let’s just be real about all of this. Saudi Arabia is probably the MOST repressive IN the Middle East, and the Bushes formed a CO-DYNASTY with that regime long ago, and SA owns as much of your America as does China at this point. Yes, the same China that is famous for it’s human rights abuses.

So, let’s not even go there, unless you want to acknowledge the reality.

As for Castro and his abuses, he’s done them, and they are not in question. To suggest that he’s done anything that would beat what the Dick Bush Fascists and Torturers has done is stupid.

As for Chavez, he’s not even in the same league. The US has already tried to assassinate him twice, and they’ve thrown him in jail, and tried to work coups. Regardless, he has still managed to be democratically elected by the majority of his constituency, and the same Venezuelans recently rejected one of his attempted legislations because they didn’t want it.

When’s the last time we’ve been able to interject any response to the totalitarian take over of our own government, by the UNITARY EXECUTIVES, who just change our laws and trash our consitution to boost their fascist powers, not unlike the Nazi and Communist regimes of the WWII era?

So no, we damn sure aren’t turning a blind eye to the REAL abuses of the REAL dictatorial and dangerous regimes. We’ve seen very clearly how the DC Thugs do it though, whenever it’s convenient, or serves their corporate agenda.

It is ironic that the so-called Neocon doctrine of confronting the world’s imperialist regimes and human rights abusers is in fact more progressive than the left’s status quo.  The Taliban, Saddam, and Khaddafi were brought into compliance, or brought down completely - not by coddling and pampering, but by the willingness to confront.  Of course this approach has its costs as well as we’ve seen, particularly in Iraq, and success in reforming Iraq is still a monumental question mark.  But the basic approach - of negotiating when appropriate, and confronting when necessary is still intact.  I hope and pray that we’re successful with North Korea and more importantly with Iran, which seems intent on exerting its own nuclear backed, religiously fueled, genocidal hegemony on the region and on Israel - magnified, no doubt, by the removal of Iraq as a counter force.  Yes, war-mongering, genocidal dictators like Saddam have their uses as well.

Why the progressive left tends to accept, or at least turn a blind eye to the abuses of dictatorial and dangerous regimes is a complex question that baffles me as well.

Obama of course was going to take the embargo down but suddenly, realizing it might cost him Florida…suddenly supports the embargo for now.  So much for Change.

I had hoped that when Bill Clinton took office he and the democratic controlled congress would start doing some trade with Cuba and lure them to capitalism.  No luck, they chose to pander to cuban voters.

When Bush took Office I hoped for a change in policy but Bush quickly made it clear he would also pander for votes.

And now we have Obama who was talking tough about dropping the embargo but who suddenly discovered we need to keep it in place “for awhile”.  Funny while talking about freeing cuba he wants to hold back on our allies in South America.  Somehow this seems to be the liberal agenda.  Supporting our enemies more than our allies shows them (according to the liberal mind) how friendly and “enlightened” we are.  Something our enemies tend to view as (rightly) exploitable weakness.

I believe in the power of globalism to transform society.  Unfortunately many other interests come into play. Castro perpetrated horrible tortures on his people, including women. Stuff that makes water boarding look like a Saturday night bath.

I fail to understand why the progressive left in this nation supported Mao who killed up to 75 million of his own people.  Or why they support Chavez and Castro whose brutality is not questioned.  You would think that people who claim to oppose oppression and torture would oppose the most vial butchers and murderers on the planet instead of seeking to appease them.

Eugene sums it up with this:

•  “Stubbornly sticking with a policy that has achieved nothing in nearly 50 years is a pretty good definition of insanity.”

He’s right of course.

However, there’s a potential danger in these words, or maybe I should suggest in the mindset that they represent…one that we as Americans take for granted, which in fact quite frequently causes our troubles…

•  “.The United States can attempt to influence any changes that eventually take place in Cuba, or it can harrumph from the sidelines.”

On the face of it, these comments certainly seem benign enough, and we have all somehow come to ‘expect’ that the US/Washington should always want to ‘influence any changes that take place’ in Cuba or any other country. BUT, therein lies the problem…our HISTORY of ‘influence’ in Cuba and other countries has not always been good, and in many cases (most) has proven disastrous for many of the targeted countries that we have attempted to ‘influence’.

I’m NOT suggesting that the US should NOT attempt to do this, because the treatment of Cuba and other nations HAS been stupid, and childish, and all of the rest, for over 50 years. HOWEVER, that ‘treatment’ has also been very intentional, and it’s no different that what the US has done to many other nation states who have refused to be totally incorporated by the US political power machine.

History has proven that when the US decides that some nation –ANY- nation has something that they want, for whatever the reason, (and this includes Cuba from way back in the days before Castro) they will simply take it over.  (or attempt to) In almost all of these cases, (Iran and Cuba both come to mind, but there are dozens and dozens more) we simply take it over; usually by cozying up with, or otherwise putting our own puppet leaders in charge. (Add Iraq to the list). Anyone who DOESN’T ‘bow down’ to the US, and accept a ‘democracy’ based on Capitalism, is either replaced, (sometimes by assassination, other times by coup, and we can add Venezuela here as well) or they are finally ‘punished’, to show the rest of the world that NO COUNTRY can ‘choose’ NOT to accept Capitalism as its form of existence, and/or refuse to make it’s resources available to the US. Needless-to-say, ‘diplomacy’ has never been a tool that the US has used in terms of ‘gaining influence’ because it is more than ‘influence’ that they’ve been after.

As a result of this history of ‘influence by aggression’, the few who have been able to withstand the ‘punishment of isolation’ have obviously developed a negative attitude toward the US doctrine/policy of ‘take by force’. And yeah, it turns out leaders like Castro, or Saddam, or even Ahmadinejad, (though Ahmadinejad was democratically elected by his own people, and is not the only leader, or even the most powerful) in Iran. Still, it’s the same history, and leaders like Castro, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and others, react accordingly. (Saddam was possibly worse than the others, but let’s not forget that Saddam was also a good buddy to the US back in Regan’s regime, and we continue to support other dictators)

I DO believe that Barack Obama can in fact make in-roads for what are grossly needed changes for the Cubans, not to mention ourselves, in terms of trade and the other things that all people need to survive in a globalized world.

It is my understanding that Obama intends to keep the embargos in place initially, to use as a diplomatic negotiating tool with Cuba. That may work. More than anything however, is Obama’s ready willingness to DO this diplomacy, and he will be far more effective if he knows and understands the ‘history’ before attempting that. Influence is one thing, as long as we respect the sovereignty of other nations, and don’t try to tell them how to create their own democracies, or otherwise control their apparatus from Washington.