-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Fidel Castro has died at 90.
- Thread starter ArcadiaGP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
A 50+ year "grudge"? How about 50+ years of brutal oppression of the Cuban people by a madman?
I don't find that a very convincing argument at all, as being the reason the United States government has issues with Cuba. Listen, Castro was a bad guy, a tyrant, a dictator. But history has shown us, very recent history, that being one or all of those things, doesn't mean those persons are turned away from United States support. So you gotta ask, what makes Cuba different? IMO, the difference is that Cuba was a tiny nation that was able to repeatedly endure everything thrown it's way....Cuba, almost single-handedly destroyed the Monroe Doctrine, and certainly marked the beginning of the end for the policy. That's a LOT of power and influence falling on the wayside.
Yeah, single-handedly except for that Soviet support. Do you think that without that support we'd have given two ****s about Cuba and Castro?
Obviously Russia had a bearing, given that the Monroe Doctrine wasn't meant to address nations within the sphere, but the European nations coming into it. Nevertheless, It was said, that after Batista, the US Ambassador was the 2nd most important man in Cuba. So to answer your question, and look at treatment of other nations in the region, yeah we would have "given two ****s."
Incorrect. Akihito was the Emperor when Dubya was around. For the record , since we are drawing equivalences here, we should also note that Hirohito surrendered, went on public media and denounced his own divinity (many worshipped the guy) , and became a titular monarch only - all of the power in the new Japanese constitution went to the western style government and away from the Royalists. I don't see that happening in Castro's case.
International Relations is the business of one country screwing another. It has always been so, and will always be so. Castro established himself as our enemy. Whether we choose to attend his funeral is dependent on a) what we think of him b) whether we think that paying our respects is a good idea and c) what our statement by so doing will say, both positive and negative. Every nation gets to do that calculus - and come to their own conclusions. Do we want to deal with Raul? or hold out for better.
So when Kim Jong Un of the Norks dies, If I'm President, then I should send Kut as a delegate to attend the service? Should the POTUS attend? I kind of think that attending in that case would send the wrong message.
I'm not saying I know what I would do - just that this is how I would go about the decision. You are right - Batista was a slime ball as well. My father had the opportunity to visit Pre Castro . That doesn't excuse Castro for being uh Castro. Nor does it excuse some of the other bit tyrants (think Hugo Chavez) that have screwed up other countries in the area by trying to be Castro-lite.
Oops, it was HW that went to his funeral. But he was a mass murderer, we have come to know in past years (everyone tried to pin it on Tojo). Ya know, if it wasn't for the thaw, there's an argument to be made against going. But the IS a thaw, an attempt to mend fences, sending a muted delegation signals a tentative optimism, rather than completely snubbing the country completely.
indiucky
Grandmaster
Really?
Who (if anyone) we send to a funeral conveys a lot of messages. I.E. how much we respect someone, how much we wish to mend fences with THEIR REGIME, etc. NOT sending someone, or sending the "middle finger", conveys that we'd like your chosen successor to kindly defecate in their hat and blow away in the wind, and we will deal further with whoever replaces them.
Hence the "butt kissing". And there are various shades between the two extremes.
Back to Japan - instead of a bitter enemy (a la WWII) they had become a trusted trading partner and global ally. Hence - HW went - the highest delegation possible... and if you want to call it butt kissing, you could, I guess. It certainly was giving the man his props. It was an acknowledgment of who Japan had BECOME. NOT who they once were. And Hirohito totally abdicated power as part of the cessation of hostilities. Castro has not. So he's still on our , errr... list... and rightly so.
Lenoid Brezhnev, probably the worst Soviet leader after Lenin and Stalin. Invasion Czechoslovakia/Invasion of Afghanistan. Died in 1982. Sitting president in 1982 (I imagine I don't need to tell you who that was) sends his vice president (who I also imagine I don't need to tell you who that was) in an official delegation to attend funeral. So apparently, by stated logic, Brezhnev's USSR regime was respected, and we wished to mend fences with that oppressive regime. Ergo that administration was "butt kissing," right?
I'd like to address the Japan issue, but I don't want the above to be passed over, as it was when I reference it earlier. Was the administration that "officially" attended the Soviet's funeral "butt kissing?"
