Fidel Castro has died at 90.

[Kutnupe14]

I think you have a preconceived opinion which drives your conclusions. You think I couldn't possibly be okay with Reagan sending a delegation to a Soviet funeral, and not be okay with Obama doing it, unless it's because I'm biased towards Reagan. You've failed to imagine why else I might do that.

What I have been trying to tell you, I have been very consistent in my disdain for Obama warming up to the Castro's. I think it's a mistake. I think it's spitting in the face of the Cubans who fled Castro. I do not support restoring relations with Cuba as things stand now. Therefore, I do not support Obama's overtures towards Cuba. This has nothing to do with Reagan. This is just you pursuing faux hypocrisy, as if someone couldn't possibly have the view I have without it. Nonsense.

I view Obama's actions towards Cuba as kissing Castro's ass. I've repeated asked you to give an example of Reagan kissing a Russian's ass like that. Rather, Reagan's tougher posture towards the Soviets helped end the Soviet Union. What the **** has Obama done?

No, it's not false hypocrisy. It's not even about Reagan. It's about an tradition of American policy that has been observed for more than 70 years.

You say Obama is spitting in the face of Cubans that fled Castro? For you to be consistent in your disagreement, you must also condemn the "warming up" to nations like Vietnam, Nicaragua, and China. Nations with horrible records, massive refugees, and whom the US wasn't able to impose it's will upon. As hardline as the countries are/were, they all took baby steps away from their traditional stances, and we took steps towards them.

To be further consistent, you would have to condemn the policies of our allies (former/current), like the Philippines, South Africa, Panama, Honduras etc, who were very oppressive of their populations yet had ironclad US support, as long as they stayed our allies. By your litmus test of kissing butt, the US has been kissing the butts, of the latter, since the end of WW2.

It's completely fair to ask why is there outrage over Obama's overtures to Cuba and the cries of "think of the Cubans," when the same overtures weren't made, by previous administrations, to the people from the various "allied" nations I mentioned earlier. For those that rail against Obama's Cuba thaw, it's either hypocrisy, or ignorance of 70 years of US international policy.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut - this is a horse manure argument. As I said upstream "International Relations is the business of one country screwing another". Reagan sent HW to Brezhnev's BECAUSE HE FELT IT WAS IN AMERICA'S BEST INTEREST. Period. No Mo, No Less. His reason could have been kissing ass or kicking it, heck WE DON'T KNOW. Given Reagan's other statements, most folks would buy the "kicking it" side of things. Bottom line, he did it because he felt it was in our interests. If you thought that was a stupid idea on his part - fine, say so. If not - then c'est la vie.

Likewise with Obama sending folks to Castro's funeral. Whomever we choose to send WILL send a message. One way or the other. No getting around it. It will deliver a message going forward to the incoming Raul regime in Cuba . Will we extend the olive branch or the middle finger?

I see zero hypocrisy in choosing the message that we want to send. In Brezhnev's case, we wanted to keep communications open. When both sides are nuclear superpowers, that's generally a good idea. I suspect that he did it for that reason, and because he was a generally pretty cordial guy, and manners - even when you hated the person , mattered to Reagan. In Obama's case, Castro is a bit tyrant over a ****-ant island. Albeit one that is close to our borders. So keeping open communication is not the priority. Obama may choose to go, because he's a pretty cordial guy as well. And wants to be seen as a good dude and all. Even if he hated Castro.

I have no issue sending whatever delegation he feels is appropriate to Cuba. He could do that (as Reagan did) by making it clear that "We disagree/are enemies/whatever, but we can be polite about it". My problem with Obama is that he _doesn't disagree_ with Castro. The balance of his OTHER actions have amply shown that.

There was a little bit of sarcasm in my post. I had no issue with Reagan's decision to send HW to the funeral. I completely agree that it was in America's best interests. Now you have to convince me why, the warming up to a nation 90 miles of the coast, of great strategic importance, that at one time had the world teetering on the brink, whom were received massive amounts of immigrants, have an active military installation, and whom has taken the first steps towards a more diverse economy isn't in the best interests of the United States.

 

[jamil]

No, it's not false hypocrisy. It's not even about Reagan. It's about an tradition of American policy that has been observed for more than 70 years.

You say Obama is spitting in the face of Cubans that fled Castro? For you to be consistent in your disagreement, you must also condemn the "warming up" to nations like Vietnam, Nicaragua, and China. Nations with horrible records, massive refugees, and whom the US wasn't able to impose it's will upon. As hardline as the countries are/were, they all took baby steps away from their traditional stances, and we took steps towards them.

To be further consistent, you would have to condemn the policies of our allies (former/current), like the Philippines, South Africa, Panama, Honduras etc, who were very oppressive of their populations yet had ironclad US support, as long as they stayed our allies. By your litmus test of kissing butt, the US has been kissing the butts, of the latter, since the end of WW2.

It's completely fair to ask why is there outrage over Obama's overtures to Cuba and the cries of "think of the Cubans," when the same overtures weren't made, by previous administrations, to the people from the various "allied" nations I mentioned earlier. For those that rail against Obama's Cuba thaw, it's either hypocrisy, or ignorance of 70 years of US international policy.

Why do you assume that I'd be okay with kissing Vietnam's, Nicaragua's, or China's ass? Wait a minute. Are you stereotyping me?

 

[jamil]

There was a little bit of sarcasm in my post. I had no issue with Reagan's decision to send HW to the funeral. I completely agree that it was in America's best interests. Now you have to convince me why, the warming up to a nation 90 miles of the coast, of great strategic importance, that at one time had the world teetering on the brink, whom were received massive amounts of immigrants, have an active military installation, and whom has taken the first steps towards a more diverse economy isn't in the best interests of the United States.

There's a difference between warming up to Cuba and Obama burying his face in Castro's ass. I'd rather my leaders have balls. I'd rather come away from a "warming" relationship having won some compromise of value. Instead, Obama's visit to Cuba is optically an ass kissing. Obama is weak and feckless. And he only demonstrated the fact with that trip.

 

[two70]

No, it's not false hypocrisy. It's not even about Reagan. It's about an tradition of American policy that has been observed for more than 70 years.

You say Obama is spitting in the face of Cubans that fled Castro? For you to be consistent in your disagreement, you must also condemn the "warming up" to nations like Vietnam, Nicaragua, and China. Nations with horrible records, massive refugees, and whom the US wasn't able to impose it's will upon. As hardline as the countries are/were, they all took baby steps away from their traditional stances, and we took steps towards them.

To be further consistent, you would have to condemn the policies of our allies (former/current), like the Philippines, South Africa, Panama, Honduras etc, who were very oppressive of their populations yet had ironclad US support, as long as they stayed our allies. By your litmus test of kissing butt, the US has been kissing the butts, of the latter, since the end of WW2.

It's completely fair to ask why is there outrage over Obama's overtures to Cuba and the cries of "think of the Cubans," when the same overtures weren't made, by previous administrations, to the people from the various "allied" nations I mentioned earlier. For those that rail against Obama's Cuba thaw, it's either hypocrisy, or ignorance of 70 years of US international policy.

First, Cuba never made even the slightest of baby steps away from their tradition of tyranny and abuse under Castro so it is far from hypocritical to criticize the step toward them. In fact, failing to do so is hypocritical if you place so much stock in consistency.
Secondly, consistency is not the be all end all and consistency solely for consistencies sake is beyond foolhardy. Would your approach to dealing with a known drug dealer be consistent with your response to someone who disposes of unused prescription meds in a manner that allows them to end up on the street? Third, the primary goal of US foreign policy is and should be for the benefit and protection of US citizens, promoting change for the well being of citizens of other countries is secondary at best. Pursuit of those goals in that order is what matters not consistency in dealing with individual countries. Obama's efforts in regards to Cuba can be recognized by most as counter to both primary and secondary goals and criticized accordingly.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why do you assume that I'd be okay with kissing Vietnam's, Nicaragua's, or China's ass? Wait a minute. Are you stereotyping me?

...and putting you in what group that you think I believe you share the same belief?

 

[jamil]

First, Cuba never made even the slightest of baby steps away from their tradition of tyranny and abuse under Castro so it is far from hypocritical to criticize the step toward them. In fact, failing to do so is hypocritical if you place so much stock in consistency.
Secondly, consistency is not the be all end all and consistency solely for consistencies sake is beyond foolhardy. Would your approach to dealing with a known drug dealer be consistent with your response to someone who disposes of unused prescription meds in a manner that allows them to end up on the street? Third, the primary goal of US foreign policy is and should be for the benefit and protection of US citizens, promoting change for the well being of citizens of other countries is secondary at best. Pursuit of those goals in that order is what matters not consistency in dealing with individual countries. Obama's efforts in regards to Cuba can be recognized by most as counter to both primary and secondary goals and criticized accordingly.

Consistency just means intellectual honesty. At least that's what it means to me. If I act inconsistent with my principles, I have to ask myself why. I'll either come up with an honest answer or not. Maybe I have a reason that is still consistent with my principles. And if I don't maybe I need to think about what my principles actually are. Of course there should be room for pragmatism, because not circumstance fits so neatly within a set of principles. But one can be principled within a boundary. But I'm on good footing with my principles and my belief that Obama face-printed Roul's ass in his recent visit.

...and putting you in what group that you think I believe you share the same belief?

I am interested in the answer to that question. If you don't mind.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

There was a little bit of sarcasm in my post. I had no issue with Reagan's decision to send HW to the funeral. I completely agree that it was in America's best interests. Now you have to convince me why, the warming up to a nation 90 miles of the coast, of great strategic importance, that at one time had the world teetering on the brink, whom were received massive amounts of immigrants, have an active military installation, and whom has taken the first steps towards a more diverse economy isn't in the best interests of the United States.

Simple... it is not a case of warming up to a nation, it is a case of warming up to a regime. An important distinction.

So it's a calculated thing. If we keep the pressure on - by continuing our arguably hard line against Castro, will Raul's regime stand for long? Or will we get someone that we'd rather work with? If there's no better option on the horizon (see your examples of China , Vietnam etc) then it may be wise to play ball and play nice. Or we can grow a pair and play hard ball. With each country, it is a different chess game. Raul is an old fart himself. I don't know who's behind him in the junta down there, so I can't make an intelligent call.

I do know that Obama has a history of kowtowing to people that we historically have not. And I'm not a fan of that, in the absence of a really good reason. Further I haven't seen him articulate a good reason for it.

 

[jbombelli]

I'm happy that I can get real Cohiba Siglo VIs and real Monte Cristo 2s.

 

[KG1]

I've never really needed anything from Cuba.

 

[indiucky]

I've never really needed anything from Cuba.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What I have been trying to tell you, I have been very consistent in my disdain for Obama warming up to the Castro's. I think it's a mistake. I think it's spitting in the face of the Cubans who fled Castro. I do not support restoring relations with Cuba as things stand now.

So you believe Trump is wrong? You do know that he supported Obama warming up to Cuba. In his words "50 years is enough". He did later say regarding the attempt by the Obama administration as a very weak agreement, but said some sort of a deal would be fine. Although IMO anything like it that he wasn't behind, he would describe as "very weak" at the least. Heck if they had an agreement to give the US full control over Cuba with nothing in return, he probably would have described it the same.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

There is a difference between want and need. Remember the song Trump played after his victory speech?

 

[jamil]

So you believe Trump is wrong? You do know that he supported Obama warming up to Cuba. In his words "50 years is enough". He did later say regarding the attempt by the Obama administration as a very weak agreement, but said some sort of a deal would be fine. Although IMO anything like it that he wasn't behind, he would describe as "very weak" at the least. Heck if they had an agreement to give the US full control over Cuba with nothing in return, he probably would have described it the same.

Warming up to the Castro's is no better under Trump than Obama.

 

[indiucky]

There is a difference between want and need. Remember the song Trump played after his victory speech?

LOL....

 

[hopper68]

College Students Asked Who They Prefer, Trump Or Castro; Their Incredible Answers... - Faith Family America

 

[JS1911]

I left an extra-smelly dump in my toilet today in tribute.

 

[Joe G]

LOOK: Jeep Carrying Castro's Ashes Breaks Down During Funeral Procession | Fox News Insider