¡Viva Cuba!

[Afrocentric]

If anything is backwards, it's a mid-20th century policy being retained with no justification.

Says you. You don't know the justifications for retaining the system.

If you think "both Castros" are the only things holding the revolution in power, you don't know anything about Cuba. These 2 men can't just hold an entire country under their control. They had to have popular support for their revolution to work, and they had to have support from the rest of the party to remain at the top. The party didn't always agree with them on everything, and the Castro brothers had to stand down sometimes. The party has the power, not the 2 individuals you focus on. Cuba doesn't even have a Presidential system. The President is merely the head of a 7-member executive with 6 Vice Presidents.

I really don't care what Cuba has for their Executive Branch. Though, it was nice to learn about their massive bureaucracy, I guess.

The world is not about you and your pompous country.
Out of curiosity anyway, you want to put a US-backed leader, how, exactly? Coup? Rigging elections?
The USA has been trying regime change in Cuba for over half a century. They have miserably failed to achieve that.

Sticks and stones my friend.

But seriously, rigging elections is pointless and so are coups. Short of an invasion, nothing would work, this was just me venting frustration at the shortsightedness of US foreign policy. Don't take it so literally.

[Afrocentric]

And that reminds me of something different. I met some Sandinistas in September last year. The USA had sponsored instability in countries like Jamaica, Nicaragua and Angola, and still sponsors instability in Venezuela. This comes at the expense of the well-being of individual humans' lives.

Cry me a river

[TheNewGuy]

I'll take your word for it...but I still feel this is dangerous. One minute you're being nice to Communists and the next, you become one.

Not saying the US will become Communist, but still...

OH THIS I LIKE. You can take out Communist and put in so many things and it still remains an accurate depiction of reactionary thinking.

"One minute you're being nice to gays and the next, you become one."
"One minute you're being nice to Muslims and the next, you become one."
"One minute you're being nice to illegals and the next, you become one."

SUCH FLEXIBLE STRUCTURE.

[Afrocentric]

I'll take your word for it...but I still feel this is dangerous. One minute you're being nice to Communists and the next, you become one.

Your country didn't have a problem being nice to the Taliban in the 1980s. Did it make Reagan a Taliban?

No, it made Reagan an idiot.

[Zongxian]

If anything is backwards, it's a mid-20th century policy being retained with no justification.

Says you. You don't know the justifications for retaining the system.

Other than... uhh... the fact that the Cold War is over.

Having a foreign policy oriented towards a Cold War environment during a time when the Cold War has been long over is simply stupid. Foreign policy should reflect the current era... for obvious reasons that I shouldn't have to explain.

I really don't care what Cuba has for their Executive Branch. Though, it was nice to learn about their massive bureaucracy, I guess.

You don't care? Yet this is what contradicts your idea that dead Castros = liberal revolution. The Cuban bureaucracy and all of the members and supporters of the Communist Party exist to maintain the Republic of Cuba, even without the Castros. Of course... for Americans, all the focus is put on Castro because we have a dumb obsession with "brand-name recognition."

[Doc]

What does that country have to offer anyway? Besides being backwards in all facets of society, they are Communist. Why engage them in the first place?

If anything is backwards, it's a mid-20th century policy being retained with no justification.

Just wait for both Castros to die off

If you think "both Castros" are the only things holding the revolution in power, you don't know anything about Cuba. These 2 men can't just hold an entire country under their control. They had to have popular support for their revolution to work, and they had to have support from the rest of the party to remain at the top. The party didn't always agree with them on everything, and the Castro brothers had to stand down sometimes. The party has the power, not the 2 individuals you focus on. Cuba doesn't even have a Presidential system. The President is merely the head of a 7-member executive with 6 Vice Presidents.

and then put a US backed leader in place so we can have regime change and open that dump up to the rest of the world.

The world is not about you and your pompous country.
Out of curiosity anyway, you want to put a US-backed leader, how, exactly? Coup? Rigging elections?
The USA has been trying regime change in Cuba for over half a century. They have miserably failed to achieve that.

Watch it- This pompous country has nuclear weapons enough to wipe all living things off this planet, save the cockroaches 50 times over...

While I don't necessary agree with the US bashing above (The people of this nation are not, for the most part, in control of our Government's adventures abroad, nor do we know nearly enough about them to adequately evaluate them before they raise the flag for us to all crowd around) I will only add that You are absolutely correct when you say that the Castros themselves were not the only thing holding that revolution together. As long as there was one peasant who remembered stories his grandfather used to tell about how miserable life was in Cuba BEFORE the revolution, compared to how it was after the revolution, there will always be public support for the Revolution. Castro never had to have elections because his popularity on the Island ran into the 90s on a regular basis- whatever his miserable dictatorship was doing there, he was always a hero. And that's not just the effect of brainwashing- The US has been flooding that Island with anti-Castro propaganda since the early 1960s.

In fact it is more about a memory of how the US tried to kill yet another Cuban government in its cradle in 1961, and the treatment of Cuba by BOTH Superpowers in 1962. The Cubans are proud, for the most part of their defiance of the Yankee, even those who flee to this country don't do it because they hate Cuba- they just think their life will be better here. Castro helped Cubans know that life could be better, and so you can't blame those who left for taking that to heart.

Kill the Castros and someone who wants to defend the revolution not named Castro will rise in their place. And if a person rises in their place who does NOT support the Revolution, it will only be a matter of time before that person is invited to leave the same way Batista left in 1959, in the dead of night while the people celebrated in the streets. The Revolution is Cuba's crowning achievement- its aftermath may not make a lot of people proud, but this is the thing- It's theirs. It was not made for them, it was not stolen by the US the way the Revolution was in 1899. And they will defend it.

[Afrocentric]

Jeez, I had no idea you all had such an affinity towards Cuba. Sorry, I crossed paths with you on this one, sheesh.

[Doc]

And while we're at it, I happen to support them in their efforts to make their own lives, with or without the US' help, better. They have survived for almost 60 years without the US actually hindering them as much as is possible. With the US' help, things will only get better there.

Think of the US opening to Cuba as similar to China. And then think: "Isn't it better to have them on our side than against us?" I say absolutely. They want to go that way, we have deep economic ties with China, why not improve the lives of the US and Cuban people alike by normalizing diplomatic and trade ties? Raul Castro didn't do anything to me- I have no reason to hate him. Let's work together for the benefit of people.

[Doc]

Jeez, I had no idea you all had such an affinity towards Cuba. Sorry, I crossed paths with you on this one, sheesh.

I sponsored the SP's 2003 Resolution calling for solidarity with the People of Cuba and normalizing diplomatic relations with that Island. I have called US policy toward that island a relic of sunken costs and reputation, in the fashion of prospect theory, in Foreign Policy Analysis. I would say, just let us celebrate today. A lot of people have been waiting a very long time to hear this news.

[Siggon Kristov]

If anything is backwards, it's a mid-20th century policy being retained with no justification.

Says you. You don't know the justifications for retaining the system.

So please, tell me.

If you think "both Castros" are the only things holding the revolution in power, you don't know anything about Cuba. These 2 men can't just hold an entire country under their control. They had to have popular support for their revolution to work, and they had to have support from the rest of the party to remain at the top. The party didn't always agree with them on everything, and the Castro brothers had to stand down sometimes. The party has the power, not the 2 individuals you focus on. Cuba doesn't even have a Presidential system. The President is merely the head of a 7-member executive with 6 Vice Presidents.

I really don't care what Cuba has for their Executive Branch. Though, it was nice to learn about their massive bureaucracy, I guess.

Yes, typical justification for ignorance... You "really don't care" how things work there, but you pretend to be some expert on it by making some bullshit claim that narrows Cuba's identity down to the Castro brothers. Take a lesson from other persons who actually know something more than liberal/conservative labels or the "my country is the best and your country is a dump" rhetoric:

Kill the Castros and someone who wants to defend the revolution not named Castro will rise in their place.

You don't care? Yet this is what contradicts your idea that dead Castros = liberal revolution.

--

Out of curiosity anyway, you want to put a US-backed leader, how, exactly? Coup? Rigging elections?
The USA has been trying regime change in Cuba for over half a century. They have miserably failed to achieve that.

But seriously, rigging elections is pointless and so are coups. Short of an invasion, nothing would work, this was just me venting frustration at [u]the shortsightedness of US foreign policy

So an American advocating for the invasion of a sovereign state is okay, but anyone who advocates for anything remotely similar to be done to the USA is a horrible person?

Don't take it so literally.

I don't think actually think that you make much sense, but I'm still curious about the way you think.

No, it made Reagan an idiot.

Are you much different for the bullshit you're saying now? I'm asking, not accusing.

And that reminds me of something different. I met some Sandinistas in September last year. The USA had sponsored instability in countries like Jamaica, Nicaragua and Angola, and still sponsors instability in Venezuela. This comes at the expense of the well-being of individual humans' lives.

Cry me a river

You don't think it's serious? The USA sponsoring terrorism and genocide in other countries is not a problem, but terrorism against the USA is bad? I'm sorry, I value all humans in the world equally. I do not think that Americans' lives are more important than non-American ones.

Jeez, I had no idea you all had such an affinity towards Cuba. Sorry, I crossed paths with you on this one, sheesh.

Continuity of your ridiculous dichotomous thinking.
Not a Capitalist? Socialist!
Not someone who hates Communists? Communist!
Liberal is Left and Conservative is Right. Nothing exists outside of this extremely narrow band.

why not improve the lives of the US and Cuban people alike by normalizing diplomatic and trade ties?

You make the horrible assumption that Afrocentric values others' lives. It's not his fault that some people are born in ghettos or Communist states. The government of Cuba isn't about the Cuban people; it should be about having a pro-US government.