Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gurdur · 05-17-2003, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zamboniavenger
....
The reds aren't the bogeymen anymore. We're supposed to scared of Islamic fundamentalists now, right?(There are so many things the news tell me I'm supposed to scared of, I forget sometimes.)

ooooo, that explains why the USA is pouring money and "advisors" into Columbia, and meddling with Venezeluan internal politics.
oooops

Quote:

Even though Cuba is on America's shortlist of countries with biological weapons and the island is less than 100 miles away, I'm not sure that Bush could make Americans believe that Cuba poses a threat to our national security. But I didn't think he'd be able to make them believe that Iraq was a threat either, so maybe I'm putting to much faith in my fellow americans on this one. Either way, I don't believe that the Bay of Pigs invasion really applies to the situation today.

Hey, don't worry, how about telling us why Grenada or Columbia or Panama or Venezuala or Nicaragua don't apply today too ?!

zamboniavenger · 05-17-2003, 06:08 AM

It's not like I don't believe that the US would try to mess things up in Cuba, with a strengthening of the embargo or amybe even CIA involvement or something. That's standard practice. But an american led invasion with tanks and fighter planes and aircraft carriers, like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems pretty unlikely.

Gurdur · 05-17-2003, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zamboniavenger
....
like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems pretty unlikely.

You mean something we've now seen twice within 3 years seems unlikely ?
uh huh.

Gurdur · 05-17-2003, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zamboniavenger

It's not like I don't believe that the US would try to mess things up in Cuba, with a strengthening of the embargo or amybe even CIA involvement or something. That's standard practice. But an american led invasion with tanks and fighter planes and aircraft carriers, like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems pretty unlikely.

Apart from my post above:

LET'S GO BACK TO THE CITED NEWS ARTICLE, shall we ?

Quote:

From the Guardian article:

......Bush .... On the contrary, he is expected to take a series of steps to try to bolster internal opposition, tighten existing economic and other regulations, and - possibly - cut back the consular arrangements under which up to 20,000 Cubans are able to resettle legally in the US each year.

The Administration gave an earnest statement of its intentions this week when it expelled 14 Cuban diplomats from the US on vague, unspecified charges. Reports in the US media suggest that this was a politically-driven decision which had very little to do with espionage ........
....
Even though some US officials have accused Castro of links with terrorism and even of trying to acquire unconventional weapons, there are lots of good reasons why Bush, and the Pentagon, and the American public, are not really up for another war right now. Enough conquering already.

All the same, there is a nagging worry here. .....
The worry is that, while presenting their Cuba policy as a matter of principle, they will actually be pursuing crude party political and electoral advantage. The worry is that, as with Iraq, Bush will confuse the nation's interest with his own.

Once Bush starts stirring up trouble, for whatever reason, good or bad, and when and if Castro responds with confrontational or unwise actions of his own, the likelihood rises that a negative dynamic will be set in train that will be hard to stop or control.

So the article didn't say the USA would suddenly pour tanks and planes directly into Cuba ????
zamboniavenger , possibly then you might like to actually address what the article does say, rather than what it doesn't ?

:banghead:

zamboniavenger · 05-17-2003, 06:26 AM

Well, in your OP you called it the "next one". I thought that YOU were implying that America was the next to be invaded. I guess I presumed a little too much from three words.

I agree with the article about the tightening of economic sanctions.

Gurdur · 05-17-2003, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zamboniavenger

I don't think the situation in Cuba is like .....

zamboniavenger , would you like to address the article and what it actually says ?
hmmm ?

Quote:

Plus, the agri-business has spent a lot of money trying to get the embargo dropped.

Which USA agribusiness has moved to have the embargo dropped ?

hmmm ?
The sugar lobby ?

Gurdur · 05-17-2003, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zamboniavenger
....
. To do that, I think Bush would have to show that they were a threat to America's national security. ....

As you said yourself, it worked perfectly well with Iraq.

All those WMD's ! Thank gooodness Bush caught those tons of WMD's just waiting around to be used !
And the polls show significant proportions of USA citizens just know Iraq was behind 9/11 !

:banghead:

Gurdur · 05-17-2003, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zamboniavenger

Well, in your OP you called it the "next one".

Yo, Cuba could be the next case Bush concentrates on.

Quote:

I thought that YOU were implying that America was the next to be invaded.

Not even I would imply that the USA will invade the USA.

Quote:

I guess I presumed a little too much from three words.

I agree with the article about the tightening of economic sanctions.

You still haven't addressed what the article says.
Dearie me !
To jog your concentration, I'll remind you that the intervention in Iraq also did not start with a full overt invasion of Iraq.

I guess it's really too much to ask you to read the article through; but hey, you can just call it "silly" !

zamboniavenger · 05-17-2003, 06:37 AM

The American Farm Bureau Federation for one.
From the link:

Quote:

The politically well-connected agribusiness lobby, sensing the time is right to argue for the opening of Cuba without fear of a public backlash, has dramatically thrown its weight into the ring. Lobbying alongside the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation and other like-minded groups, agricultural interests with their eyes on the large untapped market just 90 miles from Florida have managed to acquire significant bipartisan support from many farm-state congressmen.

Quote:

As you said yourself, it worked perfectly well with Iraq.

Ok, I'll give you that one because I don't know what Americans are capable of believing in.

slept2long · 05-17-2003, 06:39 AM

I don't think we are gonna go in guns blazing, Gurdur. I don't think Shrub is gonna try Iraqing anyone either, till his next term. That would be to much too soon. They have to be able to set up this crap so Americans don't get all in a tizzy. Invading Cuba to liberate the Cubans might make the American people think we ACTUALLY want to liberate people. I doubt the administration wants to use that excuse more than once.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-17-2003, 06:08 AM	#12
zamboniavenger Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 342	It's not like I don't believe that the US would try to mess things up in Cuba, with a strengthening of the embargo or amybe even CIA involvement or something. That's standard practice. But an american led invasion with tanks and fighter planes and aircraft carriers, like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems pretty unlikely.

05-17-2003, 06:26 AM	#15
zamboniavenger Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 342	Well, in your OP you called it the "next one". I thought that YOU were implying that America was the next to be invaded. I guess I presumed a little too much from three words. I agree with the article about the tightening of economic sanctions.

05-17-2003, 06:39 AM	#20
slept2long Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 1,066	I don't think we are gonna go in guns blazing, Gurdur. I don't think Shrub is gonna try Iraqing anyone either, till his next term. That would be to much too soon. They have to be able to set up this crap so Americans don't get all in a tizzy. Invading Cuba to liberate the Cubans might make the American people think we ACTUALLY want to liberate people. I doubt the administration wants to use that excuse more than once.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.