So Obama is in Cuba.

[ronburgundy]

Unless he brings Joanne Deborah Chesimard back in handcuffs the visit is a failure.

Yeah, because imprisoning a 70 year old woman who committed crimes 40 years ago but posed no threat to any US citizen since is a far greater priority than facilitating a major political shift that improves the lives of Cubans and reduces future threats posed the US by our close neighbor.

40 years of Embargoes and zero interaction with Cuba have been ineffective in achieving any progress to those goals. Continuing that approach is childish nonsense. Opening relations with Cuba can only be an improvement and potentially trigger gradual changes in the right direction that would benefit everyone except for the communist leadership.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, because imprisoning a 70 year old woman who committed crimes 40 years ago but posed no threat to any US citizen since is a far greater priority than facilitating a major political shift that improves the lives of Cubans and reduces future threats posed the US by our close neighbor.

Let's turn this around. Why is it so important for the communist regime in Cuba to continue to harbor this murderer and terrorist? And since Cuba needs this dead more than the US, they would have caved had this been demanded strongly enough.

40 years of Embargoes and zero interaction with Cuba have been ineffective in achieving any progress to those goals. Continuing that approach is childish nonsense. Opening relations with Cuba can only be an improvement and potentially trigger gradual changes in the right direction that would benefit everyone except for the communist leadership.

I agree with Obama's intentions to open and eventually normalize relations with Cuba. But he should be more forceful about some things. I doubt Castro Bros would scuttle the deal over a septuagenarian terrorist they are harboring.

 

[Sarpedon]

So you say that our treaty with Cuba is invalid because it was not a democracy, so we should hand over Guatanamo Bay to the present government of Cuba, which is not a democracy. Why is the most recent government to have been established through violence somehow legitimate? Dubious. I am perfectly in favor of handing it over should Cuba ever again become a democracy. I am generally against offshoring our military bases, especially when we have a number of nearby alternatives. I have no objection to maintaining the status quo until conditions change. If Cuba finds this onerous, they can take it to court.

If one could only regard agreements signed with democratic governments as being legitimate, and that all agreements are invalidated if a change of government occurs, where would that leave international relations? Is violent overthrow of government the only thing that counts, or does a major party shift count as a change of government? If only the violent overthrow counts, wouldn't that ENCOURAGE violent overthrow of governments? Why would we want to do that?

 

[fromderinside]

It is basically saying if a powerful nation forces a treaty on a weak nation that cannot defend itself we must honor that crime.

You don't like the way the world is organized so you change it in your mind and nothing changes. Treaty exists. Treaty not officially renounced so Cuba is taking money they don't want?

Dream on.

 

[untermensche]

It is basically saying if a powerful nation forces a treaty on a weak nation that cannot defend itself we must honor that crime.

You don't like the way the world is organized so you change it in your mind and nothing changes. Treaty exists. Treaty not officially renounced so Cuba is taking money they don't want?

Dream on.

Treaties exist between the governments they are made by.

When governments are overturned because they are repressive the treaties they made are not valid in any way.

Which is why you make no argument to show they are.

Cuba has peacefully asked the US to leave for 55 years.

And has been violently attacked in response.

This may be the way the world works because of US dominance, but it is not valid or just.

 

[untermensche]

So you say that our treaty with Cuba is invalid because it was not a democracy, so we should hand over Guatanamo Bay to the present government of Cuba, which is not a democracy.

Because it is their land.

Cuba is an Island. It's borders are not in question.

 

[ronburgundy]

Let's turn this around. Why is it so important for the communist regime in Cuba to continue to harbor this murderer and terrorist? And since Cuba needs this dead more than the US, they would have caved had this been demanded strongly enough.

40 years of Embargoes and zero interaction with Cuba have been ineffective in achieving any progress to those goals. Continuing that approach is childish nonsense. Opening relations with Cuba can only be an improvement and potentially trigger gradual changes in the right direction that would benefit everyone except for the communist leadership.

I agree with Obama's intentions to open and eventually normalize relations with Cuba. But he should be more forceful about some things. I doubt Castro Bros would scuttle the deal over a septuagenarian terrorist they are harboring.

Obama is trying to facilitate meaningful change, not engage in empty and meaningless symbolic gestures, which is all that extraditing her would be. It would have not positive impact on anything real, and could only have the potential to undermine the real goals, even if only by using up a "favor" or concession on something so trivial.
Someone like Trump who doesn't actually care about doing anything to meaningfully make the world better would make such a demand because it would score him points with the crowd more interested in empty, flag-waving symbolism.

 

[untermensche]

If Cuba should be forced to return terrorists then the US should be forced to return the many terrorists wanted by Cuba being protected in the US.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Now it is time for the US to pay Cuba reparations for the decades of torture and abuse.

And time to give Guantanamo back to it's rightful owners.

An embargo is neither torture nor abuse.

Cuba had plenty of trade with other countries, their economy is fucked because of Castro, not because of the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Your complete lack of knowledge of US activity against Cuba is noted.

And US is the rightful leaseholder by treaty. Why should we give that up?

The US has no treaty with the government of Cuba concerning Guantanamo.

US presence on some other nations property is a crime.

It's called a lease.

Generally governments are more powerful than those who have leases and if the government decides to break the lease the little guy is simply screwed. (Witness Hong Kong.)

However, in this case the lessee is much more powerful than the leaser, the government couldn't simply screw them.

- - - Updated - - -

https://chomsky.info/hegemony02/

Chomsky is a linguist with a bunch of crackpot ideas the left loves.

 

[funinspace]

It is basically saying if a powerful nation forces a treaty on a weak nation that cannot defend itself we must honor that crime.

You don't like the way the world is organized so you change it in your mind and nothing changes. Treaty exists. Treaty not officially renounced so Cuba is taking money they don't want?

Dream on.

The treaty was imposed upon Cuba basically as a condition to allow their independence from the US as a colonial territory. The treaty also explicitly limits our use of the base for “naval and coaling stations”. A military prison is pretty far off the reservation. In 1934 we got the treaty revised to have no end date on the agreement. As long as the US refused to agree to a change, we act as if we are in the right. Yeah, who is going to argue with the 800lb gorilla. Might makes right... And the current government of Cuba has refused the payment since 1959.
http://www.coha.org/the-guantanamo-base-a-u-s-colonial-relic-impeding-peace-with-cuba/

However, the U.S. continues to pay the yearly lease of $4,085 USD while the Cuban government discards checks sent from the U.S. in an act of protest and defiance towards the presumed outdated treaty. Given that the United States still sends their checks to the “Treasure General of the Republic”—a pre-revolutionary position that was dismantled after the Castro government took power—the checks are essentially meaningless as addressed to a non-existent institution.[13]

Additionally, the 1977 treaty signed by the Carter Administration to secede official jurisdiction of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians established a precedent of demand for similar action in Guantanamo.[14] The leasing of the Panama Canal occurred around the same time as the leasing of Guantanamo under the Roosevelt Administration, adding chronological legitimacy to the Cuban argument. Pointing to U.S. hypocrisy, some have been left wondering why the Panama Canal lease was nullified and returned to Panama while the Guantanamo lease remains under absolute U.S. authority.

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky is a linguist with a bunch of crackpot ideas the left loves.

Chomsky merely knows the history.

Something you call "crackpot ideas".

 

[untermensche]

The treaty was imposed upon Cuba basically as a condition to allow their independence from the US as a colonial territory.

It was imposed so the US could maintain control over Cuba.

Demonstrated by the US invasion 4 years after the so-called treaty was made.

From it's base.

 

[funinspace]

The treaty was imposed upon Cuba basically as a condition to allow their independence from the US as a colonial territory.

It was imposed so the US could maintain control over Cuba.

Demonstrated by the US invasion 4 years after the so-called treaty was made.

From it's base.

Yeah, I should have included "nominal" before the word "independence"...

 

[untermensche]

It was imposed so the US could maintain control over Cuba.

Demonstrated by the US invasion 4 years after the so-called treaty was made.

From it's base.

Yeah, I should have included "nominal" before the word "independence"...

"Independence" is what the US government and therefore what most US historians called it.

But it was basically a US colony until 1959.

 

[dismal]

Well, let's just hope with more free trade and capitalism things get better for the Cuban people.

 

[Sarpedon]

They will benefit more from being able to ask their government questions, and get answers.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, let's just hope with more free trade and capitalism things get better for the Cuban people.

I suppose if you mean a little less embargo, a little more money flowing in, and a little more democracy, I could agree.

 

[dismal]

Well, let's just hope with more free trade and capitalism things get better for the Cuban people.

I suppose if you mean a little less embargo, a little more money flowing in, and a little more democracy, I could agree.

Less embargo = more free trade does it not?

Of course imports make up a small portion of most economies. They really need domestic free trade more than trade with the ruthless and greedy and imperialist US with whom any sort of dealings leads inevitably to disaster of epic proportion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I suppose if you mean a little less embargo, a little more money flowing in, and a little more democracy, I could agree.

Less embargo = more free trade does it not?

No, they are not completely equivalent terms.

Of course imports make up a small portion of most economies.

Americans lifting the embargo would mean much more Cuban exports but also American tourism and other things which aren't quite imports.

They really need domestic free trade more than trade with the ruthless and greedy and imperialist US with whom any sort of dealings leads inevitably to disaster of epic proportion.

Is this something you can prove?

 

[dismal]

Less embargo = more free trade does it not?

No, they are not completely equivalent terms.

Of course imports make up a small portion of most economies.

Americans lifting the embargo would mean much more Cuban exports but also American tourism and other things which aren't quite imports.

They really need domestic free trade more than trade with the ruthless and greedy and imperialist US with whom any sort of dealings leads inevitably to disaster of epic proportion.

Is this something you can prove?

Fuck it.