Comment by Keltoi — December 13, 2007 @ 3:17 pm

Yes there is. American conservatives who still think the sun shined right out of Reagan’s ass. (Many of them mysteriously believe that Bush is a great president.) Those people are far, far more tedious.

I was referring to your reply to me at comment # 50, where I compared U.S foreign policy with the Cuban government and you then somehow conflated Cuba with the Soviet Union and their relationship with eastern Europe, when you asserted that “… by staring down Castro’s masters in the Kremlin we freed Eastern Europe from Soviet domination.” Your words, not mine. I still do not understand what an island in the Caribbean has to do with the former Soviet bloc. Unless, that is, you are attempting to channel the ghost of former Senator Joseph McCarthy, by trying to claim that there is not only a terrorist under each bed in America but now apparently that terrorist is sharing that bed with America’s favorite boogeyman, a communist. More fear and hysteria coming from the superpatriots of this country.

Comment by NoOneYouKnow — December 13, 2007 @ 2:29 pm

Please, do not, there is nothing more tedious than American liberals talking about how great Castro is and how much better life is in Cuba than the US. It certainly explains why Cubans risk life and limb to flee the Police State they are born in to get to the US.

That would indeed be a bizarre statement if I had said that. Clearly, the two events are unrelated, we got our wires crossed.

Very well said. A voice of reason next to the illogical and superpatriotic ramblings put forth by Keltoi.

Thanks for the info – maybe you should change your monicker to “TheMoreYouKnow” ;)

You bizarrely assert that the Cuban missile crisis somehow “freed Eastern Europe from Soviet domination.” The Cuban missile crisis occurred in 1962; eastern Europe broke away from the Soviet Union circa 1990. What in the world does one thing have to do with the other? That makes about as much sense in claiming that the U.S. has a right to have a military base in Cuba, despite the protestations of the Cuban government. Despite what so many superpatriotic conservatives may wish to believe, Ronald Reagan was not the major reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. That happened because of the economic collapse that had been going on in the Soviet Union for many decades and which was exacerbated by their defense budget, which should serve as a warning to the United States.

Now try to actually think this through. How would you feel if Cuba somehow took over Miami, Fl. or if Chinese troops decided to capture and maintain residence and establish a military base in San Francisco? Those troops would be wrong in doing so just as the United States is wrong in having a military base in Cuba and occupying Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi people. Despite your protestations, they all have the same theme: illegal and immoral occupation of another country by American troops. Again, you can wave the flag and cry patriotism for as long as you wish but that will do nothing to disguise the immorality of what the U.S. has done around the world.

Hm. Well, by staring down Castro’s masters in the Kremlin we freed Eastern Europe from Soviet domination. But what is a measely 200 million or so people freed from totalitarian dictatorship.

>>The United States has no business, just like it has no business being in Iraq, having a naval base in Cuba against the wishes of the Cuban people and the Cuban government.

My God, if you held a free election in Cuba who do you think they would vote out – Guantanamo or Castro’s hideous dictatorship? “Cuba People” my foot.

You again seem to be arguing that the U.S. can do no wrong and that the idea of American Exceptionalism shall always prevail. Thankfully, there are people such as the ones that I cited above who have persuasively proven that fallacy to be incorrect.
Comment by Erroll — December 13, 2007 @ 1:06 pm

Thank you for including “seem”. Obviously no nation is perfect or always right. As far as your list goes, it would be easy to find a dozen PhDs or international lawyers who disagree. But again, this is not an Iraq thread

Bush will be gone soon, and El Presidente will be on his 10th American President. Comparing the two is silly.

Comment by Keltoi — December 13, 2007 @ 12:51 pm

No, the key words are “just so long as I’m the dictator.” And Castro will be gone soon, too, to whatever his just reward will be. When will Bush receive his just reward in THIS life?

I’m not comparing everything about Castro to everything about Bush, just saying that there are similarities between the two that should not be ignored. If you’ll notice, I was responding to two particular points that you made about Castro, not his entire regime nor Bush’s.

“That is your opinion”. Again you are incorrect. It not simply my opinion that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal. It is also the quite credible opinions of such people as Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Professor in Global Studies, Univ. of Calif.-Santa Barbara and expert on international relations, law of war and global institutions; Benjamin G. Davis, Associate Professor of Law at the Univ. of Toledo and expert on law war and former Articles Editor of the Harvard International Law Journal; Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Univ. of Illinois College of Law, Harvard Ph. D in political science and scholar in international law and human rights; Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild and Associate Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law as well as writers and historians such as Howard Zinn, Anthony Arnove and Michael Parenti, et al.

How do the numerous violations that the U.S. has committed post WWII stack up against the internal policies of the Cuban government? The United States has no business, just like it has no business being in Iraq, having a naval base in Cuba against the wishes of the Cuban people and the Cuban government. You again seem to be arguing that the U.S. can do no wrong and that the idea of American Exceptionalism shall always prevail. Thankfully, there are people such as the ones that I cited above who have persuasively proven that fallacy to be incorrect.

Comment by Chris L — December 13, 2007 @ 12:44 pm

Exactly as many as the prescence of the USN at Gitmo has allowed him to – zero.

With a population of 11 million and a Command Economy, their ability does not match their desire. Still, they were involved in training Communist Guerillas in numerous Latin American countries since Castro as well as Africa. Then there is the whole Missile Crisis thing.

Comment by Jane E. Schneider — December 13, 2007 @ 12:47 pm

Key word “IF”.

Bush will be gone soon, and El Presidente will be on his 10th American President. Comparing the two is silly.

Comment by Keltoi — December 13, 2007 @ 12:41 pm

And Bush recognizes no law save the Law of Bush.

“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier… just so long as I’m the dictator.”
During his first trip to Washington as President-Elect, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

Comment by Keltoi — December 13, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
##

How many countries has Cuba invaded since Castro took over?

Comment by Jane E. Schneider — December 13, 2007 @ 12:05 pm

Moreso than a dictator who has been in power since Eisnehower was President, yes. Castro recognizes no law save the Law of the Jungle.

That is your opinion. Also, this thread is about Gitmo, not Iraq. How does Castro’s seizure of power and subsequent abuse of Cuba’s people stack up against the treaties mentioned above?

“The opinions of Fidel Castro on international law are not real credible.” Surely that statement is designed to be read as irony, is it not? How many treaties has the U.S. broken over the last fifty years by illegally invading other countries and exacerbating conflicts in other lands such as Vietnam? When the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq, it violated the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, The Nuremberg Principles, and the U.S. Constitution. I submit that it is hardly a coincidence that the United States chooses not to belong to the International Criminal Court, where their transgressions could be brought to light at the Hague. Perhaps the trials at Nuremberg proved that war crimes and trials can take place as long as the victors do not have to account for their actions. Nuremberg may also serve as a warning to those American soldiers currently serving in Iraq, as the judges at Nuremberg proved by hanging German officers and soldiers that trying to hide behind the excuse that “I was only following orders” was never going to used as a justification to commit war crimes, which is certainly what is happening today in Iraq.