Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The Phony In Chief
Comments
-
If the Cubans wish for freedom, let them free themselves. I *know* they are capable.
-
We don't trade with countries led by a dictator that wants to blow us up when trade gives the dictator the resources needed to blow us up. Are you really not getting this, or are you just fucking with me?GreenRiverGatorz said:
There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that opening Cuba up for trade poses any kind of threat to our national security.greenblood said:
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?greenblood said:
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.UWhuskytskeet said:
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?greenblood said:
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?UWhuskytskeet said:Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.
Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.
But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.
And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?
If they had a different leader then, yes, absolutely. But as long as they have the Castro's in charge or something similar, our country needs to be closed for business. Risk>>>Benefit -
We don't? I don't doubt for a second that Russia, China, and Iran would blow us straight to hell if they were even remotely capable of doing so. Yet we still trade with them. Cuba on the other hand isn't even a speck on our military radar; they are a totally neutered adversary. The Castros couldn't even throw a rock over the fence of Guantanamo Bay before their entire presidential compound would be obliterated. Giving them some extra trade dollars is not going to change that.greenblood said:
We don't trade with countries led by a dictator that wants to blow us up when trade gives the dictator the resources needed to blow us up. Are you really not getting this, or are you just fucking with me?GreenRiverGatorz said:
There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that opening Cuba up for trade poses any kind of threat to our national security.greenblood said:
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?greenblood said:
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.UWhuskytskeet said:
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?greenblood said:
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?UWhuskytskeet said:Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.
Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.
But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.
And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?
If they had a different leader then, yes, absolutely. But as long as they have the Castro's in charge or something similar, our country needs to be closed for business. Risk>>>Benefit -
You are retarded if you think Cuba wants to, let alone has the capability, to "blow us up". That's Sledog level of fear mongering.greenblood said:
We don't trade with countries led by a dictator that wants to blow us up when trade gives the dictator the resources needed to blow us up. Are you really not getting this, or are you just fucking with me?GreenRiverGatorz said:
There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that opening Cuba up for trade poses any kind of threat to our national security.greenblood said:
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?greenblood said:
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.UWhuskytskeet said:
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?greenblood said:
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?UWhuskytskeet said:Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.
Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.
But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.
And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?
If they had a different leader then, yes, absolutely. But as long as they have the Castro's in charge or something similar, our country needs to be closed for business. Risk>>>Benefit
"And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?"
We could embargo half of the world and not miss a beat, but it's still a shitty policy that serves no purpose. It's a horrible holdover from the cold war nothing else. -
Russia and China are capable. Iran will be soon thanks to Uncle Stupid. The reason countries want nukes is because you have to take them seriously. Except for North Korea.GreenRiverGatorz said:
We don't? I don't doubt for a second that Russia, China, and Iran would blow us straight to hell if they were even remotely capable of doing so. Yet we still trade with them. Cuba on the other hand isn't even a speck on our military radar; they are a totally neutered adversary. The Castros couldn't even throw a rock over the fence of Guantanamo Bay before their entire presidential compound would be obliterated. Giving them some extra trade dollars is not going to change that.greenblood said:
We don't trade with countries led by a dictator that wants to blow us up when trade gives the dictator the resources needed to blow us up. Are you really not getting this, or are you just fucking with me?GreenRiverGatorz said:
There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that opening Cuba up for trade poses any kind of threat to our national security.greenblood said:
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?greenblood said:
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.UWhuskytskeet said:
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?greenblood said:
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?UWhuskytskeet said:Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.
Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.
But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.
And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?
If they had a different leader then, yes, absolutely. But as long as they have the Castro's in charge or something similar, our country needs to be closed for business. Risk>>>Benefit -
Again Risk>>>Benefit. We get something in return from these countries that Cuba can't provide.GreenRiverGatorz said:
We don't? I don't doubt for a second that Russia, China, and Iran would blow us straight to hell if they were even remotely capable of doing so. Yet we still trade with them. Cuba on the other hand isn't even a speck on our military radar; they are a totally neutered adversary. The Castros couldn't even throw a rock over the fence of Guantanamo Bay before their entire presidential compound would be obliterated. Giving them some extra trade dollars is not going to change that.greenblood said:
We don't trade with countries led by a dictator that wants to blow us up when trade gives the dictator the resources needed to blow us up. Are you really not getting this, or are you just fucking with me?GreenRiverGatorz said:
There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that opening Cuba up for trade poses any kind of threat to our national security.greenblood said:
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?greenblood said:
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.UWhuskytskeet said:
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?greenblood said:
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?UWhuskytskeet said:Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.
Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.
But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.
And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?
If they had a different leader then, yes, absolutely. But as long as they have the Castro's in charge or something similar, our country needs to be closed for business. Risk>>>Benefit -
If it wasn't for the embargo Cuba would already have a nuke, if not multiple nukes. You bleeding heart liberals are pathetic. All it takes is a few terms with liberal leadership and our country becomes a laughing stock, and held hostage by inferior governments.UWhuskytskeet said:
You are retarded if you think Cuba wants to, let alone has the capability, to "blow us up". That's Sledog level of fear mongering.greenblood said:
We don't trade with countries led by a dictator that wants to blow us up when trade gives the dictator the resources needed to blow us up. Are you really not getting this, or are you just fucking with me?GreenRiverGatorz said:
There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that opening Cuba up for trade poses any kind of threat to our national security.greenblood said:
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?greenblood said:
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.UWhuskytskeet said:
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?greenblood said:
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?UWhuskytskeet said:Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.
Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.
But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.
And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?
If they had a different leader then, yes, absolutely. But as long as they have the Castro's in charge or something similar, our country needs to be closed for business. Risk>>>Benefit
"And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?"
We could embargo half of the world and not miss a beat, but it's still a shitty policy that serves no purpose. It's a horrible holdover from the cold war nothing else. -
Yeah the embargo served a purpose when Cuba housed soviet missiles, but hasn't served any purpose for decades.greenblood said:
If it wasn't for the embargo Cuba would already have a nuke, if not multiple nukes. You bleeding heart liberals are pathetic. All it takes is a few terms with liberal leadership and our country becomes a laughing stock, and held hostage by inferior governments.UWhuskytskeet said:
You are retarded if you think Cuba wants to, let alone has the capability, to "blow us up". That's Sledog level of fear mongering.greenblood said:
We don't trade with countries led by a dictator that wants to blow us up when trade gives the dictator the resources needed to blow us up. Are you really not getting this, or are you just fucking with me?GreenRiverGatorz said:
There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that opening Cuba up for trade poses any kind of threat to our national security.greenblood said:
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?greenblood said:
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.UWhuskytskeet said:
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?greenblood said:
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?UWhuskytskeet said:Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.
Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.
But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.
And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?
If they had a different leader then, yes, absolutely. But as long as they have the Castro's in charge or something similar, our country needs to be closed for business. Risk>>>Benefit
"And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?"
We could embargo half of the world and not miss a beat, but it's still a shitty policy that serves no purpose. It's a horrible holdover from the cold war nothing else.
Has nothing to do with bleeding hearts, the US government doesn't need to prevent me from travelling to a benign country. Castro is generally shitty to his citizens, but so are the governments of half the world, yet I'm free to travel pretty much any where else.
Fuck, I can travel to North Korea (a country that actually has nukes, and is actually threatening the US) any time I want. -
Trade, good.
But the President spending how ever many days glad handing
Kilometers have consequences.UWhuskytskeet said:
Yeah the embargo served a purpose when Cuba housed soviet missiles, but hasn't served any purpose for decades.greenblood said:
If it wasn't for the embargo Cuba would already have a nuke, if not multiple nukes. You bleeding heart liberals are pathetic. All it takes is a few terms with liberal leadership and our country becomes a laughing stock, and held hostage by inferior governments.UWhuskytskeet said:
You are retarded if you think Cuba wants to, let alone has the capability, to "blow us up". That's Sledog level of fear mongering.greenblood said:
We don't trade with countries led by a dictator that wants to blow us up when trade gives the dictator the resources needed to blow us up. Are you really not getting this, or are you just fucking with me?GreenRiverGatorz said:
There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that opening Cuba up for trade poses any kind of threat to our national security.greenblood said:
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?greenblood said:
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.UWhuskytskeet said:
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?greenblood said:
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?UWhuskytskeet said:Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.
Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.
But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.
And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?
If they had a different leader then, yes, absolutely. But as long as they have the Castro's in charge or something similar, our country needs to be closed for business. Risk>>>Benefit
"And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?"
We could embargo half of the world and not miss a beat, but it's still a shitty policy that serves no purpose. It's a horrible holdover from the cold war nothing else.
Has nothing to do with bleeding hearts, the US government doesn't need to prevent me from travelling to a benign country. Castro is generally shitty to his citizens, but so are the governments of half the world, yet I'm free to travel pretty much any where else.
Fuck, I can travel to North Korea (a country that actually has nukes, and is actually threatening the US) any time I want. -
Is this about travel?UWhuskytskeet said:
Yeah the embargo served a purpose when Cuba housed soviet missiles, but hasn't served any purpose for decades.greenblood said:
If it wasn't for the embargo Cuba would already have a nuke, if not multiple nukes. You bleeding heart liberals are pathetic. All it takes is a few terms with liberal leadership and our country becomes a laughing stock, and held hostage by inferior governments.UWhuskytskeet said:
You are retarded if you think Cuba wants to, let alone has the capability, to "blow us up". That's Sledog level of fear mongering.greenblood said:
We don't trade with countries led by a dictator that wants to blow us up when trade gives the dictator the resources needed to blow us up. Are you really not getting this, or are you just fucking with me?GreenRiverGatorz said:
There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that opening Cuba up for trade poses any kind of threat to our national security.greenblood said:
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.GreenRiverGatorz said:
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?greenblood said:
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.UWhuskytskeet said:
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?greenblood said:
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?UWhuskytskeet said:Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.
Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.
But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.
And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?
If they had a different leader then, yes, absolutely. But as long as they have the Castro's in charge or something similar, our country needs to be closed for business. Risk>>>Benefit
"And again, where do we benefit, outside of having another beach to visit for vacation?"
We could embargo half of the world and not miss a beat, but it's still a shitty policy that serves no purpose. It's a horrible holdover from the cold war nothing else.
Has nothing to do with bleeding hearts, the US government doesn't need to prevent me from travelling to a benign country. Castro is generally shitty to his citizens, but so are the governments of half the world, yet I'm free to travel pretty much any where else.
Fuck, I can travel to North Korea (a country that actually has nukes, and is actually threatening the US) any time I want.
You can travel to Cuba, you just have to go throw Mexico or Canada first. I could have saved you a lot of trouble if I knew that.
