China and Cuba
President Bush on Cuba (March 2008):
In the face of these abuses, the United States has not been silent, nor will we be silent. (Applause.) We have been consistently joined in condemning the Cuban regime's brutal outrages by a small band of brave nations.
…
They must release all political prisoners. They must have respect for human rights in word and deed, and pave the way for free and fair elections.
President Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley on China (April 2008):
Asked whether confronting the Beijing government about Tibet in public was counterproductive, Hadley said: "It's an issue of the Chinese government. It's also an issue of the Chinese people, who are very invested in the Olympics, who see it as a coming of age for China. And so it's a balancing here. We think that it is very important to deal with the Tibet issue. But we think the best way to do that is through the kind of diplomacy we have been undertaking, not by the kind of frontal confrontation that's being suggested by some."
21 comments:
China is an enormous, dangerous, emerging nation. Cuba, not so much.
Different realities, different policies.
bull crap.... prevent you falling roof before trying to comment on others. China is not going to give a damn about what US is going to prescribe!
China is an enormous, dangerous, emerging nation. Cuba, not so much.
Different realities, different policies.
Indeed, realpolitik 101.
That means people like you, Paul, shouldn't wax moralistic about U.S. policy toward Cuba because it has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with power.
"That means people like you, Paul, shouldn't wax moralistic about U.S. policy toward Cuba because it has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with power."
That's just your deranged, Marxist, dorm room solitude induced perspective. In a better world, we could openly admonish the Chinese thugs like we can your buddy Castro.
We must also ask ourselves how well the "frontal confrontation" strategy has worked with Cuba.
In a better world, we could openly admonish the Chinese thugs like we can your buddy Castro.
Could we openly admonish a first-class slaughterer like Alvaro Uribe in better world, Paul?
"Could we openly admonish a first-class slaughterer like Alvaro Uribe in better world, Paul?"
Yes, he's first class at slaughtering your FARC pals running to your master Hugo's loving arms.
"We must also ask ourselves how well the "frontal confrontation" strategy has worked with Cuba."
Well, it would have worked much better if JFK hadn't betrayed the Cuban liberators at the Bay of Pigs, and then guaranteed Castro's tyranny during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Well, it would have worked much better if JFK hadn't betrayed the Cuban liberators at the Bay of Pigs, and then guaranteed Castro's tyranny during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Ah, yes, the old "We-got-stabbed-in-the-back-by-the-Democrats." This one never fails. There was an interesting article in Harper's a couple years ago that eloquently explained that the "stabbed-in-the-back" ruse is an ever-recurring piece of right-wing propaganda. In fact, the article draws some analogies to Nazi propaganda, in which the "stabbed-in-the-back" line was used to blame Jews and leftists for Germany's defeat in World War I.
Not particularly original, Paul.
It's been a while since the last Nazi/Hitler comparison. I ought to keep a counter.
It's been a while since the last Nazi/Hitler comparison. I ought to keep a counter.
Right. Of course, it doesn't bear mentioning if Miguel makes transparently absurd comparisons of this nature. Oh, but if I mention a Harper's article that compares one form of right-wing propaganda to that of the Nazis, Greg is sure to take note because we all know that Harper's --sold across the airports of America-- is downright subversive and extremist.
What would we do without you, Greg?
Without me, you wouldn't have this blog to spend so much time on.
Without me, you wouldn't have this blog to spend so much time on.
And without me, Greg, you wouldn't be able to put your glaring double standards on display.
Huh, Justin cites some Harper's article I neiter read nor cited, and somehow grafts that onto my comment? WTF?
I bet Justin rules his pet hamster and goldfish with an iron fist.
Huh, Justin cites some Harper's article I neiter read nor cited, and somehow grafts that onto my comment?
No, genius, the point was that the Harper's article has something to say about your basic line of logic.
"No, genius, the point was that the Harper's article has something to say about your basic line of logic."
Oh yeah, because I criticize JFK's actions in Cuba...I'm the equivalent of a Nazi.
Excellent critique, what a travesty they haven't delivered your Phd on a golden lace pillow.
Oh yeah, because I criticize JFK's actions in Cuba...I'm the equivalent of a Nazi.
No, actually, nobody has said you're the equivalent of a Nazi. If you have the courage, try reading the Harper's article. You'll learn a lot about yourself.
"No, actually, nobody has said you're the equivalent of a Nazi. If you have the courage, try reading the Harper's article."
Justin equates reading a magazine article with courage. That certainly explains his revolutionary fervor from the safety of his dorm room inside the Empire.
Self-intropection takes courage, Paul. That's something you don't have, unfortunately.
*dodges flying mud to venture into conversation long enough to say*:
"Good post, Greg."
*promptly leaves*
Post a Comment