Obama Goes To Cuba

Ryokan said:
If you had your way, the US couldn't have traded with any other country on the planet. That would have ruined your country.

If history has taught us anything, it's that mutual trade and the reliance that follows is a guarantee against aggression and war.
Click to expand...

Not really, though there are certainly times that it has. Tends to follow how dependent each partner is on that trade and who sees advantage to adjusting that trade in their favor.
 
logger said:
Good luck with that here, there is a bunch of socialists and liberals who are one in the same. They haven't met a dictator they didn't love. Che and Castro are heroes to them.
Click to expand...

I am rather clearly a liberal and think Che and either Castro deserved dying far sooner than happened/will happen. I cannot think of any dictator I have ever liked or thought a country was better off for having. And I do not believe I am remotely alone in that............For Che, the only useful thing he ever did of which I am aware was in his/one of his (I only know of one)books describe how to use a shotgun as a mortar to propel a molotov cocktail.
 
Ryokan said:
If you had your way, the US couldn't have traded with any other country on the planet. That would have ruined your country.

If history has taught us anything, it's that mutual trade and the reliance that follows is a guarantee against aggression and war.
Click to expand...

You realize that by 1913 international trade was (as a proportion of GDP) higher than it would be again until the late 1970's, right? How did all that mutual trade and reliance in 1913 work out at guaranteeing no more war? Mmmm?
 
fuelair said:
Not really, though there are certainly times that it has. Tends to follow how dependent each partner is on that trade and who sees more advantage than harm in adjusting that trade in their favor.
Click to expand...

FTFM!!!
 
fuelair said:
Not really, though there are certainly times that it has. Tends to follow how dependent each partner is on that trade and who sees advantage to adjusting that trade in their favor.
Click to expand...

By the by, anyone really interested in trade/trade history needs to read most of Fernand Braudel's works and God and Gold!

I seriously doubt you will find any disappointment in having done so!!!!!
 
Malbec said:
There was considerable discussion in the real world .
Far more interesting is his visit to Argentina and Antarctica .Not much( any?) mainstream coverage .
Given the Chinese expenditures in Patagonia ( presumably) --- not far from Adolf's retirement mansion coincidentally --- silence has apparently been deemed golden .
As for further south . There's an interesting place to hang out .
Click to expand...

Stop beating around the bush. What do you want to imply here?
 
tyr_13 said:
It meant that at the time with the Red Scare and Cold War, Nixon had the cred with the people scared of that sort of Commie collusion to not be accused of it. It says nothing about the validity of those accusations against others. In fact we know that most all of those accusations were bunk, and is rightly viewed with great shame.

By most. Fifty years later some still think that going to Cuba means that unless you're to the right of Ted Cruz, you're a liberal commie traitor. Those accusations should be viewed as bunk, and with great shame.
Click to expand...

The fact that the socialist media delighted in Nixon's trip is enough to confirm it was anti-freedom and pro-socialist at its root. Nixon was in fact extremely socialistic and loved govt power too, almost as much as socialists.

These are the same people that said we should not have opposed the Soviets either, like John "Traitor" Kerry: "we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now". Socialists, and the media, viciously attacked Reagan over and over for fighting the Soviets, telling us, we must get along, not antagonize them, because they're going to be there a very long time, it's impossible to (literally) defeat them.

Socialists kept saying that, and attacking Reagan, right up until Reagan actually did defeat the Soviets. Then, of course, they congratulated themselves for "helping to defeat the Soviets", as "everyone wanted all along". Socialist hypocrisy is boundless.

If JFK hadn't been so pathetically weak, and so self-centered that he was more concerned with his affairs than America's affairs of state, we'd never been forced to make massive concessions to Cuba and the Soviets to get out of the JFK-induced Cuban missile crisis. As with JFK's PT boat, the socialist re-writes of history always convert socialist failures into alleged successes! If only JFK had been able to surrender Miami itself, the socialists could have claimed a complete victory!
 
Last edited:
What concessions did JFK make to Cuba?
What was re-written about a PT Boat?
 
ScottPletcher said:
The fact that the socialist media delighted in Nixon's trip is enough to confirm it was anti-freedom and pro-socialist at its root. Nixon was in fact extremely socialistic and loved govt power too, almost as much as socialists.

These are the same people that said we should not have opposed the Soviets either, like John "Traitor" Kerry: "we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now". Socialists, and the media, viciously attacked Reagan over and over for fighting the Soviets, telling us, we must get along, not antagonize them, because they're going to be there a very long time, it's impossible to (literally) defeat them.

Socialists kept saying that, and attacking Reagan, right up until Reagan actually did defeat the Soviets. Then, of course, they congratulated themselves for "helping to defeat the Soviets", as "everyone wanted all along". Socialist hypocrisy is boundless.

If JFK hadn't been so pathetically weak, and so self-centered that he was more concerned with his affairs than America's affairs of state, we'd never been forced to make massive concessions to Cuba and the Soviets to get out of the JFK-induced Cuban missile crisis. As with JFK's PT boat, the socialist re-writes of history always convert socialist failures into alleged successes! If only JFK had been able to surrender Miami itself, the socialists could have claimed a complete victory!
Click to expand...


Nope.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What concessions did JFK make to Cuba?
Click to expand...

The lead-up to the Cuban issues is noteworthy too. JFK's meeting with Khrushchev. From the New York Times (hardly a right-wing paper!):
"
Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed
...
Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.
"
Anyone who's objectively studied this history agrees on the bolded part.

Then, to get out the missiles he alone had caused to be put there (!), JFK agreed to remove our missiles from Turkey, which had been there for some time. And agreed not to try to overthrow Castro or seize Cuba. What other president has given those elements of American sovereignty away?? (Other than Obama.)

The Bay of Pigs was a fiasco too, caused solely by JFK's half-heartedness. Once he decided to not allow follow-up air cover, the only moral thing to do was to call off all landings, rather than allowing the men going in to be sacrificed just so he would have "plausible deniability" of the U.S. being involved. A narcissistic, moral coward (like Clinton).


I guess everyone believes all the self-serving lies about JFK because the media repeats them so often. I've always wanted the truth. For example, after I watch a movie about Billy the Kid, I immediately want to read a good book to give me the real story. Sadly, most people just don't bother, and accept the "useful idiot" propaganda that abounds on everything about the Soviets and other socialists.
 
Last edited:
Polaris said:
That deserves to be up there with "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Zombie Reagan wishes he'd said it.
Click to expand...

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" is the single emptiest statement any president has ever made, even including Obama's pathetic "red line" statements.

There were huge numbers of things to fear, not least of which was the massive, overwhelming fed govt power-grab FDR would institute. He single-handedly turned us from a free nation into a socialist one. We shouldn't have just feared that, we should have fought it! Tooth and nail!!
 
ScottPletcher said:
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" is the single emptiest statement any president has ever made, even including Obama's pathetic "red line" statements.

There were huge numbers of things to fear, not least of which was the massive, overwhelming fed govt power-grab FDR would institute. He single-handedly turned us from a free nation into a socialist one. We shouldn't have just feared that, we should have fought it! Tooth and nail!!
Click to expand...


You do know that by "The Great Depression", they weren't talking about how awesome it was, right?
 
ZirconBlue said:
You do know that by "The Great Depression", they weren't talking about how awesome it was, right?
Click to expand...

I understand that the Great Depression, which FDR caused [as many serious economists now admit], was extraordinarily bad. Not least of all because it brought Hitler to power. Thus, FDR destroyed not only the U.S. economy, but gave power to Hitler, leading eventually to tens of millions of people dead.

The initial market dip was actually recovered from. It was when all the massive fed govt socialistic programs and the massive regulation of private businesses, and FDR's personal dicates on gold, etc., while he was just fishing for something to do that might work, that so deepened and lengthened the depression.

Other depressions, some even initially worse, had come and gone in U.S. history. But this was the first time a president assumed dictatorial powers to try to "correct" it. The results were so disastrous it's astounding that people keep wanting to do those things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom