I wasn't referring to him but what would you do differently about Cuba if you were the President? They're not exactly people we want to trip over ourselves to work with.
End the embargo and normalize relations. Sanctions cost money, and trade is beneficial, even if the amounts are small for the US.
Unless sanctions serve a clear and important purpose, the default position should always be to remove them.
And that somehow negates the danger Iran currently poses to his subjects and the world?
The Iranian people revolted against the Shah. Their form of internal government is their business. And Iran is more democratic than for example Saoudi Arabia. In addition, the latter just went into Bahrain to suppress the popular revolt there.
What threat does Iran pose to the world? Iran lost 1 million people during the US-supported Iraqi invasion of their country. Despite supporting the US in the aftermath of the WTC-attacks, Iran was labelled as part of the Axis of Evil. Iran has far more reason to feel threatened by the US than any other country has to feel threatened by Iran.
But it's playing with the lives of 1-6 million people at the moment which is a crime beyond comprehension. They are a danger to the world in this way.
No point worrying about things that are outside your power to change. Deal with the things you
can influence, and get the best deal out of them.
Honestly I don't believe in the "permanent war is more desirable than peace" conspiracy theory.
Just do the artithmatic. Count the number of non-defensive interventions of choice the US participated in, and compare it with those by Iran or North Korea.
The US is far more militarily aggressive than either of them.
If you could make an objective case for a path to achieving more global peace and well-being that this "hegemony" is not taking I would like to hear it. Everyone has criticisms of how things have been done in the past, but really what should be done differently in the context of now.
Stop meddling in countries where the people don't appreciate it because eventually they'll strike back, and focus on improving life at home.
You don't have to submit to the world powers to become a peaceful and economically rich nation. Just stop committing crimes against humanity and other nations. There are plenty of countries doing just fine that operate in stark contrast to what we would prefer but still pose no risk of sanctions or attack. While there may be a tendency in some quarters towards imperialism, in general the motivation is truly global peace.
It's more accurate to say that if you submit to US hegemony, then you're allowed to commit crimes against humanity and other nations. As long as you keep newscoverage to a minimum. Which is easier than it sounds, because American newsmedia don't really like to report things about allies that would make the US look bad.
Meanwhile, Egypt was widely known for torturing its prisoners. The US even sent some Iraq prisoners there for that purpose. But it was okay, because Egypt was a US-ally. It's only bad if a country from the Axis of Evil tortures its prisoners.
I think the majority of the world's people desire peace on earth nations and laws be damned.
Of course, but the problem is, most of them want peace only on their own terms. And many are willing to fight over that.
I'm for permanent improvement of military superpower out of pure logic. The existence of these entities and the presence of a vested interest doesn't prove MIHOP or LIHOP for world events, acute and sublte, long-term and short-term.
Those are stupid acronyms.
Economists have proven time and again that
incentives matter. The Pentagon has an incentive to exaggerate foreign threats, because doing so will increase their funding. Defense contractors have incentive to sell weapons to questionable regimes and generally favour military intervention, because doing so makes them money.
To deny such incentives for powerful lobbies play part in US policy is delusional.
