Cuba demands return of Guantanamo

[LagoHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Fat Crazy Hippie]

The mere thought that people hold the Guantanamo as in anyway relevant towards the defence of the Canal relly made me laugh through the entire scrolling!!

This is not the era of coal powered steamboats!! Even Gibraltar has lost almost all military significance (seriously the brits want to hand it over to Spain but the citizens disagree). You know those fangled thing called airplanes? they can reach the cannal within hours a navy stationed in Cuba would take days, and what a few days more than if stationed in Florida?

In short hand it back, the difference between Texas, California, Gibraltar and Malvinas is that there is not a single person living in Guantanamo, heck if you subtract inevitable executions from births it would not surprise me if that chunk of bay were the only place in the history of mankind with a negative toll.

 

[beencounting]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LonghornLawyer]

The point is not simply that someone would attack the Canal, but that we can prevent someone from transiting through it.

We do have airplanes. And Guantanamo allows us (1) to launch aircraft from Guantanamo to anywhere in Latin America with a shorter flight time than combat aircraft originating in the United States would have and (2) to replenish aircraft carriers operating in the Caribbean in less time than it would take to replenish them from the United States. Guantanamo acts both as an aircraft carrier that cannot be sunk and as a logistics base for carriers operating throughout the Caribbean. In the last 30 years, the base has been invaluable in actions against Granada and Panama.

Seriously--you cannot be so ignorant of naval matters to believe that forward bases are of no military significance. By that theory, we should abandon our naval bases in Bahrain and Japan, and the Royal Navy should abandon its bases in Oman and Diego Garcia.

I mean, since we have airplanes now, what's the point in cutting hours off their foreseeable flight times? Right?

 

[HornsInTheHouse]

Do you realize how far the Panama Canal is from potential enemies? And how puny their navies are to sail that far let alone match up with the USN? You're living in the imperial past. You see threat where there are none and want to fortify against these imaginary threats by establishing forward bases that are not welcome by the host country. The US has no more right to restrict who uses the canal and international waters than Iran has. The Panama Canal is as American territory as Hong Kong is British territory.

 

[beencounting]

Cuba is how far from Florida? Lets not blow GT out of proportion. If bandits or wild *** Syrian ships needed to be stopped at the Panama, there are plenty of assets that can do that and this remote Cuban base is not needed. Like I asked, what huge naval threat exists in the western hemisphere? Stopping ships in the Canal? Marines can do that. Jets can blow it to pieces, taking off from Texas and refueled. During the Iraq war, planes took off from the US and bombed Baghdad. GT is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

to the other point, we would not expect the Iranians to honor contracts done by the Shah and contracts with the Lords of Cuba don't hold much weight, or should'nt.

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[beencounting]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LonghornLawyer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Nivek]

******* lawyers....

 

[Fat Crazy Hippie]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Hornin Hong Kong]

the clear precedent is Hong Kong. You wait until the lease is up

 

[Brubricker]

Per a 1934 treaty between the two countries, the lease on Gitmo is perpetual and can be revoked only by the mutual consent of both Cuba and the USA.

 

[Nivek]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BA93]

I don't know this history (& don't care to research it) but its seems a little crazy to me that there is a perpetual contract that requires both parties to agree to a change. In any circumstance, I would guess that one party was forced into that contract.

Gitmo seems to me that its just a big FU to Castro. Once the Florida Cubans move back to Cuba and run the country in the same manner as Castro, the next Republican President would hand Gitmo back to Cuba. (and yes, I think the US policy to Cuba has allowed Castro to remain in power.)

 

[Idahorn2]

I keep hearing an echo here--"COME AND TAKE IT."

It might be nice having a President who has a quick temper and a grudge against Commies; Cubans in particular only a little less than North Vietnamese. They might be needing a whole lot of that excellent health care that other Commies brag about all the time.

 

[BA93]

North Vietnamese? I thought we were pretty cool with Vietnam these days.

 

[Ag with kids]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LonghornLawyer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Fat Crazy Hippie]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[FondrenRoad]

Can't they do all that from Puerto Rico?

 

[LonghornLawyer]

Hippie--it's okay to admit when you're wrong. Especially when you're so obviously so. And that's the case here. Nobody in their right mind would argue that midair refueling is the same as being able to fly to the target without it. Midair refueling takes time and limits the number of aircraft you can put on target.

I think you know that.

But that is a cool picture--thanks for posting.

 

[beencounting]

and how much time does midair refueling take? and how much time is lost? and how intense is the threat from an enemy? Refueling will not allow the enemy to escape, after all the enemy is presumably a ship and not a UFO.

Comparing the Gulf of Mexico and the waters off the caribbean to the Persian Gulf is also a huge mistake.

It's ok to admit an exaggeration LL.

 

[beencounting]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TahoeHorn]

The standard West Mall debating tactic is to try to rebut a portion of a previous implied argument. It would be real nice if people took a few minutes to lay out the affirmative case.

Would somebody arguing to return Gitmo lay out in a few sentences why? I've read that:

1. The Cubans want it.
2. The treaty with Cuba wasn't made with Castro and he only made one lease payment so (something I'm not clear).
3. The US military could protect the Panama Canal without a base at Gitmo.
4. The US does bad things.

What kind of affirmative case is that to vacate the base? We have more lawyers on this site than you can shake a stick at but few simple affirmative cases.

On this issue it sseems the burden of proof lies with those wanting to return it.

 

[beencounting]

closing a base saves taxpayer dollars, not to mention the all important lease payment.

 

[TahoeHorn]

been,

You're arguing with a straight face that the reason to close Guantanamo is to save money? That piddly lease check which never gets cashed? Replacing a strategically located base with functions farther away saves money?

BTW, did you choose it because it's the best mony-saving opportunity? (not that it has to be to be meritorious but just asking)

 

[beencounting]

Tahoe,

are you arguing with a straight face that base closings don't save money? Several have been closed in the last 20 years and their functions diverted elsewhere. Same can go for Gitmo, with troops transferred to Kabul.

 

[TahoeHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[beencounting]

the last post did not show at all how closing it down is more expensive to defend these waters. Also, no one has produced a credible threat which absolutely requires this place and cannot be dealt with by the dynamic array of US naval and air assets.

Gitmo is being kept to show the world that the US will not back down from its interests. As such trying to prove its military value is pointless, because both sides know it has little to none.