Will BO hand Guantanamo to the Castros?

[Horn6721]

Actually the question should be can he without authorization from Congress.
I did laugh when BO said the USA could learn a thing on two from Cuba on human rights.
BO praised Cuba for education healthcare and women's equality. On that last point BO may be right. I think Cuba imprisons almost as many women "political enemies" as men
I also laughed when BO tweeted out a Hello to the Cuban people as he arrived since less than 5% have computers.

Standing in front of a giant sculpture of Che isn't as awful as some right wing talking heads are claiming it to be. I am sure it was carefully staged and will be a big propaganda tool for the Cubans but other than move over so he was not in front of it he probably couldn't do much.

I just wish he wouldn't pander to people like Castro. Hopefully that is the last repressive dictatorship he can praise .

 

[Seattle Husker]

Actually the question should be can he without authorization from Congress.
I did laugh when BO said the USA could learn a thing on two from Cuba on human rights.
BO praised Cuba for education healthcare and women's equality. On that last point BO may be right. I think Cuba imprisons almost as many women "political enemies" as men
I also laughed when BO tweeted out a Hello to the Cuban people as he arrived since less than 5% have computers.

Standing in front of a giant sculpture of Che isn't as awful as some right wing talking heads are claiming it to be. I am sure it was carefully staged and will be a big propaganda tool for the Cubans but other than move over so he was not in front of it he probably couldn't do much.

I just wish he wouldn't pander to people like Castro. Hopefully that is the last repressive dictatorship he can praise .

Obama answered your initial question when he announced the planned closure of the detention center there.

I can only imagine the perspective you're reading in rightwing news. Clearly, nothing is positive then again I'm sure nothing ever is there, until an R gets in the Whitehouse.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm no Castro fan, but let's cool our jets a little. There's a distinction between Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. The detention camp is part of the naval base. We might close the Detention Camp. (I oppose doing that, but that's beside the point.) We're not closing the Naval Base, and therefore, we're not giving anything back to Castro.

I know Castro has demanded that we return the Base and lift the embargo as conditions of normalizing relations. Though I do favor a gradual normalizing of relations with Cuba (including the lifting of the embargo), Cuba needs relations with the US far more than the US needs relations with Cuba. (In fact, we don't need them at all.) That means we dictate the terms. If they demand the return of the Base, we should tell them to screw off.

 

[Clean]

Just as Obama caved in to Iran, he is now caving in to Cuba; lifting sanctions and normalizing relations without any presumption that they will restore basic human rights to the Cuban people. He has even taken criticism about the US from the Castos with little reaction. Looks like another BO apology tour to me. He must really love those cigars.

 

[Horn6721]

Exactly MrD
Closing the prison camp is Not closing and giving back the base. That was my original question.
Which needs the other more?Cuba needing the USA or vice versus

 

[UTChE96]

Though I do favor a gradual normalizing of relations with Cuba (including the lifting of the embargo), Cuba needs relations with the US far more than the US needs relations with Cuba. (In fact, we don't need them at all.) That means we dictate the terms. If they demand the return of the Base, we should tell them to screw off.

This is the most frustrating part. I also support normalizing relations with Cuba but there must be some concessions on the part of Castro. We are the ones with leverage not Cuba. So far I have not seen a single concession from Castro to do anything differently than he is doing now. Between this and the Iranian deal, Obama will go down as our worst negotiating POTUS in history.

 

[Crockett]

Cuba would be a pretty interesting tourist destination and a great source of Major League Baseball talent.

What Obama is counting on is that increased traffic with the mainland will result in massive US influence on the Cuban economy and culture. There's no need to require political domination up front. Once Cubans get an idea of the quality of life available once they shed Communism, Castro-style leadership will die with Raul.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Just as Obama caved in to Iran, he is now caving in to Cuba; lifting sanctions and normalizing relations without any presumption that they will restore basic human rights to the Cuban people.

Sanctions against Cuba have proven to be worthless as a bargaining chip. We have maintained sanctions for half a century and got absolutely nothing for our trouble. And yet, the anti-Castro (and anti-Obama) crowd cling stubbornly to sanctions unless we get something. What exactly do you think we will get?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Sanctions against Cuba have proven to be worthless as a bargaining chip. We have maintained sanctions for half a century and got absolutely nothing for our trouble. And yet, the anti-Castro (and anti-Obama) crowd cling stubbornly to sanctions unless we get something. What exactly do you think we will get?

The sanctions haven't toppled the regime, but I wouldn't say they're worthless. If they were worthless, then Castro wouldn't be demanding (as if he's in a position to demand anything) that we lift them. I'm not sure exactly what we should expect in return for them. I'll leave that to the diplomats to decide.

However, if Cuba demands it as a condition of coming to the table, we should flip the table over and walk away. We don't need to lift the sanctions. We've gotten our cigars and rum from other parts of the Caribbean for the last 50 years. We don't need to get them from Cuba. I'm all for working out a normalization of relations, but there's absolutely no reason for us to take any crap or smack talk from them at all.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The sanctions haven't toppled the regime, but I wouldn't say they're worthless. If they were worthless, then Castro wouldn't be demanding (as if he's in a position to demand anything) that we lift them.

Is Castro's demand of lifting the sanctions an example that the sanctions are working? If so, they've been working for 50 years. Yes, they are a pain for Cuba but the leadership is in no more danger of abdicating their power now than immediately after Fidel's revolution.

If we can seed the ideas of liberty, democracy and freedom in the country might that have a "glasnost" effect? Our culture and capitalist economy has demonstrated over and over to be equally as powerful as our military in pushing our ideals.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Is Castro's demand of lifting the sanctions an example that the sanctions are working? If so, they've been working for 50 years. Yes, they are a pain for Cuba but the leadership is in no more danger of abdicating their power now than immediately after Fidel's revolution.

If we can seed the ideas of liberty, democracy and freedom in the country might that have a "glasnost" effect? Our culture and capitalist economy has demonstrated over and over to be equally as powerful as our military in pushing our ideals.

SH,

You're absolutely right, and I think we should open things up with Cuba including the lifting the embargo. However, that doesn't mean we should take it in the shorts by lifting the embargo unilaterally and without condition. We should lift the embargo as part of a broader strategy to seed the ideas of liberty, democracy, and freedom. If we don't do that, then we're just making the Castros and a few American billionaire investors richer.

I didn't unilaterally drop lawsuits. Money had to change hands. Likewise, we shouldn't unilaterally drop the embargo.

 

[Seattle Husker]

SH,

You're absolutely right, and I think we should open things up with Cuba including the lifting the embargo. However, that doesn't mean we should take it in the shorts by lifting the embargo unilaterally and without condition. We should lift the embargo as part of a broader strategy to seed the ideas of liberty, democracy, and freedom. If we don't do that, then we're just making the Castros and a few American billionaire investors richer.

I didn't unilaterally drop lawsuits. Money had to change hands. Likewise, we shouldn't unilaterally drop the embargo.

In that case we agree. Our differences are likely in how much the US requires of Cuba in order to lift the sanctions. Clearly some on the right (i.e. Ted Cruz) want Cuba to bend to every whim of the US in order to open relations. That's not a negotiation but rather an unreasonable expectation. The right had the same unreasonable expectation in negotiations with Iran. From my perspective, the right often thinks the US should dictate terms to the rest of the world. Look no further than Trump's claims.

 

[Htown77]

Has opening trade magically made Vietnam free? Liberals like to laugh at trickle down, then turn around and believe that opening trade with Cuba would do anything other than give the Castros a much needed lifeline.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...5a15d4-860c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html

"The Vietnam outcome is what the Castros are counting on: a flood of U.S. tourists and business investment that will allow the regime to maintain its totalitarian system indefinitely. Mr. Obama may claim that he has dismantled a 50-year-old failed policy; what he has really done is give a 50-year-old failed regime a new lease on life."

(You are crazy if you think the washington post editorial board is a "right wing news outlet".)

I believe most americans are ignorant on Cuba. They have continued and still continue to undermine our policy in the western hemisphere. They support terrorism against pro US regimes in Columbia and other central and south american nations. They are not and do not want to be our friend.

My guess is that Obama sees the Castros as people that stood up against US exploitation of the Americas. The truth is the Castros are gangsters that only wanted to exploit the Americas for themselves. If they cared about the Cuban people, they would give the Cuban people their freedom. Instead, they exploit their own people worse than we ever did. In addition, they willingly assisted in pointing nuclear weapons at the United States and creating possibly the worst crisis of the Cold War.

F*** both Castros. We should have never considered opening relations until both Castro brothers were at least dead. I think giving Cuba's regime of thugs and gangsters staying power to terrorize their own people and deny freedom to a close neighbor may be the worst mark on this president's legacy in the long run.

Also, its very hypocritical for the US to support rebellion against Assad and resistence against Putin in the Urkaine, then turn around support the Castro regime on our own doorstep.

The criticism of us in the third world is we only support freedom if its in our interest or we can make money. Well American business interests think they can make money in Cuba, so now we no longer care about the tyrants who run that island. It would appear such criticism is true.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In that case we agree. Our differences are likely in how much the US requires of Cuba in order to lift the sanctions. Clearly some on the right (i.e. Ted Cruz) want Cuba to bend to every whim of the US in order to open relations. That's not a negotiation but rather an unreasonable expectation. The right had the same unreasonable expectation in negotiations with Iran. From my perspective, the right often thinks the US should dictate terms to the rest of the world. Look no further than Trump's claims.

I don't claim to know what the embargo is worth. I just don't accept NJ's premise that it's worth nothing.

I think we should dictate terms to the extent that it's in our interests (looking at the issue holistically) to do so. That doesn't always mean we should just because we can. However, I don't see how it's in our interests to let Cuba dictate the terms of this issue, and lifting or unilaterally is letting them not only dictate the terms but frankly push us around.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
Can you provide a source for this? " Clearly some on the right (i.e. Ted Cruz) want Cuba to bend to every whim of the US in order to open relations. That's not a negotiation but rather an unreasonable expectation."
What whims has Se. Cruz called for?

I am not saying you are wrong. The points that I have hear Sen. Cruz make surround human rights and imprisonment of people who disagree with the communist regime.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Husker
Can you provide a source for this? " Clearly some on the right (i.e. Ted Cruz) want Cuba to bend to every whim of the US in order to open relations. That's not a negotiation but rather an unreasonable expectation."
What whims has Se. Cruz called for?

I am not saying you are wrong. The points that I have hear Sen. Cruz make surround human rights and imprisonment of people who disagree with the communist regime.

OK. Let's start there. Would any country release a laundry list of what another country defines as "political prisoners"? Remember, the Cuban governments claim is that these individuals have "violated the law". Start with the a key list of individuals. Blanket statements like "all political prisoners" set an impossible standard.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
Did Cruz call for ALL political prisoners to be set free? What "whim" exactly did Cruz call for regarding political prisoners? Have you read what he has said?
BTW Human Rights organizations estimate Castros imprisoned 4,000 in 2014 alone.

and what other "every whims" did Cruz call for?

 

[Statalyzer]

If we can seed the ideas of liberty, democracy and freedom in the country might that have a "glasnost" effect?

It's possible. Right now we haven't a hope of that, though. We believe in liberty and freedom, and to prove it, we will intervene to prevent any of our citizens from freely buying or selling anything to anyone or any entity in Cuba!

I'd be in favor of opening up a more normal relationship as I think sanctions have a pretty long history of failure to solve much of anything. But all the needless verbal affirmation just comes across like kowtowing.

 

[Htown77]

We trade with Vietnam. Their repressive regime is intact.

Did the soviet union collapse because we traded with them?

I am amazed at how many people think:
Step 1: Send $ to repressive regime
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Freedom

It's one thing to not care that Cuba constantly undermines US foreign policy in the Americas or that repressive conditions Cubans live under, because we can make some money down there.

It's another to take the illogical position that sending the regime money will somehow cause them to fall... especially with Vietnam as an example. I will also add that the regime previously siezed all american assets and refused to pay us back. Investing in a country with a government that does not recognized american property rights is probably also not the best move.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

 

[Seattle Husker]

This must be where Trump got his claim of Cuba suing the US for "many trillions of dollars".

 

[Phil Elliott]

Cuba is willing to talk to us now because their financial support from Venezuela is gone, and they need the money. This is NOT the time to lift sanctions, IMO. I agree with Htown77, it will only allow them to continue repressing their citizens. My concern is we are going to get nothing for lifting the sanctions, and Cuba will just be added to our list of countries we put on the dole and got nothing in return.

These little commie countries always have to have a sugar-daddy to keep their socialist paradise going.

 

[Statalyzer]

I am amazed at how many people think:
Step 1: Send $ to repressive regime
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Freedom

I'm also amazed at how many people think:
Step 1: Put sanctions on repressive regime
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Freedom

I don't think anybody is advocating (although I'm possibly underestimating some people out there) that we send Cuba a bunch of free stuff and grant them foreign aid for nothing.

 

[Htown77]

Stat, an economically weakened regime in Cuba has less wealth, less influence and less ability to disrupt our influence in the Americas. We send the regime money and give them a lifeline, Cuba and Venezuela's regimes can go back to doing the above. They know that they ultimately can oppose us all they want as American greed will win out in the long run and any economic threats on our part are meaningless. I mean the current leaders have pointed nuclear weapons at us, seized all american property, have sponsored terrorism against pro american regimes in the americas, conducted an intervention against our allies in africa (Angola is still in terrible shape), and generally undermined our foreign policy in the western hemisphere. If we'll forget about it and trade with those guys, why should other nations in the western hemisphere take any threats from us seriously?

Secondly, do you trust them to make concessions? I say we cannot because the Castro brothers are too anti american. If we were dealing with a new regime, then maybe we could build trust. You simply cannot trust enemies like the Castros. It's like trying to build a relationship with Kim Jong Un or Bin Laden. We promised aid to North Korea and one of their concessions was that they would not build a nuclear bomb. How did that work out? The Castros are more analogous to that situation than any other.

Third, the more economically weakened Cuba is, the more likely we are to get favorable regime change when the Castros die. Even if we do not get favorable regime change, we are keeping a repressive, anti-american regime economically weakened and sending a permanent message to anyone that would attempt to do what the Castros did in the western hemisphere.

Fourth, the results in Vietnam and Cuba's history make it clear the money we send will not go to the people, but instead to the regime. You do not like the embargo? Okay. Come up with a better solution to end the regime than actually helping to prop up the regime.

Finally, the first concession that the US should demand is that the Castros pay back every cent they stole from Americans plus interest. If they are willing to pay back what they owe, then we can maybe talk.

Instead, I have not seen anyone demand that concession. Everyone seems willingly to just let the Castros keep what they stole.

There is no thread on it, but our President's tour of bad policy in the western hemisphere, aka the most important part of the world for us, continues today in Argentina by releasing the coup files. I half expect him to declare the Falklands are not British next.

 

[Joe Fan]

The WH keeps styling Obama's current trip as "historic."
However, I think the trip will instead be remembered for these images, with Brussels as the backdrop. What do y'all think?

This trip is begging for a repeatable SNL skit (like they did with Ford falling down the airplane steps or Bush I vomiting in Japan) but I bet they dont do it.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

The Arab Spring worked out really well, maybe we can have a Caribbean Summer?

Obama is a complete and utter failure, domestically and diplomatically......

I love how liberals try and pin this on Republicans for what they did in the 1960's....smh.....hell I have even heard them try and pin Vietnam on Nixon.....