Obama Moves to Normalize Relations With Cuba and Marco Rubio

[Thumpalumpacus]

I love how one of the main arguments for preserving our stupid, outdated relic, the Electoral College, is that many states would simply be ignored as all the attention is paid to metropolitan areas. This argument has many problems but I think the biggest one is "that's what we have now WITH the Electoral College."

I completely agree. It has outlived its original purpose (to address slow speeds of communication in a large country), and has been instead repurposed to buttress the two-party hegemony.

It should be stricken from the Constitution ... but that will never happen, because it benefits the political class to buffer itself from the directly-expressed will of the people.

[CapnAwesome]

It takes two to normalize relations. Do the Castros even want normal relations with the U.S? I'm not really up on current Cuban politics, but they certainly didn't for a long time.

Fidel didn't want normal relations. Economic sanctions are useful to totalitarian rule. It gives the ruler someone else to blame for all the country's problems. Raoul seems open to the idea.

Sounds about right, Fidel might not be in power, but he is still alive. I predict that relations get normalized the day he dies. It's what's best for Cuba, Cubans and the United States. It'll even mean that we have less Corn Syrup in our diet because of access to all of the Sugar Cuba produces. Really a win win. Who cares about some asshole Cubans who still have dreams of getting their Villas back. I think the idea that this is entirely the responsibility of the United States is one sided though. Fidel did allow a bunch of Nuclear Missles to be pointed at us from his shores. How are we supposed to respond to that? Also he's a dick who persecuted homosexuals and lots of others.

---

I've seen a mass of "Obama overreached" or "He didn't even consult anyone, he just did it on his own!" reactions from some of my right-leaning friends and family. Does anyone know what exactly they're referring to, or if their obejctions have any real merit beyond "obama did it, so it's bad"?

I'll be happy if any conservative can ever articulate with logical coherence and a basis in actual facts what is the cause of their psychotic hatred of Obama at all, never mind about this one issue.

I asked ATheist three times to do this and he couldn't or wouldn't. He just kept railing that Obama's policies were bad with no specific examples or explanations as to what he means by that.

What about the fact he's a mass murderer, like all our other presidents?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fidel did allow a bunch of Nuclear Missles to be pointed at us from his shores.

When you consider that he did that in response to an American-sponsored invasion attempt, it seems to make sense.

[DeistPaladin]

What about the fact he's a mass murderer, like all our other presidents?

I assume you refer to drone strikes?

That would be a powerful argument coming from the defenders of civil liberties who have consistently done so regardless of who is president and which party they belong to. Coming from a Tea Bagger who only objects when a Democrat does it is engaging in special pleading and offering a disingenuous pretext for the real reason he/she hates Obama.

---

Fidel did allow a bunch of Nuclear Missles to be pointed at us from his shores.

When you consider that he did that in response to an American-sponsored invasion attempt, it seems to make sense.

I disagree. A Russian conventional military base might have been a fair move but nuclear weapons that could strike America in two minutes was reckless. The potential for a false alarm war or a temptation for a first strike would be too much a strain on the peace. We barely managed to avoid mutual annihilation with a 30 minute lead time.

[Heywood]

Normalizing trade would allow us to actually make an improvement in the lives of Cubans, and I would expect over the course of a generation or two work to insert more freedoms into their lives.

Only if you believe in trickle down economics. Tourism, tobacco, sugar, and all the major industries are controlled by the party leadership and the military.

---

I disagree. A Russian conventional military base might have been a fair move but nuclear weapons that could strike America in two minutes was reckless. The potential for a false alarm war or a temptation for a first strike would be too much a strain on the peace. We barely managed to avoid mutual annihilation with a 30 minute lead time.

The soviets put nuclear missiles in Cuban in response to our placement of nuclear missiles in Turkey. The Cuban missile crisis ended when Kennedy agreed to remove our missiles from Turkey.

[DeistPaladin]

The soviets put nuclear missiles in Cuban in response to our placement of nuclear missiles in Turkey. The Cuban missile crisis ended when Kennedy agreed to remove our missiles from Turkey.

A good solution, I agree. This helped spread the distance between our nuclear arsenals. Anything to lengthen the lead time for nuclear annihilation makes getting through the Cold War with the world intact that much more possible.

[Minimalist]

I've seen a mass of "Obama overreached" or "He didn't even consult anyone, he just did it on his own!" reactions from some of my right-leaning friends and family. Does anyone know what exactly they're referring to, or if their obejctions have any real merit beyond "obama did it, so it's bad"?

They are idiots who are stuck in the 1960's and 70's.

[Thumpalumpacus]

When you consider that he did that in response to an American-sponsored invasion attempt, it seems to make sense.

I disagree. A Russian conventional military base might have been a fair move but nuclear weapons that could strike America in two minutes was reckless. The potential for a false alarm war or a temptation for a first strike would be too much a strain on the peace. We barely managed to avoid mutual annihilation with a 30 minute lead time.

From the Cuban standpoint, its existence as an independent nation was a stake. The presence of nuclear missiles belonging to the USSR would guarantee no further invasion attempts because such a big tripwire would be impossible to brush aside as irrelevant, which could well happen with conventional Soviet forces.

Those missiles continued deterring any American invasion long after they were removed. From the Cuban view, they served their purpose.

[abaris]

I disagree. A Russian conventional military base might have been a fair move but nuclear weapons that could strike America in two minutes was reckless. The potential for a false alarm war or a temptation for a first strike would be too much a strain on the peace. We barely managed to avoid mutual annihilation with a 30 minute lead time.

When you take into consideration that American nuclear missiles were stationed right on the Russian border in Turkey at the time, stationing an equal deterrent in the American backyard made sense.

Also the final deal between Russia and the USA included the removal of the missiles in Turkey.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Normalizing trade would allow us to actually make an improvement in the lives of Cubans, and I would expect over the course of a generation or two work to insert more freedoms into their lives.

Only if you believe in trickle down economics. Tourism, tobacco, sugar, and all the major industries are controlled by the party leadership and the military.

No, belief in trickle-down is not required. Belief in leverage points, however, will help you understand what I'm saying.