American Communist Med Students graduate

[Johnd]

You have an incorrect reading of my statement, of international politics, and of history.

JFK was elected because, among other great attributes, he was a tremendous diplomat and internationally respected negotiator. (By the way, his father, Joseph, was in the U.S. Diplomatic Service.) My point clearly is that diplomacy is not the 'end-all' or ultimate focus of international relationships...nor is your either/or answer of "total domination". Think about the Cold War as an example. It was military, economic, and diplomatic detente. No domination. No diplomacy. Detente. And it kept the world peace for 4 decades.

Perhaps I am not well-read.

When I speak of war, I mean actual physical combat. The cold war (nor the Cuban blockade) never spent blood or fired shots. So the analogies are not on point. In the case of WWII, Vietnam, or Iraq, dominance must be achieved, or diplomacy ought to to resorted to. Regardless, I enjoy the interaction with you.

 

[Tomorrow]

Regardless, I enjoy the interaction with you.

It is mutual, John. Unlike Sheep, I enjoy these little debates and sharing of ideas. My half-baked philosophizing is not (usually, lol) meant to be insulting or personal. The techniques and engagement of debate is fast becoming a lost art. I think the anonymity of the internet, as well as the necessary brevity of thread posting don't lend to the best exchanges. Nevertheless...there are many on here that have stimulating ideas and beliefs that keep me coming back.

EDIT: There are just so many "What speakers should I buy?" threads before one begins to yearn for more substantive discussion on AH.

 

[Johnd]

I only jumped in here to disabuse you of your incorrect applications of the words "negotiation" and "compromise", with a dash of "capitulation" and "good faith" thrown in for good measure. Good words to know the meanings of when throwing them around in internet arguments.

I enjoy your jump, just not your fall.

I think I have a fairly good handle on the English language. But I have been corrected before.

My use of the terms negotiation and compromise were used in direct correlation with the term diplomacy...which is really what my post was about. And if you think "the Boys" taught me a lesson, I've been around around the block too many times and around far too long for any feable attempt at pure sophistry. And I don't see how I was corrected...Castro is reknowned for his healtcarecare and education. We need not delve into his shortcomings for the purpose of this discussion. And I have been smoking cigars for quite a while. When someone says Cubans are no longer any good...well, enough said.

Markw, you have much to say, and some of it is worth listening to. The posturing and personal attacks are unbefitting a man of your obvious intelligence, and only serve to distract from the real issue. Perhaps our future discourse will find us both more on point. It's otherwise been a pleasure.

 

[Johnd]

It is mutual, John. Unlike Sheep, I enjoy these little debates and sharing of ideas. My half-baked philosophizing is not (usually, lol) meant to be insulting or personal. The techniques and engagement of debate is fast becoming a lost art. I think the anonymity of the internet, as well as the necessary brevity of thread posting don't lend to the best exchanges. Nevertheless...there are many on here that have stimulating ideas and beliefs that keep me coming back.

Ditto. Cheers.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

I think Americans attending communist 'Castro-U'. is a very interesting subject worthy of discussion.

Firstly..... how were these students allowed to attend?? I don't see how an American commie would be allowed to go to Cuba for an education because of the Cuban sanctions. I can see why Castro would allow a few hand-picked Americans to attend because the guaranteed positive publicity from the leftist "Drive-By" MSM, but how did they get approval from the USA?

Any thoughts?

 

[Sheep]

It is mutual, John. Unlike Sheep, I enjoy these little debates and sharing of ideas. My half-baked philosophizing is not (usually, lol) meant to be insulting or personal. The techniques and engagement of debate is fast becoming a lost art. I think the anonymity of the internet, as well as the necessary brevity of thread posting don't lend to the best exchanges. Nevertheless...there are many on here that have stimulating ideas and beliefs that keep me coming back.

EDIT: There are just so many "What speakers should I buy?" threads before one begins to yearn for more substantive discussion on AH.

Maybe you should join a political forum. After all, that IS where this belongs. I'm sorry if I came off as harsh, but this stuff just gets heated like crazy (even without me posting) and it turns people that have a common love for audio into people that hate eachother because of political beliefs.

SheepStar

 

[Davemcc]

the country is impoverished (due in no small part to the 45 year U.S. boycott)

Here's my favorite fallacy regarding Cuba. The American embargo has nothing to do with Cuba's economic woes. Cuba has the rest of the world to trade with, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Brazil, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Canada, Mexico...should I go on? Trade with the U.S. is not the sole arbiter of economic success on the globe. While the USSR was able to prop up the Cuban economy for a while, the weight of the USSR's own totalitarian system ultimately collapsed under its own weight.

One thing is certain, Cuba's inability to prosper in trade with the rest of the world is due to the fact that Cuba produces little of value. It produces little of value because its people live in a vacuum of civil, political and human rights. It is a totalitarian state that seeks to preserve its own existence by claiming to provide the basics of life to its citizens, although in fact it only keeps its citizens on the borderline of abject poverty and submission.

Cuba could be a wealthy, prosperous nation, with or without American involvement, if its citizens were free, with guaranteed civil, political and human rights.

 

[stratman]

Here's my favorite fallacy regarding Cuba. The American embargo has nothing to do with Cuba's economic woes. Cuba has the rest of the world to trade with, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Brazil, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Canada, Mexico...should I go on? Trade with the U.S. is not the sole arbiter of economic success on the globe. While the USSR was able to prop up the Cuban economy for a while, the weight of the USSR's own totalitarian system ultimately collapsed under its own weight.

One thing is certain, Cuba's inability to prosper in trade with the rest of the world is due to the fact that Cuba produces little of value. It produces little of value because its people live in a vacuum of civil, political and human rights. It is a totalitarian state that seeks to preserve its own existence by claiming to provide the basics of life to its citizens, although in fact it only keeps its citizens on the borderline of abject poverty and submission.

Cuba could be a wealthy, prosperous nation, with or without American involvement, if its citizens were free, with guaranteed civil, political and human rights.

Succint, to the point and I couldn't have said it any better.

 

[stratman]

Perhaps I am not well-read.

When I speak of war, I mean actual physical combat. The cold war (nor the Cuban blockade) never spent blood or fired shots. So the analogies are not on point. In the case of WWII, Vietnam, or Iraq, dominance must be achieved, or diplomacy ought to to resorted to. Regardless, I enjoy the interaction with you.

Hi John,

How are you? Just one last "shot" here We did have blood shed because of the missile crisis, there was one U-2 pilot shot down by a Russian sam controlled by the FRC (Cuban Revolutionary Forces)at the apex of the confrontation, which led some to believe that was going to be the pulled trigger, fortunately it didn't happen.

Cheers,
Stratman

 

[Johnd]

Here's my favorite fallacy regarding Cuba. The American embargo has nothing to do with Cuba's economic woes.

Really? Most economists and history itself would disagree. What was pre-embargo Cuba like in the fifties?

We have a right to embargo any countries/any goods that we desire to. But there ought to be a good reason, lest we foster international ill will.

You made my very point. The rest of the world is dealing with Cuba...just not us. If some of us got out of our cozy shells (looked at things from a more international perspective, rather than America right or wrong), I think we would readily agree that:
1) the embargo has outlived its' usefulness;
2) Communism is all but dead (despite some rantings here); and,
3) the very fact that we are the only country embargoing Cuba isolates us from those (the rest of the world) that do not.

Rather than accepting the status quo, and allowing things to remain just because...I believe one needs to justify international policy...especially obsolete 45 year old ones that serve only to separate us from the rest of the world.

 

[Johnd]

Maybe you should join a political forum. After all, that IS where this belongs. I'm sorry if I came off as harsh, but this stuff just gets heated like crazy (even without me posting) and it turns people that have a common love for audio into people that hate eachother because of political beliefs.

SheepStar

Sheep: don't feel so bad. It's not always a bad thing to rustle some feathers. Happy belated 20th btw!

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

...... how did they get approval from the USA?

The easiest answer is probably right: They didn't bother. They got the offer from Cuba (phone call, email, snail mail?), then drove to Canada or Mexico and took a plane.

This isn't rocket surgery.

And as long as they didn't try to get back via Mexico, the US probably didn't even check them as the arrived. Which might include the possibility of disembarking from a boat at any patch of dry land.

 

[Johnd]

Firstly..... how were these students allowed to attend?? I don't see how an American commie would be allowed to go to Cuba for an education because of the Cuban sanctions.

Despite our long-standing travel restrictions and trade embargo with Cuba, visas are routinely handed out for purposes of family visits, news reporting, science, education, etc. Hopefully they did it legally if they plan to ever come back here.

 

[Tomorrow]

Really? Most economists and history itself would disagree. What was pre-embargo Cuba like in the fifties?

We have a right to embargo any countries/any goods that we desire to. But there ought to be a good reason, lest we foster international ill will.

You made my very point. The rest of the world is dealing with Cuba...just not us. If some of us got out of our cozy shells (looked at things from a more international perspective, rather than America right or wrong), I think we would readily agree that:
1) the embargo has outlived its' usefulness;
2) Communism is all but dead (despite some rantings here); and,
3) the very fact that we are the only country embargoing Cuba isolates us from those (the rest of the world) that do not.

Rather than accepting the status quo, and allowing things to remain just because...I believe one needs to justify international policy...especially obsolete 45 year old ones that serve only to separate us from the rest of the world.

Dear John,

I've said this a number of times here, and it looks like it bears repeating. Each and every country in the world...every one of them since 'countries' have existed...have acted, or tried to act, in their own best interest. This is an inviolable condition. If you somehow think that the U.S. is being pugnacious and every other country has seen the light of diplomacy with regard to Cuban trade and are being altruistic, you have been misled by your globalist thinking.

Here is an example of such. The French vehemently protested our entry into Iraq and would not support us. You know why? Because the French had a billion dollar trade relation with Iraq. Quad erat demonstratum.

EDIT: Lest you protest that it was the peaceful nature of France, or some other reasoning for not taking part in the "coalition", recognize that they believed, as we did, that there was a possibility that Saddam was capable of passing WMD's to terrorists.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

The easiest answer is probably right: They didn't bother. They got the offer from Cuba (phone call, email, snail mail?), then drove to Canada or Mexico and took a plane.

This isn't rocket surgery.

And as long as they didn't try to get back via Mexico, the US probably didn't even check them as the arrived. Which might include the possibility of disembarking from a boat at any patch of dry land.

Yes.... That would be my guess. I also believe they pulled a Michael Moore and "Sicko'd" their way to Cuba for their communist education.

 

[Johnd]

Dear John,

I've said this a number of times here, and it looks like it bears repeating. Each and every country in the world...every one of them since 'countries' have existed...have acted, or tried to act, in their own best interest. This is an inviolable condition. If you somehow think that the U.S. is being pugnacious and every other country has seen the light of diplomacy with regard to Cuban trade and are being altruistic, you have been misled by your globalist thinking.

Here is an example of such. The French vehemently protested our entry into Iraq and would not support us. You know why? Because the French had a billion dollar trade relation with Iraq. Quad erat demonstratum.

EDIT: Lest you protest that it was the peaceful nature of France, or some other reasoning for not taking part in the "coalition", recognize that they believed, as we did, that there was a possibility that Saddam was capable of passing WMD's to terrorists.

Tomorrow:

1) One would have their head in the sand to not admit that we are pugnacious...and I'm not just referring to Iraq. And yes, most of the world sees "the economy" as global. We are just beginning to ackowledge that fact.
2) Is that the only reason France is against the war in Iraq? C'mon. Yes, the French are somewhat pacifist. Perhaps it's because they've lost most of the wars that they've been in of late, or perhaps they just need a really good reason before they bear arms. I think the main reason they are against the Iraq war is because they have enough insight and wisdom to realize it's not worth it, and the war is unwinnable. There are other ways to contain terroist cells.
3) You seem to be an adamant supporter of the war in Iraq. Why? Whatever reasons you give to fight in Iraq or enforce a trade embargo against Cuba, I can give you a dozen reasons why China or North Korea are far more of a threat. How about Syria?

I'm willing to listen, but I have yet to hear why the Cuban embargo is now a necessary and good thing, and why it will now take at least another two years to get out of Iraq. Policy must have both good reasoning and support behind it lest the people become dissatisfied. Cheers.

 

[furrycute]

Getting back to the topic of health care, last time I checked American health care is ranked 37th in the world, Cuba is ranked 39th. Even Chile and Costa Rica are ahead of us.

American health care does provide you with the best and the latest treatments, but the catch is, you or your insurance company will have to be able to afford to pay for it. In 2006, over 46 million Americans, or 16% of the country, are uninsured. Think about that number, that means 1 out of every 7 Americans is without access to health care.

We may disagree on political ideologies, but these numbers are hard facts. 1 out of every 7 Americans without health insurance. And please do realize that these are not your average urban slum welfare mothers. For those who are at the absolute bottom of our economy, the government does provide them with Medicaid. And however inadequate Medicaid might be, it at least provides a semblance of health care coverage. Those 46 million Americans without any form of health insurance are hard working men and women who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to be able to purchase private health insurance. These people, the backbone of American, are the ones who are left out of our health care system.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Hey Chump, they're already on the internet somewhere. If we wanted to read it, we could always go to the source.

SheepStar

Children and their namecalling.......

In case you haven't noticed, this is in fact.....an off topic vent, and you're free not to click threads that might hurt your tender little feelings. You stick to the kiddie table and the funny cat pic & beer threads.......... Leave the grownup political discussions to the others.

(however, beer discussion might be improper considering 20 is still too young to drink)

 

[avaserfi]

(however, beer discussion might be improper considering 20 is still too young to drink)

You are actually wrong there. America is one of the few with a drinking age as high as it is. The average is probably closer to 18-19. Check it out:

http://studenttravel.about.com/od/studentpartyguide/a/drinking_age.htm
http://forums.cooptravel.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=85

 

[Buckle-meister]

...too young to drink)

There's a minimum age one can drink? Who made that up? Since when?