| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Call To Close Guantanamo; Is the war over? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 23 2006, 09:12 PM (478 Views) | |
| DraginRat | May 25 2006, 03:20 PM Post #16 |
|
Member
|
I don't know why we haven't tried to normalize relations with Cuba, but the one thought that comes to mind is: Neither Republicans nor Democrats have given one inch on this issue at any time. Now, when is the last time that both parties were in such close agreement for so long on anything other than feathering their own nests? I don't know, maybe Fidel did have something to do with the JFK shooting. Probably not, but something has Washington coping an attitude. Ken Gasbarri |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 03:51 PM Post #17 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
South Florida lobby? Jane, when government and business collude and control it's statism, two good examples, right-wing Fascist Germany and left-wing Communist Russia--er, or, Cuba under Fidel. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 25 2006, 03:59 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Jane
|
true enough, but over here, when socialism (unionism) is powerful, the capitalist owners/stock holders make less profit, and profit is what capitalists are interested in. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 04:50 PM Post #19 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
We're getting off on another topic, but, yes, when the government supports unions (socialism*) they are stronger in their demands for a greater portion of profits--see everyone is interested in profits, everyone wants to get ahead. *I wouldn't exactly associate unions with socialism. Why can't workers associate just like stockholders? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 25 2006, 05:19 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Jane
|
I don't know. Good idea, though. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | May 25 2006, 09:48 PM Post #21 |
|
Member
|
Doc We have always had a base in Cuba. We didn't want to give it up when Castro took over because of the strategic value. The fact that it is not US soil and perhaps not subject to our laws has come in handy. But, that is just coincidental. I don't believe any of the enemy combatants held there are US citizins. Were they, we would bring them to the mainland for trial for treason. Gee Doc. I thought I explained what the Geneva convention was all about, and how we were complying. Still you insist we aren't complying. In any war, POW's and unlawful combatants can be held until the end of hostilities according to Geneva. We are the only 1st world country to not supply troops for UN Peace keeping operations? What operations are you talking about? I'm not aware of any. quote: "What was the military advantage in bombing every school, hospital, water filtration plant, sewage facility, electric plant in the country? We were using "smart bombs", so this was an obvious policy decision, not an incredible series of accidents. Our grandchildren might discover the answers, if the documents haven't been shredded by then." Come on Doc, this is a preposterious assumption not based on any facts. Most of the infrastructure damage has been caused by the insurgents. While we may have hit a non military target on occassion during the initial war, it certainly was to our advantage to keep the hospitals etc. up and running. quote: "Re: Afghanistan, what was our justification for invading them? Our inept intelligence services thought Osama might be there and we demanded that their government apprehend him and turn him over to us. Theyrefused. How many times have other countries asked us to apprehend criminals and turn them over to that country? Umm, a number comes to mind. Zero. So we attacked a country for following US policy" Doc It was well substantiated that Osama was there, and was operating terrorist training camps with the blessing of the Taliban. The 9-11 highjackers were trained there. He did escape, presumably through the mountains into Pakistan's western frontier. Remember the battle of Tora Bora? That aside have you read anything about the repressive Taliban regime, and it's treatment of women? And, how relief agencies had to operate there to keep the people from starving. Our allies against the Taliban were the Northern Alliance, which was opposed to the Taliban rule. As for the Warlords, that is the way the country has been ruled, even by the Pashtun's in the south, who's tribal laws are the basis for the Taliban's repression of the people. They along with coalition forces are are trying to strengthen the national army and police forces, but it takes time. Granted we have made mistakes and our hands aren't clean by any means. But, to make so many conclusions with no factual basis is worrysome. You can't allow emotions and dislike for GW and his administration to completely and unfairly predjudice your opinions on the subject. |
![]() |
|
| Stoney | May 26 2006, 12:55 AM Post #22 |
|
Huntsville, AL
|
I share the concern for some policies of this administration and the perspective that the checks and balances that have been built into our government seem to have been circumvented or ignored. I don't share the conspiracy theories. If citizens had disappeared, I think the first amendment would have done it's job in the form of a free press that shows no signs of being bashful about it's role. Nor do I see this president as moronic or purposely hurtful to our form of government. I do think his interpretation of what is constitutional, what processes are necessary to protect liberties, is misguided in some instances. The bigger point to me is the drastic differences between intelligent people on what should be done, within the law, to protect us from outside harm, while also protecting us from destroying ourselves from within. It's the views in the extremes that are heard more often and loudest, when maybe most of us seek some balance that comes from the middle ground. And I think the hate, exaggeration, the seeming inability to engage in rational discussion, is most destructive to our society. It's a little bit like this discussion, these discussions in Soap. If there weren't the civility that we harbor here, there would be no rational discussion. I suspect what appears to me as seeking and citing facts that support an agenda rather than using facts to seek a solution has always been the case. But it seems to have lead us to being controlled by two political parties that don't represent us, just represent those agendas, that are the extreme edges of what we really are and want. |
|
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau | |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | May 26 2006, 02:17 AM Post #23 |
|
Member
|
Tomdrobbin, do you really think so? We have had a base there since the Spanish American War. If you remember, this when we also created military bases in the Philippines. Castro was not there. You speak of Castro as if he was a dictator. You have been listening to too much party line. Cuba was ruled by a dictator, supported by the US. Batista was given a very nice estate in Florida, when the people rose up and chased him out of office. Castro was the peoples choice.. gasp! Oh, chris will go off on this. I know he will. The people wanted him.. Are you gonna tell me this didn't happen? |
|
--doc Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America. | |
![]() |
|
| Stoney | May 26 2006, 06:53 AM Post #24 |
|
Huntsville, AL
|
Doc, this parallel is almost too easy to make. The people rose up and chose Castro as their leader and now... The people voted Bush into office and he is now... How do we justify and defend one and not the other? |
|
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 26 2006, 11:40 AM Post #25 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Was either really elected? No, don't mean, Kerry should've won, I mean, here even with primaries we are given what Parties offer, and there, Cuba, they're given what the Party offers. Need NOTA. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | May 26 2006, 02:56 PM Post #26 |
|
Member
|
Doc No doubt the Spanish American War was initiated by us. I believe the sinking of the Main, and the resultant slogan "remember the Main" were all ploys to gain support for our aggressive desire to expand our power and enfluence. The point is, anyone who believes we have always been so honorable and noble is dillusional. We actually did steal via conquest from Spain, California and most of the other southwestern states. That's kind of the way things worked for a long time. Suddenly we are the bad guy for pursuing selfish national interest. Fact is, that is the way we have always operated. The only thing I said about Castro was "he took over". I didn't speculate on popular support. The previous leader Batista was oppressive, and that helped Castro gain support of the economically deprived when he overthrew Batista. I've never heard of him allowing elections, at least not with real opposition. A whole lot of people left Cuba for Florida when he came to power, and have since affected American policy toward Cuba with their political clout. He courted the Soviet Union and their communist ideology and recieved financial support that kept him in power for many years. I've heard some of his policies were good for the people. But, it still isn't democracy by any stretch of the imagination. I didn't say outright he was a dictator, but he certainly is. A benevolent dictator at times, but still a dictator who has held power within his own inner circle. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








1:03 PM Jul 11