Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
Are we going to have an actual conversation grounded in reality about any subject today, or are we done here?

 whembly wrote:
We're talking at each other, not too to each other.

Come on fellas...

 MrDwhitey wrote:
No, you're the one doing that "at" talking. You're not even trying to respond to his points at all.

It's really fething sad to watch really, especially when after all of it you claim "both sides are at fault" when no, it's YOU.

Well... let's agree to disagree then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are we going to have an actual conversation grounded in reality about any subject today, or are we done here?

 whembly wrote:
We're talking at each other, not too to each other.

Come on fellas...

Okay... have an exalt for that.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So to summarize:

You: We got nothing!
Me: We got a number of things. You supported this decision and changed your mind within 24 hours.
You: You love everything Obama does!
Me: Are you denying that you changed your mind?
You: Obama said something stupid about ISIS!

Are we going to have an actual conversation grounded in reality about any subject today, or are we done here?

We both need a time out.

We're talking at each other, not too to each other.

I'm talking too you:

You say we got nothing, I gave you a list of stuff we got.
You say that they have a criminal we want, I gave you examples of us having criminals they want.
I point out that you have a tendency to do a 180 on many issues that you initially support Obama on.

You are talking at me:

You ignore all actual facts I posted.
Your reply to pointing out your frequent shift in opinion is "everything Obama does turns to gold for you" and "Obama says stupid stuff about ISIS".

It's not like there isn't plenty of legit stuff to actually complain about when it comes to this Cuba thing. We could talk about possibly getting more in return, we could question if exchanging three Cubans for a US citizen and a Cuban agent was a good deal, or if "more Internet" is really a valid step in a country where speed and expensive access are keeping more people away from the internet than the actual government. But saying "we got nothing, we surrendered" is stupid.

You do know that there's a two-currency system in Cuba. Go look that up. Think about the impact on normal Cubans and it's impact.

Although, you did missed this discussion back in Ouze's thread... take a peek:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/627362.page

And yes, those "concession" are Jack & gak. And Jack left town.

I'm saying we should get a better result.

 whembly wrote:
You do know that there's a two-currency system in Cuba. Go look that up. Think about the impact on normal Cubans and it's impact.

Although, you did missed this discussion back in Ouze's thread... take a peek:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/627362.page

I didn't miss it. That's why I pointed out that you went from this:

 whembly wrote:
Eh...

A lot of people on the right and in the Cuban-American expat community are going to go ballistic about this...

But let's be honest, it's time.

I think we made our point.

You could argue now that with the Ruble free-fall and economic unrest with China & Central America, now is the time to break that ice. With normalize relations, that may hasten the change to move away from the Castro-Communism environment faster than maintaining the embargo.

To this (2.5 hours later):

 whembly wrote:

I'm not against it per se...

But, there's always "the right way" vs "the wrong way" to do this.

But, I shouldn't be surprised. Just look at Obama's body of work in Foreign Policy... history won't be too charitable.

Which is why I have mentioned that Cuba was another one of those "Obama did good...I mean bad...." subjects for you.

And yes, those "concession" are Jack & gak. And Jack left town.

So our citizen should still be in a Cuban jail because his release was gak?

I'm saying we should get a better result.

You didn't say we should get something better. You said we "surrendered" and "got nothing".

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You do know that there's a two-currency system in Cuba. Go look that up. Think about the impact on normal Cubans and it's impact.

Although, you did missed this discussion back in Ouze's thread... take a peek:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/627362.page

I didn't miss it. That's why I pointed out that you went from this:

 whembly wrote:
Eh...

A lot of people on the right and in the Cuban-American expat community are going to go ballistic about this...

But let's be honest, it's time.

I think we made our point.

You could argue now that with the Ruble free-fall and economic unrest with China & Central America, now is the time to break that ice. With normalize relations, that may hasten the change to move away from the Castro-Communism environment faster than maintaining the embargo.

To this (2.5 hours later):

 whembly wrote:

I'm not against it per se...

But, there's always "the right way" vs "the wrong way" to do this.

But, I shouldn't be surprised. Just look at Obama's body of work in Foreign Policy... history won't be too charitable.

Which is why I have mentioned that Cuba was another one of those "Obama did good...I mean bad...." subjects for you.

If you read it like that, go ahead.

Like I said, I was intrigued initially, but obviously had no faith that it'd go well.

And yes, those "concession" are Jack & gak. And Jack left town.

So our citizen should still be in a Cuban jail because his release was gak?

*sigh*

I'm saying we should get a better result.

You didn't say we should get something better. You said we "surrendered" and "got nothing".

Yep. That too.

 whembly wrote:

Extradition?

Gitmo makes that a nonstarter.

 whembly wrote:

Resolve the old property disputes?

Gitmo also makes that a nonstarter, as does the trade embargo.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Extradition?

Gitmo makes that a nonstarter.

 whembly wrote:

Resolve the old property disputes?

Gitmo also makes that a nonstarter, as does the trade embargo.

Uh huh... so, what would it "take" for US to close the base?

Remember, Gitmo isn't just the detainee facility. It's also the port servicing one of our fleet (4th I believe) and the central american anit-narco unit hub.

For me, something like verify "free elections" would be a start for the US to implement a sunset date for Gitmo.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I can see the rest of your points, but i don't understand how relaxing internet access in cuba is a win for america? It sort of feels like maybe america should have insisted some new sport be introduced to cuba as well. We'll trade prisoners, we'll do business, but your citizens MUST take up yodeling as a past-time!

Once the Cubans gain free access to Pornhub or other sites like it.....

Porn at dial-up speeds.

You kids have no idea what it was like!

 d-usa wrote:
Porn at dial-up speeds.

You kids have no idea what it was like!

The struggle was real... You really had to want it.

Maybe thats the plan: look at how much faster you can download porn in the usa compared to your country? This may well be the single most important blow struck for democracy in the world.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Porn at dial-up speeds.

You kids have no idea what it was like!

The struggle was real... You really had to want it.

And, back then, hi-res meant a 200x200 pixel image filled half of the entire screen.

Seriously, I think the real change to Cuba will come through capitalism, not diplomacy or politics. American corporations will move in, and they will buy off the government to get what they want. Just like in America!

 Torga_DW wrote:
Maybe thats the plan: look at how much faster you can download porn in the usa compared to your country? This may well be the single most important blow struck for democracy in the world.

With what I've heard about the USAs big internet service providers and their almost monopoly on the market, the cubans might actually come off better in that comparison

 whembly wrote:

Uh huh... so, what would it "take" for US to close the base?

Respect for the treaty which licenses the base, and the realization that the US has consistently been a dick to Cuba.

 whembly wrote:

Remember, Gitmo isn't just the detainee facility. It's also the port servicing one of our fleet (4th I believe) and the central american anit-narco unit hub.

I know what it is.

The Fourth Fleet is little more than a command structure, and there are plenty of places current, American anti-narcotics units could operate out of.

 whembly wrote:

For me, something like verify "free elections" would be a start for the US to implement a sunset date for Gitmo.

Why should the US care about free elections in Cuba? It knows who the Castros are, and what their regime is like; free elections disrupt that.

 dogma wrote:
Why should the US care about free elections in Cuba?

Because we like to meddle in others affairs. If we didn't it would be like Europe. Just kidding we meddle in their affairs to. Aren't we a naughty little scamp?

A stable dictatorship is better for the US than an unstable democracy.

Hasn't anybody paid any attention over the last decade?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

For me, something like verify "free elections" would be a start for the US to implement a sunset date for Gitmo.

Why should the US care about free elections in Cuba? It knows who the Castros are, and what their regime is like; free elections disrupt that.

Why not?

Cuba has no free speech. No free assembly. No independent political parties. No hint of free elections. Dissidents are jailed or worst.

Zippo bucko.

Sure we may get a few folks back... but, keep in mind that human rights groups (ie, Amnesty Int.) estimates that over 8,000 prisoners of conscience incarcerated in Cuba.

IF we are to normalize relations, get rid of the embargo, setup embassies... Cuba must reciprocate something major. Unlike what happened in Vietnam or China, Cuba has not undertaken any similar reforms in either its external behavior or its internal political and economic structure. If anything, the Castro regime seems intent on pocketing the Obama administration’s concessions as yet another lifeline to maintain its hold on power and keep its dictatorship alive.

Ironically, there's only so much Obama can do by himself... so, nothing will really change.

*shrug*

Keep in mind, Raul Castro recently said that he would accept President Obama’s gesture of good will “without renouncing a single one of our principles.”

Wrap your head around that.

The U.S. has a storied history of shaming and embarrassing itself in Cuba at least from the Spanish American war going forward.

With enough time and resources put into it, cuba could be the next iraq.

We have diplomatic relations with countries with human rights records that are much worse than Cuba and no one, including you, seem to give a gak about it.

I will say that it has been entertaining watching you take an about-face over this subject in such a short amount of time.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
We have diplomatic relations with countries with human rights records that are much worse than Cuba and no one, including you, seem to give a gak about it.

I will say that it has been entertaining watching you take an about-face over this subject in such a short amount of time.

I'm still for it, if nothing else to "move the ball forward" at bit. I just wish we're fething serious about it and get concessions.

Know what I mean?

As for your comment that we have "diplomatic relations with countriels with human rights records that are much worse than Cuba"... thankfully, there's only a few that fit in that parameter. Yeah, Cuba is pretty bad bro.

Wanna complain about our relations with China? Simple reason... it was to drive a wedge between China and the USSR.

You guys are pretty friendly with plenty of Gulf states that have pretty despicable human rights records.

Not picking a fight, just saying that you can be awful selective there.

In fact, the US is pretty bad when it comes to human rights, when I think about it.

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
We have diplomatic relations with countries with human rights records that are much worse than Cuba and no one, including you, seem to give a gak about it.

I will say that it has been entertaining watching you take an about-face over this subject in such a short amount of time.

I'm still for it, if nothing else to "move the ball forward" at bit. I just wish we're fething serious about it and get concessions.

Know what I mean?

As for your comment that we have "diplomatic relations with countriels with human rights records that are much worse than Cuba"... thankfully, there's only a few that fit in that parameter. Yeah, Cuba is pretty bad bro.

Wanna complain about our relations with China? Simple reason... it was to drive a wedge between China and the USSR.

And now we drive a spike between Cuba and Venezuela & Russia since the fall in oil prices means that they will have to make major cuts to their support towards Cuba creating a perfect opening for us to move in.

The thing that is sad in all of this is the fact that this is another coulda shoulda deals where different actions by the U.S. regarding Cuba from the start of the 20th century would have sidestepped a lot of misery for the Cubans.

 Da Boss wrote:
You guys are pretty friendly with plenty of Gulf states that have pretty despicable human rights records.

Not picking a fight, just saying that you can be awful selective there.

Nah... another simple reason... oil.

In fact, the US is pretty bad when it comes to human rights, when I think about it.

Wait... wut?

 whembly wrote:

In fact, the US is pretty bad when it comes to human rights, when I think about it.

Wait... wut?

Guantanemo (torture and indefinite detention without trial, or even formal charges) and death penalty (with huge wait on Death Row), probably more but those were two which came off the top of my head.

Torturing people and holding them indefinitely without trial is generally considered to be a poor showing on human rights.

But I mean, don't worry too much about it. It's difficult to find a government that hasn't engaged in some sort of human rights abuses, it's just a pretty crappy reason to maintain something like the cuban embargo.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

In fact, the US is pretty bad when it comes to human rights, when I think about it.

Wait... wut?

Guantanemo and death penalty (with huge wait on Death Row), probably more but those were two which came off the top of my head.

The long wait gives them time to appeal, many deaths having successfully been so.

 djones520 wrote:

The long wait gives them time to appeal, many deaths having successfully been so.

That is true, but in that case shouldn't a life sentence without the death penalty be better? After all, once someone is actually executed they can't keep appealing even if technology reaches the point in which they could prove their innocence.

Not to mention that holding someone for long periods of time where they don't know whether they're going to live or die or when is pretty torturous.