Ah, the unforeseen consequences of ill thought out photo ops. A strategic US military base, and it’s existence via the Cuban-America Treaty for over 100 years, may be history as a result of a stroke of Obama’s pen and an Executive Order.
Fidel, and Raul Castro are now both demanding that the US return Gitmo, and the 45 sq miles of territory that the base occupies, as well as the other sundry camps, to Cuba.
The ailing 82-year-old former president wrote that if the US doesn’t give the US base at Guantanamo back to Cuba, it will be a violation of international law and an abuse of American power against a small country.
The US president must “respect this norm without any condition,” Mr Castro wrote.
~~~The treaty granting its use remains in effect unless both Cuba and the US abrogate it or the US abandons the base.
Another Obama supporter, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, echoes the same demand as positive signs Obama is breaking from American “imperialism”.
It was Article III of this the Cuban-American Treaty that clarified that the US recognized ” the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water”, tho the US retained complete jurisdiction and control over, and within the US base areas.
It was this very status of sovereignty that was at the heart of the Boumediene v Bush SCOTUS decision that ultimately bestowed Constitutional rights on the Gitmo detainees… as habeas has never been thought to extend to the benefit of aliens outside the United States. (i.e. Johnson v. Eisentrager). SCOTUS deemed, despite the language of the 1903 treaty with Cuba, that Guantanamo Bay was considered US sovereign territory for their purposes.
As usual with effects of legislation, enacted law, and court decisions, the die was cast and events set into motion to get us to where we are today… unsure of what to do, or how to deal with enemy combatants that are [or used to be] held on foreign soil, and have a pesky habit of getting released and returning to jihad.
Now, to ice the cake of legal confusion and thwarted proceses history, the US stands to lose an important strategic location by Obama’s decision to shutter the facility.
The facilities have quite a history… and not all of it related to military and it’s original use as a Naval refueling station. It’s humanitarian uses included a temporary haven for 34,000 Haitian refugees in 1991, which earned the naval base the Navy Unit Commendation and Joint Meritorious Unit Award.
In 1994, Operation Sea Signal was launched.
In Operation Sea Signal (August 1994-February 1996) Navy personnel based at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (NAVBASE GTMO) Cuba, and Marines from II Marine Expeditionary Force assumed the mission of feeding, housing, clothing, and caring for more than 50,000 Haitian and Cuban migrants seeking asylum in the United States. Since September 1994, the Navy-Marine Corps team housed and processed over 40,000 migrants awaiting repatriation or parole to the United States. Support to Joint Task Force 160 spanned 18 months.
In addition to the hospitals, detention facilies and other humanitarian uses in times of crises, it serves as a logistics base for the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet, and supports counter drug operations in the Caribbean.
Not only are these future functions potentially lost, but there are the improvements to the property that a not-so-friendly nation would inherit in our withdrawal…. US taxpayer paid for, of course.
The Naval Base includes, as separate commands, a Naval Hospital and Branch Dental Clinic, detachments of the Personnel Support Activity, Naval Atlantic Meteorologic and Oceanographic Command, Naval Media Center, Naval Communications Station, Department of Defense Dependent Schools and a Navy Brig. Directly supporting the base as departments of Naval Station are Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Resident Officer in Charge of Construction, Human Resources Office, Family Support and Service Center, Red Cross, Security and Navy Exchange/Commissary.
The base is also self-sufficient in water and power from Cuban municipalities including wind turbines installed during the term of that enviro tyrant – George W. Bush. During the high wind months, they can supply up to 1/4 of the facilities energy needs.
Obama has not clarified just how much of Gitmo he plans on “shuttering”. But there is no doubt he’s looking to save money in the US budget. And one place he’s quite likely to look at is what he considers needless defense budget spending, as Mike’s A pointed out.
If he considers Club Gitmo unnecessary, does he also consider the rest of the facilities as not cost effective for the military? And will he cave to the Castros’ requests – plus increasing international and domestic opinion – for return of the land … PLUS it’s improvements?
If so, what happens to the monitoring of drug, or even possibly future weapons/arms activities in the Caribbean? That, of course, would depend upon with whom Cuba will ally to newly occupy these prime military facilities – a prime spot with military jet friendly tarmacs and runways located about 90 miles from the US/Florida coast. Current buds in the running… Russia? Venezuela?
And perhaps even more saddening… woe to the future refugees that have sought a safe haven within the US facilities in Cuba.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
The question re Gitmo is WHY? To Non Americans it is what the hell are Americans doing in Cuba?
Ok Some deal 100 years ago -no doubt framed to favour the stronger party. Even Britain gave back Macao & Hong Kong after 99 years .
Guantanamo Bay belongs to Cuba. as for the facilties I think Cuba can pay say -$100 million.
Gitmo lost its importance when it ceased to be a coaling station for the Navy. 30 years ago these same “arguments” were made for keeping the Panama Canal Zone. Can you imagine what we would say if the Russians “rented” a base in Cuba in perpetuity ?
Do you read posts, or just comment on headlines, John Ryan? If the US abandons prime military facilities, Russia just may be working with Cuba to do just that. duh wuh….
And I’m quite sure those refugees would disagree with you about Gitmo’s “importance”.
Mata, Has President Obama ever offered or even inferred that the USA would turn over Guantanamo to Cuba?
Castro & Company have been bitching about this for years, nothing new here.
Forgot to mention, blast… there is ample “new” here… it’s no longer Dubya (as your linked article is from Aug 2007, and he was trying to ride the anti-Gitmo wave).
There is a new POTUS, and the official closing of the detention facility. The original and renewed agreements were made pre-Fidel. He has never accepted them as dictator. However as it was inked, it was int’lly recognized as legit.
@MataHarley:
John Ryan is a fly-by poster well known across the Internet.
He dashes in, tosses off a Molotov comment or two, and then dashes away.
I doubt you’ll even get a “deer in the headlights” or “brook trout” type of stare out of him in return for your efforts.
Lawdy, is reading a lost art anymore? I’ll repeat for you… from my post, blast…
Those demanding return are the Castro Brothers. Apparently they aren’t clear on just how much of Gitmo Obama is planning on shuttering either, because they believe if he does *not* return Gitmo, it’s in violation of the treaty. I’d say it’s readily apparent that Obama did not tie his closing of Gitmo to retention of the facilities… in the eyes of Cuba’s leaders.
So I guess we’ll just have to wait for Obama “to be perfectly clear” about just how much of Gitmo he will shut down. If you look at the first two bright light bulb responses, they don’t see much value in having a US base there to monitor arms shipments that come thru the Caribbean. They are also apparently unconcerned as to just who *would* occupy that military base if it were not the US, and the repercussions of such.
As one who was raised in Florida during the Bay of Pigs, I assure you that most Floridians would care very deeply who held that base.
Should this uninformed attitude sweep Congress, then the media, plus the nation, all of Gitmo can easily be history, and Obama may acquiesce in the interest of saving money.
First, Obama has not clarified if he would give the Statue of Liberty back to France to save money either, so I repeat my question Mata, has President Obama ever offered or even inferred that the USA would turn over Guantanamo to Cuba?
Mata, for as long as I can remember Castro has ALWAYS asked for the return of Guantanamo Bay. I pulled a recent article from Bush’s time only as a reference. Do you dispute that Castro has always wanted Guantanamo Bay back and requested it over the years?
blast, my post was not that Obama *offered* Gitmo to Cuba. My post points out that Obama did not consider that shuttering Gitmo would allow for Cuba to have better standing on their requests for the absolution of the base and treaty… and the repercussions of doing so.
AND that with him looking for budget cuts, relieving the defense department of Gitmo gave him some fiscal cover for doing so.
Now what remains is how Obama will react to the Castro brothers’ request, and what he decides to do with the facilities.
Get with the program.
Mata, I am with the program. I just think this piece is disingenuous and alarmist. President Obama made no overture to Cuba to return Guantanamo Bay and you are conflating his closure of the detention facilities, budget cuts, possible standing and Castro wanting them back.
I ask my question again, it is pretty simple… “has President Obama ever offered or even inferred that the USA would turn over Guantanamo to Cuba?” A simple yes or no is all that is required.
“Alarmist”??? Interesting that pointing out what could happen if the treaty is absolved, and the US pulls completely out of Gitmo is “alarmist” as opposed to evaluating national security strategy in your mind, blast.
And, I think you can tell that by the first two commenters, probably too much of America wouldn’t think a thing of closing Gitmo completely.
No… Obama has not offered to return Cuba, but the request to him was only made yesterday. His term is still young, and there’s always “tomorrow”.
Nor anywhere in my post did I state that Obama offered to return Gitmo to Cuba. It was pondering if he would, and why.
Therefore don’t be putting words into my mouth, and WTF is your point anyway?
My point is the typification of the whole post…
This is just plain wrong. Did you even read the treaty? If anything the closure of the detention facility strengthens our position.
I guess you feel a major detention center for the purposes of housing international terror suspects as being typical and ordinary use of a naval station.
Thank you for answering my question:
Oh, so you think Castro’s request will receive a different hearing than the past presidents back to Theodore Roosevelt? The request was not new news since Castro & Company have been asking since the 50’s.
Naw, blast… I just linked the treaty’s text without reading it. Give me a break. All done with Cuban officials pre-Castro, BTW. The closure of the detention facility does not make it any more acceptable in either Castro brother’s eyes. They’ve believe it to be a violation of the Vienna Convention… so it’s an all or nothing situation with them. It doesn’t magically become acceptable because the detention facility shuts it’s doors.
Were it the previous admins, I’d say no. With this admin, and Obama’s campaign proposals for Cuban policy? I’m not so sure. He has the most progressive Cuban policy, and has stated his desire to open talks with Castro (either one). This more open policy is becoming more in favor with the nation, our Congress, even those inside even previous administrations.
Now, aside from the prisoner trade issue, what may likely be a bone of contention is how Obama handles Gitmo… i.e. will he return it to Cuba in order to further relations? This all depends upon how expendable Obama sees that Naval base.
Obviously the detention facility is a blow off. If the potential for increased diplomatic relations and increased savings from abandoning Gitmo outweighs it’s value as a base for anti-drug or arms activities in the Caribbean, he just might find it an easy PR trade off to “return Cuban territory to Cuba” and end what many perceive as an occupation. Might we be seeing “withdrawal deadlines” for US occupation of Cuba? Far from impossible with this POTUS and his stated goals, and quest for int’ll adoration.
Has it happened yet? Of course not. Happen tomorrow? Again, of course not. He’s still sorting out how to empty the buildings. But as that process firms up, this is likely to be an issue on the horizon. Most especially since the int’l community will forever link Gitmo with Bush’s WOT, and is highly sensitized to US bases on foreign soil nowadays. Does the fate of Abu Ghraib ring a bell? To distance itself from the “scandal”, it too was abandoned, and the US footprint erased to atone.
So it would not surprise me at all for Obama to play the “withdrawal” card, take the defense savings and run merely for public perception.
And you’re welcome for answering a question. I’ll answer another… yes, in times of war, detaining prisoners on foreign military bases is most certainly a typical use.
Besides annoying His Royal Majesty King Fidel Castro I and his “little” brother, any of the other uses you listed for Guantanamo could be done in the U.S. But they won’t be there forever, Cuba someday will be free, so what happens then..? The U.S. gave back to Panama the Canal and the Canal Zone, in which more taxpayer money was spent than in Guantanamo. And the canal is more important even today for the U.S. and global trade than Guantanamo really is.
Another thing: Since 1960 the Cuban government have not cashed the checks the U.S. pays for the lease of Guantanamo. Anyone knows how much money has accumulated for this non-cashed checks..?
That’s three that could care less if Obama gives Gitmo back to the Cubans. Keeping track of how easy it would be for Obama to do so, blast? The winds of public opinion are at his back…
Well, since he has never said he would give it back, this is just pulling something out of thin air. We have great interest in keeping Guantanamo until a democratic government is restored, and those are beyond the simple military interests you mention.
blast, again you are making things up. I did not say anywhere in my post that Obama said he’d give it back. What I said was this EO may just be the cascading event that leads to him doing just that.
It is an op-ed that examimes the path we are on, the path it can take, and the repercussions of that path… same as most of the posts/op-eds we post here. It is not a news bulletin. Quit trying to confuse the two.
What you have deftly avoided saying is if *you*, personally, have no qualms with relinquishing a miltary base to Cuban control so that they, or perhaps a Russian or Venezuela ally, can take over the lease. This approx 90 miles from the Florida coast. So how about you answer a question for a change. You got a problem with that?
apologies for not catching the last of the post, blast.
So you do *not* sanction Obama abandoning Gitmo while under a dictatorship. Therefore if, in the future, he makes moves to do so, you will be properly incensed?
The treaty says $2,000 dollars in gold, but I have not found if that was increased at some other time, do the figure would be quite low.
Additional: Another source puts it at $4,085 a year.
It hasn’t even been a month and Obama is getting treated like a punching bag by the world. Iran asks for an apology, Castro demands Gitmo back, Korea is restarting their nuclear program. Talk about no respect from anyone. I bet Medvedev walks all over Obama in their first meeting. Hillary would shriek with joy.
I never said you did. I said you have been conflating issues to be an alarmist.
I did answer it, “We have great interest in keeping Guantanamo until a democratic government is restored, and those are beyond the simple military interests you mention.”
and let me expand, many US Corporations have enormous claims against Cuba for nationalizing their property. When time comes for normal relations with a democratic Cuba, they will not be in a position to repay or give back those properties. The base will be the final chip in that process to satisfy those claims, provided the interests of American national security (that you aptly pointed out – Russia, Venezuela) are satisfied.
I think we might be out of sync a touch.
YES.
I would not sit by idly if President Obama or any future President attempted to give away the base to a non democratic, particularly a communist dictatorship like what is in Cuba today. I just don’t see President Obama being so tone deaf and dumb to make such a precipitous action (giving the base to Castro & Company).
I am sorry if I seem harsh if calling this post “Alarmist”, but I do feel it best describes my opinion of the piece. At least I did not call it hysterical. I need a Friday shot and beer!
Mata: Once again the “face” of F.A. has become a farce… and you know what I am talking about.
If you allow bl ass t to disregard the main points in the post and launch off into one or several of his well planned distractions you’re soon launched off into La La land where the original topic becomes lost.
Now… I’ll return to topic:
I wonder if Castro wants the space back to use for his next Gulag.
Has he run out of room in the filth covered cells such as the one below where he houses librarians or anyone else with an independent thought?
And I wonder… if we did hand it back to Castro would the human rights handwringers around the world start caring about the inmates under new and horrificly worse management?
Ooopss… Did I make a mistake and use the photo of a porta potty from the Obama Inaugural?
Nope…. I double checked and that is an accurate replica of one of Fidel’s prison cells.
I think mata can speak for herself Mike. Why don’t you explain what is a farce, maybe the story about suit jackets on the Oval Office along with the many diatribes you get into?
Maybe I miss the point of FA, that being it is supposed to be a far right hatchet piece. I really did not see it that way since my initial attraction was through Kurt, a brother Marine, that this place was for discussion and sharing opinion. Instead what I have found through you is an very assholish person who censors ANYTHING you don’t agree with and insults ANYONE you disagree with. What gives? Are you always so right that you can choose not to learn from someone else, even if you disagree with them? I have learned tons from Mata, and many of the other FA authors and cementers.
I don’t know who it was who spoke of an echo chamber, but in a way they are right. You want adulation and validation… that ain’t gonna happen. Just look at the shape the country is in. Just look at the last election. Republicans and conservatism was handed its hat and shown the door. Why? Is all of “Mikes America” stupid? No, they perceived rightly it was time for a change. Is all change coming good? NO, but it is ridiculous to drum beat inflammatory articles “pole vaulting over whale shit”.
Why bother even commenting to you… you are a narcissus and cannot see your own actions when wrong.
Move the United Nations to Gitmo!
desertdweller! ROTFLMAO!
“I would not sit by idly if President Obama or any future President attempted to give away the base to a non democratic, particularly a communist dictatorship like what is in Cuba today.”
And what exactly would you do if the US government did assign their concentration camp back to Cuba?? Be outraged and “alarmist”??
Sadly the US is well known for talking about “democracy and freedoms” – subjects rarely needed to be raised by other western countries. One has to wonder the reasoning for having this obsession about democracy – probably because the US now has less “democracy and freedoms” than any western nation. With some luck, the new administration may reverse that trend, but meantime kindly refrain from being so presumptuous as to comment on other countries with “advice” until the back yard has been cleaned up.
Returning land which is part of Cuba has nothing to do with whether Cuba is your desired “democracy” or otherwise. After the recent “adventures” by the US at that location, it is hardly a surprise that there are requests for a cessation of the lease – any landlord would do that same.
Well, it is over 50 years too late for that eyeroller. The US does have a legitimate claim to the lease, although the base has outlived its real strategic military purpose. The base can be used a something good when the Castro regime falls. Maybe you don’t see the natural progression of this potential, but the Castros can’t live forever. The close connections between the people of Cuba here and abroad will bring that country from its “imprisoned isle” status and back into the light of freedom. Keep in mind not even a shot has to be fired to win this particular conflict.
I am not a fan of the keeping detainees on Cuba, they should have been reckoned with back in theater of operations instead of the mombo jumbo shit that was created in Gitmo.
BTW, blast, INRE your comment #13 about the Cuban-American Treaty.
I forgot to include what you may not have read and I have archived along with my other Gitmo categories… and that’s the later and more detailed agreement in 1934 – the Treaty of Relations – where the language INRE abandonment and/or mutual agreement of termination is found. So reading the first, without reading the second is getting only half the picture.
But I should have provided the second link to the rest of the treaty agreement, as well as the first.
This, however, does not preclude your chosen excerpts from the 1903 agreement, as the base *is* within it’s limited use as a naval or coaling station still to this date. And any military base can, or has, housed either those awaiting military tribunals, or enemy combatants in times of war. So it’s not a use outside the scope of a naval base.
You and I actually agree that a return of the base to Cuba while under it’s current dictatorial status is bad juju. Where you and I differ is that you don’t see Obama considering this at all.
I, on the other hand, am not sure that he won’t in light of Cuba’s very slight moves in some arenas, and a changing attitude in Americans towards Cuba overall.
Now before you head off into LaLa land again, I didn’t say he *will*. But unlike those that think this isn’t even a glint in his eye yet, I do see how mitigating factors today might justify his path to doing the unthinkable:
a quest for improved relations, defense budget considerations, changing international perception of “occupation”, and taking advantage of a dim wit electorate that doesn’t see why the US *not* having that base would be a danger to our national security…. aka popular and accepted national opinion (via polls).
In fact, if someone took a poll today and asked if the US should withdraw completely from all facilities in Cuba, I’d wager a guess they’d all say “sure”. Like, for example, our #1 commenter here who naively asks “what the hell are Americans doing in Cuba anyway”.
And what would it take to bring this “highly unlikely” (as you see it) situation it to a head? Nothing more than an agenda driven media to start a frenzy with “cuban deadlines now” and “occupied Cuba” type headlines, of course. Whip up the grassroots about the imperialist, empire building America… the America they elected Obama to “change”.
Now all that remains is to see just what Obama actually does over time. Whatever it is, it won’t be immediate. Not until detainees are gone, and the process for their disposition is settled in. But we may see some inkling of his views on this, depending on how he decides to approach Cuba with his policy.
But if this does creep in that direction via future events that surround that “symbol of terror”, Gitmo, you cannot be surprised, nor say you never considered this possibility.
I disagree. I would bet there would be a huge outcry against turning it over to Cuba, unless as I mentioned it was part of a democratic regime. We paid for the lease with blood during the Spanish American War and I think Americans are pretty sentimental, especially if giving the place back to the Castros is the objective. If there is a far left, maybe only some few on that side would be for such a move. The rest of the country would be four square against it. IMHO
I’m sure the US does have a legitimate claim blast. That is not to say there is any reason not to change that and give up/terminate the lease, especially since the recent/current activity tends to bring disrepute on the occupiers.
The decision on use of the land currently known as Gitmo is entirely up to the Cuban government, whether that is Castro or otherwise.
Totally agree that Cuba will change at some future time and hopefully for the better. However, it is predictable that this is unlikely to benefit the Cuban people. At a rough guess, the island will be invaded by land grabbers and populated by resort complexes, luxury homes, casinos, condo complexes, hotels and a sharkload of realtors and renamed “Miami South” – while the population with be stuffed into ghettos and used as $1/hour dishwashers who will have no chance in hell of ever owning a home on their own island.
For whatever reasoning, you may remember Castro threw out the last batch of leeches from the island – the usual predatory corporations? This time around the new batch of leeches will arrive once again when that island is “freed”. But, chances are it will be a “democracy” and “free” 🙂
Well blast… read thru this thread one more time. Think you might care to reassess that statement now? I swear, I didn’t pay any one of these people to comment on this and support my theory that neither the int’l community or the American electorate supports any US presence in Cuba.
Just an observation. And if you take the sampling here, I am disturbingly correct.
We could unilaterally give it up Eye, but American interests would be better served if the Naval Base continued to operate (as it did before detainees), and we reach an amicable exchange for the base with a democratic Cuba. Mata was very right when she spoke of Russia and Venezuela being of concern, doing Naval exercises between Cuba and the North Coast of South America. It would be too dangerous to turn the facility with its deep water port over to the present regime.
When change comes in Cuba, and it will come. One of the largest stumbling blocks to normalization will be the huge debts Cuba has with American (and other foriegn) Corporations. Cuba nationalized industries and those companies and individual as well are looking for their money. The base could be the final chip in a trade to clear the decks of her debts and give the new Cuba a fresh start.
MataHarley: You must be paying them! Haha.. I did google and did a quick look at a few polls. They were left wingish sights, including the Libertarian Party… which was 62 for returning and 30 against… not too bad given their principled positions. I tend to think once the debate is framed without the detention center attached to it, people would be more understanding. Just my gut feeling.
… one of those danged optimists who believe in humans, eh blast? LOL
I have been wrong, but in this case I feel the case against getting rid of the Naval Base is weak. What has tarnished the base has been the fighting over the detainees (right or wrongly). I think Cuba will change completely in the next 5-10 years. All the old revolutionaries are dying or dead and the new breed was infected with American ideals from their cousins and receiving remittances in the past. Plus I think they need a ton of ’57 Packard parts.
Don’t think you’ll get long enough for Cuba to “change competely”, blast. I did some fast scouring around myself. HuffPo actually ran a poll of their left wingers the return of the base to Cuba….
Back in November, just after the election, the “Republicans for Obama” site had an article advocating for the same… return it to Cuba now.
Those are as “fringe” as Obama general voters. Not one of ’em thinks about the repercussions…. just the int’l perception bennies.
Now add articles such as from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs:
1: From Mar 15, 2007… a Constructive Plot to Return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba in the Near Future
2: A Dec 1, 2008 article from the socialist site, People’s World Weekly on how int’l attitudes towards Cuba are increasingly ripe for trade and relaxed regulations.
So perhaps your criticisms that my far fetched theory in this post that Obama may do this is “alarmist” – or at least premature – is actually… well… premature. Obviously my exploration of that path of action is not “out of left field”, but actually supported by the “left field”. And somewhat actively.
So how do you think Obama would hold up under increased peer pressure on this? Cave in like a stack of worn cards comes to mind for me….
One final thing though, I will have to find out if we have a military cemetery there. If we do, we must bring all our sailors and Marines home, and any other American Personnel who was burred there. Leaving them on foreign soil really would drive me nuts (which is not a far distance to travel).
Sadly blast, the world has heard so much about “American interests” (from Diego Garcia, missiles in Eastern Europe, nonsense in the Middle East ad nausea) and not forgetting Cuba. It’s only my 2 cents worth, but perhaps it is more relevant to be more concerned about US citizens at home instead of having “interests” elsewhere and eg dealing with the remnants of Hurricane Katrina and other domestic and economic problems?
Cuba is only a Caribbean island – there are a fair number of them and any one of them can adopt an “anti-US” stance at any time. If they did, there are always reasons – they don’t wake up one morning and elect to find a foe. Are they going to invade the US? Certainly not. They have a better lifestyle where they are and can live in peace. Many of the islands do not welcome any US military activity around their shores and despise being dictated to (or “warned”) by the US govt. about their commercial activities and could not care less about “US interests”.
Why do you think Russia/Venezuela may be of concern now?? Do you think Russia has never noticed US activity messing in countries on their borders and talk about installing missiles in neighboring counties?? Every action has a reaction – mess with other folks and they will act accordingly for their own protection. If the US does not want to be concerned about Cuba or any other bordering nation having Russian missiles, perhaps the US should consider not having missiles on the borders of Russia? No?
Never think for one moment in your wildest dreams that Cuba will be loaded with any perceived baggage of debt from abusive/predatory corporations who elected to plant themselves on that island decades ago, rape the place and use cheap labor to satisfy the whims of the US and other global markets. The days of servitude, whether economic or otherwise, to a master ended some time ago, but you can bet your last dollar that predatory activity will continue. It’s the nature of the beast.
The current administration has a chance of showing change in the US view of the world and has much support globally. Not only would a change improve the status of the US as a country and it’s people, but would also make the world a safer place without the predatory activity. I’d hope that this “chance” is not wasted and the world could view the US as once it was.
I want to meekly raise my hand to make a small point.
The back and forth discussion between Mata and Blast is an example of how great this blog could be if the various discussants confined themselves to debating issues, as opposed to lobbing personal insults. Both of the above writers treated each other with respect, and it is obvious that both of them learned something from the other, and that they were even able to find areas of common agreement. This made for both entertaining and informative reading for thread “lurkers,” such as me.
Does anyone really get anything out of pissing contests? Are they really all that rewarding? Is it really worth anyone’s time to read back and forth exchanges of personal insults? As opposed to well reasoned exchanges of honest differences of opinion?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I think we can talk and chew gum at the same time eye. No doubt some of the abuses of the past, such as the use of Gitmo as a detention center has damaged our international creditability, but President Obama has a new role where he needs to balance a number of issues other than “how we look”. Russia and Venezuela are threats to the USA, maybe not from annihilation, but they pose a threat in this hemisphere. So I agree our government has failed on the issue of Katrina, but that does not mean the new Administration has to give away some leverage it has with Cuba.
Well, there are civil claims against Cuba for property and those claims will need to be satisfied. Many of the Cuban ex patriots (with their clout) will be a huge impediment to normalized relations if claims are not dealt with, so what I am talking about is a practical end game. I am not supportive of exploitative relations, but those claims will hang out there until resolved. If they lay unresolved it will be bad for any potential future a free Cuba might have.
No doubt, but does it have to be all or nothing? I mean can’t incremental improvements demonstrate that? Didn’t the election of Obama change many opinions about the USA? I don’t disagree with you that some change needs to take place, like closing the detention centers. Those centers are a black eye and no longer help the US more they are hurting us. Keep in mind however that unilateral actions won’t fix all of our problems and might leave us without areas to negotiate with.
Well, “only” 47% HuffPo a very far left wanting to give it back kinda validates my position. haha…
Thanks for the other links, I find their (Republicans for Obama) positions interesting, yet naive. I think the small number of people discussing this (returning the base to Cuba) is more academic than if it got out as something discussed by the greater society. I tend to think (opinion) that many more Americans would be against giving the base back to Castro. Too many arguments against giving it back would sway public opinion, like your comments about Russia and Venezuela.