Posted on 03/03/2002 6:26:29 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:16 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In Beijing, Bush called China our ''partner.'' Cuba officially is our ''enemy.'' Why?
Because a small number of powerful exiles in South Florida cow our politicians into keeping the crazy Cuban policy. That was designed to castrate Fidel Castro and has failed for more than 40 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Finally you get it right. What'd it take you? 7 posts of BS before you actually read it and got it right?
The term regulate cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken to mean prohibit. Prohibition is not regulation.
The act of prohibiting trade would in fact repudiate regulation as then there would be nothing at all to regulate.
Right. This is not a reduction of government loans to businesses and in fact the opposite is true under the Bush administration.
You're right, firms don't have carte blanche. The govt has rules concerning what can be exported, how much is guaranteed and who we can export to. Some countries are bad risks, like Cuba and I'm sure other crooked dictatorships in Africa and elsewhere.
Export all you want, but if you want credit guarantees don't trade with Cuba et al.
Let's summarize.
While you claimed that you knew "exactly what you were talking about" you didn't know about the hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into Cuba from exiles, and you didn't know about the visa lottery either.
Did you know that US firms have built manufacturing plants in Cuba? And that they operated them with Cuban labor?
That's correct and I am in favor of father's rights.
However, Elian's father "decided" what he decided with his parents, his wife's parents and his wife's older child held as de facto hostages back in Cuba. Even then, Elian's father was kept under de facto house arrest by the Clinton Administration while he was here in the U.S.
When the grandmothers came over, their husbands were held as hostages back in Cuba.
If the entire Gonzalez family: father, stepmother, BOTH siblings and grandparents had been allowed to come to the U.S. and if the father had been allowed to travel where he pleased and talk to whomever he pleased and not just Clintonista fat cats, I would believe that the father made his decision of his own free will.
Imagine forcing your wife to decide between you and a stepson and her own flesh and blood son from a previous marriage. Which one would she decide never to see again as the price for staying in the USA?
If Cuba hasn't initiated an act of war on the US such would be immoral.
I'd say Castro's grip is strengthened because our enforcement of the Embargo is a loophole riddled farce.
Cuban sugar is imported to the United States through the backdoor: Canada.
It is actually shipped to Canada where it is disolved in molassas. We import "Canadian" molassas, refine out the sugar, then export molassas back to Canada!
In addition, American companies that use large quantities of sugar (such as candy-makers) have been shutting down their U.S. factories and moving to Canada. Importing "Canadian" candy is permitted, and Castro laughs his way to the bank.
The reason we don't open up is because there are upwards of 500,000 votes opposing such a move. Very few poiliticans will stand up against that. At this point we can't retrace and shut down China because too much business has become involved.
Despite the double standard, at this late date, just wait 5-10 years and the old man will be gone presenting an opening that will be hard to ignore.
If that is satisfactory with the companies who trade there then it is their choice. That can in no way be construed to be a burden on the American taxpayer. I am not obligated to bail out some company that agrees to those stipulations and then goes belly up. Sorry that you think this is so.
24 posted on 3/3/02 8:12 AM Pacific by Demidog [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
That's why the Bush administration is denying government backed business loans and why anti-embargo groups are screaming-- government backed=taxpayers.
And as for the company taking losses, it reminds me of shoplifters' gains being paying consumers' higher costs.
32 posted on 3/3/02 8:20 AM Pacific by Cincinatus' Wife [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Bump. Where has this occurred please.
102 posted on 3/3/02 11:05 AM Pacific by Demidog
That's why the Bush administration is denying government backed business loans To communist Cuba.
193 posted on 3/3/02 3:24 PM Pacific by Toddsterpatriot [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] To communist Cuba.
Right. This is not a reduction of government loans to businesses and in fact the opposite is true under the Bush administration.
202 posted on 3/3/02 3:49 PM Pacific by Demidog [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
As you can see Cincinatus' Wife said Castro expects goods upfront, gives IOU.
Demidog says if companies agree, thats their problem.
Cincinatus' Wife says that's why Bush doesn't want to give government guarantees.
Demidog asks where has that occured.
I answered communist Cuba.
Demidog says Right. This is not a reduction of government loans to businesses and in fact the opposite is true under the Bush administration.
Not sure what he means but I think he is confused.We are not talking about loans to business but trade guarantees.
And Yes, I'm aware US Corps do and want to do business in Cuba. Why wouldn't they?
Or look at it this way. Does the power to regulate commerce between the states imply that the Feds can prohibit Virginia from trading with Maryland? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so. If not, why would the power to regulate mean something different when applying that power to trade with foreign nations?
What do you guys think?
If Cuba hasn't initiated an act of war on the US such would be immoral.
I am a Cuban American and a U.S. Naval officer and I have to agree with Demidog on this one.
As long as Castro minds his manners and does not threaten the U.S.A., I can not justify the loss of American lives to liberate Cuba. That is for the Cubans to do.
Two of my uncles fought at the Bay of Pigs. They tried to liberate Cuba from Castro. They lost. Cest la guerre.
Now, if Castro sets up Cuba as a base for Chi-Com or terrorist actions against the U.S., then that's a totally different matter and he should be attacked.
Based on the dicscussions I have followed her, across-the-board banning of trade to Cuba is not a national defense issue.
My condolances. Even if they lived, their administration sold them down the river. I've read reports about how intelligence knew that Castro would be able to easily squash an insurgency and didn't bother to let anyone know the facts. CYA was the order of the day in the intelligence community.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.