Replies

re 50, Your unwillingness to establish relationships with dictators is the most narrow view of US foreign relations I have ever heard. If you think it's pratical to eliminate diplomatic relations with a significant part of the world that is controlled by dictators, you have a head-in-the-sand view of what is possible through diplomacy. Do you think that by ignoring Castro it is conducive to improving the Cuban government now or after his death. Kind of a do nothing and things will change approach?

Every communist and totalitarian government has confiscated private property, but we deal with them. I guess you think that the policy that results in the property not being recognized after 40 years will get the job done. One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, getting the same results, but hoping for a different result. Your 41 years of lack of results proves the wrongheadness of your approach.

"If you think it's pratical to eliminate diplomatic relations with a significant part of the world that is controlled by dictators, you have a head-in-the-sand view of what is possible through diplomacy."

A significant part of the world is NOT controlled by dictators. China is controlled by a Party, and the titular Head of State changes with some regularity.

They suck, but they are not really dictatorships in the sense of a omnipotent head-of-state.

I am talking about the Saddam Husseins and Fidel Castro's of the world. Not really a lot of them out there.

The main difference between a place like China, the old USSR and Cuba, is that the seat of power would change with some regularity, and according to semblance of parliamentary procedure.

All the talk about Castro's death is about who he is most likely to be his chosen replacement. Kim Jong Il left his son in power, Castro could possibly do the same.

These are evolving monarchies.