[billbears]

First, the United States must buck what is becoming a trend in the Western Hemisphere; namely, that democratic means are being manipulated by leftist leaders to preclude the United States from affecting or supporting "regime change," lest it appear to subvert the democratic process. To this end, the removal of Fidel Castro from power could provide a benchmark against which all pro-Castro leaders can judge their future behavior.

So by this argument, in the future if any nation's population elects a leader that these United States disagree with policy wise, our government could in effect call for a regime change and have them removed, either by force or other means. And people say this nation's government is not starting to act like an empire....

[Tailgunner Joe]

in the future if any nation's population elects a leader that these United States disagree with policy wise, our government could in effect call for a regime change and have them removed

This has always been the case in the past, and it will continue to be the case in the future. We will not allow the Iraqis to elect a Shi'ite zealot, for example. Would you prefer a system of "global governance" that keeps the American warmongers in check?

You seem to share Bill Clinton's dream of a future where the U.S. is the biggest dog on the street

Why do you always have the same positions as democrats and communists?