Al Neuharth: Why is China OK, but Cuba 'enemy'?

USA Today ^ | February 22, 2002 | Al Neuharth, USA Today founder

[Cincinatus' Wife]

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.

[Polybius]

"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."

I agree. But I have a question. Castro personally ordered the shoot-down of two Cessnas flying a humanitarian mission in international airspace. Four men died in the attack by Cuban MIG's against the unarmed civilian aircraft. Three were US citizens, one of them a Vietnam vet. Was that an act of war?

Yes, it was. Unfortunately, we had a gutless coward as Commander in Chief at the time.

During the first three weeks, the civilians should have been flown out of GTMO, carriers should have been sent to the Florida Straights and AF fighter squadrons should have been brought into Homestead AFB.

On the fourth week, the Cuban Air Force, Navy and Army should have been pounded from the air for a week or two. Or three or four, depending on how many squadrons wanted to get in on the action and get their pilots the Combat Action Ribbon.

[jwalsh07]

Jefferson got the Embargo Act of 1807 passed. After it was repealed, Madison re-instated it.

Do you think they knew the original intent of the Constitution?

[Demidog]

It must by definition be incorrect because it leaves the country unable to adequately provide for the national defense.

Really? That's a unique view of things. Please explain your logic.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It seems the main (and the only one, for some) argument against the Embargo is that the US will have to foot the bill for non-payment..."

That's a blatant distortion of everything that's been said here.

A lot of people, including myself, have given good reasons why the embargo should stay in place.

The fact that you choose to ignore them says a lot about you.

[Gumption]

I would say that the power to provide a common defense should cover it.

I guess I wasn't clear but let me try again. There is NO enumerated power to provide for "common defence". If you believe there is such a power, you would also have to conclude there is a power to provide for the "general welfare". If you contend there's a power to provide for the "general welfare" then you would have to conclude that the central government has unlimited powers because a person would be hard pressed to conjure up a government program that couldn't fall under the "general welfare clause".

[GuillermoX]

I know Cargill and Con-Agra do lots of business with Cuba. And, does anyone who does not know this know nothing about Cuba? I guess anyone who knows less than you is ignorant of Cuba. Ironic how you don't see how the Embargo strengthens Castro and how he wants to see it continue, yet you claim to know so much. How do you feel to be on the same side as this assassin on such an important issue to the island?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Absolutely.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Why do you think the Cuban government would have such a thing?"

It was some sort of a deal. Cuba's end is to allow a certain number of people to migrate yearly. I forget what our end of the deal is.

[GuillermoX]

There you go again..showing a complete lack reading comprehension ability. Read s-l-o-w-l-y what I said. First, the post was not directed at you. Second, I said that was the only argument for some. Do you understand what some means? Are you able to recognize that some does not mean all, or even a majority?? Are you even literate in the English language?

My guess is that you're an old man, as the older a man gets, the harder it is for them to grasp a new language.

[jwalsh07]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

According to the people that wrote it, the common defence was one of the reasons for establishing the document.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"How do you feel to be on the same side as this assassin on such an important issue to the island?"

That's your view, and it's neither right, nor supportable by any data. In actuality, that's propaganda, and you've bought into it.

I believe that you don't trade with thiefs, you do.

If lifting trade sanctions against Cuba, in your mind would facilitate toppling the Castro government, why hasn't that happened in China then? We lifted trade sanctions there almost thirty years ago. The most visible effects of that act thus far are multi-millionaire commies.

[Gumption]

I'll try this one now ...

Let's stay with your interpretation. What kind of an army would be provided when opponents could obliterate it with nuclear weapons provided by trade with the US? Little bit of a recruitment problem or would we watch as millions leave to avoid the suicide of a draft under such conditions?

So far as I know, all nuclear weapons are the property of the federal government. The federal government does not have to trade/sell anything it possesses unless the congress allows it through legislation, but it's not prohibited by the Constitution either. IOW, the federal government can, and does, prohibit itself from selling the property in its possession. But if a state funded its own nuclear arsenal and wanted to sell them abroad an Amendment would have to be passed to prohibit that sale or to prohibit the manufacture of said arsenal in the first place (unless, of course, we are at war, then NO aiding of the enemy would be allowed by the current wording of the Constitution).

[GuillermoX]

I never really said ending the Embargo would facillitate his demise. It may, or it may not. What we do know is that the Embargo has not facillitated his demise one iota.

[Luis Gonzalez]

ROTLMAO!!!

Is that all you got left? Insults?

You say things, then parse.

Quite the Clintonian debating style there.

Don't come in a forum where people are educated in the facts concerning an issue to slew your socialist BS about Castro and the embargo.

Look around you and find the people who support your point of view.

Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson, Janet Reno...good company you keep.

Supporting the retention of the embargo?

George W. Bush, Jesse Helms, Ronald Reagan are some names that immediately come to mind.

You are who you hang out with little man.

BTW, about the old man thing. Next time you're in Miami, you can personally check out how old I am.

[GuillermoX]

And, are you for an embargo on China? No one has yet to address this in the thread, though it was part of the original article.

[breakem]

You are very creative, but you have twisted the example. I earlier mentioned trading in uranium. Now you say trading in nuclear weapons. The problem is that trade can include weapons components or information which would enable others to kill our soldiers. Example: should it be prohibited for companies to trade the latest in missile guidance technology to other countries?

I don't need to prolong this thread anymore. Let me say that I believe your readining anf your interpretation is incorrect, but most of all it is impratical and could lead to the loss of the country to enemy forces. Hard to believe that's what the folks had in mind.

[breakem]

I just saw your 245 telling me what I have to conclude. I conclude no such thing. I asked you how to practically provide an army to protect us when the enemy will destroy it with nuclear weapons they developed in trade with US contries. This is the delimma you face based upon your conclusion.

[GuillermoX]

Parsing? lol. You accuse me of saying things which I did not, then I point to the exact words I said and you call it parsing. You said I never said I offered an opinion even though I used terms like "I believe", "I doubt" and "I would venture to say". Luis, those terms signify an offering of an opinion. "Some" does not mean you and/or everybody else. Especially when the post was not directed at you. This is not parsing.

OK, next time I'm in Miami, I'll find out how old you are. I'm sure you're at least old enough to play dominos at Domino Park. All of the old men in my family never took to English very well, while all of the old women did.

[GuillermoX]

And, I don't "hang out" with Waters, et al (et all means "and others"). I freely admit I don't agree with all the right wing politicians 100% of the time. That doesn't make me a "communist". You "all or nothing" wackjobs, who are as intolerant as the left, have got to go.

[GuillermoX]

Spell Check: "al" instead of "all"