Replies

I don't know this Neuharth and I can't speak about him.

I just think he's right about this.

The reason why China is "OK," but Cuba is the "'enemy'" .. is because China has more clout. It's as simple as that . . .

Agreed.

And I have a problem with that.

..and hardly a reason to lift the embargo on Cuba.

I dissagree. If Cuba is so horrible and we are going to have an embargo on them till they can afford (in cash, resources, labor or whatever) to buy our foreign policy like China has then it's completely inconsistant.

It makes no sense and further it's an shamefull that we would allow ourselves to be bought in the first place.

Who is FEDGOV to tell me where I can travel and where I can't based on their definition of "good commie/bad commie"

Who are they to tell me I can't invest till the country in question cough's up some green to buy them off? And how in the world can we shake a finger at Castro and turn a blind eye to China?

It's insulting and hypocritical. It's embarrassing that we can be bought and paid for like some kind of third world nation, and then have the nerve to turn and claim the moral high ground.

That's your moral equivelancy argument right there.

I don't see foreign policy as an "all or nothing" game (but it is a game). Arguments about equivalency do lead to charges of hypocrisy. The Cold War was a perfect example. We attempted to influence the Soviet Union, while never recognizing its annexation of the "captive nations." We engaged in trade, signed treaties, exchanged scholars and athletes, etc., all because the Soviet Union had clout.

Cuba is, in effect, a captive nation. In terms of clout, it is a piss-ant. The notion that the US should not attempt to influence Cuba because of the US' relationship with China is what I find "insulting."

Who is FEDGOV to tell me where I can travel and where I can't based on their definition of "good commie/bad commie"

They're the ones saving your butt by fighting terrorist