Putting words in my mouth again. I said that we shouldn't trade with them because of the attrocities they've comitted and the treaties they've broken. Not because they're socialist.

As for my answers, I wll modify them. We trade with the countries in question because the current administration doesn't care about the human rights abuses and broken treaties. Same difference. We still shouldn't trade with them. Bush should have cut off trade, too, but Clinton's the one in office now.

You seem to be having a completely different argument than I am. You're claiming that since we trade with China et al., we should trade with Cuba, too. Now, I'm all for a consistant foreign policy, but you ignore the fact that I'm arguing that we shouldn't trade with ANY of them, and for completely different reasons as to why you think we don't trade with Cuba.

I want a consistant foreign policy. I just want to treat China and Co. like we treat Cuba. That's the one case where we got the treatment of a brutal government right.

And as for your conclusion about Nixon, it's quite specious. I said we continue trading with China because of a liberal president that doesn't care about human rights abuses. You construe that to mean Nixon, even though the abuses in question happened fifteen years after his presidency. I have no problem trading with socialist nations. You'd have trouble finding one that isn't. It's when they start slaughtering their people that I say trade should stop.

Besides, Nixon imposed wage controls and screwed the economy for the rest of the decade. Hardly a conservative move.

Tiananmen Square happened in what, '89? Daddy Dubya was president there wasn't he?? Or did you miss that part?

Pretty good guess on my part on the number of sentences you cut and pasted from my post to counter everything I said. I came the over/under was 3.

Then what the "open trade with Cuba" arguments come down to is this...

I say be consistant in foreign policy decisons. And if the government doesn't want to, well fine, at least admit that we're not trading with Cuba because of the memory we have about the Castro take over.

You say, screw 'em all. It's my island? Or is that too Braveheart for you? (sarcasm laden)

Is that about right?

How every anti-business of you.
------------------
Oh, fiddle faddle, everyone knows that our mutants have flippers. Oops, I've said too much.....
~C. Montgomery Burns

So MY argument is more like: I say be consistant in foreign policy decisons. We hit the nail on the head with Cuba when it comes to how to treat inhumane governments, regardless of why we did it. That's the way we SHOULD treat Cuba. Thus, to have consistant policy, that's the way we should treat China, et al.

Get it now?

See, you keep changing the subject. That's why you're getting confused. I couldn't care less why we imposed an embargo (at least for the purposes of this discussion). It DOESN'T MATTER to the question of whether we should trade with Castro or not. I say we shouldn't trade with him because of human rights abuses. My argument is that huge thing that I posted a while back that you completely ignored. Unless you can punch a hole in that argument, and show that we DO have a reason to trade with Castro despite the attrocities he's commited, THEN you'll have a point.

How about Russia? The KGB still exists--just has a different name. People still disappear & their new leader is a known mob member. And speaking of the mob, what about Italy & Japan, where mafia & yakuza influences even the uppermost echelons of government?

Should we trade with Argentina & Brazil? They gave safe harbor to Nazi war criminals. And Germany overran Europe 60 years ago. Do we hold that against them still? Israel routinely does things that we don't like--strikes on Syrian nuclear power plants & the like. Aid cuts for them? No, of course not. That's just political suicide & stupidity.

If the people in England want to do something about the searches, they have the option of doing so. It's a democracy.

I'm not to fond of Russia now, personally, but cutting trade would be a little drastic at this point.

As for Brazil and Germany, you can't hold a government responsible for what it's PREDECESSORS did. Just what the current government did. If Castro got killed and was replaced by a benevolent dictator, or even a democracy, I'd be all for trade.

And lest we forget that many people would consider our nation a nation that commits human rights abuses. After all, when we execute someone, aren't we abusing their right to, well, live. Give me a break. I mean, electricution, that's pretty gruesome isn't it. I don't want to seem like i condone human rights abuses, but lets have some perspective. More likely than not, every nation is responsible for some human rights abuses in a nother nation's eyes at some point in time, whether they be mild or serious.

For example, lets look at Great Britain, for several decades the British government has been slaughtering its citizens in Northern Ireland and the Irish have been slaughtering British troops. However, they are not considered human rights abuses? Why not? I mean they are killing their citizens aren't they. "Well their terrorists, right?" yes, of course, but let's guess how many children have been caught in cross-fires, how many innocent men have been shot in a raid, how many families left without fathers or mothers.

------------------
"Homer, you're dumb as a mule and twice as ugly,
if a strange man offers you a ride, I say take it"-Abe S.

quote:

---

I don't care why we're not trading with Cuba. It's completely irrelevant to my position. I'm saying why we SHOULDN'T trade with Cuba.

---

I'm going to have to make a list of these Omegaisms.
To paraphrase, 'I don't care why we don't just soes we don't.' Why is irrelevant. Sort of a hit and miss foreign policy you've got there eh?

Talk about your inner confusion...

We are discussing whether we should trade with Cuba. The logical way to proceed with this discussion is to weigh the pros and cons of trading with Cuba, and see which outweighs the other. The reason we are not trading with Cuba at present has no relation to the pros and cons of trading with Cuba, and therefore is not relevant to this discussion.

Get it now?

------------------
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

To paraphrase a phrase, no island exists in the comunity of nations as an island. It does not exist without a history. It does not exist without previous feelings and emotions attached to it.

Ignore that all you want to. More power to ya. If you get tired of having your head in the sand, I'll welcome you back to the land where people recognize mulitple layers of interaction and socialization.

"What about The UK? They do a lot of things we don't really like re: prisoners & searches concerning the IRA."

Er, what the fuck?

Oh, and:

"For several decades the British government has been slaughtering its citizens in Northern Ireland and the Irish have been slaughtering British troops."

Er, what the fuck?

------------------
"Why do you want to spend time with a deer? They're so stupid, they get hypnotized by headlights!"

------------------
"Ultra Magnus is Undeniably Fun!" David Stevens, New York Magazine.
"Total Complete excitement from start to finish!" -WPIX-TV, New York
"This isn't a thrill ride, it's a rocket..." -Richard Caves, Time Magazine.

"If the people in England want to do something about the searches, they have the option of doing so. It's a democracy."

What? What's going on? Has something happened and I haven't been told?

------------------
"Why do you want to spend time with a deer? They're so stupid, they get hypnotized by headlights!"

See, I can make pronouncements too.