Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
As I said before, to intervene, the country cannot be a democracy and its government must be ruining the economy. In addition, our intervention must be able to change that situation. Following these conditions there are not a lot of places to intervene.

North Korea falls under this catagory, but if we invade we lose Seoul and possibly San Francisco.

Syria and Iran are now adopting free market policies so they are out.

Burma would be good, but the US public would never support it.

Belarus falls under this catagory but Russia would not like this and they have nuclear weapons.

Although Hugo Chavez is destryoing his economy he is still supported by the majority of the people.

That leaves Cuba.

The Spanky Grand Unified Theory of Human Rights, Free Markets and Regime Change is becoming clearer, but I do have an additional question here.

With whose army will we knock over this particular popsicle stand? Though we're returning some troops starting next year from Iraq, now that we've subdued the insurgency and all, I suspect we have precious little military capital with which to march upon Havana. (Unless, of course, you're planning on simply sending Bolton.)

And once Castro's head is flung into the cheering throngs, what shall we do with the country itself? Is it a safe assumption that we'll be welcomed with open arms by the Cuban people?

Gattigap

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by ironweed
Iran-Contra is just "alleged" but Vince Foster was deffo killed by Hillary's hit men. Got it.

C'mon, you know its true - you've just been hypnotyzed by the sweet singing of Hillary's thighs as they swish against each other in her poly-gab pants suit. She's a siren, dude, and you're all to willing to jump over the side into her sticky embrace.

BR(I just remembered I forgot to eat lunch)C

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
l

As I said before, people generally act in their own self interest. If CAFTA were not about free trade businesses would not support it. Why would American businesses suppport CAFTA if it were not a free trade agreement. And I am not talking about some business, I am talking about 99% of American businesses. In addition, if CAFTA was not about free trade why does almost every economic and business journal support it: the Economist, FEER, Fortune, WSJ etc. It is not that complicated, over the next twenty years CAFTA significantly reduces tariffs on over 98% of the trade between the US and the CAFTA nations. Can you name just one business journal that is pro-free trade, or one business group that is involved in international trade that is against CAFTA? On the internet you can find opinions to support any idea. You need to look at who really has a vested interest in free trade and where they stand. And they all support CAFTA. Ellen Tauscher went before the manufacturers association and tried to justify her position on CAFTA. In an auditorium full of manufacturing representatives the moderator asked if there was anyone that believed Tauscher's justification. Not a single hand was raised. When asked if they though Tauscher's position was just political partisanship almost every person in the room raised their hand.

As I said, if you want to talk about the merits, go ahead. I'll be here. I can think of reasons why business might support a treaty, apart from the possibility that the treaty might create more vigorous competition. Can you?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
More clarification than comment:

That said, the fact that he isn't quite making the argument you wish he was making

He wasn't making an argument. I was just drawing some conclusions to the facts that he was pointing out.

Clearly if you consider a fetus a human life then Roe v. Wade increased the number of killings. But if you don't consider a fetus a human being then Roe v. Wade decreased not only the murder rate but the number of infant deaths.

As someone who spends a lot of time in Republican circles I hear the culture of death argument all the time. Abortion leads to a disregard for human life and therefor leads to all these cases of teenagers either killing or abandoning their babies. Which the facts in these studies clearly disproves and in fact shows the opposite. Abortion on demand leads to significantly less post birth infant deaths - negligent or intentional.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
What were you saying about the "slippery slope" argument earlier?

The Slippery Slope argument says that certain policies will lead to other policies. My argument concerned the policy in question. You were advocating that we get militarily involved anytime our reputation with the muslim world might be damaged, if two countrys might go to war, or a country gets destablized. That policy would not lead to policies that would cause a lot of intervention, that policy would in itself cause us to intervene everywhere in the world.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I said, if you want to talk about the merits, go ahead. I'll be here. I can think of reasons why business might support a treaty, apart from the possibility that the treaty might create more vigorous competition. Can you?

The entire business community? I am all ears. Why would the entire business community support CAFTA if it did not open up markets?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
The entire business community? I am all ears. Why would the entire business community support CAFTA if it did not open up markets?

Which markets is it opening up? Cheap labor markets? Pollution markets?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The Spanky Grand Unified Theory of Human Rights, Free Markets and Regime Change is becoming clearer, but I do have an additional question here.

With whose army will we knock over this particular popsicle stand? Though we're returning some troops starting next year from Iraq, now that we've subdued the insurgency and all, I suspect we have precious little military capital with which to march upon Havana. (Unless, of course, you're planning on simply sending Bolton.)

And once Castro's head is flung into the cheering throngs, what shall we do with the country itself? Is it a safe assumption that we'll be welcomed with open arms by the Cuban people?

Gattigap

We may have to wait for things to calm down in Iraq a little bit.

I think Cubans will take to democracy like most other post soviet satelites have. They have been democratic before so I don't think free elections will be that controversial over there. Castro is in power mainly because the people have so few resources and the government has all of them. I think we could moniter the elections and then leave. Call me naive, but that is what I believe.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Which markets is it opening up? Cheap labor markets? Pollution markets?

Tariffs will be reduced up to 80% on 98% of the trade between the CAFTA countrys and the US. It is really not that complicated.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Slippery Slope argument says that certain policies will lead to other policies. My argument concerned the policy in question. You were advocating that we get militarily involved anytime our reputation with the muslim world might be damaged, if two countrys might go to war, or a country gets destablized. That policy would not lead to policies that would cause a lot of intervention, that policy would in itself cause us to intervene everywhere in the world.

That is not what I said. As you may recall, the short answer I gave about why it was in our interest to intervene in Kosovo (that you called idiotic) was "stability in Europe."

And one of the concerns I raised wasn't that failure to do so would damage our reputation in the Muslem world, it was that the failure to do so increased the influence of Islamicists in BH and Turkey, which are in .... Europe. (Well, part of Turkey is.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The Spanky Grand Unified Theory of Human Rights, Free Markets and Regime Change is becoming clearer, but I do have an additional question here.

With whose army will we knock over this particular popsicle stand? Though we're returning some troops starting next year from Iraq, now that we've subdued the insurgency and all, I suspect we have precious little military capital with which to march upon Havana. (Unless, of course, you're planning on simply sending Bolton.)

And once Castro's head is flung into the cheering throngs, what shall we do with the country itself? Is it a safe assumption that we'll be welcomed with open arms by the Cuban people?

Gattigap

BTW: prior to invading Iraq, and even prior to Gulf War I, Saddam was destroying the Iraqi economy and was abusing human rights. We could also take him out without another major power taking his side with serious weapons (Russia or China) and without him doing serious damage to one of our allies. Under the "Spanky Unified Theory" he was a prime target.

Also under the Spanky Unified Theory you should also intervene when genocide is occuring or other serious human rights violations are occuring.

Clinton gets Kudos for Serbia, and dermerits for Bosnia and Rwanda (although I doubt a Republican President would have handled it any differently). Bush gets demerits for Darfur.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
That is not what I said. As you may recall, the short answer I gave about why it was in our interest to intervene in Kosovo (that you called idiotic) was "stability in Europe."

And one of the concerns I raised wasn't that failure to do so would damage our reputation in the Muslem world, it was that the failure to do so increased the influence of Islamicists in BH and Turkey, which are in .... Europe. (Well, part of Turkey is.)

Why is stability in Europe part of our security interest? I can see our humanitarian interests, but why is is part of our security interest? Another way of looking at it is why is stability in Europe more important to us than stability anywhere else?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Tariffs will be reduced up to 80% on 98% of the trade between the CAFTA countrys and the US. It is really not that complicated.

So now I get a Guatamalan pullover for $8.50 rather than $9.00? Woo hoo!

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why is stability in Europe part of our security interest? I can see our humanitarian interests, but why is is part of our security interest? Another way of looking at it is why is stability in Europe more important to us than stability anywhere else?

Poll the business community. I think have a lot of trade or something with Europe.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Spanky
For the past forty years Castro has condemned his entire nation to abject poverty. In addition, to stay in power he has imprisoned thousands and tortured thousands. He is one of the top human rights abusers in the world. He also has tried and keeps trying to promote his wonderful system of government throughout the world.

The main reason for not taking him out before was his backing from the Soviet Union. He no longer has that backing. His military is pathetic and his people don't support him (otherwise he wouldn't have such a problem with calling elections). Taking him out would not be that difficult.

Where do you get this stuff?!?

If anything, the embargo by the US keeps Castro in power (you, or someone else, may have obliquely referred to this). Castro points to how the big, bad US is trying to keep his nation down, and it's a real rallying point that Cubans have "withstood" the bullying by the US.

As much as it pains me to say it, he is a legitimately popular leader. While certainly no saint, he's hardly the "worst human rights abuser" in this hemisphere (I think it was you who said this). Cuba has a lower infant-mortality rate, and a higher literacy rate than the US (of course, everyone CAN read, but there is nothing TO read -- as access to reading material is highly restricted, and there is really no press, other than a government-run newspaper).

When I went to Cuba, it was quite sad, to see how run down everything is, but no one is homeless - housing is guaranteed for everyone. Travel is restricted (theoretically, anyone can go anywhere, but you can't buy an airline ticket with Cuban pesos, and it is [or was -- I think this may have changed] illegal to hold foreign currency), and there are consequences for speaking out against the government. In fact, on my first trip there, my group met with a dissident (this was about 12 years ago); he was later thrown in jail (nothing to do with meeting with us) for his public criticisms of the regime and I believe he died in jail. Hardly ideal.

People are poor, no doubt about it, but their basic human needs are met (food, shelter, health care). The system is highly flawed, but to say Castro is an illegitimate despot is patently ridiculous.