EDHS Contemporary World Affairs

ich_binJason · Senior Member

US Congress members in Cuba talks

Vanessabug · Senior Member

I know that the regime is still going strong but I know that many Cuban Americans will be happy about this. It must be hard to not be able to see your family freely. But who knows? Maybe we are better off with the embargo. We shall seeeeeeee

Kody Disbrow · Veteran Member

i dont thik we should change any of our restrictions on cuba, just because they are talking to us doesnt mean that they have changed their ways, i mean like jason said Fidel's regime is still going

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

People run away from cuba in life savers rafts hoping to land in america and you think it's all clear to open up travel to them. Think again.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

i dont the restrictions should have been there in the first place. we should have taken more of a friendly approach towards them. they sought support from russia because they couldn't get support anywhere else. if we had given them support or even accepted them for what they were, dictatorship, communist or whatever, we might have been able to cut out a whole ugly sector of the cold war.

ich_binJason · Senior Member

Back then, communism was this decade's terrorism. You don't give in. We supported the dictator Batista of Cuba when Fidel overthrew him. We wouldn't drop support our Ally at the time for a coup détat. Nobody does. The restrictions were in place to punish communism. They're now in place until democratic reforms happen in Cuba and they release their political prisoners.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

well i can tell you that communism isnt suffering. its the families that have been separated that are suffering. we shouldnt support or condemn what anyone is doing. its not out place. and i know i have said that a million times but it is the cause of almost all of the US' troubles! we are in everyone's business when we shouldnt be

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

I must disagree. The one thing that the U.S. should wield like a weapon against nations is economic sanctions of any kind. If we don't like you why would be let you benefit from our prosperity?

To tired to spell lol

-- Edited by Bonemail-(Christophe K) on Wednesday 8th of April 2009 05:28:14 AM

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

Hey at least spell my name right!! haha

Anyway, to respond to your comment, One must not wield any weapon at all, figurative or literal. trying to outdo other countries with military and/or economic strength only brings happiness to the ego of the victor. but no one really prospers.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

geriatric1991 wrote:

Hey at least spell my name right!! haha

Anyway, to respond to your comment, One must not wield any weapon at all, figurative or literal. trying to outdo other countries with military and/or economic strength only brings happiness to the ego of the victor. but no one really prospers.

Courage consists not in blindly overlooking danger, but in seeing it, and conquering it.
Jean Paul

I agree more with this. You are just ignoring the real dangers that have been around us and saying life will be better if were nice. So it hasn't worked and I know cause we call it appeasement and we did it to hitler.

ich_binJason · Senior Member

Bonemail-(Christophe K) wrote:

geriatric1991 wrote:

Hey at least spell my name right!! haha

Anyway, to respond to your comment, One must not wield any weapon at all, figurative or literal. trying to outdo other countries with military and/or economic strength only brings happiness to the ego of the victor. but no one really prospers.

Courage consists not in blindly overlooking danger, but in seeing it, and conquering it.
Jean Paul

I agree more with this. You are just ignoring the real dangers that have been around us and saying life will be better if were nice. So it hasn't worked and I know cause we call it appeasement and we did it to hitler.

we didn't do it directly, more like that wuss Neville Chamberlain did!

neville_chamberlain_and_adolf_hitler_peace_in_our_time.jpg

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

ich_binJason wrote:

Bonemail-(Christophe K) wrote:

geriatric1991 wrote:

Hey at least spell my name right!! haha

Anyway, to respond to your comment, One must not wield any weapon at all, figurative or literal. trying to outdo other countries with military and/or economic strength only brings happiness to the ego of the victor. but no one really prospers.

Courage consists not in blindly overlooking danger, but in seeing it, and conquering it.
Jean Paul

I agree more with this. You are just ignoring the real dangers that have been around us and saying life will be better if were nice. So it hasn't worked and I know cause we call it appeasement and we did it to hitler.

we didn't do it directly, more like that wuss Neville Chamberlain did!

To learn from your mistakes is good but to learn from other's mistakes is what makes the diffrence.

Edit: Also we have been prospering since we sanctioned them so I don't get your point of mutual disadvantage Jpark. LOL JPark I like that name.

-- Edited by Bonemail-(Christophe K) on Wednesday 8th of April 2009 06:17:47 AM

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

thats a nice quote chris but cuba we had recognized their politics as valid and not condemned them the way we did. if they want to try and make the US government communist, let them try. you should know that the only way for communism to be accepted in a country is if their last government really sucked. look at all the examples. russia, cuba, vietnam. but then look at all the countries that have withstood communism, england, france, canada, US. these are all countries with fairly successful governments and the people were not interested in changing their politics. its as simple as that. and if enough people are unhappy with the government that the majority wants to go communist then we have the right as it says in the constitution or declaration of independence (i cant remember which) that we have the right and obligation to do so.

if we would have not fought the russians and the vietnamese we could have save so many lives and saved so much money that we spent on the arms race to trying to find a cure for cancer or aids or something. doesnt that sound better? it does to me. and you are right chris, we should learn from the past. and look what happened to the soviet union without our doing, the system crumbled and they are now much more friendly to us than they have ever been, so fighting communism is and was simply a wasted effort.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

PS. one always has the right to defend oneself as long as the intent is just that, to defend yourself by any means NECESSARY, avoid killing at all costs. Mass killings and dropping atomic weapons are not justifiable actions

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

Once again you are quiet wrong about how communism and socialism work. Socialism is the process of government intervention which leads to communism which is actually a political idea of no social classes and no government. Socialism is the real enemy of democracy since communism has never even been tried in it's real and true form. The Soviet Union fell apart cause they could not keep up with America's arms build up.

Also the euros have been with de facto socialism for most of this century. Nationalized health care, nationalized banks and auto makers, vast amounts of government spending and astronomical growth in labor unions across the board. The fact of the matter is the reason why socialism and communism are so feared is cause it just takes a good government to be perverted and unjust to make it not just to over throw a government. It is feared because it is simply an uprising of the lowest payed hardest worked to create a government which is supposed to provide for them but never do. It's the uneducated or power hungry that say capitalism has failed cause socialism is all the power placed in government.

I understand that war is not the best thing but the governments job down to the basics is to protect you and your property. It's not to stimulate science or provide health care it's to protect you and your fellow citizens from each other and outsiders. Communism and socialism have been detrimental in all examples and having a hard stance against it is better then allowing it to spread freely.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

did china have a good government before communism? no, if they did, why would mao have found so many followers? because they were unhappy with the government. and all that you just wrote is off topic. we should focus on the issue and we should stop trying to nit-pick at the details of what eachother says.

and if the government's job is to keep its citizens safe, why would it make an enemy with its neighbor? if they were trying to keep us safe why do we feel the need to police everyone in the world with our military and economic power

ich_binJason · Senior Member

geriatric1991 wrote:

did china have a good government before communism? no, if they did, why would mao have found so many followers? because they were unhappy with the government. and all that you just wrote is off topic. we should focus on the issue and we should stop trying to nit-pick at the details of what eachother says.

and if the government's job is to keep its citizens safe, why would it make an enemy with its neighbor? if they were trying to keep us safe why do we feel the need to police everyone in the world with our military and economic power

yes China did have a good government under the Kuomintang party under Sun Yat-sen's leadership however there was a Leninist party in the North which did not want to join their rule. how are we policing Cuba by having an embargo going and not having dialogue with them? they're still free to talk to whoever they want, we're not talking to them.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

geriatric1991 wrote:

did china have a good government before communism? no, if they did, why would mao have found so many followers? because they were unhappy with the government. and all that you just wrote is off topic. we should focus on the issue and we should stop trying to nit-pick at the details of what eachother says.
They had a long civil war but there were two main sides the capitalistic side and the communist side. Legally the civil war is not even over.

and if the government's job is to keep its citizens safe, why would it make an enemy with its neighbor? if they were trying to keep us safe why do we feel the need to police everyone in the world with our military and economic power

Because communism and socialism has been proven to not work and leads to deaths of thousands. They police the world cause they think they have to for the betterment of us.

jacobcorbin · Senior Member

Seems like they had a great talk. Good for them. Didnt really seem to get anywhere though...

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

but what is the betterment of us? being able to kill more people with the most amount of nuclear weapons. or is it being the richest country in the world that sends the rest of the world into economic turmoil because people were buying more than they could. it shouldnt be about the betterment of the US but the betterment of mankind, and you dont become a better person or nation by letting ego and pride take control.

and i know that not many people agree with my ideas but you have to look back at that book you lent me chris, Common Sense, it says that time changes more minds than logic. and so is it in this situation. people will come around eventually, but the only way to stop the violence is to start practicing peace now. hopefully human kind will last long enough without destroying themselves for us to see it.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

You keep calling it national ego I call it national survival. I don't get any pleasure from not trading with cuba but I do agree with it. Common sense also says

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. "

ich_binJason · Senior Member

geriatric1991 wrote:

and i know that not many people agree with my ideas but you have to look back at that book you lent me chris, Common Sense, it says that time changes more minds than logic. and so is it in this situation. people will come around eventually, but the only way to stop the violence is to start practicing peace now. hopefully human kind will last long enough without destroying themselves for us to see it.

we're not at war with Cuba what violence are we commiting to them. I didn't know not trading with a country was violence.

-- Edited by ich_binJason on Wednesday 8th of April 2009 06:04:35 PM

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

Bonemail-(Christophe K) wrote:

You keep calling it national ego I call it national survival. I don't get any pleasure from not trading with cuba but I do agree with it. Common sense also says

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. "

that quotew couldnt be more perfect chris! thank you! these sanctions we have had against cuba appear to be right when they are wrong.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

geriatric1991 wrote:

Bonemail-(Christophe K) wrote:

You keep calling it national ego I call it national survival. I don't get any pleasure from not trading with cuba but I do agree with it. Common sense also says

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. "

that quotew couldnt be more perfect chris! thank you! these sanctions we have had against cuba appear to be right when they are wrong.

I could say the same to your idea about them. They appear wrong to you but yet they are so right. :P

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

ich_binJason wrote:

geriatric1991 wrote:

and i know that not many people agree with my ideas but you have to look back at that book you lent me chris, Common Sense, it says that time changes more minds than logic. and so is it in this situation. people will come around eventually, but the only way to stop the violence is to start practicing peace now. hopefully human kind will last long enough without destroying themselves for us to see it.

we're not at war with Cuba what violence are we commiting to them. I didn't know not trading with a country was violence.

you are taking that too literally, i was talking about our view towards the world in gerneral

-- Edited by ich_binJason on Wednesday 8th of April 2009 06:04:35 PM

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

Bonemail-(Christophe K) wrote:

geriatric1991 wrote:

Bonemail-(Christophe K) wrote:

You keep calling it national ego I call it national survival. I don't get any pleasure from not trading with cuba but I do agree with it. Common sense also says

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. "

that quotew couldnt be more perfect chris! thank you! these sanctions we have had against cuba appear to be right when they are wrong.

I could say the same to your idea about them. They appear wrong to you but yet they are so right. :P

but what idea is wrong? peace? love?

the only ideas that are wrong are those of hatred and that is the bottom line

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

No the idea that peace in love will protect us from destruction and violence: that is the wrong idea. Your mindset is honorable but has no place when others lives are dependent on your decisions.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

destruction is the way to peace? if that is so then peace is not worth it. the ends never justify the means my friend. we need to help everyone have a mindset of tolerance. if that is accomplished, then your peace is accomplished. if you want to take an active role in fighting terrorism join a missionary group and spread words of peace and understanding.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

I think we can just say you are an idealist and I am a realist. Also if you really got one thing out of common sense it was in the very begining where I showed you.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

This one is my main and never failing argument against your idealism:

"For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least."

Basicly saying if we always followed are conscience and never deverted from it we would not need governments which would mean no wars but that not being the case we need them to guard us from those willing to take our rights, property, and life away.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

Bonemail-(Christophe K) wrote:

I think we can just say you are an idealist and I am a realist. Also if you really got one thing out of common sense it was in the very begining where I showed you.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

This one is my main and never failing argument against your idealism:

"For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least."

Basicly saying if we always followed are conscience and never deverted from it we would not need governments which would mean no wars but that not being the case we need them to guard us from those willing to take our rights, property, and life away.

Simply because my idea takes more work and more time then yours doesnt make me an idealist. my ideas are possible, but not just the easy way out like your war and confrontation are (political or physical). your ideas are reality now because people dont know how to solve a problem with understanding, it is much more difficult than grabbing a gun a heading off. it requires deep thought and self control which not to many people care to try at. im not saying they are not capable, but simply that they dont try hard enough.

and if i am an idealist, then that means im on the right track because an ideal becomes reality once it is being practiced. im not going to go out and try to change the world but i will be myself and talk about my ideas to people willing to listen. i am by no means a preacher of anything, haha who has that kind of energy to waste? not me.

but chris? does it make sense that if our government doesnt like another government and there is this feeling of disdain each country has towards another, that the way to solve the problem is to confront and take action? it makes no sense to say "well since they dont like us, we wont like them back and then we will all be happy" haha thats a joke, but that is what your method is suggesting.

we will win the other country's respect and loyalty by being good to them not by forcing them with a gun or a sanction. peace is real, but not popular, not yet at least. and i know that we have gotten a bit off topic but this is still an important idea.

-- Edited by geriatric1991 on Wednesday 8th of April 2009 10:53:30 PM

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

geriatric1991 wrote:

Bonemail-(Christophe K) wrote:

I think we can just say you are an idealist and I am a realist. Also if you really got one thing out of common sense it was in the very begining where I showed you.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

This one is my main and never failing argument against your idealism:

"For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least."

Basicly saying if we always followed are conscience and never deverted from it we would not need governments which would mean no wars but that not being the case we need them to guard us from those willing to take our rights, property, and life away.

Simply because my idea takes more work and more time then yours doesnt make me an idealist. my ideas are possible, but not just the easy way out like your war and confrontation are (political or physical). your ideas are reality now because people dont know how to solve a problem with understanding, it is much more difficult than grabbing a gun a heading off. it requires deep thought and self control which not to many people care to try at. im not saying they are not capable, but simply that they dont try hard enough.
and if i am an idealist, then that means im on the right track because an ideal becomes reality once it is being practiced. im not going to go out and try to change the world but i will be myself and talk about my ideas to people willing to listen. i am by no means a preacher of anything, haha who has that kind of energy to waste? not me.
but chris? does it make sense that if our government doesnt like another government and there is this feeling of disdain each country has towards another, that the way to solve the problem is to confront and take action? it makes no sense to say "well since they dont like us, we wont like them back and then we will all be happy" haha thats a joke, but that is what your method is suggesting.
we will win the other country's respect and loyalty by being good to them not by forcing them with a gun or a sanction. peace is real, but not popular, not yet at least. and i know that we have gotten a bit off topic but this is still an important idea.

-- Edited by geriatric1991 on Wednesday 8th of April 2009 10:53:30 PM

Even buddists back in history would take up the sword to protect against the invaders. Now we decide to not trade with one and it's suddenly not friendly enough. The fact is your idea for the world is a grand one and I wish it could happen but there will always be someone to disagree and say no and with your stradegy you would just go on anyways. You don't wait till war comes to fight but you take precautions to stop them from ever happening.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

it has nothing to do with buddhism although the ideas are similar. this has to do with having a peace that is justifiable. im not saying everyone has to believe the same as me because you are right that people will always have a criticism. im not saying everyone has to do what i say but if you want to have a true peace and have happiness you would be well advised to take them into consideration.

but to get back to the real point of this whole thing. (i dont think anyone will read all of our banter back and forth chris, i think this is just you and me haha) if our government does not condemn or interfere with others' governments, i think we would not be in the terrorists spot light in the first place. so that is how you could bring peace to the US. and you might say that the terrorists will just find some other country to terrorize, but as long as no one is interfering with their countries business who are they going to go after? they might then terrorize their own people, but that wont last because those people will fight back until they prevail (because there are always more normal citizens then terrorists) and there you go. i just ended terrorism in the world. you're welcome.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

and i told you earlier today that you can defend yourself, and if you want to take precautions, why dont you send people that will try to teach peace to the area, there is your preemptive strike. haha bring out the missionaries!!!

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

clearly you are hell bent on our point of view, which i find to be too bad. but you know my view on the issue, so i really have nothing else to say

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

geriatric1991 wrote:

clearly you are hell bent on our point of view, which i find to be too bad. but you know my view on the issue, so i really have nothing else to say

Rofl I go check out a car and within that time you post 3 things. BoReD?

Anyways though I think we can leave it at agree to disagree lol. I enjoy our banter so to bad.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

haha well i was doing things but then i kept thinking of things to add so ya maybe i was a little bored haha

ich_binJason · Senior Member

geriatric1991 wrote:

if our government does not condemn or interfere with others' governments, i think we would not be in the terrorists spot light in the first place. so that is how you could bring peace to the US. and you might say that the terrorists will just find some other country to terrorize, but as long as no one is interfering with their countries business who are they going to go after? they might then terrorize their own people, but that wont last because those people will fight back until they prevail (because there are always more normal citizens then terrorists) and there you go. i just ended terrorism in the world. you're welcome.

do you realize how interconnected the world is? If we ignore every country and just become an isolationist, the world will feel a resentment as we are not sending aid to them, buying their exports, letting countries rot in turmoil. Face it, we're the only global superpower left in the world and its America's obligation to fulfill that process. You think by stopping that process, people will love us again? No people would start to hate us because we don't care for them. Its contradicting, but truthful. If our government did not condemn governments, we would be walked all over. Other hostile governments aren't thinking we need to have peace if we can take advantage over somebody else. and you say if we ignore everything in the world, terrorists wouldn't bother us? So we just let them rack up country after country to eventually invade us and fall under their control? do you understand Global Interdependence?

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

i do absolutely understand global interdependence. and we can supply aid in the form of peaceful measures such as food and medical supply. im not saying we dont talk and trade, of course we do that but not in a manner where we try to control another country. if we stop interfering with governments and people in the middle east, it takes away their reason to hate us. so how is that a bad thing?

Luis777 · Senior Member

i dont think cuba has changed there ways

watashiwa1293 · Veteran Member

Bonemail-(Christophe K) wrote:

geriatric1991 wrote:

did china have a good government before communism? no, if they did, why would mao have found so many followers? because they were unhappy with the government. and all that you just wrote is off topic. we should focus on the issue and we should stop trying to nit-pick at the details of what eachother says.
They had a long civil war but there were two main sides the capitalistic side and the communist side. Legally the civil war is not even over.
and if the government's job is to keep its citizens safe, why would it make an enemy with its neighbor? if they were trying to keep us safe why do we feel the need to police everyone in the world with our military and economic power
Because communism and socialism has been proven to not work and leads to deaths of thousands. They police the world cause they think they have to for the betterment of us.

OK. Sorry to bring up an old topic within a topic, but it's much more complicated than that. I'll admit right now. I'm pretty good with Chinese history up until 1911 (the overthrow of the Qing/Manchu Dynasty). I haven't been taught officially by anyone except my relatives about anything after 1911. That's because it's pretty controversial since it involves a lot of politics and stuff like that. I'll try to be as objective and neutral as possible... but given my ancestors' (and my living relatives') support for the Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang before communists took over China, I'll probably be biased against the communists as well. So... in the year 1911, Sun Yat-sen was finally successful with overthrowing the Qing/Manchu Dynasty, which was not controlled by ethnic Chinese but instead by the Manchus from the north. His control didn't last too long because during the next year, an EMPEROR WANNA-BE, Yuan Shikai, staged a military coup d'etat and controlled all of China. (Yuan Shikai was also involved in the military during the Qing/Manchu Dynasty and could have prevented the Chinese Civil War from ever happening in the first place at that time. But you probably don't want to know about it because I'll be rambling longer than necessary. ;P) He was already old by this time and one day he just died with no successor. THIS IS WHERE CHINA GOT SCREWED!!! So... with no successor, China pretty much got divided into sections where warlords had all the power. This was true except in the south (where my ancestors came from), where Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang still had control. (By this time, Sun Yat-sen already died.) The Kuomintang was popular with haves (like the coastal city people like my ancestors) and the Chinese Communists were popular with the have-nots (like the rural people). In order to get more troops and support, the Kuomintang allied with the Chinese Communists to regain the local warlords' land. In the end, the Kuomintang was successful. But, since the Chinese Communists were not needed anymore, Chiang Kai-shek began purging them. (As much as I strongly dislike Mao Zedong and his followers, in retrospect, that was not a smart move.) This continued with the Long March and stuff. Eventually, WWII started and again the Kuomintang needed the Chinese Communists help to fight against the Japanese and the two had a fragile alliance. And once WWII was over, the real fighting began. Since the rural people outnumbered the coastal city people by a lot and that the Kuomintang had already their morale lowered from WWII, this is why Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communists were able to fight the Kuomintang all the way to southern China (where my ancestors lived) and finally made Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang flee to Taiwan. In the meantime, WONDERFUL things happened in China (note the sarcasm) with Mao Zedong being the leader. Meanwhile, my family's recent history began (but you guys probably don't care) and eventually I was born in America. So, to sum it up, China did not have a fail government before Mao Zedong. It was just bad timing from the late Qing/Manchu Dynasty onwards that got China screwed over.

Well, I'm done. So, Jason... do you want to hear the Elixir of Life story from 200 B.C. again and how it relates to the Vietnam War? Ha ha ha!!!

-- Edited by watashiwa1293 on Friday 10th of April 2009 06:06:47 PM

KevinDangerMann · Veteran Member

40th post!
Woo!