Fidel Castro announces retirement
The National Assembly is widely expected to elect 76-year-old Raul Castro as his successor, although analysts say there is speculation about a possible generational jump with Vice-President Carlos Lage Davila, 56, a leading contender.”>The National Assembly is widely expected to elect 76-year-old Raul Castro as his successor, although analysts say there is speculation about a possible generational jump with Vice-President Carlos Lage Davila, 56, a leading contender.
No mention of the term “dictatorship” in any of the news coverage…..
(The good news is that with Fidel substantially out of the picture, Cuba may begin to move peacefully toward a post-communist future. Raul, on the other hand, may begin by eliminating potential threats to consolidate his hold on power, so things could get nasty.)
Oh, one more thing: maybe now the US will get rid of the largely symbolic embargo (largely symbolic because the Cuban government can trade with all the rest of the world; they just don’t produce much that anyone else wants) that has helped to keep the dictator in power for so long.
In some respects, America has little room to talk. For nearly 30 years, either a Bush or Clinton has been intimately involved in the presidency, beginning with George H.W. Bush as VP to Reagan in 1980, and then George H.W. as Prez, and then Clinton, and then George W.
Reagan/Bush had a policy of promoting Middle East conflict among arab nations, helping whoever was losing. (That is not the Biblical way for God and Israel to handle enemies.) H.W.Bush got America involved in Iraq the first time around in what amounted to a dispute about subterreanean oil rights along the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border (hardly a matter of national defense). The spoil is oil and they are moneychangers in the temple. And then there was George W., the icing on the cake.
To borrow a phrase from Jerry Falwell, “I point the finger in their face and say, ‘you helped this happen’.”
David,
Last time I checked, the Bush’s and Clinton were elected. No one handed over their power to the other.
Also, last time I checked H.W. Bush got America involved in Iraq because they invaded Kuwait.
Where are you coming up with this nonsense?
And I don’t think quoting Jerry Falwell helps your argument.
I simply don’t think it reflects the sort of variety in leadership one might expect in a democracy for two families to dominate the presidency for 30 years.
As far as the issue of why Saddam invaded Kuwait (as distinguished from why America got involved), I’m pretty sure it was in the newspapers about horizontal drilling into Iraqi fields and what not.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest that arabs were baited by American foreign policy interventionism for decades before the terrorists among them finally retaliated…
…If you happen to believe that barefooted religious zealots from the dirt roads of Afghanistan could manage a project like commandeering and flying a 300,000 pound jet by hand at 400 knots into targets not once, but three different times without any police, passenger, or military intervention, while under amazing stress, and all sorts of panel warnings screaming and blinking. And people wonder where I get MY nonsense.
First of all, there’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits family members from obtaining political positions. It’s happened before in our country. It has nothing to do with Democratic principles as long as they are elected. Something tells me, though, you’re a conspiracy theorist and probably believe there is a secret society behind all of it planning out every candidate.
Second, the intervention in the first Iraq war was not only an American policy. Almost every country signed off on it and the UN backed it. If oil had anything to do with it, then I don’t think we’d still be needing oil from Canada.
As for you’re question regarding the probability of hijackers carrying off a project like 9/11…yes, it’s possible. After all, they trained and prepared for months and years. Patience and determination can make anything possible. And, btw, there was passenger intervention on the fourth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. But I doubt you really believe that.
Re the embargo (and speaking of relatives gaining political power): It’s worth remembering that in 1992 the Democratic Party “promise[d] to extend the embargo on Cuba to third countries” (Hitchens, “No One Left to Lie To,” p. 29)…lest we start thinking of Hillary as a friend of the poor.
David,
If you’re wondering why so few people take your argument seriously, I’m guessing it’s in part because one of your premises, not well hidden, is that you don’t understand how a bunch of “barefooted” Muslims “from the dirt roads of Afghanistan” could learn how to fly planes at flight school. The hijackers were by and large from the middle class, actually, and from Saudi Arabia (15), Egypt (1), Lebanon (1), or the UAE (1); but as the pivot of your argument is that you don’t understand what happened, your ignorance of the most fundamental facts about 9/11 is no surprise.
My primary argument is that American policy led to the terrorism. However, contrary to popular opinion and TV movies, I also doubt that amateurs navigating a heavy jet across landscape that all looks the same, downward, into a target is not something one gets from a few hours of play time at Pan Am Academy or whatever.
I also know that middle easterners do not envy American ‘freedom’, as they have their own ideas of freedom, and they certainly don’t envy American wealth, as they have wealth, too. Maybe they were bored, like the guys in Fight Club. Maybe they saw Die Hard, Matrix, and the Truman Show one too many times.
Who knows. Maybe they simply had a lot of religious devotion, and that was all they needed to be G-d’s hands.
But then again, if He were involved, they would have probably hit Hollywood and Las Vegas, true images of the ‘great satan’ west, rather than a bunch of pencil pushers in a high rise no different than those that populate muslim cities. It was merely about power, not liberty.
But that’s neither here nor there. My question is this. Where did all those dangerous militias go that were the center of attention in the 1990’s? They were able to bring down a federal building, but they can’t muster a memorable response to Muslim terrorism? Oh, that’s right! They are also anti-fed, anti-Zionists who oppose American foreign adventurism, too.