Liam

*Even if* this were true, what bearing would it have on this situation? Gee, the US has kidnapped Iranian military officials... I suppose that would justify Iran's taking French aid workers hostage? How about Kuwaiti defense personnel? Italian missionaries? I mean, maybe you'd have a point if Iran took some US soldiers hostage, but being an apologist for Iran in this situation tells me that you're more driven by anger against the west than reason. If not, I simply do not see the point of your post.

I'm the kind who thinks it wise to talk first but be ready to pack a heavy punch. If Britain decided to pack a heavy punch, I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with them on this one. No doubt.

I applaud anyone who gives money to chairty, and if you want a thread about that, I'd be happy to contribute. But I'd prefer we discuss the issue I posed, which is whether or not non-Americans have actually started to turn against Americans as individuals. It seems that on other boards I sometimes participate on, many foreign nationals will claim to love Americans as people, yet the statistics of reports like these point in the opposite direction. What gives?

I tend to be a statistics geek, so one of the things that interested me is that more Canadians thought the US wasn't religious enough than thought it was too religious. Of course even as a secular Catholic, I think the US could actually be more religious -- that is, it could be guided more by true Christian principles of caring for the sick and needy and not so callous as to the deaths of non-American children globally and indifferent to our stewardship of the earth. Maybe that's what the Canadians who responded thought, too, but the more superficial definition of religiosity sits out there and makes me wonder if there isn't some large and secret cabal of Christianists in Canada. *LOL

I read about this Pew Research survey released a week or two ago concerning international attitudes toward the US. I'm not surprised that people dislike the US government (or, at least it's policies), but international opinion is now starting to turn agains the American people. I'm curious if people here have felt the same trend shift (growing disdain for Americans personally, not just the government) among friends, colleagues, or even personally? http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=1019

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with being anti-Bush (are we not at least supposed to have the illusion of democracy anymore?), and I don't think anyone wants to be considered PRO-war. Well, maybe some do, I don't know. But you've misquoted the claim of the pamphleteer -- it was 20,000 children killed, not 200,000. Please don't fall into the modern day conservative's debate tactic of inflating the outrage or inventing falsehoods you can easily tear apart. Next thing you know, you'll be saying liberals are blaming Bush for 2,000,000 children's deaths.

I kind of feel bad for guys like Ray. I have tons of respect for all they do, but they were used, big time. The Bush administration played on their sense of patriotism like a fiddle. I'd find it pretty hard to admit that my buddies and I were used and that we risked our lives to give Bush a "victory" going into the 2004 election cycle. It is understandable that the sense of betrayal would cut so deep that some guys in the military simply refuse to believe the evidence mounting against the administration: no WMD, no mobile bio-labs, no pre-war planning, ridiculous death benefits to the families of killed soldiers, extensions of tours of duty, no post-war planning, Abu Ghraib, torture, secret prisons, no body armor, poorly equipped humvees, and now, the ulitmate insult: substandard medical care for injured soldiers coming home. But I am thankful for the likes of guys like Ray. They give their all. It doesn't mean that he's above reproach, though. I just wish a few more Rays would be independent in thought and recognize that the rah-rah Bush guys do not have their backs and never did.

I remember that - seeing the people on CNN pulling the statue down. Then I remember a another mainstream story with a wide angle camera view showing the scene surounded by American tanks and exposing the fact that those people pulling the statue down were prisoners with guns pointed at them. Both wrong. Many of the people around the toppling of the Saddam statue were Chalabi's guys. Of course they were happy. The US soldiers were on the periphery and, yes, armed. It was a war zone afterall. Anyhow, the Chalabi guys couldn't topple the statue, so the US military guys put a chain around it and pulled it down with a tank. The whole thing, when seen in the TV close-ups, seemed like an amazing moment. When you pulled the cameras back to see that the cheering crowd wasn't all that big and that it was US soldiers who pulled it down... well, it kind of changes the story.

Why don't you want to extend that right to the Cubans in exile in Miami?

It's a hy-po-the-ti-cal. Do you understand? OK, fine. You convinced me you're right. The US is always evil and Cuba is a worker's paradise and the Cuban people are aggrieved, not by their own police state but by evil westerners (i.e., Americans) who wish to enslave them and make them eat from trashcans. You're 100% right. There is no altruism behind my hypothetical because, as an American, I by definition seek to oppress the Cuban worker. How dare I give Cuba an opening to dramatically improve their standard of living in exchange for political concessions for its people. how dare I?? You are absolutely right. From now on, I'm with you on this. We should just selfishly think of ourselves and not worry one little bit about the people we leave behind as we jet back to Toronto or Philadelphia or Glasgow. Afterall, the opening of Cuba to tourism has *so* had a beneficial impact on the lives of Cubans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varela_Project All those daiquiris and cigars you've consumed have really done wonders for Cubans. And you're right: in an oppressive police state, one where dissenting thought can be punishable by a lifetime of imprisonment, change can and should only come from within. I'll remind the next guy who is given between 6 to 28 years of hard labor by organizing a legal petition drive. But who am I, as a filthy, evil, conniving American to ask for better for the Cuban people? In fact, by just offering Cuba a world class cancer center or upgraded power grid in exchange for freedom of the press is just sooooo evil and oh soooo poisonously cynical of me.

OK, let's back up a bit -- you do understand that this is all hypothetical, right? I mean, you do understand I'm not actually the president, that I can't really make this offer of US aid materialize tomorrow, right? I see nothing wrong with moving US policy toward Cuba in the direction of offering a carrot instead of a stick. I'm offering them incentives, hypothetical incentives, to join the community of nations that honors civil liberties. Nothing the US has done to isolate Cuba has worked and nothing the Canada has done to embrace Cuba has worked. In my hypothetical, I suggest taking a new approach, a pure and simple agreement with the government of Cuba: you open your media to opposition groups and we'll extend to you a zero-interest credit line of $100 billion. Allow opposing political groups to run for office and we'll open 10 electricity-generating plants and 10 hospitals equipped with with cutting edge technology. This is all hypothetical, it isn't really real you know. You, though, are approaching this like it could actually happen. Sorry, I didn't intend for this silly theoretical exercise to threaten the Cuba you know, the one with the secret police and prisoners of conscience and the hard currency hotels with rum punches for pennies that are completely insulated from the reality of Cuban life. I'm sorry that you want to reject a hypothetical initiative to nudge the Cuban government toward baseline international standards with regard to the treatment of its citizens.

I admitted earlier that property claims of big businesses is something I haven't thought through. I am inclined to think it would be unfair and would present an undue burden on Cuba to give back huge corporate plantations, etc. But it should start with average citizens, homeowners who were forcibly moved or displaced. Ending the embargo without getting some concessions from the Cuban government would legitimize government theft and political imprisonment. That's bull in my opinion.

First, you were the one who claimed the majority chose communism. I disagree. I think many of the people who fought alongside Castro to overthrow Batista were not fighting to become a satellite of the USSR. Many of them were just looking to throw out a corrupt government. I fully understand what you're saying, but what I don't understand is why you can't understand my point. In my hypothetical have never once placed undue demands on the Cuban government. The things I would request of the Cuban government are the basics of a fair and free society (free press, open doors to information, freedom of conscience, freedom from political repression, freedom of self-determination and betterment). I didn't demand military or economic submission, I didn't demand a complete overhaul of the Cuban political system. I simply set out what I would ask the Cuban government to do (to treat its people like humans) in exchange for billions of dollars in US federal economic, commercial and scientific assistance, to bury the hatchet and open full diplomatic relations. What I have offered are conditions for a deal. If the Cuban government doesn't want those things, they are 100% free to negotiate different terms or reject my offer. I think that if they did, it would be a terrible opportunity to miss out on, both for the government (which could still operate as a "socialist paradise" even if it accepted every one of my conditions) and for the people of Cuba who would be able to reunite with families and have some hope that their lives will get better. I can't understand why you don't understand that I'm not forcing the Cuban government to change at the point of a bayonnet. They can say No and go on with life as they know it. Personally, I'd rather place some conditions on generous offers of US economic aid rather than do what Canada and other countries do: provide millions in hard currency tourist dollars without a care for the well-being of the people trapped inside the only prison state in the Western Hemisphere.

I didn't address one point. Whta makes you think the majority made its choice to become communist/socialist/whatever? Castro only decalerd his allegience to the communist way *after* he overthrew Batista. I personally have doubts that the majority would join the Soviet bloc willfully. But once Castro was in power and his intent declared, even those who were with him were trapped. If the majority wants communism, then why has a communist country *never* allowed competition in the political process? If they have the winning argument, why don't they allow other voices to be heard?Truth is, they fear opposition because Communism is a loser's political philosophy. It does not work. Great in theory, inoperative in real life. Just ask your average Pole or Czech how quickly he or she wants to go back to Communism. I'm 1000% confident future Cubans will agree with me and disagree with you on this issue.

1. I included personal property rights because it is a valid grievance against a government that stole from its own citizens. I broached that topic soleley because I think a very important hallmark of a civilized nation is that it respects the integrity of its citizens. Why shoud we care about property rights? Because property rights are often a threshhold to greater civil liberties. In the case of Cuba, I believe giving people an ownership stake in their own land will open greater doors for them. I do not think it is an inherent US interest. It is a humanitarian and global interest. You should be ashamed if you think it is okay to void the property rights of those from whom Castro stole. 2. No. Cuba is free to trade among European nations, Canada, Japan. I was simply suggesting that if Cuba wanted access to US markets, capital, technology, it would not be unfair for the US to place conditions on those things. Conditions that would do nothing less than improve the lives, education, and opprtunities for everyday Cubans. Heck, if you've got the interests of Cubans deep in your heart, why aren't Candians and Swedes and Italians working to give them some civil rights and some dignity? Or does it suit your purpose more to have a cheap beach to lay about as long as you can sleep in a cushy hotel while millions of Cubans suffer rolling blackouts and limited rights? Personally, I think people have more value than providing me good, cheap cigars and affordable rum drinks. I'd rather see Cubans get freedom and be free of the enormous political prison they live in and I'd be happy to see it happen even without the US' earning a thin dime off the deal. Sadly, I can't see anything you've said which makes me think you believe Cubans deserve more than the piddly bits they get from their oppressive government.

"Morality" is the embodiment of our social compact -- the thing that makes the herd able to function and unite. I'm sure that during our evolutionary process our morality and, likewise, evolved but I see it little more than a social convention. I'm not treating it lightly, I think it is important, but I don't think morality has divine inspiration, or anything.

Regarding compensation, I think it would be fair to start with individual citizens of Cuba who owned land or homes or apartments or small businesses. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to assess the value in real terms of claims. I'm not naive in thinking they could all be paid quickly, but people who have claims should be given the right to come forth and begin the process of resolving the issues. The state could hand over pockets of land to former farmer, etc. That would be a relatively easy start. Corporate interests... eh, that's getting messy. I'll admit I don't know what to do there. Regarding drawing the nation-building in Iraq analogy, my proposal is not telling Cuba how to operate. They are free to say Yes and take the US aid, the economic infusion, the technological, medical, scientific infrastructure, etc. They are free to say No. I'm not demanding they change the structure of their government to mirror the US's, I wasn't even calling for the dismantling of the Communist Party. I was merely setting out some basic standards of the international community -- and in particular, rights enjoyed by peoples of every country in the western hemispere, with the exception of one country, Cuba -- to give people freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom to own property and freedom to determine their own future. My proposal is to approach Cuba at the table. Equal parties. You have an interest in our ability to give you economic growth. We in the west have an interest in making sure people live free lives. Let's make a deal. If the Cuban government doesn't want those things for its citizens, it can say No. I'd feel bad for its citizens, but I wouldn't lose much sleep, frankly.

I'm American and I have issues with the US embargo on Cuba. We don't have similar embargoes against equally oppressive regimes. The main reason the US holds on to the embargo is that the first president who does away with it can almost surely resign himself to losing 100% of the Cuban-American vote in Florida which, if 2000 and 2004 voting is any indicator, could firmly move Florida and her electoral votes firmly to the opposition party's column. In addition, ending the embargo would almost certainly cause the US domestic sugar market to collapse. However, I will say that I do support the embargo for one reason: that the Castro regime has appropriated billions of dollars of personal property (homes, farms, factories, etc.) without fair compensation to the rightful owners. Ending the embargo would, in effect, isolate those people with rightful property claims against the Castro government. If it were my place to negotiate, I would offer the following: 1. the US will end the embargo effective a set date 2. the US will open its banks, lending agencies, etc. to Cuba 3. the US will open its markets to certain Cuban products 4. the US will open a diplomatic post in Havana 5. the US will provide a set amount in technology infrastructure (computer systems, phone lines, satellite hook ups, etc.) In exchange, I would ask for the following: 1. Cuba will either return appropriated private property or provide fair value reparations to those property owners 2. Cuba will allow an open and independent media (including open internet access to Cubans) 3. Cuba will not block the formation of opposing political parties and will allow such parties to parttake in local and national elections within 4 years 4. Cuba will open certain enterprises to western investment 5. Cuba will allow individual citizens to own real property (including a certain % of state-run enterprises) within 5 years.

Rome was not nearly as sexually perverted as we think. For the majority of its history, the majority of its people held quite conservative beliefs where sex is concerned. Of course, there were individuals (typically among the ruling elite) who were driven by their appetites, but the average man had about as much in common with Caligula as the average person nowadays has with Madonna. The early Christians took great liberties at casting Rome as immoral.

Developing societies are not anxious to join the corporatist bandwagon. They might be anxious to join a more market-driven economic bandwagon, but not a corporatist one. Corporatism is the political condition whereby the commercial interests of corporations become the drivers of national policy. Corporatism is another term for fascism.

I'm American who hates a pocket of loose change, but I do wish we'd get a successful $1 coin. It's more durable and has to be replaced less frequently.

Setting a trash fire? Are you calling me a flamer?? *LOL (I am not at all, by the way.) On a more serious note, my existence is the equivalent of a destructive and life threatening act? I think there's a kernel of truth and honesty in your analogy, because that is how these religious types view people who are not like them: as fires that need to be extinguished. That's why they exhibit their moral "superiority". Very few of them are humble, peaceful people you'd expect them to be if they truly followed the teachings of Jesus. the image of the peaceful Christian quietly praying for the sins of himself and of others is a rare breed. Most of the holy roller types use their faith as a sword. You also said: "If you have listened to RLimbaugh, his definition of the left is those who know what is best for everyone else and want to control government so they can exercise their moral authority..." That is the very definition of religious conservatism in today's world. Whether the issue is stem cell research, teaching of science in the school system, which books should be on the library shelves, what the laws should be, whether people can buy alcohol or whether shops can be open on Sundays, whether people should be able to get divorced or marry, whether mature adults should be allowed to see certain movies, whether local governments should be pressed to follow religious laws, whether I should be allowed to buy condoms... these are the acts of people who wish to harness the power of government to push on us all what they *know* to be in our best interests.

I think your conclusion is off the mark a little, but that's just my opinion. I don't think one needs look further than the conservative Christians in the Bush administration to see that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism do not necessarily go hand in hand. Fiscal conservatives I have no problems with. I am fairly conservative when it comes to economic matters, myself. I've found that fiscal conservatives, particular the wealthier ones, can often carry around with them somewhat socially liberal personal views (what we in the US call "Rockefeller Republicans"). Moral/religious conservatives don't bother me till they start using their personal beliefs as the basis of legislation. And I disagree that many are just doing what the Bible instructed. The Bible says man is the steward of the Earth, yet you'd be very hard-pressed to find a group of moral/religious conservatives who push for environmental protection. Very few render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Very few put alleviating the burdens of the poor or protecting the victims of war as their top priorities.

Lush is paid to be abbrasive, to annoy, to heckle, to color the facts and, sadly, to entertain his audience. He's hardly a reliable source of honesty. Of course he's going to paint his own allies and his own audience as being honorable and responsible while the "opposition" is invasive, lazy, immoral, tawdry, socialist, misguided, anti-american... As a gay man out in the real world, I can tell you that the only people who have ever held a position of moral superiority to me and the only people who have made it known to me that they're better than I am are social conservatives and "Christian" types. I have never been insulted by more liberal people or gotten attitude from them.

Poverty activists, women's rights, equality, etc. Tell you the truth, I can't say, I can't comment. I haven't any experience with the religious right, just traditional "fiscal" conservatives. Then you haven't lived, my friend. You haven't lived.