American Politics

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Will the U.S. stop supporting Israel at the UN?

 

Like a certain French general and president, now departed, Bibi has enough gall to be divided into three parts^*.  He has actually insulted the administration by accepting an invitation from the Republican Party to address congress, then used the occasion to attack U.S. policies on Iran.  It would seem the State Department and the Executive Branch are certainly doing all their sums again.

 

---

Historical Footnote:

For those who weren't around when Le Grand Charles was kicked out of Canada (1967), Mr. Churchill did remark that the General had enough gall to be divided into three parts.  Here he is referring to the opening lines of Caesar's Gallic Campaigns which goes "Omnis Gallia est in partes divisa tres' which means 'All Gaul is divided into three parts'.  Churchil also stated that the greatest cross he had to bear in WW II was the Cross of Loraine (the sigil of the Free French led by General DeGaulle).

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Oh, Mr. Obama, why don't you make up your mind??

 

I think it is clear that the government of the United States of America is a captive of the JDL.  Enough of all this lobbying, and let's get down to brass tacks.

 

What possible difference could it make if Iran joined the nuclear club?  There is still good old MAD, and they might need a reminder of that before they do something that causes Tehran to be reduced to a lake of glass.  Rattling a nuclear sword is a lot different from rattling a steel sword, eh?  It is time to stop worrying about nuclear proliferation and get on with more sensible diplomacy (sophisticated lying) and some sensible policies.  If you look at the CBW detente, I think you can see what happens to people who violate that ban.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Oh it's a big deal among the throngs of ignoramuses (ignorami?) that populate this once-great country.  I bet they wouldn't bat an eyelash if it were the Saudis that wanted a nuclear program.

 

 

 

"I would consider it a failure on my part, a fundamental failure of my presidency, if on my watch, or as a consequence of work that I had done, Israel was rendered more vulnerable," he said.

 

Israel is not a fundamental piece of the US presidency; at least it shouldn't be.  I have to give him some credit, though, in acknowledging one of the tails that wags the dog.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Actually, among others, the JDL supplies the feed for the mushroom farm.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Rand Paul declares for the Presidency.

 

Elected to the Senate in 2010, so his term is about to expire.  Looking for a promotion from the Senate to the Executive?  He will probably have a fight on his hands because he appears to have some libertarian views that will raise the hackles of the hounds of the Republican Party. 

 

If he doesn't make it, can he still run to get his Senate seat after the convention, or is it too late?

[Duke87 1,070]

Rand Paul declares for the Presidency.

 

Elected to the Senate in 2010, so his term is about to expire.  Looking for a promotion from the Senate to the Executive?  He will probably have a fight on his hands because he appears to have some libertarian views that will raise the hackles of the hounds of the Republican Party. 

 

If he doesn't make it, can he still run to get his Senate seat after the convention, or is it too late?

 

Looks like he plans to run for senate and president simultaneously. There is nothing in the constitution or in federal law saying he can't do that, although of course he may only assume one office if he wins both.

 

The fun part is, Kentucky state law does prohibit the same candidate from appearing on the ballot in two places. He's been trying to convince the republican party in the state to have a presidential caucus in 2016 instead of a primary election, this way he can also compete in a senate primary election if there is one (since caucuses do not have ballots). Then, if he actually gets nominated for president, and the state legislature does not change the law, he will have to either not run for re-election in the senate... or run for president only in the other 49 states.

 

Yes, this may seem surprising, but since elections are run by states and not the federal government, there is no rule saying a candidate for president must appear on the ballot in all 50 states. It happens all the time that third party candidates are only on the ballot in some states - they have to submit 50 separate applications to run in every state, and depending on the various rules they might not be allowed on the ballot everywhere.

 

Indeed, there is no rule saying any given state must have a general election for president at all - merely that they shall send electors to do so. In the very early days, many states simply had the state legislature decide who to dedicate their electoral votes to (the same way senators were originally appointed by state governments rather than directly elected). George Washington won both of his elections for president with several states never putting his name on a ballot.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Fortunately, he might just be the best candidate the republicans have offered in a while aside from his father (who never had party support - he was too dangerous).  I'm trying to think back and I'm guessing since maybe McCain back in 2000 before he died and overnight made an about-face in supporting GWB.  Maybe even as far back as Barry Goldwater.

[Larks2242 251]

Rand Paul declares for the Presidency.

 

Elected to the Senate in 2010, so his term is about to expire.  Looking for a promotion from the Senate to the Executive?  He will probably have a fight on his hands because he appears to have some libertarian views that will raise the hackles of the hounds of the Republican Party. 

 

If he doesn't make it, can he still run to get his Senate seat after the convention, or is it too late?

 

A personal favorite of mine, This brings in a serious breath of fresh air, between him and Ted Cruz, we just may have the best field in years so far and set up to make real serious progress.

 

 

Will the U.S. stop supporting Israel at the UN?

 

Like a certain French general and president, now departed, Bibi has enough gall to be divided into three parts^*.  He has actually insulted the administration by accepting an invitation from the Republican Party to address congress, then used the occasion to attack U.S. policies on Iran.  It would seem the State Department and the Executive Branch are certainly doing all their sums again.

 

---

Historical Footnote:

For those who weren't around when Le Grand Charles was kicked out of Canada (1967), Mr. Churchill did remark that the General had enough gall to be divided into three parts.  Here he is referring to the opening lines of Caesar's Gallic Campaigns which goes "Omnis Gallia est in partes divisa tres' which means 'All Gaul is divided into three parts'.  Churchil also stated that the greatest cross he had to bear in WW II was the Cross of Loraine (the sigil of the Free French led by General DeGaulle).

 

I would love to see the US cut off support for Israel, It makes us a larger target when we support a state no one wants.

 

I could never understand why the the US is less then 2% Jewish, yet they control nearly half the government and hold so much influence while everyone else is mostly under represented.

 

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy or something but it just don't make much sense how it seems we care more about Israel then impoverished nations like all of Africa.

[Sabretooth78 808]

I could do without Cruz.  To me, he's just part of the establishment GOP's astroturf teabagger line.  Rand on the other hand is a bit of an enigma to me.  In one sentence he'll channel his father but in another he sounds like an establishment teabag.  I'm holding out hope that the latter is just to gain relevance within the party but I'm not holding my breath.  I'd be willing to bet he's the only republican't candidate that would/will poll favorably against Hilary so we'll see if that plays to his disadvantage in the upcoming straw polls and primaries.  They might decide we need to hear more from Rick Sanitarium instead.

 

I don't have a problem with Israel (or Jews/Judaism in general) but I agree that they are waaaay too central to our foreign policy.  They're big boys and they can stand on their own (and they have in the past).  Time to cut the umbilical.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Rick who?  Does he have anything to do with this?

If so, he has my vote.

[Mister Giggles 310]

I could never understand why the the US is less then 2% Jewish, yet they control nearly half the government and hold so much influence while everyone else is mostly under represented.

 

What are the sources for your information?

[Meg 368]

 

I could never understand why the the US is less then 2% Jewish, yet they control nearly half the government and hold so much influence while everyone else is mostly under represented.

 

What are the sources for your information?

 

 

 

An excellent question.

 

 

 

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy or something but it just don't make much sense how it seems we care more about Israel then impoverished nations like all of Africa.

 

 

I don't understand how this works but I'm told it has something to do with the Rapture.

 

If true, that is appalling on so many levels.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Sorry, Meg, but I am a steady stater.  The whole idea of a Rapture is contrary to any sense and is just one more myth in a book of myths.  If you like blood and gore, Revelations just swims in it.

[Duke87 1,070]

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy or something but it just don't make much sense how it seems we care more about Israel then impoverished nations like all of Africa.

 

It makes a lot more sense when you consider that the United States chooses who to care about based on protecting our own interests, not helping who is most in need or most deserving. The government of Israel has some issues that one could make some legitimate moral arguments against supporting, but at the end of the day Israel is a key strategic ally in a region that otherwise has lots of oil and lots of people that don't exactly like us. They are treated as a friend simply because they are an enemy of an enemy.

 

As for those impoverished nations in Africa... well they have little of value to offer us (they are after all impoverished), and are also of little threat to us.

[hym 358]

The US Department of State has metrics to help determine who gets aid and who doesn't. If aid isn't getting to the people, as is the case with some African dictatorships, the Department of State will be less likely to want to keep aid flowing, especially if that nation is not of strategic importance.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It makes a lot more sense when you consider that the United States chooses who to care about based on protecting our own interests, not helping who is most in need or most deserving. The government of Israel has some issues that one could make some legitimate moral arguments against supporting, but at the end of the day Israel is a key strategic ally in a region that otherwise has lots of oil and lots of people that don't exactly like us. They are treated as a friend simply because they are an enemy of an enemy.

 

No, even then it doesn't make sense to support Israel. First of all, half of the people in the Middle East hate the US because of their unwavering support for Israel. Not backing Israel could gain the US a lot of support in the region. Second of all, as a strategic partner Israel is kinda useless. In a lot of cases, Israeli and American interests clash. The Iran deal is a perfect example of that. So, why the hell spend billions of dollars in aid to a nation that doesn't even act like a friend? Even if you share some mutual enemies, it makes no sense for the US to give Israel the level of support that it currently gets. 

 

In the long term, the support for Israel is more likely to hurt US geopolitical and strategic interests in the region than it furthers them.

[hamsterTK 93]

What do you guys find favorable about Rand Paul, exactly? Most of his platform will benefit the rich and gut social programs, while I doubt the overall political establishment would ever end the war on drugs, etc.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/7/8360691/rand-paul-budget-president

 

I could never understand why the the US is less then 2% Jewish, yet they control nearly half the government and hold so much influence while everyone else is mostly under represented.

 

 

Its a culture that values things that tend to make people successful. Also a lot of Jewish communities are in big cities where special opportunities exist, a lot of those they created themselves.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Hey!  Rand Paul is a REPUBLICAN with ties to the TEA PARTY.  You are expecting anything other than far right goals?  This guy is a wolf in a goatskin.

[blunder 1,080]

 

It makes a lot more sense when you consider that the United States chooses who to care about based on protecting our own interests, not helping who is most in need or most deserving. The government of Israel has some issues that one could make some legitimate moral arguments against supporting, but at the end of the day Israel is a key strategic ally in a region that otherwise has lots of oil and lots of people that don't exactly like us. They are treated as a friend simply because they are an enemy of an enemy.

 

No, even then it doesn't make sense to support Israel...

 

 

I would guess that most of the US' current support of Israel is inertia from it's establishment immediately after ww2.  There are not good reasons for doing it; it's sleeping in the bed our predecessors made, kept moving by the weight of time and the political influence jews have in the right wing.  It's more politically expedient (for republicans) at home to maintain the status quo than to make a change.

 

That said, backing Israel does provide some strategic benefit to the US.  It's similar to Imperial England's foreign policy towards the european mainland; for several hundred years england sought to keep the mainland nations fractured to prevent any one ruler from uniting a large enough domain to threaten herself.  So england always did what was best for england by routinely backing the weaker parties in conflicts.  This actually worked out quite well for england until Churchill threw away that foreign strategy in resolving ww2 and allowed a chain of events that saw the soviet union gobble up eastern europe. 

 

Currently backing Israel provides a little bit of that, but it does it in a dangerous and stupid way (since it creates an obvious division along religious lines, opening the way to the worst of possible backfirings.  see 6 days war of 1967, also Crusades, The).  Despite what any talking heads say, US strategic policy in the middle east is (or should be) to prevent anyone from forming an economic hedgemony over oil production (obviously anarchy/terrorist states is the other extreme end of the spectrum the US wants to avoid).  Isreal is obviously not the best ally to help with that (which is why the US courts other nations in the region; tries to keep ties with jordan, defends kuwait, wastes money on iraq, panders to the saudis, etc.), but it is an ally, and one is better than none.  Especially since all it takes to maintain is money, which politicians can conveniently pull out of their backsides. 

 

I'm not saying that's the primary motivator for backing israel, just that backing israel does serve a purpose (however poorly), which makes it much harder for the establishment to simply abandon or cut off support. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Will there be a backlash against the Republicans for hosting Bibi without the permission of the executive in the 2016 election or is it too far away for political memory?

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

That said, backing Israel does provide some strategic benefit to the US.  It's similar to Imperial England's foreign policy towards the european mainland; for several hundred years england sought to keep the mainland nations fractured to prevent any one ruler from uniting a large enough domain to threaten herself.  So england always did what was best for england by routinely backing the weaker parties in conflicts.  This actually worked out quite well for england until Churchill threw away that foreign strategy in resolving ww2 and allowed a chain of events that saw the soviet union gobble up eastern europe. 

I think you are referring to the common European practice of Balance of Power politics, which was practiced by every European power since the Peace of Westphalia back in the 17th century. And it should be noted that throughout most of those conflicts where England favored the 'weaker party' it was also because England was the weaker party (usually it was France that was the strongest party and they constantly threatened to become the European hegemony). However, that eventually resulted in WW1 after which the idea of Balance of Power politics through warfare fell out of favor with all European powers (well except the Fascists of course). 

 

In WW2 the UK again favored the weaker party, namely themselves, against the stronger party, Nazi Germany, which was well on its way to become the European hegemonic power and directly threatened the existence of the UK itself. I don't really think you can see this as a Balance of Power policy, but more as self defense against foreign aggression. 

 

The rise of the Soviet Union was at that point inevitable. I mean, it was either that, or being unable to ever really defeat Fascism and destroy Nazi Germany. 

 

 

Currently backing Israel provides a little bit of that, but it does it in a dangerous and stupid way (since it creates an obvious division along religious lines, opening the way to the worst of possible backfirings.  see 6 days war of 1967, also Crusades, The).  Despite what any talking heads say, US strategic policy in the middle east is (or should be) to prevent anyone from forming an economic hedgemony over oil production (obviously anarchy/terrorist states is the other extreme end of the spectrum the US wants to avoid).  Isreal is obviously not the best ally to help with that (which is why the US courts other nations in the region; tries to keep ties with jordan, defends kuwait, wastes money on iraq, panders to the saudis, etc.), but it is an ally, and one is better than none.  Especially since all it takes to maintain is money, which politicians can conveniently pull out of their backsides. 

 

I'm not saying that's the primary motivator for backing israel, just that backing israel does serve a purpose (however poorly), which makes it much harder for the establishment to simply abandon or cut off support. 

 

I have to disagree there. First of all, it costs much more than just a lot of money (I think 37 billion annually?) to maintain the relationship with Israel, it also costs the US tons of diplomatic capital. Because of their relationship with Israel, their relationship with Israels neighbors is a lot less friendly and costs even more to maintain than it otherwise would have cost. And everytime you have to vote down some UN report which is filled with examples of blatant human right abuses by Israel, it makes the US look like idiots internationally, as well as massive hypocrites. And Israel is an ally that will never act in the least bit grateful for all the help it receives from you. They won't listen to your requests and as Netanyahu so recently proved, they will not hesitate to abuse your internal political situation for their own profits. A relationship with Israel is a one way street. You give them everything, they will give you nothing. As an ally, they are useless and in my honest opinion, its better to have no allies than one that is so useless, even counter productive, as Israel. 

 

In that sense Rand Paul would be a great choice, provided he has the balls and doesn't bow to the Israel lobby for all that sweet sweet superpac money, to cut off all foreign aid to Israel. 

[blunder 1,080]

I think you are referring to the common European practice of Balance of Power politics, which was practiced by every European power since the Peace of Westphalia back in the 17th century. And it should be noted that throughout most of those conflicts where England favored the 'weaker party' it was also because England was the weaker party (usually it was France that was the strongest party and they constantly threatened to become the European hegemony).

 

 

I'm not talking about wars directly involving England, i'm talking about england's history of meddling in the conflicts of the continental nations (yes, usually everyone else vs france).

 

As for the instigation of ww2, you're absolutely right it was self-defence, and pretty much doomed to happen since the signing of the earlier treaty of versailles.  Balance of power comes in near the resolution of the war; Germany was ready to talk terms months before the allies met in Berlin.  But churchill threw balance of power out the window, moronically insisted on unconditional surrender by germany, and needlessly prolonged the war in europe by months.  Months that the russians used to occupy as much of eastern europe as they could.  I highly recommend reading The Second World War by Gen. JFC Fuller; it's a very enlightening look at the strategic (not just tactical) situation surrounding the whole of the war in both theatres. 

 

Re: Isreal;  yes the price is high, but i can't agree that the US gets nothing out of it.  As i said before, yes it's stupid, and i'll even agree it's not worth it, but it's not nothing.

 

edit: and honestly it would make me kinda happy if the us stop supporting israel.  It's about time they had the rug pulled out from under them.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I'm not talking about wars directly involving England, i'm talking about england's history of meddling in the conflicts of the continental nations (yes, usually everyone else vs france).

 

As for the instigation of ww2, you're absolutely right it was self-defence, and pretty much doomed to happen since the signing of the earlier treaty of versailles.  Balance of power comes in near the resolution of the war; Germany was ready to talk terms months before the allies met in Berlin.  But churchill threw balance of power out the window, moronically insisted on unconditional surrender by germany, and needlessly prolonged the war in europe by months.  Months that the russians used to occupy as much of eastern europe as they could.  I highly recommend reading The Second World War by Gen. JFC Fuller; it's a very enlightening look at the strategic (not just tactical) situation surrounding the whole of the war in both theatres. 

 

Moronic? What would have been moronic would be to accept a conditional surrender of Germany, allowing the Fascists to remain in power and just resetting the clock until Germany was ready to once again wage war on the rest of Europe. Besides, what idiot is going to let such a criminal regime get away when you are currently soundly trashing them? Churchill was absolutely right to demand the unconditional surrender of Germany. I mean, what is the extension of the war for a few months if it forever rids you of the Nazis? 

 

As for Fuller, I know who he was. But do you know who he was? An officer in WW1, one of the first to see the future potential of tanks. After that, one of the first theorists on how to conduct armored warfare. But also someone who had a tendency to lie and who vastly overstated his own importance on history (in particular the importance of his own military theories to German armored doctrine). And also a British Fascist, one of Oswald Mosley's closest associates and someone who had an admiration for the Nazis (if only because they were leagues ahead in the use of tanks while he was frustrated over the slow overhaul of the British cavalry, the later being a rather unfair reaction). This fact in particular discredits any judgement he makes on whether it was good or bad of Churchill to demand Germany's unconditional surrender. 

[blunder 1,080]

Moronic? What would have been moronic would be to accept a conditional surrender of Germany, allowing the Fascists to remain in power and just resetting the clock until Germany was ready to once again wage war on the rest of Europe. Besides, what idiot is going to let such a criminal regime get away when you are currently soundly trashing them? Churchill was absolutely right to demand the unconditional surrender of Germany. I mean, what is the extension of the war for a few months if it forever rids you of the Nazis?

 

 

Wow, ok. Since when does a negotiated peace automatically default to leaving the previous regime in place?  Especially when you have it against the cliff.  You're making an awful lot of assumptions. Conditional surrender does not mean just letting them get away. Besides, one assassination attempt or another was bound to succeed anyway; hitler was nuts and his generals wanted him gone.  Do you honestly think hitler would have lived out the year in any circumstance?

 

This fact in particular discredits any judgement he makes on whether it was good or bad of Churchill to demand Germany's unconditional surrender.

The results of the war speak for themselves.  England survived the war but gained nothing.  The strong nation dominating european affairs that it fought to avoid (germany) was exactly what it got (russia).

 

You've obviously got your own opinions and we're not going to agree on this, so good day, sir.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Will there be a backlash against the Republicans for hosting Bibi without the permission of the executive in the 2016 election or is it too far away for political memory?

 

Every time I see reference to "Bibi" I can't escape the image of the Michelin Man popping up in my head.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Some people don't understand Mr. Churchill, and it is probably because they were not around at the time.  Churchill despised Stalin and everything he stood for.  Remember, he was a monarchist, if pragmatic.  He was appalled at the murder of the Russian royalty, and his comment on Hitler's invasion of Russia was "If Hitler invaded hell I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House."

 

The mess that occurred at Yalta was largely due to the Americans.  FDR was dying and things got past him that allowed Stalin to get what he wanted.  There were (and still are) no strong American voices interested in European affairs.  The general isolationism of the United States still echoes down the halls of history (as we wrote it).  I don't think Harry Truman have a hoot about Europe other than getting his troops out of there to fight in the Pacific Theatre.  By the time he took office, it was essentially "over over there" anyway.

 

The main problem in Europe, as I see it, is that the Russians had the biggest force in the field, and by allied agreement were allowed to rape what was left of Berlin.  Patton could have been in Berlin at least a day ahead of the Red Army.

 

Churchill always sounded warnings about the Soviet ambitions.  If he had had his way, the results at the end of the European war would have been different with respect to "spheres of influence", but everyone was too exhausted to want to fight the Russians. 

 

One has to remember the Russians are very good at tergiversion.  They pulled out of WW I seeking a separate peace with Germany.  They were German allies until 1941 when Hitler bit the hand that was feeding him.  We should have let Hitler have the Russians.  Instead we sacrificed thousands of sailors and merchant marine sailors on the Murmansk run all the while Stalin was screaming for a second front.  The Russians knew quite well that Hitler was just as stupid as Napoleon and that the Russian winter would take out the Germans just as it had a century earlier with the French.  I think the Americans made a terrible mistake in having even a modicum of trust in Stalin, who was just as nuts as Hitler.  Hitler was a megalomaniac, while Stalin was a paranoid schizophrenic.  In any case both were sociopaths.  (Ain't hindsight wonderful?)

 

In the end, we would up the the "Iron Curtain", a term coined my Churchill, the cold war, MAD, and a lot of angst about world communism promoted by the Soviets.  Only took 70 years for this bullroar to show it was garbage and collapse because as Paul Samuelson said in the old economics text, you can have guns or butter but not both.

 

America has now fallen into a period of doldrums with what amounts to either a deadlocked congress or one heading to the far right with the Republicans.  Political apathy will completely destroy any semblance of democracy and the illusion of democracy before the end of this century.  It is too bad.  Maybe Bob Heinlein was right.  (See If This Goes On, and Revolt in 2100).

[LexusInfernus 908]

Wow, ok. Since when does a negotiated peace automatically default to leaving the previous regime in place?  Especially when you have it against the cliff.  You're making an awful lot of assumptions. Conditional surrender does not mean just letting them get away. Besides, one assassination attempt or another was bound to succeed anyway; hitler was nuts and his generals wanted him gone.  Do you honestly think hitler would have lived out the year in any circumstance?

Thats what conditional surrender means. It means that you let the opposition determine some of the terms on which they surrender, and one of those terms would have been that the Nazis be left in power over Germany. If that wasn't a term the Allies would agree with, then the outcome would still have been an unconditional surrender. I mean, its not like the Nazis were going to just go away and give up their power (Hitler and Goring would never allow for such a thing to happen) without fighting to the death over it. Another condition would maybe have been to let the Nazi top avoid all prosecution for war crimes if they gave up, which again would be pretty much unacceptable given the scale of the atrocities committed by the Nazis.   

 

 

The results of the war speak for themselves.  England survived the war but gained nothing.  The strong nation dominating european affairs that it fought to avoid (germany) was exactly what it got (russia).

 

You've obviously got your own opinions and we're not going to agree on this, so good day, sir.

 

How would a conditional surrender have changed that? By the time the Nazis were suing for peace, the Soviets were already advancing deeply into Eastern Europe. Maybe if it would have been successful it would have meant that the Allies didn't open a second a front allowing the Nazis to concentrate their resources on fighting the Soviets. But thats a fight that the Nazis would never been able to win, even if they could focus all their manpower (its not like they had stationed that much troops in Western Europe, the bulk of their forces were concentrated on the Eastern front) on fighting the Soviets. And Stalin would never let the Nazis surrender, he would not have stopped until he had completely driven them out of Europe. If the Allies would have accepted the conditional surrender of Nazi Germany all it would have resulted in was that the Soviets gained even more territory.

 

So the UK did gain something. It gained a peaceful Germany, a big buffer zone between them and the USSR, and a solid, capitalist, Liberal Democratic Western Europe with which it could trade. 

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Reading these last few posts about WWII was fascinating, but I do fear we may be drifting off-topic.  Let's shift our focus back to US politics, please.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Can old enemies be allies?

 

A declared Marxist-Leninist regime now comes the end of its rope?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Nah, it just makes sense to end the whole conflict the US had with Cuba. The blockade didn't topple the Communist regime, Cuba poses absolutely no threat to US national security, so why keep the blockade intact? 

 

Ending it and starting up diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba again opens a lot more opportunities for both sides to profit from. Indeed, it might even improve US security as an economic stable and growing Cuba is always more preferable over a weak and poor Cuba.