• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cuba officially off U.S. terror blacklist

Germany is not 90 miles from us.
So you are saying if Germany were 90 miles from us we should cease trading with them because of the Nazis? Really? I think you've just proven how absurd your argument is better than I possibly could have.
 
So you are saying if Germany were 90 miles from us we should cease trading with them because of the Nazis? Really? I think you've just proven how absurd your argument is better than I possibly could have.

It's the stupidest cat and mouse game to be played at DP. If you argue that we should look past the absurdity of failed policies, he complains that Cuba is only 90 miles away. If you show that the US has dealt with dictatorships next door so distance, he moves on to arguing that we shouldn't have the same policy for all countries. If you demonstrate that we wouldn't have the same policy for Cuba as we do other nations, he says that's just going to lead to ISIS setting up shop. The guy is not here to debate the subject seriously.
 
It's the stupidest cat and mouse game to be played at DP. If you argue that we should look past the absurdity of failed policies, he complains that Cuba is only 90 miles away. If you show that the US has dealt with dictatorships next door so distance, he moves on to arguing that we shouldn't have the same policy for all countries. If you demonstrate that we wouldn't have the same policy for Cuba as we do other nations, he says that's just going to lead to ISIS setting up shop. The guy is not here to debate the subject seriously.

There is one reason and one reason only that Crue Cab and the like are against this -- because Obama. That's it. End of list.
 
There is one reason and one reason only that Crue Cab and the like are against this -- because Obama. That's it. End of list.

That's pretty silly.
 
So you are saying if Germany were 90 miles from us we should cease trading with them because of the Nazis? Really? I think you've just proven how absurd your argument is better than I possibly could have.

History, you missed it.
 
History, you missed it.

So are you predicting that Cuba will invite the Islamic State in, and give them a base of operation from which to launch attacks against America?
 
So whats the reasoning behind Cuba? Because you reasoning of, "well they dont have a good human rights record" is quite hypocritical, especially when held up to A LOT of countries we do business with...

They are a communist police state, we don't need anything from them, they are not friendly towards us, they have done nothing to deserve normalization, they harbor fugitives, and it's not in the best interests of our nation to do so. I could go on, but hopefully, you get the picture.


What have they done since the cold war not to?
They have done nothing to change their ways, so why should we foolishly help them stay in power?


You know what they say to this: "You tried to overthrow our government. Invade us. Had plans to kill our leader 638 times. Blockaded us (which technically is a declaration of war).

Really? They had nukes pointed at us. You bet your ass we'll blockade, invade, whatever it takes to secure our nation. Sorry, align with Russia and point nuclear weapons at us, be prepared to pay the consequenses. They are lucky we didn't decide to make a first strike and knock them out.

Had the UN on a 23rd almost unanimous vote tell the US to end the blockade. Occupied part of our land. Harbored a terrorist who murdered 73 innocent Cubans. Spread anti-Cuban rhetoric throughout Cuba. Send numerous spies be them direct CIA or via 'USAID' (which has admittley been used as a spy program in Cuba).". So I guess one can say Cubas actions are in "defense" of their basic sovereignty, no?

No, would be correct.
 
They are a communist police state,
Is China not?

we don't need anything from them,
Technically we "dont need anything from anyone". But I can think of a lot of benefits..

they are not friendly towards us,
What have they dont in the past 20 years to the US? Other than say, "can we end the embargo now?".

they have done nothing to deserve normalization,
Liberalization of the economy, releasing prisoners, and offering assistance to us during several natural disasters and terrorist attacks?

they harbor fugitives,
So do we.

and it's not in the best interests of our nation to do so.
Why? The impact of trade sounds pretty good. I thought you guys were all over "free markets" and such..

I could go on, but hopefully, you get the picture.
Your picture is incredibly hypocritical and stuck in cold war era mentality.

They have done nothing to change their ways, so why should we foolishly help them stay in power?
:dohYou must of missed the past 15+ years of reform in the country...

Really? They had nukes pointed at us.
Bay of pigs happened before the famous Cuban Missile Crisis.
But if your trying to justify your position of we should not engage in basic diplomatic relations because of a hostile event that happened 50+ years ago, then wow... You really are stuck in this cold war era thinking.

You bet your ass we'll blockade, invade, whatever it takes to secure our nation.
:doh No no no no no. That whole policy wasnt about "securing our nation". Hell we were friendly with Castro government for sometime following the revolution. Eisenhower even recognized them as the legitimate government. It wasnt until land reform started to happen did disagreements come about. Then it was nationalization that broke the camels back. Embargo implemented, invasion of Cuba, several attempts on Castro's life, etc. The Cuban Missile Crisis came after all this had occurred. This was not in defense of our nation at all. If anything Cuba would be the one saying what they did was "in defense", after-all it is what they claimed. None of those actions were about "security" it was about a government pissing off multinational corporations.

Sorry, align with Russia and point nuclear weapons at us, be prepared to pay the consequenses.
Those were not consequences, because the actions all took place before the Cuban Missile Crisis not as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

They are lucky we didn't decide to make a first strike and knock them out.
We did strike. We blockade (act of war), and had CIA backed forces invade the country.
 
Thrilla doesn't think acts of terorism include:

-burning crops
-dropping bombs
-propaganda & psychological warfare
-training & supplying arms to terrorists
-attacking ships, factories and other unprovoked targets
-sabotage through bombs and other explosives
-doing all these acts covertly


Now let's just say America is not a military might anymore and some country decided to do the exact same things to the US. Still don't think it's terrorism.

If done by a non-State actor... those would surely be terrorist acts.
If done by a State actor, they would not be considered terrorism.
 
A state can absolutely carry out acts of terrorism. Who's defining this as you see it, show me.

nobody recognizes State terrorism as a legal doctrine, not even the UN.

covert military actions by a state can possibly be determined to be acts of war, or actions in violations of certain pacts or treaties... but they are not held accountable to antiterrorism statutes anywhere.

States can support terrorist groups...but they can't be a terrorist group....states can support/sponsor terrorist acts... but they can't commit terrorist acts.
that goes for any recognized state on the planet.
 
If done by a non-State actor... those would surely be terrorist acts.
If done by a State actor, they would not be considered terrorism.

That's ridiculous. Who made that rule, who's definition? An act of terrorism is just that, whether those conducting it are acting on their own accord, or by orders of the state. And the results have no difference.
 
nobody recognizes State terrorism as a legal doctrine, not even the UN.

covert military actions by a state can possibly be determined to be acts of war, or actions in violations of certain pacts or treaties... but they are not held accountable to antiterrorism statutes anywhere.

States can support terrorist groups...but they can't be a terrorist group...a.states can support/sponsor terrorist acts... but they can't commit terrorist acts.
that goes for any recognized state on the planet.

That's ****ing retarded, no matter who believes it to be true.

terror
noun ter·ror \ˈter-ər, ˈte-rər\
: a very strong feeling of fear

: something that causes very strong feelings of fear : something that is terrifying

: violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror
 
Last edited:
That's ridiculous. Who made that rule, who's definition? An act of terrorism is just that, whether those conducting it are acting on their own accord, or by orders of the state. And the results have no difference.

I don't care about your personal opinion on the matter... I'm speaking legalities.
 
That's ****ing retarded, no matter who believes it to be true.

terror
noun ter·ror \ˈter-ər, ˈte-rər\
: a very strong feeling of fear

: something that causes very strong feelings of fear : something that is terrifying

: violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal.

Terror | Definition of terror by Merriam-Webster

I'm sorry you find domestic law and international law to be "****ing retarded"... but that's a problem you'll have to work out on your own.

not even the US recognized state terrorism as a legal doctrine... which is why we have a list of State Sponsors of terrorism and not a list of Terrorist States.
the UN doesn't recognize State terrorism, but finds that certain acts fall under different headings, such as acts of war.. or acts in violation to certain treaties and compacts.
 
I'm sorry you find domestic law and international law to be "****ing retarded"... but that's a problem you'll have to work out on your own.

not even the US recognized state terrorism as a legal doctrine... which is why we have a list of State Sponsors of terrorism and not a list of Terrorist States.
the UN doesn't recognize State terrorism, but finds that certain acts fall under different headings, such as acts of war.. or acts in violation to certain treaties and compacts.

Lol. Well isn't that convenient. The U.S. Doesn't "recognize" any of its shortcomings, nor the authority of the ICC. Nor the authority of the UN if it conflicts with US policy. Why'd you quote websters definition of terror only to ignore it?

State terrorism refers to acts of terrorism conducted by a state against a foreign state or people, or against its own people.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism
 
Last edited:
ok... so it's just your personal opinion.....an opinion not backed in any legal doctrine anywhere on the planet.

Well we arent really having a debate framed around "legal doctrines"... Look at the post you quoted, and look at the discussion and the context of the dicsussion. CRUE CAB said, "Have they given up said oppression?". I simply asked, "Why should that be a precondition to setting up diplomatic relations?". He responded by saying, "Why shouldn't it .". And I responded, "Because we dont apply it to other countries... Thus making the precondition meaningless". Nothing was really put into a "legal" context, until you came in saying, "thats an interesting legal doctrine". What do you mean by "legal doctrine"? Does the statement(s) you are making have any real relevance?
 
Back
Top Bottom