Ailing Castro throws first punch at Obama

link

Gotta love this:

The ailing 82-year-old former president wrote that if the U.S. doesn't give the U.S. base at Guantanamo back to Cuba, it will be a violation of international law and an abuse of American power against a small country.

Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong.

1903 Cuban-American Treaty (Treaty of Havana)

1934 U.S.-Cuban Treaty

Article III
Until the two contracting parties agree to the modifications or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations signed by the President of the Republic of Cuba on February 16, 1903, and by the President of the United States of America on the 23rd day of the same month and year, the stipulations of that agreement with regard to the naval stations of Guantanamo shall continue in effect. The supplementary agreement in regard to naval or coaling stations signed between the two Governments on July 2, 1903, also shall continue in effect in the same form and on the same conditions with respect to the naval station at Guantanamo. So long as the United States of America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits, the station shall continue to have territorial area that it now has, with the limits that it has on the date of the signature of the preset Treaty.

Click to expand...

The US is under no obligation under international to terminate the lease.

However, why do I have little voice in the back of my head that tells me that this might become Obama's Panama Canal?

Isn't this just international politics 101? Test the incoming President and see if you can get something out of him? I'd imagine any smart person could figure out what's going on here.

IF we leave, the US dollars will stop filling Castro's coffers....
I suspect this is just talk....

Smoke[MaxX] said:

Isn't this just international politics 101? Test the incoming President and see if you can get something out of him? I'd imagine any smart person could figure out what's going on here.

Click to expand...

I agree, though with all of Obama's talk, I do have a real lingering concern that he may pull a Carter.

Oh I'd laugh my ass off if Obama were dumb enough to try and close Gitmo down. Not that he would, it would just crack me up.

MrVicchio said:

Oh I'd laugh my ass off if Obama were dumb enough to try and close Gitmo down. Not that he would, it would just crack me up.

Click to expand...

We don't need it, except as a thorn in Cuban govt. paper lion's paw.
We should shut it down, let the cuban's have it back. It serves no purpose that is needed in today's military....

UtahBill said:

We don't need it, except as a thorn in Cuban govt. paper lion's paw.
We should shut it down, let the cuban's have it back. It serves no purpose that is needed in today's military....

Click to expand...

Carter II, coming up.

Of course we should keep it. Just ticking off Castro is enough reason for me to keep it, especially considering how they nationalized property owned by U.S. citizens following their "de-volution" when Castro came to power.

ludahai said:

Carter II, coming up.

Of course we should keep it. Just ticking off Castro is enough reason for me to keep it, especially considering how they nationalized property owned by U.S. citizens following their "de-volution" when Castro came to power.

Click to expand...

Making an evil dictator angry is enough to waste money on something that isn't necessary? I see a few problems with that:
1) From what I understand, government pays for Gitmo, and that money comes from taxpayers. Shouldn't conservatives object to this.
2) In our day and age, we don't have the money to waste on something that isn't necessary.
3) Evil dictators are evil dictators for a reason. If you make him mad, I heavily doubt he's NOT going to take it out on somebody. Thus, our actions could have horrible consequences on Castro's citizens.

Smoke[MaxX] said:

Making an evil dictator angry is enough to waste money on something that isn't necessary? I see a few problems with that:
1) From what I understand, government pays for Gitmo, and that money comes from taxpayers. Shouldn't conservatives object to this.
2) In our day and age, we don't have the money to waste on something that isn't necessary.
3) Evil dictators are evil dictators for a reason. If you make him mad, I heavily doubt he's NOT going to take it out on somebody. Thus, our actions could have horrible consequences on Castro's citizens.

Click to expand...

1. Many Government properties are paid for by the taxpayer, what's so different about Gitmo?
2. In our day and age, we should be spending more, so the economy has a chance to bounce back. Gitmo is a market economy too, you know, losing it would be a bad idea.
3. It's not like Cuban citizens aren't already getting it bad nowadays, will anything change even if he does decide to take it out on them? They're already homeless, poor and isolated, can't get any worse than that.

Article III
Until the two contracting parties agree to the modifications or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations signed by the President of the Republic of Cuba on February 16, 1903, and by the President of the United States of America on the 23rd day of the same month and year, the stipulations of that agreement with regard to the naval stations of Guantanamo shall continue in effect. The supplementary agreement in regard to naval or coaling stations signed between the two Governments on July 2, 1903, also shall continue in effect in the same form and on the same conditions with respect to the naval station at Guantanamo. So long as the United States of America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits, the station shall continue to have territorial area that it now has, with the limits that it has on the date of the signature of the preset Treaty.

What two governments?

As far as I can see, only one of said governments is still in existence. Therefore, the agreement between our government and one which doesn't exist isn't valid.

Am I mistaken? Or do agreements like these forced onto third world countries apply even if the people of that country don't want it anymore, and even go so far as to remove the government which was supporting it?

Joby said:

What two governments?

As far as I can see, only one of said governments is still in existence. Therefore, the agreement between our government and one which doesn't exist isn't valid.

Am I mistaken? Or do agreements like these forced onto third world countries apply even if the people of that country don't want it anymore, and even go so far as to remove the government which was supporting it?

Click to expand...

You are mistaken. The Communist government of Cuba is the successor to the previous government and under international law is bound by all agreements, treaties, boundaries, etc. of the regime it replaced.

The U.S. can choose to abandon the treaty if it so pleases. After all, it is U.S. territory being discussed here.

Closing down Gitmo and giving that land back to Cuba would do far more to repair international relations and restore U.S. image, than it would serving as a thorn in the side of Cuba. It serves no practical modern purpose, and its best use would be its termination. The Cold War days are over.