-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V
Cuba's human rights record is abysmal, and our recognition of them utterly destroys the efforts of the last 50 years for them to accountability. Not that the effort was working all that well, but now there is no leverage at all.
Also, Obama has no legal standing to make this foreign policy change unilaterally. He can't establish an embassy in Cuba because the Foreign Assistance Act forbids it. He apparently intends to reopen our embassy without Congressional action on the FAA.
Also, Obama has no legal standing to make this foreign policy change unilaterally. He can't establish an embassy in Cuba because the Foreign Assistance Act forbids it. He apparently intends to reopen our embassy without Congressional action on the FAA.
B
Cuba's human rights record is abysmal, and our recognition of them utterly destroys the efforts of the last 50 years for them to accountability. Not that the effort was working all that well, but now there is no leverage at all.
And do you think our human rights record is any better when examining the plight of minorities' cultures that existed for the past two centuries. It is so bad that American History won't cover most of them with details & true facts. The reality is most of the literate & educated world know these details & facts better than we do because they didn't cover it up.
And do you think our human rights record is any better when examining the plight of minorities' cultures that existed for the past two centuries. It is so bad that American History won't cover most of them with details & true facts. The reality is most of the literate & educated world know these details & facts better than we do because they didn't cover it up.
V
I offer no offense, Biscuit, but I knew this comment was coming, though I didn't know who would post it.
Massively better, in that we made the effort to correct our attitude so the mistakes of the past would not be repeated. The same cannot be said for Castro's Cuba.
The shame is that the few truly heinous acts that have occurred in American history are viewed by those who would revise the narrative falsely so as to make them appear the norm, rather than the exception.
That is a false narrative, rather than reality. If nations or people believe atrocities and heinous acts to have been the norm rather than the exception, they, like so many of our own people, have bought the lie rather than investigating for themselves to discover the truth. The wide divergences from that truth that emphasize the aforementioned isolated incidents as being oft-repeated is a creation of those who would undermine the U.S.'s heritage, character, and very existence, because they hate what she has stood for these past 238 years.
The shame is that the few truly heinous acts that have occurred in American history are viewed by those who would revise the narrative falsely so as to make them appear the norm, rather than the exception.
That is a false narrative, rather than reality. If nations or people believe atrocities and heinous acts to have been the norm rather than the exception, they, like so many of our own people, have bought the lie rather than investigating for themselves to discover the truth. The wide divergences from that truth that emphasize the aforementioned isolated incidents as being oft-repeated is a creation of those who would undermine the U.S.'s heritage, character, and very existence, because they hate what she has stood for these past 238 years.
B
SMH!! I will give you just one of many examples to prove you wrong. There was an out roar across Europe concerning Texas freely at will executing Black men without giving them a competent attorney. The European Union threatened to boycott Texas' product and bypass Texas as a tourist attraction.
Well, to make a long story short, the continuous execution of Black men stopped and basically came to a complete halt. Most of the attorneys supplied by the state of Texas were just totally incompetent. That problem was quickly fixed & fixed. It made the American criminal justice system look inadequate.
Have a good night.
Well, to make a long story short, the continuous execution of Black men stopped and basically came to a complete halt. Most of the attorneys supplied by the state of Texas were just totally incompetent. That problem was quickly fixed & fixed. It made the American criminal justice system look inadequate.
Have a good night.
Last edited by a moderator:
V
Frankly I don't care what the Europeans think about Texas justice. The fact is, the capital punishment process is replete with safeguards, reviews, judicial overwatch, and countless appeals that assure that every aspect of the case is examined with a fine-toothed comb to the nth degree. European outrage makes no difference to me whatsoever, nor does it to Texans.
Really? When did that happen? Because Texas and Missouri -- my home state -- both have carried out the death penalty 10 times this year, the most by any state in four years. That's 20 of the 35 men and women executed across the U.S. this year. Texas executed four black men, four Latinos, one white man and one white woman. Missouri executed five blacks and five whites. So it seems your "European outrage" didn't do much but make you feel better. Justice was done.
[/QUOTE] To you, perhaps. On the other hand, of the 35 men and women executed this year, they averaged 17 years, four months on death row from sentencing to execution. We do take the death penalty seriously in this country. We make every effort to assure that justice is served, and that means making certain the wheels of justice turn excruciatingly slowly, which is more than can be said for the death process for the victims of these murderers.
Really? When did that happen? Because Texas and Missouri -- my home state -- both have carried out the death penalty 10 times this year, the most by any state in four years. That's 20 of the 35 men and women executed across the U.S. this year. Texas executed four black men, four Latinos, one white man and one white woman. Missouri executed five blacks and five whites. So it seems your "European outrage" didn't do much but make you feel better. Justice was done.
[/QUOTE] To you, perhaps. On the other hand, of the 35 men and women executed this year, they averaged 17 years, four months on death row from sentencing to execution. We do take the death penalty seriously in this country. We make every effort to assure that justice is served, and that means making certain the wheels of justice turn excruciatingly slowly, which is more than can be said for the death process for the victims of these murderers.
Last edited:
Hmm, I am glad we got our boys back, that's the most important thing. I also heard on the TV news that a handful of Cuban political prisoners were released as well, which also is good. Compared to the 3 spies we have exchanged for this I'd say it's a decent deal.
As for opening an embassy in Cuba, I think that's just classic Obama making promises he can't keep once again. This a major change of pace though in US-Cuba relations for sure. I suppose the next real chance to see how things will progress with US-Cuba relations is the Summit of the Americas which ought to be coming up soon.
As for opening an embassy in Cuba, I think that's just classic Obama making promises he can't keep once again. This a major change of pace though in US-Cuba relations for sure. I suppose the next real chance to see how things will progress with US-Cuba relations is the Summit of the Americas which ought to be coming up soon.
B
To you, perhaps. On the other hand, of the 35 men and women executed this year, they averaged 17 years, four months on death row from sentencing to execution. We do take the death penalty seriously in this country. We make every effort to assure that justice is served, and that means making certain the wheels of justice turn excruciatingly slowly, which is more than can be said for the death process for the victims of these murderers. [/QUOTE]
One of the reason I bid you "good night" early because I knew you would reply with twisted statements. The EU didn't have a problem with capital punishment ... but with the "weak, incompetent representation of lawyers for the defendants."
Next time ... improve your reading comprehension skills.
One of the reason I bid you "good night" early because I knew you would reply with twisted statements. The EU didn't have a problem with capital punishment ... but with the "weak, incompetent representation of lawyers for the defendants."
Next time ... improve your reading comprehension skills.
If 'leverage' hasn't made any difference in fifty years, perhaps opening trade lines and having real bartering power to influence their politics and society will. In my opinion, Obama has made more progress than any president of my lifetime. Obamacare, equal rights for gay people, the investigation into CIA torture and opening diplomatic discussion with Cuba and the withdrawal from an unjust war. Five points of huge contention that I personally feel are tremendous steps in the right direction.
Obviously there are issues; ISIS, the evangelical opposition ot gay rights, Obamacare's reception amongst corporatists and rampant money-driven capitalists, and of course a loss in support by the aggressive military types, but if there isn't controversy, he isn't doing his job properly.
Obviously there are issues; ISIS, the evangelical opposition ot gay rights, Obamacare's reception amongst corporatists and rampant money-driven capitalists, and of course a loss in support by the aggressive military types, but if there isn't controversy, he isn't doing his job properly.
Last edited:
K
I don't get how pretending Cuba doesn't exist will ever change Cuba for the better. And I find some of Republicans' "concerns about human rights" hypocritical. We ALL know China treats their citizens with dignity, right?. And Iran. And Saudi Arabia. And other so many countries that commit human rights violations. I'm not saying I support this move...but I really don't think bringing up human rights issues is a justified reason not to. At least bring real reasons to the table.
V
And until yesterday, they were all on the same list of nations that we consider in violation of basic human rights as Cuba, but somehow Cuba now has a magic "get off the list" card, not to mention they have done nothing to correct their behavior and the government will now be able to solidify it's totalitarian position and establish a line of succession that assures that totalitarian regime will continue, thanks to the opening of the gates the "Yanqui tourista dollar" that will fund all of that for them.
The folks who bring up the hole in the "human rights" calculation are, to a degree, correct. Human rights is such an abstract notion that we have trouble agreeing on what they are and defining them. This has been a predicament since the formation of the Republic, when there were constant arguments over what a "human right" is, whether we should enumerate them and protect them or rely on the forces of custom and tradition to keep them protected. Both?
How this interacts with American foreign policy is interesting. Thinkers as dissimilar as Washington and Jefferson desired the United States to be an Empire for Liberty. It was actually one of the motivating factors behind the Louisiana Purchase. There was an attitude of benign neglect though. If you look into Washington's Farewell Address (penned by Hamilton), you will find that it more or less says "we are a nation of high ideals and we will be reasonable in enforcement of these ideals abroad, but a positive or negative inclination toward any nation that has not given us a cause for war would be unwise).
This general idea was formalized and applied by John Quincy Adams when he wrote it as policy in the Monroe Doctrine. It was not perfect, but it was something. A policy. A directive to live by. Congress after congress, presidency after presidency, court after court up until (arguably) Teddy Roosevelt and (without question) Woodrow Wilson did their best to apply this doctrine and use it as a baseline.
To a degree, the Progressives were right. The expanding commercial power of the United States called for a reformulation of foreign policy. Instead of applying proper restrictions and rules that would make our actions predictable, they more or less opened the pandora's box we have today, where a nation's stance on "human rights" is seen as reason enough to draw the sword or extend a hand in friendship. Different generations and governments apply their own meaning to these words and we get the disorganization we have today as a result. America is overpowered in some ways and under-powered in others. There is no rhyme or reason as to whom she shakes hands with and whom she bears the sword toward.
We had intermittent returns to normalcy and breaks from them. Times when we came close to having a baseline, and times we have not. So yes, we have countries we allow business with that are on human rights watch lists. We maintain friendly relationships with countries that are not so friendly to freedom. Sometimes these friendly relations are necessary, but they should not be confused with a inherent positive or negative inclination toward these nations. Some nations we accuse of "human rights" violations are not banana republics in the least.
Take Hillary Clinton's shameful disrespect of Hungary as an example.
My point is this: we have no rhyme or reason behind them. I would prefer a conservative administration as the architect for a new sort of Monroe Doctrine, but I would go so far as to say that if Obama were to have one drawn up, I would not be entirely opposed. At least then we would have a doctrine of policy and formalization of values to debate over. A baseline to violate, follow, or replace.
A nation situated 90 miles from Key West that has been hostile to American interests since 1959 was given full recognition in a flash. Not good for business.
How this interacts with American foreign policy is interesting. Thinkers as dissimilar as Washington and Jefferson desired the United States to be an Empire for Liberty. It was actually one of the motivating factors behind the Louisiana Purchase. There was an attitude of benign neglect though. If you look into Washington's Farewell Address (penned by Hamilton), you will find that it more or less says "we are a nation of high ideals and we will be reasonable in enforcement of these ideals abroad, but a positive or negative inclination toward any nation that has not given us a cause for war would be unwise).
This general idea was formalized and applied by John Quincy Adams when he wrote it as policy in the Monroe Doctrine. It was not perfect, but it was something. A policy. A directive to live by. Congress after congress, presidency after presidency, court after court up until (arguably) Teddy Roosevelt and (without question) Woodrow Wilson did their best to apply this doctrine and use it as a baseline.
To a degree, the Progressives were right. The expanding commercial power of the United States called for a reformulation of foreign policy. Instead of applying proper restrictions and rules that would make our actions predictable, they more or less opened the pandora's box we have today, where a nation's stance on "human rights" is seen as reason enough to draw the sword or extend a hand in friendship. Different generations and governments apply their own meaning to these words and we get the disorganization we have today as a result. America is overpowered in some ways and under-powered in others. There is no rhyme or reason as to whom she shakes hands with and whom she bears the sword toward.
We had intermittent returns to normalcy and breaks from them. Times when we came close to having a baseline, and times we have not. So yes, we have countries we allow business with that are on human rights watch lists. We maintain friendly relationships with countries that are not so friendly to freedom. Sometimes these friendly relations are necessary, but they should not be confused with a inherent positive or negative inclination toward these nations. Some nations we accuse of "human rights" violations are not banana republics in the least.
Take Hillary Clinton's shameful disrespect of Hungary as an example.
My point is this: we have no rhyme or reason behind them. I would prefer a conservative administration as the architect for a new sort of Monroe Doctrine, but I would go so far as to say that if Obama were to have one drawn up, I would not be entirely opposed. At least then we would have a doctrine of policy and formalization of values to debate over. A baseline to violate, follow, or replace.
A nation situated 90 miles from Key West that has been hostile to American interests since 1959 was given full recognition in a flash. Not good for business.