4 ms·

> Interesting implications for the case of Cuba. If so, their primary crime is being a country in close proximity to the USA. So much for arguments of respectin

> Interesting implications for the case of Cuba. If so, their primary crime is being a country in close proximity to the USA. So much for arguments of respecting national autonomy. I believe their primary crime is being a country in close proximity to the USA, that is unfriendly to US interests, and at least once offered the USSR, a then enemy of the US, to host nuclear ICBMs on their territory so they could more easily target Americans. It’s not like the US randomly and unilaterally decided to sanction Cuba, nor is it like thousands of Cubans fled the country by any means possible to end up seeking asylum in the US for no reason.

vkou 5y ago
> to host nuclear ICBMs on their territory so they could more easily target Americans. ... After the United States invaded it! It's weird that you forget to mention the Bay of Pigs in this history lesson. It's not like Cuba randomly and unilaterally decided to host ICBMs...
- tptacek 5y ago
  Doesn't matter. Like Clint Eastwood said, "deserve's got nothing to with it".
  - vkou 5y ago
    And here I thought that since march of this year, we're of the general impression that countries have the right to defend themselves, and to seek external allies when bullied by a bigger neighbour...
    - tptacek 5y ago
      We didn't invade after the Cuban Missile Crisis; in fact, Cuba remained closely aligned with the USSR until the end of the USSR. If Russia merely sanctioned Ukraine, nobody would be discussing this. Your rebuttal is facile.
      - vkou 5y ago
        The invasion is one of the things that caused the CMC. Leaving that (as well as the CIA campaign of sabotage and terrorism against Cuba) out of the context is incredibly misleading. If the US simply sat around on its hands and sanctioned Cuba, and left things at that, nobody would be discussing this. It went way, way, way beyond sanctions.
        tptacek 5y ago
        What point are you trying to make? The invasion of Cuba was idiotic, I agree. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy afterwards, which is not subject to rules about fairness.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >which is not subject to rules about fairness. I think this is the point everyone agrees on. You are right that "deserve's got nothing to with it" IT is just obnoxious when most of rhetoric and discussion is about fairness, equality, and high minded ideals when directed outside the US. Might makes right. Given that, coherent discussion on how and when to use that power is best served by dropping the rhetoric. Once you accept the US can embargo Cuba to keep it impoverished for personal gain, Then, you can ask if the US should continue doing so.
        tptacek 5y ago
        We should not continue the Cuba embargo. It serves no public policy purpose. We should continue and enhance sanctions on North Korea, which actively works to destabilize the rest of the world, unlike Cuba. Iran is a trickier case, but on balance the world would be better off with more normalized relations with Iran, and its trajectory forward after normalization would very likely be better than it is with sanctions. The opposite is true of North Korea. You can disagree with any or all of this, but the underlying point is: we are within our rights to coordinate sanctions on any country for a diversity of reasons.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
It sounds like we basically agree. I just find it a timely discussion with respect to Ukraine and the fact that the US positions nuclear assets all over the world.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Since whataboutism is so hugely popular in threads involving Russia, let's talk about the nuclear SRBM dispenser formerly known as Kaliningrad Oblast located between Poland and Lithuania (that's in Central Europe). Kinda makes those American gravity nukes stationed in West Germany look old-fashioned.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    The whataboutism is strong because the hypocrisy and double think is so pervasive. Many people believe in moral exceptionalism when it comes to USA foreign policy when the vast majority of the time it boils down to the same self-interested realpolitik as other countries.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      TO AYBABTME: >It's not hypocritical to want "your" side to win, and it's not from a lack of moral standing when you're motivating this taking-sides with "well, I like and wish democracies on people more than I like and wish brutal dictatorships on people". Yes, it's a "our side is better than theirs" but I think hard and yes, our "side" is indeed better than NK's, Russia's, Iran's, Cuba's. I could contort myself in saying that our side is only better insofar as it makes me ~believe that it's better, behind a veil of fake democracy. But then that's be contortionism, and not a down to earth, pragmatic look at it. >All sides in this stuff will play realpolitik and use their armies and kill and what not. But at the end of the day, where do you want to live? In which of these regimes is life preferable? I agree that this is the correct framework to think about things, discarding the chaff of what is fair, good guys, and bad guys. However, I don't think that where I would want to live translates to my country can do no wrong. For example, I would rather live in the US than Cuba, but I don't think that warrants an invasion and regime change in Cuba. I also don't think it warrants sanctions on Cuba. I think life in the US is better than most countries, but I have a moral and logical framework that usually opposes foreign intervention and coercion. That is to say, I don't think the US has an moral obligation to be the world police and initiate regime change around the globe
arghnoname 5y ago
> I believe their primary crime is being a country in close proximity to the USA, that is unfriendly to US interests, and at least once offered the USSR, a then enemy of the US, to host nuclear ICBMs on their territory so they could more easily target Americans. You do understand that if this is the bar under which nations can take drastic actions (up to and including fiascos like Bay of Pigs and assassination attempts), US criticism of the adventurism of others (e.g., Ukraine) has to be much more measured. For instance, it is fine to violate the sovereignty of nations, just maybe in a more limited way, etc. How many countries on earth, do you think, had hostile foreign arms on their soil (e.g., the US) within the past 60 years that their neighbors might find threatening?
- mywittyname 5y ago
  > How many countries on earth, do you think, had hostile foreign arms on their soil (e.g., the US) within the past 60 years that their neighbors might find threatening? A lot. And the threaten countries all abso-fucking-lutely want to do something about it.

vkou 5y ago

> to host nuclear ICBMs on their territory so they could more easily target Americans. ... After the United States invaded it! It's weird that you forget to mention the Bay of Pigs in this history lesson. It's not like Cuba randomly and unilaterally decided to host ICBMs...

tptacek 5y ago
Doesn't matter. Like Clint Eastwood said, "deserve's got nothing to with it".
- vkou 5y ago
  And here I thought that since march of this year, we're of the general impression that countries have the right to defend themselves, and to seek external allies when bullied by a bigger neighbour...
  - tptacek 5y ago
    We didn't invade after the Cuban Missile Crisis; in fact, Cuba remained closely aligned with the USSR until the end of the USSR. If Russia merely sanctioned Ukraine, nobody would be discussing this. Your rebuttal is facile.
    - vkou 5y ago
      The invasion is one of the things that caused the CMC. Leaving that (as well as the CIA campaign of sabotage and terrorism against Cuba) out of the context is incredibly misleading. If the US simply sat around on its hands and sanctioned Cuba, and left things at that, nobody would be discussing this. It went way, way, way beyond sanctions.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        What point are you trying to make? The invasion of Cuba was idiotic, I agree. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy afterwards, which is not subject to rules about fairness.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >which is not subject to rules about fairness. I think this is the point everyone agrees on. You are right that "deserve's got nothing to with it" IT is just obnoxious when most of rhetoric and discussion is about fairness, equality, and high minded ideals when directed outside the US. Might makes right. Given that, coherent discussion on how and when to use that power is best served by dropping the rhetoric. Once you accept the US can embargo Cuba to keep it impoverished for personal gain, Then, you can ask if the US should continue doing so.
        tptacek 5y ago
        We should not continue the Cuba embargo. It serves no public policy purpose. We should continue and enhance sanctions on North Korea, which actively works to destabilize the rest of the world, unlike Cuba. Iran is a trickier case, but on balance the world would be better off with more normalized relations with Iran, and its trajectory forward after normalization would very likely be better than it is with sanctions. The opposite is true of North Korea. You can disagree with any or all of this, but the underlying point is: we are within our rights to coordinate sanctions on any country for a diversity of reasons.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

It sounds like we basically agree. I just find it a timely discussion with respect to Ukraine and the fact that the US positions nuclear assets all over the world.

formerly_proven 5y ago
Since whataboutism is so hugely popular in threads involving Russia, let's talk about the nuclear SRBM dispenser formerly known as Kaliningrad Oblast located between Poland and Lithuania (that's in Central Europe). Kinda makes those American gravity nukes stationed in West Germany look old-fashioned.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  The whataboutism is strong because the hypocrisy and double think is so pervasive. Many people believe in moral exceptionalism when it comes to USA foreign policy when the vast majority of the time it boils down to the same self-interested realpolitik as other countries.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    TO AYBABTME: >It's not hypocritical to want "your" side to win, and it's not from a lack of moral standing when you're motivating this taking-sides with "well, I like and wish democracies on people more than I like and wish brutal dictatorships on people". Yes, it's a "our side is better than theirs" but I think hard and yes, our "side" is indeed better than NK's, Russia's, Iran's, Cuba's. I could contort myself in saying that our side is only better insofar as it makes me ~believe that it's better, behind a veil of fake democracy. But then that's be contortionism, and not a down to earth, pragmatic look at it. >All sides in this stuff will play realpolitik and use their armies and kill and what not. But at the end of the day, where do you want to live? In which of these regimes is life preferable? I agree that this is the correct framework to think about things, discarding the chaff of what is fair, good guys, and bad guys. However, I don't think that where I would want to live translates to my country can do no wrong. For example, I would rather live in the US than Cuba, but I don't think that warrants an invasion and regime change in Cuba. I also don't think it warrants sanctions on Cuba. I think life in the US is better than most countries, but I have a moral and logical framework that usually opposes foreign intervention and coercion. That is to say, I don't think the US has an moral obligation to be the world police and initiate regime change around the globe

arghnoname 5y ago

> I believe their primary crime is being a country in close proximity to the USA, that is unfriendly to US interests, and at least once offered the USSR, a then enemy of the US, to host nuclear ICBMs on their territory so they could more easily target Americans. You do understand that if this is the bar under which nations can take drastic actions (up to and including fiascos like Bay of Pigs and assassination attempts), US criticism of the adventurism of others (e.g., Ukraine) has to be much more measured. For instance, it is fine to violate the sovereignty of nations, just maybe in a more limited way, etc. How many countries on earth, do you think, had hostile foreign arms on their soil (e.g., the US) within the past 60 years that their neighbors might find threatening?

mywittyname 5y ago
> How many countries on earth, do you think, had hostile foreign arms on their soil (e.g., the US) within the past 60 years that their neighbors might find threatening? A lot. And the threaten countries all abso-fucking-lutely want to do something about it.