Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:23 pm Post subject: Summit of the Americas
Any discussion? The new Free-Trade Agreement with Colombia? Whether Cuba should be invited next year, or do we need to continue with the Cold War attitude?
Should our president's Secret Service have been more discreet about the prostitutes? At least pay their bill, and not get into unnecessary brawls?
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 Age: 23 Posts: 4839 Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:53 pm Post subject:
If they don't allow Cuba then everyone (except Canada and the US) is just going to switch to using the Latin American and Caribbean Block instead of the OAS (where those 2 are excluded anyway), so what is there to talk about? _________________ Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html
If they don't allow Cuba then everyone (except Canada and the US) is just going to switch to using the Latin American and Caribbean Block instead of the OAS (where those 2 are excluded anyway), so what is there to talk about?
Canada has nothing against Cuba. _________________ A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 Age: 23 Posts: 4839 Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:00 pm Post subject:
"The United States and Canada were alone in opposing Cuban participation, and they also refused to endorse in a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the British-held Falkland Islands." _________________ Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html
"The United States and Canada were alone in opposing Cuban participation, and they also refused to endorse in a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the British-held Falkland Islands."
Ten bucks says U.S. pressure. Canada, unlike the states, is not stick in the 50's and doesn't ban travel and import/export from Cuba. The Cuban cigars I enjoy can attest to that. _________________ A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 Age: 23 Posts: 4839 Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:07 pm Post subject:
I'm sure it was US pressure, but the fact was they still backed Washington.
(I have nothing against Canada, compared to most western powers, I actually like them. This is purely facts, not personal.) _________________ Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html
Last edited by Kjas on Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Jun 20, 2008 Age: 24 Posts: 12091 Location: La belle province
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:07 pm Post subject:
Kjas wrote:
"The United States and Canada were alone in opposing Cuban participation, and they also refused to endorse in a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the British-held Falkland Islands."
Not surprised about that. A lot of Canadians visit Cuba but our government still follows the American example in some regards. I completely agree with the refusal to endorse Argentina's claim however. _________________ Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
It would be dumb for Canada to support Cuba. Countries that have actual limits with the clown countries (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua) have good will to win by supporting Cuba. But Canada is so far up there that there really is nothing to win from that move, but a ton to lose. US is not only the most powerful of the Summit , but also the one that has actual limits with Canada. _________________ .
I don't really get Argentina's claim to the Falklands. It's population wants to remain British and it has never been in Argentinian possession any amount of, certainly not as long as it has been in British hands. Is there something important on the Falklands that I don't know about or is just the a distraction for the Argentinian government because of their pathetic government that has taken their country from one of the richest in the world in the early 20th century to sad bankrupt shell.
Last edited by Jacoby on Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:57 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 Age: 23 Posts: 4839 Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:20 am Post subject:
I'm sure it was a good move for Canada on political and economical terms, not debating that point one iota.
Doesn't change the fact that now the majority will use CELAC instead of the OAS.
When given a choice between both the US and Canada allowing someone to attend (however much they disagree with them) VS. the other countries boycotting the OAS in future and using the CELAC which the US and Canada are not members of, you would think they would concede the point and just let them attend rather than risk having no say by everyone moving to CELAC. _________________ Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html
It would be dumb for Canada to support Cuba. Countries that have actual limits with the clown countries (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua) have good will to win by supporting Cuba. But Canada is so far up there that there really is nothing to win from that move, but a ton to lose. US is not only the most powerful of the Summit , but also the one that has actual limits with Canada.
True, although that doesn't make the position to exclude Cuba any more logical when taken apart from such politics. In my mind you put yourself in a far stronger position to press for human rights when you are on speaking terms with a country. And allowing trade would do a lot to improve the quality of life for Cubans.
As for free trade with Columbia--I oppose free trade in general. These agreements tend to include clauses that undermine a country's sovereignty when it comes to such things as environmental laws and nationalisation. In addition, I think that free trade with developing countries tends to lead to exploitation.
I really don't see where Argentina has any legitimate claim to the Falkland Islands--probably just some Anglo-bashing to raise patriotic spirits. You don't see Mexico complaining about having lost California and Texas.
Some Guatemalans also think that Belize should belong to Guatemala--also to stir jingoistic sentiments within the country, and focus attention away from internal problems.
Regarding Cuba: our poor president is hamstrung to do much of anything until after the election. Florida's electoral votes are going to be crucial.
Joined: Mar 24, 2012 Posts: 945 Location: California, USA
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:31 am Post subject: Re: Summit of the Americas
ArrantPariah wrote:
Any discussion? The new Free-Trade Agreement with Colombia? Whether Cuba should be invited next year, or do we need to continue with the Cold War attitude?
Should our president's Secret Service have been more discreet about the prostitutes? At least pay their bill, and not get into unnecessary brawls?
Yes, free trade is good. Cuba should. No cold war attitude. Yes they should have been more discreet. But I don't see the big deal with prostitutes. They should be legal here.
Interestingly, hiring a prostitute (and related adultery issues) was never specifically outlawed in the military until 2006, when the Bush administration made changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Today, it's banned even if prostitution is legal in the country. Military personnel who patronize prostitutes can receive up to a year in jail, get a dishonorable discharge, and lose all pay and allowances.
Previously, the outskirts of military bases were very much like this
