beckyromero · 36-40, F
During the bipolar Cold War era, the U.S. — mistakenly, in my view — refrained from strangling the revolution in its cradle out of fear of direct confrontation with the Soviet Union.
Another one of Eisenhower's failures.
Amazing how we are still living with the incompetent way of how he dealt with Cuba, Iran and North Korea.
As far as for invading Cuba, I'd trust Trump to get that right about as much as I'd trust him to take out the garbage. Oh, sure. Our military would perform admirably. But he'd f*ck a post-war Cuba even worse that Paul Bremer f*cked up post-war Iraq.
Let's address the humanitarian crisis before our shores are hit with boats full of refugees (unless Trump has Hegseth use them as target practice). No strings attached. Just so long as the Cuban people know where the help is coming from.
We should strongly consider lifting the trade embargo with modest requirements. We trade with communist Vietnam (not to mention communist China). The embargo is a Cold War relic.
But invasion? No. Russia and China aren't supplying Cuba with missiles. If it was the right decision NOT to invade the island in 1962, then it is even more the correct decision for that same policy today.
View 4 more replies »
CedricH · 22-25, M
@beckyromero I disagree. The US President has the constitutional prerogative to use military force without prior Congressional approval and without a formal declaration of war.
A prosperous, democratic and US aligned Cuba is within reach and not just a morally but also a strategically desirable outcome.
Any operation to topple the brittle Castro system would presumably not exceed the duration of Obama‘s intervention in Libya without an explicit Congressional authorization . If Congress decided to cut off the appropriations to ongoing US military operations in the Caribbean, they could. But they won’t which is an implicit form of acquiescence to any given military operation.
A prosperous, democratic and US aligned Cuba is within reach and not just a morally but also a strategically desirable outcome.
Any operation to topple the brittle Castro system would presumably not exceed the duration of Obama‘s intervention in Libya without an explicit Congressional authorization . If Congress decided to cut off the appropriations to ongoing US military operations in the Caribbean, they could. But they won’t which is an implicit form of acquiescence to any given military operation.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@CedricH
Just because Congress had in the past ignored its Constitutional duty does not make what a president does legal.
The Constitution is clear on the power to declare war: only Congress has that power. An invasion of a country should require Congressional approval.
The War Powers Act of 1973 limits military action ordered by the president in undeclared conflicts.
Both Bush 41 and Bush 43 sought Congressional approval for the use of military force under then existing UN Resolutions.
Obama‘s intervention in Libya without an explicit Congressional authorization . If Congress decided to cut off the appropriations to ongoing US military operations in the Caribbean, they could. But they won’t which is an implicit form of acquiescence to any given military operation.
Just because Congress had in the past ignored its Constitutional duty does not make what a president does legal.
The Constitution is clear on the power to declare war: only Congress has that power. An invasion of a country should require Congressional approval.
The War Powers Act of 1973 limits military action ordered by the president in undeclared conflicts.
Both Bush 41 and Bush 43 sought Congressional approval for the use of military force under then existing UN Resolutions.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@beckyromero Bush 41 and 43 did but they didn’t have to.
As a political matter, I would strongly suggest that any President request Congressional authorization if he were planning to launch a prolonged ground invasion and occupation of a foreign country. Limited and expeditious over the horizon interventions, however, shouldn‘t automatically require the same degree of Congressional buy-in to legitimize the Presidential decision.
An invasion of a country should require Congressional approval.
That’s a defensible normative position but it’s not a legal fact. The War Powers Act of 1973 is in some respects likely unconstitutional. The Roberts Court would have no qualms about striking the law down if need be. At any rate, it theoretically empowers the President to wage an undeclared war for 90 days.As a political matter, I would strongly suggest that any President request Congressional authorization if he were planning to launch a prolonged ground invasion and occupation of a foreign country. Limited and expeditious over the horizon interventions, however, shouldn‘t automatically require the same degree of Congressional buy-in to legitimize the Presidential decision.
A U.S. invasion of Cuba would kill thousands of civilians. And U.S. forces could occupy Havana. Then the guerrilla war would start. Then American soldiers would start coming home in body bags. Guerrilla wars are a tactic of gradually wearing down the enemy. Until the cost gets too great in lives and money to sustain.
And the U.S. would earn the undying hate of every country in the region.
And the U.S. would earn the undying hate of every country in the region.
Khenpal1 · M
lets say so , who will pay for their oil in future ?
jackjjackson · M
CedricH · 22-25, M
@jackjjackson Right, the regime still needs the coup de grâce though.
jackjjackson · M
One of the few remaining will knock HumptyDumpty down. @CedricH