15 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 37.5 ms ] thread
[flagged]
I hope they continue terrorizing the communist regime that tortures dissidents.
The person who wrote this never asked a Cuban immigrant how they felt about the government in Cuba. Many will tell you a story about how their family desperately escaped on a row boat, are lucky to be alive and blame Castro.

The bottom line is that many Cuban immigrants in the United States feel that the current government destroyed the country and should be removed and Marco Rubio’s quest to fix Cuba is a reflection of Cuban immigrants values.

>Marco Rubio’s quest to fix Cuba is a reflection of Cuban immigrants values.

How do you know that's his motivation?

There are countless countries around the world that need to be fixed

(comment deleted)
You could make this a headline about anything and it would be true

The U.S. Is (insert anything) to Make Rich Men Richer

Maybe. But also, if the regime falls, you know who will become richer and more healthy? ALL CUBANS!

If bad people do the right thing for the wrong reasons, we should be thankful, not angry.

Oh yes. We've seen so many US invasions for the purpose of regime change end up with prosperity for the citizens of those countries.
South Korea, Japan, Germany, France, Belgium, Afghanistan (although Biden fucked up and pulled out), and Iraq. That's a pretty impressive list.
Free markets harm children and people of Cuba, but communism doesn't, I'm sick of these leftists.
Trump's problem is that he sees the US and the world only through the lens of maximizing profits for his cronies. In the face of global warming and climate change, this is extremely harmful to the country and the world. His attitude is always win-lose, never win-win.
On a recent podcast episode Ezra Klein mentioned something like "when making agreements one should be able to accept the deal of either side" which is something that's stuck with me and is basically an elegant way of describing a win-win situation.
Odd to see no mention of the US government's rationale for intervening over their continuing to leave a vaguely weak enemy alone as past administrations have: the US believes that inhibiting Chinese covert activity (real or imagined) has risen in necessity to now outbid the cost of invasion.

This could have only come to pass because the administration has faith in the pessimistic forecasts for peace between Beijing and Washington. If so few private sector forecasters thought Tariffs and Hormuz were important black swans to consider, how can we give the forecasts of no US-China conflict as much credence as we do?

Idk if Hn is the place for my making such remarks, however, as the commentariat has gotten much less confident in the value of sober political analysis than before.