First Iran, now Cuba: Breakthroughs and hard sells for Obama

With no enemies who can we fight? Beware the military industrial complex!!

Total respect for Obama. Peace is more important than war. I'm already voting for Hillary Clinton.

I know if Republicans take over there will be war and bloodshed.

it is more macabre than you would imagine. North Korea is next. Have not figured it out yet? Tamil Tigers of Eelam ended their war, Myammar is close to democracy, the PKK in Turkey resigned to their armed struggle. It is to put into people's mind the illusion of World peace, accomplished by humans, which will never happen. Then sudden death and destruction will come unto them...... Just google the rest. Key words: Peace, sudden death and destruction.

Its good to see Dr. Frankenstein finally coming to terms with the monsters he made. Some will, out of ignorance real or feigned, deny that America had any part in making Iran and Cuba as they are. But no, America helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran so as to install the brutal Shah for better oil deals, and supported the dictator Batista in Cuba. And both were overthrown by people just as bad with the support of the local people because that is what generally happens when you have to take your country back by force. Nice guys tend to lose that game.

This could get interesting, with two Cuban-Americans (okay, one Cuban-American and one Cuban-Canadian-American) running for the GOP presidential nomination. Immigrants who have fled communism naturally tend to be virulently anti-communist (see the Vietnamese in Orange County, CA), and the GOP in Florida has traditionally played on that. This will completely change the game.

Waiting for June to see what the final Iran deal looks like, if it is indeed reached. The world could look quite different by 2016 - thanks to Obama.

But no, America helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran so as to install the brutal Shah for better oil deals, and supported the dictator Batista in Cuba

Do you have anything more topical to offer than just ancient history? No doubt, both the countries were victims of U.S. meddling. But what does that have anything at all to do with Obama opening ties with them?

Do you have anything more topical to offer than just ancient history?

Its pretty flippant to call it ancient history. You will note that the two men who overthrew the American puppet in Cuba still rule Cuba. The Shah was thrown out a mere 35 years ago and Iran became a wingnut theocracy. In the history of countries and time between revolutions and regime changes, 35 years is like a walk to the kitchen.

But what does that have anything at all to do with Obama opening ties with them?

The success or failure and the state of future ties will surely rest at least in part with how America and if America admits the past. See Sino-Japanese and Korean-Japanese relations.

I am sorry if you find certain truths embarrassing. But I am sure that you had absolutely nothing to do with any of it, so no need to take it so hard.

US also helped Saddam Hussein, and some people believe the US should had kept him.

About time America comes in from the cold and joins the community of nations. Properly.

Cuba has its own past to answer to - Cuba used to support the FARC terrorist activities in Colombia, but they're now hosting the peace negotiations.

With no enemies who can we fight? Beware the military industrial complex!!

Believe me, there will always be people to fight. Remember, Afghanistan was Barack's war.

Total respect for Obama. Peace is more important than war. I'm already voting for Hillary Clinton.

Yes, it is, but what are Hilary's accomplishments???

I know if Republicans take over there will be war and bloodshed.

I don't recall Truman and Clinton being Republicans.

About time America comes in from the cold and joins the community of nations. Properly.

To put it more accurately, how about the world wake up and pull its head from its rear and face the reality of geopolitical politics and how messed up it is.

To put it most accurately, So we can afford no retreads or nothing will change with the same people.

And same policies that got us into the status quo. Another Latin word. Status quo. And it stands for, ‘Man, the middle-class, everyday Americans are really gettin’ taken for a ride.’

Remember, Afghanistan was Barack's war.

Whatever do you mean?

Whatever do you mean?

He's trying to whitewash history.

And same policies that got us into the status quo. Another Latin word. Status quo. And it stands for, ‘Man, the middle-class, everyday Americans are really gettin’ taken for a ride.’

Then, my God, why on Earth would even want to think about voting for Hilary.

He's trying to whitewash history.

Sorry, I leave that for liberals to do.

Sorry, I leave that for liberals to do.

And yet in trying to claim that Afghanistan is Obama's war, you are doing exactly that.

And yet in trying to claim that Afghanistan is Obama's war, you are doing exactly that.

Claim?? So now that's what libs are calling it now? Once again, giving Obama a pass? Ok, for libs sake, let's just conjure up things to make them feel good. Interesting, the liberal thought process.

Your confusion is weird. How you can call a war that was not started by Obama, that was dropped into his lap to deal with, as being his war, is beyond anyone who has any bit of logic left in their life, particularly since Obama has tried to set in plans actions to end the war.

It's Bush's war, always has been, always will be.

Your confusion is weird. How you can call a war that was not started by Obama, that was dropped into his lap to deal with, as being his war,

No, it's called reality. Because he took over or are you insinuating that if a Republican president takes over and the economy improves he can thank Obama for that? So if it is something positive we can credit the previous president, but if it's negative, we have to blame the president? If a Republican president is too old, he shouldn't run, but if an older Democratic canditdate runs, it's ok, the hyprocrisy is so deep within liberals it's beyond nauseating?

is beyond anyone who has any bit of logic left in their life, particularly since Obama has tried to set in plans actions to end the war.

Well, he definetly failed miserably in that department.

It's Bush's war, always has been, always will be.

And Obama took the reigns when he took office and now it's his war and if Hilary becomes president if the war still continues, it'll be hers, that's reality, I'm afraid.

No, it's called reality. Because he took over or are you insinuating that if a Republican president takes over and the economy improves he can thank Obama for that?

No. Wars and the economy are entirely different things. An economy is there, will always be there, and every president inherits the economy from his predecessor. Wars are started by some presidents, and occasionally inherited by their successors. They aren't comparable at all.

Well, he definetly failed miserably in that department.

Because the Republicans have opposed the ending of the war every time it is brought up.

And Obama took the reigns when he took office and now it's his war and if Hilary becomes president if the war still continues, it'll be hers, that's reality, I'm afraid.

Nope. It will still be Bush's war.

No. Wars and the economy are entirely different things. An economy is there, will always be there, and every president inherits the economy from his predecessor.

As with wars if the next president continues the war, he inherits the war, that's a fact whether you want to accept it or not, if it didn't, then any peace negotiations that would follow would be made by the current president or do you think we pull the previous president out of retirement to finish the peace negotiations since the conflict was started on his watch? Try again. It's his war, he owns it and everything else that goes along with it.

Wars are started by some presidents, and occasionally inherited by their successors. They aren't comparable at all.

Yes, when it involves changing of the guard.

Because the Republicans have opposed the ending of the war every time it is brought up.

So that they can be blamed by their constituents, the people that helped put them in office becuase they oppose the president and his radical ideas, if they did that, they would be as bad as the late Alan Spector.

Nope. It will still be Bush's war.

Which now is officially Obama's and whoever takes over after that. Another reason why Obama is so desperate to build up early on his legacy regardless of the possible negative ramifications.

Another reason why Obama is so desperate to build up early on his legacy

Wow, you're finally acknowledging that he cares about his country! I didn't think I'd see the day.

Wow, you're finally acknowledging that he cares about his country! I didn't think I'd see the day.

I'm fully acknowledging that Obama without a doubt cares only about himself.

Oh, so now you're going back on your comments about him caring about his legacy.

Personal legacy for historical purposes is completely different from caring about the country. Which so far, he's been more than direct in his demeanor and lack of concern overall for the country and our allies, but then again, with the amount of time he has left, why should he care?

Bass,

There are many times when I read your posts when, even if I may disagree, I say, 'Okay, I can understand why he might feel that way.' However, this is not one of those times. Clearly the war in Afghanistan is and was President Bush's war. He started it, he supported it and, let's face facts here, it has been a mess since day one. It is not 'Obama's war'. However, Obama is now responsible for what happens involving the US there. You certainly cannot state that things are worse there than they were with Bush. They were horrible then and they are horrible now. It is not Obama's fault that he inherited a war he did not start.

Then, my God, why on Earth would even want to think about voting for Hilary.

Hill = earth ary --> calvary --> God.

My God! Hillary is God on Earth!!!!

Personal legacy for historical purposes is completely different from caring about the country. Which so far, he's been more than direct in his demeanor and lack of concern overall for the country and our allies, but then again, with the amount of time he has left, why should he care?

So now you're flip-flopping again, and you are saying he cares about his legacy.

So now you're flip-flopping again, and you are saying he cares about his legacy.

No, I have been consistent, you just are irritated about hearing the facts.

There are many times when I read your posts when, even if I may disagree, I say, 'Okay, I can understand why he might feel that way.' However, this is not one of those times. Clearly the war in Afghanistan is and was President Bush's war. He started it, he supported it and, let's face facts here, it has been a mess since day one.

So far on most points I think you are right and it is a mess, however and this has nothing to do with any personal feelings towards Obama, but rather the changing of the guard.

It is not 'Obama's war'.

See, This is what I have a fundamental problem with. This IS definitely his war. He did NOT start, nor was it his idea, I get it, but he when he campaigned against the war in Iraq, he said that the military should concentrate more of their efforts to hunt for OBL in Afghanistan, that's where Bush should have concentrated all of his efforts there and NOT Iraq, once he got elected he concentrated and sent more troops to Afghanistan, he essentially inherited the war, became the commander in chief and dictated the forces actions and time frame, so it was his war and I don't know why so many libs have a problem with that, if that were a Republican president, you bet they would make sure that president would own it and rightfully so.

However, Obama is now responsible for what happens involving the US there. You certainly cannot state that things are worse there than they were with Bush.

Sadly, I do and that is because when Bush did recommend and advised Obama on what he should do, he didn't listen, when Bush said before leaving office in 2007. When Obama's generals tried to warn and tell Obama, the NSA and the CIA, Obama listened to NONE of them as they were getting information that ISIS was growing and flourishing, Obama didn't establish a SOFA with Iraq and when he told Syria that there is a red line to cross and then once it was crossed and didn't follow through on some sort of action, slowly and surely the region was falling apart, so much so that we didn't even know who we are supporting. The sectarian violence, the unwillingness to help our allies and to help our enemies rather and ignoring the recommendations of his senior military staff did contribute greatly to the rise of ISIS and Iran and their proxies

They were horrible then and they are horrible now. It is not Obama's fault that he inherited a war he did not start.

Slum, again, I never said, Obama STARTED the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

bass:

The last part of your response to slumdog's comments about Afghanistan and Obama makes no sense. You think Afghanistan is worse now because Obama didn't listen to his security advisors on Iraq and ISIS?