Cheney the war criminal

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Watch the video.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Re...ey_as_0130.html

Pretty kewl, huh?

[AURaptor 1,126]

No need to watch that nonsense.

[AFTiger 282]

Watch the video.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Re...ey_as_0130.html

Pretty kewl, huh?

Moonbattery at its finest.

[otterinbham 0]

Hey, Imus isn't exactly a attack dog for the Democrats. Remember that this is the guy who trashed Clinton to his face at a fundraiser. The guy has major league cajones, and he calls it the way he sees it. Conservative Republican that I am, I happen to agree with him.

Again, the war was ill-considered, and badly-planned. There was no coherent strategy for what would happen after Baghdad fell, even though an insurgency was predicted in wargame after wargame. The joint chiefs, Shinseki most prominently, were outspoken on the complete lack of reality to the planning, especially in troop levels. So now we have a first-class mess on our hands without any possible exit strategy.

Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were the architects of debacle. They deserve all the contempt we can heap on them, and more.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were the architects of debacle. They deserve all the contempt we can heap on them, and more.

No. they don't. I'll reserve contempt and scorn for the Durbins, Murtha's Kennedy's and Kerry's in the crowd. Wolfowitz never was in the Cabinet, so I don't know why you're attacking him. He's been out of Gov't for the past 2 yrs, as President of the World Bank.

The Wall Street Journal commented:

"Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power. He saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions. It is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. If anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein."

[otterinbham 0]

Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were the architects of debacle. They deserve all the contempt we can heap on them, and more.

No. they don't. I'll reserve contempt and scorn for the Durbins, Murtha's Kennedy's and Kerry's in the crowd. Wolfowitz never was in the Cabinet, so I don't know why you're attacking him. He's been out of Gov't for the past 2 yrs, as President of the World Bank.

The Wall Street Journal commented:

"Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power. He saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions. It is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. If anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein."

Do your homework, please. Wolfowitz was the philosophical architect of the Iraqi invasion, laying the groundwork in the 1990s for a much more interventionist United States that did not just anticipate geopolitical challenges, but aggressively suppressed them. This is more than a matter of nuance. It changed the American posture in the world. Tactically, it conferred some short-term advantage, but strategically it has been a disastrous--changing our country from disinterested promoter of democracy to what could easily be perceived as Empire Builder. Key aspects of the Wolfowitz Doctrine are as follows. If you read between the lines, you realize that this policy discarded the consistent foreign policy of the United States from 1946 to 1992 in favor of a much more activist role in world affairs:

Superpower Status

The doctrine announces the U.S’s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."

This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

"Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source... The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies."

[edit]U.S. Primacy

The doctrine establishes the U.S’s leadership role within the new world order.

"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

"One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result."

[edit]Unilateralism

The doctrine downplays the value of international coalitions.

"Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor."

This was re-written with a change in emphasis in the April 16 release.

"Certain situations like the crisis leading to the Gulf War are likely to engender ad hoc coalitions. We should plan to maximize the value of such coalitions. This may include specialized roles for our forces as well as developing cooperative practices with others."

[edit]Pre-emptive Intervention

The doctrine stated the U.S’s right to intervene when and where it believed necessary.

While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.

This was softened slighlty in the April 16 release.

"While the United States cannot become the world's policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own. Where our allies interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests."

[edit]Russian Threat

The doctrine highlighted the possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia.

"We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."

This was removed from the April 16 release in favour of a more diplomatic approach.

"The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union."

[edit]Oil

The doctrine clarified the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

The April 16 release was much more circumspect and reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel.

"In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel."

[Bottomfeeder 244]

And now they are about to attack Iran after the second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region. So much for finishing the job they started before moving on to other things. All they know is war, that's it. The GOP has become the war party. Sad day for true conservatives.

But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region – and for a propaganda blitz to stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.

One well-informed U.S. military source called me in a fury after consulting with Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the war preparations are. He said the plans call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran, including use of powerful bunker-busting ordnance.

Another source with a pipeline into Israeli thinking said the Iran war plan has expanded over the past several weeks. Earlier thinking had been that Israeli warplanes would hit Iranian nuclear targets with U.S. forces in reserve in case of Iranian retaliation, but now the strategy anticipates a major U.S. military follow-up to an Israeli attack, the source said.

Both sources used the same word “crazy” in describing the plan to expand the war to Iran. The two sources, like others I have interviewed, said that attacking Iran could touch off a regional – and possibly global – conflagration.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/013107.html

As if we didn't already know Iran was always the target.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Do your homework, please. Wolfowitz was the philosophical architect of the Iraqi invasion, laying the groundwork in the 1990s for a much more interventionist United States that did not just anticipate geopolitical challenges, but aggressively suppressed them. This is more than a matter of nuance. It changed the American posture in the world. Tactically, it conferred some short-term advantage, but strategically it has been a disastrous--changing our country from disinterested promoter of democracy to what could easily be perceived as Empire Builder. Key aspects of the Wolfowitz Doctrine are as follows. If you read between the lines, you realize that this policy discarded the consistent foreign policy of the United States from 1946 to 1992 in favor of a much more activist role in world affairs:

Now you're sounding like a conspiracy nutcase. There's always someone who is working on ways that can better this world. If YOU did your homework, you'd understand that going back to our Founders, it was a basic philosophical view that to rid the world of tyrannical rulers and dictators and freeing the people from oppression is a basic goal for this country.

But aside from all that, did Wolfowitz help the Clinton administration in passing the law which made it official US policy to force regime change in Iraq ? How about you helping me out on that detail.

[AURaptor 1,126]

And now they are about to attack Iraq after the second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region. So much for finishing the job they started before moving on to other things.

Uhh...we ARE attacking the insurgencies in Iraq. What are you even babbling about ?

[otterinbham 0]

Do your homework, please. Wolfowitz was the philosophical architect of the Iraqi invasion, laying the groundwork in the 1990s for a much more interventionist United States that did not just anticipate geopolitical challenges, but aggressively suppressed them. This is more than a matter of nuance. It changed the American posture in the world. Tactically, it conferred some short-term advantage, but strategically it has been a disastrous--changing our country from disinterested promoter of democracy to what could easily be perceived as Empire Builder. Key aspects of the Wolfowitz Doctrine are as follows. If you read between the lines, you realize that this policy discarded the consistent foreign policy of the United States from 1946 to 1992 in favor of a much more activist role in world affairs:

Now you're sounding like a conspiracy nutcase. There's always someone who is working on ways that can better this world. If YOU did your homework, you'd understand that going back to our Founders, it was a basic philosophical view that to rid the world of tyrannical rulers and dictators and freeing the people from oppression is a basic goal for this country.

But aside from all that, did Wolfowitz help the Clinton administration in passing the law which made it official US policy to force regime change in Iraq ? How about you helping me out on that detail.

Nutcase? Please. I'm sorry that everybody who disagrees with you is a nutcase. You must have a lonely little world. LOL

Sure, the Clinton made regime change US Policy. We also have made regime change stated US Policy in Cuba, Eastern Europe, etc. etc., over the decades. That doesn't mean we shot our way into Havana or Prague, did it? The cornerstone of US Policy from Truman on was that of incremental pressure in a variety of areas, with military intervention only when United States vital interests were threatened--a doctrine successfully applied in Korea, and poorly executed in Vietnam. Otherwise, we were content with containment as strategy, taking the long-term view that eventually our opponents would collapse in the face of our superior economic and moral posture. It worked against the Soviets, it forced the Chinese to abandon Maoism, and it frustrated Castro. I suppose you can make the case that the Wolfowitz Doctrine worked in bringing the Serbians to heel, but our actions in the Balkans in the 90s are a far cry from invading a sovereign country, however despicable, simply because we don't like them.

As far as freeing people from tyranny goes, that's indeed the long-term strategic goal of this country. We succeeded very well at this before the Wolfowitz Doctrine came along. However, this shift in strategy will cause nothing but grief.

[AFTiger 282]

Otter

After you fry Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, what is your next step? With Pelosi in the Whitehoue?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

In the case of Iran, however, whatever Congress has already done to authorize the president’s actions in the AUMF, it is manifest that the legislature—unlike in Youngstown, where Jackson found that seizure was contrary to the expressed will of Congress—has done nothing to oppose military action against Iran. At least not yet.

Youngstown thus puts the democrat-controlled Congress in a difficult position.

Under the Jackson analysis, which would likely be applied by the Court today even though it would constitute judicial meddling in a war, Congress has two main choices (on the assumption that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi aren’t going to allow their party to expressly or impliedly authorize the President to attack Iraq).

Congress can remain silent on the subject, with some of its members continuing to posture on the Sunday TV talk shows, thus avoiding commitment, in which case President Bush, wearing his commander-in-chief hat, can attack Iran in any manner he sees fit.

Or, Congress, defying over 200 years of American history, can uncharacteristically and unambiguously, oppose military action against Iran—which is what some on the Hill are now trying to accomplish through a resolution.

Even then, there are at least two reasons why President Bush should win a judicial showdown.Under the third part of Justice Jackson’s analysis, even if Congress did oppose presidential action, that opposition must be “scrutinized with caution.” This is most true when it comes to military matters where, until the present Court and its meddling in war-fighting issues like the Guantanamo detainees and military commissions, there might be no scrutiny at all.

Assuming Congress expressly prohibited President Bush from attacking Iran, the Supreme Court would still be bound to “scrutinize with caution” the question of whether the commander-in-chief possessed that power—and in doing so, it is a near certainty that under separation of powers doctrine Article II would trump Article I.

http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/c...to-attack-iran/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5q2DO7ofnQ

[AFTiger 282]

BF

Were the towers brought down by terroists or was it a government plot?

[otterinbham 0]

Otter

After you fry Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, what is your next step? With Pelosi in the Whitehoue?

Where did I say put them on trial? I am pointing out responsibility for the debacle. They deserve contempt, not imprisonment. The adventure in Iraq was ill-considered, ill-founded, and poorly-executed, and it's turning into a political and military nightmare.

If it satisfies you any, I think the Bush administration performed marginally better than Gore would have had he won the Oval office. Marginally.

[AFTiger 282]

Otter

After you fry Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, what is your next step? With Pelosi in the Whitehoue?

Where did I say put them on trial? I am pointing out responsibility for the debacle. They deserve contempt, not imprisonment. The adventure in Iraq was ill-considered, ill-founded, and poorly-executed, and it's turning into a political and military nightmare.

If it satisfies you any, I think the Bush administration performed marginally better than Gore would have had he won the Oval office. Marginally.

What is your next step?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Do your homework, please. Wolfowitz was the philosophical architect of the Iraqi invasion, laying the groundwork in the 1990s for a much more interventionist United States that did not just anticipate geopolitical challenges, but aggressively suppressed them. This is more than a matter of nuance. It changed the American posture in the world. Tactically, it conferred some short-term advantage, but strategically it has been a disastrous--changing our country from disinterested promoter of democracy to what could easily be perceived as Empire Builder. Key aspects of the Wolfowitz Doctrine are as follows. If you read between the lines, you realize that this policy discarded the consistent foreign policy of the United States from 1946 to 1992 in favor of a much more activist role in world affairs:

Now you're sounding like a conspiracy nutcase. There's always someone who is working on ways that can better this world. If YOU did your homework, you'd understand that going back to our Founders, it was a basic philosophical view that to rid the world of tyrannical rulers and dictators and freeing the people from oppression is a basic goal for this country.

But aside from all that, did Wolfowitz help the Clinton administration in passing the law which made it official US policy to force regime change in Iraq ? How about you helping me out on that detail.

Nutcase? Please. I'm sorry that everybody who disagrees with you is a nutcase. You must have a lonely little world. LOL

Sure, the Clinton made regime change US Policy. We also have made regime change stated US Policy in Cuba, Eastern Europe, etc. etc., over the decades. *That doesn't mean we shot our way into Havana or Prague, did it? The cornerstone of US Policy from Truman on was that of incremental pressure in a variety of areas, with military intervention only when United States vital interests were threatened--a doctrine successfully applied in Korea, and poorly executed in Vietnam. Otherwise, we were content with containment as strategy, taking the long-term view that eventually our opponents would collapse in the face of our superior economic and moral posture. It worked against the Soviets, it forced the Chinese to abandon Maoism, and it frustrated Castro. I suppose you can make the case that the Wolfowitz Doctrine worked in bringing the Serbians to heel, but our actions in the Balkans in the 90s are a far cry from invading a sovereign country, however despicable, simply because we don't like them.

As far as freeing people from tyranny goes, that's indeed the long-term strategic goal of this country. We succeeded very well at this before the Wolfowitz Doctrine came along. However, this shift in strategy will cause nothing but grief.

* 'Bay of Pigs' ring a bell ?

Each situation is different, so trying to compare Korea ( who we're technically still at war with ) , Vietnam and Iraq isn't all that useful.

I'd rather live in a lonely world of the rational, logical and honest thinkers than be surrounded by tin foil hat wearing whackos.

[otterinbham 0]

Otter

After you fry Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, what is your next step? With Pelosi in the Whitehoue?

Where did I say put them on trial? I am pointing out responsibility for the debacle. They deserve contempt, not imprisonment. The adventure in Iraq was ill-considered, ill-founded, and poorly-executed, and it's turning into a political and military nightmare.

If it satisfies you any, I think the Bush administration performed marginally better than Gore would have had he won the Oval office. Marginally.

What is your next step?

Go back to the playbook and reprise how we fought the Cold War. It was the textbook long-term strategy, authored by the likes of George Kennan and George C. Marshall.

If you bothered to read my post you'll realized that our invasion and subjugation of Iraq was an absolute departure from American strategic doctrine since the end of the World War II, one that had served us very well.

Oh, and Raptor, Bay of Pigs was a fiasco. Thanks for making my case for me. That and the American economic sanctions against Cuba did more to solidify Castro's position than if we had treated him like we did the Soviets. If there had been open economic relations with the United States, Castro would have been deposed years ago.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If there had been open economic relations with the United States, Castro would have been deposed years ago.

That's a rather specious assumption. Cuba was being propped up by the Soviet Union, as well as trading w/ the rest of the world. I doubt very much that Castro and his murderous thugs which killed their way to power would have been deposed all that easily.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

BF

Were the towers brought down by terroists or was it a government plot?

I believe it was both.

[AFTiger 282]

BF

Were the towers brought down by terroists or was it a government plot?

I believe it was both.

OK I understand your posts. G'bye

[otterinbham 0]

If there had been open economic relations with the United States, Castro would have been deposed years ago.

That's a rather specious assumption. Cuba was being propped up by the Soviet Union, as well as trading w/ the rest of the world. I doubt very much that Castro and his murderous thugs which killed their way to power would have been deposed all that easily.

Oh, specious my foot. I think it's a fairly sound assumption, especially when you witness what happened in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union once there was free trade. Even China today is a far more open regime than Cuba is. If the United States government had not restricted the ability of Americans to travel to Cuba and trade freely, it actually would have been much easier for the expatriate Cuban community in South Florida to work hand in glove with dissidents on the island. Instead, the current policy, in a classic case of The Law Of Unintended Consequences, actually strengthened Castro's grip on the island.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Oh, specious my foot. I think it's a fairly sound assumption, especially when you witness what happened in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union once there was free trade. Even China today is a far more open regime than Cuba is. If the United States government had not restricted the ability of Americans to travel to Cuba and trade freely, it actually would have been much easier for the expatriate Cuban community in South Florida to work hand in glove with dissidents on the island. Instead, the current policy, in a classic case of The Law Of Unintended Consequences, actually strengthened Castro's grip on the island

China and Russia today aren't Cuba. Think of all the changes in leadership which have occurred in the past 50 yrs. It has to do w/ Castro, who is still pitching the same totalitarian lines that he used back in the Revolution. I think to play Monday morning qb at this point is pretty pointless.

[otterinbham 0]

Oh, specious my foot. I think it's a fairly sound assumption, especially when you witness what happened in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union once there was free trade. Even China today is a far more open regime than Cuba is. If the United States government had not restricted the ability of Americans to travel to Cuba and trade freely, it actually would have been much easier for the expatriate Cuban community in South Florida to work hand in glove with dissidents on the island. Instead, the current policy, in a classic case of The Law Of Unintended Consequences, actually strengthened Castro's grip on the island

China and Russia today aren't Cuba. Think of all the changes in leadership which have occurred in the past 50 yrs. It has to do w/ Castro, who is still pitching the same totalitarian lines that he used back in the Revolution. I think to play Monday morning qb at this point is pretty pointless.

Pointless? I don't think so. We used a completely different strategy in dealing with Russia and China than we did with Cuba. While neither are benign and both remain a challenge, engagement with our erstwhile foes has brought them much more fully within the compass of the international community. Meanwhile, undertaking the a rigid, confrontationalist strategy has not accomplished a single objective in Cuba over the past 47 years. I think comparing the results is a worthwhile and valuable exercise.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

BF

Were the towers brought down by terroists or was it a government plot?

I believe it was both.

OK I understand your posts. G'bye

Read and learn the truth.

FBI Chicago special agent prevented by superiors from arresting al Qaeda suspects pre-911

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Docum...obertWright.htm

Watch and learn:

http://www.peace.ca/moyers1.wmv

http://www.peace.ca/moyers2.wmv

"A Zogby poll released Monday said that 49 percent of New York City residents believed that national leaders 'knew in advance that attacks were planned . . . and that they consciously failed to act.'"

9/11 Referenced as a Defining Moment

Washington Post, 1 September 2004

"On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders 'knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,' according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004.... The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding U.S. government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as 'very conservative' supported the claim...... Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had 'answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th,' and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the 'still unanswered questions' by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General."

Zogby Poll: Half of New Yorkers Believe U.S. Had 9/11 Foreknowledge

NewsMax, 31 August 2004

As a Cold War veteran, I believe as they believe, that our own government was complacent and involved in orchestrating the 911 attacks. You are welcome to continue your life ignorant of these facts.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Oh, specious my foot. I think it's a fairly sound assumption, especially when you witness what happened in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union once there was free trade. Even China today is a far more open regime than Cuba is. If the United States government had not restricted the ability of Americans to travel to Cuba and trade freely, it actually would have been much easier for the expatriate Cuban community in South Florida to work hand in glove with dissidents on the island. Instead, the current policy, in a classic case of The Law Of Unintended Consequences, actually strengthened Castro's grip on the island

China and Russia today aren't Cuba. Think of all the changes in leadership which have occurred in the past 50 yrs. It has to do w/ Castro, who is still pitching the same totalitarian lines that he used back in the Revolution. I think to play Monday morning qb at this point is pretty pointless.

Pointless? I don't think so. We used a completely different strategy in dealing with Russia and China than we did with Cuba. While neither are benign and both remain a challenge, engagement with our erstwhile foes has brought them much more fully within the compass of the international community. Meanwhile, undertaking the a rigid, confrontationalist strategy has not accomplished a single objective in Cuba over the past 47 years. I think comparing the results is a worthwhile and valuable exercise.

Yes, completely different because China and Russia AREN'T CUBA!