Octopus Overlords

Now that Rand Paul has come out saying trade with Cuba is probably a good idea, what is the firebrand conservative to do?

In addition to the widely reported return of Alan Gross who has been held in Cuba since 2009 we also got custody of someone who was spying for the US and responsible for some of the most important counter-intelligence actions against Cuba:

Rolando Sarraff Trujillo has now been released from prison and flown out of Cuba as part of a swap for three Cuban spies imprisoned in the United States that President Obama announced Wednesday in a televised speech. Mr. Obama did not give Mr. Sarraff’s name, but several current American officials identified him and a former official discussed some of the information he gave to the C.I.A. while burrowed deep inside Cuba’s Directorate of Intelligence.

...

[Cuban spies caught because of Trujillo's information include] a senior analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency named Ana Belén Montes; a former Department of State official, Walter Kendall Myers, and his wife, Gwendolyn Myers; and members of the Red Avispa network, or Wasp Network, in Florida.

That's a lot of people caught spying for Cuba including some high level people leaking information to Cuba. Trujillo has been in prison for 20 years because of the work he did for us. I'm very happy we were able to get him out.

Rip wrote:

Enough wrote:

Rip wrote: SO am I the only person who finds it telling that we will have diplomatic relations with Cuba but not Taiwan?

The US has become or is well on the way to becoming "The land of the guilty and the home of the fearful".

What is the tell here? That we continue to be careful with China (as we always have in the last couple of decades, esp. considering that the governing TRA passed in 1979, maybe have a look at the wiki article as it outlines the quite numerous unofficial relations we have with Taiwan) or is that we no longer fear Russian or Chinese backing of Cuba at the same level anymore?

The tell is that we make friends with whoever the people we are afraid of tell us to, or avoid being friends with who they tell us not to, and that when we do take a stand all you need to is wait and we will start feeling guilty about it and elect to appease rather than confront. We have become the proverbial "good men who do nothing".

This word really needs to stop being used every time we do anything other than demand "my way or the highway."

Enough wrote:Now that Rand Paul has come out saying trade with Cuba is probably a good idea, what is the firebrand conservative to do?

Is Rand Paul really a "firebrand conservative" with some of the things he's been doing/saying lately?

ydejin wrote:In addition to the widely reported return of Alan Gross who has been held in Cuba since 2009 we also got custody of someone who was spying for the US and responsible for some of the most important counter-intelligence actions against Cuba:

Rolando Sarraff Trujillo has now been released from prison and flown out of Cuba as part of a swap for three Cuban spies imprisoned in the United States that President Obama announced Wednesday in a televised speech. Mr. Obama did not give Mr. Sarraff’s name, but several current American officials identified him and a former official discussed some of the information he gave to the C.I.A. while burrowed deep inside Cuba’s Directorate of Intelligence.

...

[Cuban spies caught because of Trujillo's information include] a senior analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency named Ana Belén Montes; a former Department of State official, Walter Kendall Myers, and his wife, Gwendolyn Myers; and members of the Red Avispa network, or Wasp Network, in Florida.

That's a lot of people caught spying for Cuba including some high level people leaking information to Cuba. Trujillo has been in prison for 20 years because of the work he did for us. I'm very happy we were able to get him out.

Could get that just for releasing the prisoners we did. No need to open an embassy.

Rip wrote:

ydejin wrote:In addition to the widely reported return of Alan Gross who has been held in Cuba since 2009 we also got custody of someone who was spying for the US and responsible for some of the most important counter-intelligence actions against Cuba:

Rolando Sarraff Trujillo has now been released from prison and flown out of Cuba as part of a swap for three Cuban spies imprisoned in the United States that President Obama announced Wednesday in a televised speech. Mr. Obama did not give Mr. Sarraff’s name, but several current American officials identified him and a former official discussed some of the information he gave to the C.I.A. while burrowed deep inside Cuba’s Directorate of Intelligence.

...

[Cuban spies caught because of Trujillo's information include] a senior analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency named Ana Belén Montes; a former Department of State official, Walter Kendall Myers, and his wife, Gwendolyn Myers; and members of the Red Avispa network, or Wasp Network, in Florida.

That's a lot of people caught spying for Cuba including some high level people leaking information to Cuba. Trujillo has been in prison for 20 years because of the work he did for us. I'm very happy we were able to get him out.

Could get that just for releasing the prisoners we did. No need to open an embassy.

Why wouldn't we want an embassy in Cuba so that we can communicate directly with them. That doesn't mean we agree with them. We have embassies with China and Russia. Both of which have pretty damn poor human rights records and frankly both of which are far more dangerous to US interests.

Not having an embassy in Cuba is leftover from Cold War policy. Continuing on with that policy just because that's what we were doing before is just stupid and is typical of large organization sclerosis, something that is not to be encouraged.

Here's the list of nations without US embassies (from Wikipedia): Bhutan, Cook Islands, Iran, North Korea, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Jiue, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Guinea-Bissau, and Somalia.

Most of those are on the list because they're too small. St Kitts for example has a population of 50,000. So your saying that Cuba is so uniquely horrible that they're up on our list with Iran and North Korea on our list of nations we are so worried about that we think communicating with them and having an ambassadorial presence is likely to cause more harm than good?

Actually the impetus for removing embassies from Cuba was primarily because they demanded we decrease staff there under accusations they were just spies. So I would ask, is that issue resolved now? Are staff arrangements going to be the same as they were prior to that dispute? Are our staff going to be protected by same standard immunity as their staff will be here?

Enough wrote:Now that Rand Paul has come out saying trade with Cuba is probably a good idea, what is the firebrand conservative to do?

Ummmm, yea, what he said was much more complicated and nuanced than that reports. But what do you expect from huffingtonpost.com for all the grief you guys give places like Breitbart at least they give you the entire story and don't try to make it look like what he said was directly in-line and supportive of Obama's approach.

In a separate radio interview with Iowa talker Jan Mickelson, Paul further explained his position—and the preconditions that must exist before the U.S. would lift the trade embargo with Cuba that’s existed since the days of President John F. Kennedy. Essentially, Paul argued that the Castros—the dying Fidel Castro and his brother Raul Castro—would need to give up power to the Cuban people through free and open elections before such trade negotiations would begin.

“I think the other thing that goes into this is that if you’re negotiating to open up trade, you would expect something on their side of the coin,” Paul said in that interview. “They would be opening up the ability of their citizens to have communication with us—that’s part of trade, communication. The other thing would be you would be hoping they would open up and allow for elections. There’s always been talk about beginning trade again but in exchange for actually having elections in Cuba.”

Paul’s position is obviously different from Obama’s because, under the president’s approach, the Castro brothers will almost certainly remain in power. Paul also differs with Obama on the way he’s going about doing this. Some of the embargo with Cuba was put in place by executive actions from various presidents over the past half century, but much of the embargo was passed by Congress. Paul said during the interview with Mickelson that for the U.S. to lift the embargo with Cuba—if it was put in place by Congress, which it was—that Congress must lead the way, not the executive branch.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -of-trade/

Rip wrote:

Enough wrote:Now that Rand Paul has come out saying trade with Cuba is probably a good idea, what is the firebrand conservative to do?

Ummmm, yea, what he said was much more complicated and nuanced than that reports. But what do you expect from huffingtonpost.com for all the grief you guys give places like Breitbart at least they give you the entire story and don't try to make it look like what he said was directly in-line and supportive of Obama's approach.

What's the timeline on the new interview? Did it occur after the press on first interview came out and he had to re-buff his firebrand street cred? Oh yes it did, this interview came out after the article I linked (and the countless others from many news outlets) and per your own linked source it appears to be a direct reaction and contradiction to his clear earlier interview. But his new argument to keep the embargo until free and open elections makes no sense when he claims the old approach has been a failure (which was wait for it... free and open elections). So basically Rand is being a slimy, squishy politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's just another opportunistic politico, not the uncompromising paragon you all had hoped he was.

Oh and I fully agree HuffPost is overall an awful source, not that it really mattered in this case. Will you admit the same about Breitbart?

I mean golly geeze even the Wall Street Journal saw it the same way in their "Rand Paul Backs Obama on Cuba, Highlighting GOP Split" article,

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who is weighing a 2016 presidential bid, said Thursday that the president not only made the correct decision to allow more trade with Cuba but that he had acted within his executive authority to do so.

"You know, the 50-year embargo against Cuba just hasn’t worked,” Mr. Paul said during an interview with WVHU radio in Huntington, W.Va. “If the goal is regime change, it sure doesn’t seem to be working.”

Mr. Paul isn’t the only Republican backing the administration’s new Cuba policy. Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, who was on the flight to fetch Alan Gross from a Cuban jail, has long been a vocal proponent of open relations with Cuba. On Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina both said they were supportive.

Why do we care about free and open elections in Cuba? Isn't that a problem (or not) for Cubans? I mean, sure, I get that we want them to have free and open elections.

50 years of economically fisting them didn't produce free and open elections, did it?

Enough wrote:

Rip wrote:

Enough wrote:Now that Rand Paul has come out saying trade with Cuba is probably a good idea, what is the firebrand conservative to do?

Ummmm, yea, what he said was much more complicated and nuanced than that reports. But what do you expect from huffingtonpost.com for all the grief you guys give places like Breitbart at least they give you the entire story and don't try to make it look like what he said was directly in-line and supportive of Obama's approach.

What's the timeline on the new interview? Did it occur after the press on first interview came out and he had to re-buff his firebrand street cred? Oh yes it did, this interview came out after the article I linked (and the countless others from many news outlets) and per your own linked source it appears to be a direct reaction and contradiction to his clear earlier interview. But his new argument to keep the embargo until free and open elections makes no sense when he claims the old approach has been a failure (which was wait for it... free and open elections). So basically Rand is being a slimy, squishy politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's just another opportunistic politico, not the uncompromising paragon you all had hoped he was.

Oh and I fully agree HuffPost is overall an awful source, not that it really mattered in this case. Will you admit the same about Breitbart?

Depends on the story. This one like other is just a piece about two radio interviews. Both can show some bias when it comes to investigative reporting, but this ain't that.

RunningMn9 wrote:Why do we care about free and open elections in Cuba? Isn't that a problem (or not) for Cubans? I mean, sure, I get that we want them to have free and open elections.

50 years of economically fisting them didn't produce free and open elections, did it?

For the same reasons we don't want people around the world beheaded, killed for being gay of christian, thrown in the furnace for being Jewish, etc. It is a fundamental thing we are supposed to stand for and which we make it point to brag about every chance we get.

Again, I am not against making the first move and trying to persuade Cuba to become better at things we think are important. I just think we could have gotten them to do more, and most importantly this could have been coordinated to come out as a commonly supported move with the POTUS and Congress announcing it in unison and showing they stand together in support of improving relations in return for Cuba becoming more aligned with our basic ideals.

Cuba has done some bad things and acted beligerently over the years but it isn't like we didn't give them good reason to act that way. I just think that the chance for success would be much better if we moved forward in unison rather than appearing rather divided on what we would like to do and what we expect in return.

Never enter a negotiation without knowing what you want and how much you are willing to pay.

And never embark on a foreign policy initiative without knowing the end game. Else you might find yourself 50 years later, with a group of people largely uninvolved in the original problem continuing to punish another group of people that were largely uninvolved in the original problem.

Please continue with your ill advised sanctions and leave or vacation spot alone... :-\

RunningMn9 wrote:And never embark on a foreign policy initiative without knowing the end game. Else you might find yourself 50 years later, with a group of people largely uninvolved in the original problem continuing to punish another group of people that were largely uninvolved in the original problem.

That's poppycock. Unless one has a crystal ball, the complexity of of foreign relations - and that events happen all the time that force you to react - makes it impossible to be certain of the end game.

And lets remember that until very recently, the person involved - a leader who's own insightful foreign policy initiative included urging the Soviets to carry out a nuclear first strike (now there's an end game for you) such that the soviets thought he was crazy - was still the head of Cuba.

Defiant wrote:That's poppycock. Unless one has a crystal ball, the complexity of of foreign relations - and that events happen all the time that force you to react - makes it impossible to be certain of the end game.

Uhhh...what? Literally *every* foreign policy initiative is enacted with an end game anticipated. Every. Single. One.

What are we trying to achieve? How will we achieve it? How will we know that it's been achieved? What do we do when we achieve it? That circumstances change on the fly doesn't mean that we don't have established goals for our foreign policy.

Defiant wrote:And lets remember that until very recently, the person involved - a leader who's own insightful foreign policy initiative included urging the Soviets to carry out a nuclear first strike (now there's an end game for you) such that the soviets thought he was crazy - was still the head of Cuba.

And let's remember that the person involved isn't the one being punished by our foreign policy towards Cuba. The person(s) being punished are the people of Cuba - most of whom weren't even alive when we started this. And the people doing the punishment, most of us weren't alive when we started this either.

50 years of punishing the people of Cuba have accomplished exactly nothing.

tjg_marantz wrote:Please continue with your ill advised sanctions and leave or vacation spot alone... :-\

I'd like to hear what Cuba is like for Canadians. How are rich tourists treated? What's right with Cuba, and what's wrong? (I mean from the "Norte visitor on the ground" perspective, not from the geopolitical one.)

You can trust us! The Marxist-Leninist NDA you signed does not apply here!

geezer wrote:This word really needs to stop being used every time we do anything other than demand "my way or the highway."

Thank you.

Holman wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:Please continue with your ill advised sanctions and leave or vacation spot alone... :-\

I'd like to hear what Cuba is like for Canadians. How are rich tourists treated? What's right with Cuba, and what's wrong? (I mean from the "Norte visitor on the ground" perspective, not from the geopolitical one.)

You can trust us! The Marxist-Leninist NDA you signed does not apply here!

I don't travel. I've always imagined it to be like Mexico. Safe in certain areas, less so in others. Tourist-y spots that excel at meeting rich (comparatively) tourists expectations and needs, with less wealthy/poor areas around them.

So that is how I imagine it to be. Tjg will set me straight.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Defiant wrote:That's poppycock. Unless one has a crystal ball, the complexity of of foreign relations - and that events happen all the time that force you to react - makes it impossible to be certain of the end game.

Uhhh...what? Literally *every* foreign policy initiative is enacted with an end game anticipated. Every. Single. One.

You live in a dream world.

Sure there's usually an end game and that end game envisioned is often wrong (eg, The War on Iraq, Vietnam, arguably the War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc.). Never mind things that happen suddenly and unexpectedly (the "3AM call") when the government has to make policy by the seat of it's pants (eg, the Arab Spring, the Fall of the Soviet Union (along with dealing with all the nuclear stockpiles), The Cuban Missile Crisis, the Iranian Revolution)

And let's remember that the person involved isn't the one being punished by our foreign policy towards Cuba. The person(s) being punished are the people of Cuba - most of whom weren't even alive when we started this. And the people doing the punishment, most of us weren't alive when we started this either.

While we take consideration of "the people", our foreign policy is dictated to a large part by the personalities of the leaders of countries. I'm sure there were many good Germans and Japanese who suffered by our actions in World War 2, many good Iraqis who suffered under sanctions, many good Iranians and North Koreans who are suffering now, but our actions are guided by the actions of the leaders of those countries because they are the one to wield the power.

Actually I live in the world where foreign policy makers live. They don't live in a world where you enact an economic embargo against a country without having an expectation of why you are putting in place and under what circumstances you will remove it.

We are what? 9 Presidents removed from this decision? 25 Congresses removed?

50 years is a long time, and most of the people that decided to do this are dead, along with their reasons.

It's dumb.

But that doesn't change the fact that foreign policy is better planned than you are claiming.

That's exactly what I would expect a Communist apologist to say.

GreenGoo wrote:

Holman wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:Please continue with your ill advised sanctions and leave or vacation spot alone... :-\

I'd like to hear what Cuba is like for Canadians. How are rich tourists treated? What's right with Cuba, and what's wrong? (I mean from the "Norte visitor on the ground" perspective, not from the geopolitical one.)

You can trust us! The Marxist-Leninist NDA you signed does not apply here!

I don't travel. I've always imagined it to be like Mexico. Safe in certain areas, less so in others. Tourist-y spots that excel at meeting rich (comparatively) tourists expectations and needs, with less wealthy/poor areas around them.

So that is how I imagine it to be. Tjg will set me straight.

GreenGoo wrote:

Holman wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:Please continue with your ill advised sanctions and leave or vacation spot alone... :-\

I'd like to hear what Cuba is like for Canadians. How are rich tourists treated? What's right with Cuba, and what's wrong? (I mean from the "Norte visitor on the ground" perspective, not from the geopolitical one.)

You can trust us! The Marxist-Leninist NDA you signed does not apply here!

I don't travel. I've always imagined it to be like Mexico. Safe in certain areas, less so in others. Tourist-y spots that excel at meeting rich (comparatively) tourists expectations and needs, with less wealthy/poor areas around them.

So that is how I imagine it to be. Tjg will set me straight.

You're pretty spot on.

Cubans are much more charming than Mexicans or Jamaicans (yes I know, horrible generalization). I directly attribute that to the lack of pushy New Yorkers. Fine, Americans in general. Up until a few years ago, I would have commented on the 5 or 6 armed policemen you see at the airport but I dare say you probably see more in a U.S. airport nowadays. And they are more menacing in the U.S..

Everything is a bit older, everything outside the hotels could use some spare parts but they make it work.

The food is not as diverse as Mexico but even that has improved over the last ten years.

I have more faith visiting a Cuban doctor than a Mexican one.

The closest you'll come to the caricature of the loud American is a pack of Quebecers, which is why I stay away from them. Open up the border and it'll be tenfold worst.

Look, countries will show you what they want to show you so everything could be a very elaborate front. But my masseuse goes there every three months to get her thang on and hands with just locals, in local spots and at their homes and she is adamant, she had never not felt safe. She could not say the same about Jamaica.

Where are these excess armed policeman in US airports you speak of? Seriously. I travel a lot, in fact I have been in an airport 3 or 4 days a week for the last few months every week and I have yet to see in US airports what I see in European airports and almost every other airport in the world on a regular basis- guards armed with assault rifles patrolling the area. So... calling the BS on that one. US police have always been armed with handguns. If you see a cop, they will be armed. But it won't be with an assault rifle. The same cannot be said for the rest of the world airports.

Pretty typical Canadian response. Also as someone who has traveled extensively (and yes that includes the cold region up north) I love the "myth" of loud American tourists. Not that they don't exist, but that it is an American problem, or a problem with everyone but "my people". In my experience all tourists are annoying and loud to some degree. If you think you are not you are deluding yourself. Canadians love to throw this out there but... I have spent many months in Europe and I have to say Canadians were just like Americans with one exception- they loved to put their patch on everything to make sure people know they are not American and loudly talk about how they are Canadian... congrats... you are the same.

Good to know where you stand.

Classy post. Your jingoism and hypocrisy reeks.

Chrisoc13 wrote:Where are these excess armed policeman in US airports you speak of? Seriously. I travel a lot, ion fact I have been in an airport 3 or 4 days a week for the last few months every week and I have yet to see in US airports what I see in European airports or even Montreal (GASP NO!!!!!) on a regular basis- guards armed with assault rifles patrolling the area. So... calling the BS on that one.

Pretty typical Canadian response. Also as someone who has traveled extensively (and yes that includes the cold region up north) I love the myth of loud American tourists. In my experience all tourists are annoying an loud to some degree. If you think you are not you are deluding yourself. Canadians love to throw this out there but... I have spent many months in Europe and I have to say Canadians were just like Americans with one exception- they loved to put their patch on everything to make sure people know they are not American... congrats... you are the same.

Good to know where you stand.

Not sure why anyone with a country who has a decent health system would go to a doctor in Cuba or Mexico. Weird.

Classy post.

Oh noes! You've offended an American, tjg.

Lighten up Sally. I thought your skins were thicker.

P.S. When you need a doctor you go to one that's close. You don't fly thousands of miles unless you have to. For someone who travels extensively (I do not) I would figure that would be obvious. That's what travel health insurance is for.

GreenGoo wrote:

Chrisoc13 wrote:Where are these excess armed policeman in US airports you speak of? Seriously. I travel a lot, ion fact I have been in an airport 3 or 4 days a week for the last few months every week and I have yet to see in US airports what I see in European airports or even Montreal (GASP NO!!!!!) on a regular basis- guards armed with assault rifles patrolling the area. So... calling the BS on that one.

Pretty typical Canadian response. Also as someone who has traveled extensively (and yes that includes the cold region up north) I love the myth of loud American tourists. In my experience all tourists are annoying an loud to some degree. If you think you are not you are deluding yourself. Canadians love to throw this out there but... I have spent many months in Europe and I have to say Canadians were just like Americans with one exception- they loved to put their patch on everything to make sure people know they are not American... congrats... you are the same.

Good to know where you stand.

Not sure why anyone with a country who has a decent health system would go to a doctor in Cuba or Mexico. Weird.

Classy post.

Hypocrisy from Canadians. Shocking.

Oh noes! You've offended an American, tjg.

Lighten up Sally. I thought your skins were thicker.

Hypocrisy from Canadians. I'm shocked. Sally.

RunningMn9 wrote:Actually I live in the world where foreign policy makers live. They don't live in a world where you enact an economic embargo against a country without having an expectation of why you are putting in place and under what circumstances you will remove it.

The President may
waive the requirements of section 1706 [22 USCS §6005] if the President determines and reports to the Congress that the Government of Cuba--
(1) has held free and fair elections conducted under internationally recognized observers;
(2) has permitted opposition parties ample time to organize and campaign for such elections, and has permitted full access to the media to all candidates in the elections;
(3) is showing respect for the basic civil liberties and human rights of the citizens of Cuba;
(4) is moving toward establishing a free market economic system; and
(5) has committed itself to constitutional change that would ensure regular free and fair elections that meet the requirements of paragraph (2)

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... ts/cda.pdf

We are what? 9 Presidents removed from this decision? 25 Congresses removed?

One first secretary removed.

50 years is a long time, and most of the people that decided to do this are dead, along with their reasons.

Many of their reasons are still in Florida, voting.

But that doesn't change the fact that foreign policy is better planned than you are claiming.

For predictable things, absolutely. For 80-90, sure. But for that other 10-20% that causes many of the problems. And in some cases, there are no good plans, only least bad options.

Chrisoc13 wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Chrisoc13 wrote:Where are these excess armed policeman in US airports you speak of? Seriously. I travel a lot, ion fact I have been in an airport 3 or 4 days a week for the last few months every week and I have yet to see in US airports what I see in European airports or even Montreal (GASP NO!!!!!) on a regular basis- guards armed with assault rifles patrolling the area. So... calling the BS on that one.

Pretty typical Canadian response. Also as someone who has traveled extensively (and yes that includes the cold region up north) I love the myth of loud American tourists. In my experience all tourists are annoying an loud to some degree. If you think you are not you are deluding yourself. Canadians love to throw this out there but... I have spent many months in Europe and I have to say Canadians were just like Americans with one exception- they loved to put their patch on everything to make sure people know they are not American... congrats... you are the same.

Good to know where you stand.

Not sure why anyone with a country who has a decent health system would go to a doctor in Cuba or Mexico. Weird.

Classy post.

Hypocrisy from Canadians. Shocking.

Oh noes! You've offended an American, tjg.

Lighten up Sally. I thought your skins were thicker.

Hypocrisy from Canadians. I'm shocked. Sally.

Ya big baby.

GreenGoo wrote:

Chrisoc13 wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Chrisoc13 wrote:Where are these excess armed policeman in US airports you speak of? Seriously. I travel a lot, ion fact I have been in an airport 3 or 4 days a week for the last few months every week and I have yet to see in US airports what I see in European airports or even Montreal (GASP NO!!!!!) on a regular basis- guards armed with assault rifles patrolling the area. So... calling the BS on that one.

Pretty typical Canadian response. Also as someone who has traveled extensively (and yes that includes the cold region up north) I love the myth of loud American tourists. In my experience all tourists are annoying an loud to some degree. If you think you are not you are deluding yourself. Canadians love to throw this out there but... I have spent many months in Europe and I have to say Canadians were just like Americans with one exception- they loved to put their patch on everything to make sure people know they are not American... congrats... you are the same.

Good to know where you stand.

Not sure why anyone with a country who has a decent health system would go to a doctor in Cuba or Mexico. Weird.

Classy post.

Hypocrisy from Canadians. Shocking.

Oh noes! You've offended an American, tjg.

Lighten up Sally. I thought your skins were thicker.

Hypocrisy from Canadians. I'm shocked. Sally.

Ya big baby.

Just when I start liking you goo you show your true colors again. Rather than realizing "Hey, maybe my perception is clouded by my view of my neighbor" you decide to call names. Congrats. I remember now why I prefer not to interact with you.

Edit- I would add my response was actually a response to the situation. Yours was nothing but calling names and antagonizing. Think about that. Your post served no 'other purpose.

The stereotype about loud traveling Americans, relative to other "people" is no myth, IMO.

Anecdotal, yes, but 20+ years of living and traveling abroad worth of anecdotal evidence.

Edit: I will add that it seems to not be nearly as pervasive as it was even 10 years ago, IMO. Still there, but maybe not to the degree it once was, based on my observations. That could be chalked up to the possibility that after so long, I just tune it out, but I don't think so.

GreenGoo wrote:
P.S. When you need a doctor you go to one that's close. You don't fly thousands of miles unless you have to. For someone who travels extensively (I do not) I would figure that would be obvious. That's what travel health insurance is for.

I wouldn't trust either. Anything serious that wasn't emergent I would absolutely be flown back to the US. In fact travel health insurance can cover that, evacuation for medical care. It's worth it. I've trained with foreign grads here in the US and there is a reason we make them go through residency again regardless of how long they have been practicing.

Carpet_pissr wrote:The stereotype about loud traveling Americans, relative to other "people" is no myth, IMO.

Anecdotal, yes, but 20+ years of living and traveling abroad worth of anecdotal evidence.

Ah reread what I said. It is a myth in that it is only Americans. Like I said, all tourists are annoying. That is the myth, that it is an American problem. I've been thoroughly annoyed by just about every race and nationality while traveling or when they are tourists here in the US.

Dude, it's not that I believe Tjg's perceptions are accurate, it's that you took them way too seriously and personally. You guys have a very funny animated show that has as one of its main themes making fun of Canada and Canadians. I don't know any Canadian that doesn't laugh their asses off at Terence and Philip. I don't find the "Blame Canada" song very funny, but only because it's not very funny (to me), not because I'm offended.

I realize that R&P is the place for a good brawl, and I almost wrote a post pointing out to tjg that he was writing on a board made up primarily of Americans, but then I thought "They can take it, even if it's a generalization and stereotype". Which is why I was so crass with my responses to you.

So I do apologize for what I wrote. I was testing to see how serious you were about being upset. Sometimes someone will say something here that is insulting to me as a Canadian, but my indignation is usually limited or non-existent. I save my indignation for other stuff.

Plus, I think it does people good to take a shot every once in awhile. Keeps them more honest in their own viewpoints of themselves. It's not good when a person is surrounded by yes men, even if the no men aren't right (or not always anyway )

The bottom line is, I don't speak for tjg, although what he said is a fair representation of a stereotypical Canadian viewpoint of a stereotypical American tourist. That doesn't mean we all think that. Nor does it mean that it's true. I don't speak for tjg, and I was hoping you wouldn't take it too seriously, because in the end, who cares what tjg thinks of stereotypical American tourists.

I'm sorry. I was just teasing ya.

If the shoe was on the other foot, the non-Americans here would excoriate a US poster for posting similar statements.

Defiant wrote:For predictable things, absolutely. For 80-90, sure. But for that other 10-20% that causes many of the problems. And in some cases, there are no good plans, only least bad options.

This is one of those predictable things. Our current policy towards Cuba was enacted over almost two years. It wasn't a response to a 3 AM phone call (i.e. Cuban Missile Crisis). The 3 AM phone call was almost certainly directly the result of the policy we put in place.

Also, I'm confused as to why you be arguing that I live in a dream world for saying that when we enact foreign policy initiatives, we have an end game in mind....and then you post a clear cut example of the US enacting foreign policy...with a very specific end game laid out in the bill. Why did you do that?

Isgrimnur wrote:If the shoe was on the other foot, the non-Americans here would excoriate a US poster for posting similar statements.

It's possible that all 3 of us would "gang up" on you, but it would depend on how true I thought the statement was.

It's all good. His post reeked of hypocrisy and generalizing stereotypes. And truth be told after he jumped down someone's throat an another thread out of nowhere I had to respond.

I know Americans can be loud and annoying, but to people just trying to live in the area all tourists are loud and annoying. Because they aren't going about their daily lives, they are on vacation having fun. They don't care to walk with a purpose, they have nowhere to be, and they are laughing it up with their friends in public. I live two blocks from Michigan Avenue in Chicago, I know all tourists are annoying when you are trying to simply get things done or live your daily life. And oddly it doesn't seem to matter where they are from.

Chrisoc13 wrote:I love the "myth" of loud American tourists.

I would agree that the problem isn't ALL American tourists. But every time I've seen an absurdly loud and annoying tourist, it has ALWAYS been an American. I can accept that my anecdotal evidence is not natural law, but in my experience, it's not a myth.

There are a disproportionate number of American tourists that are entitled douches when they travel. Watching some asshole in the Dublin airport harassing the shit out of some Irish TSA-equivalent that wanted him to do something with his bottles of liquids - and he was yelling at the top of his lungs about how they couldn't do this to him BECAUSE HE WAS AN AMERICAN. It's embarrassing when it happens, and I was just minding my own business.

Chrisoc13 wrote:It's all good. His post reeked of hypocrisy and generalizing stereotypes. And truth be told after he jumped down someone's throat an another thread out of nowhere I had to respond.

I know Americans can be loud and annoying, but to people just trying to live in the area all tourists are loud and annoying. Because they aren't going about their daily lives, they are on vacation having fun. They don't care to walk with a purpose, they have nowhere to be, and they are laughing it up with their friends in public. I live two blocks from Michigan Avenue in Chicago, I know all tourists are annoying when you are trying to simply get things done or live your daily life. And oddly it doesn't seem to matter where they are from.

Psst. He's from Quebec. *wink* *wink*.

That said, it's possible he ran into some obnoxious tourists somewhere that happened to be American that ruined his trip (obviously somewhere other than Cuba).

I had a bad experience with a native Canadian when I was younger and today I have to fight against an acquired distrust/dislike of them. It sucks that I'm prejudiced in this way. It's possible that tjg is the same way with Americans. Or, it's possible he just hates all American tourists. That's also a possibility.