Cuba/Castro were fools to fight the USA they've lived in poverty because of their mistakes
On Mar 4, 11:11 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Zeb.... You did. Its' name was Cuba.... and look what it got you. > > On 3/4/10, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The Monroe Doctrine was just a shot across the bow and probably > > prevented a lot of war. I mean, if we said its OK for a country like > > Spain to go into South America and take over a country, then why > > wouldn't it be OK for us to go in and take it from Spain? > > > On Mar 4, 7:47 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Plainol, > > >> Just exactly where did I say ANYTHING of the sort ?? You do know who > >> James Monroe was, don't you ?? You do have SOME understanding of his > >> "doctrine" ?? It was imposed (illegally) by the US during the > >> intervention into Cuban internal affairs in the early 60s. > > >> Definition: The Monroe Doctrine was the declaration by President James > >> Monroe, in December 1823, that the United States would not tolerate a > >> European nation colonizing an independent nation in North or South > >> America. Any such intervention in the western hemisphere would be > >> considered a hostile act by the United States, though the United > >> States would respect existing European colonies. > >> What prompted Monroe’s statement, which was expressed in his annual > >> address to Congress (what today would be considered the State of the > >> Union Address) was a fear that Spain would try to take over its former > >> colonies in South America, which had declared their independence. > > >> It was believed that France, which had invaded Spain and restored its > >> former king to the throne, was behind Spanish intentions to become > >> involved again in South America. > > >> OK are we on track now ?? Can we agree I was NOT yet living in 1823 > >> therefore I was not the one who said this ?? > > >> On 3/4/10, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > oh, so YOU want to use the USA to protect Central and South American > >> > countries, just like Israel, eh? > > >> > fund your own charities > > >> > "America for Americans" > > >> > On Mar 3, 6:20 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Plaino..... you threw out the Monroe Doctrine..... one of your > >> >> favorites.... with your opinion on this one. Just how long can you > >> >> keep this hypocrisy flying ??? > > >> >> On Mar 3, 4:21 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > the same goes for the jewish/muslim dispute in the ME > > >> >> > their countries - their problem > > >> >> > On Mar 3, 3:11 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > *What Has Argentina Done For Us Lately? *Nothing, as far as I > >> >> > > know. > >> >> > > So why is the Obama administration offering to help Argentina in > >> >> > > its > >> >> > > dispute with Britain > >> >> > > <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article70...> > >> >> > > over the Falklands? > > >> >> > > Argentina was celebrating a diplomatic coup yesterday in its > >> >> > > attempt > >> >> > > to force Britain to accept talks on the future of the Falkland > >> >> > > Islands, after a two-hour meeting in Buenos Aires between > >> >> > > Hillary > >> >> > > Clinton and President Cristina Fern�ndez de Kirchner. > > >> >> > > Responding to a request from Mrs Kirchner for "friendly > >> >> > > mediation" > >> >> > > between Britain and Argentina, Mrs Clinton, the US Secretary of > >> >> > > State, said she agreed that talks were a sensible way forward > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > offered "to encourage both countries to sit down". > > >> >> > > I can't think of anything we can gain from this offer. And there > >> >> > > is > >> >> > > no > >> >> > > doubt that it will annoy many in our closest ally > >> >> > > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7355040/Falklands-f...>. > >> >> > > And, though such things don't seem to matter much to the Obama > >> >> > > administration, the people who live in the Falklands don't want > >> >> > > talks. > > >> >> > > (In general, a nation should not offer to mediate a conflict unless > >> >> > > the > >> >> > > nation is sure that all involved in the conflict want that > >> >> > > mediation. > >> >> > > And I think that we have enough on our diplomatic plate so that we > >> >> > > don't need more.) > >> >> > > - 10:14 AM, 3 March 2010 [link] > >> >> > > <http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_1.html#jrm8438> > > >> > -- > >> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > >> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > >> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > >> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > >> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > >> -- > >> Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
