The Wrong Experience

Our Cuba policy is senseless. Exhibit A: China

I always read your weekly articles and really do appreciate them. It gives a global reflection on the issues at stake and ready information to our reflexion. Yet, I have just received your magazine and don't find a word about the events which have taken place in Tchad... I suddenly find the news very trivial and wonder what is this world we live in. Thousands of Tchadians are fleeing their capital, dozens of innocent civilians were killed in the last offensive by the rebels and... I don't find any hint in your issue??... No-one seems to care... Is there a problem if the journalists don't consciously and honestly report about it?
Well, I'm French: I heard the results of Super Tuesday, I can see all the covers about our President's wedding, tommorrow is the Chinese New Solar Year... and what about what's happening in Tchad and Darfur? What about all our countries lusting after Darfur's oill, about our fear of what could happen there if we opened our mouth to find a fair-minded solution with all the nations involved?...

Thank you for reading me despite the mistakes...

Emma D.

Mr Zakaria writes that he cannot remember why we enforced a total embargo on Cuba in the first place. I think he may not be old enough to remember when Castro rode into Havana but I can. He used a gun to literally rob his own people and mercilessly looted the country for his own benefit. In the 1960's he allowed the Russians to place deadly strategic missiles in Cuba so close that we would not have had any prior warning if they were launched - and aimed them at our country. In the 1970's he began a systematic effort to destabilize democracies Latin America and sent troops and trainers to places like Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador and any other place where the Russians had an interest. In the 1980's he sent thousands of troops and tactical aircraft to Angola where he supported the Dos Santos MPLA regime against freedom fighter Jonas Savimbi. The US has not attempted to effect a regime change in Cuba, we tried to contain this ego maniac and ignore him for the past 45 years. If Castro returns the property and the dignity of the people his ruthless regime has taken at gun point and makes reparations for the assassination and state executions of his own citizens, then perhaps a different dialog can be initiated. Mr Zakaria is a Muslim Indian on the far end of the intellectual left and it is not surprising that he supports Obama, who has no grounding or experience in foreign policy. Obama's "feminine style of consensus building" in his decision making process reminds one of Jimmy Carter. Mr. Zakaria's earlier comment about Obama's gift of having grown up in a swirl of multi-culturalism (Mr Zakaria's words), better establishing him to deal with third world countries. This is very much like Carter's approach which ended in several foreign policy disasters - the Russians invaded Afghanistan, Angola fell to the Russians and the Cubans and Nicaragua was taken over by the Sandanistas. Carter thought he could effect change by dumping huge sums of money into whatever poltical abyss landed on his desk and through prayer. Nixon once said that 75% of the world's countries are run by gangsters. I think that most of them would either co-opt Obama to the detriment of the US through his multi-cultural idealism or they would very expertly put him on the defensive. One thing is for certain - we do not need to change the policy regarding Castro by shoveling money to Havana. I always enjoy Mr. Zakaria's columns because they provoke thought and discussion about serious topics.

Sure, Obama talks the good talk about visionary idealism, but his policy and senate record reveal that he is more willing to make compromises than his campaign rhetoric suggests. In health care, one of the few areas where Clinton and Obama have substantive differences, Obama's plan sacrifices full coverage in order to appeal to more conservative voters. This is in direct contradiction to his earlier stated goals of full universal healthcare in January 2007 (http://tinyurl.com/238tr6). Paul Krugman of the New York Times blogged about this recently (http://tinyurl.com/3yh6lr). In the senate, Barack watered down his bill requiring nuclear power plants to disclose radioactive leaks, caving to pressure from nuclear power-plant operator Exelon Corporation (source: http://tinyurl.com/2kpwsw). It is ludicrous to claim that Obama is somehow immune to political constraints. His
carefully crafted policy and actions in the Senate prove otherwise.

Just don't understand. Why Newsweek and the whole American media treated Hillary like that? I understand that you make money by selling whatever people want to hear, something that is ???new??? and ???thrilling???. And I also understand that Hillary is not a new topic to you. You have sold her story for the past 12 years or so and Obama is obviously a new ???hot??? topic to talk about. However, is it fair to treat her like yesterday news and Obama as the new, fresh darling (until people get bored with him)? And about Iraq war, the media and the majority of American believed in Bush???s lies, you backed him, voted him twice. Now, when the Iraq war turns into a shitty quagmire, you blame her. Is it fair? She was the representative for American people, so she had to vote for what the majority believed in. Now, you blame her for what you did wrong. Is it fair? For the last time, be fair with her people.

Just don't understand. Why Newsweek and the whole American media treated Hillary like that? I understand that you make money by selling whatever people want to hear, something that is ???new??? and ???thrilling???. And I also understand that Hillary is not a new topic to you. You have sold her story for the past 12 years or so and Obama is obviously a new ???hot??? topic to talk about. However, is it fair to treat her like yesterday news and Obama as the new, fresh darling (until people get bored with him)? And about Iraq war, the media and the majority of American believed in Bush???s lies, you backed him, voted him twice. Now, when the Iraq war turns into a shitty quagmire, you blame her. Is it fair? She was the representative for American people, so she had to vote for what the majority believed in. Now, you blame her for what you did wrong. Is it fair? For the last time, be fair with her, please.

Fareed.you are awesome

Here is Hillary, speaking VERY clearly and intelligently about exactly the nuclear proliferation issue Zakaria says she has not spoken out about. Do your research Fareed.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-080118clinton-story,0,3734644.story

Both of the two candidates are one and the same.........

They both rely on the "Behind-the-Scenes" Democratic Machine for Foreign Policy and Economic Decisions ........It doesn't matter who it is......

Both of them believe in the "Old World/Cold War Ideals" of Neo-Conservatism......and rely/belong to the same supposed "think-tanks' " as the other.....

How about writing what is actually "Good for Americans" instead of the same old rhetoric that I've been listening to for 25 years.....

VOTE FOR CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-Tx)!!!!!! and let The Constitution and Bill of Rights' decide what's right for America instead of a bunch of "bought off" Neo-Cons....

Amen, Mr. Zakaria. Amen.

Your point about is Hillary making decisions for political expediency is right on target. However, I would disagree that she doesn't act on her beliefs. She does. Her deepest belief is that she should be president. Everything else is secondary. She makes NO decision, takes NO action, states NO position without first considering how it would affect her presidential ambitions.

When I say NO decision, I mean none. Consider how things in her life would be different if she didn't have executive tunnel vision. Would she still be married to Bill if she didn't value her presidential ambitions more than her dignity? I doubt it. I would say "only she knows", but I suspect she's no more honest with herself than she is with America. Which brings me to what's most frightening about Hillary: She believes her own hype. She has to. If she didn't, she could never live with herself.

Mr Zakaria goes beyone good. He is damed good and I enjoy the common sense approach he has presented over the past years. I can only thank him for the breaths of fresh air he has provided and urge him on. Thank you again sir..

Whoa...you had me until you said it was time to cut back on nukes. Why go into an argument without the biggest weapon?

I visited Cuba a couple of years ago and I found it to be a very interesting country. It boasts the rich and the poor, the slums and the mansions, the beautiful beaches and dirty cities. I think that the embargo on Cuba is unnecessary. I hope whoever becomes the next President will consider that Cuba isn't the threat that many people think it is.

Fareed Zakaria is a communist and should be banned from writing for Newsweek.

Thanks Fareed. You've reminded me that Hillary really isn't a bad person, she just lacks the courage of her own convictions. It played a big role in why I didn't vote for her.

The time has come for a much more global view. If we are to keep our country and others safe from what we purport to fear, it is essential that we learn about and work with all nations. Just as in our own country, what we have in common with the world citizens is more than what we don't. That is why Obama's message is so appealing and why I will vote for him. It's time for America to mature.