Everyone ate it too. The mockery was because
If you hate someone, anything they do can be something you use to express your hate, even if you do it to.
I don’t think I implied that we couldn’t leave, or even that we shouldn’t. I said that Cuba’s not going to get us to leave by asserting that the agreement was never valid, because that’s just going to get the response of “yes it is”. For better or worse nations negotiate backed with weapons, and a power imbalance is inevitable.
It’s not even a matter of right or wrong, just reality. Few would argue that the Japanese constitution is illegitimate and that power should rightly devolve back to the Empire of Japan.
You have some misapprehensions about the embargo of Cuba. It’s sometimes called a blockade for rhetorical effect, but it’s not actually a blockade.
It’s not “enforced” from Guantanamo bay, it’s enforced by civil penalties levied by the Treasury department on US entities and their subsidiaries, and to a limited extent by the department of state through threats of potential trade or diplomatic consequences.
Cuba can and does trade with other nations, including US allies, and even the US. The harm the embargo does is via sharply limiting the availability of the lines of credit smaller nations rely on for continuing development of their infrastructure, not by literally preventing boats full of food from landing. Additional harm is done by denying them access to the largest convenient trading partner in the region for non-food, non-medical (embargo terms have excluded those items for decades) trades which further harms their economy by denying them a reliable cash influx their neighbors rely on, as well as making imports more expensive through sheer transport distance.
Justified or not, and regardless of poor negotiating position, refusal to engage in a dialogue is not helping Cuba’s position.
They have their own ideological motivations for refusing to engage. Even a tacit acknowledgement that maybe they shouldn’t have nationalized the assets of US companies without compensation would get them a lot of negotiation credit, and it costs them nothing, except for the ideological factors. The US doesn’t get much out of it, and $6 billion 1959 can be written off fairly easily for the PR win.
One side doesn’t need to budge, and the other one refuses, and they both have their reasons. I believe that was the point OP was going for.
Unfortunately, there are no agreements between nations that don’t involve the presence of armies. One of the byproducts of the US fighting Spain to kick them out of Cuba is that the US army is necessarily involved. The alternative was continued Spanish colonialism, not an independent Cuba.
Do you find the German or Japanese surrender treaties to be illegitimate because they were made at gunpoint?
The article was also pretty non-inflammatory in my opinion.
They (governments) don’t do it because it’s taken as threatening, but more because it’s not. It’s a very specifically not belligerent way to push back on a country. “I can wander in here right up against your borders because your zone of exclusive control isn’t as big as you claim”.
We do the same thing with China to push back on their claims that certain waterways belong to them. (Ours looks a little different since we routinely patrol shipping lanes, so a more overt ship but also more common to just see tooling around looming at would be pirates, so it’s not the same message as if a Russian missile destroyer showed up off the Florida coast. We send that message with a carrier group.). By overtly and openly using a waterway we say “LOOK AT US JUST NORMALLY USING THIS PUBLIC ROUTE LIKE A NORMAL SHIP IN PUBLIC WOULD DO WHEN THEY WEREN’T VIOLATING CHINESE TERRITORIAL WATERS”.
We would rather other nations not send military vessels near the US mainland. Russia would rather not have a bunch of stuff happen that we regularly facilitate. So they discreetly give us the finger by doing the tamest version of what we don’t want while still having a perfectly normal excuse.
… It’s a preposterously easy to find bit of information.
Us fought a war with Spain. Spain lost and got booted from the Americas, Asia and Pacific, with the US taking Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
A few years later we stipulated that Cuba’s independence was conditional on allowing a navel base to remain under US control, Cuba reluctantly agreed, and a lease was signed with no end date with the US paying rent for the land.
When nations change governments, there is always a period of figuring out how treaties and debts are assumed. Usually the successor government assumes at least a portion of “fair” debt inherited from the previous government. (No, we’re not paying for the ammunition the previous government shot at us, yes we’re going to pay the interest on the loan for agricultural supplies). Same goes for treaties.
Post revolution Cuba did the usual and continued international relations as “Cuba”, and not a brand new entity. Hence their argument being that the lease treaty is and was illegitimate, not just “not recognized”, inapplicable or rejected. The US holds it’s a perfectly legitimate agreement and keeps sending payment on time. Everyone agrees there’s an agreement between the US and Cuba around the base, with the contention being about the legitimacy of the 1903 treaty, not it’s applicability.
Yes, Cuba has no leverage to pressure negotiations in their favor. This was true before the embargo as well as after. No, they did not really have a viable alternative to agreeing to the lease. The best option sucking is usually not considered to make a treaty invalid.
Fair or not, the treaty is generally regarded as legitimate, which limits Cuba’s options to use the law to compel the US to leave.
With no interest in negotiation, nothing to offer, no military force, and US complacency with the status quo, the odds of both parties agreeing to end the lease is pretty low.
Totally agree on the hard line stance on human rights.
I guess I’m just not seeing what you’re seeing. They’re both pictures of people mostly holding signs and peacefully marching. A woman holding a sign and smiling doesn’t scream face smashing to me.
If that was the point they were trying to make, then maybe actually using an image from the stonewall riots might have conveyed that a bit better than two sets of images of people peacefully marching.
Usually this format implies highlighting a significant change between “then” and “now”, but I really think it just highlights “the first picture was taken before 1978”, and and “the specific of the struggle have changed, but not the presence”
I’m not entirely sure what they were trying to highlight.
I mean, the idea wasn’t terrible, it just wasn’t executed well.
It was supposed to provide a non-threatening way to help users access functionality of their device or software that they may have been unaware of that would be relevant to their current task. This would assist users in accomplishing their task more efficiently, and help Microsoft by increasing consumers perception of the value their software provides, which reduces their likelihood to want to use something else in the future.
A modern, potentially useful clippy would ideally be able to tell…
It’s still probably gonna suck ass and not be helpful, but at least it wouldn’t by vaguely mystifying why it even existed.
The best “digital assistants” I’ve seen recently are ones that actually acknowledge that these are language tools, not “knowledge” or “reasoning” tools.
They can legitimately do a good job figuring out a good response to what you ask it, ignoring the accuracy question. So if you set it up to know how to format data and what data you have available, you can get it to respond to questions like “are there trends in the monthly sales statistics for the past three years?” with a graph of those statistics broken down by product, rather than trying to let a language tool try to do reasoning on numerical data.
Talking good can sound like reasoning because right now things that talk good are usually humans that have basic reasoning skills. It’s why it so confusing when they just happily spout irrational nonsense: we’re used to rationality being a given in things that are confident and articulate.
Oh, totally. Don’t disagree with anything you said. 😊
To be clear, I was just trying to illustrate “how nations choose to act” and a bit of the context of “why Ukraine and not Palestine?”.
Location and advertising reliability as an ally are just the easiest to convey, but there are of course so many different things that go into everything a nation as big as the US does.
The state department has tens of thousands of workers, before you even get to the “boring” parts of what the CIA does to get them the data (analyzing public shipping records mostly) they need to make those policies and agreements. Any attempt to summarize the considerations of those people will have to cut some content.
“values” in this context was being used in the ethical or cultural sense not the economic sense.
“Equality” and “justice” are American Values, and “clear shipping routes” are something with utility. “Ideals” would have also worked for “American values”.
Basically because it’s not soft enough.
Your body “pushes” things out by squeezing in a “rolling” motion. Like running a rolling pin over a tube of toothpaste.
Picture each of those little segments contracting and relaxing in sequence to slowly move things along, until it gets dumped in the rectum, where it sits until you and it come to an understanding.
Bunch of muscles then move things around to get things lined up, since normally things rest in a way that helps keep things from just falling out. Anal sphincter also does this, but it’s the difference between folding the chip bag closed, using a chip clip or both.
Once it’s all lined up, it does that rolling squeeze again, takes off the chip clip and things proceed in a routine fashion.
So if instead of what it’s used to, it’s dealing with something like a cucumber, it can end up with the end up around that curve at the top of the rectum.
The tapered inside near the anal sphincter means that when your vegetable goes in, the muscle can squeeze against the end and make the situation more of a commitment than people had planned for.
Once there, it can run into a few more hurdles. The muscles near the top can’t really do anything but squeeze the sides. If it’s not squishy and there’s no angle, it’s not going to be able to do anything because it just doesn’t have the angle. Even if there is an angle, like your cucumber didn’t go all the way, it’s going to be squeezing at an awkward angle to try to push something inflexible through the opening in the stronger anal sphincter.
Usually the softness lets things find a way with some mutual give and take, but even normally things can get a bit firm and get some resistance that can be uncomfortable to work through.
Turns out I think I remember more of my anatomy and physiology classes than I thought.
I’m unfortunately not sure how much of it’s “values” and how much is “utility”.
People have values, nations don’t. Nations only exemplify their national values because the citizens will be outraged if they’re breached too far. Otherwise a nations foreign policy is better looked at through a lens of detached utilitarianism.
Usually our value of “supporting our friends” and the self image of being the hero (I think WW2 was America’s highschool football) lines up nicely with the utility it provides.
We get a lot of advantages out of our allies, not least of which is fat piles of sweet, sweet trade goods. We would never precondition military training exercises, intelligence sharing or sensitive service export regulation exemptions on getting a favorable trade deal on mangoes, but we do tend to reserve those things for our close allies, and trade agreements are a very efficient way to develop those bonds.
Waterway access lets us send our navy everywhere which massively reduces piracy, to the benefit of all, but to our benefit the most, as the leading consumer of oceanic transport goods.
A military base will get you very strong support, and furthers our security interests of global force projection.
Israel is very useful to us. The give us a naval port in the Mediterranean, military staging areas, and a regional toehold that would otherwise be significantly weaker. We also, again, get a lot of trade value from their medical supplies and electronics, and we get to sell them a lot of services.
Combined with the previously mentioned points about signaling strong resolve and unwavering support if you’ve earned it, it would be very costly for us to abandon Israel.
It’s why our politicians with constituents who care about human rights are trying very hard to walk the tightrope of supporting Israel against Hamas while opposing killing civilians. (The messaging is not going well).
The Palestinians, unfortunately, do not possess strategic value. Their “value” comes from internal political pressure to not allow or support evil, which is tempered by the opposing political view being to make the evil worse, which explains a relatively subdued response.
With goods, sales, power, influence and PR worth tens of billions one one side, and internal political pressure towards an ethical stance that might endanger some fraction of that value on the other, it’s a question of how much value we stand to loose by listening to that pressure, and exactly how strong that pressure is.
Putin is already irritated at us and there’s no advantage to preventing further irritation short of actually engaging in direct combat with NATO forces, and a general principle of not letting others control your escalation (We want to control when US weapons are used against Russia because it impacts our diplomatic stance, even if Ukraine is the one firing them).
There is advantage to us for Ukraine winning, particularly if it’s with our weapons and support. It reassures our allies, it drives interest in closer alliances with us, and generally reinforces the “aligning with the US brings trade, wealth, safety and protection” message we like to use to spread influence. See also: Finland and Sweden.
Israel on the other hand is a historical ally in a region of significance and contested influence.
Israel’s genocidal actions against the Palestinians is unacceptable. Full stop.
From a political standpoint, the actions Hamas took that precipitated the current military campaign make it difficult to condemn the response without undermining the message that US allies get US support when they’re attacked. It’s why all the wording and messaging gets so verbose: how do you say “of course you can defend yourself and we’ll help” while also saying “maybe not the big guns, and stop with the civilian killings”.
If the region weren’t contested, weren’t important, we had significantly moreallies in the area, and it wasn’t important for domestic political reasons, it would be a different story.
Thanks! Knowing the meaning now, it was the “I” to “is” typo that threw me off, since “saw” is also the type of movie to get banned.
Perfectly clear now, thanks. :)
I got thrown because “is” came before “saw”, which is also a scary movie, and I just couldn’t disambiguate.
Can you repeat or clarify that second sentence? I’m pretty sure there was a typo or mistyped word somewhere, and usually I wouldn’t mention it, but in this case I actually can’t interpret the meaning.
Not all land is suitable for crop cultivation, which was the point I was making. In subsistence or low tech farming areas, animals forage on land unsuitable for crop production and eat food unsuitable for human consumption. They’re not eating feed, they’re eating wild weeds and grass we can’t. They’re eating insects, miscellaneous seeds, small plants and whatever they find.
Do you think that if you’re farming to have enough food to feed your family and maybe some leftovers to sell, that you’re going to choose to produce something markedly inefficient in comparison to other options?
Subsistence farmers today aren’t stupid. They’re not wasting 90% of their food because they want a hamburger. They raise goats and chickens because they feed themselves and you let your kid who’s too young to do heavy work follow them with a stick to keep them from wandering off. They raise cattle and donkeys because they can forage, and what they can’t forage is more than made up for by using them to work the land or as beasts of burden.
There’s a reason we domesticated animals. We didn’t just immediately start giving them feed corn and locking them in cages.
It’s a privilege to be able to ignore a readily available source of food.
It’s a privilege to live in a society where we set aside land to grow huge amounts of food to feed our food.
It’s a privilege to not have to know specifically where your food is coming from.
It’s kind of ignorant to think that people who don’t have those privileges must be foolish enough to choose what you think is an inefficient option, and to not consider why they would make that choice.
Well, that’s getting into the difference between veganism and vegetarianism.
That aside, although meat is expensive from a cost and input perspective, it is a very efficient and dense source of calories and protein.
Outside of a first world or industrial agricultural setting, they also have the advantage of being able to convert food sources humans cannot eat into one we can, while to a great degree being able to tend to themselves.
Goats, sheep and chickens can have large numbers managed by a few children with sticks, and also produce non-vegan animal byproducts which can be sold for cash.
This is also before hunting is considered.
While vegetarianism and veganism can be practiced outside of a first world context, and indeed have been for thousands of years, they do come with sacrifices that are significantly easier to make with more money or in a post agricultural region.
Eschewing cheese, eggs and honey is not a difficult thing to do for me if I wanted, but there are places where that’s just leaving good food uneaten, or money unearned.
That’s I believe what’s being referred to when it’s called a privilege.
Because the Internet makes it easy to more forcefully express strong opinions, from both parties.
It’s very easy to run into vegans on the Internet who will call you an unethical monster for eating meat, which if you don’t think of yourself as an unethical monster, can be a bit offensive.
You also run into non-vegans who can’t get it through their heads that that’s not every vegan on earth, or even just the Internet or likely even that conversation.
It’s much harder to call someone an animal hating monster or a pretentious condescending asshole face to face.
It’s a delightful PR gimmick by a most definitely not a tech company, since there’s not much cutting edge technology going on in the world of “flamethrowers are perfectly legal in America and that’s our business model”.
In addition to strapping a flamethrower to a generic quadruped robot, they also strapped one to a drone.