posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:28 PM
Cuba is 'bad' tho, so no, it doesn't concern me. What states does the US work with that are 'bad' also? Saudi Arabia? But they've
agreed to, and have, cracked down on terrorists and loosen up on their civil rights violations. Saudi Arabia also doesn't have, as its ideological
basis, a requirement to destroy the united states. Cuba, being a promoter of internationalist communism, does. So the US can either work with an
absolutist monarchy that is at least trying to reform and is willing to work with the US, or it can work with an obstructionist totalitarian
government that is not trying to reform. Also, Saudi Arabia has an issue with its public, they don't trust america, they themselves are difficult to
work with. Putting Saudi Arabia won't advance US interests at all, it would result in international isolation of the Saudi State, make any
cooperation or crackdown on its part look like a sign of either extreme weakness (which would lead to revolt) or collaboration (which will lead to
revolt). Isolating Cuba, despite everything, has not resulted in the Cuban people hating america and its reduced funding and legitimacey for the
castro government, funding and legitimacey that when they did have they used to export the internationalist communist revolution abroad.
Or what about pakistan, Musharaf overthrew the democratic government and installed a military dictatorship right? But the democratic government was
utterly corrupt and had resulted in a curtailment of democracy and a geostrategically unstable situation. Musharraf, while dictator, is not a
totalitarian, and is not even an absolutist monarch, he operates the country by being a good leader and is able to also crack down on islamist
radicalism in the region.
So why shouldn't the United States put Cuba on a 'rogue state' list? Its clearly a rogue state, while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, while not
democratic, are not 'rogue states' and are working to reform.