It makes sense that we will start to hear more waves made about Guantanamo now.
Castro probably hasn't got much time left- even if he doesn't have a terminal cancer, he's 81 years old, and it is rare for a person to retain enough of their faculties to be more than a symbolic leader into their 90s. Any way you slice it, it is likely that Castro has between 1 and 10 years to prepare the PCC for his death. Raul Castro only adds 5-10 years worth of sand to the hourglass.

Castro has to position Cuba to remain secure and sovreign after he's gone. He can't have Hugo Chavez propping up a puppet regime that will turn Cuba into a Venezuelan satelite state, much less can he have America using any involvement by Chavez in a potential succession crisis as an excuse to invade.

Gitmo is a good card for America to be holding if a succession crisis develops either at the death of Fidel or Raul Castro.

Having legitimate reasons to approach Cuba makes it easier to infiltrate Cuban expatriates for guerilla opperations- the Cubans don't have the luxury of firing on any American craft which enters their airspace or territorial waters.

If America becomes directly involved, we control a logistical base, airstrips, and harbor already as long as they have Gitmo, which increases our deployability to Cuba.


Not only is the time when Cuba may not be able to afford having an American base on their soil fast approaching, but also this is a moment of great opportunity for the Cubans to get rid of it.

The detention center there creates more hostility both internationally and within America towards the existance of Gitmo than would normally be the case. Attempting to get rid of Gitmo through legal international means if/when the democrats control the white house and congress would press the Democrats on two of their key issues- internationalism and opposition to the illegal handling of the war on terror- giving the Cubans a distinct advantage compared to most times.

I'm surprised that Castro said anything at all, seeing as how he has been on death's doorstep for a while now. But the article date is current. I'm still skeptical, however.

Oops! You're right, Mr Vag, I aimed this at KeyHole and meant to address it to you. Message received.

Although I did quote from your thread, you are not the only person who has noted the potential for mischief from Git-mo. I did not say you or others had approved of that.

My complaint lies with my own government that is purposely holding on to a piece of ground in another country where that country does not want us. We IGNORE any law, any UN Charter, any Treaty that suits us at the moment. That is my objection.

This very bad habit did not start with Bush43 although he is several orders of magnitude more offending that any of his predecessors. I suppose it’s a natural outcome of believing you are a “city on a hill.”

[edit on 8/20/2007 by donwhite]

posted by GradyPhilpott
I doubt that the US will ever abandon Gitmo. I'm sure he wants the US our to Cuba, but Castro is irrelevant. The last I heard, Cuba was refusing to cash the US lease payments. Aside from that, this paragraph [that follows but not copied here] alone gives sufficient reason to consider the source a highly biased one.

Even people with a bias can sometimes be correct. The real issue is this: do we approve of the usage to which the facility at Gitmo is put? Another issues is: do we really give a tinker’s dam about our image abroad? Or are just walking around world with a “up yours” attitude?

Fidel Castro may well be irrelevant to Americans. We certainly have shown him that we care not a whit for him or his fellow countrymen.

I pray every day that Fidel should live at least until January 20, 2009, when he will have outlasted Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton and now Bush the Dull-witted.

And untold numbers of illegal attempts to assassinate him, to invade his country and to do other things illegal towards Cuba. Not only have we been cowardly, but we are dumb if all those efforts have failed. Cowardly because if we had half the chutzpah we think we have, we’d have sent in the USMC and re-conquered the place a long time ago and stopped this tap dancing charade.

[edit on 8/20/2007 by donwhite]

Grady is right... the Castro government has refused to cash the rent check ever since the bay of pigs if I recall correctly.

On a personal note having been to gitmo twice... I don't know why anyone, castro or us would want it back, its hot, its humid and one of the more unpleasent places I have ever been.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by grover]

reply to post by Grover

Thx Grover, for the personal info about Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. After all the base closings in the US, several rounds in fact, and maybe more to come, it is obvious to me that we keep that base open - well, prior to Bush43 - now it's like off-shore banking, a way to evade the law - as a thorn in the side of Fidel and as a sop to the expatriates in Miami. They control at least one or two Congressional seats and can be a deciding vote in any statewide election in Florida that is otherwise close.

[edit on 8/20/2007 by donwhite]

The only reason we are still there is to be a thorn and a threat in Castro's side, it is far more expensive to maintain than most bases since EVERYTHING has to be shipped in, we get nothing from the neighboring towns... I say get out.

I've been to Gitmo, albeit only for a couple or three days, while on a Carib cruise in 1970.

We took a tour of the perimeter, which was enlightening.

I never met anyone who has liked being stationed there, since there is no such thing as liberty as most service members understand the term.

Having a naval base in Cuba is highly beneficial or it would be closed.

It's a keeper.

Well, maybe when Castro dies and the Cuban people come to their senses and revolt against the revolution, we might think about it, but by then the Cubans will be proud to have all that money from the lease and all those sailors and Marines coming into town to have a good time.


[edit on 2007/8/21 by GradyPhilpott]

A Simple Question

I understand and respect the concerns surrounding Guantanamo Bay.

However, I feel compelled to pose this simple question:

Do you think the prisoners there would be better off under U.S. custody, or would they be better off being incarcerated as political prisoners in Cuba proper?

If we are fighting to preserve our values, then we must really preserve our values. We do that best by respecting those values. Due process is much older than King John and the Magna Carta of 1215. In fact, St. Paul got due process when he appealed to Caesar to have his conviction in Jerusalem overturned. Jesus got due process when he was captured by the Roman soldiers and was taken before the Roman procurator.

It does us no credit to deny anyone, all the more captives under our excursive control, due process. I have always believed the US Con regulates our government’s’s conduct wherever on this planet they may be, including secret prisons scattered around the world.

But that’s me, and I’m not Bush43, VP Cheney or AG Gonzales, men who do not share that belief with me.

[edit on 8/21/2007 by donwhite]

Unfortunately in the fight to preserve our values, if that is what it is at all, this administration has so compromised them and to make the disparity between our rhetoric and the reality more blatant that no one outside this country believes a word we say anymore.

As for the prisoners, they are part and parcel of the above... no where in the constituition does it say this set of laws applies to citizen and another set to outsiders... we supposed to be a nation of laws and what applies to one should apply to all. Those prisoners should be in our legal system proper and delt with accordingly.