NO to Dean because of his stand on Cuba

No to any candidate that wants to keep sanctions on Cuba

No to Kerry who has not said word one about Skull and Bones

IMHO, as far as litmus tests go, this one sucks:) This is one issue that I would be willing to compromise on with any candidate, not saying it's not serious, but as far as litmus tests go? :eyes:

I will with my whole heart support and campaign for any Democrat candidate except Liberman. To me he is a repuke in all but name.

No to getting Bush out of office

Yes to blind ideology!

Yes to cutting off my nose to spite my face.

:)

:thumbsup:

do you really want him to talk about skull and bones ? if you do, why not try attending some event with him and asking him about it ?

Just keep pumping that money and those troops in there.

Can't have the UN taking charge.They can come to visit but not stay.

There, is that a better litmus test?

I have consistently heard Dean say that the UN needs greater involvement and the US must make concessions across the board in order to get the UN and other nations involved.

eom

Dean has said over and over and over and over again that he wants the UN in Iraq. If you are ignorant of that fact and posted anyhow shame on you. If you knew that and lied then really shame on you.

I thought I detected a note of sarcasm in revcarol's post.

HE'S FINE WITH GIVING THEM CLEAN-UP ROLES AND NO POWER TO GIVE DEMOCRACY TO THE PEOPLE, AND NO POWER OVER IRAQI OIL MONEY.

Just come in and clean up our dirty mess,UN, we will "let" you, but no being in charge or having real power to take away the contracts of B& R, HAlliburton, the amounts paid for oil,and pay for your own troops, you nations that are dumb enough to say you are UN troops....

His idea is that the Bush administration "lets' the UN come in, with some token power-sharing that doesn't amount to anything, and then they can supply all the troops, all the humanitarian aid, take all the casualties, while we keep the spoils and real power.

IF YOU HAVE PROOF THAT HE WANTS TO PUT THE UN IN TOTAL CHARGE of 1) a security and peacekeeping, 2) all contracts for rebuilding or using Iraqis to rebuild their own country, 3)all moneys from oil being "re-negotiated" and the money going to Iraqis not U. S. rebuilding contractors 4) timetable for free elections (WITH US, THE COUNTRY THAT DID THE DAMAGE, PAYING FOR IT), please come up with it.

Otherwise be aware that he is doing the 'feel-good' approach of "We want the UN and all our friends and allies to join us" without having to make any hard decisions.He has the country's ear now. NOW IS THE TIME to put out a real plan for the UN control IF he has one.

If Dean has said that he wants to give the UN full control, as opposed to letting the UN help Bush* occupy Iraq, I haven't heard it.

You link where he said what you are claiming he did, and then I will hunt for links. I am tired of being the link provider.

I didn't make any claims about what Dean is doing. I merely said that I haven't heard him call for giving the UN control of Iraq.

because you never heard him speak. You made the claim you back it up. I am sick of the Dean bashing circle jerk. If you want a link from me you give one to me.

You made the claim you back it up.

What claim did I make?

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8372&JServSessionIdr011=y6mptx8fpr.app1a&news_iv_ctrl=1421

""I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must:

Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq; (note he doesn't call for turning authority over to the UN. Just that we should "work with the UN")

Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition; (Again, he doesn't say "turn authority over to the UN. He wants the US to "share")

Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas; (N/A to the UN question)

Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible; (again N/A)

Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible; (again N/A)

Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later; (again N/A)

Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;
Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process. (Calls for UN oversight of one program - Oil for Food. Does NOT call for the UN taking over the occupation)"

to give some to the other person. Thus sharing power means giving some of the power to the UN. Or does your dictionary define share differently? If so I would like a link to your dictionary. By defintion sharing power means that to some extent you will be under the other person. Again if your dictionary defines that differently I would like a link.

It means "give some". In my post #18, I said "If Dean has said that he wants to give the UN full control, as opposed to letting the UN help Bush* occupy Iraq, I haven't heard it."

Did you read that? I mentioned "full control", not "shared control"

Does the SG want to take over completely in Iraq? Do they have the capabilities? How long would it take for them to organize and implement a plan? Etc. etc.

to back up your charge you aren't getting anything from me. I am tired of the Dean bashers playing this game. You make outrageous, dishonest charges and then make us provide links. You go first.

that you spun off the top of your head.

Getting desperate?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Its a pretty shameless thing we're doing over there.

I am a Dean supporter, have been for over a year, and continue to be, but I am concerned that he states we need to remain in Iraq?

Why?

First question: why are we there?

If we are there because our American companies can make a mint off of oil and we can control OPEC prices, what the hell are we doing?

Just take a look at our oil prices at the pump right now.

I have to wonder - have we, the United States become THAT immoral, or have we never been moral to begin with?

If so, I want a moral leader and one that will stand up for what is right.

Dean stood up against the war, and as a large result garnered a mass movement. Hopefully he will stand up against what we are doing in Iraq and realize those troops are over there to secure those oil wells and nothing more. If they are there for something else, please enlighten me. Right now I am disappointed with Deans answers, because in essence they seem pretty close to being in line with what our present Administration is doing.

We HAVE the capacity and the know how to RENEW AND UTILIZE clean energy.

We could give subsidies and tax breaks to the oil companies for their shifts in energy.

WHY ARE WE NOT DOING THIS?

Oil is finite. When (oh when**) are we going to learn.

Hopefully sooner than later.



I can't understand why people are afraid of new ideas

n/t

But then again, unless the candidate was a flaming Marxist, I doubt that you would support him anyway. It makes me wonder why Castro has so many supporters here.

as much as I'd like a candidate to be brave and take a stand against the sanctions, it's hardly a defining criterion. Of all the single issues by which I might judge a candidate this is not it.

BTW, I believe Dean might still be developing his stand on Cuba. The quotes I've seen sounded not that cast in stone. He is very amenable to voter suggestions. I have e-mailed his campaign many times with suggestions, often referring him to discussions here on DU for ideas and to see what people are saying & thinking. And very often I hear those same ideas expressed in speeches a little later. A reasonable e-mail with good ideas for alternatives will be read and digested.

This from his web site:

f. Trade with Cuba

The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancements Act (TSRA) that passed in 2000 and allowed food and medicine exports to Cuba through third-country financing resulted in a $165 million increase in revenue for farmers in 2002. Lifting further sanctions and allowing the direct sale of food to Cuba could mean as much a $1.25 billion in added sales annually according to a Texas A&M study. We cannot reward Castro for his recent human rights abuses, but I believe that we will further the cause of democracy in Cuba with the eventual lifting of trade sanctions. As president I will:

--Move towards the eventual lifting of the trade embargo with Cuba in order to open a new market to American farmers and to push forward the forces of Democracy in Cuba
--Make clear that Cuba will not be rewarded for continued human rights violations

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_agriculture_summary

what else do you want re Cuba??

on edit: link
2nd edit: mix-up, fixed head

the Miami Cubans are the ones who want these sanctions! the original post in this thread said they want sanctions to be lifted

sorry, got mixed up--
yes, that is not what I meant and I am editing that.

No to Kerry because he hasn't mentioned a fraternity he joined when he was 18 years old?

No to Dean because he said that while he is committed to normalizing relations with Cuba, he thinks we should go slowly because of Fidel's recent crackdown?

How about this....

No to George Bush - Yes to the eventual Democratic nominee

(edited to take out a remark made in frustration)

I've always been against the embargo/sanctions against Cuba. But I can still vote for Dean despite some misgivings over some of his stances. He's not my first choice but is head and shoulders above the 4 dwarves who voted for the war, and won't get my vote because of theirs.

"I'll never understand why some people still think Cuba's such a threat. I mean, what the hell is Cuba gonna do? Sail their 2-boat navy into the shores of Florida and march to Washington on foot?"

Cuba is not a good issue to judge Dean on, imo, because I don't think anyone can guess what his actual policy will be if gets into office. He may well flip-flop again, who knows?

Oh yeah, this is a BIG issue with the average American...

Like anyone outside of Miami-Dade gives a shit...

A lot of mid-west farmers want to sell grain to Cuba, and Cuba wants to buy it.
Cuba wants to get more up-to-date with their hospital equipment, etc. and U. S. companies can't sell to them.

So this not only involves civil liberties for Cubans and U. S. citizens, but also involves MONEY....AND ACTUAL SALES OF OUR PRODUCTS OVERSEAS (remember the trade imbalance?), so A LOT OF PEOPLE AND COMPANIES CARE AND ARE WATCHING...

but I still think it's a puny non-issue outside of the Elian contingent. Sure, it affects a few companies and people here and there.

But as a litmus test, instead of, oh, I don't know, IRAQ, Health Care, Education, Deficits, The Economy, Environment? Get real.

Hey I would LOVE to see Cuba opened up, so they can sell some of those 1950's cars they still drive around to the U.S.

nt

Howard Dean is right handed..... we need to vote for a left handed candidate......No for Howard Dean because he is right handed....yes, America will be a better place.....

See how ridiculous people are at times.


We are in a political quagmire.....Howard Dean is the most effective candidiate who is standing up to the *bush regime. He is making the Democratic Party exciting again.


Dean 2004

On another thread the sky is falling and the Dean campaign is blamed because some guy was asked by a cop to pack up his homemade t-shirts.

is rediculous. Cuba is not. How many Dean supporters have said they will never vote for a candidate who voted for the war powers resolution? Isnt that just as rediculous?

As far as Howard Dean being most effective. Thats a judgement that no rational thinking person could make this early in the primary season. Lets have a primary not a faction war people.

n/t

Nice.

I guess Joe and Wes get the day off.....


-:)

1. He is evil because he won't abolish NAFTA to increase trade restrictions.

2. He is evil because he won't abolish sanctions on Cuba to decrease trade restrictions.