> There is an ongoing discussion about China weaponizing tourism
And America tried the same tatic with Cuba and many other countries. It's an effective tatic. China isn't doing anything new that hasn't been done before.
And America tried the same tatic with Cuba and many other countries. It's an effective tatic. China isn't doing anything new that hasn't been done before.
A) Cuba w/Soviets pointed nuclear missiles at the US. Iran's government perpetually declares they want to destroy the US. that's a tad offside compared to 'listing Taiwan as a country'.
B) The US very very rarely controls where it's citizens can go.
The moral/relative arguments used by the pro/defend China camp are tiring.
That's complicated but the Cuban regime is still to this day fairly totalitarian and are openly hostile to the US, which is not some little diplomatic thing.
The US government has declared they want to destroy the US. It has been the US interfering in Iran, not vice versa.
The US banned Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling from leaving the US, only giving him one shortly before his second Nobel prize to avoid international embarrassment.
Playwright and former Marilyn Monroe husband Arthur Miller was denied a passport, blocking him from seeing the Crucible open in London.
Civil rights icon Paul Robeson was denied a passport, explicitly to deny him the opportunity to talk about the state of national oppression of those of African descent in the US.
Also NY Post reporter William Withy Jr., Corliss Lamont, Howard Fast, Rockwell Kent...
In more recent days one can not drive a car in the US without a license, travel a plane without one, take an Amtrak train without one or ride a Greyhound bus without one. The US absolutely exercises control over where its citizens can go, many of these restrictions are new.
There's no way to tell what would have happened if a hypothetical rump CSA territory still existed circa 1934.
But we can look at Vietnam for comparison. The US normalized relations after 20 years, not >70.
The US is quite happy right now to punish countries trading with Iran.
Do you have more information about this?
The embargo is still in effect. I recently took a cruise to Havana. I was annoyed at the frequent reminders to those of us passengers who are US citizens about our restrictions on engaging in unallowed economic activity. Passengers who were not citizens of the Land of the Free have no such restrictions.
One is from a minor diplomatic dispute.
The other arose from a nuclear standoff that was the closest we ever came to starting World War 3 and therefore the destruction of all human life as we know it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
EDIT: Sorry about...history, I guess?
I like your parent/child allusion and who wouldn't? However, there is no parent available that could cuff the miscreant and make it all good. Besides: what exactly is "the good thing"?
Your tradition seems to only go back a few decades.
That said: we can persuade around 2 billion people to watch a Californian princess become a Duchess and convince those watchers and the rest of the world that the opposite happened! The US and its mythology can be pretty persuasive but I defy you to beat that 8)
I just wish the Queen of Canada visited more. She doesn't even live here.
The Canadian, British, Australian, New Zealand, etc etc Monarchy is a bit of a funny old thing but I think that through the Commonwealth (QEII's personal project) and other initiatives it is very useful and a force for good. At the moment the Royal Family are very, very popular in the UK (it hasn't always been so). They seem to have managed to re-invent themselves rather cleverly over the last 20 years or so.
The recent Royal marriage was frankly breathtaking - Harry is prince no. 2 and Megan is a Yank and yet the firm turned this into a fairy tale. Harry is as near a war hero as can be allowed and Megan is a pretty lass and clearly very bright and talented - good initial ingredients. Throw in a bloody great castle and chapel, amazing weather and a few other things and you get a right old tear jerker of a wedding.
The Queen of Canada was in attendance.
I live in the south west of England in a county called Somerset. I'm roughly 130 miles away from Buck Pal. You are a few thousand miles away but we both have the same link to our Royals.
It still illegally holds these properties today.
The communist Cuban government acceded to hosting Soviet nuclear missiles pointed at the US. This almost caused a nuclear war.
The US embargo was based on these and many other things.
It is hardly a comparable situation.
The embargo didn't ultimately work, and neither did the government.
I was just responding to the idea that an island that is no threat whatsoever to China, and which has never had nuclear missiles pointed at China, and which has not ever nationalized property from citizens of China was somehow equivalent to the Cuba situation.
That's not anyone else's business. Countries should be free to a certain extent to act as they wish. It's not for America to decide what political system another country should have.
>The communist Cuban government acceded to hosting Soviet nuclear missiles...
I think you skipped a key part of history usually referred to as "Bay of Pigs Invasion"...
Until you nationalize American-owned businesses, then yes it is.
It's a standard American imperial idea. The US seizure and continual occupation of Guantanamo Bay is "legal". Cubans reclaiming what Americans stole in other parts of Cuba is "illegal".
It's quite a joke. The US invading and seizing sugar plantations from 1898 to 1959 is legal, the American thieves being driven out is "illegal" and "without any compensation".
This sort of imperial hubris is why Arabian patriots have been flying planes into the Pentagon.
If you'd please review the site rules and use this place as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it.
If you drop sufficient detail from any comparison you can indeed come to such a conclusion, but it isn't an honest conclusion. In this case the detail that was dropped is the motive for engaging in the "same tactic", and in this case the motive is very different.
In my opinion, this style (discarding non-trivial details until two different scenarios can be declared ~identical) of reporting, in both formal mainstream print & media journalism as well as the more casual but still extremely influential late night talk shows, is what has caused such a large percentage of the public to hold opinions that do not line up very well with reality, and you can observe this in online discussions when people get very emotionally upset with those who disagree with them - they "know" something to be a fact, because they likely did in fact hear something very similar to what they believe reported in a serious news outlet. But if you ask them to provide any citations that include this extra detail (say, during a discussion over an instance of the story that does include the dropped details), unsurprisingly they are utterly incapable of finding any evidence. And rare is the case where the person in question be able to realize their mistake, and change their beliefs.
And if you fact check the media outlets on any of this, you'll almost always find that what they literally say is indeed factually true, it's just that they've dropped a whole bunch of context, resulting in their readers having a distorted understanding.