Summit of the Americas

Post Reply New Topic

Any discussion? The new Free-Trade Agreement with Colombia? Whether Cuba should be invited next year, or do we need to continue with the Cold War attitude?

Should our president's Secret Service have been more discreet about the prostitutes? At least pay their bill, and not get into unnecessary brawls?

If they don't allow Cuba then everyone (except Canada and the US) is just going to switch to using the Latin American and Caribbean Block instead of the OAS (where those 2 are excluded anyway), so what is there to talk about?

Canada has nothing against Cuba.

"The United States and Canada were alone in opposing Cuban participation, and they also refused to endorse in a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the British-held Falkland Islands."

Ten bucks says U.S. pressure. Canada, unlike the states, is not stick in the 50's and doesn't ban travel and import/export from Cuba. The Cuban cigars I enjoy can attest to that.

I'm sure it was US pressure, but the fact was they still backed Washington.

(I have nothing against Canada, compared to most western powers, I actually like them. This is purely facts, not personal.)

Last edited by Kjas on 17 Apr 2012, 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not surprised about that. A lot of Canadians visit Cuba but our government still follows the American example in some regards. I completely agree with the refusal to endorse Argentina's claim however.

It would be dumb for Canada to support Cuba. Countries that have actual limits with the clown countries (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua) have good will to win by supporting Cuba. But Canada is so far up there that there really is nothing to win from that move, but a ton to lose. US is not only the most powerful of the Summit , but also the one that has actual limits with Canada.

I don't really get Argentina's claim to the Falklands. It's population wants to remain British and it has never been in Argentinian possession any amount of, certainly not as long as it has been in British hands. Is there something important on the Falklands that I don't know about or is just the a distraction for the Argentinian government because of their pathetic government that has taken their country from one of the richest in the world in the early 20th century to sad bankrupt shell.

Last edited by Jacoby on 18 Apr 2012, 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm sure it was a good move for Canada on political and economical terms, not debating that point one iota.

Doesn't change the fact that now the majority will use CELAC instead of the OAS.

When given a choice between both the US and Canada allowing someone to attend (however much they disagree with them) VS. the other countries boycotting the OAS in future and using the CELAC which the US and Canada are not members of, you would think they would concede the point and just let them attend rather than risk having no say by everyone moving to CELAC.

True, although that doesn't make the position to exclude Cuba any more logical when taken apart from such politics. In my mind you put yourself in a far stronger position to press for human rights when you are on speaking terms with a country. And allowing trade would do a lot to improve the quality of life for Cubans.

As for free trade with Columbia--I oppose free trade in general. These agreements tend to include clauses that undermine a country's sovereignty when it comes to such things as environmental laws and nationalisation. In addition, I think that free trade with developing countries tends to lead to exploitation.

I really don't see where Argentina has any legitimate claim to the Falkland Islands--probably just some Anglo-bashing to raise patriotic spirits. You don't see Mexico complaining about having lost California and Texas.

Some Guatemalans also think that Belize should belong to Guatemala--also to stir jingoistic sentiments within the country, and focus attention away from internal problems.

Regarding Cuba: our poor president is hamstrung to do much of anything until after the election. Florida's electoral votes are going to be crucial.

Yes, free trade is good. Cuba should. No cold war attitude. Yes they should have been more discreet. But I don't see the big deal with prostitutes. They should be legal here.

Yes, but it makes our president look bad when it gets in the tabloids. It interferes with the idea that our secret service agents are perfect angels.

Well, well, well. Here is something that I didn't know.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/secret-s ... d=16174707

Previously, the outskirts of military bases were very much like this

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyURt9Kp6JM[/youtube]

We've certainly taken a puritanical turn.

Perhaps Bush saw Miss Saigon and was sad about how tragic it is, so wanted to prevent something like that from ever happening?