Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion(politico.com) |
Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion(politico.com) |
> Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion
But I doubt that Trump and the Cuban diaspora in the US just want peace or remove the leaders like they did in Venezuela. They really want to take the whole thing.
Rich Cuban families that were driven out by the revolution want their land back. And Trump probably wants another golf resort and its name on the 51st state.
It’s a shame that the president is not great at making deals.
I'm a Chinese, from what I learned, you probably don't see the situation clearly.
The problem is influence. America wants to solve the Cuba (and Iran) problem since very long ago, and right now, while China is busy patching up their economic slop/mismanagement and Russia is trapped in Ukraine, is simply the best time to do so.
With Cuba is cleared out, the Americas continent will be cleared of major (and loud) threats against America. That alone is beneficial.
It's the same but opposite reason why America is supporting Japan, Taiwan and Europe etc, to control the influence of their competitors like China, Russia, India, Brazil etc (a.k.a Global South). It also allow Americans to keep a tap on Japan, Taiwan and Europe (etc) so they remains in American control.
That's probably the 4-D chess you talked about.
Also, the "Trump the 'Nation Builder'" part: In China, "Nation Builder" was a popular forename, it means "someone who contributes to their own country/nation". In the Trump context, it means that Trump's policies is benefiting China's goal. That is, when compare to Biden's policy which is much sophisticated and on point (while Trump's is blunt and wasteful).
But I don't think American's soft gesture towards China will last after Cuba and Iran is dealt with (if) in a American victory though. Unlike what the "New World Order" conspiracy suggests, I don't think this world is stupid enough to not to pursue the maximums goal when possible. That's probably why Americans are working towards the maximums goal inches by inches.
But, good news for China!
Hopefully if they do attack Cuba, it will play a little differently with one huge quagmire (or loss, depending on perspective) already on the table.
I cannot hide the fact this makes me irrationally angry, and filled with contempt. I have reached the point I just want to see it fail with catastrophic consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base:"Sin... taking power in 1959, the Cuban government has consistently protested against the U.S. presence on Cuban soil, arguing that the base was imposed on Cuba by force and is illegal under international law."
> and also took in a lot of boat people
Explain how that gave the US any "soft power" influence over the Cuban government.
If anything, that opposite effect of enabling more anti-US hostility on the part of the Cuban government, as it give the regime an escape valve for domestic dissent, making its rule more secure.
Here is a nice little brain teaser…What law would that be? And who would or could enforce said law? And if said law cannot be enforced, is it actually a law at all?
> Explain how that gave the US any "soft power" influence over the Cuban government.
Pretty sure the Castro bros regime knowing that there is nearly a half million people who are specifically “non-fans” of the current Cuban government, but are people patriotic towards Cuba, with family still in Cuba…who are sitting 100 miles off the Cuban shores would factor into cuban government decision making as it relates to US relations.
Every cuban ex-pat I know (and thats quite a lot because I live in FL) will tell you there is a Cuba problem. They all still have family suffering under that regime.
As far as Cuba in particular goes, the suffering there would be a lot less if the US would drop its 65+ year old embargo and let them trade like all the other repressive regimes it is indifferent to.
Bit of a difference…
It was about scratching an itch, not "spreading democracy".
Considering the US history of meddling south of the border, it was pretty low key. Fucked up, but low key.
And the only reason I mentioned that, is because invading a sovereign nation is a significant event and it would be safe to assume that they are emboldened by the success of their prior effort and think that Cuba may be a cookie-cutter repeat of that.
tl;dr -- Venezuela was easy peasy, so how hard can Cuba be?
The legality, morality, and value of this are separate matters (but I bet you can guess where I sand on them).
You didn't think Trump's border policy was going to be well received? That seems... out of touch give how prominent an issue it was in the election.
People remain quite positive on Trump's immigration policy; with Iran and inflation being his big weak spots: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/HHP... (pp. 25, 26).
I don’t know how invading Cuba would be received. I feel like the biggest source of consternation about Iran is the effect on gas prices. That’s not at issue in Cuba.
The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have committed crimes) is polling at 55-45. What other way do people think there is to deport 20+ million people?
I appreciate your optimism.
That was 64 years ago and are you suggesting here that things that happened that far back have no bearing today? Hell, the brother of the dictator from 64 years ago is currently in charge there today still oppressing the Cuban people so it’s not like there hasn't been some continuity.
It's a complicated subject and has been weaponized by the Right, artfully so.
If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be consistent in that -- meaning that the immigrants who were/are here who have been completely legal in that should have been protected by the law, but weren't.
Likewise, you'd care that officers of the law themselves followed the law, and the courts have found egregious cases of that not happening.
And if it was about being fair in allowing immigrants in (specifically from south of the border, versus, say, whites from South Africa), the subject of fairness would have to examine the actions of the United States amongst it's southern neighbors and what impact it's had to cause those people to flee. AKA, "you break it, you bought it".
Now I'm not arguing for wide open gates either, but we had a system in place and the biggest problems with it were that it was poorly funded and staffed. After all, if you want them to be legal about it, there needs to be legal people to make that happen.
> Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country
And what about the demographics of such a poll? I recognize the need for some sort of law enforcement but if you had a family member having a mental health crisis would you call the cops? Do you think that the police are properly held accountable for their actions?
Man, the Federalist Society sure is good at their job.
Because it's rational. If you're from a dysfunctional country--sorry, I mean a "vibrant" and "rich" country--you don't want that following behind you.
> what impact it's had to cause those people to flee. AKA, "you break it, you bought it".
You assume those countries are worth fleeing because of exogenous factors that cannot follow immigration flows rather than endogenous factors that can.
> If you actually cared about the law being followed you would be consistent in that
Like with any law, immigration law is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, i.e. limiting the flow of immigrants and the effects thereof. It's like fishing licenses. You could stop illegal fishing just by mailing everyone a license, but the piece of paper is not the point.
That makes zero logical sense on a couple levels.
1. There's no real difference between the immigrants in Wave A vs Wave B, except Wave A happened first. Same shithole country, just an ordering issue. "I've got mine, Jack!" is not a compelling claim.
2. People bring their experiences with them but doesn't mean that they then apply their history to the present of their new home. America is the shaper, culture brings some flavor.
The other thing you missed was the tribalism of my statement about the latter being pulled up. It really goes like this:
1. Immigrants from Shithole A come as a wave to America and are met with hostility and oppression but persevere and a generation later are established communities; Americans.
2. Immigrants from Shithole B come as a wave to American and are met with hostility and oppression from current population, including the A Shitholers, because it' now their country.
> Like with any law, immigration law is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, i.e. limiting the flow of immigrants and the effects thereof. It's like fishing licenses. You could stop illegal fishing just by mailing everyone a license, but the piece of paper is not the point.
You mean like the laws that we already have? Not perfect but they are there and there was was bipartisan legislation address issues and enhance border security. It was spiked so that it could become a partisan political football.
Again, immigration is broken, but could be fixed if the powers that be wanted it. Look at where most of those undocumented workers end up and take a guess at the political affiliation of those employers. It's not a coincidence.
Deporting illegal immigrants is not the issue with ICE. The issue with ICE is their killing of US Citizens, trying to cover it up until video evidence show they are absolutely lying trigger happy murders only to have the admin shrug and/or defend the agents actions and blaming the victims; also detaining and deporting US Citizens[0] doesn't sit well with other US Citizens.
[0] https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/23/texas-united-states-...
But also, it's quite straightforward to envision a different ICE carrying out its goal slower, more deliberately, with transparency and legal accountability. There's zero need for them to operate as a masked terror squad that is above the law. For example Renee Good's executioner could be behind bars where criminals belong, while his former coworkers who didn't set up a pretext to execute a woman continue on with their job of deporting illegal immigrants. These things are not inherently in conflict.
(Yes, I am aware the rot in the organization has been brewing well before Trump. But terrible needlessly divisive leadership that aims to maximize cruelty (ie spectacle) has accelerated it, and has made it seem like these things are in conflict)
But under Trump it's been different in several different ways:
1. Encouraged aggressive and lawless behavior by its agents with a promise of zero accountability for their behavior (or lawlessness)
2. A quota system designed to incentive detaining anybody at any cost for any reason
3. Disregard for due process and the legal system -- arresting and detaining people when they show up for immigration hearings *following the legal process fully*
4. Killing innocent US citizens.
5. Detaining US citizens.
6. Enhanced "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" where they take detainees to another state and then release them there
Pro tip: any policies that are designed to welcome or even encourage harm to those that it applies to are inherently evil. The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats it's most vulnerable members, and ICE as it exists today is a shameful stain on our country.
> 1. There's no real difference between the immigrants in Wave A vs Wave B, except Wave A happened first. Same shithole country, just an ordering issue. "I've got mine, Jack!" is not a compelling claim.
The argument is that the amount of immigration is too high and rate of assimilation is too low, and thus the larger quantity would affect the culture more than the lesser quantity. It is indeed a selfish argument for someone who was in wave A - and while this might invalidate it in your own worldview, that is not universal. So while it's not compelling for you, it is compelling for him (and others).
[0] I'm personally quite ambivalent on most immigration topics. Although I do believe strangling our educational and research institutions is an absolutely bone-headed move. But that has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
While they have just enough plausible deniability, the current anti-immigration takes it to a more fervent level: they want to export all the immigrants that are not white, and not just that, those that are not Christian.
Everyone of us here is an immigrant or descended from immigrants and, and the failure to recognize that is a literal moral failing.
And of course there remains the unexamined aspect of the US culpability in creating the conditions causing people to flee and seek safe harbor....
Edit: and on cultural assimilation my point stands: first born immigrants (which I believe includes Rayiner himself) assimilate by design because of human tribal needs. Their parents will always be tied to the old world but they're going to do what they can to fit in.