Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

#41

Post by rayiner »

mindslight wrote: post #35
rayiner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It would help if these fundamental disagreements were ever explained rather than just vaguely handwaved. Is this disagreement about whether governments should be subservient to the People, and the idea of Constitutional rights and the rule of law in general? Or is it more philosophical like the people who were killed are now in the afterlife so their deaths aren't really a big deal? Or is it less universal like the p…

For example, if citizens don't like a law enforcement policy, are they entitled to physically confront law enforcement to exercise a "heckler's veto" over the policy? And how should the predictable consequences of such confrontations be weighed against the state's legitimate interest in carrying out the law enforcement priorities of the democratically elected government?

Similarly: Whether you think collateral risk is acceptable depends very heavily on your view of the urgency of the particular law enforcement mission. In a country the size of the U.S., fatalities are inevitable in any large-scale law enforcement operation. Civilians and officers are regularly killed when officers respond to domestic violence incidents. But hardly anybody argues we should stop responding to domestic violence calls because of that. If we had, for example, a large-scale gun confiscation in this country, lots of civilians would get killed. But I suspect many people would resist the argument that a few such deaths would be a reason to abandon the program.

Re: Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

#42

Post by palmotea »

jeisc wrote: post #39
palmotea wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the USA soft power stopped working so they resorted to offshore warfare to force the non compliant governments into lock step When has US soft power ever worked with Cuba?

the USA still has a military base there and also took in a lot of boat people

> the USA still has a military base there

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.

Re: Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

#43

Post by pstuart »

rayiner wrote: post #21
mindslight wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not run afoul of yours, but I assume that deploying domestic terrorists to attack American cities impinges upon most people's sense of morality in a way that attacking foreign countries (unfortunately) does not. This puts it in the second category I mentioned.

I was actually surprised about that in the other direction. Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country. I would have thought ICE would get the benefit of that sentiment. But in the Harvard-Harris polling above, police are +39 net favorability, while ICE is -6. The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have commi…

Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition.

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.

Re: Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

#44

Post by pstuart »

ajross wrote: post #30
pstuart wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potato, potato. The administration said words about stuff it did and the reasons for it, and then there's the stuff that happenend for the reasons they happened. 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.

The administration 100% did not say what happened, not correctly. The position of the Trump administration is that the US invaded and conquered the country and now runs it and is extracting its resources for our profit. None of that is remotely true. It's run by the same bureaucracy with a junta at the head of it that happens to be aligned with Trump geopolitically.

My only point was that the admin did whatever they did and, at least from the outside, appears to have been an "in and out" one-shot that worked in their favor.

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).

Re: Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

#45

Post by kcplate »

palmotea wrote: post #42
jeisc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the USA still has a military base there and also took in a lot of boat people

> the USA still has a military base there 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…

> is illegal under international law

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.

Re: Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

#46

Post by kcplate »

tzs wrote: post #37
nirui wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and then abscond to China 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 cleare…

There is no "Cuba problem" that needs to be solved.

How many cuban ex-pats do you know? I would say “not many”.

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.

Re: Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

#47

Post by sph »

Americans, elsewhere in this thread, are pretty jaded at this. “My country is going to invade another, possibly killing hundred of innocent people. What else can I do but shrug?”

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.

Re: Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

#48

Post by rayiner »

pstuart wrote: post #43
rayiner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was actually surprised about that in the other direction. Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country. I would have thought ICE would get the benefit of that sentiment. But in the Harvard-Harris polling above, police are +39 net favorability, while ICE is -6. The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have commi…

Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition. 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 offic…

> Immigrants pulling up the ladder after themselves is a time-honored American tradition.

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.

Re: Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

#49

Post by kisper »

AuthAuth wrote: post #20
quantified wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine being the next president inheriting this dumpster fire. I always thought Obama was handed a poisoned chalice. This will be insane.

It really does need to be someone who has been in the political game their whole life. It cannot be another inexperienced populist.

Along these lines, it seems too much hope for... but we need a president that can respectfully dialogue with people on the other side of the aisle and empathize with people and their views gained from lived experience. These days the status quo is to treat any opposition to their point of view as sign of idiocy or moral corruption.

Re: Pentagon puts building blocks in place for Cuba invasion

#50

Post by 1659447091 »

rayiner wrote: post #21
mindslight wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not run afoul of yours, but I assume that deploying domestic terrorists to attack American cities impinges upon most people's sense of morality in a way that attacking foreign countries (unfortunately) does not. This puts it in the second category I mentioned.

I was actually surprised about that in the other direction. Police consistently poll in the top 3 most trusted organizations in the country. I would have thought ICE would get the benefit of that sentiment. But in the Harvard-Harris polling above, police are +39 net favorability, while ICE is -6. The lower polling on ICE is odd because, as a policy issue, deporting all illegal immigrants (not just ones who have commi…

> 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

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-...

Post reply on HN