Cuba Bill

[??????????]

Nay

[StevenNick]

Nay

[Platypus]

Yea.

[The Duke]

I'd urge Senators to vote nay, and I will advise the President to veto if this passes.  Castro is nearly dead anyway (I hope), big business can wait a few years to turn Cuba into Earth's biggest casino.

[JohnFKennedy]

Nay

[12th Doctor]

We currently have:

2 Yeas

3 Nays

[2952-0-0]

As a private citizen I think we are playing a double standard here. It's okay to condemn dictators who are your enemies, but it's not okay to condemn tinpot dictators like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Libya because we are supporting their abuses.

[The Duke]

As a private citizen I think we are playing a double standard here. It's okay to condemn dictators who are your enemies, but it's not okay to condemn tinpot dictators like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Libya because we are supporting their abuses.

Libya is not someone we condone.  We rewarded them for giving up WMD and for sharing intel on terrorists.  This was meant as incentive for other such governments to reform along similar lines.  Cuba has made no such reforms.

[2952-0-0]

As a private citizen I think we are playing a double standard here. It's okay to condemn dictators who are your enemies, but it's not okay to condemn tinpot dictators like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Libya because we are supporting their abuses.

Libya is not someone we condone.  We rewarded them for giving up WMD and for sharing intel on terrorists.  This was meant as incentive for other such governments to reform along similar lines.  Cuba has made no such reforms.

But we have a long track record of supporting tinpot dictators worse than Castro. By sitting there and letting Libya get away with bombing the Lockerbis plane we're telling them it's okay to be a dictator.

[StevenNick]

But is past inconsistancies in U.S. policy toward some dictators an excuse to go easy on other dictators?

[The Duke]

We haven't been inconsistent, and we haven't given in.

The Bush admininistration explained to Mr. Khaddafi, just as the Lundgren adminsitration explained to Mr. Bashir, that his behavior was unnacceptable and he needed to change.

Like a master who teaches his dog to do tricks for table scraps, we have asserted ourselves as the dominant player in a hostile relationship and extracted concessions from the weaker power.

[Platypus]

As a private citizen I think we are playing a double standard here. It's okay to condemn dictators who are your enemies, but it's not okay to condemn tinpot dictators like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Libya because we are supporting their abuses.

Libya is not someone we condone.  We rewarded them for giving up WMD and for sharing intel on terrorists.  This was meant as incentive for other such governments to reform along similar lines.  Cuba has made no such reforms.

1. Cuba doesn't have WMDs, partly because of the harsh policy we had when it was needed. It is no longer needed; Cuba has no source for WMDs.

2. Cuba has no islamic trerrorists, except those in Guantanamo Bay

3. Cuba hasn't made those reforms because they were not necessary. They do need to reform, but it would be better to end the isolation ow and talk, like we did in Libya, to solve the prolem. We no longer need to exclude them, and the longer we do so the highest the riosk that Cba could turn crazy and isolationist. It isn't there yet, but if Castros' sucessor is a nut and we continue to ignore Cuba, it can only be bad for Atlasia.

[The Duke]

1. Cuba doesn't have WMDs, partly because of the harsh policy we had when it was needed. It is no longer needed; Cuba has no source for WMDs.

Cuba may not have WMD, but they do plenty else.

2. Cuba has no islamic trerrorists, except those in Guantanamo Bay

They have no ISLAMIC terrorists.  Their support for FARC, however, continues unabated.  Until this ends, I see no reason the DoD should be happy about ending the embargo.  They also have access to the Lourdes spy base, which is used against us in the intelligence front.

3. Cuba hasn't made those reforms because they were not necessary. They do need to reform, but it would be better to end the isolation ow and talk, like we did in Libya, to solve the prolem. We no longer need to exclude them, and the longer we do so the highest the riosk that Cba could turn crazy and isolationist. It isn't there yet, but if Castros' sucessor is a nut and we continue to ignore Cuba, it can only be bad for Atlasia.

Would you not agree that Cuba, as the immoral dictatorship, should be obliged to take the first step?  I certainly think so.  They're the @$$holes, not us.  Its on them to take the first step.

[2952-0-0]

But is past inconsistancies in U.S. policy toward some dictators an excuse to go easy on other dictators?

I'm pointing out the double standard were having here. Either you go easy on all dictators or toghen up on all of them, even if they're friendly to us.

[JohnFKennedy]

Would everybody please remember the time for debate is over and we are currently voting upon this bill.

[JohnFKennedy]

As a petition has not yet reached my desk signed by five Senators, voting is now closed on the Cuba Bill in accordance with the Senatorial Procedure Resolution, the Bill received two votes in favour to three opposed with five abstentions meaning that the Cuba Bill proposed by Sen. Hughento has been defeated in what is the lowest Senatorial turnout in history.

Following this poor turnout I will be seeking to amend the Senatorial Procedure Resolution to decrease the number of Senators needed to extend debating to three. I will propose this amendment once the new Senate is in session.

I also may propose a bill regarding senatorial absence.