Did intervention solve the Cuban problem?
2007-03-27 11:57:48 · 8 answers · asked by broadwaylove928 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The United States occupied both Cuba and the Phillippines during the Spanish-American War. At the end of that war, the United States treated both Cubans and Filipinos as badly as the Spanish ever did. The United States officially left Cuba, but then re-invaded and re-occupied the island.
In the end, the difference between Cuba and the Phillippines is that the Filipinos put up with the Americans for longer because of the financial benefits of the US military land-lease arrangement. The Cubans do not derive much income from the Guantanamo Bay land-lease, and the people overwhelming supported a revolution to kick US companies out of the country. The Filipino revolt, otherwise known as the Phillippine-American War, was very much a one-sided affair: the revolution was crushed by US military might and the Filipinos accepted occupation for 45 years rather than attempt to revolt again.
The other poster's comment about Japan is moot, since the Filipino revolt was at the beginning of the 20th Century, long before expansion into the Pacific was on the Japanese' minds - a good 20 years before they even invaded China, in fact.
Anybody want to talk about Hawaii?
2007-03-27 12:09:08 · answer #1 · answered by lesroys 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When did the U.S. ever own Cuba?
Cuba used to be an Ally of the U.S. At least until the Leftists promoted support for the Communist traitor Fidel Castro. The rest is history. (In all fairness, It must be said that life in Cuba was not good for impoverished Cubans prior to Castro.)
The Philippines were friends in need of our help to save them from the Japanese during WW-II and thanked us by allowing us to use their harbors for our military needs for many years.
Cuba, on the other hand, was never ours to keep.
Islam now terrorizes the Philippines. When we allow corrupt governments and Despots to rule the lives of the citizens in any nation we consider our allies, we always pay a steep price. A tyrant is a tyrant regardless of his support of our other needs.
The Philippines, just like Cuba, was in need of change. We must find better ways of promoting change without the destruction of the existing nation. (Does this sound like Iraq?)
2007-03-27 19:30:18 · answer #2 · answered by Philip H 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, it was short sighted not to just take over Cuba when we had the chance. But, the sugar companies already had effective control of the Cuban economy back then, so doing so was not viewed as a necessity at the time.
2007-03-27 19:06:42 · answer #3 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, that would have been a good idea. Cuba would probably be one of our states. We lost the Philippines so keeping them was useless. If we got Cuba then we wouldn't have to worry about Castro.
2007-03-27 19:03:00 · answer #4 · answered by NFrancis 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For wingshooter08, so you know that the Philippines is worst off than Cuba economy wise?
2007-03-27 19:03:55 · answer #5 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the phillipines was a better investment, they needed the buffer against Japan for political power at that time, could have helped us win by delaying the war until the end of 1941
2007-03-27 19:00:15 · answer #6 · answered by pinkgoatwithmentalissues 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"In the long run"? the US best keep her nose out of other countries' business. I could care less about thumbs down. It's my opinion.
Oh please ! your "welfare system" it "couldn't take the hit". Jesus. Is that all you worry about. No. Wait. Perhaps you should. After all, the biggest welfare giants and cheats are U.S. big business.
2007-03-27 19:00:43 · answer #7 · answered by rare2findd 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO....our welfare system couldn't take the hit! My God I pay enough in taxes! Bite your tongue!
2007-03-27 19:00:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋