2007-06-27 06:29:23 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I have been reading the previous answers, and it is totally impossible to understand how people can be SO BLIND to something that happens right under their noses.
It gives credit to the saying: "the worst blind is the one that does not want to see". It is the only thing close to an explanation for this incredible situation.
And yes, for practical purposes, Elian's father is now fidel.
fidel has been there for almost fifty years, at only 90 miles south the USA border, and yet, most people in the USA know NOTHING, or DON'T WANT to know about what happens in Cuba.
They just apply the same principles to fidel as they would do concerning a matter here in the USA, which is like telling Osama bin Laden that it is wrong and illegal . If it were not so serious a matter would be laughable.
They want to ignore the fact that Elian's father was just a pawn in fidel's game. They want to ignore the fact that fidel was displaying its usual thing of mobilizing crowds to demand Elian to be send back. They was to ignore that fact that fidel now shows Elian everywhere as its trophy.
They want to ignore the fact that everything in Cuba happens because fidel makes it happen.
For fidel, having Elian with it, it is a victory over the usa, but those people don't want to see it.
Now I understand why Osama bin Laden did what it did without anybody stopping it, in spite of the government knowing about it.
People here just don't care. I have the feeling that they follow the rule of the ostrich, hiding the head underground, believing that if they don't see it, it does not exist.
Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
Had not Gorbachov pulverized the soviet union, today fidel would be knocking on the White House and telling Bush to leave, because it was the new ruler.
Anyway, with this totally wrong way of seeing and doing things, they are creating their own demise. When it comes, they cannot blame anybody except themselves, but it will be too late
2007-06-27 10:04:29 · answer #1 · answered by Dios es amor 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I read the other opinions, and I must say that I agree with Ryan and with Dios es Amor.
In south Florida that is exactly the idea we had about both things
2007-06-27 11:47:25 · answer #2 · answered by nadie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They sent a little boy back to his Father, I thought conservatives were into family values?
2007-06-27 06:38:36 · answer #3 · answered by Thomas G 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I'm pretty sure his fathers name was not Fidel.
He was sent back to his father...
Why are people all for family values until they can pick up some political points with a cheap spin against government official?
2007-06-27 06:32:48 · answer #4 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 7⤊ 4⤋
As a father that gained custody of both children in a divorce, I'd have to say that the child is with a PARENT and THAT is exactly where he belongs
2007-06-27 06:32:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
Bad. It probably cost the Democrats Florida in 2000.
2007-06-27 06:31:21 · answer #6 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Funny. I thought that he was sent back to his father. Who is America to separate a child from his father regardless of which country they live in?
2007-06-27 06:31:40 · answer #7 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 7⤊ 4⤋
A boy belongs with his father if his mother is gone.
2007-06-27 06:32:09 · answer #8 · answered by Peace Maker 2 · 6⤊ 4⤋
I thought he was sent back to live with his father in cuba where he was born.
2007-06-27 06:31:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 3⤋
He belonged with his father. End of story.
2007-06-27 06:33:51 · answer #10 · answered by kaisergirl 7 · 6⤊ 4⤋