8 to 12, eh?

That'd put me smack in the middle of the 1970s. Dunno if my political philosophy was set by Nixon, Ford, and Carter, but my musical philosophy was certainly set in stone by Led Zep, Jethro Tull, Yes, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, ELP, and maybe Kansas and a few others. Make of that what you will, I suppose...

:-)

John M [2] -

That is an excellent point. Hadn't considered the sea lanes, but you're right, one look at a map makes it obvious....

C.R. Stucki [3] -

Don't know enough about the Spanish-American War to even attempt to answer that one, but you also raise a good point. We did wind up with the Phillippines, though, which at the time (the race to control the Pacific) was deemed much more important. That might have had something to do with it.

[4] -

So, having lived through the depths of the Cold War, what do you think about the future of Cuba and Cuban-American relations?

Personally, I just want to go down there and drink some rum and ride in some way-cool 50s cars...

John M [5] -

aha! Someone who does know some history. Wasn't it Bautista (or maybe Somoza, dunno) who it was said about: "He may be a bastard, be he's OUR bastard"?

As for your (2)... but wasn't Texas a slave state? Other than that, you raise good points.

As for the rest of you jokers, Kaiser (out here in CA) is where you go for non-profit health care. Something about an aluminum forture...

Heh.

-CW

"The Kaiser is trying to steal my string".

Dude, crackin' me up!

Smart ;)

As I get older I struggle more and more with change - my kids are around enough to keep me on my toes and up to date with the latest trends, technology, etc.

I can totally see me drifting into geezerhood in 5-10 years time. I can see me wandering down the street muttering "The Kaiser is trying to steal my string".

Thanx for the tutorial, very interesting. Unfortunately, it did not turn out well. Cuba would now be an asset, if only to keep the Russians out, but PR is mostly a liability.

"One's gotta wonder, what the hell was going on in the minds of America's leaders at the time in question, that we came to own Puerto Rico, but NOT Cuba???!!!"

Puerto Rico and Guam are the only two remaining holdovers from the Spanish American war of 1898, while Cuba and the Philippines gained independence. The whole point of the war being fought in the first place, was supposedly to gain Cuba's independence from Spain. We could hardly go back on and reverse that stated objective once it was achieved. American ownership of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, turned out to be more like incidental, perhaps even unintended (at least in the case of Puerto Rico), side affects to the primary outcome of the original objective, which was freeing Cuba from non-hemispheric European influence. As it was, we had a formal protectorate over Cuba for many years, and practically owned Cuba anyway, right up until the revolution and the 1960's. There was never any great push in Puerto Rico before the war for instance, for any kind of separation from Spain, unlike the feeling in Cuba.

So the two simple answers to your question basically amount to the following:

1) Cuba, like the Philippines, had a very extensive and robust local independence guerrilla movements, while Puerto Rico and Guam did not.

2) The Northern states in particular, especially during the 1850's, were very opposed to the annexation of Cuba, something which they rightly felt would have resulted in the addition of yet another southern slave owning state, upsetting the delicate balance in the U.S. Senate. That sentiment of seeing Cuba as something "other"held over into the early part of the 20th century. Unlike French New Orleans, and Quebec, whom Americans were grudgingly willing to accept if they had been agreeable, because they were thought of as being more easy to absorb. Just like Texas was with it's American settlers. Also just like the push to annex ALL of Mexico following that war pretty much ended after the USA ended up annexing 40 percent of Mexican territory instead of the whole thing.

For me that would be WWII. No wonder I'm so gawdam _____(fill in the blank), (gotta be something bad, right?)

One's gotta wonder, what the hell was going on in the minds of America's leaders at the time in question, that we came to own Puerto Rico, but NOT Cuba???!!!

Cuba dominates the sea lanes between The Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic ocean, and by extension, the shipping lanes out of New Orleans and therefore everything coming into and out of the Mississippi river basin and the American heartland.

America can live with Cuba not being part of the United States. America can live with Cuba being independent and neutral. But like Russia and Ukraine, America cannot live with Cuba being dominated by a foreign power, especially a hostile one. It doesn't matter if that power is Britain, France, Spain or Russia, as long as it is non-American. That's what's made Cuba so different.

It's also the real reason we still control Guantanamo. It's the same reason Russia took control of The Crimea. Because it had to. Both are crucial to their respective nation's security.

I would not be so concerned about American intervention in Venezuela. In the future, it's Cuba's relationship with the United States that's likely to be even more closely intertwined with America than even that between The USA and Mexico. Geographically, it's inevitable.

I'm not saying this is in any way a perfect rule, but it can be illuminating.