Cuba could have had modern and progressive infrastructure, were she located in Europe. In this case in the post-worldwar colonial system of the USA Cuba would have had the status of ally, which mean to have fully integrated economy and equal social standards. But that form of satteliteship which was destined for Cuba and other Latin and South American states reflected highly unjust relations, as the US domination thrust on them the highly disbalanced skewed economical-social system, characterized with too obvious robbery of their societies in favour of american one. If to say idiomatically, their Manhatten was designed too small and their Harlem - too big and overwhelming to have sustainable balance and social approvement and tolerance. The leftist ideology was only the flag of their intention to change it by any way, as this of course could not be allowed by the US voluntarily. The US blockade of Cuba and not so direct systematical uprooting of any bilateral (and all other not-curcuited to US) ties between the countries of the region, the cultivation of political instability inside of them - that didn't allow them to merge in one big market for decades. The capacity of the local market and it's outer components - here's the answer to your question.

I suppose my question was more from the perspective of a command economy being able to legislate their war to first world infrastructure development criteria. We already know that most third world economies are too anarchic to support more socialistic, first world development standards.

The death, devastation, poverty, millions of rotten bodies in the nice looking glittering Christmas present box.

"war to first world infrastructure development criteria" - do you mean "to promote the alternative criteria for infrastructural progress"? Alternative understanding of what to consider to be infrastructural progress?

How did you reach your conclusion? Here is one hypothetical alternative:

What do you think of the hypothetical effect on US foreign policy if the several states, had a formal mechanism for nullifying federal authority when it intrudes on state sovereignty?

If the US had a formal nullification amendment, the individual states could have refused to participate in federal foreign military policies as a form of state's right.

This type of amendment could be seen as another form of checks and balance of power between the states, the interstate, and the populace.

You probably don't comprehand the subtle and fragile nature of existing balance and complex system with millions inner mutual links you want to correct. You accustomed to the comfort and safety so that you can not understand and esteem the invisible continious efforts for supporting the today situation in the US. Like the child who's never seen the bonfire you think it's good idea to play with the matches by the hay barn. "There will happen nothing bad, if I only carefully kindle one small match for a second" - you think. So we lived in the USSR and thought that the very idea of war on our territory was fantastic. The idealism is the most expensive thing that everyone can't help paying.

Oleg sometimes reading your version of issues in the west I wonder where you get your information.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

In the western newspapers. I only read them in the other way, a bit different from yours, and make another conclusions. The point is that western media still act as if our country stays beyond the information curtain, so that all what they say is being received in western community only. The effect is the same as if the actors playing the puppet show for the main audience forget the big silent crowd standing on the other side of their curtain watch their asses and listen to their mocking voices.
You are welcome to argue any of my considerations and attack my personality, because surely all my considerations are private ones open for sharp critics.

I have already shown you that you were wrong in what you thought about the convoys in WWII. I feel no need to point out every time you are wrong about us. If I thought it would make you question it might be worth the effort, but clearly you already have your mind made up. This is a perfect example of it. I know of no western media that is claiming Russians do not have access to information, and in fact I did not claim that. I do know western media is indicating that Russian media is again coming under the control of the Kremlin more and more, and that is in fact true according to more than just western media sources. However most of us in the west understand that unlike the Soviet era Russians now have easy access to other sources of information, so it is no longer a question of can you access it rather it is a question of are you willing to think and question your preconcieved notions. In your case experience on USPOL has taught me you are not willing to question what you already believe to be true. Therefor what is the point in trying to engage you in any meaningful conversations? Answer is there is none. You will simply claim I am not informed as you have in the past.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Just ignore my posts and relax, because you've noted it good, you can not make me question you - what is right and what is not, what is truth and what is false and how should I understand this or that issue accordingly to your vision. People come here on this forum to listen another viewpoints and have their own say and argue. Perhaps you have some other goals here, yet it's interesting to meet your posts anyway. Just let it be, I rather prefer the people who can hold and defend one's positions.

What is your opinion of a possible effect on US foreign policy; that of potentially, decreasing the possibility of the federal government's enthusiasm for foreign entanglements? With a hypothetical nullification amendment, the several states could have refused to allow their state militias (state national guard units) to enter federal service. If enough states had nullified the federal governments request, there might not have been sufficient support for any invasion and occupation efforts by the federal government.

I understand that recent adventures of the federal government force many to bias in direction of the radical isolationism. Your considerations stroke to the naturally simplest way to solve the problem - merely to cut the necessary potential for Washigton (because you probably want to mathematically neglect the factor of oligarchy, which is the core of impossibility of your model). But you shouldn't think the nullification will stop on that. Once balance is hurt, the process will go on untill there will be 50 small exact copies of the today USA instead of one solid body. With the nullification option you can scale the USA but you can not change their nature. You will set the framework of foreign policy for each souvereign state in regard to one another. With the run of the time they will merge into the few geopolitical clusters and plunge into the rivalry.

I did defend my position. I gave you facts and figures, which you promptly ignored. You hit the nail on the head as to why people come here, well most of us anyway. One wonders what you came here for since it clearly wasn't what you said.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

I think that not writing a nullification amendment was simply an oversight by the Founding Fathers.

How much, exorbitantly expensive superpower, does the US need in an 'ever shrinking' world, to avoid foreign entanglements?

How much better off would our oligarchs be if we had avoided the Civil War, the Vietnam police action, and our current foreign entanglement in Iraq?

It is not like they couldn't be making money promoting the general welfare. What if lack of support from the various states would have been more conducive to working with the Iraqi government and building 'state of the art" infrastructure in Iraq. The fossil fuel sector could have continued making profit on that investment, without having to resort to the chaos form of anarchy for simple demolition work, that will cost the US taxpayer; not just the oligarchs, more than the amount we would have spent by simply promoting the general welfare.

the main problem for Russia neighbours is that Russia is becoming more and more aggresive especially when it is using "energetic weapon" or political means, manipulations to impact neighbour's countries politic solutinios only for it's own imperelistic benefit