Well, there goes my trip to Cuba !!

[Copacabana]

Originally Posted by rognvald

What a difference a day makes! So, LakeEffect, in order to avoid repetition of those areas we have already proffered our differences, I will again clarify my position. When you say that the Cuban embargo hurt the Cuban people and assume that the US was a natural trading partner, were they hurt because America opposed their Fascist government as a matter of principle based on Castro's wholesale theft of the country or were they hurt because their leader refused to give his own people the human rights associated with any civilized country? Not only the Cuban peoples' homes and possessions were confiscated but also billions of dollars of foreign business assets including banks, factories, businesses and real estate. Where is it written, other than the NY Times or CNN, that America should have a duty to deal with a despot and a thief? The US has no duty to trade with any country in the world similiar to consumers having a choice where they will trade their money in the marketplace. So, what short of dying could Castro have done to please the US? Simply show the US that they were willing to a more open relationship and more freedom for their people. When people talk about the general goodness of the Cuban people, they are basically correct but it was their beloved leader that was responsible for their imprisonment, torture, and disappearance for all who opposed his government-- even in the slightest way. This is well documented by the Cuban expatriates but is alway missing in the dialogues of those who seek relations with Cuba. Secondly, to say the embargo is a "creature of ideology" or "vote getting" is patently false. The embargo is a matter of principle. And, in our disintegrating society, it is the loss of principle in life that is at its very roots. Why is it wrong to punish a robber, murderer, and thief(Castro)? If he had committed these acts in any civilized country as an individual citizen, he would be incarcerated. But because he is the fascist leader of a Communist country the principle is not valid? And, if his people(innocent victims) are punished as a consequence of his actions, it is their duty to uprise against the government as happened in the US, France, Russia, and China. I have always said that the greatest mistake of the US was to allow the Cuban refugees into this country. Not as a matter of compassion, but because if they were forced to return, Cuba through a counter-revolution would probably be free today. When the lions left . . .the lambs remained. Thirdly, in regards to China, Nixon sent Kissinger to China to see if relations could be opened. It was not for economic reasons, but rather to create a shift in the Cold War balance of power pitting the US and China against the Soviet Union. There was no economic intent whatsoever but rather to upset the power struggle in the world and to gain a strategic advantage over the Soviet Union. Trade was a much later consequence of the improved relations but both China and the US considered the Soviet Union as a dedicated foe. The GDP of China at that time was pathetic and the average Chinese was struggling to survive. I suggest you speak to some Chinese who lived under Mao for the real story. Finally, I don't think that the US is concerned about "face saving" but rather seeks to stand by principle . . . a word the Left in this country have surely forgotten.

Rognvald, don't think for a minute your country is continuing the embargo for moral or ethical reasons. The US has supported authoritarian (and ruthless) regimes, all over the world, when it felt convenient to do so- for economic or political reasons. In Latin America- which the state department has referred as their "back yard", they have propped up and maintained a number of ruthless dictators in power, knowing that atrocities were being committed. So, no, I don't believe the US embargo is about standing up for principles. Where were those principles with other regimes?

Here is a list of the regimes the US supports:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

No one here is defending Castro. Everyone wants to see Cuba return to a democracy (not what it was under Batista though). The US should be part of the international community and work for that change through dialogue and closer relations.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by John Holbrook

Totally incorrect. Over the last ten or so years Cuba survived by getting free and cheap oil shipments from Venezuela. Cuba used some of that oil and sold some of it. You can google why Venezuela's government did that and educate on Castro's influence in venezuela and Venezuela's plight under Castro style governance.

Now the oil price has dropped and venezuela can't ship as much oil to Cuban because Venezuela has big debts to pay and its own people are starving, Cuba wants to make friends with the USA.

You can also read up on how the USSR supported the Castro regime by buying Cuban sugar at inflated prices and what happened after the the USSR fell.

I did say 'barely'. I don't deny that Cuba has been propped up at different times through the oil and sugar arrangements you mention.

So, should the US keep squeezing Cuba til they're more destitute than Haiti, or try something different?

[John Holbrook]

But it has worked. Is Cuba the military threat to the USA that it tried to be by trying to place USSR nukes on their island?

Embargos are just about bringing political change.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This I know: the US embargo on Cuba hasn't worked. You know this too. Why continue to do something that hasn't worked, and hurts people? If the US is concerned about the plight of the Cuban people, they should consider trying what is seeming to work with China, Vietnam and elsewhere: engagement

[John Holbrook]

Cuba doesn't have a substainable ecomony, they steal money from the Venezuelan people via collusion between dictators.

can you only think from one side? The Cubans could do something different.

Do you support Assad as well?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I did say 'barely'. I don't deny that Cuba has been propped up at different times through the oil and sugar arrangements you mention.

So, should the US keep squeezing Cuba til they're more destitute than Haiti, or try something different?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by John Holbrook

But it has worked. Is Cuba the military threat to the USA that it tried to be by trying to place USSR nukes on their island?

The missiles left like what, 55 years ago? Absent the missiles, you can't seriously assert that Cuba poses a military threat to the US since then.

Embargos are just about bringing political change.

Embargos are about retaliation, in this case. If you think an economic stranglehold on a much smaller and poorer nation, for 50+ years, WITHOUT bringing about the desired change, is the textbook example of an effective embargo... I guess we disagree.

can you only think from one side? The Cubans could do something different.

The only thing you'd accept is the complete overthrow of the Castro regime. And you're willing to impoverish and starve the Cubans til you get it. Nice.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The only thing you'd accept is the complete overthrow of the Castro regime. And you're willing to impoverish and starve the Cubans til you get it. Nice.

Sounds like it. +1

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

....
What effect has the engagement with other countries had? Cuba has enough of an economy to keep going. Barely. And, they're not exactly North Korea; they have positive relationships and trade with many countries. But no, not yet a significant improvement in human rights.

So, back at you: why should the US continue with the embargo, when it has not achieved the desired goals? Why not treat Cuba in the same way that other major Western nations (EU, Australia, Canada, etc) do, with carrot and stick? Why won't the US treat Cuba like they already treat some other Communist/authoritarian countries?

So you agree the "positive relationships and trade with many countries" have not produced any "significant improvement in human rights". And yet you advocate more.

I think Canada should step up more. After all, Cuba is smaller than (2) Torontos, why not just take them under your wing and solve all Cuba's problem? Why are you making it a USA problem?

As long as the Cuban military is the focal point for all foreign trade, the USA should not be a trading partner. That's the opinion of those making decisions in the USA. YMMV

[Pegu Club]

If it is ones inclination to say... visit a particular island south of Key West, one first needs to understand and accept the rules that govern this action. thats the easy part.

The key is not to be authority struck as an individual.

Plan, do ones homework, and act upon said plan.

Thousands of American have done this annually, even before the Obama rules were in effect.

One just needs to be educated, and clever. Oh, and not be noisy about ones actions.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by DotDun

As long as the Cuban military is the focal point for all foreign trade, the USA should not be a trading partner. That's the opinion of those making decisions in the USA. YMMV

Why does that not apply to China ?

[Lake-Effect]

This is getting further into the sophomoric weeds, but...

Originally Posted by DotDun

So you agree the "positive relationships and trade with many countries" have not produced any "significant improvement in human rights". And yet you advocate more.

I would argue that the US embargo has delayed Cuba's transition to a better state.

I think Canada should step up more. After all, Cuba is smaller than (2) Torontos, why not just take them under you wing and solve all Cuba's problem? Why are you making it a USA problem?

Because the US gets somewhat ... irritated when other countries try to thwart their aims in their sphere of influence.

As long as the Cuban military is the focal point for all foreign trade, the USA should not be a trading partner. That's the opinion of those making decisions in the USA. YMMV

The US trades with worse, much more "military"-run countries. Anyway, nobody's asking for most favoured nation status by Friday. Just that starting some dialog, and some small easing... is going to produce a better outcome than indefinitely continuing the 50-year standoff. Even the Donald hasn't rolled back all of the changes Obama started with the Cuba relationship.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This is getting further into the sophomoric weeds, but...



I would argue that the US embargo has delayed Cuba's transition to a better state.

Hmm, feed the military and it'll trickle down??

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Because the US gets somewhat ... irritated when other countries try to thwart their aims in their sphere of influence.

Pick your battles.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The US trades with worse, much more "military"-run countries. Anyway, nobody's asking for most favoured nation status by Friday. Just that starting some dialog, and some small easing... is going to produce a better outcome than indefinitely continuing the 50-year standoff. Even the Donald hasn't rolled back all of the changes Obama started with the Cuba relationship.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't match the opinion of those in charge in the USA.

I have good friends and neighbors that are 1st and 2nd generation Cuban ex-pats. I tend to support them vs. someone who lives far away that has no clue about how Cuba operates internally.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DotDun

I have good friends and neighbors that are 1st and 2nd generation Cuban ex-pats. I tend to support them vs. someone who lives far away that has no clue about how Cuba operates internally.

What do your Cuban expat friends think should happen? What are their expectations? Asking seriously.

[rognvald]

"So you're breaking away from the China and Vietnam broke" argument. That's good." Lake-Effect

No, and since you've pushed the issue, let me provide an excellent description of the Chinese economy prior to Nixon's outreach to China(1972). It appears in Oxford University Bibliographies entitled "Economy(China) 1949-1978 by D. Perkins. It states "The government and the leadership also pursued political goals, notably during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), that disrupted the economy and slowed economic growth. Economic studies during this period thus focused on how the economy was organized, how it made the transition from a market economy to a nonmarket command economy, and how the institutions and performance of this command economy performed in various periods. Describing the institutions was easier than measuring performance because, from 1958 to 1960, China published data that grossly exaggerated China’s economic performance. After 1960, given the reality of famine and a poorly performing economy more generally, the government simply stopped publishing statistical data on economic performance." This is but one of many academic studies that detailed the real progress that ensued from the brutal, murderous "Cultural Revolution" of Mao. In regards to VietNam in 1995 when President Clinton re-opened trade ties, it would be incorrect to compare Vietnam's progressive economic policies with those of China under Mao. However, everything wasn't as rosy as it appeared. In a study in the "Viet Nam Economic Review" No. 1(31) 1996, labeled "Vietnam Economy 1995-1996" by Dao Le Minh(Phd) Institute of World Economy, Minh states:

"In 1995, employment was generated for 1.3 million working people, of whom the national employment fund provided jobs to 300,000, gave job training to 60,000, and offered employment advice to 140,600; the 327 and 773 programs found jobs for 100,000; the rural credit program for 350,000; the 'hunger eradication and poverty alleviation' program for 200,000; and the employment program of mass associatioris for 100,000 people.

Nevertheless, as the labor force grew faster than job generation, unemployment was still on the rise. The social workforce in 1995 numbered 41.3 million people, an increase of 1.5 million against 1994. Therefore, unemployment rose from 5.9 million people in 1994 to 6.1 million in 1995, and the unemployment ratio, 14.8% of the workforce, remained unchanged." So, when we opened relations with China under Nixon, the primary goal was, as mentioned previously, a tactical ploy to isolate Russia and diminish its power. Economic trade, however, was a consequence and it provided a boon to the struggling Chinese economy. Later, in 1995, when we opened relations with VietNam, they were certainly ahead of the Chinese economy, in perspective, but with a nearly 15% unemployment rate,*(see below) were hardly a model economy.

So, you are free to interpret these facts as you wish, but to a reasonable person they are quite clear. Perhaps labeling these governments as "broke" was a bit rhetorical, however, neither economy could be considered booming and they both had a vested interest in trade with the US. And, both countries after detente made real attempts to allow more freedoms for their people as history has shown. This has never been the case with the Castro brothers throughout their 60 year reign.
In regards to the rest of the comments/statements by you and others who support trade/travel with Cuba, they have already been discussed at length and some, sadly, have descended into the bowels of circular reasoning that any reasonable man would certainly avoid. Good luck and safe sailing. P.S. Did I say I agree, in principle, that I do not support travel or trade to Cuba??? I hope there's at least a little chuckle from the Left. Captain Rognvald

* This figure, perhaps, is not as distasteful to the Left since they praised Obama's economy which, in reality, hovered at 18% real unemployment for most of his reign. Ed.

[Three Sisters]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The missiles left like what, 55 years ago?

No. They were caught shipping them to North Korea three years ago.


N Korean ship seized with Cuban weapons returns to Cuba - BBC News

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by rognvald

So, you are free to interpret these facts as you wish, but to a reasonable person they are quite clear. Perhaps labeling these governments as "broke" was a bit rhetorical, however, neither economy could be considered booming and they both had a vested interest in trade with the US.

Um, EVERY country has a vested interest in trade with the US. This is not in dispute.

And, both countries after detente made real attempts to allow more freedoms for their people as history has shown. This has never been the case with the Castro brothers throughout their 60 year reign.

Maybe... you should try for detente with Cuba, then? According to you, it's worked before.