Family Values Under the Bush Administration [Archive]

View Full Version : Family Values Under the Bush Administration

Cleon

20th April 2006, 05:17 AM

Linky (http://newtimesslo.com/index.php?p=showarticle&id=1706)

Delvis Fernandez, the founder and president of the national Cuban American Alliance Education Fund, would like to take his blind 88-year-old mother Sara to Cuba to visit with her diabetic 86-year-old sister, whose leg was recently amputated. But their proposed trip is illegal under the U.S. Administration’s tightening regulations.

George “Jorge” Milanes of Los Osos wants to travel to Havana to see his dying 94-year-old aunt, Tia Carmen, who—in a typical Cuban extended family custom—helped raise him. However, U.S. rules forbid him to go.

“What are we as a society if we violate the basic rights of the most fundamental part of civilization, the family?” asks Fernandez, who moved from his Washington, D.C. office to See Canyon to be closer to his sons and grandchildren.

Is there anyone who honestly thinks US policy towards Cuba makes even a little bit of sense? This is ridiculous. You shouldn't need permission from the State to visit your family.

Darat

20th April 2006, 05:20 AM

Cleon

20th April 2006, 05:24 AM

Have to admit in today's world I have no idea why the USA maintains it's weird attitude to Cuba - for goodness sake Russian and the USA have made up and at least exchange Christmas cards!

OK no one expects them to best mates - but it does seem nothing more then a petty grudge nowadays.

It gets even weirder when you consider how well the US gets on with China--whose human rights record makes Cuba look like Disneyland.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 05:26 AM

WildCat

20th April 2006, 05:26 AM

Have to admit in today's world I have no idea why the USA maintains it's weird attitude to Cuba - for goodness sake Russian and the USA have made up and at least exchange Christmas cards!
It's really quite simple. Cuban ex-pats make up a sizeable swing vote in a state (Florida) w/ a lot of electoral votes - see the 2000 elections.

Purely politics, Darat.

Zep

20th April 2006, 05:44 AM

Creating a controversy out of absolutely nothing.

1) Buy a plane ticket to Mexico City.
2) Buy a plane ticket from there to Havana.
3) Return same way.

All legal, no problems with passports.

Next dumb rant in line, please?

Tricky

20th April 2006, 05:44 AM

It's really quite simple. Cuban ex-pats make up a sizeable swing vote in a state (Florida) w/ a lot of electoral votes - see the 2000 elections.

Purely politics, Darat.
Yep. These are the same Miami Cubans who wanted to keep a young boy from being returned to his legal and, by all appearances, loving father because of his PR value. Most of these folks are one-issue voters, so it doesn't take much to keep them happy.

Cylinder

20th April 2006, 05:58 AM

How old was George W. Bush in 1963?

WildCat

20th April 2006, 06:03 AM

How old was George W. Bush in 1963?
Every party in power has coddled the Cuban ex-pat vote, and thus kept up the ridiculous embargo. Clinton was a lame duck when Elian was (rightly) sent home, but this decision cost the Dems dearly in 2000.

Cylinder

20th April 2006, 06:09 AM

Every party in power has coddled the Cuban ex-pat vote, and thus kept up the ridiculous embargo. Clinton was a lame duck when Elian was (rightly) sent home, but this decision cost the Dems dearly in 2000.

I agree to a point. Maybe we should keep the pressure up until the old man dies to see if anything shakes loose. I don't really care as long as we aren't expected to pretend that Cuba is the workers paradise whose only crime is running afoul of their evil white overlords.

Manny

20th April 2006, 06:16 AM

Every party in power has coddled the Cuban ex-pat vote, and thus kept up the ridiculous embargo. Clinton was a lame duck when Elian was (rightly) sent home, but this decision cost the Dems dearly in 2000.Clinton also came closest to doing the right thing on the policy front. He was all about gradually relaxing various regulations and was even coming to Congress about changing some of the laws. Then those dumb bastards shot down two American-flagged civilian aircraft in international airspace. That was it -- Clinton was boxed in.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 06:34 AM

Every party in power has coddled the Cuban ex-pat voteBetter to coddle American citizens than a murdering thug, I always say. But that's just me.

a_unique_person

20th April 2006, 06:40 AM

Isn't that the point? The only people being harmed are those ordinary people caught up in a stupid political game. All this doesn't hurt Castro one bit.

Mark

20th April 2006, 06:44 AM

Better to coddle American citizens than a murdering thug, I always say. But that's just me.

But The embargo hasn't hurt Castro one tiny bit; if anything, it has helped him by making us look bad to the Cuban people.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 06:53 AM

Isn't that the point? The only people being harmed are those ordinary people Pardon me, but is it the U.S. that officially calls Cuban political dissenters "gusanos" (worms)? Is it the U.S. that imprisons Cuban political dissenters for their opposition to the government? Is it the U.S. that won't let Cubans leave Cuba? Is it the U.S. that doesn't allow free elections in Cuba? Is it the U.S. that doesn't allow free press in Cuba?

If Cuba's economy is so delicate that people live in squalor and misery without U.S. trade (and they don't - Castro says they have wonderful lives in his socialist workers' paradise, and he wouldn't lie about something like that), why doesn't Castro either 1) institute the necessary social reforms so that the U.S. would lift the embargo, or 2) take the necessary steps to invigorate his economy without U.S. support - i.e., ditch communism?

Melendwyr

20th April 2006, 06:53 AM

But The embargo hasn't hurt Castro one tiny bit; if anything, it has helped him by making us look bad to the Cuban people. Exactly. Harmful activity at the expense of harmless inaction, because we have to do something.

Snide

20th April 2006, 06:56 AM

HarryKeogh

20th April 2006, 06:59 AM

Can someone remind me why we still have an embargo on Cuba and not on China?

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 06:59 AM

Former Minnesota Twins great Tony Oliva is dealing with the same thing right now. His brother is ill with cancer back in Cuba, but he can't visit him because you get one trip every three years, and he used that too recently. It's BS.If I were Tony Oliva, I'd be pestering my congressman to put pressure on Castro to let my brother leave Cuba and come to the U.S. and get the best medical care in the world. 'Cuz he sure ain't gonna get it in Havana.

Jocko

20th April 2006, 07:03 AM

Exactly. Harmful activity at the expense of harmless inaction, because we have to do something.

Are you talking about 40 wasted years with Cuba or the 12 wasted years with Iraq when you talk about the empty effect of sanctions?

Seems there's no pleasing some people. No wonder Bush doesn't even try.

FreeChile

20th April 2006, 07:05 AM

This is insane. There's no reason a woman shouldn't be allowed to leave the country to see her sister.

Write to your congressman. Demand that Fidel Castro allow Sara Fernandez's sister to leave Cuba and come to the US.
Are you suggesting that the Chinese can visit the US as they wish? Or are you saying that because our neighbors jump off the bridge, we will too? Wasn’t it the difference between them and us that our citizens had more freedom?

Mark

20th April 2006, 07:11 AM

Are you talking about 40 wasted years with Cuba or the 12 wasted years with Iraq when you talk about the empty effect of sanctions?

Seems there's no pleasing some people. No wonder Bush doesn't even try.

Given that Hussein had no WMDs, I would say the sanctions against Iraq were pretty effective. It's the war that has been ineffective...much like the Cuban embargo.

Cleon

20th April 2006, 07:12 AM

Pardon me, but is it the U.S. that officially calls Cuban political dissenters "gusanos" (worms)? Is it the U.S. that imprisons Cuban political dissenters for their opposition to the government? Is it the U.S. that won't let Cubans leave Cuba? Is it the U.S. that doesn't allow free elections in Cuba? Is it the U.S. that doesn't allow free press in Cuba?

If Cuba's economy is so delicate that people live in squalor and misery without U.S. trade (and they don't - Castro says they have wonderful lives in his socialist workers' paradise, and he wouldn't lie about something like that), why doesn't Castro either 1) institute the necessary social reforms so that the U.S. would lift the embargo, or 2) take the necessary steps to invigorate his economy without U.S. support - i.e., ditch communism?

All of which make for lovely soundbites about how eeeevil Cuba is, but it still doesn't explain why American citizens shouldn't be allowed to go there or, for that matter, buy a Cuban cigar when they want to. Especially when a country like China--which, again, makes Cuba look like Disneyland--is fair game.

shemp

20th April 2006, 07:25 AM

Jocko

20th April 2006, 07:56 AM

Given that Hussein had no WMDs, I would say the sanctions against Iraq were pretty effective. It's the war that has been ineffective...much like the Cuban embargo.

Whoah, are you saying that starving the population of Iraq while Hussein played peek-a-boo with inspectors for a dozen years was an acceptable status quo?

I agree that the Cuban embargo is counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember the little incident that sparked it - and understand the POV of people willing to endure the embargo's effects for a larger reason.

Mark

20th April 2006, 08:07 AM

Whoah, are you saying that starving the population of Iraq while Hussein played peek-a-boo with inspectors for a dozen years was an acceptable status quo?
No, I am saying he had no WMDs...as anyone could tell based on the incredibly flimsy evidence for them we were given at the time by Colin Powell, et. al. What status quo? Huseein's teeth had been pulled by the first Gulf War and the sanctions against him.

As far as the population at large, given the tens of thousands who are dying there now (not to mention the untold more wounded), the war was hardly a means to helping them out.

I agree that the Cuban embargo is counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember the little incident that sparked it - and understand the POV of people willing to endure the embargo's effects for a larger reason.

What utlimately sparked it was that Castro originally came to the US for help against the corrupt Somoza regime, and we sided with Somoza and tried to assasinate Castro. The expatriate Cuban lobby (and now their descendants), holding on to the vain hope that they will get their siezed property back, are the ones keeping this ridiculous embargo intact.

varwoche

20th April 2006, 08:07 AM

Cleon

20th April 2006, 08:08 AM

What utlimately sparked it was that Castro originally came to the US for help against the corrupt Somoza regime, and we sided with Somoza and tried to assasinate Castro. The expatriate Cuban lobby (and now their descendants), holding on to the vain hope that they will get their siezed property back, are the ones keeping this ridiculous embargo intact.

Batista, not Somoza. Somoza was the bastard dictator we supported in Nicaragua, not the bastard dictator we supported in Cuba. That was Fulgencio Batista.

Jocko

20th April 2006, 08:19 AM

No, I am saying he had no WMDs...as anyone could tell based on the incredibly flimsy evidence for them we were given at the time by Colin Powell, et. al. What status quo? Huseein's teeth had been pulled by the first Gulf War and the sanctions against him.

And this has to do with Cuba and sanctions... how? No one is saying Fidel is armed with anything stronger than a killer PR team.

As far as the population at large, given the tens of thousands who are dying there now (not to mention the untold more wounded), the war was hardly a means to helping them out.

So which is it, Mark? Dying of starvation or dying in the crossfire? Which is worse? Which one is more meaningless?

What utlimately sparked it was that Castro originally came to the US for help against the corrupt Somoza regime, and we sided with Somoza and tried to assasinate Castro. The expatriate Cuban lobby (and now their descendants), holding on to the vain hope that they will get their siezed property back, are the ones keeping this ridiculous embargo intact.

If you think that's the only reason (as amended by Cleon) - even the main reason - then you're a lot younger than I thought you were.

Mark

20th April 2006, 08:19 AM

Batista, not Somoza. Somoza was the bastard dictator we supported in Nicaragua, not the bastard dictator we supported in Cuba. That was Fulgencio Batista.

D'oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am going to crawl away in shame now...

Mark

20th April 2006, 08:21 AM

And this has to do with Cuba and sanctions... how? No one is saying Fidel is armed with anything stronger than a killer PR team.

So which is it, Mark? Dying of starvation or dying in the crossfire? Which is worse? Which one is more meaningless?
I don't know. We mishandled Iraq totally.

If you think that's the only reason - even the main reason - then you're a lot younger than I thought you were.

If you are referring to the missle crisis, that was long after we had made severe, crucial, mistakes with Castro. And he backed down anyway.

Cleon

20th April 2006, 08:22 AM

D'oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am going to crawl away in shame now...

No worries. Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Pinochet...It can be hard to keep track sometimes. ;)

Jocko

20th April 2006, 08:39 AM

I don't know.
Yet you disagree. Curious.

We mishandled Iraq totally.
Since we're talking about sanctions, I presume "We" is the UN, yes?

If you are referring to the missle crisis, that was long after we had made severe, crucial, mistakes with Castro. And he backed down anyway.

Yeah, no hard feelings there, and it was really our fault it even happened. Sheesh.

Mark

20th April 2006, 08:44 AM

Yet you disagree. Curious.

Since we're talking about sanctions, I presume "We" is the UN, yes?
The US and the UN, yes.

Yeah, no hard feelings there, and it was really our fault it even happened. Sheesh.
I never said anything of the kind. How do you expect me to respond if you misquote me (I'll stop short of saying "lie.")? It was not our fault and the cirsis was handled very, very well (one of Kennedy's shining moments, of which there weren't all that many, IMO).

Does Castro have bad feelings about it? I don't know (and neither do you); I have always suspected he was caving to Soviet pressure in the first place (which is merely a speculation; I have no hard evidence). In any case, what on earth does it have to do with the embargo lasting another 43 years?!?!

Cleon

20th April 2006, 08:47 AM

If you are referring to the missle crisis, that was long after we had made severe, crucial, mistakes with Castro. And he backed down anyway.

Really, the Missile Crisis had more to do with the Soviet Union than Cuba, anyway. The Cubans had very little say in what actually went down, despite the fact that it happened on their territory. But the embargo was already in place by the time the Crisis occurred, so the Crisis certainly didn't cause the embargo.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 08:49 AM

All of which make for lovely soundbites about how eeeevil Cuba is, but it still doesn't explain why American citizens shouldn't be allowed to go there or, for that matter, buy a Cuban cigar when they want to. Especially when a country like China--which, again, makes Cuba look like Disneyland--is fair game.So your argument for lifting the sanctions against Castro comes down to this: We help support one murderous dictatorship, therefore we should support every murderous dictatorship (plus you want to be able to smoke his cigars).

Does your list of approved dictatorships include Saudi Arabia?
Pakistan?
Apartheid-era South Africa?
Somoza-era Nicaragua?
Pinochet-era Chile?
Batista-era Cuba?

Anti_Hypeman

20th April 2006, 08:51 AM

Do you really want another destitute country our corporations can plunder? The embargo does some good it keeps Nike from building childrens forced labor camps down there.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 08:54 AM

Do you really want another destitute country our corporations can plunder? The embargo does some good it keeps Nike from building childrens forced labor camps down there.I'd nominate this as the silliest post of the day, except that the day ain't over yet.

Darat

20th April 2006, 08:56 AM

Yes except for the "all legal" part -- it's a felony.

Really?

Cleon

20th April 2006, 08:56 AM

So your argument for lifting the sanctions against Castro comes down to this:

I appreciate your attempt to construct my argument, but I have this irritating habit of thinking for myself.

My argument for lifting the sanctions against Cuba are:

1) It makes no sense whatsoever.
2) Even if it did, it clearly isn't working.
3) There are about 11,000,000 people in Cuba, only one of which is Fidel Castro. Punishing 11,000,000 people and restricting the rights of 300,000,000 Americans because you don't like one guy is ridiculous.

Now, do you have any reasonable, logical arguments to make in support of the embargo? "Cuba bad" isn't a reasonable, logical argument, because as you point out, there are much worse regimes out there we have no problem doing business with and allowing people to travel to.

fishbob

20th April 2006, 08:58 AM

Are you talking about 40 wasted years with Cuba or the 12 wasted years with Iraq when you talk about the empty effect of sanctions?

Seems there's no pleasing some people. No wonder Bush doesn't even try.
First to bring Bush into it. You lose.

And that is not the reason Bush doesn't even try - I suspect that lack of competence has more to do with it.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 09:03 AM

And that is not the reason Bush doesn't even try - I suspect that lack of competence has more to do with it.You mean Bush pleased 52% of the electorate in November, 2004 without even trying?

Damn, he's good...

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 09:18 AM

My argument for lifting the sanctions against Cuba are:

1) It makes no sense whatsoever.
That's a conclusion, not an argument.
2) Even if it did, it clearly isn't working.Perhaps they should be tougher, then. How do you feel about worldwide UN sanctions? All the bien-pensants considered them to be a good idea when they didn't like South Africa's apartheid government. Why shouldn't they be applied against Cuba?

3) There are about 11,000,000 people in Cuba, only one of which is Fidel Castro. Punishing 11,000,000 people and restricting the rights of 300,000,000 Americans because you don't like one guy is ridiculous.You say that as if the main cause of the Cuban people's ills is the U.S. Do you really believe that?

News flash: About 90% of the world's economy is not the U.S. (okay, I made that up - someone prove it's more, or less). Do you really believe the only reason Cuba isn't heaven on earth is because we don't buy their cigars and sugar?

Do you believe that if the embargo were lifted, Castro would empty the political prisons, free trade and industry would blossom all over the island, Cubans would get electricity and clean running water 24 x 7, new political parties representing every point of view would blossom and prosper, new newspapers and radio stations would emerge to bring the Cuban people information that has not passed through the governent censors?

Do you?

Nyarlathotep

20th April 2006, 09:30 AM

Do you believe that if the embargo were lifted, Castro would empty the political prisons, free trade and industry would blossom all over the island, Cubans would get electricity and clean running water 24 x 7, new political parties representing every point of view would blossom and prosper, new newspapers and radio stations would emerge to bring the Cuban people information that has not passed through the governent censors?

Okay, China has political prisons, repression and all the bad things that Cuba has, yet it is perfectly legal for me to buy Chinese made crap by the ton at Wal-Mart while it is a crime for me to buy a Cuban cigar. If I wanted to visit China, I could, if I visited Cuba, I could be arrested.

Why do you think sustaining sanctions on Cuba are a good thing but you do not advocate putting similar sanctions on China?

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 09:51 AM

Okay, China has political prisons, repression and all the bad things that Cuba has, yet it is perfectly legal for me to buy Chinese made crap by the ton at Wal-Mart while it is a crime for me to buy a Cuban cigar. If I wanted to visit China, I could, if I visited Cuba, I could be arrested.

Why do you think sustaining sanctions on Cuba are a good thing but you do not advocate putting similar sanctions on China?Frankly, I don't know that sanctions ever work. They haven't against Castro, certainly.

But what's the argument for lifting them? If you could buy cell phones and computers and Nike sneakers and good clothing and Persian rugs and Gatorade and God knows what else, the economic advantage to ending the embargo might make sense.

But what could you buy from Cuba? Sugar, which we seem to be able to get anyway at ridiculously cheap prices - under 20 cents a pound last time I checked, so who needs Castro's? And cigars, which, face it, are not a significant portion of our trade.

So really, the economic harm to the U.S. from the sanctions is insignificant.

So why should we lift them? We'd only be helping to prop up and further enrich a murdering dictator, for little benefit to ourselves. Where is the outrage from the bien-pensants here? They get their britches in such a twist because we support other dictators, then when we say that at least we won't support this one, they get their britches in a twist over that. How do you get on the bien-pensants list of approved dictators? Musharref would like to know.

Kerberos

20th April 2006, 09:52 AM

You say that as if the main cause of the Cuban people's ills is the U.S. Do you really believe that?

Actually he says that as if the embargoes is one of the causes of the Cuban people's ill's whether there are other and greater problems doesn't matter the slightest.

News flash: About 90% of the world's economy is not the U.S. (okay, I made that up - someone prove it's more, or less).
News Flash: About 25% of the world Economy is the US (hint: 25%>10%). A bit more than 25% if we use norminal exchange rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 and a bit less if we use Purchasing power parity exchange rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29. Also those 25% of the world economy are geographically close to Cuba, meaning that in the absence of an embargo it could reasonably be expected to constitute significantly more than 25% of Cubas foreign trade.

Do you really believe the only reason Cuba isn't heaven on earth is because we don't buy their cigars and sugar?

Do you believe that if the embargo were lifted, Castro would empty the political prisons, free trade and industry would blossom all over the island, Cubans would get electricity and clean running water 24 x 7, new political parties representing every point of view would blossom and prosper, new newspapers and radio stations would emerge to bring the Cuban people information that has not passed through the governent censors?

Do you?Do you really believe that these ridicilous straw men improve on your arguments?

varwoche

20th April 2006, 10:07 AM

Really?

Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities have increased enforcement of these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of Treasury regulations will face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States. State Dept (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html)

I'm unable to verify that it's a felony. It may be that it's a misdemeanor but that lying to customs upon return is a felony. One and/or the other, as I recollect.

Nyarlathotep

20th April 2006, 10:12 AM

Frankly, I don't know that sanctions ever work. They haven't against Castro, certainly.

But what's the argument for lifting them? If you could buy cell phones and computers and Nike sneakers and good clothing and Persian rugs and Gatorade and God knows what else, the economic advantage to ending the embargo might make sense.

But what could you buy from Cuba? Sugar, which we seem to be able to get anyway at ridiculously cheap prices - under 20 cents a pound last time I checked, so who needs Castro's? And cigars, which, face it, are not a significant portion of our trade.

So really, the economic harm to the U.S. from the sanctions is insignificant.

So why should we lift them? We'd only be helping to prop up and further enrich a murdering dictator, for little benefit to ourselves. Where is the outrage from the bien-pensants here? They get their britches in such a twist because we support other dictators, then when we say that at least we won't support this one, they get their britches in a twist over that. How do you get on the bien-pensants list of approved dictators? Musharref would like to know.

Well, it sounds like we both agree that the sanctions on Cuba don't do a bit of good. I think the best argument for lifting them is that they prop Castro up more than they hurt him. Right now Castro gets to blame all of his nations woes on the big bad Yanqis. If we lift the sanctions and the Cuban people find that they STILL don't have 'electricity and clean running water 24 x 7' etc. one can only assume that they will begin to wonder why. But as it stands now, if they wonder those things aloud, Castro gets to point to the embargo. We lift it, he loses us as his scapegoat and doesn't leave the balme with a lot of places to fall except on his head.

Kerberos

20th April 2006, 10:13 AM

Frankly, I don't know that sanctions ever work. They haven't against Castro, certainly.

But what's the argument for lifting them? If you could buy cell phones and computers and Nike sneakers and good clothing and Persian rugs and Gatorade and God knows what else, the economic advantage to ending the embargo might make sense.

But what could you buy from Cuba? Sugar, which we seem to be able to get anyway at ridiculously cheap prices - under 20 cents a pound last time I checked, so who needs Castro's? And cigars, which, face it, are not a significant portion of our trade.

So really, the economic harm to the U.S. from the sanctions is insignificant.

So why should we lift them? We'd only be helping to prop up and further enrich a murdering dictator, for little benefit to ourselves. Where is the outrage from the bien-pensants here? They get their britches in such a twist because we support other dictators, then when we say that at least we won't support this one, they get their britches in a twist over that. How do you get on the bien-pensants list of approved dictators? Musharref would like to know.
A few points:

1) Supporting a dictator, in everyday usage, refers to something a bit more substantial than allowing your citizens to visit the country and not having an embargo against the country, say selling high tech weapons, giving them money or favourable loans, sharing intelligence or military cooperation; stuff like that.

2) if the sanctions don't work against Castro, which you say they don't, then removing them doesn't prop him up.

3) Reasonable people might feel that a more substantial reason for sanctions is desirable than: "it doesn't hurt us.. Much". You know - that the policy be neutral to the US or perhaps even, for the true radical, that it actually provide some minor benefit.

HarryKeogh

20th April 2006, 10:19 AM

question: Will Fidel Castro ever die?

Cleon

20th April 2006, 10:25 AM

question: Will Fidel Castro ever die?

Well, if he doesn't, then ironically somebody in Florida wants to give him $1 million.

TragicMonkey

20th April 2006, 10:28 AM

Sugar, which we seem to be able to get anyway at ridiculously cheap prices - under 20 cents a pound last time I checked, so who needs Castro's?

The price of sugar is artificially inflated in the US. It's much, much cheaper internationally. However, the sugar industry is very wealthy, and contributes heavily to political candidates who support the special protections the industry gets from the government. Foreign sugar is tariffed all to hell.

We're not the only ones with a protected sugar industry. So do the EU and Japan. There was a fuss over it between the EU and a number of other countries a couple of years ago. Countries like Brazil produce a lot of sugar but can't sell it in the richest markets.

America does like to promote the values of capitalism, but is strangely reluctant to practice them in certain areas. Ending the embargo on Cuba will have zero effect on sugar prices in the US. Cuban sugar would be required to sell at the same artificially high prices, or not allowed to sell at all.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 10:35 AM

Actually he says that as if the embargoes is one of the causes of the Cuban people's ill's whether there are other and greater problems doesn't matter the slightest.Could you please rewrite that sentence so it makes grammatic sense? I have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks
News Flash: About 25% of the world Economy is the US (hint: 25%>10%). A bit more than 25% if we use norminal exchange ratesThanks for looking that up. The point I was making was that there's a hell of a lot of trade in the world that doesn't flow through the U.S.; if the main reason for a country's economic misery is lack of trade with the U.S., then there's something seriously flawed with that country's economic system. If the U.S. doesn't buy Cuba's sugar, it has to buy more of someone else's, and the worldwide demand for sugar won't change as a result. That means that Cuba will get the same amount of money for a pound of its sugar whether the U.S. buys any of it or not. The embargo doesn't affect that. This is Economics 101.

The same holds true for tourism. If Americans don't go to Cuba, they'll go to the Virgin Islands or Jamaica. But the worldwide demand for Caribbean hotel rooms won't change. Cuba will get the same amount of money for its hotel rooms whether the U.S. rents any of them or not.

Do you really believe that these ridicilous straw men improve on your arguments?The straw man is the claim that the U.S. embargo hurts the Cuban economy. It would only hurt if the rest of the world's demand for Cuban products was insufficient to fill the supply. Show me that excess Cuban sugar is being dumped into the ocean or that Havana luxury hotels are closing for lack of U.S. customers, and you might have a case.

TragicMonkey

20th April 2006, 10:45 AM

That means that Cuba will get the same amount of money for a pound of its sugar whether the U.S. buys any of it or not.

No, it won't, but not because of the embargo. Cuban sugar sold outside the US will not be able to command the same price because sugar prices are controlled in the US. They are higher.

Which is hilarious, actually. Imagine, the embargo ends. Castro dies. Cuba embraces capitalism, and gets ready to sell sugar to America, the biggest sugar consuming country ever.

And we tell it no, because our sugar industry shouldn't be subjected to market forces. It would cut into its profits.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 10:59 AM

And we tell it no, because our sugar industry shouldn't be subjected to market forces. It would cut into its profits.Not so much "we tell it no," as, "You sell your sugar for less than our U.S. producers can sell it, so we're going to tax your sugar to bring the price up to the same level as U.S. producers."

Which, I agree, is ridiculous. If the U.S. producers can't make a profit selling sugar, they should get out of the business.

But the embargo or lack of one doesn't affect any of this. Cuba would still get the same amount of money for a pound of sugar. It's just that the U.S. treasury would get some additional revenue on the side, in the form of the tariff on Cuban sugar.

FreeChile

20th April 2006, 11:08 AM

That's a conclusion, not an argument.
Perhaps they should be tougher, then. How do you feel about worldwide UN sanctions? All the bien-pensants considered them to be a good idea when they didn't like South Africa's apartheid government. Why shouldn't they be applied against Cuba?
What are you talking about? You seem to invoke the UN when it suits your interest.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FOR THIRTEENTH STRAIGHT YEAR, ADOPTS RESOLUTION
ON ENDING UNITED STATES EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/ga10288.doc.htm

For the thirteenth straight year, the General Assembly today overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on the perennial necessity of ending the four-decade-old economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba.

By a recorded vote of 179 in favour to four against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau and United States) with one abstention (Federates States of Micronesia), the Assembly expressed its concern that since its earliest resolution on the issue in 1991, further measures had been taken by the United States to strengthen and extend the restrictions, which adversely affected the Cuban people and Cuban nationals living in other countries.

Lurker

20th April 2006, 11:12 AM

Not so much "we tell it no," as, "You sell your sugar for less than our U.S. producers can sell it, so we're going to tax your sugar to bring the price up to the same level as U.S. producers."

Which, I agree, is ridiculous. If the U.S. producers can't make a profit selling sugar, they should get out of the business.

But the embargo or lack of one doesn't affect any of this. Cuba would still get the same amount of money for a pound of sugar. It's just that the U.S. treasury would get some additional revenue on the side, in the form of the tariff on Cuban sugar.

Let's try that logic on another commodity - oil. Let's assume Venzuela decided nto to sell their oil to the US anymore and instead sold it all to other countries. Supplies of US oil would certainly start to come from other countries (Saudi, etc...) Do you thinkt he price of oil would remain the same for the US or go up? One less supplier that we can bargain with. I say it goes up.

I think the failure in your logic, BPSCG, is you assume perfect elasticity in the product (sugar).

Lurker

bob_kark

20th April 2006, 11:15 AM

Certainly Cuba seems bad, but what makes Cuba worse than China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, etc...

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2006, 11:15 AM

Being born and raised here in South Florida, I got both sides of this debate from my mother's left and right breasts.

Firstly, the Cuban embargo does nothing to diminish the power Castro has. In fact, by making the country less wealthy, it makes the populace more dependant on him. It's possible for people to get permission to visit with families still living in Cuba, but it's a beurocratic nightmare, and post 9/11 idiocy doesn't help.

There are far worse dictactorships in the world than Cuba. Before anyone jumps up and down and calls me a bleeding heart liberal, I'll just let you know that my grandfather narrowly avoided a firing squad ordered by Castro. My mother's entire family narrowly escaped being murdered by Castro. However, I am not going to pretend, as some do, that the oppression my people have endured is the worst oppression there has ever been. Castro is not the devil. He stopped being a boogeyman sometime after the USSR dissolved. Trade with Cuba can only make the country more affluent. Cuba has a lot to offer the U.S., in tourism, and in thousands of doctors, and nurses whom we sorely need. The Cuban people are well educated. They are also poor, in deperate need of wok, and all the medical professionals in Cuba would give anything they had for an MRI, and the medical technology we enjoy.

The Cuban exile community in America is in a stasis bubble. They think we're still in the 60's. They're furious at the Democrats because a man who was assinated in Texas two generations ago ddn't fulfill his promises about the Bay of Pigs. That's why, to this day, all a Republican has to do is raise the Castro boogeyman to gain their mindless support. The embargo is mildly destructive to the U.S., but it's monsterously disastarous to the Cuban people. Castro uses the Embargo as an excuse for every failing in the government. The Cuban people are told the reason El Revolucion hasn't brought them prosperity is because the Yankee devil is making them poor.

Do you know what the worst part is? Castro's right.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 11:25 AM

What are you talking about? You seem to invoke the UN when it suits your interest. Read, and learn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#Sanctions).On November 6, 1962, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1761, condemning South African apartheid policies. On August 7, 1963 the United Nations Security Council established a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa. Following the Soweto uprising in 1976 and its brutal suppression by the apartheid regime, the arms embargo was made mandatory by the UN Security Council on November 4, 1977 and South Africa became increasingly isolated internationally. Numerous conferences were held and the United Nations passed resolutions condemning South Africa, including the World Conference Against Racism in 1978 and 1983. A significant divestment movement started, pressuring investors to refuse to invest in South African companies or companies that did business with South Africa. South African sports teams were barred from participation in international events, and South African culture and tourism were boycotted.If international sanctions against South Africa were a good idea, why are they a bad idea for Cuba?

Snide

20th April 2006, 11:26 AM

You mean Bush pleased 52% of the electorate in November, 2004 without even trying?

Damn, he's good...I'm confident a good number of those were simply less displeased with him as a choice than the others.

Kerberos

20th April 2006, 11:28 AM

Could you please rewrite that sentence so it makes grammatic sense? I have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks
Sorry ills, not ill's. What Cleon is saying is that the embargo hurts Cuba, he hasn't said if he thinks there are other things that hurts them more.

Thanks for looking that up. The point I was making was that there's a hell of a lot of trade in the world that doesn't flow through the U.S.; if the main reason for a country's economic misery is lack of trade with the U.S., then there's something seriously flawed with that country's economic system. If the U.S. doesn't buy Cuba's sugar, it has to buy more of someone else's, and the worldwide demand for sugar won't change as a result. That means that Cuba will get the same amount of money for a pound of its sugar whether the U.S. buys any of it or not. The embargo doesn't affect that. This is Economics 101.

The same holds true for tourism. If Americans don't go to Cuba, they'll go to the Virgin Islands or Jamaica. But the worldwide demand for Caribbean hotel rooms won't change. Cuba will get the same amount of money for its hotel rooms whether the U.S. rents any of them or not.
If that's what they teach in Economics 101 you desperatly need to take Economics 102, because this in nonsense. There is a very strong corelation bwtween both trade and distance and tourism and distance.
For a totally generic product like sugar and assuming that transportation costs don't matter, you are correct in stating that an embargo should make no difference. For non-generic products like luxury cigars it does make a difference. As for tourists there are AFAIK 2 rich countries in the vicinity of cuba, USA and Canada. The notion that forbidding around 90% of their potential rich customers from visiting makes no difference is to absurd for words.

The straw man is the claim that the U.S. embargo hurts the Cuban economy.
Straw man means a position you falsely atribute to somebody else, not an incorrect statement. So even if it was incorrect that the embargo hurts the Cuban economy, which it isn't (economics 102 remember), it wouldn't be a strawman because I didn't attribute that posistion to you.

It would only hurt if the rest of the world's demand for Cuban products was insufficient to fill the supply. Show me that excess Cuban sugar is being dumped into the ocean or that Havana luxury hotels are closing for lack of U.S. customers, and you might have a case.
Allow me to make a radical sugestion. Considering that the embargo has been in place for 44 years, isn't it possible, at least in theory, that the Cuban market for sugar, cigars, hotels and whatever other products or services that are influenced has adjusted to the lower demand caused by the embargo? The Cubans might decide to cut their sugar production and close their hotels (or refrain from opening them) after only say 20 or 30 years. Just a thought.

Kerberos

20th April 2006, 11:35 AM

Read, and learn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#Sanctions).If international sanctions against South Africa were a good idea, why are they a bad idea for Cuba?
I'll give you a hint, see if you can spot it:

"On November 6, 1962, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1761, condemning South African apartheid policies. On August 7, 1963 the United Nations Security Council established a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa. Following the Soweto uprising in 1976 and its brutal suppression by the apartheid regime, the arms embargo was made mandatory by the UN Security Council on November 4, 1977 and South Africa became increasingly isolated internationally."

Notice anything or do I need to be less subtle?

FreeChile

20th April 2006, 11:41 AM

If international sanctions against South Africa were a good idea, why are they a bad idea for Cuba?
Aside from your faulty comparison, let's use your own words here. Perhaps you will agree with yourself. Let me know if you can't perform the appropriate reversal of the argument.

So your argument for lifting the sanctions against Castro comes down to this: We help support one murderous dictatorship, therefore we should support every murderous dictatorship (plus you want to be able to smoke his cigars).

Does your list of approved dictatorships include Saudi Arabia?
Pakistan?
Apartheid-era South Africa?
Somoza-era Nicaragua?
Pinochet-era Chile?
Batista-era Cuba?

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 11:44 AM

Trade with Cuba can only make the country more affluent. Was Cuba a rich country before Castro came to power?
Cuba has a lot to offer the U.S., in tourism, and in thousands of doctors, and nurses whom we sorely need. Then why don't they come here? They could surely make much more money in the U.S. than in Cuba. What's preventing them from emigrating? Cuba is closer to the U.S. than Boston is to New York. What's stopping them from coming to the U.S., for a better life? (I wish I had a sarcasm smilie...)
The Cuban people are well educated. They are also poor, in deperate need of wok, I like Chinese food, too. Wal-Mart sells them cheap.

Oh, you meant "work." (sorry...) What jobs are not available because of the embargo? Are there thousands of empty hotel rooms at the height of the tourist season, because of the Yanqui embargo?
and all the medical professionals in Cuba would give anything they had for an MRI, and the medical technology we enjoy.I wasn't aware the U.S. was the world's only manufacturer of high-end medical equipment. You mean the the Europeans and the Japanese don't make MRI scanners? Or do you mean they refuse to sell them to Cuba?

The embargo is mildly destructive to the U.S., but it's monsterously disastarous to the Cuban people. How? Are Havana hotel rooms empty at high tourist season? Is Cuban sugar being dumped in the ocean, or is the cane being left to rot in the fields, for lack of world markets?
Castro uses the Embargo as an excuse for every failing in the government. The Cuban people are told the reason El Revolucion hasn't brought them prosperity is because the Yankee devil is making them poor.

Do you know what the worst part is? Castro's right.You know, it's possible to be poor even if you don't have a trade embargo with the U.S. Ask Haiti. Do you think it's possible that Cuba is poor because it clings to a catastrophic economic system that discourages work and denies the profit motive? An economic system that has failed every single place it has been tried? An economic system whose sole legacy to the human race has been misery, poverty, and mass murder on the order of tens of millions of people?

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2006, 11:45 AM

Excuse me, I think many of those who support the embargo are woefully ignorant of how extremely unpopular it is, in Cuba, the United States, and in the rest of the world. The following is just the highlights, there's muchmore on the website.

Remedial History:
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/embargo.htm

1963February 8. The Kennedy administration prohibits travel to Cuba and makes financial and commercial transactions with Cuba illegal for U.S. citizens.

May 14. The U.S. Department of Commerce announces the requirement of specific approval for exports of all food and medicine to Cuba.

November 17. President Kennedy asks French journalist Jean Daniel to tell Castro that he is now ready to negotiate normal relations and drop the embargo. According to former Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, "If Kennedy had lived I am confident that he would have negotiated that agreement and dropped the embargo because he was upset with the way the Soviet Union was playing a strong role in Cuba and Latin America…"

December. The Foreign Assistance Act is amended to prohibit U.S. aid to countries that continue to trade with Cuba.

December 12. Less than one month after President John F. Kennedy's assassination, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy seeks to end the travel ban to Cuba in a memo to Secretary of State Dean Rusk. He refers to the ban as "inconsistent with traditional American liberties," and difficult to enforce. The memo is not released to the public until June 29 2005.

December 13. Robert F. Kennedy's memo of December 12 is discussed at a State Department meeting (to which RFK is not invited) and Undersecretary of State George Ball rules out the possibility of ending the travel ban to Cuba. [The ban continues until 1977 when the Carter Administration opens travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens. The Reagan Administration reinstitutes the ban in 1981.]

1975: August 21. The U.S. announces that it will allow foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to sell products in Cuba, and that it would no longer penalize other nations for trade with Cuba.

November 15. In Washington, Representative John B. Breaux and senator J. Bennett Johnston Jr., Democrats from Louisiana, argue that it is in the national interest for Louisiana to be allowed to sell rice to Cuba. Mr. Breaux is quoted in the New York Times: "…my constituents say that if the United States can sell grain to the Soviet Union and China, why can't they sell rice to Cuba?"

1981January. Ronald Reagan is inaugurated as U.S. President, and institutes the most hostile policy against Cuba since the invasion at Bay of Pigs. Despite conciliatory signals from Cuba, the new U.S. administration announces a tightening of the embargo.

1982April 19. The Reagan Administration reestablishes the travel ban, prohibits U.S. citizens from spending money in Cuba, and allows the 1977 fishing accord to lapse

1985October 4. U.S. President Reagan bans travel to the U.S. by Cuban government or Communist Party officials or their representatives. It also bars most students, scholars, and artists.

1992February 5. U.S. Congressman Robert Torricelli introduces the Cuban Democracy Act, and says the bill is designed to "wreak havoc on the island."

June 15. From an editorial in the NY Times: "…This misnamed act (the Cuban Democracy Act) is dubious in theory, cruel in its potential practice and ignoble in its election-year expediency… An influential faction of the Cuban American community clamors for sticking it to a wounded regime… There is, finally, something indecent about vociferous exiles living safely in Miami prescribing more pain for their poorer cousins."

October 15. U.S. Congress passes the Cuban Democracy Act, which prohibits foreign-based subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba, travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens, and family remittances to Cuba. The law allows private groups to deliver food and medicine to Cuba. (At this time, 70% of Cuba's trade with U.S. subsidiary companies was in food and medicine. Many claim the Cuban Democracy Act is in violation of international law and United Nations resolutions that food and medicine cannot be used as weapons in international conflicts.)

October 23. President Bush signs the Cuban Democracy Act into law. Congressman Torricelli says that it will bring down Castro "within weeks."

November 24. The United Nations General Assembly votes heavily in favor of a measure introduced by Cuba asking for an end to the U.S. Embargo. The vote is 59 in favor, 3 against (the U.S., Israel and Romania), and 79 abstentions. State Department spokesman Joe Snyder in the LA Times; "The Cuban government, in violation of international law, expropriated billions of dollars worth of private property belonging to U.S. individuals and has refused to make reasonable restitution. The U.S. embargo - and I point out it's not a blockade - is therefore a legitimate response to the unreasonable and illegal behavior of the Cuban government."

1994 October 26. For the 3rd year in a row, the United Nations General Assembly votes overwhelmingly for a measure to end the U.S. Embargo of Cuba. The vote is 101-2, with 48 abstentions, and only Israel votes with the U.S.

1996March 12. President Clinton signs the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act (also known as the Helms-Burton Act) which imposes penalties on foreign companies doing business in Cuba, permits U.S. citizens to sue foreign investors who make use of American-owned property seized by the Cuban government, and denies entry into the U.S. to such foreign investors.

July 16. President Clinton suspends enforcement of Title III provisions of the Helms-Burton Act.

November 12. By a vote of 137 to 3, the United Nations General Assembly recommends, for the 5th consecutive year, that the U.S. end the embargo against Cuba.

1997November 5. For the 6th straight year, the U.N. General Assembly passes a resolution to end the Cuban embargo. The vote is 143 to 3.

1998October 16. The United Nations General Assembly adopts a resolution against the U.S. embargo on Cuba for the 7th consecutive year. The vote is 157 to end the embargo and 2 (U.S. & Israel) to keep it.

1999February 23. The coalition of Americans for Humanitarian Trade With Cuba join the United States Association of Former Members of Congress to call on the Clinton administration to end the embargo on food and medicines to Cuba. "The U.S. embargo on Cuba is the single most restrictive policy of its kind. Even Iraq is able to buy food and medicine from U.S. sources," says George Fernandez, Executive Director at AHTC. "As a Cuban American, I speak for the vast majority of us who do not think the U.S. should be in the business of denying basic sustenance to families and children in Cuba."

Snip

November 9. A resolution is passed in the United Nations General Assembly on the need to end the U.S. embargo against Cuba. The vote is 155 in favor and 2 against (U.S. and Israel). This is the 8th time in as many years that the resolution is passed.

2001 November 28. For the 10th consecutive time the United Nations votes to condemn the 4-decade-old trade embargo by a vote of 167 to 3, with three nations abstaining. Voting for the embargo: U.S., Israel and the Marshall Islands.

2003October 10. U.S. President George W. Bush establishes the Committee for assistance to a Free Cuba, and further enforces the ban on travel to the island.

October 24. The U.S. Senate votes (59 to 36) in favor of lifting the ban on travel to Cuba. The result is similar to a vote at the House of Representatives last month. This is a major "rebuff" of President Bush's policy towards Cuba. (The travel ban was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in 1963.)

November 4. The UN General Assembly votes overwhelmingly against the U.S. economic embargo of Cuba for the 12th consecutive year. Only 3 nations vote for the embargo: the U.S., Israel and the Marshall Islands.

2004February 26. U.S. President Bush signs Presidential Proclamation 7757, which bans vessels from traveling to Cuban ports from U.S. ports.

April 30. According to a letter sent by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to the U.S. Congress late last year (and now provided to the Associated Press) the Treasury Department had 4 full-time employees dedicated to investigating Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and over 2 dozen assigned to investigating Cuban Embargo violations.
The letter reveals that over $8 million were collected in embargo violation fines since 1994, and over 10,683 "enforcement investigations" opened since 1990. Relating to terrorism, the OFAC opened 93 "enforcement investigations" between 1990 and 2003.

October 28. For the 13th consecutive year, the UN General Assembly votes overwhelmingly against the U.S. embargo on Cuba. The vote is 179 to 4, with 1 abstention. Voting with the U.S. for the embargo are Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands. In the only speech loudly applauded on the assembly floor, Cuba's Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roughe states: "The U.S. government has unleashed a world wide genocidal economic war against Cuba. It is the government of a large and mighty empire, but it is afraid of the example of a small rebellious island."

December 16. A number of U.S. lawmakers and food firms meet in Havana. By the end of the week, Cuba has agreed to purchase about $125 million in farm goods from U.S. companies.

Lurker

20th April 2006, 11:49 AM

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 12:10 PM

For a totally generic product like sugar and assuming that transportation costs don't matter, you are correct in stating that an embargo should make no difference. For non-generic products like luxury cigars it does make a difference. Is Cuba unable to sell all the cigars it produces?

As for tourists there are AFAIK 2 rich countries in the vicinity of cuba, USA and Canada. The notion that forbidding around 90% of their potential rich customers from visiting makes no difference is to absurd for words. Fine. Show me the Havana hotel vacancy rates compared with the corresponding Jamaica hotel vacancy rates, controlling for variables such as regular electricity, clean hot running water, and room bugs (electronic, not the six-legged variety), and if you can show me that after controlling for all those factors, the Havana vacancy rate is significantly higher than Jamaica's I'll rethink my position on whether or not the embargo hurts Cuba.
Straw man means a position you falsely atribute to somebody else, not an incorrect statement. You're right; I was typing hastily.
Allow me to make a radical sugestion. Considering that the embargo has been in place for 44 years, isn't it possible, at least in theory, that the Cuban market for sugar, cigars, hotels and whatever other products or services that are influenced has adjusted to the lower demand caused by the embargo? The Cubans might decide to cut their sugar production and close their hotels (or refrain from opening them) after only say 20 or 30 years. Just a thought.Sure, that's a possibility. What's far more likely, however, is that they're poor because they are one of the two last countries on earth still clinging to the worst economic system ever devised by man.

The other country is North Korea. 'Nuff said.

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2006, 12:14 PM

Is Cuba unable to sell all the cigars it produces?

Fine. Show me the Havana hotel vacancy rates compared with the corresponding Jamaica hotel vacancy rates, controlling for variables such as regular electricity, clean hot running water, and room bugs (electronic, not the six-legged variety), and if you can show me that after controlling for all those factors, the Havana vacancy rate is significantly higher than Jamaica's I'll rethink my position on whether or not the embargo hurts Cuba.
You're right; I was typing hastily.
Sure, that's a possibility. What's far more likely, however, is that they're poor because they are one of the two last countries on earth still clinging to the worst economic system ever devised by man.

The other country is North Korea. 'Nuff said.

Thanks, as though I haven't seen enough anti-comminist rhetoric in my life. If you want answers to your questions, here they are. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1587736#post1587736

Note for example that the Embargo initially shut off Cuba from the outside world completely, for 12 years, mercfully mitigated due to Carter. However, Ray-Gun's administration litterally tried to destroy Cuba with economic sanctions.

Great Brittain, another island nation, was partially chocked off from supplies of food and medicine for a few short years, and we rushed to their aid. We brutally closed off an island nation from any outside trade for twelve years.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 12:19 PM

Excuse me, I think many of those who support the embargo are woefully ignorant of how extremely unpopular it is, in Cuba, the United States, and in the rest of the world. The following is just the highlights, there's muchmore on the website.All can say is, any time the UN General Assembly votes 179 to 4 in favor of a resolution, that should be a red-flag warning that the resolution is idiotic. The only other time you see lopsided votes like that is when the General Assembly is condemning Israel for racism or somesuch.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 12:25 PM

Thanks, as though I haven't seen enough anti-comminist rhetoric in my life. Evidently it didn't make much of an impresion. Even the Chinese have given up on it.

Note for example that the Embargo initially shut off Cuba from the outside world completely, for 12 years, mercfully mitigated due to Carter. I wouldn't call Carter as my expert witness on the handling of foreign affairs...

However, Ray-Gun's administration litterally tried to destroy Cuba with economic sanctions.Figuratively. If Reagan had wanted to literally destroy Cuba, he would have sent in the B-52's.

Great Brittain, another island nation, was partially chocked off from supplies of food and medicine for a few short years, and we rushed to their aid. We brutally closed off an island nation from any outside trade for twelve years.Maybe because Britain was a democracy fighting for its life against a brutal, mass-murdering dictatorship, while Cuba's present leader has a history of befriending brutal, mass-murdering dictatorships.

Manny

20th April 2006, 12:35 PM

The price of sugar is artificially inflated in the US. It's much, much cheaper internationally. However, the sugar industry is very wealthy, and contributes heavily to political candidates who support the special protections the industry gets from the government. Foreign sugar is tariffed all to hell.Bush moved in the right direction with sugar subsidies and tariffs with CAFTA. He would have moved further but he had to give up some import relaxations to get over the hump vote-wise. I don't imagine the Fanjuls will be giving much money to Jeb in the future.

Kerberos

20th April 2006, 12:43 PM

Is Cuba unable to sell all the cigars it produces?
Just when was it you took that economics 101 class you've mentioned? Because you quite clearly remember nothing whatsoever. I'll explain it. When the demand falls, supply falls correspondingly. A drob in demand simply does not result in a long term suplus. This is not just Economics 101, it's the first leson of Economics 101.

Fine. Show me the Havana hotel vacancy rates compared with the corresponding Jamaica hotel vacancy rates, controlling for variables such as regular electricity, clean hot running water, and room bugs (electronic, not the six-legged variety), and if you can show me that after controlling for all those factors, the Havana vacancy rate is significantly higher than Jamaica's I'll rethink my position on whether or not the embargo hurts Cuba.
Sight! go find an economy book. Look up supply and demand. It will help. Trust me.

Sure, that's a possibility. What's far more likely, however, is that they're poor because they are one of the two last countries on earth still clinging to the worst economic system ever devised by man.
I'll share another radical notion with you. I have this WILD theory that more than one factor can influence the state of an economy, and that having a lousy economic system doesn't magically make the negative effects of an embargo go away. The central problem with Communism is that they can't magically change the laws of economics, if they could it would work.

Manny

20th April 2006, 12:49 PM

First to bring Bush into it. You lose. Psst. Check the thread title.

Kerberos

20th April 2006, 01:10 PM

BPSCG:

I don't get your hotel room economics either. You say lifting the travel ban would not benefit Cuban tourism. They would have no influx of American tourists. Sorry, I don't see that at all. Certainly some Americans would want to go to Cuba (my parents DID go there through Canada). Thus, demand for Cuban hotel rooms increases.

I don't know what you learned in Econ 101, but as demand increases, what happens to price assuming supply remains the same?

Just don't get your Econ logic but if you explain it better I am listening.

Lurker
I can explain it, it's quite simple. Let's say the Cubans produce for 2 billion dollars of Sugar. This sugar which is in every way identical to sugar produced elsewhere and transportation costs are close to zero. Half of it is exported to the US untill one day the US instills an embargo. The US however still needs it's sugar, so it buys for 1 billion dollars of Mexican sugar that would otherwise have been sold to Canada. Canada in turn will then buy the 1 billion dollars of sugar from Cuba that they previously sold to the US and the net effect of the embargo is zero. The problem is that while these assumprions might hold with sugar they do not hold with fx tourism. A vacation to Cuba is not perfectly interchangeable with a vacation in Mexico, and while Canadians might take up some of the places left by Americans who have been forbiden to travel to Cuba, there are relativly few Canadians, and Europeans obviously wont travel to Cuba in droves when it's much easier to travel to Spain, Italy or Greece.

In other words Cuban exports if totally generic products like sugar might very well be unaffected by the embargo, but non-generic products like vacations or Cuban cigars will be affected.

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 06:08 PM

I'll share another radical notion with you. I have this WILD theory that more than one factor can influence the state of an economy, and that having a lousy economic system doesn't magically make the negative effects of an embargo go away. The central problem with Communism is that they can't magically change the laws of economics, if they could it would work.Three points:
When a country has communism as its economic system, claiming that its economic ills are because the U.S. won't buy any of its primary export is akin to saying that a 400 pound sedentary McDonaldsholic is having heart problems because of the second-hand smoke he's exposed to on his weekly hour-long visit to the pool hall. Every single country that has tried communism has found it to be a complete economic disaster. Short of out-and-out war, communism is the greatest wealth-destroying force the world has ever seen, and it is so wildly unpopular among its subjects that governments almost always have to resort to naked force to keep it in effect.
Getting rid of communism would be a double benefit for Cuba. It would remove the wealth-destroying mechanism from the country, and the U.S. would likely lift the embargo. Why does Castro insist on crippling his country with an economic system that has never worked? Personal vanity? A religious-style devotion to a clearly bankrupt system?
As for your claim that "[t]he central problem with Communism is that they can't magically change the laws of economics, if they could it would work", the only response I can make to that is an old French saying: "If your grandmother had balls, she'd be your grandfather."

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2006, 06:20 PM

BPSCG

20th April 2006, 06:38 PM

Here, I fixed it for you:
For the last time, cut the anti-communist rhetoric, and face the facts. We have been systematically isolating the trade of an island nation which cannot be independant. They have than 35% of the fossil fuels they require for consumption, for one thing. Blaming communism for cuba's ecnomic ills is a cheap cop out. Why does Castro insist on hanging on to communism, because it's his only ticket to power. Here's another question, why did we cheerfully trade with aprtheid era South Africa, but we still refuse to trade with Cuba, which is less oppressive?The amount of nonsense here is staggering, so I'll just deal with one claim:
We have been systematically isolating the trade of an island nation which cannot be independant. Hong Kong is literally the most crowded place on earth. It has no natural resources. Yet it has been prosperous for decades, even while its much more powerful neighbor to the north was stuck in a communist catastrophe that claimed the lives of, by some estimates, as many as forty million people.

Israel is surrounded by enemies who have sworn its annihlation. Its enemies, some of the richest nations on earth, will not trade with it and in fact periodically wage waar against it, forcing Israel to devote an extraordinary share of its GDP to national defense. And Israel is in the middle of the stinking desert, on top of everything else. By every sense of logic, Israel should be an economic basket case. And yet, it has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Go ahead, make all the excuses you want for Cuba's poverty. Try to be a magician by diverting the crowd's attention away from its real problem. All you're doing is adding to the long list of threads that share in common the relentless search for a plausible intellectual pretext to see nothing, know nothing, and excuse anything as long as it can affix the blame on the U.S.

Cuba is poor because the U.S. won't trade with it just like the drunken bum on the street corner is poor because you won't give him a job.

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2006, 06:54 PM

Here, I fixed it for you:
For the last time, cut the anti-communist rhetoric, and face the facts. We have been systematically isolating the trade of an island nation which cannot be independant. They have than 35% of the fossil fuels they require for consumption, for one thing. Blaming communism for cuba's ecnomic ills is a cheap cop out. Why does Castro insist on hanging on to communism, because it's his only ticket to power. Here's another question, why did we cheerfully trade with aprtheid era South Africa, but we still refuse to trade with Cuba, which is less oppressive?The amount of nonsense here is staggering, so I'll just deal with one claim:
Hong Kong is literally the most crowded place on earth. It has no natural resources. Yet it has been prosperous for decades, even while its much more powerful neighbor to the north was stuck in a communist catastrophe that claimed the lives of, by some estimates, as many as forty million people.

Israel is surrounded by enemies who have sworn its annihlation. Its enemies, some of the richest nations on earth, will not trade with it and in fact periodically wage waar against it, forcing Israel to devote an extraordinary share of its GDP to national defense. And Israel is in the middle of the stinking desert, on top of everything else. By every sense of logic, Israel should be an economic basket case. And yet, it has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Go ahead, make all the excuses you want for Cuba's poverty. Try to be a magician by diverting the crowd's attention away from its real problem. All you're doing is adding to the long list of threads that share in common the relentless search for a plausible intellectual pretext to see nothing, know nothing, and excuse anything as long as it can affix the blame on the U.S.

Cuba is poor because the U.S. won't trade with it just like the drunken bum on the street corner is poor because you won't give him a job.

How dare you deliberately lie about the facts. Hong Kong has been a major trade center for ages, and had numerous trade partners. It did not need China. Israel rceives more aid from the U.S. government than all of Africa combined. We shut off Cuba from the outside world altogether for twelve years.

Please, stop your lies.

Cleon

20th April 2006, 06:59 PM

Hong Kong is literally the most crowded place on earth. It has no natural resources. Yet it has been prosperous for decades, even while its much more powerful neighbor to the north was stuck in a communist catastrophe that claimed the lives of, by some estimates, as many as forty million people.

Israel is surrounded by enemies who have sworn its annihlation. Its enemies, some of the richest nations on earth, will not trade with it and in fact periodically wage waar against it, forcing Israel to devote an extraordinary share of its GDP to national defense. And Israel is in the middle of the stinking desert, on top of everything else. By every sense of logic, Israel should be an economic basket case. And yet, it has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

You just named two regions that get a $%^&load of money from the United States, and you want to use them to "prove" that you don't need US trade to survive?

Remember...We're not just talking about "you can't go through the drive-through at Burger King." This means no US products, no companies that do business in the US (or want to), nada.

Regnad Kcin

20th April 2006, 09:35 PM

question: Will Fidel Castro ever die?
Well, if he doesn't, then ironically somebody in Florida wants to give him $1 million.Comedy gold.

Mycroft

20th April 2006, 10:59 PM

fishbob

20th April 2006, 11:01 PM

You mean Bush pleased 52% of the electorate in November, 2004 without even trying?

Damn, he's good...
Damn, he's a great campaigner. If you like vapid.
He just happens to be a terrible chief executive. Unless you like vapid.

But you still lose.

Kerberos

20th April 2006, 11:05 PM

Three points:
When a country has communism as its economic system, claiming that its economic ills are because the U.S. won't buy any of its primary export is akin to saying that a 400 pound sedentary McDonaldsholic is having heart problems because of the second-hand smoke he's exposed to on his weekly hour-long visit to the pool hall. Every single country that has tried communism has found it to be a complete economic disaster. Short of out-and-out war, communism is the greatest wealth-destroying force the world has ever seen, and it is so wildly unpopular among its subjects that governments almost always have to resort to naked force to keep it in effect.
Getting rid of communism would be a double benefit for Cuba. It would remove the wealth-destroying mechanism from the country, and the U.S. would likely lift the embargo. Why does Castro insist on crippling his country with an economic system that has never worked? Personal vanity? A religious-style devotion to a clearly bankrupt system?
OK, let's see:

1) Communism sucks.

2) Castro is a poopoohead.

OK, all clear now? I seriously doubt anybody on this threat disagrees with either of theese points so can you let go of this pathetic red hearing now? Because while both are true neither has the slightest impact on the issue of whether the embargo hurts Cuba.

As for your claim that "[t]he central problem with Communism is that they can't magically change the laws of economics, if they could it would work", the only response I can make to that is an old French saying: "If your grandmother had balls, she'd be your grandfather."
Ahh, yes, a classic tactic, when you have no argument you can always quote out of context to avoid the issue, Personally I prefer to mantain a bit of intelectual honesty, but I'm funny that way. anaways if I may persist in my unseemly habit of sticking to the point I'll try to make it simple for you.

1) Given that tourism worldwide has increased significantly since the embargo started, and assuming that the embargo does hurt the Cuban tourist industry do you think that Cubans will build enough new hotels to meet:

a) The actual Embargo adjusted demand for Cuban hotels?

or

b) The demand for Cuban hotels that would have existed in the absence of an embargo?

If a go to question 2, if b go to question 3.

2) If you aknowledge that supply adjust to demand, why do you insist that there should be aditional vacansies in Cuban hotels? Profound ignorance of economics? Deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? Non-deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? An impresive ability to hold 2 mutaually exclusive notions in you head?

3) Could you share the groundbreaking economic theory that allows you to reach this consclusion? When will you publish? Can you invite me to the Nobel Prize ceremony when you get it?

4) do you aknowledge that vacations and cigars are non-generic goods?

5) Do you aknowledge that embargoes have an effect on non-generic goods?

6) Who do you imagine should fill the tourist gap left by 280 million Americans? The 33 million Canadians? Or do you imagine that rich Europeans will totally disregard the aditional travel costs and inconvinience and replace every potential US tourist instead og going to Spain, Italie or Greece?

7) Is there any chance you'll actually answer these questions or do you prefer to continue deploying red hearings, quoting out of context, molest basic economic theory and all around avoid the issue?

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2006, 11:08 PM

I think you're right in that there is a double standard, but I think the solution to that is to restrict relations with China, not ease up on Cuba.

Do you have any idea how much money we owe China?

Aside: Why do you and B seem to resist the notionof free trade with Cuba? Prosperity is making China less totalitarian, and giving it a burgeoning middle class. Isn't prosperity leads to freedom one of the cornerstones of conservatism?

Kerberos

20th April 2006, 11:08 PM

I think you're right in that there is a double standard, but I think the solution to that is to restrict relations with China, not ease up on Cuba.
So in your mind no trade or travel should be allowed with almost any part of the Middle East, most of Africa and half of Asia?

Kerberos

20th April 2006, 11:09 PM

Do you have any idea how much money we owe China?

Aside: Why do you and B seem to resist the nothing of free trade with Cuba? Prosperity is making China less totalitarian, and giving it a burgeoning middle class. Isn't prosperity leads to freedom one of the cornerstones of conservatism?
Now, now, there's no need to confuse the poor people with logic and consistency.

Mycroft

20th April 2006, 11:44 PM

Aside: Why do you and B seem to resist the notionof free trade with Cuba? Prosperity is making China less totalitarian, and giving it a burgeoning middle class.

That's the meme about China, isn't it? I'm skeptical.

Isn't prosperity leads to freedom one of the cornerstones of conservatism?

I'm a registered Democrat.

Mycroft

20th April 2006, 11:46 PM

So in your mind no trade or travel should be allowed with almost any part of the Middle East, most of Africa and half of Asia?

For Cuba, tourism creates support for their system. That's not true in the Middle East.

Zep

20th April 2006, 11:56 PM

[re Travelling to Cuba] Yes except for the "all legal" part -- it's a felony.Hmmm... Here's what the State Dept has to say about travelling to Cuba:CUBA - *Passport and visa required. For specific requirements, consult the Cuban Interests Section, 2630 16th St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 (202/797-8518). HIV test required for those staying longer than 90 days. Attention: U.S. citizens need a U.S. Treasury Department license in order to engage in any transactions related to travel to and within Cuba (this includes the use of U.S. currency). Before planning any travel to Cuba, U.S. citizens should contact the Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of Treasury, (202/622-2480) or on the Internet at www.treas.gov/ofacSeems it's OK by them after all...as long as you don't want to set up shop there.

Kerberos

21st April 2006, 12:08 AM

For Cuba, tourism creates support for their system.
Do you have any logic or evidence to support this notion, and by extension the notion that the embargo weakens Castro?

CFLarsen

21st April 2006, 12:20 AM

For Cuba, tourism creates support for their system. That's not true in the Middle East.
Could you list the countries that you consider the Middle East?

BPSCG

21st April 2006, 05:31 AM

How dare you deliberately lie about the facts. Hong Kong has been a major trade center for ages, and had numerous trade partners. It did not need China. Israel rceives more aid from the U.S. government than all of Africa combined. We shut off Cuba from the outside world altogether for twelve years.

Please, stop your lies.

You just named two regions that get a $%^&load of money from the United States, and you want to use them to "prove" that you don't need US trade to survive?

Remember...We're not just talking about "you can't go through the drive-through at Burger King." This means no US products, no companies that do business in the US (or want to), nada.Oh, goodie, a twofer.

For ImaginalDisc: Please show any statement I have made that is a lie. I did not state that Hong Kong had no trade partners. I did not state that Israel received no aid from the U.S.

For both of you: My point wasn't that trade with the U.S. isn't beneficial; hell, everyone wants to trade with the U.S. (well, maybe excepting NK). My point was that almost every country has some built-in disadvantage. Now, you can claim that disadvantage is all that's standing between you and The Good Life, as the Castro apologists here are doing, or you can overcome those advantages, as Hong Kong, Israel, and many other countries have done.

Yes, Israel gets lots of military aid from the U.S. But Cuba got lots of military aid from the USSR for years and years (until the USSR decided it had enough of its own problems and stopped pouring money into Castro's sinkhole), and it had a relative advantage over Israel of having a temperate climate and soil rich enough that you could probably stick a baseball bat in it and it would sprout, while Israel is a stinking desert. Castro doesn't have to build a wall around his country to keep his neighbors from shooting missiles into Havana, and doesn't have to maintain a huge standing army to fend off an invasion from the combined forces of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Mexico. In short, Cuba has some advantages vis a vis Israel, and some disadvantages.

Same thing with Cuba vs. Hong Kong.
And Taiwan.
And Malaysia.
And Indonesia.
And...

But you latch on to one disadvantage Cuba has and claim that if just this one thing were eliminated, Cuba would be prosperous and happy and enjoying The Good Life.

Do you really believe that?

Can you show me any communist country that was ever prosperous and happy and enjoying The Good Life? Even those that the U.S. did trade with?

Lurker

21st April 2006, 05:46 AM

Hmmm... Here's what the State Dept has to say about travelling to Cuba:Seems it's OK by them after all...as long as you don't want to set up shop there.

What are you talking about? It is illegal to travel to Cuba. My parents did it, but had to go through Canada to do so and had to keep quiet about it to the US govt.

If travel to Cuba is legal, why are there no flights to Cuba?

AM I misunderstanding what you were trying to say?

Lurker

President Bush

21st April 2006, 05:54 AM

Can you show me any communist country that was ever prosperous and happy and enjoying The Good Life? Even those that the U.S. did trade with?

Cue Jeopardy! theme.

BPSCG

21st April 2006, 06:02 AM

OK, let's see:

1) Communism sucks.

2) Castro is a poopoohead.

OK, all clear now? I seriously doubt anybody on this threat disagrees with either of theese points so can you let go of this pathetic red hearing now? No. Because it is not a red herring.

You apparently missed what I said earlier about communism being the greatest wealth-destroying machine the world has ever known, because if you hadn't, you wouldn't be so cavalierly dismissing the argument that Cuba's ills are primarily because it is hitched to a catastrophic economic system.

Let me see if I can make it clearer:

The first principle of communism is human slavery. That is what, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" means. It is not rooted in the Judeo-Christian concept of helping those less fortunate than ourselves when we can; it does not mean helping a panhandler with spare change when you have it, it does not mean writing a check for a homeless shelter, it does not mean providing a social safety net for those in society unable to care for themselves. It means the State decides what everyone needs, and takes away from those who have, and gives to those who have not, at the point of a gun, if you resist.

It means that the product of your work does not belong to you. It belongs to the State, to redistribute as it sees fit. In this country, we call forcing someone to work for someone else's benefit "slavery."

In the U.S., we once enslaved a race of men and women, and we are still paying a terrible price for that crime 140 years after its destruction. How much greater a crime is it to enslave an entire country?

No man willingly becomes a slave; as Lincoln said, when he heard someone speak favorably of slavery, he longed to see it tried out on the speaker for a while, to see what he thought of it then. So what happens when you turn an entire country into a slave, when you tell everyone that what they own does not belong to them, that they are not working for themselves, but for the State, euphemistically called "the common good?"

What happens is you get rebellion. It may take the form of armed insurrection, which usually gets put down brutally, or strikes, which also get put down just as brutally (Google "Stalin" and "collectivization"), and then, after the armed rebels and the strikers have all been killed, rebellion in the form of working not one iota harder than the man with the gun pointed at you requires. For what is the point of working if you can't keep what you create? In the old Soviet Union, there was the wisecrack factory workers would make: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

And that is why Cuba is poor today. Saying Cuba's ills are due to the embargo is nonsense. And your pro-forma acknowledgement that "okay, okay, communism is bad, now let's get back to the real reason that Cuba is poor," isn't fooling anyone. You either don't understand why communism is a wealth-destroying machine, or you are, despite your protestations to the contrary, an apologist for communism. You are like the guy who's been told his house's foundation is leaky and crumbling and his walls are infested with termites, who says, "Yeah, yeah, I know, the foundation stinks and termites are awful, but the real problem is the dripping faucet in the kitchen."

Zep

21st April 2006, 06:34 AM

What are you talking about? It is illegal to travel to Cuba. My parents did it, but had to go through Canada to do so and had to keep quiet about it to the US govt.

If travel to Cuba is legal, why are there no flights to Cuba?

AM I misunderstanding what you were trying to say?

LurkerOK, OK! Keep your shirt on! ;)

I'm just finding it difficult to locate anything "USA official" that actually says that US citizens are not specifically permitted to visit Cuba. Clearly I, and Google, are missing the location of that info...

As I pointed out, and other sites seem to confirm, US residents can actually go to Cuba...with a proviso. Some obscure section of the US Department of the Treasury seems to need to hand out "licenses" to US citizens to permit them to go. However, the latest details I read said under 10,000 such licenses were issued last year. Meanwhile some 250,000 US citizens visited Cuba in that same period, but I doubt that 240,000 people have been jailed or even prosecuted as a result of this "illegal act". What conclusions can be drawn from that?

What is clear, as you say, is that there are no direct flights permitted from the USA to Cuba. However I'm sure that many Canadians here can tell us about the roaring trade in "through-flights" from the USA to Canada to Havana, and back. Ditto Mexico and the Bahamas and the UK. All quite legal and openly advertised, or I'm sure the Homeland Security killjoys would have stopped it by now.

One question I have yet to solve: Are foreign airlines which transit the USA forbidden to fly direct USA-Cuba? After all, the aircraft and airlines are not US property, and are only subject to US rules and regs while in US airspace. Anyone offer any information?

The silly thing is, as I understand it for citizens of any other country, we're not forbidden to go to Cuba. Only our flights are problematic, as the USA is the biggest and closest air-hub to that country.

varwoche

21st April 2006, 06:37 AM

I'm just finding it difficult to locate anything "USA official" that actually says that US citizens are not specifically permitted to visit Cuba. Clearly I, and Google, are missing the location of that info... See post #47.

Nova Land

21st April 2006, 06:39 AM

Much of what I know about the world comes from comic books. In the case of travel to Cuba I don't have any comic book references, but would mention Phil Och's song "Ballad of William Worthy" and Lia Matera's novel Havana Twist (both of which I enjoyed and recommend).

No time to look up more carefully, but here is brief item on William Worthy (http://www.bates.edu/x80376.xml).
... A conscientious objector during World War II, Worthy entered journalism and initially tangled with the U.S. government after traveling to off-limits China in 1956 to report for the New York Post, The Afro-American Newspaper and CBS News.

His passport was seized, but he kept moving ahead, winning a Nieman Fellowship at Harvard, a Ford Foundation grant and freedom-of-the-press awards in the 1950s. He worked in the United States and traveled to Latin America and Cuba (no passport required) to report and help produce the well-known ABC-TV documentary Yanki No! and to cover the Castro revolution.

It was from Cuba that Worthy returned to Miami in 1961, where he was detained, questioned and then, six months later, arrested and sentenced to jail for re-entering the United States without a passport, technically a violation of the McCarthy-era McCarran Act. But in a noted civil liberties court decision, Worthy beat the jail rap...

And here is a brief but somewhat more recent (October 19, 2003) blog item regarding legality of traveling to Cuba (http://www.plastic.com/comments.html;sid=03/10/19/07060797;cid=7) which quotes Joe Garcis, executive director of the Cuban American National Foundation:

"President Bush, in a move that has galvanized the travel tour industry and those who support a more liberal policy toward Cuba, has announced a tightening of restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba, which are a part of the long-standing trade embargo against the Castro government," ms_sue_collins writes. "The president plans to crack down on what he labeled 'deception' on the part of many sponsors of humanitarian and educational trips to Cuba. He also announced that the Department of Homeland Security will now track illegal American travel to Cuba from third countries. The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign assets Control will soon hold hearings for Americans accused of travel violations; they will be given the choice of an administrative trial or paying $1,000 for each charge..."

Kerberos

21st April 2006, 07:20 AM

No. Because it is not a red herring.
Yes it is,

You apparently missed what I said earlier about communism being the greatest wealth-destroying machine the world has ever known, because if you hadn't, you wouldn't be so cavalierly dismissing the argument that Cuba's ills are primarily because it is hitched to a catastrophic economic system.
As I recall you siad it was the second greatest after war, something that's probably largely true. The problem is that while it is almost certainly true that Idoitic economic policies hurts the Cubans more than idiotic embargoes, that doesn't magically make the harm from the embargo go away and the embargo is the topic of this thread. If you want to start a thread about how communism and Castro is bad feel free. I'll even join the thread and post "Yes" and "amen" after each of you posts attacking Castro or communism, but I seriously doubt that such a thread is going to generate much controversy because no one, or at least very few, will deny such an obvious fact.

Let me see if I can make it clearer:

The first principle of communism is human slavery. That is what, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" means. It is not rooted in the Judeo-Christian concept of helping those less fortunate than ourselves when we can; it does not mean helping a panhandler with spare change when you have it, it does not mean writing a check for a homeless shelter, it does not mean providing a social safety net for those in society unable to care for themselves. It means the State decides what everyone needs, and takes away from those who have, and gives to those who have not, at the point of a gun, if you resist.

It means that the product of your work does not belong to you. It belongs to the State, to redistribute as it sees fit. In this country, we call forcing someone to work for someone else's benefit "slavery."

In the U.S., we once enslaved a race of men and women, and we are still paying a terrible price for that crime 140 years after its destruction. How much greater a crime is it to enslave an entire country?

No man willingly becomes a slave; as Lincoln said, when he heard someone speak favorably of slavery, he longed to see it tried out on the speaker for a while, to see what he thought of it then. So what happens when you turn an entire country into a slave, when you tell everyone that what they own does not belong to them, that they are not working for themselves, but for the State, euphemistically called "the common good?"

What happens is you get rebellion. It may take the form of armed insurrection, which usually gets put down brutally, or strikes, which also get put down just as brutally (Google "Stalin" and "collectivization"), and then, after the armed rebels and the strikers have all been killed, rebellion in the form of working not one iota harder than the man with the gun pointed at you requires. For what is the point of working if you can't keep what you create? In the old Soviet Union, there was the wisecrack factory workers would make: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

Would you prefer a yes or an amen in response to this? Though I must admit I still don't undestand where the passion comes from concidering you've clearly stated you total lack of concern for the welfare of Cubans.

And that is why Cuba is poor today. Saying Cuba's ills are due to the embargo is nonsense.
Good thing I never did say that then, something I have made quite clear on this thread and on the last one.

And your pro-forma acknowledgement that "okay, okay, communism is bad, now let's get back to the real reason that Cuba is poor," isn't fooling anyone.
I'm so sorry for stiking to the topic of the thread.

You either don't understand why communism is a wealth-destroying machine, or you are, despite your protestations to the contrary, an apologist for communism. You are like the guy who's been told his house's foundation is leaky and crumbling and his walls are infested with termites, who says, "Yeah, yeah, I know, the foundation stinks and termites are awful, but the real problem is the dripping faucet in the kitchen."
You might want to perfect that mind reading technique before you apply for the million.

Now if I may repeat my questions:

1) Given that tourism worldwide has increased significantly since the embargo started, and assuming that the embargo does hurt the Cuban tourist industry do you think that Cubans will build enough new hotels to meet:

a) The actual Embargo adjusted demand for Cuban hotels?

or

b) The demand for Cuban hotels that would have existed in the absence of an embargo?

If a go to question 2, if b go to question 3.

2) If you aknowledge that supply adjust to demand, why do you insist that there should be aditional vacansies in Cuban hotels? Profound ignorance of economics? Deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? Non-deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? An impresive ability to hold 2 mutaually exclusive notions in you head?

3) Could you share the groundbreaking economic theory that allows you to reach this consclusion? When will you publish? Can you invite me to the Nobel Prize ceremony when you get it?

4) do you aknowledge that vacations and cigars are non-generic goods?

5) Do you aknowledge that embargoes have an effect on non-generic goods?

6) Who do you imagine should fill the tourist gap left by 280 million Americans? The 33 million Canadians? Or do you imagine that rich Europeans will totally disregard the aditional travel costs and inconvinience and replace every potential US tourist instead og going to Spain, Italie or Greece?

7) Is there any chance you'll actually answer these questions or do you prefer to continue deploying red hearings, quoting out of context, molest basic economic theory and all around avoid the issue?

Though I supose you've already answered question 7.

BPSCG

21st April 2006, 08:29 AM

...while it is almost certainly true that Idoitic economic policies hurts the Cubans more than idiotic embargoes, that doesn't magically make the harm from the embargo go away and the embargo is the topic of this thread. Well, let's go back to the OP (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1586817#post1586817), shall we? Cleon asked: Is there anyone who honestly thinks US policy towards Cuba makes even a little bit of sense? This is ridiculous. You shouldn't need permission from the State to visit your family.To which I pointed out that Cuba refuses its citizens permission to visit the U.S.; if anything, Cuba is even more restrictive than the U.S. Someone pointed out here that 10,000 U.S. citizens are allowed to visit Cuba each year. How many Cuban citizens are allowed to visit the U.S.?

I didn't see where Cleon was talking about the economic embargo there; that issue appears to have worked its way into the discussion gradually. If you insist on limiting the discussion to the issue raised in the OP, then we should drop the economic debate right now and focus on how many Cubans are allowed to visit the U.S. each year, and vice-versa.

But the embargo is not the topic of the thread (the topic is misleadingly named, frankly), nor is it the topic of the OP. So you can claim the embargo is hurting the Cubans all you want, but don't accuse me of derailing the thread.

Now, perhaps the embargo has hurt Cuba economically, but I doubt even you think it would be anything other than a basket case even if it was lifted, because of the government's disasterous economic policies. So shouldn't everyone's attention be focused on how those disasterous policies can be changed, rather than on why the embargo should be lifted? Shouldn't the homeowner do something about the termites in his walls and the crumbling foundation under his house, rather than worrying about the faucet dripping in the kitchen?

Or do you think the damage done by the embargo is comparable to the damage done by almost fifty years of communism and that dripping faucet = (termites + foundation)?

Cleon

21st April 2006, 08:38 AM

WTo which I pointed out that Cuba refuses its citizens permission to visit the U.S.; if anything, Cuba is even more restrictive than the U.S. Someone pointed out here that 10,000 U.S. citizens are allowed to visit Cuba each year. How many Cuban citizens are allowed to visit the U.S.?

That's a darn good question. Unfortunately, you seem to be forgetting that US law keeps Cubans from visiting the US as well. These folks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3464801.stm) wanted to visit Los Angeles, and it wasn't the Cubans who kept them from coming.

I didn't see where Cleon was talking about the economic embargo there;

The travel ban is part and parcel of the embargo, which I've noted you've yet to provide a rational justification for.

Now, perhaps the embargo has hurt Cuba economically,

Thank you for noting the obvious. It's a shame you had to accuse everyone of being apologists for communism before you picked up on it, though.

Mycroft

21st April 2006, 08:44 AM

Do you have any logic or evidence to support this notion, and by extension the notion that the embargo weakens Castro?

I don't understand. Are you questioning that tourism is a significant source of income for Cuba?

Mycroft

21st April 2006, 08:52 AM

Could you list the countries that you consider the Middle East?

I'm sure I could, but I see no reason to.

Kerberos

21st April 2006, 08:56 AM

I don't understand. Are you questioning that tourism is a significant source of income for Cuba?
No that would be BPSCG. What you said was however that "For Cuba, tourism creates support for their system.". To me saying it supports thier system/regime/governement means that the embargo is an effective weapon against Castro or the Cuban regime. If you had said that the embargo hurt the Cuban economy I'd have no disagreement, but I don't think helping Castro thrash the Cuban economy is dreadfully productive either.

Lurker

21st April 2006, 09:10 AM

I would presume the intent of the US embargo was to put pressure on Cuba in hopes that it would change its political system

Forty years later the embargo has not achived its goal. I would say that from the US perspective, the embargo has proven useless. Perhaps it is time to try another strategy.

Lurker

Mycroft

21st April 2006, 09:11 AM

No that would be BPSCG. What you said was however that "For Cuba, tourism creates support for their system.". To me saying it supports thier system/regime/governement means that the embargo is an effective weapon against Castro or the Cuban regime. If you had said that the embargo hurt the Cuban economy I'd have no disagreement, but I don't think helping Castro thrash the Cuban economy is dreadfully productive either.

Would a stonger economy make it more or less likely that Cuba's political system would remain the same as it is?

Lurker

21st April 2006, 09:17 AM

Would a stonger economy make it more or less likely that Cuba's political system would remain the same as it is?

Good question. The US seems to take both positions. For Cuba, we want to punish the people economically so they overthrow CAstro. In China the argument is that by showing them more prosperity, the Chinese will abandon communism.

How interesting but realistic that it shows that each problem is unique and has a unique solution.

Lurker

Kerberos

21st April 2006, 09:24 AM

Well, let's go back to the OP (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1586817#post1586817), shall we? Cleon asked: To which I pointed out that Cuba refuses its citizens permission to visit the U.S.; if anything, Cuba is even more restrictive than the U.S. Someone pointed out here that 10,000 U.S. citizens are allowed to visit Cuba each year. How many Cuban citizens are allowed to visit the U.S.?
And you point it... What? That Cuba has a worse human rigths record than the US? Are you're saying that restrictions in the civil liberties of foreign states automatically justify civil liberties restrictions for American citizens up to the same point? If not I really can't see you point, unless of course you're just trying to avoid the issue Cleon raised.

I didn't see where Cleon was talking about the economic embargo there; that issue appears to have worked its way into the discussion gradually. If you insist on limiting the discussion to the issue raised in the OP, then we should drop the economic debate right now and focus on how many Cubans are allowed to visit the U.S. each year, and vice-versa.

But the embargo is not the topic of the thread (the topic is misleadingly named, frankly), nor is it the topic of the OP. So you can claim the embargo is hurting the Cubans all you want, but don't accuse me of derailing the thread.
I suppose I could argue as Cleon does that the travel restrictions are part of the embargo. Certainly the embargo falls under the cathegory "US policy towards Cuba".

Also you protest might carry a bit more weight if you hadn't use the exact same Straw men, red herrings and similar to derail the last thread about this topic.

Still let's not argue about that, I'm more than willing to drob the discussion about sugar and Cuban cigars and focus on tourism, it really makes no difference.

1) Given that tourism worldwide has increased significantly since the embargo started, and assuming that the embargo does hurt the Cuban tourist industry do you think that Cubans will build enough new hotels to meet:

a) The actual Embargo adjusted demand for Cuban hotels?

or

b) The demand for Cuban hotels that would have existed in the absence of an embargo?

If a go to question 2, if b go to question 3.

2) If you aknowledge that supply adjust to demand, why do you insist that there should be aditional vacansies in Cuban hotels? Profound ignorance of economics? Deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? Non-deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? An impresive ability to hold 2 mutaually exclusive notions in you head?

3) Could you share the groundbreaking economic theory that allows you to reach this consclusion? When will you publish? Can you invite me to the Nobel Prize ceremony when you get it?

4) do you aknowledge that vacations are non-generic goods?

5) Do you aknowledge that embargoes have an effect on non-generic goods?

6) Who do you imagine should fill the tourist gap left by 280 million Americans? The 33 million Canadians? Or do you imagine that rich Europeans will totally disregard the aditional travel costs and inconvinience and replace every potential US tourist instead og going to Spain, Italie or Greece?

7) Is there any chance you'll actually answer these questions or do you prefer to continue deploying red hearings, quoting out of context, molest basic economic theory and all around avoid the issue?

Now, perhaps the embargo has hurt Cuba economically
Perhaps?
but I doubt even you think it would be anything other than a basket case even if it was lifted, because of the government's disasterous economic policies.
Of course it would be a basket case, but it would be a lesser basket case.

So shouldn't everyone's attention be focused on how those disasterous policies can be changed, rather than on why the embargo should be lifted? Shouldn't the homeowner do something about the termites in his walls and the crumbling foundation under his house, rather than worrying about the faucet dripping in the kitchen?
When It comes to Cleon who started the thread and yourself, you are Americans. In other words words the embargo is your responsibility and you can as American voters actually influence the issue somewhat. If you have any constructive sugestions for getting Castro to imbrace market economy and human rights I'd love to hear themt, but I don't see how you can do anything. As for myself I probably can't influence either, but I joined the thread that was there. If you'd like to make a thread about Cuban Communism I'll join that too. I imagine it will go roughly along these lines:

OP:

Communism ruined the Cuban economy and Castro is an evil dictator.

1. response:

Yep.

2. response:

Totally.

3. response:

Water is wet.

4. response:

I heard the Pope is Catholic.

5. response:

I saw a bear **** in the wood. Why do they do that? There's a reason they've got public restrooms.

Or do you think the damage done by the embargo is comparable to the damage done by almost fifty years of communism and that dripping faucet = (termites + foundation)?
Perhaps you should read the post you responded to, if that task is to everwhelming you could just look at the part of my post you quoted, or perhaps just the first half line of that part.

BPSCG

21st April 2006, 09:34 AM

Forty years later the embargo has not achived its goal. I would say that from the US perspective, the embargo has proven useless. Perhaps it is time to try another strategy.Well, I suggested tougher, international sanctions, like were imposed on South Africa, but was hooted down by the would-be Castro-enablers here. The UN imposed sanctions against arms sales to South Africa, and many other countries imposed additional sanctions of their own. South Africa only treated most of its population brutally, while Castro treats substantially all of his brutally. But South Africa is/was deserving of harsher sanctions than Cuba, in the world's opinion. :confused:

Kerberos

21st April 2006, 09:38 AM

Would a stonger economy make it more or less likely that Cuba's political system would remain the same as it is?
Less likely I believe, at least if you're hoping for regime change towards a more democratic governement. There is an extremely strong posistive corelation between prosperity and democracy. At least as long as the prosperity doesn't come from natural resources such as oil, but I don't believe that's an issue with Cuba. If you're satisfied with another dictatorship though, it's possible, though not certain, that a weaker Cuban economy could convince them to try a fascist dictatorship in place of a Communist one.

Kerberos

21st April 2006, 09:43 AM

Well, I suggested tougher, international sanctions, like were imposed on South Africa, but was hooted down by the would-be Castro-enablers here. The UN imposed sanctions against arms sales to South Africa, and many other countries imposed additional sanctions of their own. South Africa only treated most of its population brutally, while Castro treats substantially all of his brutally. But South Africa is/was deserving of harsher sanctions than Cuba, in the world's opinion. :confused:
Since when is prohibiting arms sales tougher than prohibiting all sales and restricting travel? Also perhaps you could provide some actual defence of the embargo instead of persisting in dodging the question? You know ad hominems and straw men are not universally aknowledged as valid arguments. Some defence? Any defence?

BPSCG

21st April 2006, 09:56 AM

And you point it... What? That Cuba has a worse human rigths record than the US? Don't be silly. The point is that the problem may be much more Cuba's doing than the U.S.'s. Find out how many Cubans are permitted to leave the country to visit the U.S., and we'll have a better grip on that question.
Are you're saying that restrictions in the civil liberties of foreign states automatically justify civil liberties restrictions for American citizens up to the same point? Nope. Just saying that U.S. policy is not solely to blame for the inability of Cuban Americans to see their families. I'm saying that U.S. policy might really be only a small part of it. Again, how many Cubans are allowed to leave and visit their families in the U.S.?
When It comes to Cleon who started the thread and yourself, you are Americans. In other words words the embargo is your responsibility and you can as American voters actually influence the issue somewhat. Why should I? What's in it for me?

If you have any constructive sugestions for getting Castro to imbrace market economy and human rights I'd love to hear themt, but I don't see how you can do anything. Then what's the purpose in dropping the embargo? Who does it benefit? Not me. You acknowledge Cuba will still be a basket case even if it is dropped. But why should that be if Havana's hotels are again full of American tourists (ah, you were despairing of my ever revisiting that issue)? If Americans are spreading cash all over the island, but Cubans are still living in misery, where is that money going? Well, there's one guy in that country who has an estimated ten percent of its GDP (http://www.forbes.com/2003/02/24/cz_royalslide_8.html) at his disposal. Can you guess who? And do you think that would change if the Americans were to come back?

Kerberos

21st April 2006, 10:10 AM

Don't be silly. The point is that the problem may be much more Cuba's doing than the U.S.'s. Find out how many Cubans are permitted to leave the country to visit the U.S., and we'll have a better grip on that question.
how would that shed light on anything?

Nope. Just saying that U.S. policy is not solely to blame for the inability of Cuban Americans to see their families. I'm saying that U.S. policy might really be only a small part of it.
Has anybody denied that?
Again, how many Cubans are allowed to leave and visit their families in the U.S.?
Since you're the one who finds this relevant why don't you do the research?

Why should I? What's in it for me?
Well humanitarianism might be a reason, but as we know you don't give a **** about the welfare of Cubans. Also some Americans might like a chance to visit their family or just to go an a vacation, though that of cause still doesn't fulfill you demand for a selfish reason for oposing the embargo. Otherwise.. Well lacking an actual selfish reason to oppose the ambargo might be an adequate defence for indiference, but since you can apparently be bothered to actually support the embargo in this thread an actual positive reason for supporting it might be expected. Something that you have time, and time again proven yourself incabable of providing.

Then what's the purpose in dropping the embargo? Who does it benefit? Not me. You acknowledge Cuba will still be a basket case even if it is dropped. But why should that be if Havana's hotels are again full of American tourists (ah, you were despairing of my ever revisiting that issue)? If Americans are spreading cash all over the island, but Cubans are still living in misery, where is that money going? Well, there's one guy in that country who has an estimated ten percent of its GDP (http://www.forbes.com/2003/02/24/cz_royalslide_8.html) at his disposal. Can you guess who? And do you think that would change if the Americans were to come back?

Where the money would go? Most would probably go to the average Cubans, some would most likely go to Castro and his friends. Which part of "lesser basket case" was it you failed to comprehend? Those are a series of short simple words and English is presumably your native language.

ETA:
1) Given that tourism worldwide has increased significantly since the embargo started, and assuming that the embargo does hurt the Cuban tourist industry do you think that Cubans will build enough new hotels to meet:

a) The actual Embargo adjusted demand for Cuban hotels?

or

b) The demand for Cuban hotels that would have existed in the absence of an embargo?

If a go to question 2, if b go to question 3.

2) If you aknowledge that supply adjust to demand, why do you insist that there should be aditional vacansies in Cuban hotels? Profound ignorance of economics? Deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? Non-deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? An impresive ability to hold 2 mutaually exclusive notions in you head?

3) Could you share the groundbreaking economic theory that allows you to reach this consclusion? When will you publish? Can you invite me to the Nobel Prize ceremony when you get it?

4) do you aknowledge that vacations are non-generic goods?

5) Do you aknowledge that embargoes have an effect on non-generic goods?

6) Who do you imagine should fill the tourist gap left by 280 million Americans? The 33 million Canadians? Or do you imagine that rich Europeans will totally disregard the aditional travel costs and inconvinience and replace every potential US tourist instead og going to Spain, Italie or Greece?

7) Is there any chance you'll actually answer these questions or do you prefer to continue deploying red hearings, quoting out of context, molest basic economic theory and all around avoid the issue?

varwoche

21st April 2006, 10:13 AM

30 minutes of googling and for the life of me I can't find an authoritative list of countries where US citizens are forbidden to travel.

This (http://www.answers.com/topic/passport) can't be right(?)...

As of February 2006, Cuba is the only country that the US government officially restricts its citizens from visiting.

Nyarlathotep

21st April 2006, 10:41 AM

OK, OK! Keep your shirt on! ;)

I'm just finding it difficult to locate anything "USA official" that actually says that US citizens are not specifically permitted to visit Cuba. Clearly I, and Google, are missing the location of that info...

Good enough for you, Zep (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html)? Straight from the horses mouth.

As I read it, you CAN travel to Cuba if given the proper permission from the US government. Permission is granted only for certain purposes. Tourism is not one of the things they allow you to go over there for, and you can be arrested if you try to circumvent the regulations by travelling through a third country.

ENTRY/EXIT REQUIREMENTS/TRAVEL TRANSACTION LIMITATIONS: The Cuban Assets Control Regulations are enforced by the U.S. Treasury Department and affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world. The Regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed to engage in any travel-related transactions related to travel to, from, and within Cuba. Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities have increased enforcement of these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of Treasury regulations will face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States.

Licenses are granted to the following categories of travelers and they are permitted to spend money for Cuban travel and to engage in other transactions directly incident to the purpose of their travel under a general license, without the need to obtain special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC):

- Journalists and supporting broadcasting or technical personnel (regularly employed in that capacity by a news reporting organization and traveling for journalistic activities)

- Official government travelers on official business.

- Members of international organizations of which the United States is also a member (traveling on official business).

- Full-time professionals whose travel transactions are directly related to research in their professional areas, provided that their research: 1) is of a noncommercial, academic nature; 2) comprises a full work schedule in Cuba; and 3) has a substantial likelihood of public dissemination.

- Full-time professionals whose travel transactions are directly related to attendance at professional meetings or conferences in Cuba organized by an international professional organization, institution, or association that regularly sponsors such meetings or conferences in other countries. An organization, institution, or association headquartered in the United States may not sponsor such a meeting or conference unless it has been specifically licensed to sponsor it. The purpose of the meeting or conference cannot be the promotion of tourism in Cuba or other commercial activities involving Cuba, or to foster production of any bio-technological products.

- Travelers who have received specific licenses from OFAC prior to going.

Specific Licenses to Visit Immediate Family Members in Cuba

bolding mine.

BPSCG

21st April 2006, 10:48 AM

30 minutes of googling and for the life of me I can't find an authoritative list of countries where US citizens are forbidden to travel.

This (http://www.answers.com/topic/passport) can't be right(?)...Cool! Now Mrs. BPSCG and I can go on that vacation in North Korea we've always wanted!

varwoche

21st April 2006, 10:55 AM

Cool! Now Mrs. BPSCG and I can go on that vacation in North Korea we've always wanted! Better bring a flashlight (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=698944#post698944). ;)

BPSCG

21st April 2006, 11:10 AM

Better bring a flashlight (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=698944#post698944). ;)Ixabert, we hardly knew ye!

Lurker

21st April 2006, 11:23 AM

Well, I suggested tougher, international sanctions, like were imposed on South Africa, but was hooted down by the would-be Castro-enablers here. The UN imposed sanctions against arms sales to South Africa, and many other countries imposed additional sanctions of their own. South Africa only treated most of its population brutally, while Castro treats substantially all of his brutally. But South Africa is/was deserving of harsher sanctions than Cuba, in the world's opinion. :confused:

How can we have tougher sanctions on Cuba? We don't trade ANYTHING with them now. We could TRY and get tougher by not doing business with others who do business with Cuba but that would alienate the rest of the world.

By the way, the rest of hte world is fine with dealing with Cuba. Only the US, Israel and the Marshall Islands stand with us. Hard to get tougher International sanctions there.

Lurker

ImaginalDisc

21st April 2006, 11:48 AM

For ImaginalDisc: Please show any statement I have made that is a lie. I did not state that Hong Kong had no trade partners. I did not state that Israel received no aid from the U.S.

Glady, liar.

On November 6, 1962, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1761, condemning South African apartheid policies. On August 7, 1963 the United Nations Security Council established a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa. Following the Soweto uprising in 1976 and its brutal suppression by the apartheid regime, the arms embargo was made mandatory by the UN Security Council on November 4, 1977 and South Africa became increasingly isolated internationally. Numerous conferences were held and the United Nations passed resolutions condemning South Africa, including the World Conference Against Racism in 1978 and 1983. A significant divestment movement started, pressuring investors to refuse to invest in South African companies or companies that did business with South Africa. South African sports teams were barred from participation in international events, and South African culture and tourism were boycotted.

Read, and learn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#Sanctions).If international sanctions against South Africa were a good idea, why are they a bad idea for Cuba?
Empahsis added.

South African Arms Emgrabo does not equal Cuban Embargo.

The Embargo against Apartheid South Africa was not at all the same as the Embargo against Cuba. Your own quoted information quite clearly describes the Embargo against S.A. as an arms embargo, and yet you continue to equate it to the embargo against Cuba. That's outright deception. You are a liar.

For both of you: My point wasn't that trade with the U.S. isn't beneficial; hell, everyone wants to trade with the U.S. (well, maybe excepting NK). My point was that almost every country has some built-in disadvantage. Now, you can claim that disadvantage is all that's standing between you and The Good Life, as the Castro apologists here are doing, or you can overcome those advantages, as Hong Kong, Israel, and many other countries have done.

Yes, Israel gets lots of military aid from the U.S. But Cuba got lots of military aid from the USSR for years and years (until the USSR decided it had enough of its own problems and stopped pouring money into Castro's sinkhole), and it had a relative advantage over Israel of having a temperate climate and soil rich enough that you could probably stick a baseball bat in it and it would sprout, while Israel is a stinking desert. Castro doesn't have to build a wall around his country to keep his neighbors from shooting missiles into Havana, and doesn't have to maintain a huge standing army to fend off an invasion from the combined forces of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Mexico. In short, Cuba has some advantages vis a vis Israel, and some disadvantages.

Same thing with Cuba vs. Hong Kong.
And Taiwan.
And Malaysia.
And Indonesia.
And...

But you latch on to one disadvantage Cuba has and claim that if just this one thing were eliminated, Cuba would be prosperous and happy and enjoying The Good Life.

Do you really believe that?

Can you show me any communist country that was ever prosperous and happy and enjoying The Good Life? Even those that the U.S. did trade with?

You trailing questions are irrelevant. The U.S. entirely shut off Cuba from the outside world for 12 years, and then the Embargo, after Carter, was continued with renwened fervor. The USSR aid to Cuba has long since ended, because, you may not be aware of this, the USSR is defunct.

Israel has always had trade. Israel has never been cut off entirely from trade from the outside world. Your comparision is invalid.

On a personal note, how dare you suggest I am a Castro apologist.

FreeChile

21st April 2006, 12:21 PM

Well, I suggested tougher, international sanctions, like were imposed on South Africa, but was hooted down by the would-be Castro-enablers here.
Since you want the anti-embargo crew to join your cause, you know what their response would be. Your words come back to bite cha!
BPSCG: Why should I? What's in it for me?

The UN imposed sanctions against arms sales to South Africa, and many other countries imposed additional sanctions of their own. South Africa only treated most of its population brutally, while Castro treats substantially all of his brutally. But South Africa is/was deserving of harsher sanctions than Cuba, in the world's opinion. :confused:

Again, the anology is flawed. You equate the level of brutality in both cases; therefore your numerical analysis fails. It is also arguable that the South African regine would have collapsed with or without the international support. The people were simply that fed up already. And your words come back to byte cha! Again, perform the appropriate reversal of your words below.

So your argument for lifting the sanctions against Castro comes down to this: We help support one murderous dictatorship, therefore we should support every murderous dictatorship (plus you want to be able to smoke his cigars).

Does your list of approved dictatorships include Saudi Arabia?
Pakistan?
Apartheid-era South Africa?
Somoza-era Nicaragua?
Pinochet-era Chile?
Batista-era Cuba?

BPSCG

21st April 2006, 08:07 PM

Your own quoted information quite clearly describes the Embargo against S.A. as an arms embargo, and yet you continue to equate it to the embargo against Cuba. That's outright deception. You are a liar.For starts, "compare" does not mean the same thing as "equate."

Second, the U.S. is one of only three or four countries that supports the Cuban embargo. If you take the trouble to go back to the first link I posted about South Africa, you'll see that the UN arms embargo was only one of many sanctions against South Africa, carried out by many countries, both independently and in concert with each other around the world, sanctions that involved trade cessation, divestment in holdings of South African corporations, and even severing of cultural ties. As I said, read, and learn.

Were those sanctions the same as those against Cuba? No. Were they just as punishing? Quite possibly more so.

So your reply to these facts is to call me a liar.
On a personal note, how dare you suggest I am a Castro apologist.Fine. How about I call you a would-be Castro-enabler, then? Feel better?

BPSCG

21st April 2006, 08:16 PM

Since you want the anti-embargo crew to join your cause, you know what their response would be. Your words come back to bite cha!Oh, I knew exactly what the response would be from the crew that will excuse or "explain" the behavior any dictatorship as long as it hates the U.S. Believe me when I tell you I was not surprised in the slightest.

Again, the anology is flawed. You equate the level of brutality in both cases; therefore your numerical analysis fails. Does it? Which country has/had the greater level of brutality? Please back up your answer with facts and figures.
It is also arguable that the South African regine would have collapsed with or without the international support. (Note FreChile is using the passive voice, indicating he is either trying to evade responsibility or doesn't want to claim credit for the action in the sentence...) Please tell me who makes the argument that "the South African regine would have collapsed with or without the international support." Do you?

ImaginalDisc

21st April 2006, 08:28 PM

So your reply to these facts is to call me a liar.
Fine. How about I call you a would-be Castro-enabler, then? Feel better?

Did you fail to read about the fact that my family narrowly escaped being murdered by Castro? Are you remotely aware of how off-base and insulting you are?

Kerberos

21st April 2006, 11:25 PM

For starts, "compare" does not mean the same thing as "equate."
No, but saying it's tougher means that you claim it's tougher, any support for that statement?

Second, the U.S. is one of only three or four countries that supports the Cuban embargo. If you take the trouble to go back to the first link I posted about South Africa, you'll see that the UN arms embargo was only one of many sanctions against South Africa, carried out by many countries, both independently and in concert with each other around the world, sanctions that involved trade cessation, divestment in holdings of South African corporations, and even severing of cultural ties. As I said, read, and learn.

I did read, but unlike you I also understod. The wikipedia article does not say that

Were those sanctions the same as those against Cuba? No. Were they just as punishing? Quite possibly more so.
Really? "quite possible"? what does that mean? Or is that just your way of avoiding actually having to defend your position? Can you answer that or will you be to bussy going around kicking gunshot victims since they'd still be miserable even without being kicked and kicking them doesn't harm you?

So your reply to these facts is to call me a liar.
What facts? The "fact" that the Sanctions against South Africa were "quite possible" (funny, how you didn't include that qualification a few posts ago) more punishing than those against Cuba? The "fact" that the wikipedia article says that the UN arms embargo was only one of many sanctions by many countries both independently and in concert? Where was it it said that again? No, "movement" does not translate to many countries working both independently and in concert.

Zep

21st April 2006, 11:46 PM

Good enough for you, Zep (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html)? Straight from the horses mouth.

As I read it, you CAN travel to Cuba if given the proper permission from the US government. Permission is granted only for certain purposes. Tourism is not one of the things they allow you to go over there for, and you can be arrested if you try to circumvent the regulations by travelling through a third country.

bolding mine.Thank you for that.

And yet, as I noted in my previous post, I'm reasonably informed that nearly 250,000 Americans visited Cuba last year as tourists, but with less than 10,000 licenses issued. Using a third-party country as a stopover to get there.

Given the tough talk of this proclamation, shouldn't those people at least be fined heavily on return? And at least a representative sample jailed or something?

Ausmerican

22nd April 2006, 01:12 AM

Why should I? What's in it for me?
This must be an example of "the Judeo-Christian concept of helping those less fortunate than ourselves when we can" you mentioned earlier I guess?
So far your entire arguement for continuing the embargo seems to be able to be boiled down to "communism is bad mmkay?"

Kerberos

22nd April 2006, 02:14 AM

This must be an example of "the Judeo-Christian concept of helping those less fortunate than ourselves when we can" you mentioned earlier I guess?
So far your entire arguement for continuing the embargo seems to be able to be boiled down to "communism is bad mmkay?"
Ahh, but let's not forget his multitude of ad homs. BPSCG argument just wouldn't have the same the same weight without his ceasseless acusation of being a Castro-supporter towards anybody who disagrees wuth him.

a_unique_person

22nd April 2006, 04:52 AM

Hey, I support Castro. He's a great guy.

Zep

22nd April 2006, 05:08 AM

Castro is going to die soon, and his little empire will most likely disintegrate like Saddam's did. Already much of the mutual animosity is happening aside from and despite the reality of the burgeoning trade between the two countries, and is becoming mostly irrelevant posturing. At the very least, when Castro finally pops his clogs, there will be major upheavals in Cuba.

Who knows! They may even decide to accept the reality of the current situation, and everyone can act normal for a change...

BPSCG

22nd April 2006, 06:09 AM

Castro is going to die soon, and his little empire will most likely disintegrate like Saddam's did. Whoa, now there's the strangest revisionist history I've ever seen.

That reminds me of a few lines from Jimmy Breslin's classic mafia book, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. Talking about a war to take over the mafia territory in Queens, New York, he describes a capo named Joe the Wop.

"Joe the Wop shot nuns. He died of natural causes. His heart stopped beating when men stuck knives into it.

"Raymond the Wolf, who had sent the men with the knives, took over. Raymond the Wolf ate babies. He dropped dead while being strangled."

Saddam's little empire disintegrated while being invaded and bombed.

Mephisto

22nd April 2006, 06:41 AM

Can someone remind me why we still have an embargo on Cuba and not on China?

That's an easy one, because we owe lots of money to China, and Cuba is full of illegal immigrants. :)

ImaginalDisc

22nd April 2006, 07:24 AM

Whoa, now there's the strangest revisionist history I've ever seen.

That reminds me of a few lines from Jimmy Breslin's classic mafia book, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. Talking about a war to take over the mafia territory in Queens, New York, he describes a capo named Joe the Wop.

"Joe the Wop shot nuns. He died of natural causes. His heart stopped beating when men stuck knives into it.

"Raymond the Wolf, who had sent the men with the knives, took over. Raymond the Wolf ate babies. He dropped dead while being strangled."

Saddam's little empire disintegrated while being invaded and bombed.

More disinformation. Zep clearly did not suggest that Saddam's dictatorship collapses because he died. He suggested that when Castro dies, his dictorship will collapse, just as Saddam's has.

Oh I'm sorry, did I interfere with your disinformation campaign? Would you like to continue to call me a Castro, what it is now, apologist? Supporter?

Mephisto

22nd April 2006, 08:44 AM

Did you fail to read about the fact that my family narrowly escaped being murdered by Castro? Are you remotely aware of how off-base and insulting you are?

Hey! Having a family that narrowly escaped being murdered by Castro and claiming that terrorists are trying to kill YOU (because you live in the same city they attacked - er, two cities they attacked) aren't necessarily the same thing.

One sounds personal, the other . . . well, it sounds paranoid. ;)

Mycroft

22nd April 2006, 10:49 AM

More disinformation. Zep clearly did not suggest that Saddam's dictatorship collapses because he died. He suggested that when Castro dies, his dictorship will collapse, just as Saddam's has.

Oh I'm sorry, did I interfere with your disinformation campaign? Would you like to continue to call me a Castro, what it is now, apologist? Supporter?

I don't believe Zep did it intentionally, but to say Castro's empire would crumble "just like" Hussein's could easily be read to mean that Castro's empire would crumble "in the same way" that Hussein's did.

ImaginalDisc

22nd April 2006, 11:06 AM

I don't believe Zep did it intentionally, but to say Castro's empire would crumble "just like" Hussein's could easily be read to mean that Castro's empire would crumble "in the same way" that Hussein's did.

It's a similie. A short one too, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, even in the case that your interpretation is correct.

Mycroft

22nd April 2006, 11:21 AM

It's a similie. A short one too, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, even in the case that your interpretation is correct.

No, actually a similie would mean that Zep did intend to say that Castro's empire would fall in the same way that Hussein's did. Since Zep most likely meant that both empires would be fallen without any implied similarity in how they fell, it was that the statement looked like a simile but wasn't supposed to be one is why BPSCG replied as he did.

I'm not making mountains out of anything, I'm just explaining what I see.

ImaginalDisc

22nd April 2006, 11:40 AM

No, actually a similie would mean that Zep did intend to say that Castro's empire would fall in the same way that Hussein's did. Since Zep most likely meant that both empires would be fallen without any implied similarity in how they fell, it was that the statement looked like a simile but wasn't supposed to be one is why BPSCG replied as he did.

I'm not making mountains out of anything, I'm just explaining what I see.

Now I'm afriad I don't follow you entirely. How about we shelve this one, and get back to the ad homs and rhetoric? That way, we don't actually have to deal with facts or logic.

Mycroft

22nd April 2006, 11:47 AM

Now I'm afriad I don't follow you entirely. How about we shelve this one, and get back to the ad homs and rhetoric? That way, we don't actually have to deal with facts or logic.

:D