Well, there goes my trip to Cuba !!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by John Holbrook

If the USA did business freely with Cuba where most big business is owned by the govt, friends of the govt or the military which represses the people then you would be crying that the USA is supporting the regime.

Ok, understood. And thanks for propping up China and sucking up to the Saudis.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The half-century US embargo on Cuba has hurt the Cuban people more than it has ever hurt the dictatorship. It certainly hasn't hastened the end of it; I would argue the embargo has blocked Cuba from growing into a post-communist modern economy. I think it's also worthwhile to consider the extent to which the embargo as implemented is a genuine principled stance, vs a pander to an influential voting bloc. Remember that much of the Florida Cuban expats are the people who did just fine under Batista, and split when he was toppled.

It took real leadership last year to take some positive steps towards establishing a better US-Cuba relationship. Trump has done a small rollback, and as before, it's going to hurt Cuban people more than the dictatorship, (affecting hospitality jobs, the growing small businesses, B&Bs, home-stays) but at least it's not a full jump back to the full embargo, and the Embassy remains, etc.

A small sample of the corrosiveness of unchecked capitalism. It's a good system, but not perfect.

Let me respond to each of your assertions. When you say that the embargo has hurt the Cuban people more than it ever hurt the dictatorship what you are really saying is that either a.) the Cuban people have become complacent and accepted or have been forced to accept their meagre way of life and that b.) the Cuban government has done nothing to make their lives better. This is because Communism is a failed economic system that doesn't work. There has never been a society in the history of mankind that has had a prosperous Communist government. The recent examples are Russia, China, Vietnam and Eastern Europe whose economies after their collapse have bloomed under their new openness/acceptance to Capitalism. In fact, China is producing more billionaires today than any other country in the world. This is a prime example of what people can accomplish when they have freedom to pursue their goals/dreams. Secondly, when you state that our new stance to Cuba is pandering to a specific voting bloc, would it also be fair to say that Obama's directives also catered to a specific voting bloc? Did his openness really do anything quantifiable for the Cuban people? The true answer is no. Thirdly, to say that the Cuban expatriates did just fine under Batista and "split when he was toppled" is an empty remark since your implication is that the forfeiture of their property and savings was justification since they had done well. This is clearly absurd by any reasonable person's standards. Can you tell me honestly that you would ever feel it was fair if your home, savings and all your possessions were confiscated by your government and when you left the country that this act was justified because you had been successful? Lastly, when you say that Trump's rollback is going to hurt the "burgeoning?" Cuban economy based on tourism is it Trump's fault or the fault of the repressive Communist Cuban government who has severely restricted the rights, privileges, and freedoms of the Cuban people since Bautista's fall and has forced them to live a barely sustainable living. So, when you blame the USA, Trump, Capitalism or Batista for the plight of the desperately poor Cuban people who have no real personal freedom or liberty and live daily under a repressive Communist dictatorship who has murdered and tortured anyone who has opposed the regime and controls everything from the Press to who lives or dies, you're blaming the beast for its burden. As a final remark, I believe most people in life live by very flexible ethical/moral standards and like an amoeba respond to painful stimuli by simply changing their position to avoid any pain or unpleasantry. It is easy to rationalise the plight of others if there is pleasure to be had in the making. The bottom line is that the Castro brothers have given the Cuban people no freedoms or liberty since the fall of Batista in 1959. If you want to point a finger for the Cuban people's plight, point it at their leaders. Good luck and safe sailing.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Let me respond to each of your assertions. When you say that the embargo has hurt the Cuban people more than it ever hurt the dictatorship what you are really saying is that either
a.) the Cuban people have become complacent and accepted or have been forced to accept their meagre way of life and that
b.) the Cuban government has done nothing to make their lives better.

I've said neither. Punishing Cuba by denying contact and trade with the US punishes the Cuban people way more than it does the government. If 50+ years of embargo hasn't shifted them... how will more years do it?

This is because Communism is a failed economic system that doesn't work. There has never been a society in the history of mankind that has had a prosperous Communist government. The recent examples are Russia, China, Vietnam and Eastern Europe whose economies after their collapse have bloomed under their new openness/acceptance to Capitalism.

I never claimed that Communism is a viable economic system. And here you are, proving my point that engagement and trade with China and Viet Nam (who are still Communist, centrally-planned economies, with some limited economic liberty)... has brought about improvements in living conditions and human rights. Remember it took engagement and some mutual respect, before the trade magic happened.

btw I don't think you can say that China and Viet Nam "collapsed". And I wouldn't call Russia a roaring success story, yet.

Why was engagement ok with China and Viet Nam, but not with Cuba?

Secondly, when you state that our new stance to Cuba is pandering to a specific voting bloc, would it also be fair to say that Obama's directives also catered to a specific voting bloc? Did his openness really do anything quantifiable for the Cuban people? The true answer is no.

I disagree. Cuba has been relaxing restrictions, and entrepreneurship was picking up. It hasn't even been a year. Engagement brings improvements. See China and Viet Nam.

Thirdly, to say that the Cuban expatriates did just fine under Batista and "split when he was toppled" is an empty remark since your implication is that the forfeiture of their property and savings was justification since they had done well. This is clearly absurd by any reasonable person's standards. Can you tell me honestly that you would ever feel it was fair if your home, savings and all your possessions were confiscated by your government and when you left the country that this act was justified because you had been successful?

You assume too much.

SH!T happens. Or, rather, history happens. I guess you'd compensate all slave-owners after the Emancipation Proclamation, yes? How's the reparations going with the US's indigenous populations? Ever notice how drug dealers lose all the cool stuff they worked hard to buy, when they're busted?

Cuba had a revolution, people chose sides, one side lost. It happens. I'm sympathetic, but most who were driven out after the revolution won't be seeing any compensation. Those who suffered under the Batista regime, or the half century of embargo, won't be getting anything either.

Do I understand why the Cubans who were forced to leave would be angry? Of course I do. But screwing the people of Cuba for a half-century just to get the expats' votes doesn't seem sensible.

So listen, I already know that Freedom and Capitalism are sacred to you. I'm kind of a fan myself. As you've said repeatedly, engagement and trade with China and Viet Nam has improved the lot of their people, including personal freedoms and human rights.

The same approach is the one to take with Cuba.

[rognvald]

[QUOTE=Lake-Effect;2416950]I've said neither. Punishing Cuba by denying contact and trade with the US punishes the Cuban people way more than it does the government. If 50+ years of embargo hasn't shifted them... how will more years do it?

I never claimed that Communism is a viable economic system. And here you are, proving my point that engagement and trade with China and Viet Nam (who are still Communist, centrally-planned economies, with some limited economic liberty)... has brought about improvements in living conditions and human rights. Remember it took engagement and some mutual respect, before the trade magic happened.

btw I don't think you can say that China and Viet Nam "collapsed". And I wouldn't call Russia a roaring success story, yet.

Why was engagement ok with China and Viet Nam, but not with Cuba?

I disagree. Cuba has been relaxing restrictions, and entrepreneurship was picking up. It hasn't even been a year. Engagement brings improvements. See China and Viet Nam.

You assume too much.

SH!T happens. Or, rather, history happens. I guess you'd compensate all slave-owners after the Emancipation Proclamation, yes? How's the reparations going with the US's indigenous populations? Ever notice how drug dealers lose all the cool stuff they worked hard to buy, when they're busted?

Cuba had a revolution, people chose sides, one side lost. It happens. I'm sympathetic, but most who were driven out after the revolution won't be seeing any compensation. Those who suffered under the Batista regime, or the half century of embargo, won't be getting anything either.

Do I understand why the Cubans who were forced to leave would be angry? Of course I do. But screwing the people of Cuba for a half-century just to get the expats' votes doesn't seem sensible.

So listen, I already know that Freedom and Capitalism are sacred to you. I'm kind of a fan myself. As you've said repeatedly, engagement and trade with China and Viet Nam has improved the lot of their people, including personal freedoms and human rights.

The same approach is the one to take with Cuba.[/QUOT



Paragraph one above(my quote) interprets your remark where you said that the embargo hurt the Cuban people. Of course, but the reason they were hurt had nothing to do with the US and everything to do with the Castro brothers and their Fascist government. They are responsible for the plight of their people just as a father and mother are responsible for their children. If the embargo didn't change them, do we then blame the US or the leaders of their country who value ideology over the welfare of their people?
Paragraph/quote two states the obvious. China and Vietnam could not support its people because similar to Russia they were essentially broke after years of attempting to validate a failed economic system(Communism). The detente was an outreach on their part since they knew trade with the US was a guaranteed plus to stimulate a feeble economy with an anaemic GDP. We acquiesced to those trade deals due to a real lessening of despotic conditions and a generally more freedom given to its people. This, of course, was not the case with Cuba under Fidel, let alone today. And, Russia is certainly not an economic success story, but compared to the pre-Putin days, is certainly doing much better with the limited freedoms of the Russian government. Paragraph three: What are the restrictions Cuba has been "relaxing?" If you cite the"entrepeneurship" of small restaurants and tourist related businesses as an example, they have been allowed since the average Cuban today makes around $26. per month with no improvement in sight . . . especially since their Marxist brother,Hugo, a huge benefactor of Cuba, departed. I call this example a survival tactic forced by necessity, not an acquiesced improvement. The last paragraph is something you have assumed I support with no foundation or previous remarks. I have never advocated nor mentioned reparations but have listed the abuses of the Castro brothers as reason not to ease relations until some real liberties and freedoms are given to the people as we have seen in Russia, China and Viet Nam. There must be a quid pro quo in order for real relations to begin otherwise we once again will give and get nothing in return. Cuba is, in my opinion, an enemy 90 miles from our shore. There can be no love lost between its Fascist leaders and the US. Canadians and Europeans have travelled there for years and without their trade, the country would probably be close to collapse. In conclusion, there are countless places I can travel without supporting Fascist dictators. I choose to spend my money not as a quixotic crumb of bread to a government that oppresses it people, but rather to those areas that share a common respect and decency for their people. Who has affected the lives of over 11 million Cuban people for the worse? Fascism and Fidel . . . and certainly not the US.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by rognvald

... you said that the embargo hurt the Cuban people. Of course, but the reason they were hurt had nothing to do with the US and everything to do with the Castro brothers and their Fascist government. They are responsible for the plight of their people just as a father and mother are responsible for their children.

No. The US embargo hurt, and continues to hurt the Cuban people. When your most natural trading partner, and the supposed leader of the free world, shuts you out, you hurt. Full stop. What, short of dying or leaving, could Castro actually have done to please the US? Nothing. The embargo is a half century grudge, a hissy-fit for closing down America's favourite offshore fun-palace and having the temerity to successfully defend at the Bay of Pigs.

If the embargo didn't change them, do we then blame the US or the leaders of their country who value ideology over the welfare of their people?

The US embargo is itself a creature of ideology (and vote-getting). Again - it hasn't worked. It probably won't ever work. In the meantime, the rest of the world engages with Cuba, and that's what will bring about change.

China and Vietnam could not support its people because similar to Russia they were essentially broke after years of attempting to validate a failed economic system(Communism).

I can find nothing that confirms your assertion that China or Viet Nam were broke and came to the US cap-in-hand because of economic problems. It appears instead that Nixon and Kissinger reached out to China for strategic reasons.

There must be a quid pro quo in order for real relations to begin otherwise we once again will give and get nothing in return.

Countries enter into relationships for mutual benefit. It's not a "give". We all know that the name "Castro" is a sticking point. Perhaps when Raul is finally out of the picture, the US will finally have enough of a face-saving excuse to drop the embargo nonsense.

[gaucho]

Originally Posted by rognvald

China and Vietnam could not support its people because similar to Russia they were essentially broke after years of attempting to validate a failed economic system(Communism). The detente was an outreach on their part since they knew trade with the US was a guaranteed plus to stimulate a feeble economy with an anaemic GDP. We acquiesced to those trade deals due to a real lessening of despotic conditions and a generally more freedom given to its people.

Drink the kool-aid much? Where the hell do you get your news from? Fox? Jesus. China (and to a much lesser extent Vietnam) are the children of corporate GREED. Not of US-led goodwill towards a change of "political agenda". Companies wanted cheap places to build their stuff, to MAXIMIZE PROFIT. It's all about the uncontrolled corporate greed that unregulated capitalism brings about. This is what has made China the world's "factory".

I really need to stop following this thread. Your misunderstanding of global economy, politics and the american centric "savior of the world" viewpoint you possess gives me the creeps.

Enjoy.

[Island Time O25]

Politics do make the strangest bedfellows. How did it happen that those who allegedly profess free market views all of a sudden do not want these same free market views to apply to individual US citizens who want to visit/trade with Cuba and its people on their own dime? The embargo is not only outdated it is absurd in the 21st century. How did "we the people" allow this anti-capitalist abomination to last for so many years? Apparently the same Cubans who screwed up their country and then fled are still, 50 years later, able to screw our's as well.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...screwing the people of Cuba for a half-century just to get the expats' votes doesn't seem sensible.

You obviously do not have the right perspective to ever make it as a politician!

[John Holbrook]

The world is a complex place and you may think you know best sitting on your sofa and watching CNN or whatever but you are probably just another passionate person getting emotional without a real grounding in the subject.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok, understood. And thanks for propping up China and sucking up to the Saudis.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by John Holbrook

The world is a complex place and you may think you know best sitting on your sofa and watching CNN or whatever but you are probably just another passionate person getting emotional without a real grounding in the subject.

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

Originally Posted by denverd0n

You obviously do not have the right perspective to ever make it as a politician!

Amen to that

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No. The US embargo hurt, and continues to hurt the Cuban people. When your most natural trading partner, and the supposed leader of the free world, shuts you out, you hurt. Full stop. What, short of dying or leaving, could Castro actually have done to please the US? Nothing. The embargo is a half century grudge, a hissy-fit for closing down America's favourite offshore fun-palace and having the temerity to successfully defend at the Bay of Pigs.

The US embargo is itself a creature of ideology (and vote-getting). Again - it hasn't worked. It probably won't ever work. In the meantime, the rest of the world engages with Cuba, and that's what will bring about change.

I can find nothing that confirms your assertion that China or Viet Nam were broke and came to the US cap-in-hand because of economic problems. It appears instead that Nixon and Kissinger reached out to China for strategic reasons.

Countries enter into relationships for mutual benefit. It's not a "give". We all know that the name "Castro" is a sticking point. Perhaps when Raul is finally out of the picture, the US will finally have enough of a face-saving excuse to drop the embargo nonsense.

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

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by rognvald

When you say that the Cuban embargo hurt the Cuban people and assume that the US was a natural trading partner, were they hurt because America opposed their Fascist government as a matter of principle based on Castro's wholesale theft of the country or were they hurt because their leader refused to give his own people the human rights associated with any civilized country?

-sigh- The US trade embargo has not been effective in getting the Cuban government to change (enough for you, anyway). And it's hurt the Cuban people. Is this not apparent to you?

Not only the Cuban peoples' homes and possessions were confiscated but also billions of dollars of foreign business assets including banks, factories, businesses and real estate. Where is it written, other than the NY Times or CNN, that America should have a duty to deal with a despot and a thief? The US has no duty to trade with any country in the world similiar to consumers having a choice where they will trade their money in the marketplace.

I never said 'duty'.

One more time (and probably not the last) - the embargo isn't working. If the US does care about the Cuban people, they might consider another approach. Of course, if the US doesn't care about the Cuban people... well, carry on.

So, what short of dying could Castro have done to please the US? Simply show the US that they were willing to a more open relationship and more freedom for their people.

Bull. The only thing that would come close to satisfying US Cuban expats and absolutists like yourself is the complete overthrow of the current Cuban regime. Don't pretend otherwise.

When people talk about the general goodness of the Cuban people, they are basically correct but it was their beloved leader that was responsible for their imprisonment, torture, and disappearance for all who opposed his government-- even in the slightest way. This is well documented by the Cuban expatriates but is alway missing in the dialogues of those who seek relations with Cuba.

And the embargo won't change this behaviour, if the last 50+ years are anything to go by. So, are you genuinely interested in improving the lot of the Cuban people, or just in the ideological purity of the embargo (which is also hypocritical, since the US has had better relations with similar or worse governments)

Secondly, to say the embargo is a "creature of ideology" or "vote getting" is patently false. The embargo is a matter of principle. And, in our disintegrating society, it is the loss of principle in life that is at its very roots.

Thank you for proving that the embargo is indeed ideological

Why is it wrong to punish a robber, murderer, and thief(Castro)? If he had committed these acts in any civilized country as an individual citizen, he would be incarcerated. But because he is the fascist leader of a Communist country the principle is not valid? And, if his people(innocent victims) are punished as a consequence of his actions, it is their duty to uprise against the government as happened in the US, France, Russia, and China.

How about - because the embargo hasn't really punished the 'robber, murderer, and thief'... it's just made Cubans more miserable? Your principled action has not achieved your goal.

(and thanks btw for confirming that there really isn't any change from the current Cuban government that would please you; you really just want to punish the Cuban people until they realize 'their duty' to overthrow the current government.

It's their duty to satisfy your principles. The Cuban people must suffer til they act as you want them to. Thanks for the honesty )

I have always said that the greatest mistake of the US was to allow the Cuban refugees into this country. Not as a matter of compassion, but because if they were forced to return, Cuba through a counter-revolution would probably be free today. When the lions left . . .the lambs remained.

"The lions left" Bad choice of metaphor.

Thirdly, in regards to China, Nixon sent Kissinger to China to see if relations could be opened. It was not for economic reasons, but rather to create a shift in the Cold War balance of power pitting the US and China against the Soviet Union. There was no economic intent whatsoever but rather to upset the power struggle in the world and to gain a strategic advantage over the Soviet Union. Trade was a much later consequence of the improved relations but both China and the US considered the Soviet Union as a dedicated foe. The GDP of China at that time was pathetic and the average Chinese was struggling to survive. I suggest you speak to some Chinese who lived under Mao for the real story.

So, you're backing away from the "China and Vietnam were broke" argument. This is good.

Finally, I don't think that the US is concerned about "face saving" but rather seeks to stand by principle . . . a word the Left in this country have surely forgotten.

Ooooo. Nice burn, dude. The AHCS tells me a lot about the principles of the US right.

Politics is the art of the possible. If you're interested in improving the lot of the Cuban people... the embargo isn't working. But hey, principles.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The US embargo is itself a creature of ideology (and vote-getting). Again - it hasn't worked. It probably won't ever work. In the meantime, the rest of the world engages with Cuba, and that's what will bring about change.

And what effect has that had in the last 50 years?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DotDun

And what effect has that had in the last 50 years?

Fair point.

I'm sure you agree that a lot of countries have pulled their punches and NOT engaged fully with Cuba, out of deference to the US position, and from their own feelings against repressive regimes. And that the world engagement with Cuba has changed over the last 50 years.

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

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

[John Holbrook]

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Cuba has enough of an economy to keep going. Barely.