NationStates Jolt Archive

For decades the U.S has made it illegal for her citizens to purchase cigars, Rum, and other goods manufactured in Cuba, but not trading with the U.S hasn't stopped Cuba from being Communist. So why does the U.S goverment refuse to lift the embargo. If anything, lifting the ban would introduce the Cuban people to American commerce,and probably showing the cubans the greatness of capitalism. First will come the capital, then the ism.

For decades the U.S has made it illegal for her citizens to purchase cigars, Rum, and other goods manufactured in Cuba, but not trading with the U.S hasn't stopped Cuba from being Communist. So why does the U.S goverment refuse to lift the embargo. If anything, lifting the ban would introduce the Cuban people to American commerce,and probably showing the cubans the greatness of capitalism. First will come the capital, then the ism.
Politics, continueing to spite cuba gets the cuban american votes

And possibly the embarrasment to have to admit that their tactics didn't work and was wrong. No politician would ever have the spine to do that.

Ihatevacations']Politics, continueing to spite cuba gets the cuban american votes

Yup. Right in the first post. That's all you really need to know about the US embargo. US internal politics get in the way of sound policy yet again, nothing new.

Eventually, Castro will die and then there may be a shake-up in policy; just like with Arafat. And like Arafat death, its unlikely to bring about sweeping changes that solve the region's problems.

Yup. Right in the first post. That's all you really need to know about the US embargo. US internal politics get in the way of sound policy yet again, nothing new.

Eventually, Castro will die and then there may be a shake-up in policy; just like with Arafat. And like Arafat death, its unlikely to bring about sweeping changes that solve the region's problems.

Do you think the Cuban Revolution was a one man revolution?

Do you think the Cuban Revolution was a one man revolution?

Nope, but I know how US politics work to a fair degree. Blame the bogeyman, not the nation. You know, "Castro is the man we hate in Cuba, we don't hate Cuba." That kind of thing.

Once he kicks off, the US government can make overtures to whomever is in charge afterwards without fear of domestic backlash. So long as they don't lash out to harshly against the US, the situation will change. If they do...another prideful standoff will occur.

The problem is not that the US and Cuba are incompatable, nor is it impossible for a comunist nation to get along well with the US. Its simply a matter of Castro pissed off a great number of influential people over here, and we pissed him off to no end with all those counter-revolutions, assassination attempts, etc...and nobody seems to be in the mood to forgive and forget.

So best to wait until everyone dies and the kids will try to pick up the pieces.

Nope, but I know how US politics work to a fair degree. Blame the bogeyman, not the nation. You know, "Castro is the man we hate in Cuba, we don't hate Cuba." That kind of thing.

Once he kicks off, the US government can make overtures to whomever is in charge afterwards without fear of domestic backlash. So long as they don't lash out to harshly against the US, the situation will change. If they do...another prideful standoff will occur.

The problem is not that the US and Cuba are incompatable, nor is it impossible for a comunist nation to get along well with the US. Its simply a matter of Castro pissed off a great number of influential people over here, and we pissed him off to no end with all those counter-revolutions, assassination attempts, etc...and nobody seems to be in the mood to forgive and forget.

So best to wait until everyone dies and the kids will try to pick up the pieces.

Do you think Cuba, regardless of it's leadership, is interested in developing relations with the U.S.? Currently they have a strong ally in Venezuela, if Chavez stays in power.

this reminds me. i must go to Havana :)

and on topic: i'm a communist myself, so i see the dangers to the system in Cuba of lifting the embargo; but then it would be better for the people of the country to have trade with the US, so on balance i go with "yes"

but then again apparently the people of Cuba are very happy with and proud of what they have as it is...

And possibly the embarrasment to have to admit that their tactics didn't work and was wrong. No politician would ever have the spine to do that.

That's pretty much it. No politician will ever lift the embargo because that will be saying "I was wrong". It doesn't matter if they say "The government 25 years ago was wrong", most people will hear "I was wrong". And people who hear "I was wrong" are not going to vote for that guy. :eek:

Yes. The ban is ineffective and without purpose in this day and age. Trade between the U.S. and Cuba would be good for commerce, and isn't that what makes the world go 'round?

This is what happens when the government uses the economy as a political tool.

The embargo never should've been enacted in the first place. Lift it already.

Trade with China has made it become more capitalistic (although its SIZE is beginning to work against us economically). Trading with Cuba can only help things along for them too (with the small size I see no harm coming from it).

If you notice, people that we trade with and have diplomatic relations with have regime trades FAR quicker than those we don't (Pakistani dictators rarely last more than 7-10 years, North Korean ones last about 40, China had economic and social reforms MUCH quicker than the Iranians, who still lag far behind even China). If we trade with Cuba and show that the aren't evil like the government says, the Cubans will realise that their government has been messing with their mind, they'll take action, and we'll have a democratic Cuba much quicker.

OR we can just kill off the Communist leadership. Either way, Cuba wins.

on the subject and have made several threads on it.

46 years of dictatorship and counting, castro promises the EU, OAS, and others of reforms and never delivers, attacks, insults the EU and others, and they still dont treat a dictator like a dictator.

Every nation that joins the EU has to meet certain democratic and economic conditions before they are accepted, Cuba does not meet any of those conditions,
I know Cuba is not a european nation that not my point.

Trade and negotiations will not change anything, you and I can debate an issue for ever and never agree, and nothing changes.


Granted the embargo dosent work because the democratic nations of the world do not want to make it an international embargo.

The Cuban government cannot survive with the help of Venezuela alone, it needs dollars or euros.

I apologise to all of you, but this is a subject that I have very deep feelings about, it hurts to see my nation of origin under one leader by force for 46 years and counting and no real democratic nation of the world cares about it.

Again I apologise to all of you, but I have very strong personal hurt feeling on this subject.

If you notice, people that we trade with and have diplomatic relations with have regime trades FAR quicker than those we don't (Pakistani dictators rarely last more than 7-10 years, North Korean ones last about 40, China had economic and social reforms MUCH quicker than the Iranians, who still lag far behind even China). If we trade with Cuba and show that the aren't evil like the government says, the Cubans will realise that their government has been messing with their mind, they'll take action, and we'll have a democratic Cuba much quicker.

OR we can just kill off the Communist leadership. Either way, Cuba wins.

Even if it was in jest, I really don't think assassination would work.

If you notice, people that we trade with and have diplomatic relations with have regime trades FAR quicker than those we don't (Pakistani dictators rarely last more than 7-10 years, North Korean ones last about 40, China had economic and social reforms MUCH quicker than the Iranians, who still lag far behind even China). If we trade with Cuba and show that the aren't evil like the government says, the Cubans will realise that their government has been messing with their mind, they'll take action, and we'll have a democratic Cuba much quicker.

OR we can just kill off the Communist leadership. Either way, Cuba wins.

The reason why dictatorships that the U.S. deal with don't last is because they are puppets of the U.S. government. (ie. Manuel Noriega) so when they start feeling too big for their britches and do something like invade Kuwait, the U.S. yanks them.

The reason why dictatorships that the U.S. deal with don't last is because they are puppets of the U.S. government. (ie. Manuel Noriega) so when they start feeling too big for their britches and do something like invade Kuwait, the U.S. yanks them.

No, we dealt with China, with Mao even, but was he our "puppet"? HELL NO! He was constantly talking about how we were evil! But when he opened his doors to us, China became slowly, but surely, richer, more liberal, and overall a nicer place to live.

Libya is another example.

(And Manuel Noriega didn't invade Kuwait. You should have put I.E. Saddam).

The reason why dictatorships that the U.S. deal with don't last is because they are puppets of the U.S. government. (ie. Manuel Noriega) so when they start feeling too big for their britches and do something like invade Kuwait, the U.S. yanks them.

Either that or they get rid of them using some rebel group that they fund who rise up and take out the other guys. Then become an even worse bunch of shits that we will have to take out ourselves.

Since Cuba doesn't get much military/logistic help from the outside, with or without US embargo....
Why not stopping the embargo?
It will actually be MORE difficult for the Castro regime to hold things together:
1) no embargo = no justification for hard laws, rethorics
2) more tourists, goods = easier to get things in & prepare a popular revolution
3) more commerce = the government could easily lose control of the economy and see the emergence of markets, middle class
4) much more defections
5) the Castro government not being an outcast, it would have to actually TALK with other governments & try not to get slapped too often

Since Cuba doesn't get much military/logistic help from the outside, with or without US embargo....
Why not stopping the embargo?
It will actually be MORE difficult for the Castro regime to hold things together:
1) no embargo = no justification for hard laws, rethorics
2) more tourists, goods = easier to get things in & prepare a popular revolution
3) more commerce = the government could easily lose control of the economy and see the emergence of markets, middle class
4) much more defections
5) the Castro government not being an outcast, it would have to actually TALK with other governments & try not to get slapped too often

That's what I mean.

Well, the embargo wasn't put in place because Cuba is a communist nation... it was put in place because they tried to position themselves to nuke us. That said, just wait until Castro's dead; then it's going to be lifted, anyway.

Where's the answer for, "Sure, when Castro's dead,"?

Even if it was in jest, I really don't think assassination would work.
I'm sure we have tried, you couldn't kill castro with a silver bullet. Castro is going to die in a peaceful sleep, or his knee is gonig to go out and he will fall down some stairs and that will kill him...maybe

Ihatevacations']I'm sure we have tried, you couldn't kill castro with a silver bullet. Castro is going to die in a peaceful sleep, or his knee is gonig to go out and he will fall down some stairs and that will kill him...maybe
No kidding--I'm pretty sure Castro will outlive God.

When was the last time (in modern times) that an assassination brought down a regime?

If Kennedy had a backbone (no pun intended), Castro would have been out a long time ago. I think our strategy in Cuba was to piss off the people at the government for making things crappy for them, but that never worked and we'll never admit it didn't until, like another person said, Castro dies.

... ecause they tried to position themselves to nuke us...
A note on the side:
Cuba didn't position itself, it happened to be where it was and has been there for millions of years.
Additionally, the USSR was surrounded by US Missiles, which was more or less tolerated by them. Then the same happened to the US, and the whining, bitching and crying started.

A note on the side:
Cuba didn't position itself, it happened to be where it was and has been there for millions of years.
Additionally, the USSR was surrounded by US Missiles, which was more or less tolerated by them. Then the same happened to the US, and the whining, bitching and crying started.

Yes, however, as an American I must admit on the issue of nuclear winter I have no problem being hypocritical. I like my winters just the way they are, thank you ;)

And on a serious note, the USSR DID accept missiles surrounding them, except in Turkey. Remember that? Turkey had all those short-medium missles being stationed there and the USSR took exception to those for some reason. To this day I have a hard time figuring why nukes in France and the UK was okay, but Turkey was a no-no.

I guess it was just a poker chip, and not a rational policy. Ever since we developed ICBMs on both sides, where the missiles are placed is just kinda silly. We'd all die anyway, just a few of us would die quicker.

A note on the side:
Cuba didn't position itself, it happened to be where it was and has been there for millions of years.

Sorry, but you suck at life. Stop being overly anal, especially if you are going to be wrong:



Main Entry: 2position
Function: transitive verb
: to put in proper position

po·si·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-zshn)
n.
A place or location.

The right or appropriate place: The bands are in position for the parade's start.
A strategic area occupied by members of a force: The troops took up positions along the river.

The way in which something is placed: the position of the clock's hands.
The arrangement of body parts; posture: a standing position.
An advantageous place or location: jockeys maneuvering for position.
A situation as it relates to the surrounding circumstances: in a position to bargain.
A point of view or attitude on a certain question: the mayor's position on taxes.
Social standing or status; rank.
A post of employment; a job.

Sports. The area for which a particular player is responsible.
The arrangement of the pieces or cards at any particular time in a game such as chess, checkers, or bridge.

The act or process of positing.
A principle or proposition posited.

A commitment to buy or sell a given amount of securities or commodities.
The amount of securities or commodities held by a person, firm, or institution.
The ownership status of a person's or institution's investments.



You can use position to mean more than physical movement, my friend. Sorry, nice try, though.

Additionally, the USSR was surrounded by US Missiles, which was more or less tolerated by them. Then the same happened to the US, and the whining, bitching and crying started.

Whining, bitching and crying? Are you an idiot? The United States wasn't going around trying to annex or convert random nations at the time, thus showed itself to be responsible enough to have those missiles in place, whereas the USSR was raising all sorts of hell in Asia.

1. Sorry, but you suck at life. Stop being overly anal, especially if you are going to be wrong...

2. The United States wasn't going around trying to annex or convert random nations at the time...
1. Sometimes an argument can be formulated in a way commonly known as "sarcasm", meaning in this case a mere pointing out of the onesidedness of your argument...
2. I'm not even going to bother...

I guess it was just a poker chip, and not a rational policy. Ever since we developed ICBMs on both sides, where the missiles are placed is just kinda silly. We'd all die anyway, just a few of us would die quicker.

Assuming we catch them and decide to respond in under five minutes - that's how long it would have taken Cuba to hit D.C. Of course, with all the nukes we have at sea, I suppose missile placement doesn't matter, because those would still be fired.

2. I'm not even going to bother...

Judging by the incredible talent for debate, attention to detail, and knowledge of history that you've demonstrated in most of the posts of yours that I've read, that's probably a wise decision - that's what sarcasm looks like, by the way.

The Problem is not the cubana people, the problem is the cuban government, with trade it will not change, with
constructive engament it will not change.

With trade it will not dismantle the neighborhood committes for the defense of the revolution that report you to the police if you disagree with any government policy.

It will not change the system of you cant trust the person in authority below you or above you, used by Hitler and other dictatorships.

It will control trade and investment as it does now, a foreign company invests, pays the cuban government the salary of the worker in dollars or euros, a cuban government employment agency hires the workers under its own rules and regulations and pays the workers in cuban pesos worth much less.

It will not change the system of keeping a record at your work place stating if you participated in a pro government march or not.

Yes after Castro dies of natural age due to illness or sudden natural death, many different possible things can happen, but I dont think much will change if The USA and
the European Union dont put presures and conditions on his heirs of power to trade and change, or it could just become another milatary dictatorship.

This is not the government of Augusto Pinochet of Chile who despite his many crimes of power, permitted an honest referendum of his rule, lost and accepted the results.

This is not the Sandinista government of Nicaragua that under US presure permitted a referendum on it rule confident that it would win it, lost and accepted its results.

This is Fidel Castro and his government in power , that will not hold an honest election, permit diffrent political partys of diffrent economic, political and social views,
certainly not while castro is in power.

They just held national elections where according to cuban government over 98 percent of the people participated and over 98 percent voted for all cuban government representatives.

Does anyone doubt or agree with any of the statements above?

-snip the insults-
Congratulations, now you got me to waste about 30 seconds of my time looking for this. I had to do it though, for I am truly afraid you don't know about it, that you actually believe what you're saying. One could call it my duty as a citizen of this planet to post this...
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm
And before you start slinging mud at Grossman, I urge you to check every single one of the listed events and prove to me that it didn't happen. This is not an opinion piece, it is a mere list of events.

What I'm saying is: There is no such thing as black and white. Both sides had enough shit on their own lawn to last a lifetime or two.

Congratulations, now you got me to waste about 30 seconds of my time looking for this. I had to do it though, for I am truly afraid you don't know about it, that you actually believe what you're saying. One could call it my duty as a citizen of this planet to post this...
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm
And before you start slinging mud at Grossman, I urge you to check every single one of the listed events and prove to me that it didn't happen. This is not an opinion piece, it is a mere list of events.

What I'm saying is: There is no such thing as black and white. Both sides had enough shit on their own lawn to last a lifetime or two.

Yeah...... every country has done many shitty things, if they could afford to... how exactly does that change the fact that Cuba tried to prepare itself to nuke us? And how does that change the fact that the embargo was set up because of this? And how does that make said embargo misplaced or wrong? Basically, you pointed out some random site that has a bunch of crappy events listed as if they are relevant to this matter. Stop playing into my stereotype of the things you like to say.

The point you just made is just about as relevant to this debate as if someone arguing for cosmetic testing on animals were to say, "But animals attack us all the time! They're not innocent, you know..."

The trade embargo was a response to the nationalization of U.S. assets during Cuba's revolution. Apparently it was acceptable for America to nationalize British assets during its own revolution, but not okay when it happens the other way around.

The posters who suggest that as soon as Castro is gone the embargo will be lifted are probably correct: America demonstrated just this sort of silliness with Yasser Arafat. They simply refused to have any dealings with the Palestinians until they elected someone the U.S. liked better as a leader. *shrug*

It depends on whos in power after Castro kicks the bucket.
Maybe there will be some sort of revolution, since Castro apparently hasnt named a person to take over once he dies...

On a side note, its legal to buy and bring to the US one box (as in a cigar case, not a crate) of cigars or something like 1 gallon of rum.
Basicaly theyre strict limitations, not bans.

....The point you just made is just about as relevant to this debate as if someone arguing for cosmetic testing on animals were to say, "But animals attack us all the time! They're not innocent, you know..."
Which is why I right at the beginning started my post as a "sidenote". Then you followed with "the US doesn't try to convert or annex other countries" and used that as a justification for US Missiles being in place is right, while Russian Missiles being in place is wrong. So I posted this list of "crappy events" ( :rolleyes: ) to show you that you were indeed wrong.
Which, as you correctly identified, is off-topic.

I think the US should lift the embargo, because both economies are hurt by it, because it only plays into the hands of the people the US doesn't like, and because it a relic from the Cold War which really belongs into last century, where a different economic/political system justified bombing each other. (Today it's more like religion....sometimes Humanity does move backwards)

Canada doesn't follow the US embargo. It has infuriated the US administrations (all of them). We put political pressure and engage in dialogue; we prefer the carrot to the stick.

There's also joint university research/work: disease-resistant banana trees, low-cost medicines for instance.

We kinda like the Cuban people.

Which is why I right at the beginning started my post as a "sidenote". Then you followed with "the US doesn't try to convert or annex other countries" and used that as a justification for US Missiles being in place is right, while Russian Missiles being in place is wrong. So I posted this list of "crappy events" ( :rolleyes: ) to show you that you were indeed wrong.
Which, as you correctly identified, is off-topic.

I think the US should lift the embargo, because both economies are hurt by it, because it only plays into the hands of the people the US doesn't like, and because it a relic from the Cold War which really belongs into last century, where a different economic/political system justified bombing each other. (Today it's more like religion....sometimes Humanity does move backwards)

Ummm, the problem with that is that none of the events listed at the location being referred to prove me wrong... I said that the U.S. wasn't doing that stuff at the time, and all of the crappy events you listed either A: don't occur in that time period, or B: aren't the same type of events as those I detailed. Nice try, though.

I say, since we've waited this damn long, let Castro die first, then lift the damn embargo like we've been planning to for years.

By remaining stuck in old Cold War tensions, America is losing out majorly on Cuba, especially when China is stepping in as Cuba's greatest friend after the Soviet Union collapsed. It should be in Washington's interest to take Cuba in as a friend so as to control the whole of its 'backyard' in the Caribbean.

By remaining stuck in old Cold War tensions, America is losing out majorly on Cuba, especially when China is stepping in as Cuba's greatest friend after the Soviet Union collapsed. It should be in Washington's interest to take Cuba in as a friend so as to control the whole of its 'backyard' in the Caribbean.

They're not likely to do that anytime soon I think. The political vendetta has kind of gained a life on its own and that is not likely to go away unless something major happens in the political landscape.

Ummm, the problem with that is that none of the events listed at the location being referred to prove me wrong... I said that the U.S. wasn't doing that stuff at the time, and all of the crappy events you listed either A: don't occur in that time period, or B: aren't the same type of events as those I detailed. Nice try, though.

I say, since we've waited this damn long, let Castro die first, then lift the damn embargo like we've been planning to for years.
"The United States wasn't going around trying to annex or convert random nations at the time, thus showed itself to be responsible enough to have those missiles in place, whereas the USSR was raising all sorts of hell in Asia."

PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation
CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation
Independence rebellion crushed in
Ponce.

IRAN
1953
Command operation
CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat
Bombs offered to French to use against
siege.

GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval
Marine occupation against rebels.

PANAMA
1958
Troops
Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.

CUBA
1961
Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat
Naval
Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.

LAOS
1962
Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.

PANAMA
1964
Troops
Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA
1965
Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN
1970
Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

CHILE
1973
Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
There is more there, if you'd bother to read it.

No, we dealt with China, with Mao even, but was he our "puppet"? HELL NO! He was constantly talking about how we were evil! But when he opened his doors to us, China became slowly, but surely, richer, more liberal, and overall a nicer place to live.

Libya is another example.

(And Manuel Noriega didn't invade Kuwait. You should have put I.E. Saddam).

Manuel Noriega didn't invade Kuwait, but he did recieve an education in Fort Benning Georgia, and he did appeal to Oliver North to help him clean up his public image when it became known he was running drugs. So perhaps that qualifies him as a U.S. puppet.

Saddam on the other hand, was supported by the U.S. against Iran, until he decided to invade Kuwait.

With trade it will not dismantle the neighborhood committes for the defense of the revolution that report you to the police if you disagree with any government policy.

Surely trade won't be enough, but open relations will be much more likely to bring in results than the current state of affairs that has been in place for forty years and only strengthens Castro's hold on the Cuban people.

It also won't be an overnight thing, but if even China has been able to effect change, surely Cuba, with its smaller, more adaptable and more dynamic population, will see changes sooner rather than later.

It depends on whos in power after Castro kicks the bucket.
Maybe there will be some sort of revolution, since Castro apparently hasnt named a person to take over once he dies...

...
Raúl Castro is a clear favourite, I think. He is the second person in the Party, and he is in control of the Armed Forces.

Who are we to choose other countries' leaders?

on the subject and have made several threads on it.

46 years of dictatorship and counting, castro promises the EU, OAS, and others of reforms and never delivers, attacks, insults the EU and others, and they still dont treat a dictator like a dictator.

Every nation that joins the EU has to meet certain democratic and economic conditions before they are accepted, Cuba does not meet any of those conditions,
I know Cuba is not a european nation that not my point.

Trade and negotiations will not change anything, you and I can debate an issue for ever and never agree, and nothing changes.


Granted the embargo dosent work because the democratic nations of the world do not want to make it an international embargo.

The Cuban government cannot survive with the help of Venezuela alone, it needs dollars or euros.

I apologise to all of you, but this is a subject that I have very deep feelings about, it hurts to see my nation of origin under one leader by force for 46 years and counting and no real democratic nation of the world cares about it.

Again I apologise to all of you, but I have very strong personal hurt feeling on this subject.

I hear ya. My wife and 8 members of her family escaped from Cuba back in 90. The stories they told me changed my way of thinking on Cuba, now I believe Castro to be what they tell me.

No kidding--I'm pretty sure Castro will outlive God.


He has more lives then a cat.

I voted yes, but really, I like being able to go to Cuba and not be surrounded by people from the US. So, no! Keep up the embargo! W00T! :eek:

Who are we to choose other countries' leaders?
We (Canadians) don't. But we all know who like to..... :D

Once he kicks off, the US government can make overtures to whomever is in charge afterwards without fear of domestic backlash.
Raul Castro is most likely to succeed Fidel.

Raul Castro is most likely to succeed Fidel.
And he's older than dirt too...how long do you think HE'S going to be around after Fidel bites the dust?

And he's older than dirt too...how long do you think HE'S going to be around after Fidel bites the dust?
A few hundred? (days)

A few hundred? (days)
And then what? I'm not too worried about Raul carrying on the Castro legacy for long:)

And then what? I'm not too worried about Raul carrying on the Castro legacy for long:)
Che Guevara will rise from the Amazon rainforest and return to Cuba!

No. The embargo still stands because Castro asked that the USSR place forty-plus missiles in Cuba. An act that brought the world to the brink of nuclear warfare. When Fidel dies (if that ever happens, I suspect he might live on in Big Brother fashion) and someone who didn't ask the Soviets to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US comes to power, then I'm willing to lift the embargo.

Che Guevara will rise from the Amazon rainforest and return to Cuba!? His bones were reburied in Cuba, were they not? And wasn't he originally hidden somewhere in Bolivia? In any case...he won't have to zombie-walk far...

No. The embargo still stands because Castro asked that the USSR place forty-plus missiles in Cuba. An act that brought the world to the brink of nuclear warfare. When Fidel dies (if that ever happens, I suspect he might live on in Big Brother fashion) and someone who didn't ask the Soviets to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US comes to power, then I'm willing to lift the embargo.
Yes sir, Mr. President!

Yes sir, Mr. President!
Let's remember my repeated claims that I'm Dick Cheney...

this reminds me. i must go to Havana :)

and on topic: i'm a communist myself, so i see the dangers to the system in Cuba of lifting the embargo; but then it would be better for the people of the country to have trade with the US, so on balance i go with "yes"

but then again apparently the people of Cuba are very happy with and proud of what they have as it is...

Ah yes, the people in Cuba are *very* happy.....

Cuba. Ah, Cuba. For forty plus years, Cuba has found its' own way, and gained greatly in national character for having done so. America just wants a return to the bad old days under their preferred strongman, Batista. If you want to see just how ugly a tropical paradise can become under the American thumb, try taking a trip to St. Thomas.

It's a frickin' subdivision, people. A Caribbean island turned suburb. As much character as a drive-through window. The view from the ocean is seemingly one of a mid-western town, mysteriously dropped down onto the islands like an infestation of sorts.

I hope Cuba can weather the inevitable storm that will come when Castro passes on. And I hope Americans stick to their own uninteresting, pedantic idea of what paradise entails.

Ah yes, the people in Cuba are *very* happy.....
A lot of the Cubans I know that came out of Cuba said they were happy.

Ah yes, the people in Cuba are *very* happy.....

Yes. They are. It's the Cubans living in Miami who are all perpetually unhappy. They feel unreasonably discomfited by the revolution, which saw their assets seized and nationalized. They see as their God-given right the former power, money and influence they once wielded over their 'fellow' citizens, and want to be able to return not just to Cuba after Fidel's death, but to be able to return to another time, to the Batista era, to continue unfettered their exploitation of their 'fellow' Cubans.

Did you know that apparently the US Government funded Casto's Revolution in the beginning?
That they only started hating them when Fidel began his land reforms? And that only then Fidel formed the close ties with the USSR?

Hell, we normalized relations with Vietnam, why not lift the embargo against Cuba?

Yes. They are.

Then why are they risking their lives in automobiles and trucks converted to boats to get out?

Did you know that apparently the US Government funded Casto's Revolution in the beginning?
That they only started hating them when Fidel began his land reforms? And that only then Fidel formed the close ties with the USSR?

Why would the U.S. fund the Cuban revolution?

A lot of the Cubans I know that came out of Cuba said they were happy.

Happy living in Cuba or happy they got out?

Why would the U.S. fund the Cuban revolution?

We didn't.

We didn't.
"The U.S. government initially supported the Cuban Revolution, formally recognizing the new government of Fidel Castro on January 7, 1959, after Batista fled on January 1. However, relations rapidly deteriorated when the new Cuban government passed the first Agrarian Reform Law to begin expropriation of large-scale (largely American-owned) land holdings on May 17, 1959. The compensation offered (based on 20-year bonds at 4.5% interest for the tax-assessed value) was seen as inadequate, and was rejected by American interests."
That is from Wikipedia. It is the first time I heard of it too, but I don't see why it would be in Wikipedia if it wasn't true...someone would've corrected it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

"The U.S. government initially supported the Cuban Revolution, formally recognizing the new government of Fidel Castro on January 7, 1959, after Batista fled on January 1. However, relations rapidly deteriorated when the new Cuban government passed the first Agrarian Reform Law to begin expropriation of large-scale (largely American-owned) land holdings on May 17, 1959. The compensation offered (based on 20-year bonds at 4.5% interest for the tax-assessed value) was seen as inadequate, and was rejected by American interests."
That is from Wikipedia. It is the first time I heard of it too, but I don't see why it would be in Wikipedia if it wasn't true...someone would've corrected it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

It says the U.S. "supported" the revolution by formally recognizing the government of Fidel Castro. This is a stretch from actually funding the revolution. I hope you aren't always this remiss with the facts, usually I agree with most of the things you post.

That is from Wikipedia. It is the first time I heard of it too, but I don't see why it would be in Wikipedia if it wasn't true...someone would've corrected it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

I would check more than one source for my information. It is possible we recognized the revolutionary government when they first took over but if my memory serves me correctly, we did not support the revolution itself. If I recall correctly we didn't support the Batista government in fighting the revolutionaries either.

Then why are they risking their lives in automobiles and trucks converted to boats to get out?

I thought you Americans knew the reason for that, after all you people bash the rest of us over the head it with often enough:

Eeeeeeeeeverybody on the planet wants to move to the US, because it's just the gosh-dandiest greatest country in the world to live in.

Or had you forgotten that oft-repeated bit of Republican wisdom?

I thought you Americans knew the reason for that, after all you people bash the rest of us over the head it with often enough:

Eeeeeeeeeverybody on the planet wants to move to the US, because it's just the gosh-dandiest greatest country in the world to live in.

Or had you forgotten that oft-repeated bit of Republican wisdom?

You said the Cubans were happy living there. My question to you is, "If they are so happy living there, why are they risking their lives to leave?"

And as far as your sarcasm goes, save it. I know there are many people who don't live in the US and have no desire to come here.

So please have the courtesy to answer the question.

Cuba...is a museum. Normalizing relations would be like spray-painting grafitti on the Eiffel tower. Think of it as kind of a "Nature reserve" for the hard-core cold-war communists. They lost their ass everywhere else, but they can go to Cuba and live without damaging anyone else (the Cuban Military is small, and their equipment outdated). We can't destroy the last "Workers Paradise" on earth by normalizing relations! It just wouldn't be right.
(besides, if we did, we'd have to send them aid-because all those countries that HATE america would pull theirs...)

It says the U.S. "supported" the revolution by formally recognizing the government of Fidel Castro. This is a stretch from actually funding the revolution. I hope you aren't always this remiss with the facts, usually I agree with most of the things you post.
I said "funded", didn't I...
Goddammit - that was of course erroneous (sp?). I take my comments back - nonetheless pointing out that the US did recognise Castro early on, better than what many other new "communist" governments got.
I appologise.

Thank you Celtlund and Bob Greene for your coments,
thank you all 21 nation persons who have voted no.

I wonder why no one has answerd my question,
does any one doubt, agree or disagree with any of the
statements above? Page 3 post 33.

For those that say trading and relations in time will lead to changes, I ask the question, how much longer do we have to wait after 46 years and counting?

Do you believe that establishing political, economic and social relations with Castro in power, he will change?

Do you believe that establishing political, economic and social relations with Castro in power, he will change
the points I have made on page 3 post 33?

Give me your opinions on how you think Cuba will change
after Castro dies in power and why, what I mean is what will happen after Castro dies in power and how will Cuba change?

Thank you.

His designated succesor and head of the armed forces,

Let me add some information on this subject, the armed forces are being given charge over the economy of the island in areas like tourism and other sectors, it dosent sound to me like they are preparing to change things like control. I might have more specific information later.

Where does the US military get their cigars? I heard that prior to every war, they have to break the taboo and order them from Cuba.

If I might come out of the blue, what would be the problem with lifting the embargo?

The best point to muster is the "museum" aspect. I'd like to go to Havana and see all those old cars and what-have-you.

But really, if the embargo is out there to put pressure on Cuba to "stop that communism hooey" then it has obviously failed. Sanctions seldom hurt the despot, they hurt the citizenry, and a put-down citizenry will only look to their leaders with more zeal.

Additionally, while Castro has been a monumentous asshole, a lot of his assholiness has been overplayed by The American government and media, and nearly all of said assholiness has peaked and waned many a year ago. Cuba's educational and medical systems are really fairly good. They've shown a way to make communism (in a matter of speaking, communism: it's really not so much) work.

Why stick to these archaic, cold-war ideas that say "communism=bad, capitalism=good" without the slightest care for the greater state of multinational economies, peoples and governments? It's pure xenophobia, no two ways about it.

If I might come out of the blue, what would be the problem with lifting the embargo?

The best point to muster is the "museum" aspect. I'd like to go to Havana and see all those old cars and what-have-you.

But really, if the embargo is out there to put pressure on Cuba to "stop that communism hooey" then it has obviously failed. Sanctions seldom hurt the despot, they hurt the citizenry, and a put-down citizenry will only look to their leaders with more zeal.

Additionally, while Castro has been a monumentous asshole, a lot of his assholiness has been overplayed by The American government and media, and nearly all of said assholiness has peaked and waned many a year ago. Cuba's educational and medical systems are really fairly good. They've shown a way to make communism (in a matter of speaking, communism: it's really not so much) work.

Why stick to these archaic, cold-war ideas that say "communism=bad, capitalism=good" without the slightest care for the greater state of multinational economies, peoples and governments? It's pure xenophobia, no two ways about it.


Um... I think you missed my point. Cuba's condition is a museum of the cold war. Lifting the Embargo would rapidly pollute/desecrate/destroy the careful preservation of this relic of the Soviet Comintern's ideal for the future.
the best reason to work on an 'Immortality" drug is to keep Castro alive for future generations to marvel at-and if the Embargo is lifted, then there's no marvel to look at... just another screwed up Caribbean country ruled by its army that sucks down aid like a sailor sucks down mai-tais.

Ha! Yeah, fair enough.

Still, I've got to say that if it comes down to balancing the need for an unpolluted communist regime at which to marvel and the economic viability of a vibrant nation, I'll go column B time and time again.

Not like Cuba is sinking or anything, just that it's a nice play to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Ha! Yeah, fair enough.

Still, I've got to say that if it comes down to balancing the need for an unpolluted communist regime at which to marvel and the economic viability of a vibrant nation, I'll go column B time and time again.

Not like Cuba is sinking or anything, just that it's a nice play to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Come on, Cuba's doing fine under the Embargo-just ask Fidel. personally, I think that as long as Cuba says there's not a problem, there's no problem. they LIKE the way things are there-those that don't, find ways out-typically the ways that people who felt their communist leaders weren't doing a good job (and on whom the Gulag treatments failed to swing the decision) have since the days of Stalin. the Exchange is really quite elegant-the U.S. gets adaptable, intelligent, restless folks who've proved how much they want to be here by risking life, limb, and sanity to get here, and Cuba gets no American interference in its development into a Communist Paradise and model for the world.

Model of what, is an open question-the fact that it's a nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there speaks volumes, doesn't it?


See, I've learned from reading posts by Ein Deutscher and Von Witzelben-there's simply no reason to incur similar feelings of anger from Cuba by polluting them with American aid money and free trade. by keeping the status-quo, Nobody can Blame America for sabotaging Communism in Cuba-because America has thoroughly and totally not gotten involved in Cuban economic affairs. Cuba communist and Isolated prevents the rise of 'romantic' notions about the good-old-days when Cuba was Communist and Isolated.
East Germany's problems integrating into a United Germany, and the blaming of the Yanks for this, really hurt, until I realized that there needs to be an object-lesson for people here in the U.S., and among our allies, and Cuba can serve that lesson without having icky famines or runaway criminal corruption, because Cuba can feed itself-even under the inefficiencies of a Centrally Planned economy, with little difficulty.
Further, we get to benefit from the innovative and creative people who don't fit into a Communist society by keeping the barriers set up to strain out the less creative escapees from the Communist Wildlife Preserve in Cuba. I think of this as a 'win' for both sides. The Commies get their island paradise/social laboratory to refine their theories, we get the lab-rats smart enough to get over the barriers and out, and Canada gets a cheap vacation resort in a warmer part of the world that's relatively crime-free.

Give me your opinions on how you think Cuba will change The purpose of lifting the embargo isn't to make Cuba change, nor should it be. The purpose of lifting the embargo is because depriving Cuban children of medicine isn't hurting Castro, and is cruel and unusual punishment for the crimes of their government.

For those that say trading and relations in time will lead to changes, I ask the question, how much longer do we have to wait after 46 years and counting?

How much has it changed in 46 years of embargo? How much longer will it take for the embargo to produce change?

The point isn't that the system will change by itself, but to make things at least a bit easier for the people. Internal and external pressure will make the system change. Maybe slowly, but there will be some change.

Isolation helps Castro keep the status quo by eliminating external pressure and being able to better control internal pressure.

Having the US to blame for everything and invoking the imminent danger of espionage and invasion is what keeps the Vigilance Committees in place, in pretty much the same way that the ghost of terrorism encourages the US citizen to "observe and report" and libraries to keep a record of who takes which books.

If the US adopted a less threatening attitude towards Cuba, Fidel would be hard pressed to keep his act much longer.

Castro needs to be removed, I agree, and the whole regime needs to change towards a true government of and for the Cuban people. But there are more ways to skin a cat, and so far the policies adopted by the US government aren't working. After almost 50 years I think they should have realized it's time to try something else.

If the cuban government wanted to change things it could do it on its own right now embargo or no embargo.

cuba trades with the EU, Japan etc etc and the cuban people still lack everyting.

about 2,000,000 million tourists other than americans visit Cuba and that has not changed the governments control over the people, because the government dosent want to.

Cubans are still not allowed to stay in their own nations hotels with euros, dollars or cuban pesos thier national currency.

The point I am trying to get across is the government will not change on its own, out of the kindness of its heart.

That is why dictatorships are dictatorships.

Its like talking to a wall.

I see everyone hear ignores my questions, I wonder why?

China and Vietnam have not changed control over the people with trade.

I ask you all would you be happy with President Bush for life?

I think this will be my last post.

Thank You.

If the cuban government wanted to change things it could do it on its own right now embargo or no embargo.

But why would it when status quo has proved so useful? If you change things externally, status quo may stop being desirable for the government. It may not be sufficient, but can be part of a general strategy towards reform.

The point I am trying to get across is the government will not change on its own, out of the kindness of its heart.

Of course not, no one has said otherwise. But the embargo strategy is not working either.

I think this will be my last post.

This is, sadly, an attitude prevalent throughout the exiled Cuban community. They can't see more than one solution. So far we still haven't heard from you what you think is necessary to impulse regime change and bring freedom to the Cuban people. All I've read is "wait for Castro to die, then it will depend on who follows him," which is not a solution at all.

The point I am trying to get across is the government will not change on its own, out of the kindness of its heart.
That is why dictatorships are dictatorships.
How did Castro get to power in the first place? He started a revolution to get rid of a very unpopular dictator (Batista).
And how did "US-friendly" Batista get to power? By removing elected president Carlos Prío Socorras from power.

If you let things go "the normal way", without an embargo, without international isolation, and engage in TRUE dialogue (not throwing "official" insults from 1000km away in an almost comical non-dialogue) the maybe things will move. I don't think Castro would entrench his population in a Beria (Albania)-like paranoïac closed state; his money comes from tourism, after all.

The Cuban refugees (and citizens) have been electoral pawns in Florida for years. Florida's Cuban population is caught in that cynical game. Cuba itself has been a very useful pretext for military/covert interventions all over Latin America. The Cuba-political-milking game is one of the ugliest sides in US politics.

How did Castro get to power in the first place? He started a revolution to get rid of a very unpopular dictator (Batista).
And how did "US-friendly" Batista get to power? By removing elected president Carlos Prío Socorras from power.

If you let things go "the normal way", without an embargo, without international isolation, and engage in TRUE dialogue (not throwing "official" insults from 1000km away in an almost comical non-dialogue) the maybe things will move. I don't think Castro would entrench his population in a Beria (Albania)-like paranoïac closed state; his money comes from tourism, after all.

The Cuban refugees (and citizens) have been electoral pawns in Florida for years. Florida's Cuban population is caught in that cynical game. Cuba itself has been a very useful pretext for military/covert interventions all over Latin America. The Cuba-political-milking game is one of the ugliest sides in US politics.

This question is to you and anyone else who wants to respond.

How did Castro stay in power for so long in such a close proximity to the U.S.? Is Castro a brilliant tactician? Is Cuba simply not worth the trouble of invading?

This question is to you and anyone else who wants to respond.

How did Castro stay in power for so long in such a close proximity to the U.S.? Is Castro a brilliant tactician? Is Cuba simply not worth the trouble of invading?
Well, there were a number of factors I think. The first is that during the Cold War, an invasion wasn't an option, because no one with political power really wanted a shooting war with the Soviets. Some of the crazier Generals did, especially LeMay, but none of the politicos did, especially one that would be so close to the US.

And once the Cold War ended in the late 80s, early 90s, most of the people who were hard-core anti-Castro were out of government, except for a few hangers-on in Congress and the representatives from Miami who need the Cuban vote to get elected.

And by this point, it's just a matter of Castro being more valuable as a symbol to people who want to talk tough on national defense without actually doing anything. Besides, even if you get rid of Castro, it wouldn't change anything in Cuba. The communist system is so firmly entrenched that it won't be going anywhere even when Castro dies, no matter how badly the exile community wants it to happen.

Well, there were a number of factors I think. The first is that during the Cold War, an invasion wasn't an option, because no one with political power really wanted a shooting war with the Soviets. Some of the crazier Generals did, especially LeMay, but none of the politicos did, especially one that would be so close to the US.

And once the Cold War ended in the late 80s, early 90s, most of the people who were hard-core anti-Castro were out of government, except for a few hangers-on in Congress and the representatives from Miami who need the Cuban vote to get elected.

And by this point, it's just a matter of Castro being more valuable as a symbol to people who want to talk tough on national defense without actually doing anything. Besides, even if you get rid of Castro, it wouldn't change anything in Cuba. The communist system is so firmly entrenched that it won't be going anywhere even when Castro dies, no matter how badly the exile community wants it to happen.


Thanks for the response. Do you know of any links I could check out regarding this subject?