NationStates Jolt Archive

For the fifteenth time running, the UN has condemned the embargo by an overwhelming majority.


For the fifteenth consecutive year, the General Assembly called on States to refrain from promulgating laws in breach of freedom of trade and navigation, as it overwhelmingly passed a resolution on the need to end the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba.

By the resolution, adopted by a recorded vote of 183 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 1 abstention (Federated States of Micronesia), the Assembly urged States that had such laws and measures to repeal, or invalidate them. It also requested the Secretary-General to report on the text’s implementation at the Assembly’s next session.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10529.doc.htm


Even the US' staunchest allies (the UK, Australia, Poland, Afghanistan, to say nothing of Japan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or South Korea) voted to condemn the criminal and unjustifiable embargo. Iraq was, conveniently, absent, but was definitely not willing to show up and support the US.

So, only 3 countries supported the US. Israel... what a surprise. If any of you are baffled as to why Palau and the Marshall Islands voted in the US' favour (as they invariably do), it's very simple. They're both former colonies of the United States (which may surprise Americans who forget the US has been a colonising power), and receive significant levels of funds and various benefits through their close assocation with their former colonial master.

Incidentally, the one country which abstained (the FS Micronesia) is also a former US colony, and also benefits from its continued association with its former colonial master. But even they apparently couldn't bring themselves to support the US on this one.

Of course, as always, the US will ignore the UN, while criticising anyone else (except Israel) who does the same...

Of course, as always, the US will ignore the UN, while criticising anyone else (except Israel) who does the same...

Which is probably the most hypocritical thing this country does.

Please get your terms right. It's an embargo, not a blockade.

We're not doing business with them; we're not sitting in ships around their country sinking any ship that goes in or out.

:rolleyes:

Please get your terms right. It's an embargo, not a blockade.

We're not doing business with them; we're not sitting in ships around their country sinking any ship that goes in or out.

:rolleyes:

Embargo, blockade, people usually take them to mean the same.

Embargo, blockade, people usually take them to mean the same.

Which I shouldn't have, especially since I'm well aware of the difference. None of which alters the fact that Kat's skirted the issue.

During the cold war this was excusable as the communist bloc was a serious worldwide threat to America, and for a socialist economy to prosper would have been a major dent in the confidence and ascendacy of the capitalists. Now, however, America should drop this for the sake of the welfare of the Cuban people because as much as the West may not like the way Cuba is governed, classing it as a threat, armaments-wise or ideology-wise is bull. Overthrow hasn't worked, so just stop the macho power-politics. Please?

The US is refusing to trade to show how superior a free market, non-interventionist government economic policy is.

Do as I say, not as I do.

And of course its this half arsed attitude that pushed Castro further to the Russians in the first place. No USSR now and they still carry on with the same shit. Fucking pathetic. I'm not saying Castro is a saint but theres no fucking way the yanks have the cubans good in mind.

Maybe the USA should listen to the UN for once.....

For the fifteenth time running, the UN has condemned the embargo by an overwhelming majority.



Even the US' staunchest allies (the UK, Australia, Poland, Afghanistan, to say nothing of Japan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or South Korea) voted to condemn the criminal and unjustifiable embargo. Iraq was, conveniently, absent, but was definitely not willing to show up and support the US.

So, only 3 countries supported the US. Israel... what a surprise. If any of you are baffled as to why Palau and the Marshall Islands voted in the US' favour (as they invariably do), it's very simple. They're both former colonies of the United States (which may surprise Americans who forget the US has been a colonising power), and receive significant levels of funds and various benefits through their close assocation with their former colonial master.

Incidentally, the one country which abstained (the FS Micronesia) is also a former US colony, and also benefits from its continued association with its former colonial master. But even they apparently couldn't bring themselves to support the US on this one.

Of course, as always, the US will ignore the UN, while criticising anyone else (except Israel) who does the same...

...

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY?

Why do I keep seeing people who don't know the difference between an embargo and a blockade?

Maybe the USA should listen to the UN for once.....

Heh. You make me laugh Purple one. The USA will listen to the UN when and if we feel it is in our best interests.

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY?

Why do I keep seeing people who don't know the difference between an embargo and a blockade?


Which I shouldn't have, especially since I'm well aware of the difference.

You should learn to read, The Aeson.

I would edit the title if I knew how.

Heh. You make me laugh Purple one. The USA will listen to the UN when and if we feel it is in our best interests.

Care to explain how the embargo with Cuba is in your best interests?

Care to explain how the embargo with Cuba is in your best interests?
It'd be political suicide for whichever party(ies) involved, and of course no party is altruistic enough to lift the embargo and lose the next election for the 'greater good.'

You should learn to read, The Aeson.

I would edit the title if I knew how.

Apologies. I did not see that, although my post still goes for Icovir.

Care to explain how the embargo with Cuba is in your best interests?

Certainly. It keeps Cuba poor. Cuba is communist. Communism is viewed as contrary to US interests. Therefore, keeping a communist country poor helps US interests.

No... not quite, more along the lines of, we feel that not keeping a communist country poor would be contrary to our interests.

For what it's worth, I don't think the embargo on Cuba is a good idea, but I don't expect the US to lift it because the UN suggests we do.

Certainly. It keeps Cuba poor. Cuba is communist. Communism is viewed as contrary to US interests. Therefore, keeping a communist country poor helps US interests.

No... not quite, more along the lines of, we feel that not keeping a communist country poor would be contrary to our interests.

For what it's worth, I don't think the embargo on Cuba is a good idea, but I don't expect the US to lift it because the UN suggests we do.

China is communist, yet I've heard of no embargo there.

The exiled Cuban constituency is an important voting block in certain parts of the US and they wield considerable power. The US will not break the embargo because the politicians do not want to lose votes, and then there is of course the whole deal with losing face.

Not that the US hasn't already lost face to the world in this matter, as evidenced by the voting figures, but it's apparently more important to pretend that the face is still there before the US populace.

If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of member nations that completely ignore the UN's recommendations. It's only the US that seems to be criticised so gleefully for it.

I think continuing the embargo is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY since the biggest open secret is that Americans visit Cuba anyhow. But there is quite a difference between a country not trading and with sitting ones military in the bay and preventing all other countries from doing the same.

A good question would be: why are not all these morally outraged nations trading with Cuba and helping their economy. Certainly seems a more effective way to protest what they see as unfair treatment rather than just saying, "You naughty Americans." Or is it that the U.S. and only the U.S. is supposed to support their economy?

Last I heard we were not the only nation on the planet.

It's kind of frustrating: it certainly seems like the world's attitude can be summed up with, "Let the Americans do it, let the Americans pay for it," except when it's, "Damn those Americans for interfering!"

China is communist, yet I've heard of no embargo there.

Well, no. Again with the suiting American interests. China is good for American businesses. If Cuba had the ability to manufacture as many things, as cheap, as China, I'm sure we'd consider lifting the embargo.

A good question would be: why are not all these morally outraged nations trading with Cuba and helping their economy. Certainly seems a more effective way to protest what they see as unfair treatment rather than just saying, "You naughty Americans." Or is it that the U.S. and only the U.S. is supposed to support their economy?

The Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (the "Helms-Burton Act") penalises foreign companies that do business in Cuba by preventing them from doing business in the US (the US is thus pushing its law on foreign companies, forcing them into the embargo - interestingly the European Parliament passed a law that made it illegal for EU citizens to obey the Helms-Burton act, but this was of course only symbolic and meant to send a signal to the US that it has no jurisdiction over EU citizens). It's not very surprising that no one then trades with Cuba - any company that does so is barred from the US market, which is a lot more lucrative than Cuba could ever be.

So, care to bitch some more about how the US is the victim of the world? Do just allow me time to fetch my violin.

you all are missing something. Probably more than one something.

First of all, do you all forget that Castro royally screwed America during his coup? It was because of America that his uprising worked and then Castro turns around and says :upyours: and then proceeds to screw us continually by working closely with our natural ally, the USSR.

Second, this was the UNGA that suggested that America stop, yes? Well, just so you all know, when the UNGA (UN General Assembly) says that someone should do something, nobody has to do anything. The UNGA is just there so that every country feels like they're a part of something, even though they aren't (the UNSC is another story, however).

Please get your terms right. It's an embargo, not a blockade.

We're not doing business with them; we're not sitting in ships around their country sinking any ship that goes in or out.


It's much more a blockade than an embargo, since, for example, a ship docking in a Cuban port is forbidden to dock in US port for 6 months afterwards.

It is also forbidden to reship to Cuba anything that contains part made in USA, and US citizen can be condemned for buying Cuban goods outside of USA (like, if they travel to Canada and smoke a Cuban cigar there).

Companies owned, even partially, by US citizen or companies are also forbidden to trade with Cuba.

Care to explain how the embargo with Cuba is in your best interests?

Cuba is showing than an alternative model to capitalism can work, and even better, than capitalism (looking at Cuban exceptional health care and education systems, for example, which is above all third country, and even above USA in some fields).

That is something the governement of USA cannot allow to exist. Exactly for the same reason for which they supported Pinochet's coup against Allende in Chile in 1973, the contras terror against Ortega in Nicaragua during the 80s or Carmona's coup against Chavez in Venezuela in 2002.

China is communist, yet I've heard of no embargo there.

China claims to be communist, but it's nothing more than a capitalist dictatorship using "communism" as an excuse for being a dictatorship, nowadays.

Embargo, blockade, people usually take them to mean the same.

No, only a person who has no clue takes them to mean the same thing.

Heh. You make me laugh Purple one. The USA will listen to the UN when and if we feel it is in our best interests.

And that is how it should be. That is why I love my government. They have the balls to be a SOVEREIGN nation and not the bitch of a stupid and corrupt organization that legitimizes totalitarian dictators.

First of all, do you all forget that Castro royally screwed America during his coup? It was because of America that his uprising worked and then Castro turns around and says :upyours: and then proceeds to screw us continually by working closely with our natural ally, the USSR.

That's not what happened. The USA supported the dictator Batista until the last day, and then welcomed all of his supporters who fled from Cuba, often taking with them huge amount money robbed from Cuba during Batista dicatorship.

Then, the USA stopped sending oil to Cuba, forcing Cuba to buy its oil from USSR. In response to that, the USA forbad to US company in Cuba to refine USSR-oil. Cuba answered by nationalizing US refineries, and then US counter-attacked with an embargo. As you can see, every step made by Cuba against USA or towards USSR was made in response to a previous aggression from USA.

Second, this was the UNGA that suggested that America stop, yes? Well, just so you all know, when the UNGA (UN General Assembly) says that someone should do something, nobody has to do anything. The UNGA is just there so that every country feels like they're a part of something, even though they aren't (the UNSC is another story, however).

False. The UNGA is allowed to rule when the UNSC is paralysed by the use of the veto by one of its member. USA uses its veto right to protect itself from the UNSC, but by doing so, it allows the UNGA to decide on the issue. That's the UN charter.

UNGA decisions are not legally binding. You Sir have no clue on this issue.

That's not what happened. The USA supported the dictator Batista until the last day, and then welcomed all of his supporters who fled from Cuba, often taking with them huge amount money robbed from Cuba during Batista dicatorship.

Then, the USA stopped sending oil to Cuba, forcing Cuba to buy its oil from USSR. In response to that, the USA forbad to US company in Cuba to refine USSR-oil. Cuba answered by nationalizing US refineries, and then US counter-attacked with an embargo. As you can see, every step made by Cuba against USA or towards USSR was made in response to a previous aggression from USA.

Well, whatever. That's not what I heard.


False. The UNGA is allowed to rule when the UNSC is paralysed by the use of the veto by one of its member. USA uses its veto right to protect itself from the UNSC, but by doing so, it allows the UNGA to decide on the issue. That's the UN charter.

Well, (and this is what I meant) whatever the UNGA rules, is non-binding. THAT's in the UN charter, too.

China claims to be communist, but it's nothing more than a capitalist dictatorship using "communism" as an excuse for being a dictatorship, nowadays.

Actually, China doesn't even claim to be communist. I once watched a Chinese government representative explaining China's current policies. It goes something like this: "We are fully committed to attaining communism. To attain communism, we must go through State socialism. However, we've realised that we embarked upon State socialism before we were ready to do so. Therefore we must go back to the stage preceding socialism - i.e., capitalism - in order to prepare ourselves for socialism."

Which is a rather mind-boggling form of logic...

I'm curious to know, why the UN thinks they can tell the USA who to and not place an embargo on. We have our reasons. Pending on who replaces Castro will determine if the embargo will be lifted.

Doesn't the UN have more important issues than to concentrate on than the US's Cuba Policies? Again, the UN attempts to undermine the USA, surprised, not in the least, should be expected.

I'm curious to know, why the UN thinks they can tell the USA who to and not place an embargo on. We have our reasons.

Yeah, reasons. Like anti-capitalism, anti-free market, pro-socialism.

Heh. You make me laugh Purple one. The USA will listen to the UN when and if we feel it is in our best interests.

Just like everyone else. To willingly go against your best interest in submitting to a foreign power is...well, pretty dumb.

But this embargo is pretty dumb, as well. If the U.S. has to keep it up, I say keep it up until Castro dies, then remove it.

Yeah, reasons. Like anti-capitalism, anti-free market, pro-socialism.

EXACTLY!

Actually, China doesn't even claim to be communist. I once watched a Chinese government representative explaining China's current policies. It goes something like this: "We are fully committed to attaining communism. To attain communism, we must go through State socialism. However, we've realised that we embarked upon State socialism before we were ready to do so. Therefore we must go back to the stage preceding socialism - i.e., capitalism - in order to prepare ourselves for socialism."

Which is a rather mind-boggling form of logic...

read as: "Well, communism doesn't work, we just found out, so we're going to be a capitalist state without actually admitting we were wrong."

Well, no. Again with the suiting American interests. China is good for American businesses. If Cuba had the ability to manufacture as many things, as cheap, as China, I'm sure we'd consider lifting the embargo.

Cuba has among the best medical system of the world. They proposed to send 1600 doctors to New Orleans after Katarina, but Bush refused it. And every year, they offer a free medical training to citizen of the USA within the "Lationamerica School of Medicine" in which 20 000 students of all the world study medicine freely, but they can't go, because a US citizen going to Cuba is risking 10 years of jail.

And that is how it should be. That is why I love my government. They have the balls to be a SOVEREIGN nation and not the bitch of a stupid and corrupt organization that legitimizes totalitarian dictators.

Being a sovereign nation doesn't grant you any right to impose your will on others, like by forcing a country to change its own political and social system, not to forbid ship to enter your harbours because they visited another one 3 months ago.

Being a sovereign nation doesn't grant you any right to not respect international treaties you signed, like the Geneva convention, which strictly forbids embargo on food and drugs EVEN DURING WARS.

What you are doing is being a ROGUE NATION.

I'm curious to know, why the UN thinks they can tell the USA who to and not place an embargo on. We have our reasons. Pending on who replaces Castro will determine if the embargo will be lifted.

The problem is not Castro-the-man. Unlike you may think, Castro is not the one running Cuba. He wields less power in Cuba than Bush does in USA. The real power in Cuba is the State Council and the Assembly, both of them will not change even if Castro dies.

Doesn't the UN have more important issues than to concentrate on than the US's Cuba Policies? Again, the UN attempts to undermine the USA, surprised, not in the least, should be expected.

One of the role of the UN is to ensure the international law is respected. Something USA don't do towards Cuba. So Cuba, as a UN member, is fully allowed to complain to the UN. And the UN should FORCE USA to respect international laws.

Cuba has among the best medical system of the world. They proposed to send 1600 doctors to New Orleans after Katarina, but Bush refused it. And every year, they offer a free medical training to citizen of the USA within the "Lationamerica School of Medicine" in which 20 000 students of all the world study medicine freely, but they can't go, because a US citizen going to Cuba is risking 10 years of jail.

Right. No American citizen ever goes to Cuba!
...

Wait...

Like I said, I'm not for the embargo, but, from a US political standpoint, by all indications, cheaply manufactured goods>medical training.

I'm curious to know, why the UN thinks they can tell the USA who to and not place an embargo on. We have our reasons.

Oh, I forgot to answer to that.

First, an embargo is considered by international laws as an act of war. The UN is entitled with preventing acts of war in the world, except in case of self-defense. So unless you can prove that you're doing only self-defense against Cuba, it's the UN job to prevent you from doing any "act of war" against them.

Then, international treaties signed by the USA, like the Geneva convention, forbids embargo on drugs and food *even during wars*. Once again, the UN is entilted to force you to respect the treaties you signed, as the governement is entitled to force you to respect the contracts you sign with other people.

And finally, the US embargo on Cuba is more a blockade than an embargo, and has a lot of side-effects into "third parties" (all other countries and corporations), and therefore are of the concern of everyone. WTO rules for example forbid US to prevent a ship to dock in a US port because they visited a Cuban port 3 months ago.

Apologies. I did not see that, although my post still goes for Icovir.



Certainly. It keeps Cuba poor. Cuba is communist. Communism is viewed as contrary to US interests. Therefore, keeping a communist country poor helps US interests.

No... not quite, more along the lines of, we feel that not keeping a communist country poor would be contrary to our interests.

For what it's worth, I don't think the embargo on Cuba is a good idea, but I don't expect the US to lift it because the UN suggests we do.
Then why don't we embargo China? Oh wait, then we'd never have happy meal toys again. :(

Right. No American citizen ever goes to Cuba!
...

Wait...

Like I said, I'm not for the embargo, but, from a US political standpoint, by all indications, cheaply manufactured goods>medical training.

What about Audioslave? They had an entire concert there.

Right. No American citizen ever goes to Cuba!
...

Some do. Illegally, going through other countries like Canada. But as everyone breaking the law, they do it at a risk. For example, in April 2004, Barbara and Wally Smith, a couple of retired people from Vermont, were punished with a fine of 55 000$ (yes, 55 thousands of dollars) for publishing online photos of their visit to Cuba.

Well, no. Again with the suiting American interests. China is good for American businesses. If Cuba had the ability to manufacture as many things, as cheap, as China, I'm sure we'd consider lifting the embargo.

Of course they do. Think of how many poor people in Cuba need jobs desperately and would be willing to take them at an extremely low amount. Besides we do trading with Vietnam now, and they were considered one of the U.S.'s greatest mistakes.

Of course they do. Think of how many poor people in Cuba need jobs desperately and would be willing to take them at an extremely low amount. Besides we do trading with Vietnam now, and they were considered one of the U.S.'s greatest mistakes.

While people in Cuba are definitely not rich, there is no poverty as you can see anywhere else in Latin America. Every cuban citizen has decent housing, totally free education and healthcare. They do suffer from lack, in food and drugs, because of the blocade, but that's about all. And unemployment is very low, around 2%.

Sure, they would like to be able to afford cars and computers, but compared to the living conditions of huge part of the population all over the rest of Latin America, they are definitely living much better.

It's kind of frustrating: it certainly seems like the world's attitude can be summed up with, "Let the Americans do it, let the Americans pay for it," except when it's, "Damn those Americans for interfering!"

When they ask us to interfere, and we do so, they appreciate the help.

when they don't ask us to interfere, and we do so anyway...



I hate to compare the US to the police, but that's what we act like:

when you call 911 and the cop shows up at your door, you're grateful.

when the cops come to your door without you calling them and ask to be let in. no: barge right in uninvited, you're damn right to get mad at them.

If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of member nations that completely ignore the UN's recommendations. It's only the US that seems to be criticised so gleefully for it.

Do you know many nations who violate international laws as often as USA does, and still go unpunished ? The only one I know who can compete is Israel.

A good question would be: why are not all these morally outraged nations trading with Cuba and helping their economy. Certainly seems a more effective way to protest what they see as unfair treatment rather than just saying, "You naughty Americans." Or is it that the U.S. and only the U.S. is supposed to support their economy?

Because it's much more than embargo, as I explained before. If they do so, they are punished by the USA, which is the difference between an embargo and a blockage: USA not only refuse to trade with Cuba, but they also do they best to prevent other countries from trading with Cuba.

Edit: and of course, there is the distance, it costs much more for an european country to trade with Cuba than to USA, who is just 100 miles away. Importing milk from New Zealand, as Cuba is forced to do right now, costs them 6x as much as it would to import milk from USA.

It's kind of frustrating: it certainly seems like the world's attitude can be summed up with, "Let the Americans do it, let the Americans pay for it," except when it's, "Damn those Americans for interfering!"

Really ? The vast majority of the world just want you to stop messing up in the internal affairs, be it by giving money to selected political groups, invading them, supporting coups, paying/training/protecting terrorists, doing blockages or all the other ways of messing up in foreign countries internal affairs you do on a continous basis since 60 years.

Just stop doing that, and that would already be a lot.

Apologies. I did not see that, although my post still goes for Icovir.

Regarding your earlier post, it seems you knew what he was talking about, also. Hmm...

To change the title, double click NEAR the title of the thread (on the "menu").

Mr. Castro will not find this embargo lifted whilst he is in office. We've got a major beef with him for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations),.

Mr. Castro will not find this embargo lifted whilst he is in office. We've got a major beef with him for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations),.

Should I remind you that the Cuban missile crisis was an answer to the Bay of Big invasion ?

Should I also remind you that since the beginning of the crisis, USSR proposed to USA to withdraw their missiles if USA would accept to withdraw their Jupiter missiles from Turkey, which were threatening USSR excalty the same way the Cuban missiles were threatening USA ?

But no, of course, USA should have the right to try to invade Cuba, and to threaten USSR, while they don't have any right to defend themslves or do the same threatening. Nice example of double-thinking.

Of course, the nuclear missile crisis was a madness, as is the production and ownership of nuclear missiles. But the primary culprit was not neither Cuba nor USSR.

Oh, and the US is also more than a little displeased that Castro was actively encouraging the Soviet commanders to fire their nuclear artillery shells at US ships to break the quarantine during the CMC as well. And that towards the end he was encouraging Khruschev to fire the MRBMs and IRBMs at their targets in the US. Mr. Castro is not a fuzzy, friendly type of fellow, and he actively sought to start a war that would kill the vast bulk of humanity. I'm not willing to forgive him for that one.

Oh, and the US is also more than a little displeased that Castro was actively encouraging the Soviet commanders to fire their nuclear artillery shells at US ships to break the quarantine during the CMC as well. And that towards the end he was encouraging Khruschev to fire the MRBMs and IRBMs at their targets in the US. Mr. Castro is not a fuzzy, friendly type of fellow, and he actively sought to start a war that would kill the vast bulk of humanity. I'm not willing to forgive him for that one.

Do you have any proof of that ? I never saw any. But I know that Kennedy refused the USSR deal to remove both the Cuban missiles and the Jupiter missiles from Turkey. THAT was insane.

Should I remind you that the Cuban missile crisis was an answer to the Bay of Big invasion ?
Which was a response to Castro knocking over an ally of the United States.
[/QUOTE]
Which was a response to the mass thievery of American property by the Castro government.

Should I also remind you that since the beginning of the crisis, USSR proposed to USA to withdraw their missiles if USA would accept to withdraw their Jupiter missiles from Turkey, which were threatening USSR excalty the same way the Cuban missiles were threatening USA ?


If you'll recall correctly, the Jupiters were supposed to be withdrawn shortly, and only after the Soviets started sticking their missiles in Cuba, did the US start to care about the Jupiters. Furthermore, international prestige issues were at play, and Kennedy was unwilling to hurt the US prestige by blinking, and removing the Jupiters at the insistence of the USSR, that was, unless the issues seemed to be insoluable. Kennedy openly admitted to, amongst other people, Bobby, that he was willing to remove the missiles, and that was part of the deal that was worked out under the table in the end, anyways.

Furthermore, the Jupiter was not an effective first strike weapon. It was far too inaccurate, took to long to ready for launch, and the range was insufficient to achieve an effective first strike. The Soviet missiles in Cuba, on the other hand, were effective first strike weapons. Which is the obvious difference.



But no, of course, USA should have the right to try to invade Cuba, and to threaten USSR, while they don't have any right to defend themslves or do the same threatening. Nice example of double-thinking.
Once again, the people who invaded Cuba were Cuban exiles, who had been forcibly removed from the Island by the Castro regime, they were supported by the US because the US found the Castro regime extremely distasteful, not to mention illegitimate.

Of course, the nuclear missile crisis was a madness, as is the production and ownership of nuclear missiles. But the primary culprit was not neither Cuba nor USSR.
No, it definitely was a combination of the two.

The Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (the "Helms-Burton Act") penalises foreign companies that do business in Cuba by preventing them from doing business in the US (the US is thus pushing its law on foreign companies, forcing them into the embargo - interestingly the European Parliament passed a law that made it illegal for EU citizens to obey the Helms-Burton act, but this was of course only symbolic and meant to send a signal to the US that it has no jurisdiction over EU citizens). It's not very surprising that no one then trades with Cuba - any company that does so is barred from the US market, which is a lot more lucrative than Cuba could ever be.

So, care to bitch some more about how the US is the victim of the world? Do just allow me time to fetch my violin.


Right, as if the US could possibly cut off ties with EVERY country in the world. Or are you saying that Sweden along with the rest of the world is too cowardly to lose a profit in the pursuit of doing the right thing?

I await your violin and hypocrisy.

Do you have any proof of that ? I never saw any. But I know that Kennedy refused the USSR deal to remove both the Cuban missiles and the Jupiter missiles from Turkey. THAT was insane.

Kennedy refused to do so publicly early on in the process, but he was willing to do so in secret. It was, in fact, part of the final deal that was worked out in the end.

Furthermore, Kennedy had delivered a letter to U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations, that was to be announced if he failed to get the Soviets to remove the missiles from Cuba. The message announced that the US would be removing it's missiles from Turkey, and in return hoped that that USSR would remove it's missiles from Cuba.

I hope a textbook quote will make you happy. I doubt it, but hey, you can be a prick if you want.

"On the twenty-sixth, the Soviet leader received a secret letter from Castro begging Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike on the United States..."

LaFeber, Water. The American Age: US Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad W.W. Norton, 1994. Pg. 601

Dr. LaFeber is a noted American socialist, and advocate of Latin American leftism. If he's going to be critical of Cuba, then I'd advise you consider this opinion very seriously.

Which was a response to Castro knocking over an ally of the United States.

You mean, knocking over the US supported Batista dictatorship ?

Which was a response to the mass thievery of American property by the Castro government.

Since when is nationalisation a thievery ? The thievery was done during the Batista era, where the workforce and natural ressources of Cuba were exploited by USA.

I should also remind you that Cuba offered compensation for all property nationalised, France and Canada and all other countries accepted it, but USA refused it.

International law allow sovereign countries to exproriate and nationalise whatever they want, if they compensate the owners, as Cuba proposed to do.

You should also remember that the massive nationalisation of US corporations only started after USA started economical sanctions against Cuba.

Kennedy openly admitted to, amongst other people, Bobby, that he was willing to remove the missiles, and that was part of the deal that was worked out under the table in the end, anyways.

Yes, under the table, and the end, after risking a nuclear war because he was so stubborn to admit publically having a fair deal with the USSR...

The Soviet missiles in Cuba, on the other hand, were effective first strike weapons. Which is the obvious difference.

That just makes the USSR offer to remove both of them even more generous.

Once again, the people who invaded Cuba were Cuban exiles, who had been forcibly removed from the Island by the Castro regime, they were supported by the US because the US found the Castro regime extremely distasteful, not to mention illegitimate.

You mean, supporter of Batista who fled from Cuba stealing a lot of wealth, because they were afraid of being punished for the crimes they commited during the dictatorship, and who were welcomed by USA ?

And then, trained, armed, equiped and supported by the CIA ?

And that was not an aggression against Cuba ? You're really good at double-thinking, it seems.

You mean, knocking over the US supported Batista dictatorship ?
And replacing it with a dictatorship of himself. It looks an awful lot like "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" for the Cuban people, but to the US it was a loss of someone who supported American interests in the region.



Since when is nationalisation a thievery ? The thievery was done during the Batista era, where the workforce and natural ressources of Cuba were exploited by USA.

I should also remind you that Cuba offered compensation for all property nationalised, France and Canada and all other countries accepted it, but USA refused it.

International law allow sovereign countries to exproriate and nationalise whatever they want, if they compensate the owners, as Cuba proposed to do.
At what rate, one must ask? Is it going to be a rate acceptable to the original owner, or is it going to be a rate set by the fiat of the state? That's extremely unacceptable.

Beyond that, the Marxist babble of exploitation is unacceptable for any serious debate within the current legal or economic system.

You should also remember that the massive nationalisation of US corporations only started after USA started economical sanctions against Cuba.
Actually, the beginnings of the embargo started under the Batista regime, when the US refused to sell weapons to the forces on either side in the civil war. After Castro seized power, began to openly support the USSR and started nationalizing businesses is when the US put in economic limitations on the import of sugar. As the rate of nationalization increased, the rate of restrictions increased, until the Cuban government requested Soviet nukes. When an all out embargo took effect.



Yes, under the table, and the end, after risking a nuclear war because he was so stubborn to admit publically having a fair deal with the USSR...
Or, more like having to admit that we were bullied around by the USSR. It's not a fair deal if one side points a gun at your head, and says "do this or else".



That just makes the USSR offer to remove both of them even more generous.
More generous? So are you saying that Soviets were spoiling to launch a nuclear war?

The only reason you have first strike weapons is to...strike first, start the war on your own terms.


You mean, supporter of Batista who fled from Cuba stealing a lot of wealth, because they were afraid of being punished for the crimes they commited during the dictatorship, and who were welcomed by USA ?

And then, trained, armed, equiped and supported by the CIA ?
How is this any different than the relationship between the USSR and Castro?

Really ? The vast majority of the world just want you to stop messing up in the internal affairs, be it by giving money to selected political groups, invading them, supporting coups, paying/training/protecting terrorists, doing blockages or all the other ways of messing up in foreign countries internal affairs you do on a continous basis since 60 years.

Just stop doing that, and that would already be a lot. Help the US budget out a lot also, which is good because we're piled in debt.

Nobody wants to contradict a former president. Thank goodness that no matter how the crazy US waves its arms about how the embargo should stay, the rest of us will just roll our eys and continue what we do.

And replacing it with a dictatorship of himself. It looks an awful lot like "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" for the Cuban people

Oh, yes... Excellent health care, literacy and education, housing... all "the same" as under Batista, I suppose? Your blind bias is astonishing. You can legitimately criticise some things Castro has done, but not by talking rubbish.


but to the US it was a loss of someone who supported American interests in the region.


At least you admit that. That the US gladly supported a repressive pro-American dictatorship, then came down hard on a socialist government, caring nothing for the well-being of the Cuban people.

Right, as if the US could possibly cut off ties with EVERY country in the world. Or are you saying that Sweden along with the rest of the world is too cowardly to lose a profit in the pursuit of doing the right thing?

Actually, Sweden - as in the Swedish government - already aids Cuba through for instance SIDA. (http://www.sida.se/shared/jsp/download.jsp?f=SIDA29111sv_Kuba+2005+web.pdf&a=24111) Governments aren't penalised, businesses however are...

Are you suggesting the Swedish government force Swedish businesses to trade with Cuba, something which is not in their interest as they do not wish to lose the US market? Or are you the sort of person who would support, say, the US government forcing for instance Walmart to abandon China should China be equally ludicrous and ban companies that do business with Taiwan from the Chinese market?

I await your violin and hypocrisy.

And I await your education about how things work in democratic countries where the state cannot tell businesses what to do, and where businesses look out for number one. You know, that capitalism thing you're trying to push on Cuba? Interesting novelty, you know, but don't let that stop you in thinking that this blockade isn't a blockade just because it isn't a physical one - continue turning a blind eye to the fact that the US has done everything sort of physicalities (well, if one omits the illegal assassination and coup attempts) to punish the people of Cuba.

While people in Cuba are definitely not rich, there is no poverty as you can see anywhere else in Latin America. Every cuban citizen has decent housing, totally free education and healthcare. They do suffer from lack, in food and drugs, because of the blocade, but that's about all. And unemployment is very low, around 2%.

Sure, they would like to be able to afford cars and computers, but compared to the living conditions of huge part of the population all over the rest of Latin America, they are definitely living much better.

embargo not blockade.

Do you know many nations who violate international laws as often as USA does, and still go unpunished ? The only one I know who can compete is Israel.

Sudan.

Oh, yes... Excellent health care, literacy and education, housing... all "the same" as under Batista, I suppose? Your blind bias is astonishing. You can legitimately criticise some things Castro has done, but not by talking rubbish.

Actually, I can, knowing that under Batista, Cuba was the most developed and most prosperous nation in all of Latin America. Its healthcare system surpassed those of several nations in western Europe. The literacy rate in Cuba was astonishingly high under Batista, one of the best in Latin America. The Cuban people had more television sets and stations, radios and radio stations, newspapers and automobiles per Capita than anywhere else in Latin America at that time. It had one of the fastest economic growth rates, and was decidedly outpacing Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia and Ecuador, under the Batista government.

Since Castro rose to power, the economy has doubled, while the size of the economies of all of these other nations has increased ten fold or greater. They have surpassed Cuba in nearly all of the relevant economic and social markers, and in several, Cuba has actually fallen back, the number of newspapers, radio stations and television stations has decreased, as well as the number of automobiles per capita.

The only indicator that has increased in Cuba is the number of people who have adopted their dictator as a quasi-religious godhead. That's what I find comical.


At least you admit that. That the US gladly supported a repressive pro-American dictatorship, then came down hard on a socialist government, caring nothing for the well-being of the Cuban people.

The US reluctantly supported Batista because of fears that someone like Castro would come into power.

Do you know many nations who violate international laws as often as USA does, and still go unpunished ? The only one I know who can compete is Israel.


I challenge the concept of international law. If a country that does not have a direct treaty with the UN on the matter in question, or the UN mandate violates that countries sovereignty, I do not think the UN has any right to directly penalize them, or even expect them to obey.

That said, those recources that belong to the UN are theirs to command, and they do not "owe" it to other countries to spread it around, though it may be in their best interest. Im sure I must not be following the entire situation, as it seems they are simply "condemning" the act- which would imply that the US is not even breaking any international law, they are just bugging the UN.

Not that the UN has a right to dictate with whom the US does business anyway.

Oh, yes... Excellent health care, literacy and education, housing... all "the same" as under Batista, I suppose? Your blind bias is astonishing. You can legitimately criticise some things Castro has done, but not by talking rubbish.
Unfair trials, torture, Oppression of religion, political persecution, excessive use of capital punishment, No freedom economically (everything is nationalized), Oppression of freedom of speech, assembly, etc., not to mention nearly causing a Nuclear war.

Its all here (except the nuclear war thing): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Due_process

We should just trade with Cuba already. I hate Castro, but there are a few good reasons why the embargo is a bad idea.

A) It hasn't undermined Castro's rule in the slightest; just the opposite, in fact
B) Embargoes only hurt the people of the country being embargoed, not the country's government
C) Both of our economies would benefit from increased trade
D) Through peaceful trade, perhaps we can improve our relationship with Cuba, and if not, at least it's worth a try (IMO)

The US reluctantly supported Batista because of fears that someone like Castro would come into power.

Uh...you do know the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on Batista's government, right? We played a pivotal role in his downfall. For details, read The Fourth Floor by Earl E.T. Smith, who was our last ambassador to Cuba.

We can impose an embargo upon whichever state we want, especially if it is a dictatorship which imprisons political dissidents. If the Federated States of Micronesia want to mess with us, then bring it on. Otherwise, they should shut up. The UN is a good-for-nothing entity which is powerless to take action where any injustice occurs and strongly condemns many just acts. I don't know why we even sending a UN ambassador there.

An embargo could be seen as an economic blockcade, rather than a naval blockcade i.e. its not the US First Fleet (Atlantic) lining up in the Caribeean searching every ship in and out of Cuba. Thats one way to justfy the word blockcade.

We can impose an embargo upon whichever state we want, especially if it is a dictatorship which imprisons political dissidents.

Several of our allies imprison political dissidents. We have supported - and do still support - many dictatorships at least as reprehensible as Castro's.

Several of our allies imprison political dissidents. We have supported - and do still support - many dictatorships at least as reprehensible as Castro's.

We have the option of doing so, but we do not need to do so.

We should just trade with Cuba already. I hate Castro, but there are a few good reasons why the embargo is a bad idea.

A) It hasn't undermined Castro's rule in the slightest; just the opposite, in fact

You're definitely right. Free market economics could actually hurt the current Cuban government more than any military force.


B) Embargoes only hurt the people of the country being embargoed, not the country's government

Dead on again. My take on it is the US is 'punishing' the population for not overthrowing the current Government.

C) Both of our economies would benefit from increased trade

Maybe not so much the US as a whole directly, but I'd imagine Florida and the southern states might get a minor boost from the extra shipping.

Cuba will however, finally have new automotive parts for the first time in 40 years. :rolleyes: They'd REALLY cash in.

You're definitely right. Free market economics could actually hurt the current Cuban government more than any military force.

Who cares about Cuba's government? They're no (longer a) threat to us.

We can impose an embargo upon whichever state we want, especially if it is a dictatorship which imprisons political dissidents. If the Federated States of Micronesia want to mess with us, then bring it on. Otherwise, they should shut up. The UN is a good-for-nothing entity which is powerless to take action where any injustice occurs and strongly condemns many just acts. I don't know why we even sending a UN ambassador there.

If thats the case then why don't we embargo China since while it has made vast ground on econonmic issues has made very little in human rights? Or how about Saudi Arabia? They're injust and unneccessarally cruel and imprison political dissidents as well. The point is, there are tons of dictators around the world who have done the exact same thing, why not embargo them? The reason the U.S. continues to embargo Cuba is because 1) we have a very large vendetta against them for backing the USSR and the whole bay of pigs thing and 2) they're a dictatorship that doesn't support the U.S. While that may not satisfy the moral aspect, it does satisfy the foreign relations aspect.

Are you suggesting the Swedish government force Swedish businesses to trade with Cuba, something which is not in their interest as they do not wish to lose the US market?
Bullshit. You could easily tax those companies that didn't trade with Cuba and give benefits to those who did. Its no different from what you socialist guys in Europe have been doing all along.

At this point in history, the reason the US has a n embargo probably has more to do with the very powerful Cuban lobby in Miami than anything else. As long as Castro is in power, these people whose relatives were imprisoned or executed will not forget or forgive.

Do you have any proof of that ? I never saw any. But I know that Kennedy refused the USSR deal to remove both the Cuban missiles and the Jupiter missiles from Turkey. THAT was insane.

Watch the episode of the CNN "Coldwar" series they produces in the 90's. He said it himself during an interview with CNN.

In more shoking news, Tacos have been declaired tasty!

An embargo could be seen as an economic blockcade, rather than a naval blockcade i.e. its not the US First Fleet (Atlantic) lining up in the Caribeean searching every ship in and out of Cuba. Thats one way to justfy the word blockcade.

But the justification is wrong. An embargo is a decision by the government to refuse to trade in any way with a nation. It's purely a matter of domestic policy. Any international beings affected are affected only if they are subordinate to the nation making the decision.

A blockade is the moving of naval ships to prevent anything from coming in or out.

The U.S. Has a right to embargo Cuba for whatever or no reason whatsoever, just as any nation has a right to do so to any other nation.

And replacing it with a dictatorship of himself. It looks an awful lot like "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" for the Cuban people,

Sure, they went from 40% illetteracy rate to nearly 0% illetteracy rate, from 59 years life expectency to 77 years life expectency, and so on, but nothing changed for Cuban people.

but to the US it was a loss of someone who supported American interests in the region.

Yes, you lost a puppet dictator. Supporting a puppet dictator is a crime, so you should be happy of Castro preventing you from continuing your crimes ;)


Beyond that, the Marxist babble of exploitation is unacceptable for any serious debate within the current legal or economic system.

Within the current legal or economic systems of Cuba, it perfectly fits. But the only law which matters in this case is international law, and Cuba did respect it.

And I should remind you that it's not only "Marxist babble", and that the exploitation and thefts done by Batista and his crownies is not only the "usual" capitalist exploitation, but also the one of a dictatorship taking land by force and using tax money for his own personal interest (which is a crime under any sane legal system).


After Castro seized power, began to openly support the USSR and started nationalizing businesses is when the US put in economic limitations on the import of sugar. As the rate of nationalization increased, the rate of restrictions increased, until the Cuban government requested Soviet nukes. When an all out embargo took effect.

You're inversing everything. Castro started to turn towards USSR and to nationalize legal US property (that is, property that was not aquire illegally under Batista's dictatorship) only AFTER the US started the sanctions on sugar and oil.


Or, more like having to admit that we were bullied around by the USSR. It's not a fair deal if one side points a gun at your head, and says "do this or else".

And you were not bullying the USSR, not at all ? It was the cold war, both side were bullying the other one. The fair deal was "we both remove our missiles", anyone sane would have publically welcomed such a deal.

The only reason you have first strike weapons is to...strike first, start the war on your own terms.

Well, the whole nuclear dissuasion issue is "if you have enough terrifying weapons, you will never use them, because your opponent will be to scared to defy you". It's an insane logic which I totally oppose, but it's the same logic used by USA, USSR or France. The difference is that USSR proposed mutual disarming sereval time, and USA almost always refused.

How is this any different than the relationship between the USSR and Castro?

The USSR didn't help Castro before he took power. The USSR didn't help Castro until the USA started to punish him. And the USSR never helped Castro to invade USA.

embargo not blockade.

As I already explained, it's a blockade, not an embargo. An embargo is just "we don't sell things to them". As soon as it becomes "and we try to prevent other from selling things to them too" it's a blockade. And that's what USA is doing, in several way, the most obvious being the 6 months ban (if a ship docks in a cuban harbour, it cannot dock a usa harbour for the next 6 months).

Actually, I can, knowing that under Batista, Cuba was the most developed and most prosperous nation in all of Latin America. Its healthcare system surpassed those of several nations in western Europe. The literacy rate in Cuba was astonishingly high under Batista.

You should revise your history. Under Batista, Cuba had an average life expectancy of 59 years and an illetteracy rate of 40%. Under Castro, it's 77 years and 0%.

I challenge the concept of international law. If a country that does not have a direct treaty with the UN on the matter in question, or the UN mandate violates that countries sovereignty

You signed the UN charter. You signed the Geneva convention. Those are direct treaties.

"International law" is just making countries respect the treaties they signed. That's too much to ask to you ?


Not that the UN has a right to dictate with whom the US does business anyway.

But of course the US has a right to dictate to every corporation of the planet with whom they can business with.

Unfair trials,

That may be true, but still not proven. Anyway, I know many unfair trials in USA, and many in France too.

torture,

The only place on the island of Cuba where people are tortured is Guantanamo. No one serious accuse Castro of torture.

Oppression of religion,

That used to be partially true for a while, but is no longer. Even the pope was welcomed.

political persecution,

That has still to be proven. The people who are in jails and that some call "political prisonners" were found guilty of "intelligence with an hostile foreign power", because they were paid by the US governement for destabilizing the country. In France, you risk 10 years of jail for that if the "foreign power" is not hostile, and 30 years of jail if it's hostile (in which case it becomes "high treason"). I'm pretty sure than in USA you risk the death penatlty for "high treason".

The only problem is the questions on the fairness of the trials, but we go back to point #1.

excessive use of capital punishment

Hum, let's see. 2006 ? No one sentenced to death. 2005 ? Same. 2004 ? Same. 2003 ? 3 people sentenced to death after kidnapping a tourist boat, threatening to kill to the two tourrist families, and endangering their life by taking the boat in high sea while it was not designed for it. I wouldn't call that "excessive use", compared to the use done by "democratic" countries such as USA or Japan. But of course, it's still wrong, I oppose the death penalty everywhere in the world.

No freedom economically (everything is nationalized),

That's not true, around 10% of people work in the private sector in Cuba. And cooperatives are not "nationalized". But anyway, economical "freedom" is a non-sense, economy cannot be a freedom, only a power.

Oppression of freedom of speech, assembly, etc.,

The great assembly of Castro's opponent in spring 2005 was not repressed. I didn't find any evidence of a demonstration being repressed by the police in the latest 30 years in Cuba. While there are plenty of such example in all other latin america countries, even under "democracies" (Caracas in 1989, Argentina in 2001, Ecuador in 2004, Oaxaca in Mexico in 2006, ...)

not to mention nearly causing a Nuclear war.

That's the case of USA too. Actually they even used nulcear weapons. Twice.

Bullshit. You could easily tax those companies that didn't trade with Cuba and give benefits to those who did.

That's illegal.

Its no different from what you socialist guys in Europe have been doing all along.

Then you know very little about what Europe has been doing, indeed.

When the UN condemns the Arab boycott of Israel by the same margin, then I will give a rat's ass what the UN thinks of our embargo of that bearded bandit and his criminal Communist regime.

When Castro makes his long-delayed departure from this earth to his master's side in the infernal regions (which hopefully will be soon and accompanied by unbearable pain), ask us again.

That's the case of USA too. Actually they even used nulcear weapons. Twice.

Your point? They were simply weapons to be used at the time. The magnitude of destruction was incomprehensable to anyone at the time. It was only until after the fact that people realized how bad they really were.

Besides, nuclear fear is a huge stopper to progress in the nuclear power field.

*snip*

I have two question: What do you smoke, and where can I get some?

Let us take the Cuban Missile Crisis scenario, and twist it a little bit.

Take Cuba...and replace it with Ireland. Ireland does not even need to be Commnunist for this to work.

If Ireland had requested and recieved nuclear missiles from the USSR to be aimed at the UK, I would not expect the UK to normalize relations with Ireland, regardless of what the rest of the world says...even if those missiles were eventually removed.

One of our nearest neighbors decided to wave a gun in our face...we aren't exactly going to trust them again any time soon.

(And to those who will inevitably bring up U.S. economic actions and the Bay of Pigs...those are a far cry from nuclear war.)

When the UN condemns the Arab boycott of Israel by the same margin, then I will give a rat's ass what the UN thinks of our embargo

Maybe when Israel will stop to violate massively international laws and humanitarian treaties ? And when they'll start complying with UN resolutions and to the International Court ?

When Castro makes his long-delayed departure from this earth to his master's side in the infernal regions (which hopefully will be soon and accompanied by unbearable pain), ask us again.

You may hate Fidel Castro, but his death (and I hope it won't happen soon) will not change much in Cuba. Castro is not the one ruling Cuba, the Assembly and the State Council are. And they won't change because Castro died.

Your point? They were simply weapons to be used at the time. The magnitude of destruction was incomprehensable to anyone at the time.

It was clearly was for everyone who took the trouble to think about it. And it certainly was after the first bombing.

My point was that USA used not once, but twice, nuclear weapons only 15 years before, and it was not completly irrational to fear they would do the same again.

It was only until after the fact that people realized how bad they really were.

That's why you dropped a second one ?

If Ireland had requested and recieved nuclear missiles from the USSR to be aimed at the UK, I would not expect the UK to normalize relations with Ireland, regardless of what the rest of the world says...even if those missiles were eventually removed.

So Russia should not normalize relations with Turkey because of the Jupiter missiles ? That's just insane, purely and simply.

And we are not even asking you to normalize relations, but to respect international laws by lifting the embargo on drugs and food (prohibided by Geneva Convention even in time of war) and by allowing other countries to trade with Cuba as they wish.

So Russia should not normalize relations with Turkey because of the Jupiter missiles ? That's just insane, purely and simply.

Did Turkey ask us to place the missiles there?

Or did we make them deploy them there as part of their NATO committment, without which Turkey would have been quickly crushed by the Soviet war machine?

Not the same set of circumstances...


And we are not even asking you to normalize relations, but to respect international laws by lifting the embargo on drugs and food (prohibided by Geneva Convention even in time of war) and by allowing other countries to trade with Cuba as they wish.

If the Cuban medical system is as outstanding as is claimed, I fail to see the need for the U.S. to send them drugs.

If they can't even meet food requirements, then surely there is plenty of blame to go around?

If other countries wish to trade with Cuba, they should go right ahead. People are complaining about the U.S. embargo affecting their nations trade with Cuba...but if they had any balls they'd get together and just start trading with them. The U.S. is not about to stop import/export with Western Europe or the Pacific Rim if they all decide to start trading with Cuba. The economic consequences ensure that.

But all of that has nothing to do with the fact that we will not be having anything approaching normal relations with that nation anytime soon...once bitten, twice shy.

You may hate Fidel Castro, but his death (and I hope it won't happen soon) will not change much in Cuba. Castro is not the one ruling Cuba, the Assembly and the State Council are. And they won't change because Castro died.

But the face will change, that's what's important. Fidel has built up this revolutionary mythology around himself so effectively, that he has turned himself into an god-figure.

Did Turkey ask us to place the missiles there?

Or did we make them deploy them there as part of their NATO committment, without which Turkey would have been quickly crushed by the Soviet war machine?

Not the same set of circumstances...

No, Cuba wouldn't have been crushed by the US war machine, there was no Pay of Pigs, and USA never invaded other countries.

But you are self-contradicting, if the Jupiter missiles were there to protect Turkey, why should you make Turkey accept them ? Either they were there to scare USSR on a global level, and you may have coerced Turkey to accept them, or they were there to protect Turkey, and Turkey is the one welcoming them... Or more like, it could be a bit of both. As it was for Cuba.

If the Cuban medical system is as outstanding as is claimed, I fail to see the need for the U.S. to send them drugs.

Because even with the best system of the world, it's hard to survive as a little island alone. Cuba doesn't ask US to "send" them drugs, but to allow them to buy drugs. It's completly ridiculous to claim the tiny island of Cuba should be able to produce all hi-tech material and re-discover all drugs. They did a lot of own discovery (especially in vaccines, only two entities in the world know how to produce vaccines for 5 diseases at once: Cuba and the Pasteur Institue in France), but can't do everything by themselves.

Volume effects also matter a lot in drug production, producing a vaccine or a drug for 200 millions of people is far from costing 20 times as much as producing it for 10 millions of people. The same goes for hitech medical equipement.

But even with the blockade, Cuba has the same life expectancy, and a lower childdeath rate than USA.

If they can't even meet food requirements, then surely there is plenty of blame to go around?

They do meet "food requirements", in amount of food. But not in diversity. Cuba is a small island, with only one climate. They can't produce the huge variety of food that is advised to be fully healthy. They need to import food (as nearly all countries do) to provide diversity to their citizen.

If other countries wish to trade with Cuba, they should go right ahead. People are complaining about the U.S. embargo affecting their nations trade with Cuba...but if they had any balls they'd get together and just start trading with them. The U.S. is not about to stop import/export with Western Europe or the Pacific Rim if they all decide to start trading with Cuba. The economic consequences ensure that.

As I said plenty of times in this thread, a ship docking in a cuban harbour is forbidden to dock in a USA harbour for 6 months afterwards. Very few corporations are willing to "sacrifice" ships this way, because Cuba is a tiny island and USA the world giant. And corporations look for their own profit, before looking at anything else. And that is just one point among others, you should read the Helms-Burton act, for example.

But yes, some corporations trade with Cuba. They just increase the transport fees to compensate with the loss. I can buy Cuban orange juice in french supermarkets, for example. But it's more expensive, because the transport corporations ask for a higher price since they need to "sacrifice" a ship, banning from USA for 6 months.

But the face will change, that's what's important. Fidel has built up this revolutionary mythology around himself so effectively, that he has turned himself into an god-figure.

That's mostly true outside of Cuba, not that much inside Cuba, according to several people I know who went to Cuba. The cuban people do like Castro, but they don't consider him as a god or whatever.

That's mostly true outside of Cuba, not that much inside Cuba, according to several people I know who went to Cuba. The cuban people do like Castro, but they don't consider him as a god or whatever.

Contrary to several academic articles I've read on the matter, apparently.

Contrary to several academic articles I've read on the matter, apparently.

Which articles ? And what do they say ?

Contrary to several academic articles I've read on the matter, apparently.

Having been to Cuba and talked to Cubans, they don't see Castro as a god. Some dislike him; most respect him. Even those who respect him may criticise him. They don't worship him.

They do meet "food requirements", in amount of food. But not in diversity. Cuba is a small island, with only one climate. They can't produce the huge variety of food that is advised to be fully healthy. They need to import food (as nearly all countries do) to provide diversity to their citizen.

An example to illustrate what I say: milk. Cows don't like hot climate. It's very hard, to produce milk in large amount in a tropical country. Even in Europe, cows are in the center part of Europe (France, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, ...), and countries of the south of Europe like Italy or Greece import a lot of milk from those countries. Cuba is even more to the south than Italy or Greece.

So, Cuba needs to import most of its milk. The logical thing would be to import it from nearby USA. But they can't. So they import it from Europe or countries like New Zealand. The transport price is much higher, and even so because the transport corporations add to the price so cost of not being able to use the same boat to trade with USA for the next 6 months.

With all those added costs, the milk coming from New Zealand is 6x more expensive than the milk coming from USA would be. In any other country, especially in a third-world country, this would lead to very high milk price in supermarkets, and to many people not being able to give enough milk to their children.

But in Cuba, the milk is paid by the governement, and then sold with a so low price that we can nearly consider it gratis, to any cuban citizen who has children. Not a signle cuban child is lacking milk (at least not for economical reasons). Something which can't be said of neither France (a massive exporter of milk) nor USA (who produce a lot of milk, too).

Kilobugya - You misquoted my post as Derscon's...just so you know. ;)

No, Cuba wouldn't have been crushed by the US war machine, there was no Pay of Pigs, and USA never invaded other countries.

But you are self-contradicting, if the Jupiter missiles were there to protect Turkey, why should you make Turkey accept them ? Either they were there to scare USSR on a global level, and you may have coerced Turkey to accept them, or they were there to protect Turkey, and Turkey is the one welcoming them... Or more like, it could be a bit of both. As it was for Cuba.

I recall no point where the U.S. Military was preparing to invade Cuba...until AFTER nuclear missiles had been placed on the island.

The missiles were certainly not there to protect just Turkey...but all of NATO. A reliable counterstrike on Soviet military assets was necessary in the event that the Soviets chose to initiate nuclear conflict. Turkey was an ideal location for such a missile site, being positioned near to major Soviet bases in the Eastern Bloc.

Cuba was in no such position to deal a direct blow to American military force...to American population centers, perhaps, but the majority of America's fighting power was stationed out of the range of the Cuban missiles...certainly not the case with Turkey.

Had Turkey not joined NATO after WWII...what was to stop the Soviets from invading and consolodating their hold on the Balkans via more direct support of the Greek Civil War?

Having joined NATO, how could Turkey refuse any deployments requested by any NATO nation, knowing that a withdrawl of NATO support might well mean the end of their nation's soverignty?

As for your comment that Cuba was both a matter of coercion and intimidation...I do not recall any Soviet plans for missiles in Cuba until after Cuba asked for military assistance.

The Soviets did not need to coerce Cuba. That the Soviets saw Cuba as an opportunity to do to the U.S. what the U.S. did to the USSR via Turkey, I have no doubt...but it does not change the fact that Cuba was more than happy to have Soviet nuclear missiles in their nation aimed at the United States.

Because even with the best system of the world, it's hard to survive as a little island alone. Cuba doesn't ask US to "send" them drugs, but to allow them to buy drugs. It's completly ridiculous to claim the tiny island of Cuba should be able to produce all hi-tech material and re-discover all drugs. They did a lot of own discovery (especially in vaccines, only two entities in the world know how to produce vaccines for 5 diseases at once: Cuba and the Pasteur Institue in France), but can't do everything by themselves.

Volume effects also matter a lot in drug production, producing a vaccine or a drug for 200 millions of people is far from costing 20 times as much as producing it for 10 millions of people. The same goes for hitech medical equipement.

But even with the blockade, Cuba has the same life expectancy, and a lower childdeath rate than USA.

You're telling me if the U.S. dropped the embargo tomorrow that Cuba would start buying American drugs?

I somehow doubt it.

They do meet "food requirements", in amount of food. But not in diversity. Cuba is a small island, with only one climate. They can't produce the huge variety of food that is advised to be fully healthy. They need to import food (as nearly all countries do) to provide diversity to their citizen.

No diversity in diet? Sucks for them...next time maybe nuclear blackmail won't be first on their list of things to do when under international political pressure.

As I said plenty of times in this thread, a ship docking in a cuban harbour is forbidden to dock in a USA harbour for 6 months afterwards. Very few corporations are willing to "sacrifice" ships this way, because Cuba is a tiny island and USA the world giant. And corporations look for their own profit, before looking at anything else. And that is just one point among others, you should read the Helms-Burton act, for example.

But yes, some corporations trade with Cuba. They just increase the transport fees to compensate with the loss. I can buy Cuban orange juice in french supermarkets, for example. But it's more expensive, because the transport corporations ask for a higher price since they need to "sacrifice" a ship, banning from USA for 6 months.

And if a significant percentage of ships that call on U.S. ports are suddenly banned in a short time-frame...what do you think will happen?

Either national governments tell their corporations to play hardball...or they stop complaining about the U.S. embargo...plain and simple.

No diversity in diet? Sucks for them...

Of course. It makes perfect sense for the US government to punish a Cuban child born in the mid 1990s for events in the 1960s that his or her ancestors had nothing to do with in the first place. How very logical. And how very humane.

Of course. It makes perfect sense for the US government to punish a Cuban child born in the mid 1990s for events in the 1960s that his or her ancestors had nothing to do with in the first place. How very logical. And how very humane.

First of all, we're not punishing the children (who according to many in this thread, are doing just fine...unless you plan to argue both sides of the fence)...we're punishing the government.

Secondly, considering events in Cuba in the 50's and 60's, I find it hard to believe that Cuban children do not have ancestors who did not support, either directly or indirectly, the Castro government.

The kids might be innocent...the parents and grandparents sure aren't.

And it certainly is logical...nuclear weapons are hardly "humane", so why should we sell food to those who attempted to utilize them against us? If the Soviets had armed the Algerians in a similar manner, would France be selling food to them? Or would a mirror of the U.S.'s actions be more likely?

Kilobugya - You misquoted my post as Derscon's...just so you know. ;)

Oh sorry.

You're telling me if the U.S. dropped the embargo tomorrow that Cuba would start buying American drugs?

I somehow doubt it.

Why wouldn't they ? They are much less dogmatic than you are. They even offer help to US citizen (they proposed to send 1600 doctors after Katarina, they reserve seats in their free Latinamerica School of Medicine for US citizen, and they are looking at ways to extend the Mision Milagro to USA without being bitten by the blockade).

No diversity in diet? Sucks for them...next time maybe nuclear blackmail won't be first on their list of things to do when under international political pressure.

So you punish the whole population of a country because of something their leaders did more than 40 years ago ? How human. How fair.

And they, on the other side, still offer you help, despite of that, the bay of pigs, the constant support of your governement to terror groups, biological warfare, ...

And you still wonder why so many side with Cuba ? They are able to disagree with the leader of a country without punishing the whole population. They know the meaning of "forgiving", "humanitarism", "solidarity". Words you forgot.

And if a significant percentage of ships that call on U.S. ports are suddenly banned in a short time-frame...what do you think will happen?

Either national governments tell their corporations to play hardball...or they stop complaining about the U.S. embargo...plain and simple.

Most national governements have no say in what their coporations do or don't do, in this regard. And if they would try to, they'll break not only their own laws but also WTO rules. And those who can do that are considered evil by you, because they crack on "economical freedom" ;)

First of all, we're not punishing the children (who according to many in this thread, are doing just fine...unless you plan to argue both sides of the fence)...

That they are doing fine despite the blockade doesn't mean they are not harmed by it, and that they wouldn't be even better without it.

we're punishing the government.

An embargo on food and drugs never punished the "governement", it can only punish the people. It can punish, indirectly, the governement if the governement really cares for its people, but you're pretending the Cuba governement doesn't... so you're contradicting yourself ;)

I say it does punish, indirectly, the gov because it does care for the population, but that it punishes directly the people.

Secondly, considering events in Cuba in the 50's and 60's, I find it hard to believe that Cuban children do not have ancestors who did not support, either directly or indirectly, the Castro government.

I find it hard to believe that US children do not have ancestors who slaughtered the native. I find it hard to believe that US children do not have ancestors who practiced slavery. I find it hard to believe that US children do not have ancestors who participed in dropping two nuclear bombs, in massively using chemical weapons against Vietnam, in using biological warfare against Cuba. Should I then want US children to suffer ?

And that could apply to many other countries, should we punish german children of now because for many their parents or grandparents participated in Hitler's crimes ?

That would be an insane logic. That would be being as inhumane as the ones I oppose. Look at Castro's behavior, still ready to provide help to US citizen despite all that, and your own behavior, wanting to harm Cuban citizen. You'll understand why I side with one more than with the other.

And it certainly is logical...nuclear weapons are hardly "humane", so why should we sell food to those who attempted to utilize them against us?

Than what should be said of Cuba, who proposed free help to US citizen, even after you utilized (and just not attempted to) biological weapons against them ?

If the Soviets had armed the Algerians in a similar manner, would France be selling food to them? Or would a mirror of the U.S.'s actions be more likely?

The history between France and Algeria is a very brutal one. During Algeria war, the French army slaughtered many Algerians, massive used torture, ... But still, Algerian have no hatred for French people.

The Nazi army killed hundred of thousands of French people and tried to destroy us as a country. Still, the huge majority of French people see Germany as a friend country, and don't have any hatred against german citizen (and that's not new).

USA used, not just threatened to use, nuclear weapons TWICE on Japan. But still, Japan has close relations with USA, much more than just "we accept to trade with them". And most Japanese people have no hatred against USA.

You see the difference between the behaviour of most everyone else in the world, and your own behaviour ?

Why wouldn't they ? They are much less dogmatic than you are. They even offer help to US citizen (they proposed to send 1600 doctors after Katarina, they reserve seats in their free Latinamerica School of Medicine for US citizen, and they are looking at ways to extend the Mision Milagro to USA without being bitten by the blockade).

I didn't mean to imply that they wouldn't buy them because of ideological differences.

What I meant was why buy from the U.S when there are plenty of other nations that sell pharmecuticals, and often for cheaper than U.S. companies?



So you punish the whole population of a country because of something their leaders did more than 40 years ago ? How human. How fair.

And they, on the other side, still offer you help, despite of that, the bay of pigs, the constant support of your governement to terror groups, biological warfare, ...

And you still wonder why so many side with Cuba ? They are able to disagree with the leader of a country without punishing the whole population. They know the meaning of "forgiving", "humanitarism", "solidarity". Words you forgot.

I addressed this in another post, but I'll repeat...the rules change when nukes get involved. If Castro had had any sense, he would have realized this.

Most national governements have no say in what their coporations do or don't do, in this regard. And if they would try to, they'll break not only their own laws but also WTO rules. And those who can do that are considered evil by you, because they crack on "economical freedom" ;)

National Governments could help subsidize shipping industries to help cover their losses. Nothing says the governments have to force companies to trade with Cuba...they simply have to offer incentive to do so, and in a collective manner that disrupts U.S. trade and forces them to reconsider their position.

That they don't implies, at least to me, that they are not the least bit serious about ending the blockade. UN Non-Binding resolutions are just so much hot-air.

NOTE: I wish to make clear that I in no way support the Cuban Embargo...I simply understand the reasons for it. They make sense from the perspective of U.S. interests, even if I disagree with the implementation of the Embargo beyond the end of the Cold War.

I'll respond to Kilobugya's last post in a bit...I'm at work, and have stuff to do at the moment. :)

The history between France and Algeria is a very brutal one. During Algeria war, the French army slaughtered many Algerians, massive used torture, ... But still, Algerian have no hatred for French people.

Isn't it the other way around though, the French are less than fond of the Algerians?

First of all, we're not punishing the children (who according to many in this thread, are doing just fine...unless you plan to argue both sides of the fence)...we're punishing the government.


That was an answer to your "sucks be to them". Do keep up. Cubans have excellent health care (which, amongst other things, gives them a life expectancy equal to that of people in the US), but as Kilobugya pointed out, the embargo creates a problem in terms of nutritional diversity. They get by, thanks to the social policies of the Cuban government (in a capitalist society, the embargo would create widespread malnutrition), but you cannot deny that the embargo is targetting the Cuban population.


The kids might be innocent...the parents and grandparents sure aren't.


"Sins of the father"? Again, how very humane of you. Not to mention that the Revolution was a time of great hope and change, and it was quite understandable for many Cubans to support Castro. Especially when the information available to them presented the US as a threat.


And it certainly is logical...nuclear weapons are hardly "humane", so why should we sell food to those who attempted to utilize them against us?

Because

a) there is no reason not to today, other than petty-minded revenge
b) a kid born in the 1990s, believe it or not, never threatened to nuke you
c) the embargo has little to do with the events of the 60s, and much to do with the pressure of the anti-Castro Cuban émigré mafia in Miami
d) Cuba is sensible and humane enough not to punish the American people for the actions of the American government in the 60s, and offered humanitarian aid during the Katrina disaster (which Bush ignored, prefering the endanger American lives rather than acknowledge help from Cuba; Cuba also expressed its support for the American people after 9/11, incidentally)
e) maintaining the embargo is making the US an international pariah, shunned and condemned even by such staunch allies as the UK, Australia, Poland and South Korea
f) it's called "being humane"

Need I go on?


If the Soviets had armed the Algerians in a similar manner, would France be selling food to them? Or would a mirror of the U.S.'s actions be more likely?

Given that the Soviet Union has collapsed, and that France doesn't bear petty grudges, yes, we'd be selling food to them. Look at it this way: We don't bear a grudge against Germany for the Occupation. In fact, Germany and France are very good friends. And we'd have far more reason to bear a grudge than the US has against Cuba.

OK so again we have the Americans trying to dictate to the rest of the world. Isnt it time that the UN declared an Embargo on the US?

Throughout history the US has been scared...yes scared of anything that is slightly different from teh American way of life. If it does not fit in with what the Bush, Reagan, Carter or any administration that you care to mention, firmly believe in then its either embargo, invade or declare war.

So UN how about it declare an embargo on the US on imported goods and also claim redress for any outstanding debts owed throughout the world. Mr Bush I would love to see your response to that little beauty!

I didn't mean to imply that they wouldn't buy them because of ideological differences.

What I meant was why buy from the U.S when there are plenty of other nations that sell pharmecuticals, and often for cheaper than U.S. companies?


Do you know something called patents ? If a drug is discovered by US corporation, only it can produce it for long. WTO agrements allow some countries to produce them by themselves in very exceptional cases, but in no way to resell the "cloned" drugs. And since USA is that big and powerful, it's no surprise that they discover a non-negligeable amount of drugs.

I addressed this in another post, but I'll repeat...the rules change when nukes get involved. If Castro had had any sense, he would have realized this.

What about Japan then ?

National Governments could help subsidize shipping industries to help cover their losses.

That wouldn't be allowed by EU commission in Europe, for example, it's against "free and unbiased competition". And I doubt WTO will allow it.

I'll respond to Kilobugya's last post in a bit...I'm at work, and have stuff to do at the moment. :)

Same for me ;)

We're not doing business with them; we're not sitting in ships around their country sinking any ship that goes in or out.



Actually, I think that the US is also imposing fines against non-US companies who are doing business with Cuba, and good-night to free trade.

France doesn't bear petty grudges


That is laughable.....

Beef, apples, lamb and not to mention fishing rights.

The French do bear petty grudges just like anyone else

Well Cuba is working hard and is succeeding, especially in the medical department as an economy despite the shameful US blockade of their country and exclusion from the global market because of long dead ideological spats which those conservatives seem so intent to hold onto.

I myself am glad my country did not join the ever decreasing US club in this, which is surprising (Australia).

That they are doing fine despite the blockade doesn't mean they are not harmed by it, and that they wouldn't be even better without it.

Granted...hence why I oppose it. I love playing Devil's Advocate...it's so much fun. :)

An embargo on food and drugs never punished the "governement", it can only punish the people. It can punish, indirectly, the governement if the governement really cares for its people, but you're pretending the Cuba governement doesn't... so you're contradicting yourself ;)

I say it does punish, indirectly, the gov because it does care for the population, but that it punishes directly the people.

Theoretically, the embargo is supposed to do enough economic damage to encourage the Cuban people to rise up against Castro.

It's not going to work...and it probably was never going to, but that was the plan.

I find it hard to believe that US children do not have ancestors who slaughtered the native. I find it hard to believe that US children do not have ancestors who practiced slavery. I find it hard to believe that US children do not have ancestors who participed in dropping two nuclear bombs, in massively using chemical weapons against Vietnam, in using biological warfare against Cuba. Should I then want US children to suffer?

And that could apply to many other countries, should we punish german children of now because for many their parents or grandparents participated in Hitler's crimes ?

That would be an insane logic. That would be being as inhumane as the ones I oppose. Look at Castro's behavior, still ready to provide help to US citizen despite all that, and your own behavior, wanting to harm Cuban citizen. You'll understand why I side with one more than with the other.

I'm not saying it's right or humane...I'm saying it's logical. You don't feed people who are led by a ruler who has threatened your nation with nuclear weapons, because hungry people with no amenities tend to not like those who rule them.

Than what should be said of Cuba, who proposed free help to US citizen, even after you utilized (and just not attempted to) biological weapons against them ?

Good show? :)

(And the biological weapons comments...I've never heard of this before, do you have a source you can direct me to? :confused: )

The history between France and Algeria is a very brutal one. During Algeria war, the French army slaughtered many Algerians, massive used torture, ... But still, Algerian have no hatred for French people.

The Nazi army killed hundred of thousands of French people and tried to destroy us as a country. Still, the huge majority of French people see Germany as a friend country, and don't have any hatred against german citizen (and that's not new).

USA used, not just threatened to use, nuclear weapons TWICE on Japan. But still, Japan has close relations with USA, much more than just "we accept to trade with them". And most Japanese people have no hatred against USA.

You see the difference between the behaviour of most everyone else in the world, and your own behaviour ?

I agree, grudges are no good. Just look at the Middle East for plenty of examples.

But...do you see the difference between all those scenarios and the Cuban Missile Crisis, where global nuclear war was a distinct possibility?

Castro was playing with the fate of the entire human race...history will judge him accordingly.

Do you know something called patents ? If a drug is discovered by US corporation, only it can produce it for long. WTO agrements allow some countries to produce them by themselves in very exceptional cases, but in no way to resell the "cloned" drugs. And since USA is that big and powerful, it's no surprise that they discover a non-negligeable amount of drugs.

What? Cuba is in need of erectile dysfunction medication?

I am fairly certain one could work around the restrictions of important and necessary drugs if one were so inclined.

Besides...why produce, when you can just buy U.S. supplies and then resell them to Cuba?

What about Japan then?

The Japanese bombings did not include the threat of escalation to the scale of global thermonuclear war.

That wouldn't be allowed by EU commission in Europe, for example, it's against "free and unbiased competition". And I doubt WTO will allow it.

The UN...the EU...the WTO...

...willing to bitch, but certainly not willing to actually DO something about it.

Same for me ;)

Isn't it fun? I'm getting paid for hanging out on NS! :D

Good show? :)

Well, maybe it was part of it. But seeing that Cuba does send emergency help to other countries (40% of all foreign doctors - be it from governements, NGO, or WHO - who came to help after the Pakinstan earthquake were Cuban, for example), it seems to me it was just Cuba reacting the same way, because whatever their governement is, people suffering are still people suffering.

(And the biological weapons comments...I've never heard of this before, do you have a source you can direct me to? :confused: )

In 1971, CIA agents spread the pork fever virus in Cuba, while porks were the primary source of protein for Cuban citizen. This leaded to a massive lack of food, which would have been totally catastrophic without the very efficient Cuban organisation.

In 1981, Eduardo Arocena, a terrorist from one of the Miami-based terror group, with help of the CIA, spread the hemorragic version of the dengue fever in Cuba, which was unknown on the island before. Around 100 cubans died from it, and 100 000 were forced to be hospitalized in emergency. I don't know any other country in the world in which they can hospitalize, suddenly and in emergency, 1% of their total population. In all other country of the world, this would have lead to thousands of death, probably more than 10 000. In France, where we have a good quality healthcare, we have 450 000 total beds in all public and private hospitals of the country, for a population of more than 60 millions. Many of them are "locked" by people with heavy diseases (cancers, ...), and many of them are in small private hospitals which are not equiped to handle such emergencies (they can fix a broken leg, but not save someone from such a heavy disease).

I don't have the source of those facts right now with me, but feel free to search for them.

Castro was playing with the fate of the entire human race...history will judge him accordingly.

Same for US presidents and USSR presidents.

Besides...why produce, when you can just buy U.S. supplies and then resell them to Cuba?

That's forbidden by the blockade. Companies who try to do that get very heavy fines from US governement.

Castro was playing with the fate of the entire human race...history will judge him accordingly.
No, Kennedy was playing with the fate of the human race, and I would have trusted the judgement of the man who helped destalinisation than that madman.

That was an answer to your "sucks be to them". Do keep up. Cubans have excellent health care (which, amongst other things, gives them a life expectancy equal to that of people in the US), but as Kilobugya pointed out, the embargo creates a problem in terms of nutritional diversity. They get by, thanks to the social policies of the Cuban government (in a capitalist society, the embargo would create widespread malnutrition), but you cannot deny that the embargo is targetting the Cuban population.

I stated as much in one of my responses to Kilobugya.



"Sins of the father"? Again, how very humane of you. Not to mention that the Revolution was a time of great hope and change, and it was quite understandable for many Cubans to support Castro. Especially when the information available to them presented the US as a threat.

Not exactly...many of those fathers are still alive. Most still support Castro. The blockade is an effort to get the Cuban people to rise up against Castro themselves.

Or would you have prefered an invasion to a blockade?

Because

a) there is no reason not to today, other than petty-minded revenge
b) a kid born in the 1990s, believe it or not, never threatened to nuke you
c) the embargo has little to do with the events of the 60s, and much to do with the pressure of the anti-Castro Cuban émigré mafia in Miami
d) Cuba is sensible and humane enough not to punish the American people for the actions of the American government in the 60s, and offered humanitarian aid during the Katrina disaster (which Bush ignored, prefering the endanger American lives rather than acknowledge help from Cuba; Cuba also expressed its support for the American people after 9/11, incidentally)
e) maintaining the embargo is making the US an international pariah, shunned and condemned even by such staunch allies as the UK, Australia, Poland and South Korea
f) it's called "being humane"

Need I go on?

A. One could argue that, having harbored the WMDs of our enemies in the past, we are not to keen on the idea that Castro might do so again.
B. Correct...
C. Also correct...though I think that the international community often ignores the fact that those who fled Cuba are almost universally opposed to the Castro regime. What does that say, exactly, about the Cuban government?
D. The American leadership, government, and people never wanted nuclear war....and certainly never nuclear war over CUBA. One could hardly say the same of Castro (and, indirectly, those who supported him before and after) based on their actions. So who has the right to punish who based on their actions?
E. Condemned? Sure. Shunned paraiah? Hardly.
F. Yep. :)

Given that the Soviet Union has collapsed, and that France doesn't bear petty grudges, yes, we'd be selling food to them. Look at it this way: We don't bear a grudge against Germany for the Occupation. In fact, Germany and France are very good friends. And we'd have far more reason to bear a grudge than the US has against Cuba.

Personally, I feel the whole world should hold a grudge against the Castro government. Castro was willing to risk global nuclear war to stay in power. Not even the Soviets were that dumb...they (wisely) chose to ignore Castro and resolve the situation they had been duped into.

Delator the missiles were under Soviet command, they werent going anywhere unless Moscow said so. And fact also remains that it was the USSR has backed down, I am sure Kennedy would have taken it dangerously closer to make a stupid ideological point than Krushev obviously would have. Thank God the Soviets were sane.

Not exactly...many of those fathers are still alive. Most still support Castro. The blockade is an effort to get the Cuban people to rise up against Castro themselves.

Or would you have prefered an invasion to a blockade?


Since the issue is the maintaining of the embargo, I'd prefer neither. There is no justification for it. Trying to incite a rebellion in Cuba is quite frankly dumb. It hasn't worked, there's no indication it ever will, and on the contrary the embargo strengthens the Cuban people's anti-American feelings, with much encouragement from the Cuban government. (When I was in Havana I saw this (http://www.thedogwalker.com/CUBA/City/Cuba%20181.jpg) hilarious little picture along the Malecon. I was in a coach at the time and wasn't able to take a snap at it, but I found it again on the Internet later.)


A. One could argue that, having harbored the WMDs of our enemies in the past, we are not to keen on the idea that Castro might do so again.

What enemies? The USSR is gone. China is not providing active support to Cuba. Venezuela is on good terms with Castro, but Chavez is the leader of a democratic country which presents no credible threat to the US, and definitely isn't wielding WMDs. Even the US Department of State says Cuba is no threat (I can find the link if you want).


C. Also correct...though I think that the international community often ignores the fact that those who fled Cuba are almost universally opposed to the Castro regime. What does that say, exactly, about the Cuban government?

It says that it's a dictatorship, which no-one is denying. So far as dictatorships go, though, Cuba at least has the distinction of providing excellent living conditions to its people (top class health care, good education, free universal housing, almost full employment...). Cubans are much better off than people living in most other non-democratic countries, and than people living in most democratic Caribbean countries.

I'm not saying everything's rosy. I'm just pointing out that the situation is more complex than anti-Castrists would like to have people believe.

Bear in mind, also, that people are emigrating from all of the Third World. (A great number of people also emigrate from the US, though admittedly fewer than those who immigrate.) Many of those who leave Cuba may do so for economic reasons rather than political. Mexico is a democracy, after all...

Lastly, the fact that Cuba has an authoritarian government has nothing to do with the blocade. The US has a history of cheerfully supporting, funding, arming and installing dictators all over the world. As long as they are pro-American dictators, usually with a rabid hatred of socialism.


D. The American leadership, government, and people never wanted nuclear war....and certainly never nuclear war over CUBA. One could hardly say the same of Castro (and, indirectly, those who supported him before and after) based on their actions. So who has the right to punish who based on their actions?

I question the validity of claiming a moral high ground for either side in that particular conflict. You may claim that one side was less in the wrong, but it certainly doesn't give the US a moral right to "punish" Cuba for four decades and counting.

Ariddia what does that sign say? I guess US imperialists but what else.


http://www.quaylargo.com/Transformation/McCelvey.html

I wonder if anyone told the UN that other countries can trade with cuba

(and oh yeah Helms-Burton every time a waiver has been applied for under it the company has gotten it...)

yes the embargo is really only on US companies, that don't have european subsidiaries to sell their goods in cuba

OK guys...this is the last post I'm making. It's been fun, and I'll be sure to check for responses to this post tomorrow...but work is almost over, and sleep beckons. :)

Well, maybe it was part of it. But seeing that Cuba does send emergency help to other countries (40% of all foreign doctors - be it from governements, NGO, or WHO - who came to help after the Pakinstan earthquake were Cuban, for example), it seems to me it was just Cuba reacting the same way, because whatever their governement is, people suffering are still people suffering.

Actually...I meant "Good show" as in "Jolly good show" or "Good job" or "Well done." :)

In 1971, CIA agents spread the pork fever virus in Cuba

In 1981, Eduardo Arocena, a terrorist from one of the Miami-based terror group, with help of the CIA, spread the hemorragic version of the dengue fever in Cuba

I don't have the source of those facts right now with me, but feel free to search for them.

I will most certainly do so.

Same for US presidents and USSR presidents.

True enough...and every leader of every other nuclear power in the world.

That's forbidden by the blockade. Companies who try to do that get very heavy fines from US governement.

If enough companies did it, and refused to pay those fines, how will the U.S. collect, and how will it trade?

Since the issue is the maintaining of the embargo, I'd prefer neither. There is no justification for it. Trying to incite a rebellion in Cuba is quite frankly dumb. It hasn't worked, there's no indication it ever will, and on the contrary the embargo strengthens the Cuban people's anti-American feelings, with much encouragement from the Cuban government.

I agree.

What enemies? The USSR is gone. China is not providing active support to Cuba. Venezuela is on good terms with Castro, but Chavez is the leader of a democratic country which presents no credible threat to the US, and definitely isn't wielding WMDs. Even the US Department of State says Cuba is no threat (I can find the link if you want).

Now I want to stress that I myself am NOT this paranoid...but one could argue that Castro might allow Islamic terrorists to set up operations in Cuba.

Not that I think such a thing is likely...but you can never be too sure of the thought processes of Neo-Cons.

It says that it's a dictatorship, which no-one is denying. So far as dictatorships go, though, Cuba at least has the distinction of providing excellent living conditions to its people (top class health care, good education, free universal housing, almost full employment...). Cubans are much better off than people living in most other non-democratic countries, and than people living in most democratic Caribbean countries.

I'm not saying everything's rosy. I'm just pointing out that the situation is more complex than anti-Castrists would like to have people believe.

Bear in mind, also, that people are emigrating from all of the Third World. (A great number of people also emigrate from the US, though admittedly fewer than those who immigrate.) Many of those who leave Cuba may do so for economic reasons rather than political. Mexico is a democracy, after all...

Lastly, the fact that Cuba has an authoritarian government has nothing to do with the blocade. The US has a history of cheerfully supporting, funding, arming and installing dictators all over the world. As long as they are pro-American dictators, usually with a rabid hatred of socialism.

Why leave for economic reasons on a rickety raft if employment is so high?

And just so we're both clear that it's a dictatorship...then fine. :)

And I never said it was the style of goverment that mattered...Cuba could have been a nation of uber-capitalists, that still doesn't change the fact that they tried to utilize nuclear weapons to influence U.S. policy.

I question the validity of claiming a moral high ground for either side in that particular conflict. You may claim that one side was less in the wrong, but it certainly doesn't give the US a moral right to "punish" Cuba for four decades and counting.

I don't think anyone has the "high ground", but I am of the opinion that Castro certainly holds the "low ground"...the man urged Kruschev to USE the nukes when he was convinced that the U.S. was about to invade.

No regard for the lives of his people, or anyone else in the world...so long as he could somehow stay in power. :rolleyes:

Ariddia what does that sign say? I guess US imperialists but what else.


My Spanish is extremely basic, but I believe it says something along the lines of "We don't fear you in the slighest".

Now I want to stress that I myself am NOT this paranoid...but one could argue that Castro might allow Islamic terrorists to set up operations in Cuba.

Not that I think such a thing is likely...but you can never be too sure of the thought processes of Neo-Cons.

Hmm. I suppose neocons could convince grossly ignorant people that it's plausible, but I very strongly doubt the Cuban government would want such a potentially destabilising presence operating on its territory. Not to mention that secular socialism is anathema to Islamist extremists. And, above all, Cuba has no reason whatsoever to want to give them a base of operations. Quite the contrary, since Havana pays lip service to supporting the "War on Terror", and is not insane enough to invite a US attack against it.

What enemies? The USSR is gone. China is not providing active support to Cuba. Venezuela is on good terms with Castro, but Chavez is the leader of a democratic country which presents no credible threat to the US, and definitely isn't wielding WMDs.

As a side note, it's explicitely written in the 1999 Constitution of the Bolivarinia Republic of Venezuela that Venezuela is forbidden to produce, use, own or tolerate in their land nuclear or biologic weapons.

It says that it's a dictatorship, which no-one is denying.

Actually, the more I'm digging on that issue, the more I'm doubtful about the word "dictatorship" being suited to speak of Cuba. It's a complex system, very different from ours, but I don't think it's fair to call it a "dictatorship". There are problems and things I don't like at all about the Cuban system, but there are also many problems with western-style representative "democracy".

I'm writing a quite long article, in french, about what I was found in my recent researches on the Cuban system, I'll send you the link once it's finished, if you want.

Cubans are much better off than people living in most other non-democratic countries, and than people living in most democratic Caribbean countries.

And even in some democratic, rich countries. In USA, 1/5th of the population lacks decent healthcare...

I'm not saying everything's rosy. I'm just pointing out that the situation is more complex than anti-Castrists would like to have people believe.

Indeed.

Bear in mind, also, that people are emigrating from all of the Third World. (A great number of people also emigrate from the US, though admittedly fewer than those who immigrate.) Many of those who leave Cuba may do so for economic reasons rather than political. Mexico is a democracy, after all...

The "people massively flee because it's so horrible" is another lie about Cuba. Relative to its population, Cuba is the 9th source of emigration from Latin America to USA. Countries like Mexico, Ecuador, Peru and Colombia are, compared to their population, emigrating more in USA than people from Cuba. Even with the "Cuba Adjustement Act", which makes every cuban citizen who touch US ground a legal immigrant, while those coming from other countries being often illegal, with all the problems created by this situation.

Cuban citizen are also, among foreign citizen living in USA, the ones who go back to their home country to visit family or friend the most often, making it obvious that they were not fleeing for political reasons, but for economical reasons. Well, that used to be true, because since 2005, G.W. Bush forbad Cuban immigrants to go back to Cuba to visit their families more than once every three years. How humanitarian.

For the fifteenth time running, the UN has condemned the embargo by an overwhelming majority.



Even the US' staunchest allies (the UK, Australia, Poland, Afghanistan, to say nothing of Japan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or South Korea) voted to condemn the criminal and unjustifiable embargo. Iraq was, conveniently, absent, but was definitely not willing to show up and support the US.

So, only 3 countries supported the US. Israel... what a surprise. If any of you are baffled as to why Palau and the Marshall Islands voted in the US' favour (as they invariably do), it's very simple. They're both former colonies of the United States (which may surprise Americans who forget the US has been a colonising power), and receive significant levels of funds and various benefits through their close assocation with their former colonial master.

Incidentally, the one country which abstained (the FS Micronesia) is also a former US colony, and also benefits from its continued association with its former colonial master. But even they apparently couldn't bring themselves to support the US on this one.

Of course, as always, the US will ignore the UN, while criticising anyone else (except Israel) who does the same...


Shouldn't the UN be doing something usefull over in Africa like keeping whole populations from being slaughtered ?

And maybe they can concern themselves a bit with the nuke threat that can kill everyone on the planet ?

You know important stuff ?

Shouldn't the UN be doing something usefull over in Africa like keeping whole populations from being slaughtered ?

And maybe they can concern themselves a bit with the nuke threat that can kill everyone on the planet ?

You know important stuff ?

Well, yes they should. But in addition to this, not instead of.

Well, yes they should. But in addition to this, not instead of.


Right the UN has a very valid reason to interfere with the internal politics and trade relations of the US .
The human rights groups can all kiss my ass. when they start condemning hezbollah and Hamas and Iran and Al Queda and the rest of the terrorist maybe I'll actually pay attention to anything they have to say.

And if they ever make a true and objective report thats not biased it will not only be the first time for them ...but it may make their friggin heads explode.

Maybe they could do the same with Pakistan and Russia and syria and Iran and France and Germany .

When they DO then they will cease to be a big stinking pile of worthless shit bags. Taking money for nothing and getting their kicks for free.

Maybe then someone may actually pay some sort of attention to that big irrelevant bunch of idiots .

Right the UN has a very valid reason to interfere with the internal politics and trade relations of the US .
The human rights groups can all kiss my ass. when they start condemning hezbollah and Hamas and Iran and Al Queda and the rest of the terrorist maybe I'll actually pay attention to anything they have to say.

And if they ever make a true and objective report thats not biased it will not only be the first time for them ...but it may make their friggin heads explode.

Maybe they could do the same with Pakistan and Russia and syria and Iran and France and Germany .

When they DO then they will cease to be a big stinking pile of worthless shit bags. Taking money for nothing and getting their kicks for free.

Maybe then someone may actually pay some sort of attention to that big irrelevant bunch of idiots .

Stop ranting for a second and actually think about what you are saying. You have just committed the sin you are accusing the human rights organisations of doing. Get your brain into gear before your keyboard.

Stop ranting for a second and actually think about what you are saying. You have just committed the sin you are accusing the human rights organisations of doing. Get your brain into gear before your keyboard.


I am pointing out for the third time that US - Cuba relations are about 1 million things down on the to do list of the UN ...or should be if it wasn't a big group of politicaly driven windbags with no sense of purpose or commitment to actualy succeed at anything aside from being paid .

Thats not ranting , that truth telling .

I'm writing a quite long article, in french, about what I was found in my recent researches on the Cuban system, I'll send you the link once it's finished, if you want.


Yes, please. I'd be very interested.

I am pointing out for the third time that US - Cuba relations are about 1 million things down on the to do list of the UN ...or should be if it wasn't a big group of politicaly driven windbags with no sense of purpose or commitment to actualy succeed at anything aside from being paid .

Thats not ranting , that truth telling .

By swearing and calling people shit bags I'd call that a rant.

What the UN is trying to do is expose the hypocrisy of the worlds largest trading nation advocating a free capitalist trading system and refusing to trade with a nation that hasn't been a threat to them for nigh on twenty years.

What the OP is trying to do is highlight the hypocrisy of the US government condemning and invading other countries for refusing to abide by UN resolutions whilst dooing th exact same thing itself.

By calling the people highlighting these facts various names and claiming they have an agenda which happens to be the opposite to your own beleifs negates neither of the issues and proves nothing.

Delator the missiles were under Soviet command, they werent going anywhere unless Moscow said so. And fact also remains that it was the USSR has backed down, I am sure Kennedy would have taken it dangerously closer to make a stupid ideological point than Krushev obviously would have. Thank God the Soviets were sane.

The problem was that the Luna/FROG weapons platforms were not under the control of Moscow, but under the control of the Soviet theater commanders.

Furthermore, Kennedy was willing to blink, as was clearly showed by his letter to U Thant in the midst of the process.

I will say this again, This is just another example of how the UN attempts to undermine the USA. Surprised? Nope, not really. Should be expected.

To be quite honest, if the UN really thinks they can get the US to change it's policies because they say we should, then it just convinces me completely that the UN is made up of nothing more than fools.

I agree, there are a lot more important International stuff going on in this world. It just seems as if the UN thinks it's #1 Priority is to undermine the USA, to attempt to use diplomacy against the USA.

ATTN: United Nations, You canNOT, and will NOT ever have the ability to demand the USA to do whatever it is you wish. You do NOT command the United States of America in any way, shape, or form.

I, again say, You have proven to be a failed organization. The USA screwed up when we created you, although we did have good intentions, It's time you change your policy of fighting against your creator. It is in your best interests NOT to stand against the USA..... :D

I will say this again, This is just another example of how the UN attempts to undermine the USA. Surprised? Nope, not really. Should be expected.

To be quite honest, if the UN really thinks they can get the US to change it's policies because they say we should, then it just convinces me completely that the UN is made up of nothing more than fools.

I agree, there are a lot more important International stuff going on in this world. It just seems as if the UN thinks it's #1 Priority is to undermine the USA, to attempt to use diplomacy against the USA.

ATTN: United Nations, You canNOT, and will NOT ever have the ability to demand the USA to do whatever it is you wish. You do NOT command the United States of America in any way, shape, or form.

I, again say, You have proven to be a failed organization. The USA screwed up when we created you, although we did have good intentions, It's time you change your policy of fighting against your creator. It is in your best interests NOT to stand against the USA..... :D

But its ok for them to try and tell Iraq, Iran and North Korea what to do?

ATTN: United Nations, You canNOT, and will NOT ever have the ability to demand the USA to do whatever it is you wish. You do NOT command the United States of America in any way, shape, or form.

But the United States can invade other nations for not following UN resolutions?

But its ok for them to try and tell Iraq, Iran and North Korea what to do?

In the name of Freedom......Absolutely. ;)

1. Iraq's Saddam Hussein may have not had his WMD's (although, I'm suspicious of them either being hidden real well or snuck them across to Syria) has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, Raped the women and the daughters, Tortured and Jailed many of his own people, etc...,etc...
To me, that is enough reason to de-Presidentize him.

2. Iran with regards to Nuclear ambitions. No they should NOT be allowed to have Nukes. Everytime their president mentions Nukes they mention the destruction of Israel and denies Israel's right to exist.

3. North Korea-No they should NOT have Nukes. The dictator is crazy and should be more concerned with his dieing and starving population than creating Nukes. Imagine all that money he is spending on the Nukes and how many of his starving people could be fed. Anyways, the USA is NOT alone in NOT wanting North Korea to possess Nukes. The world shockingly agrees as a majority including China.

But the United States can invade other nations for not following UN resolutions?

In Reality, the UN had well more than a decade to show back bone on the dozens of resolutions that they passed on Iraq and Saddam Hussein, as Saddam continued to thumb its nose at the UN.

Since the UN obviously has no back bone and no intentions of enforcing the resolutions that were passed, Someone had to step up to the plate.

In Reality, the UN had well more than a decade to show back bone on the dozens of resolutions that they passed on Iraq and Saddam Hussein, as Saddam continued to thumb its nose at the UN. Since the UN obviously has no back bones and intentions of enforcing the resolutions that were passed, Someone had to step up to the plate.

Then, in reality, you support the invasion and occupation of the United States, as we continue to thumb our noses at the UN.

In the name of Freedom......Absolutely. ;)

So, you, a single country among 192, is allowed to bully (and even invade) other countries for them to change their internal policies, but almost all countries (around 180 on 192, IIRC) of the planet together are not allowed to tell you to change your external policies ? How fair. Isn't that a tiny bit double-thinking ?

The question of the crime done or not done by a country or another doesn't stand at this level. Either a country, every country, is free to act as they please, and then you've nothing to say to North Korea, Iran or whatever, or countries are allowed to fix limits to what other countries can do, and if so, the UN is perfectly right in telling you that using your strength to bully a tiny island and harm their population is wrong.

As for crimes commited by governements, I'll not start telling all the ones done by the US governement, but if you are a bit honest, you should acknowledge that there many. But still, "we" don't want to invade you or to blockade you, but only to make you stop bullying and harming others.

In Reality, the UN had well more than a decade to show back bone on the dozens of resolutions that they passed on Iraq and Saddam Hussein, as Saddam continued to thumb its nose at the UN.

Since the UN obviously has no back bone and no intentions of enforcing the resolutions that were passed, Someone had to step up to the plate.

Actually, Saddam did dismantle his weapons and accept UN inspections. That's much more complying with UN resulotions than USA or Israel ever did. But still, we don't want to invade, bomb or blockade you.

By swearing and calling people shit bags I'd call that a rant.

What the UN is trying to do is expose the hypocrisy of the worlds largest trading nation advocating a free capitalist trading system and refusing to trade with a nation that hasn't been a threat to them for nigh on twenty years.

What the OP is trying to do is highlight the hypocrisy of the US government condemning and invading other countries for refusing to abide by UN resolutions whilst dooing th exact same thing itself.

By calling the people highlighting these facts various names and claiming they have an agenda which happens to be the opposite to your own beleifs negates neither of the issues and proves nothing.

#1) No one has invaded a country over GA resolutions to speak of (because the General Assembly has no power)
#2) No one in the world except folks in the US who haven't set up companies in other countries have been stopped from trading in cuba (yes you can by US merchandise legally in cuba)
#3) I think you can debate Cuba's role as a threat within the larger Castro/Chavez alliance
#4) Cuba can buy food and medicine from the US. Of A today.... however the problem is the US government won't let it be done with Cuban boats (for fear of cuban intelligence agents monkeying around in the country) and the cubans refuse to allow it to be done with anything BUT cuban boats.

So the truth of the matter is this

The General Assembly is alot like High School... and Fidel is the cool kid on the Baseball team

and thats why this passed

In the name of Freedom......Absolutely. ;)

1. Iraq's Saddam Hussein may have not had his WMD's (although, I'm suspicious of them either being hidden real well or snuck them across to Syria) has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, Raped the women and the daughters, Tortured and Jailed many of his own people, etc...,etc...
To me, that is enough reason to de-Presidentize him.

2. Iran with regards to Nuclear ambitions. No they should NOT be allowed to have Nukes. Everytime their president mentions Nukes they mention the destruction of Israel and denies Israel's right to exist.

3. North Korea-No they should NOT have Nukes. The dictator is crazy and should be more concerned with his dieing and starving population than creating Nukes. Imagine all that money he is spending on the Nukes and how many of his starving people could be fed. Anyways, the USA is NOT alone in NOT wanting North Korea to possess Nukes. The world shockingly agrees as a majority including China.

Thats your persecprion of freedom. What I'm trying to say is that the USA is one country out of 192. The US oftens proclaims it shouldn't be the world's policemen and then does exactly that. It often claims to be invading/ subverting other countries in the name of democracy and freedom, yet refuses to acknowledge democratically elected leaders (Chavez, Noriega), and refuses to accept the judgement of its fellow peers (ie other nations of the world) when democratically arrived at, simply because it ddoesn't suit them.

Thats your persecprion of freedom. What I'm trying to say is that the USA is one country out of 192. The US oftens proclaims it shouldn't be the world's policemen and then does exactly that. It often claims to be invading/ subverting other countries in the name of democracy and freedom, yet refuses to acknowledge democratically elected leaders (Chavez, Noriega), and refuses to accept the judgement of its fellow peers (ie other nations of the world) when democratically arrived at, simply because it ddoesn't suit them.

Chavez elected democratically..... not so much. Their have been serious questions that were ignored by half the observers there and barely mentioned by the other half so they split the middle.

Just because observers tell you it was fair your going to trust that and not look into what events happened that they recorded?

Chavez elected democratically..... not so much. Their have been serious questions that were ignored by half the observers there and barely mentioned by the other half so they split the middle.

Just because observers tell you it was fair your going to trust that and not look into what events happened that they recorded?

Funnily enough I do tend to believe independent observers, yes. Shame there weren't any in Dade County.

Wait!?
The US ignores the UN when it suits its interests and then complains about others when they do the same.

Why that, that makes us the same as every other nation in the UN.
Shock!

Funnily enough I do tend to believe independent observers, yes. Shame there weren't any in Dade County.

No I believe your saying you only believe the observers who said Chavez won

thats not what all the observers said but they had to come out with a consensus document

so there ya go... try reading what they said. In all of Hugo's elections their were quite a few irregularities.

No I believe your saying you only believe the observers who said Chavez won

thats not what all the observers said but they had to come out with a consensus document

so there ya go... try reading what they said. In all of Hugo's elections their were quite a few irregularities.

I take your point, but please take mine. The US is guilty of a huge hypocrisy - condemning others for something whilst doing the self same thing itself.

Chavez elected democratically..... not so much. Their have been serious questions that were ignored by half the observers there and barely mentioned by the other half so they split the middle.

Just because observers tell you it was fair your going to trust that and not look into what events happened that they recorded?

Chavez overwhemling support in his country cannot be questioned. Polls conducted before the elections gave around the same figures as the elections themselves (not once, but 8 times, Chavez won with a 55% to 60% score, since 1999), while the poll institutes belong to the opposition. Current polls show the same level of support for Chavez, around 55% for Chavez, 35% for his opponent and 10% of "undecided" people.

This support was also shown in an overwhelming way April 13, 2002 when millions of person stormed the streets of Caracas to reclaim their president who was hold captive by US-supported putchists. And in the demonstrations during 2003 and 2004, in which Chavez supporters were always much more than Chavez opponent (so much that opposition TV had to show Chavez supporters, filmed from high above so you couldn't read the writings, while pretenting it was Chavez opponents - since then, most Chavez supporters have red clothes when they demonstrate, so such manipulation cannot be done again).

The elections like the recall referendum were certified clean by the Carter center, which you can hardly call "communist".

so there ya go... try reading what they said. In all of Hugo's elections their were quite a few irregularities.

I never saw _any_ real claim of an actual irregularities. Only yelling "he cheated" with no details, no clues, nothing.

And I should remind that Chavez victory was overwhelming, 59% to 41% on the recall referendum, it's a 0.5% margin that can be easily disguised. Cheating such a huge, 18% margin, is something much, much harder, which cannot be done without it being obvious for observers.

And don't fortget the polls, who predicted the same result, while the poll institutes belong to Chavez opponents.

I never saw _any_ real claim of an actual irregularities. Only yelling "he cheated" with no details, no clues, nothing.

And I should remind that Chavez victory was overwhelming, 59% to 41% on the recall referendum, it's a 0.5% margin that can be easily disguised. Cheating such a huge, 18% margin, is something much, much harder, which cannot be done without it being obvious for observers.

And don't fortget the polls, who predicted the same result, while the poll institutes belong to Chavez opponents.

Read the reports sometimes

read the rather hostile responses to the very early declerations by the carter team from other foriegn observers (Carter always declares marxist elections clean... even when its questionable if they did or not)

The international observe process is no more a serious effort to make things legitimate if people can ignore or decline to investigate serious issues

#1) No one has invaded a country over GA resolutions to speak of (because the General Assembly has no power)

The GA has power when the SC is paralysed by a veto vote. That's the case.

#2) No one in the world except folks in the US who haven't set up companies in other countries have been stopped from trading in cuba (yes you can by US merchandise legally in cuba)

That's totally false. A coporation who resell to Cuba products containing parts made in USA are guilty over US law, and face very high fines. There are several example of such high fines, including to companies who reselled medical equipement which had as few as 10% of US-made components in them.

Now, of course, there are some companies who don't respect the US law. As any law, it is sometimes broken. But they face a very high fine for doing so.

#3) I think you can debate Cuba's role as a threat within the larger Castro/Chavez alliance

Curing people in Latin America, teaching them how to read and offering cheap oil to citizen of the Bronx is definitely a threat to USA. Until now, that's what the ALBA (Cuba-Venezuela-Bolivia alliance) did, nothing more.

#4) Cuba can buy food and medicine from the US. Of A today.... however the problem is the US government won't let it be done with Cuban boats (for fear of cuban intelligence agents monkeying around in the country) and the cubans refuse to allow it to be done with anything BUT cuban boats.

That's strictly forbidden by US law. Companies who will try to do so risk very high fines. US citizen who we'll accept to pilot a boat into Cuban seas face a 10 years jail sentence when they come back to USA.

And it's so much forbidden than every boat docking at Cuban harbour is fobidden to dock at US harbour for 6 months afterwards.

Read the reports sometimes

I did. Guess what, Chavez' Venezuela is one of my primary center of interest those days, I spent hours and hours reading reports, comments, declarations, ... of both Chavez supporter and his opponents. So much that I'm going to Venezuela in a few months to check with my own eyes.

But until now, I never saw a single detailed, backed claim of fraud in recent elections in Venezuela. Nor any begining of explaination on how he could have cheated on such a huge margin, while the polls agreed with the official results, and everything (mass demonstrations, ...) show that Chavez has an overwhelming support.

The GA has power when the SC is paralysed by
That's totally false. A coporation who resell to Cuba products containing parts made in USA are guilty over US law, and face very high fines. There are several example of such high fines, including to companies who reselled medical equipement which had as few as 10% of US-made components in them.


IT would be true *IF* companies who applied for exemptions didn't get it 100% of the time. I can point you to numerous websites that have advertising circulars from Cuba where Us merchandise issold their.

If your company is big and has non us subsidiaries you can sell in cuba with impunity. If your small to medium size.... not so much

Now, of course, there are some companies who don't respect the US law. As any law, it is sometimes broken. But they face a very high fine for doing so.


Unless they apply for an exemption. as many companies have and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have approved every exemption that hit their desk.

So its a toothless system of punishment


Curing people in Latin America, teaching them how to read and offering cheap oil to citizen of the Bronx is definitely a threat to USA. Until now, that's what the ALBA (Cuba-Venezuela-Bolivia alliance) did, nothing more.


and supplying funds to FARC
allowing leftist rebels to hide in the country
of course the fact that most cuban intelligence operatives have an MD as cover for their operations

I could go on with more details.... as I said it could be reasonably debated



That's strictly forbidden by US law. Companies who will try to do so risk very high fines. US citizen who we'll accept to pilot a boat into Cuban seas face a 10 years jail sentence when they come back to USA.


Not if a US boat was under contract for the cuban government

thats what the actual law in the embargo says

but since the cuban government would never hire them... there ya go



And it's so much forbidden than every boat docking at Cuban harbour is fobidden to dock at US harbour for 6 months afterwards.

Right ... but again under t he law if the cuban government hired the US boat to ship food or medicine it could do so and not be banned from a US harbor

don't buy into the pro-castro malarky

Then, in reality, you support the invasion and occupation of the United States, as we continue to thumb our noses at the UN.

If you feel they should then I say, Bring it on. I dare them to even attempt to try.

If you feel they should then I say, Bring it on. I dare them to even attempt to try.

Stop waving your willy around please

and supplying funds to FARC

That's just false. Even Uribe, the right-wing Colombia's president, recognised it.

allowing leftist rebels to hide in the country

The Venezuela-FARC "agrement" is the same than before Chavez, and the same than with Colombia's army: FARC members and Colombia soldiers are allowed to enter, without weapons, into Venezuelian border, for humanitarian reasons (curing wounded, ...). The reason is that, with 2000 kms of border between the two countries, most of it being jungle, it would be impossible to the Venezuelian army to enforce a complete ban. So they prefer this deal, allowing FARC members with no weapons, than to have to handle armed FARC members trepassing.

of course the fact that most cuban intelligence operatives have an MD as cover for their operations

The Cuban counter-terrorist agents who get jailed for giving to the FBI proof that terrorist groups operate from Miami ?


Right ... but again under t he law if the cuban government hired the US boat to ship food or medicine it could do so and not be banned from a US harbor

That's just false.

For the fifteenth time running, the UN has condemned the embargo by an overwhelming majority.



Even the US' staunchest allies (the UK, Australia, Poland, Afghanistan, to say nothing of Japan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or South Korea) voted to condemn the criminal and unjustifiable embargo. Iraq was, conveniently, absent, but was definitely not willing to show up and support the US.

So, only 3 countries supported the US. Israel... what a surprise. If any of you are baffled as to why Palau and the Marshall Islands voted in the US' favour (as they invariably do), it's very simple. They're both former colonies of the United States (which may surprise Americans who forget the US has been a colonising power), and receive significant levels of funds and various benefits through their close assocation with their former colonial master.

Incidentally, the one country which abstained (the FS Micronesia) is also a former US colony, and also benefits from its continued association with its former colonial master. But even they apparently couldn't bring themselves to support the US on this one.

Of course, as always, the US will ignore the UN, while criticising anyone else (except Israel) who does the same...


We can do-or not do- business/trade with anyone we see fit.

I'm a little more concerned about all the good the UN is doing for the folks in Darfur.

I know they focus themselves and act on the real problems facing today's world.

We can do-or not do- business/trade with anyone we see fit.

No. You signed a treaty called the Geneva Convention, which forbids embargo on food or drugs, even in time of war. If you signed a treaty, you're bound to respect it. Isn't it the whole idea of treaties ?

And you are not allowed either to try to prevent other countries from trading with Cuba, as you do.

I will say this again, This is just another example of how the UN attempts to undermine the USA. Surprised? Nope, not really. Should be expected.



Its all the fashion. They are very concerned about being fashionable.

In addition to being corrupt to the core and impotent.

So, after ten pages of debate, have we figured out what is so scary about Cuba that the US needs to maintain this embargo/blockade? Or even if it is an embargo as opposed to a blockade?

Normally, one can look at things in terms of self-interest, but I do not see how this embargo helps the USA.

Oh, by the way, Andaluciae, the nationalisation process in most Latin American socialism experiments goes like this: when a company is nationalised by the government, the investors are paid the same dollar value that the company has claimed on its latest tax report. The problem arises with corruption in the previous government. If the previous government allowed the company to claim itself as having a value that is only a fraction of its real worth, to save on taxes, then the investors are only paid a fraction of the real value of their company.

Let's say Bacardi had an investment of $1000 in Cuba. The real amount is obviously higher, but the math is far easier with my absurd example. Now, Mr. Bacardi knows Mr. Batista really well, so Mr. Bacardi gives Mr. Batista $100 and tells him to write in the tax books that Bacardi Co. is only worth $500, and should be taxed accordingly. Everybody is happy, except the people who could use those tax dollars for things like medicine and infrastructure.

Enter Mr. Castro. He kicks Mr. Batista out. Now, Castro and Mr. Bacardi do not like each other. Both think that the other guy should leave. Mr. Bacardi loses. His company gets nationalised. He complains and says he invested his own money in that company and should be paid back. Mr. Castro, who is a little worried about Mr. Bacardi's other friend, Uncle Sam, agrees to pay him what the company is worth. Castro goes to the tax books and sees that Bacardi Co. is worth $500. Mr. Castro gives Mr. Bacardi $500. Mr. Bacardi is not amused.

No. You signed a treaty called the Geneva Convention, which forbids embargo on food or drugs, even in time of war. If you signed a treaty, you're bound to respect it. Isn't it the whole idea of treaties ?

And you are not allowed either to try to prevent other countries from trading with Cuba, as you do.

I guess it is. But maybe we dont want to step on France's toes, as I'm sure they are profitting heavily from the US embargo.

I guess it is. But maybe we dont want to step on France's toes, as I'm sure they are profitting heavily from the US embargo.

WTF???

I guess it is. But maybe we dont want to step on France's toes, as I'm sure they are profitting heavily from the US embargo.

You seem to support US foreign policy a lot, maybe you could explain to me how the embargo helps US interests.

How is this any of the UN's business? They can't force a nation to do business with another nation. Why don't they force Arab nations to do business with Israel despite their boycotts if they have that power?

In the name of Freedom......Absolutely. ;)

1. Iraq's Saddam Hussein may have not had his WMD's (although, I'm suspicious of them either being hidden real well or snuck them across to Syria) has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, Raped the women and the daughters, Tortured and Jailed many of his own people, etc...,etc...
To me, that is enough reason to de-Presidentize him.

Why would Saddam sneak weapons into Syria? Iraq and Syria hated each other. Aside from Israel, Iraq was Syria's number one enemy. In fact, they just recently renewed diplomatic relations.

How is this any of the UN's business? They can't force a nation to do business with another nation. Why don't they force Arab nations to do business with Israel despite their boycotts if they have that power?

You should have read the thread ;)

The are two main reasons for which it's UN's business.

The first is that USA signed a treaty, called the Geneva Convention, which forbid embargo on drugs and food. Signing a treaty binds you to respect it, as signing a contract binds you to respect it.

The second one is that USA not only refuses to trade with Cuba (an embargo) but also bullies other countries to not trade with Cuba (converting it into a blockade), by putting fines on companies who do trade with Cuba and by preventing any ship which docked in a Cuban harbour to dock in a US harbour for the next six months. That's much more than just not trading with Cuba. And that's not allowed by UN not by WTO.

But as always, USA only cares about UN and WTO when they follow their wishes, and don't care about them when they don't. That's what we call a rogue nation.

Even the US' staunchest allies (the UK, Australia, Poland, Afghanistan, to say nothing of Japan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or South Korea) voted to condemn the criminal and unjustifiable embargo. Iraq was, conveniently, absent, but was definitely not willing to show up and support the US.

What about El Salvador? They still don't have diplomatic relations with Cuba. Didn't they support us?

What about El Salvador? They still don't have diplomatic relations with Cuba. Didn't they support us?

USA, Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau are the only ones who voted against the resolutions. 183 countries (on 192) voted for the resolution, 5 didn't vote.

What US blockade of Cuba exist ?

I am aware of a trade embargo . Thats internal Us policy and can bee added to a long list of countries the US has trade embargo's on.

What business is it of the UN to tell the US who they can trade with ?

Or for that matter ANY OTHER country ?

Since when did the UN become the arbiter of foreign trade relations between countries?

Another example of why the UN is in need of a complete restructuring before it becomes totally irrelevant


Wonder what the UN says about all these countries the US has trade sanctions on ?

http://pmdtc.org/country.htm

What is so special about Cuba ?


The United States embargo against Cuba (described in Cuba as el bloqueo, Spanish for "the blockade") is an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba on February 7, 1962. It was codified into law in 1992 and 1995, and was implemented to put economic pressure on the Cuban government led by Fidel Castro. In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending the practice of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies trading with Cuba in dollar amounts totaling more than 700 million a year. As of 2006, the embargo is still in effect, making it one of the most enduring trade embargoes in modern history.

Anti-US Propaganda can be seen all over Cuba.The United Nations General Assembly has passed a non-binding resolution condemning the embargo every year since 1991. The most recent condemnation took place on November 8, 2006, by a vote of 183-4, with the U.S., Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands voting against



Someone please explain to me why relations between the US and Cuba are so special as to deserve a UN resolution ?

This is a fucking trade embargo......drill that into your head..only between the US and Cuba,,,

by what right does the UN feel it needs to pass a resolution concerning trade relations between two countries?

Please attempt to make some sort of sense when you attempt to justfy the UN and its actions.

Let Cuba go buy shit and sell stuff somplace else we dont want any . What the hell is wrong with that ?

What US blockade of Cuba exist ?

I am aware of a trade embargo . Thats internal Us policy and can bee added to a long list of countries the US has trade embargo's on.

What business is it of the UN to tell the US who they can trade with ?

Or for that matter ANY OTHER country ?

Since when did the UN become the arbiter of foreign trade relations between countries?

Another example of why the UN is in need of a complete restructuring before it becomes totally irrelevant

I'm trying to be tired of explaining over and over the same thing because people don't read the thread before posting...


The are two main reasons for which it's UN's business.

The first is that USA signed a treaty, called the Geneva Convention, which forbid embargo on drugs and food. Signing a treaty binds you to respect it, as signing a contract binds you to respect it.

The second one is that USA not only refuses to trade with Cuba (an embargo) but also bullies other countries to not trade with Cuba (converting it into a blockade), by putting fines on companies who do trade with Cuba and by preventing any ship which docked in a Cuban harbour to dock in a US harbour for the next six months. That's much more than just not trading with Cuba. And that's not allowed by UN not by WTO.

But as always, USA only cares about UN and WTO when they follow their wishes, and don't care about them when they don't. That's what we call a rogue nation.

USA, Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau are the only ones who voted against the resolutions. 183 countries (on 192) voted for the resolution, 5 didn't vote.

Thanks. Which countries didn't vote?

And btw, sorry for my comment earlier. I tend to get a little hot under the collar over issues like this. :(

Thanks. Which countries didn't vote?

I don't know exactly, it's hard to find. I know at least Irak, Nicaragua (Ortega is elected, but not yet in power) and Micronesia didn't vote, but no idea for the last two ones.

And btw, sorry for my comment earlier. I tend to get a little hot under the collar over issues like this. :(

No problem for me ;)

I'm trying to be tired of explaining over and over the same thing because people don't read the thread before posting...



Because thats bullshit ? And repeating it OVER and OVER doesn't change the fact that its a very slim or non existent argument ?

You can of course show how the geneva convention comes into play between non beligerent countries ? And gets involved with peace time relations between countries concerning trade ..and therefor restricts the rights of soveriegn nations to decide who and what to sell things to .

Wow that Geneva convention...does it also tell you what hand to use to wipe your butt ?

And of course you have all kinds of proof to back up your allegations of bullying. Fines are only on American companies from a law CLINTON passes in 1999 . Look it up .


Cuba can do business with anyone it wants ...but not the US. Tough shit .


They dont make medicine in Brazil or France ? or all the food they want from any place in south America the US and other countries buy food from ? dont make me laugh.

Its strictly politics . NO substance.

What can't Cuba get elsewhere that in can get in the US ?

I did ask you to TRY to make some sense.

...the criminal and unjustifiable embargo...

People keep trying to rewrite history... The reason there is an embargo against cuba (or at least the most justifiable one) is that when castro came to power there were alot of american companies that had large interests in the country. Castro 'nationalised' all of those businesses. In other words he looted them and stuffed their assets into his pokets. Effectively he robbed us, and several other countries who had ecconomic interests in cuba.

If we haddn't been in the midst of the cold war at the time, and too scared of a soviet retaliation for such an action, we would have invaded and restored those assets to the companies who legally owned them, and we would have been justified in that action.

But because we didn't want to risk a nuclear confrontation we opted for a lesser option of ecconomic embargo against cuba. Seeing as castro has not repaid us for his theft of US propperty, I see no reason for the US to lift it's embargo. Besides, all the money in that country ends up in the hands of Castro and his inner circle anyway, so it's not like lifting it would improve the standard of living in cuba.

Talk to a cuban imigrant, I have never met one that didn't support the US 100% in any action against Castro, and they should know, they lived there. These high minded politicrats at the UN are, as usual, detached from reality.

I'm curious to know then, Why has it taken the Intn'l community so long to press this issue and if it is, as you say, "Criminal and Unjustifiable", why isn't this taken place in the Intn'l courts?

Perhaps because they don't have a leg to stand on, or the more well known factor of "Not having a Back Bone". :D

What year was the Geneva Convention signed by the USA? How long has the Embargo been placed on Cuba? Why is this issue being brought up now? Sounds suspect to me.

I hope this isn't the same crowd who claims that the terrorists should be treated under the Geneva Convention regardless of the fact that they belong to no one soveriegn nation nor do they act as soldiers nor wear the clothes of soldiers but instead as civilians who then do cowardice acts against other civilians and against the soldiers........

I don't know exactly, it's hard to find. I know at least Irak, Nicaragua (Ortega is elected, but not yet in power) and Micronesia didn't vote, but no idea for the last two ones.

Thanks.

No problem for me ;)

I like you. Have a cookie. :)

http://wiki.coolmon.org/files/cookie.jpg

Because thats bullshit ? And repeating it OVER and OVER doesn't change the fact that its a very slim or non existent argument ?

You can of course show how the geneva convention comes into play between non beligerent countries ? And gets involved with peace time relations between countries concerning trade ..and therefor restricts the rights of soveriegn nations to decide who and what to sell things to .

Wow that Geneva convention...does it also tell you what hand to use to wipe your butt ?

And of course you have all kinds of proof to back up your allegations of bullying. Fines are only on American companies from a law CLINTON passes in 1999 . Look it up .


Cuba can do business with anyone it wants ...but not the US. Tough shit .


They dont make medicine in Brazil or France ? or all the food they want from any place in south America the US and other countries buy food from ? dont make me laugh.

Its strictly politics . NO substance.

What can't Cuba get elsewhere that in can get in the US ?

I did ask you to TRY to make some sense.

Check the trade regs yourself. ANY ship leaving a Cuban port is banned from entering a US port for 6 months. That is a tactic to stop other countries trading with Cuba. Shouting bullshit doesn't make it any less true.

So, the only reason that the US is still maintaining an embargo against Cuba is because the politicians in the USA can't afford to lose the Miami Cubans vote, and lobbying by Canosa and his ilk?

So now Cuban immigrants are dictating US foreign policy. The bitter, bitter irony.

Well, it is OUR Policy, the choice is still other countries to choose on what to do. I'm sure that their are a lot of other Nations' Policies that we don't like or what not. I say get over it and deal with the MANY Bigger Problems that our Great World faces.......

Well, it is OUR Policy, the choice is still other countries to choose on what to do. I'm sure that their are a lot of other Nations' Policies that we don't like or what not. I say get over it and deal with the MANY Bigger Problems that our Great World faces.......

Please read what is being written. YOUR policy is affecting other countries ability to trade with Cuba.

So, the only reason that the US is still maintaining an embargo against Cuba is because the politicians in the USA can't afford to lose the Miami Cubans vote, and lobbying by Canosa and his ilk?

So now Cuban immigrants are dictating US foreign policy. The bitter, bitter irony.

You are FREE to Interpret our Policy regarding the Cuba Embargo any way you like. Feels Great to be Free. :D

You are FREE to Interpret our Policy regarding the Cuba Embargo any way you like. Feels Great to be Free. :D

Remember how free you are when you find your phone's been tapped without your knowledge

Please read what is being written. YOUR policy is affecting other countries ability to trade with Cuba.

I did read what was being written. I strongly agree with our Policy to ban other ships from docking in the USA coming from Cuba. I strongly am in support of the Embargo.

It's high time that the people of this world stop their support of Castro and to be more supportive of the People living in Cuba.

America is very much for the People of Cuba and at the very same time very much so against their government. That's why if you are a Cuban and you make to America's soil you are allowed to stay.

I did read what was being written. I strongly agree with our Policy to ban other ships from docking in the USA coming from Cuba. I strongly am in support of the Embargo.

It's high time that the people of this world stop their support of Castro and to be more supportive of the People living in Cuba.

America is very much for the People of Cuba and at the very same time very much so against their government. That's why if you are a Cuban and you make to America's soil you are allowed to stay.

Since when did Cubans get different treatment to, say, Mexican immigrants? I'm not hot on US immigration policy dso if you can correct me it would be appreciated

You are FREE to Interpret our Policy regarding the Cuba Embargo any way you like. Feels Great to be Free. :D

How is this, in any way, a response to what I wrote?

Remember how free you are when you find your phone's been tapped without your knowledge

I have nothing to hide....As for you using that as an example, I feel that people like you enjoy blowing it way out of proportion. Our government, in my eyes has every right to listen in on suspected and true terrorists. If they choose to listen to me or any other average Joe or Joan having phone sex more power to them (Last sentence is meant to be sarcasm, is not a True statement, just making a point.)

Because thats bullshit ? And repeating it OVER and OVER doesn't change the fact that its a very slim or non existent argument ?

Actually, I never saw anyone answering to it. Probably because you just don't have any counterargument.

You can of course show how the geneva convention comes into play between non beligerent countries ?

A blockade is an act of war, according to international laws. Therefore, Cuba and USA *are* at war. And supporting terror groups against a country is obviously an act of war, too. Even your president Bush said it ;)

And of course you have all kinds of proof to back up your allegations of bullying. Fines are only on American companies from a law CLINTON passes in 1999 . Look it up .

That Clinton did it doesn't make it less illegal.

And what about the 6 months issue ? No one ever answered to this one, purely and simply because it's the obvious proof that it's a blockade, and not an embargo.

Cuba can do business with anyone it wants ...but not the US. Tough shit .

No. Cf the fines and the 6 months issues.

They dont make medicine in Brazil or France ?

As I already said, and once again no one answered, did you ever hear about something called "patent" ?

I have nothing to hide....As for you using that as an example, I feel that people like you enjoy blowing it way out of proportion. Our government, in my eyes has every right to listen in on suspected and true terrorists. If they choose to listen to me or any other average Joe or Joan having phone sex more power to them (Last sentence is meant to be sarcasm, is not a True statement, just making a point.)

People like me? Care to elaborate?

Since when did Cubans get different treatment to, say, Mexican immigrants? I'm not hot on US immigration policy dso if you can correct me it would be appreciated

The USA has a special deal for Cuban immigrants: if you can manage to set foot on dry land in the USA, you automatically get a green card.

All other latin americans who are fleeing right wing dictatorships need not apply.

Remember how free you are when you find your phone's been tapped without your knowledge

Why do you hate freedom? :(


[/being facetious]

The USA has a special deal for Cuban immigrants: if you can manage to set foot on dry land in the USA, you automatically get a green card.

All other latin americans who are fleeing right wing dictatorships need not apply.

Thanks for the info.

People like me? Care to elaborate?

Yes I would. People seem to like misinterpreting and twisting what in Reality is being done. Take NOTE: It is Wise to allow our authority figures to use certain acts such as wire tapping the suspected and True terrorists but people hear that and they cry, "Now the government are invading our privacy and are planning on wiretapping everybodies phones" and that is just NOT the case when we talk of wire tapping.

People keep trying to rewrite history... The reason there is an embargo against cuba (or at least the most justifiable one) is that when castro came to power there were alot of american companies that had large interests in the country.

Of course, having a puppet dictator rubbing the Cuban people and giving its land, ressources and workforce to USA helps a lot.

Castro 'nationalised' all of those businesses. In other words he looted them and stuffed their assets into his pokets. Effectively he robbed us, and several other countries who had ecconomic interests in cuba.

Nationalisation is a perfectly valid and legal act that any sovereign nation is free to do. Kirncher nationalised water infrastructure previously "owned" by a french corporation a few months ago, and France didn't start a blockade nor an invasion of Argentina. And that's just one example among so many. It can in no way be assimilated with robbery.

For Cuba, the nationalisation were done *after* USA started to oppose the Castro governement, and Cuba proposed to compensate the owners. USA refused.

Cuba relationships with USSR also started only *after*.

Seeing as castro has not repaid us for his theft of US propperty, I see no reason for the US to lift it's embargo.

Once again, it is not, in no way, a theft.

Besides, all the money in that country ends up in the hands of Castro and his inner circle anyway, so it's not like lifting it would improve the standard of living in cuba.

Do you know anything about Cuba ? There is no inner circle. It's the country on the planet with the lowest inequalities, and despite the blockade, the only third-world country which compete with the richest western countries in terms of litteracy, education, healthcare, life expectancy, child death rate, ... It's absolutely obvious the lifting of the embarho would improve significantly the well-being of Cuban citizen. And that's exactly why they don't want to lift it... Cuba is already doing much too well for their taste.

Talk to a cuban imigrant, I have never met one that didn't support the US 100% in any action against Castro, and they should know, they lived there. These high minded politicrats at the UN are, as usual, detached from reality.

Are you speaking of the Miami mafia, the heirs of those who were close to Batista and who only seek to regain the power they lost because of Castro, and who openly admit using terrorism against Cuba ? Or do you speak of genuine Cuban immigrants, who strongly oppose the embargo because they see it's just harming their family left on the island ?

Why do you hate freedom? :(


[/being facetious]

Moi? Je ne sais pas pourqua!!;)

For the fifteenth time running, the UN has condemned the embargo by an overwhelming majority.

Of course, as always, the US will ignore the UN, while criticising anyone else (except Israel) who does the same...

I'm sure you would do the same if an enemy nation pointed nukes at your capitol.

Yes I would. People seem to like misinterpreting and twisting what in Reality is being done. Take NOTE: It is Wise to allow our authority figures to use certain acts such as wire tapping the suspected and True terrorists but people hear that and they cry, "Now the government are invading our privacy and are planning on wiretapping everybodies phones" and that is just NOT the case when we talk of wire tapping.

And just how many True terrorists have been convicted through wire tapping?

The problem with issues like this is allowing the government to do things which could lead to something else, like wiretapping the media and political opponents. You have given up the freedom to talk in privacy to protect freedom. Do you not see the irony in this?

I'm sure you would do the same if an enemy nation pointed nukes at your capitol.

30 odd years ago? :eek:

I'm curious to know then, Why has it taken the Intn'l community so long to press this issue and if it is, as you say, "Criminal and Unjustifiable", why isn't this taken place in the Intn'l courts?

Because the US, as the rogue state it is, refused to recognised the authority of this court ?

What year was the Geneva Convention signed by the USA? How long has the Embargo been placed on Cuba? Why is this issue being brought up now? Sounds suspect to me.

Every year since 1992, the UN General Assembly votes a resolution against the US blockade. That is, since the last excuse you had to continue the blockade (the cold war) disappeared.

The US is refusing to trade to show how superior a free market, non-interventionist government economic policy is.

Do as I say, not as I do.

How dare you question the Profit Bush? :D

It's high time that the people of this world stop their support of Castro and to be more supportive of the People living in Cuba.

The majority of UN countries don't suport Castro. But they do care about the people of Cuba, and that's why they oppose the blockade.

America is very much for the People of Cuba and at the very same time very much so against their government. That's why if you are a Cuban and you make to America's soil you are allowed to stay.

That's completly ridiculous. First, the blockade doesn't harm the governement. It only harms the people, as it did against Irak (in Cuba, thanks to their wonderful healthcare and social system, it has limited effects, while in Irak it killed 1 million of people, half of them being children). The blockade can only harm the governement, indirectly, IF the governement cares for its people. The one thing you claim they don't do.

Then, the Cuban do support, massively, the current Cuban system, and have elected Fidel Castro. Their system may be far from perfect (I think it is, but so are ours) but they still support it.

Oh, btw, if you really support "the cuban people" by granting them asylum, why don't you respect the 20,000 yearly visas you agreed with cuban authority to give to cuban citizen who want to leave the island ? The only reason I see is very simple: because if you did so, it would be obvious that less than 20,000 cuban want to flee from Cuba, and you wouldn't have any "boat people" to show at TV to justify your embargo... I can't see any other reason.

Since when did Cubans get different treatment to, say, Mexican immigrants? I'm not hot on US immigration policy dso if you can correct me it would be appreciated

The Cuban Adjustement Act, passed in 1966 and still valid, automatically grant the permission to stay and work inside USA to every cuban citizen who touch US soil after 1959 (making it clear that those who fled Batista's dictatorship are not included), making Cuba the only country of the world with such a policy (a citizen from real dictatorships like North Korea or Iran would have to do a long procedure, and may end up an "illegal alien", but not a Cuban citizen).

Another law make the US autority to give money and housing to any cuban citizen who declare himself a political refugee. That's also unique, and that's why most cuban immigrant declare themselves political refugees, even if they left Cuba for economical reasons, as most of those who leave do.

I have nothing to hide....As for you using that as an example, I feel that people like you enjoy blowing it way out of proportion. Our government, in my eyes has every right to listen in on suspected and true terrorists.

But when Cuban governement does so, even if they are much more victim of terrorism than USA is, they are dictators ?

What about El Salvador? They still don't have diplomatic relations with Cuba. Didn't they support us?

El Salvador was absent. As were Côte d'Ivoire, Iraq and Nicaragua. Without wanting to sound unduly suspicious, I have to wonder whether El Salvador and Iraq's convenient absence may be more than coincidence...

Micronesia was the only country to abstain. Given their close ties with the US, I suppose they didn't want to irritate their ally (benefactor, former colonial master) by voting for the resolution. At least they had the decency not to vote against - unlike the other two former US colonies, Palau and the Marshall Islands.

Incidentally, unless I'm mistaken South Korea does not recognise Cuba either, but voted for the resolution nonetheless.

A blockade is an act of war, according to international laws. Therefore, Cuba and USA *are* at war. And supporting terror groups against a country is obviously an act of war, too. Even your president Bush said it

And the winner for the quickest lost agument award is .....

The person who cant distiguish an embargo from a blockade. And bases his whole argument on his inability to understand the english language .:D

Heh. You make me laugh Purple one. The USA will listen to the UN when and if we feel it is in our best interests.

Then the USA should NEVER listen to the UN, because the very EXISTENCE of the UN is not in the USA's best interest or Israel's.

The chief purpose, aim, and raison d'etre of the United Nations is the total, complete, and utter destruction of the United States of America as a significant world power, and setting up in its stead a global one-world government with Satan himself running it.

Yes, I really do believe that. :D

On the other hand, if Cuba could/would change their form of government from the current "psychotic dictatorship" to something more democratic, capitalistic, and libertarian, or at least get rid of Castro and make sure he is not replaced by someone just as bad or worse, then I would say we ought to lift the embargo or blockade or whatever it is.

El Salvador was absent. As were Côte d'Ivoire, Iraq and Nicaragua. Without wanting to sound unduly suspicious, I have to wonder whether El Salvador and Iraq's convenient absence may be more than coincidence...

Micronesia was the only country to abstain. Given their close ties with the US, I suppose they didn't want to irritate their ally (benefactor, former colonial master) by voting for the resolution. At least they had the decency not to vote against - unlike the other two former US colonies, Palau and the Marshall Islands.

Incidentally, unless I'm mistaken South Korea does not recognise Cuba either, but voted for the resolution nonetheless.

Thanks.

Please get your terms right. It's an embargo, not a blockade.

We're not doing business with them; we're not sitting in ships around their country sinking any ship that goes in or out.

:rolleyes:

a fact that is lost on the melodramatic amongst us....big bad us blockading cuba..lol...farsical

they didn't play ball,now they are getting their balls busted.

ask half the population of miami what they think,not the un,what a joke...given the chance and enough dingys..cuba would be here...but the noble commies fight on,regardless of what the population thinks!

real fair to the people!

And the winner for the quickest lost agument award is .....

The person who cant distiguish an embargo from a blockade. And bases his whole argument on his inability to understand the english language .:D

Forbidding any ships which entered a cuban harbour to dock into US harbours for 6 months is a blockade, not an embargo. You can put all the stupid smileys and do all the ad-hominem you want, it won't change this *fact*.

The chief purpose, aim, and raison d'etre of the United Nations is the total, complete, and utter destruction of the United States of America as a significant world power, and setting up in its stead a global one-world government with Satan himself running it.

That's why the US participated in creating it ?

The role of UN is to transform the jungle of international relationship where the might prevails into a civilised system were laws and contracts (treaties) prevails. Is that really bad ? Of course, it prevents one superpower to bully, invade, destroy other countries as they please. As a police force prevent the strongest mafia from doing it, at least in theory.

On the other hand, if Cuba could/would change their form of government from the current "psychotic dictatorship" to something more democratic, capitalistic, and libertarian, or at least get rid of Castro and make sure he is not replaced by someone just as bad or worse, then I would say we ought to lift the embargo or blockade or whatever it is.

Don't you realize the absurdity of your comment ? While Cuban citizen overwhemly support socialism (they may or may not support Castro, that's another issue), you ask them to be "democratic" ... and "capitalist". If you want them to be democratic, then don't decide for them the economical system they should use. And if you want to impose capitalism to them, don't pretend you care at all about "democracy".

ask half the population of miami what they think,not the un,what a joke...

So you'll better ask the Miami mafia, controlled by several identified terror groups, who resisted with weapons against a decision of US courts to give back a kid to his family, who openly support the murder of civilian, rather than to 183 of the 192 countries of the world ?

but the noble commies fight on,regardless of what the population thinks!

The population of Cuba opposes the blockade and support socialism.

The population of Cuba opposes the blockade and support socialism.

If the population of Cuba "supports" socialism, a large part of me does indeed want to say they support it for very Orwellian reasons. I am universally reluctant to make 1984 and Nazi allusions, as I do indeed believe that they are damn near universally unacceptable, but in this case, well...it's tough, it's really tough to avoid some of the Orwellian ones.

Forbidding any ships which entered a cuban harbour to dock into US harbours for 6 months is a blockade, not an embargo. You can put all the stupid smileys and do all the ad-hominem you want, it won't change this *fact*.

By any legal definition, an embargo is definitely not a blockade, as part of what is so odious about blockades is the fact that there is a threat of violence in international territory included intrinsically in the deployment of a blockade. With an embargo, there is absolutely no threat of violence to another nation in international waters. If you trade with Cuba, the USN is not going to fly a F-18 over to you transport ship and plunk a 500 lb bomb down in your cargo hold.

By any legal definition, an embargo is definitely not a blockade, as part of what is so odious about blockades is the fact that there is a threat of violence in international territory included intrinsically in the deployment of a blockade. With an embargo, there is absolutely no threat of violence to another nation in international waters. If you trade with Cuba, the USN is not going to fly a F-18 over to you transport ship and plunk a 500 lb bomb down in your cargo hold.

The line is crossed when you try to prevent others from trading with Cuba.

And the threat of violence is there, how do you think the "this boat cannot dock in a US harbour" is enforced, if not by threat of violence ? The violence is not in international waters, but it's still on third-party ships.

The line is crossed when you try to prevent others from trading with Cuba.

And the threat of violence is there, how do you think the "this boat cannot dock in a US harbour" is enforced, if not by threat of violence ? The violence is not in international waters, but it's still on third-party ships.

Once again, a state is sovereign within it's own territory, and threats of violence within it's own territory are legal. Any citizens of another country that enter into the territory of another state must abide by it's laws. That those laws are being applied to a third party is irrelevant.

Once again, this is how international law defines a blockade, and, academically, going off and making your own new definition for something to suit your own political purposes is totally unacceptable. The law on the matter is clear.

The line is crossed when you try to prevent others from trading with Cuba.

And the threat of violence is there, how do you think the "this boat cannot dock in a US harbour" is enforced, if not by threat of violence ? The violence is not in international waters, but it's still on third-party ships.

Again, no one is being forbidden from trading with Cuba. The US Navy is not patrolling shipping lanes leading into Cuba, mining the waters around her ports, or patrolling the airspace surrounding the nation.

And again, every sovereign nation has every right to allow and disallow foreign vessels from docking at her ports. The threat of violence is perfectly acceptable once that vessel enters US territorial waters.

The fact remains that you're creating your own definition of "blockade" to suit your arguments. It's a definition that has very little in common with the accepted legal definition of the word.

Once again, a state is sovereign within it's own territory, and threats of violence within it's own territory are legal. Any citizens of another country that enter into the territory of another state must abide by it's laws. That those laws are being applied to a third party is irrelevant.

The whole point of international laws is exactly to prevent this law of the jungle, and to put limits to what a state can do even in it's own territory, when other countries interests or safety is concerned. France cannot decide, for example, that all US citizen who live there will suddenly be killed by US army. For the same reason, the UN can forbid countries to build some weapons (nuclear, biological, ...) within their own territory, and can require inspections.

This is exctaly the same logic.

Once again, this is how international law defines a blockade, and, academically, going off and making your own new definition for something to suit your own political purposes is totally unacceptable. The law on the matter is clear.

I never saw "in international water" part of the definition, a blockade is when a country tries to isolate a territory, for example by preventing it to trade with other countries. Which is exactly what US is doing. They may do it in a less direct and violent way than "we sink all ships going into Cuba", but that doesn't change the nature of the act: it's a blockade, even if a "softer" one. Like holding someone prissoner and not giving water to him is a murder attempt, not "just" a kidnapping, even if you're not directly killing him.

The whole point of international laws is exactly to prevent this law of the jungle, and to put limits to what a state can do even in it's own territory, when other countries interests or safety is concerned. France cannot decide, for example, that all US citizen who live there will suddenly be killed by US army. For the same reason, the UN can forbid countries to build some weapons (nuclear, biological, ...) within their own territory, and can require inspections.


This is exctaly the same logic.



I never saw "in international water" part of the definition, a blockade is when a country tries to isolate a territory, for example by preventing it to trade with other countries. Which is exactly what US is doing. They may do it in a less direct and violent way than "we sink all ships going into Cuba", but that doesn't change the nature of the act: it's a blockade, even if a "softer" one. Like holding someone prissoner and not giving water to him is a murder attempt, not "just" a kidnapping, even if you're not directly killing him.

Once again, a nation is sovereign within its own territory, and it can freely choose with whom it wishes to trade, and which ships it will allow to dock in it's ports.

Furthermore, using Websters dictionary to attempt to define blockade is not how you one defines something academically. You have to actually look at the text of the law. And that is pretty damn clear that it supports Sdaeriji and myself.

You are attempting to redefine the concept of the blockade, and it isn't working, at all. Not only that, but you are creating straw men left and right. You're making a forest of straw men so thick, that not even a mouse could pass through.

Forbidding any ships which entered a Cuban harbor to dock into US harbors for 6 months is a blockade, not an embargo. You can put all the stupid smileys and do all the ad-hominem you want, it won't change this *fact*.


Sure you go ahead a rewrite the dictionary and all the rules concerning a BLOCKADE ...the PHYSICAL prevention of goods being delivered by ANY nation ...under the same terms as an embargo...and I'll ad Homonym my ass off whilst I laugh quite loudly and post smileys all over :D :D :D :

The BIG laughy ones ....:p :p :p
And a few of those for good measure.


Cuba can buy or sell anything it wants ....to / from some other country.

That is not a blockade.

Look it up ...:p :p :D :D


a blockade is when a country tries to isolate a territory, for example by preventing it to trade with other countries.


I can't put any more smileys.....what a shame....The US is preventing Cuba from trading with the US...ummm how is that extrapolated to " isolation "

Man up .. say the words ..." " OK so I was wrong about this " its good for your soul.

Or open up a night club act and continue doing your comedy routine ad nauseum to ad homonym.


In response to pressure by American farmers and agribusiness, the embargo was relaxed by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which was passed by the Congress in October 2000 and signed by President Bill Clinton. The relaxation allowed the sale of agricultural goods and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian reasons. Although Cuba initially declined to engage in such trade, seeing it as a half-measure serving U.S. interests, Castro began to allow the purchase of food from the U.S. as a result of Hurricane Michelle in November 2001. These purchases have continued and grown since then.


Practice say it ...go ahead now...say " I was wrong " believe me it will make you feel much better.

The collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1989 and of the Soviet Union itself two years later resulted in an economic crisis in Cuba and in the embargo, having its greatest effect by denying Cuba the ability to replace Soviet imports with U.S. imports. Cuba has developed trading relations with the rest of the world, including a substantial amount of official (as well as much unofficial) trade with the U.S. but since the U.S. is the closest geographic entity to Cuba and the dominant producer in the region, the necessity of importing goods from elsewhere (such as Europe) made these goods more expensive due to transportation costs. Despite the difficulties created by the embargo in the 1990s, Cuba defied predictions that without Soviet support it would quickly collapse. The blow was partly softened by Cuba opening up to tourism.

Official U.S. exports to Cuba in 1999 totalled $4.7 million, mainly donations of medical aid, pharmaceuticals and other relief or charitable aid, and Cuba ranked 180th out of 180 on the list of importers of U.S. agricultural products in 2000. As a result of the relaxation of sanctions since 2000, Cuba rose to 138th on the agricultural product export list in 2001, 45th in 2002, and was estimated to rank 33rd in 2003.




block·ade (bl-kd)
n.
1. The isolation of a nation, area, city, or harbor by hostile ships or forces in order to prevent the entrance and exit of traffic and commerce.
2. The forces used to effect this isolation.
tr.v. block·ad·ed, block·ad·ing, block·ades
To set up a blockade against. See Synonyms at besiege.



Embargo =

1. an order of a government prohibiting the movement of merchant ships into or out of its ports.
2. an injunction from a government commerce agency to refuse freight for shipment, as in case of congestion or insufficient facilities.
3. any restriction imposed upon commerce by edict.
4. a restraint or hindrance; prohibition.
–verb (used with object) 5. to impose an embargo on.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1595–1605; < Sp, deriv. of embargar to hinder, embarrass < VL *imbarricāre, equiv. to im- im-1 + -barricāre (*barr(a) bar1 + -icāre causative suffix)]


—Synonyms 4. ban, restriction, interdiction, postscription.



You are not even close.

Once again, a nation is sovereign within its own territory, and it can freely choose with whom it wishes to trade, and which ships it will allow to dock in it's ports.

Once again, this is just false. Sovereignity has limits. Even in a nation's own territory, a country is not allowed to allow boats carrying drugs, biological or nuclear weapons, for example. And limits go both way, the sea code force you to allow the coasting a ship that is sinking, to save the lives of the people on it. That's just two examples, but there are many more, in which a nation sovereignity is limited by international laws, treaties and humanitarian principles.

Furthermore, using Websters dictionary to attempt to define blockade is not how you one defines something academically. You have to actually look at the text of the law. And that is pretty damn clear that it supports Sdaeriji and myself.

That's not UN's opinion. Nor WTO's opinion. Nor the opinion of 183 countries of the world.

You are attempting to redefine the concept of the blockade, and it isn't working, at all.

You are the one trying to restrict "blockade" in a very narrow meaning. But as I said, kidnapping someone and then refusing to give him water is "murder", not "kidnapping", even if there you don't directly kill him. The intents and the results are what matter, much more than the means. USA intents, and partially succeeds, at preventing anyone from trading with Cuba. They are doing it less directly than using aircrafts to sink boats, but the intent and the results are the same.

Not only that, but you are creating straw men left and right. You're making a forest of straw men so thick, that not even a mouse could pass through.

Can you point me to a single strawman ? It's easy to yell at "making plenty of ..." but without being able to point out a single one, it's just random yelling.

Once again, this is just false. Sovereignity has limits. Even in a nation's own territory, a country is not allowed to allow boats carrying drugs, biological or nuclear weapons, for example. And limits go both way, the sea code force you to allow the coasting a ship that is sinking, to save the lives of the people on it. That's just two examples, but there are many more, in which a nation sovereignity is limited by international laws, treaties and humanitarian principles.
Once again, only when agreed to by said nations are the international laws and treaties in effect.



That's not UN's opinion. Nor WTO's opinion. Nor the opinion of 183 countries of the world.

The UN General Assembly, as has been repeatedly noted, has no power and no binding authority of any sort. Furthermore, they condemned the embargo itself, not making any claim as to whether it is a blockade or not.

You are the one trying to restrict "blockade" in a very narrow meaning. But as I said, kidnapping someone and then refusing to give him water is "murder", not "kidnapping", even if there you don't directly kill him. The intents and the results are what matter, much more than the means. USA intents, and partially succeeds, at preventing anyone from trading with Cuba. They are doing it less directly than using aircrafts to sink boats, but the intent and the results are the same.

Intent and results are not what define a blockade, the means by which it is carried out define it.

Furthermore, strict and narrow definitions are the only ones worth a damn. If you allow for defitions to become broad, much as the term fascism has, they become effectively useless, save for politicians and demagouges.


Can you point me to a single strawman ? It's easy to yell at "making plenty of ..." but without being able to point out a single one, it's just random yelling.

The kidnapping one for starters.

Sure you go ahead a rewrite the dictionary and all the rules concerning a BLOCKADE ...the PHYSICAL prevention of goods being delivered by ANY nation ...under the same terms as an embargo...

It doesn't need to be "physical". It's the prevention of goods being delivered by ANY nation, which is exacty what USA is trying to do, with the 6 months rule, and their ability to give fines corporations which do trade. That they are only partially successful in it doesn't make it less a blockade.

Cuba can buy or sell anything it wants ....to / from some other country.

But those who accept to trade with Cuba get retaliation. So, USA is actually trying to prevent it. Once again, not being 100% successful doesn't change the nature of their attempt.

I can't put any more smileys.....

The number of smiley you put just show how irrational, stubborn and ridiculous you are on this discussion, nothing more.

what a shame....The US is preventing Cuba from trading with the US...ummm how is that extrapolated to " isolation

NO ! The US is trying to prevent *ANY* country from trading with Cuba. This is definitely isolation.


block·ade (bl-kd)
n.
1. The isolation of a nation, area, city, or harbor by hostile ships or forces in order to prevent the entrance and exit of traffic and commerce.
2. The forces used to effect this isolation.


So because they don't need to actually mass the forces, because their economical weight is so heavy than just threatening and punishing is enough, it wouldn't be a blockade ?

Imagine USA would say "we'll nuke any country trading with Cuba". I don't say they could do it, but imagine they did it. It wouldn't match the wording of your defition, there is no "hostile ships or forces". But wouldn't it be rightfully considered a blockade ?

Now, imagine another scenario. The world is contaged with a 100% lethal bacteria. Only USA can produce the cure. They now say "we'll refuse to provide the antidote to any country trading with Cuba". How is that different from the previous situation ? It went from active threat to passive threat. But the result is the same. Under any sane legal system, causing a crime actively (say, killing with a bullet or nuking) and passively (say, killing by refusing water or by refusing the cure), if it's done purpose, it's the same.

Now, on this situation, the threat is much less than "we'll kill everyone". But still, as USA is actively trying to prevent *every one* to trade with Cuba, and threatening (and not just threatening) to harm those who do trade, it can be very rightfully considered a "blockade". In any case, it's much more a "blockade" than an "embargo", even if, technically, it's something in between.

Official U.S. exports to Cuba in 1999 totalled $4.7 million, mainly donations of medical aid, pharmaceuticals and other relief or charitable aid, and Cuba ranked 180th out of 180 on the list of importers of U.S. agricultural products in 2000. As a result of the relaxation of sanctions since 2000, Cuba rose to 138th on the agricultural product export list in 2001, 45th in 2002, and was estimated to rank 33rd in 2003.

Ok. Well, exceptions always exist. I didn't know it was that massive. But it doesn't change the overall logic. A partial blockade is still a blockade. And companies get fined for trading with Cuba. In 2004, for example, Chiron Corporation was sentenced to a heavy fine for selling children vaccines to Cuba. And a few years before, a firm from Canada (I don't remember its name) was fined by USA for selling to Cuba drugs containing a small amount of made-in-USA products (which is beyond the scope of an embargo, an embargo doesn't prevent reselling).

So because they don't need to actually mass the forces, because their economical weight is so heavy than just threatening and punishing is enough, it wouldn't be a blockade ?


Correct. Conceptually, that is fundamentally different from a blockade.

*snippage*

Round and round they go. There is no blockade, as everybody here(but one) knows.

Once again, only when agreed to by said nations are the international laws and treaties in effect.

And USA signed the UN charter, the Geneva Convention, and the WTO rules.

The UN General Assembly, as has been repeatedly noted, has no power and no binding authority of any sort.

That's just false. It has authority to enforce the UN Charter.

Intent and results are not what define a blockade, the means by which it is carried out define it.

Intent and results matter much more than actual methods used to achieve the result to define a crime.

The kidnapping one for starters.

You confuse strawmen and analogies.

Correct. Conceptually, that is fundamentally different from a blockade.

Conceptually, it's the exactly the same: trying to prevent Cuba from trading to anyone. Only the means used to reach the goal change.

Btw, I note you didn't answer to my scenarii. Is it because they clearly show that there is no sane way to draw the line, except that to accept the USA is trying to do a blockade ?

And USA signed the UN charter, the Geneva Convention, and the WTO rules.
And it's breaking none of them.



That's just false. It has authority to enforce the UN Charter.

Once again, it isn't. Read the resolution. It's a "be nice or we might feel sad" type.

Intent and results matter much more than actual methods used to achieve the result to define a crime.
Not in this case, nor in the case of international affairs. The method is the vital bit.



You confuse strawmen and analogies.
No, it's a strawman.

You know whats funny..... lost in this whole stupid argument...along with the attempt by one person to dig a hole for himself that is almost so deep it reaches the earths core...is the fact that the emargo is ...well really really STUPID and counter productive . In fact to use CHINA as an example ..not to mention the Soviet Union...engagement and trade would have toppled communism in Cuba long before this stupid asinine embargo policy will ever accomplish ANYTHING except get votes from exiles .

If you really look at it objectively its more like a 46 year old temper tantrum ...only by now the grown up should have caught on .


opening up Cuba to US trade would be like taking a kid to Toys" R Us for the first time and saying "you can look but don't touch".....

How better to change the system ? We have AGAIN if you are objective and reasonable about it...... done Castro a huge favor all these years...in fact he must secretly love us for keeping him in power.


The embargo may be a bunch of bullshit but its still only an embargo and an innefective one at that .

It just gives a bunch of morons in the UN something to do , thats easy instead of concentrating on a real problem .

That's why the US participated in creating it ?

The role of UN is to transform the jungle of international relationship where the might prevails into a civilised system were laws and contracts (treaties) prevails. Is that really bad ? Of course, it prevents one superpower to bully, invade, destroy other countries as they please. As a police force prevent the strongest mafia from doing it, at least in theory.



So where is the UN on Darfur again? Or do they only pick and chose the most stylish issues to address?

As most of us know, this is NOT a "blockade" on Cuba but in fact is simply an "Embargo".

For example: If France decides to send Cargo ships to Cuba, They are more than free to do so. After the French reaches the docks of Cuba, they do their thing, trade, or whatnot. Then the France's cargo ships can go home, back to France or they can go to anybody's docks or ports of their choosing with the exception of US Ports.

That doesn't sound like a blockade to me.